Ethics in Leadership - Research Paper Example

Ethics in Leadership School: INTRODUCTION Defining workplace ethics is complex and difficult, especially, due to the fact that it is difficultto measure ethics. In general, ethical conduct at the workplace entails the employee conduct that is in accordance to the established principles about right and wrong. Ethics entails the use of integrity-based decision-making in modeling and directing the actions and the decisions of employees at the workplace. In reference to the work environment and the workplace situation of employees, acting ethically can entail acting in a morally right manner, not lying to fellow employees and the employer, practicing honesty, not mismanaging supplies and treating others at the workplace well. For instance, harassing other workers is ethically wrong, and the decision to harass a fellow worker is completely unethical. A second example is that of using the internet supplied by the employer inappropriately, to browse illicit content and for personally-benefiting uses (Kidwell & Kochanowski, 2005). The fact that the behavior of using the internet is inappropriate and the given employee will do that knowingly, gives the proof needed to show that the decision to use it inappropriately was unethical. This paper will explore the reasons as to why people (at the workplace) make unethical decisions, with reference to their situation and environment. The paper will, also, explore the different ways, through which leaders can manage the individuals that engage in negative decision-making. THE REASONS WHY PEOPLE MAKE UNETHICAL DECISIONS With reference to the variety of the situations that surround the lives of individuals at the workplace, people will make unethical decisions for a wide array of reasons. The reasons behind the making of unethical decision-making is dependent on the rightness or the wrongness of behavior, in terms of the legal, organizational and the societal guidelines used in defining the morality of behaviors (Kidwell & Kochanowski, 2005, p.140). In the current world, unethical behaviors at the workplace have become relatively prevalent, and in some cases, the costs of deviance are high; this has pushed managers to develop mechanisms to handle such behaviors. Some of the factors explored in the next section – as contributors to the making of unethical decisions are more applicable to some forms of decisions and deviance, than others (Peterson, 2002a). The reasons and the factors behind the making of unethical decisions can be traced to social, organizational, individual and interpersonal factors. The decision-making process of individuals within the workplace takes place through a wide array of stages. The ethical decision-making process (Source: Peterson, 2002a) Situation-based and person-based factors behind the making of unethical or deviant decisions at the workplace were viewed as distinctive from one another. However, currently, it is postulated that there is a strong interaction between both viewpoints. This is the case, because the characteristics of different individuals influence the ways in which individuals at the workplace interpret and react to the different situations taking place (Valentine & Rittenburg, 2007). For that reason, making unethical decisions or acting defiantly can be attributed to both situational and individual factors; situational and individual factors are an inseparable blend. This leads to the conclusion that, in studying unethical decisions and defiant behavior, the manager or researcher should take into account, the combination of the workplace and the individual factors that may have come into play (Appelbaum et al., 2007). The individual factors that lead a person to make an unethical decision are mainly personality characteristics, which are either related to demographics, including gender and age, or individual characteristics. In many cases, individual variables are much likely to explain the unethical decisions that feature in interpersonal relations or situations (Robinson, Bennett, 1995, p. 567). Personality attributes It is believed that some individuals are naturally, more included to engage in unethical behavior, and to show deviance, as compared to others (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998, p.12). During their entry into a given organization, these individuals will already posses some form of predisposition to make unethical decisions, leading them to engage in deviant behavior (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001). The predispositions of different people are different, and they also vary in size; the greater and the more compelling the predisposition, the more likely it is for the given person to make unethical decisions (Henle, 2005). For example, the background checks of the individuals that make unethical behaviors leading to violent conduct at the workplace have shown that they were more likely to have behaved in a cruel manner, by showing interpersonal hostility and in some cases, some showed interest in weapons. From a variety of studies, aggressive behavior and violence have been attributed to the uniqueness of individuals, in the brain structures and the endocrine influences of the individuals that demonstrate the behaviors (Van Fleet & Griffin, 2006, p. 700). Some personality types are related to the predisposition of an individual in making unethical decisions, leading them to engage in deviant actions. The individuals with personality types that are emotionally reactive are more likely to make unethical decisions, especially when subjected to pressure (Henle, Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2005). One case that may lead them to make unethical decisions is the case where they lose their control during an argument, and while knowing that it is wrong to act violently at the workplace, they will make the decision to engage in violence and go on to engages in violent behavior. The case is similar to that of the people suffering from hostility attributional bias, who are also more likely to make unethical decisions related to whether they will engage in violent behavior or not. These groups of people are usually, more likely to get the impression that others are behaving aggressively towards them, and that leads them to make decisions based on their perception of aggression from others (Kidwell & Kochanowski, 2005). Other personal variables that increase an individual’s predisposition to make unethical decisions include the value orientation of the individual, and this difference is evident from people, from the ways they identify with relativism or idealism (Singhapakdi, 2004, p.262). Idealism refers to the extent to which the person in question adheres to moral absolutes, during the making of moral decisions and judgments. The individuals that are highly idealistic hold the opinion that engaging in decisions or actions that harm other is always avoidable; the relativist maintain that some cases warrant harming others (Singhapakdi, 2004, p. 262). The locus of control of a person is likely to compel a person to make an unethical decision or to commit unethical actions. Under this personal sense of decision-making, some people are internally and others are externally driven, and that is likely to compel them to make unethical decisions at the workplace. The externally-oriented individual holds the belief that the events and the outcomes of things and situations are determined by external forces, and that makes them to feel a sense of lacking control, whenever they are confronted with a situation that compels them to make an unethical decision (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005, p.402). On the other hand, internally-oriented people believe that the events and the outcomes of things are controlled by their personal choices, and that compels them to reconsider a situation, so as not to make unethical decisions. Mental disorders or personality flaws are likely to give explanations, about the unethical decisions made by different people. For instance drug abusers and alcoholics are more likely to make unethical decisions at the workplace, and these unethical decisions will often end up with committing unethical actions – including behaving violently at the workplace. One example in this case is that with relation to the decision leading to stealing at the workplace; some attitudes are likely to explain why people steal at the workplace (Peterson, 2002a, p. 49). For example, the typical thief at the workplace makes more decisions related to stealing at the workplace. Their predisposition can be explained on the basis of the fact that they experience a higher level of predisposition to steal, and they often think about the behavior of stealing. There is also the case of dysfunctional workers, some of whom are raised in dysfunctional families, and the evidence of the dysfunctions include that they are more likely to abuse drugs and to take alcohol during working hours. This group is more likely to make unethical decisions, as compared to the employees that do not suffer from the wide array of personal dysfunctions and predispositions (McClure & Werther, 1995). Demographic variables Personality variables account for a part of the unethical decisions made by employees at the workplace, many of which culminate in deviant behaviors at the workplace (Peterson, 2002a). Among the demographic variables that are likely to influence an employee’s predisposition to make unethical decisions include those related to their job position, their age and the rank held at the workplace. For example, younger employees are more likely to make unethical decisions at the workplace; newcomers at the workplace are more likely to make unethical decisions, and lowly-paid employees are more likely to make decisions leading them to act defiantly. Other demographic variables that influence an individual’s predisposition to make unethical decisions at the workplace include education level, gender, marginalization and religion. A study done by O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005) showed that female employees are more likely to make ethical decisions, as compared to their male counterparts. The reason for the difference is that, women are more likely to identify with higher values, and the values they identify with make them less vulnerable to make the unethical decisions that would end up with engaging in unethical actions. The differences between men and women are explained with reference to their socialization in family and school settings. Situational variables Engaging in unethical decisions at the workplace is partly determined by individual variables, but situational factors can play an instrumental part in determining their inclination to make unethical decisions, many of which culminate in unethical behaviors. The situational factors that compel employees to make unethical decisions include interpersonal and social variables, as well as organizational variables (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998, p.13). The situational factors that can compel employees to make unethical decisions include organizational goals, socialization, job design and compensation. For example, the values and the norms imposed on employees by workers are likely to make unethical decisions, most of which end up with making deviant and unethical acts (Alzola, 2007). Alzola (2007, p. 347) discussed the inferences made from the Stanford Prison experiment, and maintained that, when individuals are offered the right conditions – anyone can behave brutally or sadistically towards others. The experiment showed that the likelihood of making an unethical decision can be dependent on the conditions available at the workplace, and that it is impossible to predict the decisions made and the actions made in return (Sims, 2002). THE WAYS LEADERS CAN MANAGE THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE UNETHICAL DECISIONS AT THE WORKPLACE Peterson (2002) pointed out that making unethical decisions and engaging in unethical action engages reflection about different levels of things. The levels checked include, the individual’s predisposition to engage in unethical behavior, but there is also the facilitation provided by the conditions and the situation at the workplace. Taking into account that making unethical decisions can not be traced to the nature of individuals only, managers should manipulate the work environment and conditions, to ensure that they do not support the making of unethical decisions. The areas that they can address, so as to reduce the people’s engagement in unethical behavior include improving the organizational climate and culture, reducing or ending unfair treatment and also supervising areas that may present ethical dilemmas for workers (Caruana, 2001). Robinson and Bennett (2000) discussed the relationship between frustration at the workplace and the making of unethical decisions – notably those that led to workplace aggression. The study predicted that the psychological condition of frustration was found to trigger behaviors that evidenced a variety of interpersonal deviance, which were all unethical in nature –signifying the making of unethical decisions. One example of the unethical decisions cited was that related to the trivial unethical acts of deciding to spread rumors about others, and those of major offenses like deciding to steal, vandalize company property or sabotage (Robinson & Bennett, 2000). The relationship between the frustration of the workplace and the making of unethical decisions shows that, managers can rely on auditing the frustration index at the workplace. They can change the situation at the workplace to reduce the frustration experienced by employees, as a way of helping to resolving the problems of employees and also mitigating the same in the future (Appelbaum, Deguire & Lay, 2005). Trevino and Brown (2005) did a study that concluded that the lack of a moral leadership was highly linked to the making of unethical decisions and the commission of unethical acts. The study incorporated the example of the CEO of World.com, Mr. Ebbers. Mr. Ebbers was reputed as an established leader, for making the company an established enterprise, but his reputation was compromised by his lack of moral leadership, during the financial scandals facing the company. The scandals led to the ultimate demise of the company (Trevino and Brown, 2005). The relationship between the demise of the company, and also the relationship established between the lack of moral leadership and the increment in the unethical decisions made by employees, managers can improve their companies by improving the moral nature of their organizational leadership. Through the improvement of the morality of their organizations, managers will also increase their ability to detect the unethical practices and behaviors taking place within their respective organizations (Aquino, Margaret & Bradfield, 1999). The rationale behind reducing the unethical decisions made at the workplace and the process of increasing the morality of the organizations leadership is that, immoral leaders are more likely to entertain employees that make unethical decisions and actions (Trevino and Brown, 2005). CONCLUSION Defining workplace ethics is a difficult task, especially due to the difficulty of measuring ethics. In the workplace, ethical decision-making refers to the decisions that lead to the making of the decisions that are right, according to the established principles related to what is right and what is wrong. Some examples of unethical decisions include those related to harassing a fellow employee. The reasons why people make unethical decisions include the person-based and the situation-based factors underlying or that compel an individual to engage in an unethical action. Some of the personality attributes that increase an individual’s vulnerability to make unethical decisions include personal predispositions, personality-related weaknesses, value orientation, mental disorders and a person’s locus of control. The demographic variables that increase the likelihood that a person will make unethical decisions include their age, tenure status and the amount of salary that they receive. The role of gender in increasing or decreasing an employee’s predisposition to make unethical decisions can be traced to the fact that, women ordinarily pursue more established values, and are thus likely to avoid making unethical decisions. Situational variables also increase a person’s predisposition to commit unethical decisions, including that the work environment can trigger the making of unethical decisions. One example is that of a frustrating workplace, which is likely to trigger more incidences of violence, which evidence the increment of unethical decisions. In countering the situation, managers can address the situational predispositions that increase a person’s likelihood to make unethical decisions, reducing organizational constraints and improving the morality of the organization’s leadership. Annotated bibliography Appelbaum, S., Laconi, G., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5), pp. 586-598. The article examined the effects of negative and positive deviant workplace behaviors, which are the outcomes of unethical decisions, at the workplace. Negative deviant behaviors are those that breach the internal rules, policies and the organizational norms of an organization – but which culminate in negative outcomes. On the other hand, positive deviant behaviors are those with positive outcomes, following a comparison with a variety of pro-social behaviors, including corporate social responsibility, whistle blowing, innovation and organizational citizenship. The article went ahead to explore the ways that can be used to overcome the issues related with negative behavior at the workplace, and provides a framework for the ways that can be used to encourage employees – to engage in the positive deviant decision-making and behavior that benefits the organization. The findings of the article included that, irrespective of whether unethical decisions and the behaviors that follow are implicit or overt, the effects are negative for the individual, the organization and affiliates. One example of the unethical decisions and behaviors explored by the article, which is evident from the US is that of employee theft, which has limited the success of many companies. The article maintained that the psychological empowerment of workers can help to increase the quality of the unethical decisions that they make, to ensure that they lead to positive outcomes at the workplace. The solutions formulated for countering the situation, where employees engage in unethical decisions include, the remodeling of the norms of an organization, social values and the attitudes that dominate an organization. Other approaches that can be used to address the problem of the workers making unethical decisions include addressing the value differences between the subcultures of employees and those of the organization. Managers can also improve the problems associated with the workers that make unethical decisions, by administering background checks more frequently, during the hiring process and throughout the running of the organization. Van Fleet, D.D., & Griffin, R.W. (2006). Dysfunctional organization culture: The role of leadership in motivating dysfunctional work behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 698-708. The purpose of the article was to investigate and add to the information available, about the role played by the workplace in the unethical decision-making and behaviors of employers. The conclusions made from the study covered by the article included that managers can influence the decision-making of employees through improving the organization’s leadership and culture. The article emphasized that the decision-making of employees is influenced by the individual and also the organizational conditions availed to workers at the organization, and proposes that managers should manipulate both areas when seeking to address the dysfunctional decision-making and the actions that result from the decisions. However, the article acknowledged the importance of exploring the relationship between the unethical decisions made by employees and the role of organization conditions in the decision-making process. The article draws from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, sociology, medicine, social psychology and organizational behavior, but emphasized that a more detailed study of the organizational and the personal factors leading to unethical decision-making need to be explored further. The article highlighted the case of the decision-making related to engaging in violence at the work place, and emphasized that the personal inclination of a person to engage in violence pairs with the organization’s propensity to promote violent behavior. The conclusions of the article were that, managers can review the factors that encourage unethical or negative decision-making at the workplace, as one of the channels that they can exploit to reduce the frequency of engaging in dysfunctional decisions and behaviors. References Alzola, M. (2008). Character and Environment: The Status of Virtues in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 343-357. Appelbaum, S., Laconi, G., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5), pp. 586-598. Appelbaum, S.H., Deguire, K.J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate to deviant workplace behavior. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 43-56. Aquino, K., Margaret, U.L., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: a proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1073. Bolin, A., & Heatherly, L. (2001). Predictors of employee deviance: the relationship between bad attitudes and bad behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), 405-18. Caruana, A. (2001). Anomie and deviant behavior in marketing: some preliminary evidence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(5), 322-38. Henle, C.A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2), 247. Henle, C.A., Giacalone, R.A., & Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2005). The role of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 219. Kidwell, R.E., & Kochanowski, S.M. (2005). The Morality of Employee Theft: Teaching about Ethics and Deviant Behavior in the Workplace. Journal of Management Education, 29(1), pp. 135-152. McClure, L., & Werther, W.B. Jr. (1995). Leadership and developmental interventions for dysfunctional workers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(1), 17-22. O’Fallon, M.J., & Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375-413. Peterson, D.K. (2002a). Deviant Workplace Behavior and the Organization’s Ethical Climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 47-61. Peterson, D.K. (2002). The Relationship between Unethical Behavior and the Dimensions of the Ethical Climate Questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 313-326. Robinson, S.L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees Behaving Badly: Dimensions, Determinants, and Dilemmas in the Study of Workplace Deviance. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-1998), 1-30. Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-60. Sims, R.L. (2002). Ethical rule breaking by employees: a test of social bonding theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(2), 101-9. Singhapakdi, A. (2004). Important Factors Underlying Ethical Intentions of Students: Implications for Marketing Education. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(3), 261-270. Valentine, S.R., & Rittenburg, T.L. (2007). The Ethical Decision Making of Men and Women Executives in International Business Situation. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 125-134. Van Fleet, D.D., & Griffin, R.W. (2006). Dysfunctional organization culture: The role of leadership in motivating dysfunctional work behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 698-708. Trevino, L.K., & Brown, M.E. (2005). The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in the workplace. In Kidwell, R.E. and Martin, C.L. (Eds), Managing Organizational Deviance. London: Sage Publishing. Read More