Ethical Conduct in Work Environments - Coursework Example

Utilitarian Ethics in HRM Introduction Utilitarianism is an ethical theory categorized under consequentialism, the underlying tenet is that an action can be thought of as moral if it maximizes on the overall and personal good (Galea, 2013). Notable utilitarian philosophers include Bentham Jeremy and John Stuart Mill, whose ideas were driven largely by the pursuit of pleasure and happiness. Utilitarianism in the classical sense is used to guide ethical decision makers so they can make the choices that bring the biggest gain to the majority. In summary, from a utilitarian point of view, it is acceptable to do something that would normally be considered unethical if the result will have benefited the greater number of people. Case to point, consider a scenario where an international terrorist has been arrested and there is intelligence to the effect that he knows of a plot to explode a biological weapon in a major city. Would it be ethical to torture them for the information or should they follow the course of the law and process him respecting his right to remain silent? For a utilitarian thinker, this is not a dilemma since it would it is clearly spelt out that the lesser evil would result to greater good for thousands of people. In the Human resource, managers in organisations tend to come across numerous ethical dilemmas where the staff cut corner and take part in unethical action for personal and professional interests. In human resource management, the utilitarian ethics often come up in matters of job security especially when HR is pressured to lay off staff and they feel the job cuts may not be fair hence unethical (Rose, 2007). Consider the following cases study developed by Gusdorf (2010) Janet works as a receptionist in a Grocery sales factory, she is recently divorced and has been forced to adjust her schedule. Anne is her immediate supervisor who has known she is a very good and effective employee despite her sometimes-irregular schedule. However, their boss Justin does not like Janet and seems not to notice her good work instead focusing on her personal challenges. One day as he is about to leave for two week trip, he tells Anne to write a negative report on Janet and have her fired by the time he comes back (Gusdorf, 2010). This puts Anne in a dilemma, if she refuses to act unjustly and fire Janet, he may change his attitude towards her as well as probably have her fired too. On the other hand, if she fires her, which would be the easiest thing to do in the end, Justin may begin to feel he has unlimited power over the staff and keep mistreating and firing them at will. From a utilitarian point of view, the best solution would be to call out Justin’s impartial treatment of Janet and have the two of them engage in a discussion and solve their personal problems. This way they could accomplish maximum good with only one person possibly being affected which is Anne who may suffer the backlash if Justin decides she has undermined his authority. Retrospective studies have shown that a large percentage of HR professional felt pressured by other employers or managers to make unethical decisions in order to achieve business objectives. Many of them chose not to report the incidence since they feel it might affect their perception as a team player. From a utilitarian perspective, it would appear that HR staff would rather ignore minor errors if they feel that the result will promote the greater good for the organisations. Either, a common example of a HR ethical dilemma is when organisations need to lay off some stuff because of financial crisis or they have decided to outsource. When an Organisation has hundreds or thousands of staff working for them and dependent on it for their livelihood, making a decision that would negatively affect many of them basic ethics require that they are at least informed in advance or factored in the making of it. However, many managers will keep such decisions secret to ensure they do not affect the performance of their employees even if it means they will learn with a few days to spare that they are going to lose their jobs. When it comes to outsourcing this has proven to be a critical challenge for management specialist in the US with shifting production to China having become a common trend especially in the aftermath of the recent financial meltdown. From a utilitarian ethics, it is usually a matter of calculation where the managers determine which course of action will result in the biggest advantage for the largest number of people. Today, more so in management, utilitarianism is a very popular ethical theory given the considerable latitude it allows leaders and the apparent simplicity of its decision making process (Jones, Felps & Bigley, 2007). However, it is not always an efficient theoretical model and in some cases, it can be difficult if not impossible to measure the benefits vs. cost of some actions. It brings out serious moral considerations such as how does on go about assigning financial value to a human life or happens. How does one weigh time with family human dignity against money? In addition, when one is uses this school of thought, they do it with a reasonable degree of certainty that the initial action despite causing harm will be compensated. However, one can never be sure if the outcome is what they expected and the inability to accurately measure and predict outcomes can result to the theory appearing dubious from a moral viewpoint. In addition, in pursuit for a greater good, utilitarian ethics can sometimes be in contradiction to the course of justice. This is because in some cases, some actions may have great benefits to society but they would be unjust. For example, before the end of apartheid some advocates for maintaining the status qua in South Africa suggested that it would be for the greater good it the white domain rule remained since most other countries had degenerated in corruption civil strife and economic failure. While this has not been the case in South Africa, if such a prediction had been true, the white supremacist government would have been morally justified under utilitarian morality in spite of the overlying injustice. Evidently, while the utilitarian theory may be quite effective in some cases, it should be augmented and even when occasion demands it be substituted with other ethical theories. A good example for the case study above is the theory of organisational justice, which has to do with how an employee judges the actions of their organization towards them and their co-workers. For example if say half the staff are made redundant without prior notice, those left behind will feel the firm in unjust and might become less enthusiastic about working for it. Whether in an organisational or political set up, people tend to be attuned to the justice or various situations, events, and they react either covertly or overtly to their assumption on the matter (Tabibnia, Satpute, & Lieberman, 2008). When Ann was asked to write up a negative report, she knew that it would be unjust to do so since in reality Janet was an excellent employee and as the direct supervisor she had no complains about her. From an organisational theory point of view, it would only be logical for her to be informed of any problems with her performance rather than be dismissed on cooked up charges which are not necessarily true given that her boss is unwilling to face confront her with them. Clearly, Justin only wants to see Janet gone and in as much as he may have the power to do this, it does not mean he should automatically do based on a whim. If the other members of the organization realized that she had been dismissed simply because the boss did not like her, they will be likely end up working and living in fear because they will sense the way decisions are made is not fair. In addition, they may expend more effort creating and impression of being hard at work rather than being creative and innovative. This is because to them, the fact that Janet was a good employee who was fired for not appearing food enough. Ideally, according to this theory, Anne should write a true report, which in her opinion as Janet’s boss will reflect positively on her junior’s performance, rather than help Justin unfairly dismiss her. She can then take it up with HR or someone senior to both she and Justin so that Janet can at least get a chance to defend herself. Such action would not only guarantee justice for her but also secure the confidence of the rest of the team for Anne and the company in general. The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility, which is one of the key themes in the modern corporate world is derived from the theory of organisational justice (McWilliams Siegel & Wright, 2006). From an internal perspective, this refers to the organisational focusing on fairness and treatment to both internal and external entities to the Organisation. Internally every organization has a duty to its staff and as a result, they are expected to take responsibility for their welfare by always acting in their interests (Carroll, 1999). The Utilitarian and organisational justice theory however sometimes tend to collide in cases where taking the former has negative consequences on the later. For example in the context of the case study, doing what Justin demands and having Janet fired could actually turn out to be a good thing for the organization in the long run if it is kept under wraps. Justin could exert more power and control over the firm under his authoritarian leadership, there is a possibility the firm might become more successful. However, even if the rest of the staffs do not find out and the ends may be positive for them, the fact that someone’s job was sacrificed for the “greater good” would be seen as an epitome of organisational injustice. Conclusion Ultimately, while utilitarianism is widely used and has been found to be effective especially by HRM, its decisions should be critically assessed and evaluated before they are implemented in case it turns out they are oppressing some stakeholders on the basis of bigger numbers. In conclusion, while utilitarian ethics are seen as ethical tools, in reality, they often contradict this description since ethics organisational or otherwise are about how individuals interact with the bigger social entity (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). When ones interests have been compromised or sacrificed for the sake of the greater good, the action can only be deemed as ethical in as far as it includes them and it ultimately opens up slippery slope for injustices that can be modelled on the precedent. References Carroll, A.B., 1999. Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38, 268-295. Galea, S., 2013. An argument for a consequentialist epidemiology. American journal of epidemiology, 178(8):1185-91. Gusdorf, M.L., 2010. Ethics in Human Resource Management. Society for Human Resource Management. [pdf] Alexandria: Society for Human Resource Management Jones, T. M., Felps, W. & Bigley, G. A., 2007. Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137-155. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, 26 (1), 117-127. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications*. Journal of management studies, 43(1), 1-18. Rose, A. 2007 . Ethics and human resource management. Exploring Human Resource Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 29-43. Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A. B., & Lieberman, M.D., 2008. The sunny side of fairness: Preference fairness activates reward circuitry and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry. Psychological Science, 19, 339-347. Read More