Friday, February 27, 2009

Week 8: Professionalism and Organizational Ethics

This course is well underway, and many professional and organizational ethical issues are being discussed in the student online forums. There are many viewpoints being expressed with great verve, passion and personal commitment. Individuals are expressing what they believe. In so doing, it is also imporant to state why one holds a particular position, and upon what ethical principle that position rests.

If one holds that an executive or employee, a group of professionals, an organization, or an industry is "responsible" what does that mean? Why are they "responsible"? What makes them "responsible"?

From a utilitarian ethical perspective were the needs of the minority being served at the expense or exploitation of the majority? From a deontological viewpoint were intrinsic rights being violated? From a virtue or character ethic were certain values (e.g., trust, honesty, etc.) not being upheld?

Then, there is the question, what does "responsibility" actually mean? Does it entail being accountable for one's decision and actions? Does it also carry with it the charge to make restitution to those that were harmed by one's actions?

That raises another question. The most basic ethical principle is "do no harm." Now, what does that entail? In what ways is an individual, group or organization not to harm others? Does it refer to only bodily harm, or does it also include psychological harm? Harm to one's livelihood and reputation? What about negatively impacting the environment which endangers others, or even future generations?

As professionals these are important notions to define, and about which to be as clear about as possible.

As a professional one has responsibilities to one's self, one's place of employment, one's co-workers, one's customers, clients, etc., one's business associates, one's profession and/or industry field, and one's civic community (local, national and global). Then there are the responsibilities to one's family, friends, etc. What are the responsibilities that one has to each of the above. And when one harms one of the above, how is that harm to be rectified? What type of restitution is to be made?

Being a professional entails being trustworthy. The customer and client relationship is founded upon trust and reliability. Customers and cleinets put their faith in professionals. There is an inherent promise that one will not be harmed by the product or service, that the product or service will provide what it says it will provide. The product will have the value it claims to have. There is also an inherent promise that the professional providing the service is telling the truth. This contract between the professional and customer or client is the foundation of doing business. When a customer or client is harmed there is a breach of the above promise and trust.

Besides being honest, there is also the unspoken presumption that the customer or client will be treated with the respect and dignity due to him or her.

It also must be said that in this contract the customer or client is also expected to be trustworthy, honest, and respectful of the professional. Like the professional, (s)he is not to take advantage of or exploit the professional.

When being a professional one is always weighing personal interest over and against acting for the benefit or good of the customer or client. The temptation is to act in a manner that favors personal gain at the expense of the one being served. All know how easy it is to rationalize why such an approach in any given situation is ethical.

So, when serving a customer or working with a client, how does one work for the benefit of one's professional interests, one's company or organization, the customer or client, and the civic community?

As a professional, how does one consciously and proactively strive to ensure that customers and clients undestand the nature of the product or service? To alert customers or cleinets to the risks involves? To the ramifications of their choices involving the product or service? What responsibility does the professional (and the company, organization, or industry) have to be transparent about product's or service's characteristics, potential for harm, etc.?

The above leads to another important exploration of professional responsibility. The greater the product or service has to do harm, the greater the responsibility a professional must shoulder. When and how does a professional have to intervene on a customer's or client's behalf and discourage him/her from purchasing the product or service? When is allowing the customer or cleint to purchase the product or service causing the professional to be "irresponsible" to be "unprofessional"? If one is to retain professional integrity and one's organization, the customer, or the law demands that one put the customer or client in harms way, does one need to "walk away" from that organization, transaction, or industry? Why or why not?

Following upon this discussion of professional responsibility, how does one seek profitability while working for the common good? How does one actively safeguard customers and clients? How does a company or organization operate in a manner that appropriately and equitably benefits all of its stakeholders?

This leads to a discussion of Corporate Social Resposnbility (CSR). To begin, CSR does not mean that capitalism is inherently corrupt or evil. It speaks to how capitalism can work for the good of the organization, employees, vendors, and citizens. It speaks of an organization's responsibiliy to the wider global community, and its ability to enhance people in general, not just owners and shareholders. It addresses how an organization can operate in a responsible manner.

A company, in trying to work out its CSR philosophy and practice, and the values that guide it, runs into the same problem that all people face--the tenstion between the individual and the collective, the person and society.

For hundreds of years in the West, ethics has tended to focus on the individual--individual rights, personal property, self-actualization, self-fulfillment, personal achievements, personal character, etc. The social component of human existence has become subjugated to the personal. When an individual or organization is part of a society what responsibility does one or the organization have to ensure that the society or community flourishes, just as the individual flourishes? That the rights of the society are not violated, just as the rights of the individual are not violated? That the happiness of the majority is sought and gained, not just the happiness of the minority?

At this point in the history of business and organizations, it is now time to balance ethics positions seeking the benefit of both the individual and society, to strive to be ethical professionals in organizations that operate and serve the communities--local and global--in which they exits. That the purpose of organizations is the profitability and benefit of all stakeholders--current and future.

What are your reflections on these ideas?

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Week 7: Integrity and Corporate Social Responsibility

Economic theories are founded on the notion of the scarcity of resources (Sowell, 2004). Business goals and competitive advantage perspectives are intended to maximize profits for company owners and shareholders (Porter, 1990). Usually, the ethical principles underlying these business and economic conceptualizations are predominantly utilitarian in nature (Cavanagh, 2006). Further, Freeman and Gilbert (1988), working from a stakeholder perspective, point out that ethics has not always been a conscious part of corporate strategy, and at times has even been ignored. Viewing corporations as human institutions that are instruments for achieving the goals of various individuals and groups associated with them, they contend that business planning and operations can no longer overlook organizational ethics as an integral component. They purport that “[c]orporate strategy must reflect an understanding of the values of organizational members and stakeholders…[and]…the ethical nature of strategic choice” (p.7).

Aspects of the latter notion are at the core of the American business perspective, even though they have not always been stressed and adhered to. In The Social Responsibility of Business, Heald (2005) outlines that the awareness of the need to link business activity and outcomes with social welfare, as well as a company’s responsibility to do so, dates back to the nineteenth century, and stems from both the Enlightenment’s humanistic perspectives and various religious precepts promulgated at that time.

In the twenty-first century, this awareness and sense of ethics has helped form business practices grounded in corporate social responsibility (CSR), the notion of businesses being good corporate citizens and agents of social change, and believing:


1. That the claims of humanizing are equal to the claims of economizing.

2. That the obligations of human beings to one another are greater than the obligations imposed upon human beings by systems of power and dominance.

3. That claims of legitimacy in corporate life must have as their referent a concern for human consciousness, human community, and human continuity such that human rights may be protected and social justice promoted and preserved.

4. That the enduring significance of corporate management is found in its ability to harmonize the multiform interests of a pluralistic society.

5. That the most important meaning of freedom of enterprise can assume is the liberation of humankind from the bonds of poverty that restrain body, mind and spirit (Frederick, 2006, p. 93).

Social conscious perspectives have also been an impetus for trends regarding executives and managers leading with integrity (Cohan, 2003; Coughlin, Wingard, and Hollihan, 2005; Sullivan, 1995), local and world communities being considered as business stakeholders (Laszlo, 2005), and companies and associations stressing the importance of professional codes of ethics (Robison, Pritchard, and Ellin, 1983; Brincat and Wike, 2000). These perspectives have fueled the development of the sustainable capitalism and the value-driven notion of business (Cohen and Warwick, 2006; Ikerd, 2005; Pava and Krausz, 1995), and the formulation of a triple bottom line method of conducting business, an approach where people and the environment are as much a business concern as are financial profits (Savitz, 2006). While on the surface these practices may seem to oppose sound financial business practices and not be attractive to savvy professionals, key companies have found that such value-based and employee/civic community-centric philosophies and practices actually increase profits. They create employee commitment and job satisfaction, foster local community support, increase customer loyalty, and decrease operational waste and expenses. Major companies spearheading this socially responsible approach include Patagonia, 3M, Starbucks Coffee Company, Intel, Xerox, Henkel, Ben and Jerry’s, Toyota, Sony, IKEA, and Novozymes (Laszlo, 2005; Esty and Winston, 2006).

Companies do not have to be bottom line-oriented to survive (Dawson and Bartholomew, 2003), and capitalism can have a “compassionate” side (Benioff and Southwick, 2004). Martin (2003), utilizing a virtue matrix approach that recognizes “competing claims of shareholders, governments and society” (p. 102) and promulgates a vision where companies by choice strategically contribute to the advancement of the common good, points out that “shareholder value and social responsibility are not necessarily incompatible” for “corporations can and do serve shareholder’ interests…[when]…serving the larger community” (p. 88). Porter and Kramer (2006), explaining how contemporary companies can be effective socially responsible enterprises, state that the “most strategic CSR occurs when a company adds a social dimension to its value proposition, making social impact integral to…[its]…overall strategy….When a well-run business applies its vast resources, expertise, and management talent to problems that it understands and in which it has a stake, it can have a greater impact on social good than any other institution or philanthropic organization” (pp.9-92).


The most significant impediment to the growth of corporate virtue is a dearth of vision among business leaders. Opportunities abound to devise programs and processes that benefit society as they enrich shareholders. What seems lacking is imagination and intrinsic motivation on the part of corporations and executives. This is by no means an insurmountable obstacle….Fundamental economics are on the side of innovation in the strategic frontier. What’s needed is support…[from consumers, governments, and nongovernmental organizations]…for the companies and leaders who undertake bold initiatives. (Martin, p. 98-99)

How can contemporary businesses’ CSR initiatives authentic and not just good recruitment strategies and public relations statements?

Week 6b: Human Dignity and Organizational Decision Making

Over the past several weeks you have been exploring a variety of ethical frameworks. Now comes the time to begin to devise a system of making ethical decisions, particularly organizational and workplace decisions. The perspective that follows is a virtue or character ethic approach. What will be your approach to decision making?

Human Dignity: While the notion of “quality of life” has been defined differently over time, and varies from culture to culture (Hofstede, 1984), human dignity has always been a cherished value of societies. Human dignity is about affording women and men the respect they inherently desire, and naturally deserve, as human beings (Gotesky and Laszlo, 1970). All human beings have an inherent dignity, a “value or worth qualitatively different from that of anything else in the world” which in “inalienable” in nature. Because of this dignity people have rights, and cannot be used as a means to an end (Dwyer, 1994, p. 726).

In its preamble, the United Nation’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) declares that “the inherent dignity and…the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family…[are]…the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Article 1 expands upon this concept, proclaiming that all “human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights….[and]…are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” In light of these statements, Article 23 declares that all people have “the right to work, to free choice of employment,…[and]… to just and favourable conditions of work.” Further, the World Health Organization’s constitution considers health a fundamental human right (WHO, 1948).

Since human dignity is the “criterion and norm of all moral activity” (Dwyer, p. 730) whether it be behavior concerning individuals, business entities, or societies, it is a pivotal guiding value for assessing organizational and workplace ethical issues.

Common Virtues in a Diverse World. While unique in many ways, when profiling the human race “much family relatedness and much overlap among societies” can be detected. While being sensitive to every individual’s and groups’ particularity and specialness, appropriately appreciating and valuing the beauty of each unique expression of humanity, and acknowledging the subjectivity of interpretation, “features of a common identity among peoples can be discerned” (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993. p. 263). Given such diversity, what are the virtues and their undergirding values that cultures hold in common, and, thus, form the foundation for an virtue-based organizational ethic?

As a person psychologically grows, (s)he develops perceptions of the world and values (Erikson & Erikson, 1998), and strives to develop a conscience that is sincere and true (Curran, 2004). This moral consciousness refers to the “whole person’s commitment to value and the judgment one makes in light of that commitment of who one ought to be and what one ought to do or not do” (Gula, 2004, p. 53). Gardner (2007) speaks of an ethical mind, a reflective stance with an “orientation…[or fundamental]…conviction that one’s community should possess certain characteristics of which one’s proud and a commitment personally to work toward the realization of the virtuous community”
(p. 129).

Some ethicists speak of a common morality (Gert, 2004), a set of basic rules that is wide spread among many cultures and societies. These rules include promise keeping and truth telling, being nonmalevalent, supplying mutual aid, respecting people, freedom and property, adhering to duties and following the law (Freeman and Gilbert, 1988; Gert, 2004). Ross (1951), from a prima facie perspective, describes core human duties that include fidelity, reparation, gratitude, beneficence, nonmalefience, and self-improvement. People and communities are to adhere to these duties, and when one is in conflict with the other, discern which has the most bearing and weight. Based upon reflection and what is the most commanding duty to follow in the particular case, one must make a choice and act in the situation.

Expanding upon this, various virtues and values can be found in Eastern and Western texts, such as the Jewish Scriptures and Torah, Christian Scriptures, Bhagavadgita, Koran, writings of Buddha and Confucius, and the Tao Te Ching. From these and other sources, Peterson and Seligman (2004), working with colleagues in psychology, distilled six core virtue categories: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. Of particular relevance to this study’s formulation of a character ethic is their inclusion of the following virtues as central human character strengths:


Integrity: Being authentic, honest, and taking responsibility for one’s decisions and actions.

Kindness: Caring for others and being generous and compassionate.

Social Intelligence: Being self-aware, and sensitive to personal feelings and motives, as well as those of others.

Citizenship: Participating in a community as a loyal, valued and trusted member.

Open-Mindedness: Thinking through situations, looking at all angles and not hastily making judgments.

Love: Valuing relationships, particularly those where caring and/or affection is mutually shared.

Fairness: Being just and equitable.

Forgiveness and Mercy: Accepting others limitations and letting go of wrong doings.

Humility: Not regarding one’s self as more special than others.

Prudence: Not acting in excess or doing something regrettable.

Gratitude: Being thankful.

Hopeful: Being optimistic and mindful of the future.

Humor: Being playful and light-hearted.

Appreciation of beauty and excellence: Having a sense of awe and wonder.

Spirituality: Understanding one’s purpose and having a sense of meaning (pp. 29-30).

Some scholars emphasize justice and equitable opportunity in a social setting, as does Rawls (2001); others point to the importance of stakeholders’ voice being heard and their needs tended to (Freeman, 1999; Philips, 2003). Slote (2001) points to the centrality of care and universal benevolence as being central to human ethical behavior. Focusing on compassionate relationships as being a natural element of the human person, Noddings (1986), in her ethic of care, stresses meeting the other, the “cared-for,” as “one-caring,” as a person who willingly gives of his/her self. This perspective stems from the human person freely entering into varying levels of caring relationships, and, at times, choosing to consider a caring relation as being better or superior to self-interest and other forms of relationships. Tronto (1993) states that an ethic of care that has integrity is characterized by being attentive to the needs of others, taking responsibility for one’s actions or role in larger social situations, being competent to be able to provide good care, and being sensitive to the vulnerability of the one cared for, ensuring that the recipient of care is not dehumanized in any manner. Solomon (1999) includes caring, compassion, and generosity as key professional and organizational qualities.

This ethical framework is in stark contrast to Kolberg’s moral development concepts primarily rooted in fairness and justice (Gibbs, 2003). A virtue ethic rooted in care is about grounding individual and collective identity in risking to realistically pursue intrinsic human ideals, finding selfhood in knowing the other, having the courage to enter into caring relationships that are mutually beneficial, and finding fulfillment in the journey of living the ideals and caring for others the best one can.

Jonas (1984) adds another dimension to the notion of caring. He holds that people have a responsibility not only for their actions, but for the insurance of a quality future for the inhabitants of the earth, in this generation and those to come. In The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age he states that “[c]are for the future of…[humankind]…is the overruling duty of collective human action in the age of the technical civilization that has become “almighty,” if not productive then at least in its destructive potential” (p. 136).

From this discussion arises the outlook that there are common virtues held by many cultures that are intrinsic to human nature, but no one definitive interpretation. Common threads inherent in each virtue interpretation, though, form core characteristics particular to each virtue, becoming a common ground for understanding and defining the virtue. The various interpretations, when taken together, provide a holistic perspective of the virtue, and a means for fathoming the complexity and nuances of each. These common virtues and their related constellation of values form value sets foundational to organizational cultural qualities and principles for managerial practices.

A virtue and character approach when applied to business and organizational ethics promotes that business enterprises be strongly emotionally intelligent (Goleman, 1995), recognizing and valuing workers as persons, respecting their dignity, and empowering them to be organizational contributors. They would strive to possess self and social awareness, be trustworthy, practice empathy, and be inclusive institutions that, conscious of their power and authority over their workforce, operate in a fashion that provides employees a sense of independence, autonomy, and control over their work lives so they can shape their work environment, as well as be productive (Bowie, 1998).

As outlined in human resource laws and regulations concerning discrimination, harassment, violence, and safety, employees have a right to a physically and psychologically safe and healthy work environment (OSHA, 2008; SHRM, 2008). Businesses that subscribe to a virtue-based ethic proactively create a humane and professionally rewarding work environment, and do not create policies, tolerate job expectations, or condone practices that are demeaning or an impediment to rights.

A virtue-based ethical approach also challenges business enterprises to take social responsibility seriously and to develop an authentic sense of community that, while acknowledging the reality of individuals and groups being self-serving, upholds the belief and value that both can be self-sacrificing. In this way, the quality of human existence is coupled with the quality of business, and both become the core of a business’ vision and mission.


Decision Making Process. In light of the above character or virtue ethic approach, what is one way to construct how to approach making ethical decisions?

Key steps in the decision making process are: 1) Identify and understand the situation, 2) From all angles and viewpoints analyze the issue(s) involved and its/their causes, 3) Become informed on the issue(s) by researching, talking to others, etc., including positions that you are usually against, 4) Take time to reflect critically and honestly reflect, including discussing possible decisions with others, if necessary, 5) Weigh all of the consequences of the various possible decisions and their short and long-term ramifications, 6) Act responsibly, and 7) After the decision has been made, take time to critically review the process and results.

Human dignity with values related to well-being, such as rights and power can serve organizations well in making ethical organizational and managerial decisions. Coupled together they form an organizational ethical perspective that advocates the:

1. enhancement of the human dignity of workers and citizens,

2. the fostering of employee and community health,

3. the safeguarding of worker and citizen rights,

4. the proper use of organizational power.

Such a perspective also helps organizations take appropriate responsibility for their workforce, the external professionals they partner with, the customers they serve, and the communities in which they are located. It aids them to seek to be profitable while working for the common good of all stakeholders.

The four-value ethical lens does not state what to do, but helps raises critical questions.The four-value ethical lens enables the organization, manager, or worker assess if the action to be taken enhances human dignity, fosters health and well-being, safeguards human rights, and promotes appropriate use of power.

Below is a sample of the types of questions it can raise:

1. Enhances Human Dignity: Do business and workplace practices dehumanize (or exploit) workers, customers, business partners, vendors, or civic communities? Is the quality of life actually or potentially diminished by business goals, policies, and partnerships, managerial practices, marketing strategies, organizational operational procedures, financial management practices, etc.?

2. Fosters Health and Well-being: Do business and workplace practices impair—physically or emotionally—the well-being or livelihood of workers (and their families), the members of civic communities, or societies at large? Do they lower organizational morale, create anger towards the organization or colleagues, or diminish the organization’s spirit or community networking? Do they damage the vitality of local or global community in which the organization functions? Do they harm or leave a destructive legacy for future generations?

3. Safeguards Human Rights: Will any commonly recognized human rights be lost or violated by the enactment of the organizations business or workplace strategies, practices, policies, etc.? Do they exploit the generosity, needs or fears of employees or the communities in which they functions?

4. Promotes Appropriate Use of Power: Will any individual or group potentially be disenfranchised or discriminated against due to the implementation of the organization’s business or workplace strategies, practices, policies, etc.? Does the organization and management inappropriately intrude into the employee’s home life and non-work time, or into the community and its affairs, governance?

Further, human dignity, while beginning with rights, leads to a sense of interconnection and concern and eventually results in a focus on empathy and care. As an organizational ethical lens, this four-value ethical perspective calls business enterprises and their leaders and managers to be socially and emotionally intelligent.

So this is one perspective, a character or virtue ethic approach that weaves together principles from key ethical frameworks.


What is your ethical decision making process, and what principles undergird it?



Week 6: Organizational Interity: A Character Ethic Approach

Last week you were exploring professional integrity and one's professional code of ethics. Let's continue this conversation focusing on organizations. In the news these days, there is much discussion of organizational integrity. What does this mean?

Organizational Integrity. The notion of integrity is multifaceted with many dimensions and applicable to both individuals and organizations. Carter (1996) describes integrity as necessitating “moral reflection,” “steadfastness,” the “keeping of promises,” and being “unashamed of doing what is right.” It requires: “(1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what…[one has]…discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that…[one is acting on one’s]…understanding of right from wrong (p. 7, Emphasis in original). In Corporate Integrity: Rethinking Organizational Ethics and Leadership, Brown (2005) adds that integrity entails being consistent, being conscious of interpersonal relationships, having a sense of inclusiveness, and pursuing a worthwhile purpose (pp. 5-9). Solomon (1999), in A Better Way to Think About Business: How Personal Integrity Leads to Corporate Success provides the key foundation to these definitions stating that integrity is “a synthesis of the virtues,” of the core human attributes that are considered praiseworthy. It is about “character,” the virtues “working together to form a coherent whole” (p. 38). Further, to be virtuous “is by its very nature both acting in one’s own self-interest and acting in a way that is socially productive” (Solomon, 1999, p. 34):

"The self-interest of…[businesses]…is served only because they do indeed pay attention to …[the consumer’s]…necessities, as well as to their own reputations for quality and fairness. It is essential to their own business that they do so. It is precisely because they rise above their own self-interests and consider the interests of others that they make a success of their enterprise. What they ultimately “sell” is their own integrity." (p. 36)

Handy (2003) states that, unlike in an industrial society where financiers are the owners of a company and employees are “treated as property,” in a knowledge economy, a good business is a community with a purpose, not a piece of property,” a “wealth-creating community” with members who have rights, and whose purpose is not to just “make a profit but to make a profit in order to do something better” (p. 67). These viewpoints resonate with central aspects of the long standing conceptualizations of the good corporation and the virtuous organization. Such companies are business enterprises that are ethical and good communities, blending economic efficiency with social responsibility, thus, fostering the good life, the happiness and enhancement of all of their stakeholders. These types of companies’ cultures and policies, while enabling financial success and prosperity, are advocates for human rights and distributed justice, respect and serve the fundamental human interests of its business partners, managers, workforce, customers, and civic communities, promote the development of autonomous, ethical professionals, and enable the company to be a good corporate citizen (Hartman, 1996; Houck and Williams, 1996). Following the Enron and WorldCom scandals, this trend in organizational culture and character has flourished, with companies participating in the United Nation’s Global Compact (UN Global Compact, 2007), and seeking to have high standings on such lists as Business Ethics 100 Best Corporate Citizens (Business Ethics, 2007). Many in the business arena are beginning to understand more fully that an enterprise’s reputation, its credibility and trustworthiness, is “built by its character” which is “formed by integrity and fair play” (Jackson, 2004).

As seen in the previous chapter, business enterprises are complex adaptive systems that are always evolving. Some organizations hold and will continue to practice the current prominent business philosophy of financial profits at all costs. Others see business practice differently and will shift to being value-driven, developing work environments that sincerely respect the human dignity of their workforce. As organizations strive to become exemplary businesses with integrity, they are faced with several challenges, including 1) developing a business strategy that does not promote seeking financial profits “at all costs,” 2) establishing a human resource management philosophy that sincerely values employees as multidimensional people, not just as expendable machines, 3) leadership accepting responsibility for creating a work environment that fosters employee health and safety, and does not harm the welfare of society, 4) promoting organizational cultures that will shift the current work ethic to be life-centered, and 5) reestablishing work and home life boundaries. With virtues and values lying at the core of organizational integrity and an employee-centric culture, a virtue-based ethical perspective would be critical in establishing and maintaining organizational integrity, and in addressing the above challenges. It can also enable executives, managers, and the workforce courageously engage in what Badaracco (2003) refers to as “defining moments,” times when leaders and employees, as professionals and corporate representatives, have to grapple with difficult issues and make choices rooted in personal identity, collective values, and the organization’s role in the local or global community.

Character, Community, and Organizational Ethics. The virtue ethic approach can serve as a fundamental principle in developing a theory of organizational culture that seeks to serve the common good, and benefits all the company’s stakeholders (Arjoon, 2000). Its focus on character can assist organizations to develop honest, trustworthy and compassionate leaders, as well as people-centered cultures that foster community rituals that pass on the organization’s values, promote employee recreation, and enliven workplace spirit. While changing policies and procedures can change outward workforce behaviors, shifting organizational cultural beliefs and values can enable managerial perspectives to evolve, and become integral to their professional code of ethics.

While duty ethic approaches as outlined by Kant (1996) in The Metaphysics of Morals and Hume (1983) in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals do not exclude virtue, the renewed interest in virtues, including character, “the personal traits we value in ourselves and for which we seek to value others” (Sennett, 1998, p. 10), has given rise to articulating specific virtue-based ethical perspectives for business models, and for assessing organizational behavior. This is exemplified by Solomon’s (1992) Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business, and Hartman’s (1996) Organizational Ethics and the Good Life. But no fully developed business virtue ethic has been constructed, even though it would be beneficial (Baker, 2008), nor has the concepts developed specifically addressed the cyber-socio nature of contemporary business enterprises.

Virtue ethics complements the deontological and consequentialist approaches usually used in dealing with business issues (Whetstone, 2001), and is concerned with having character and making responsible choices. It is not a prescriptive stance, but a call to discern and seek higher standards, to be critically reflective, to act in a praiseworthy manner, and challenge oneself to realistically live the ideal (Crisp and Slote, 1998).

While virtue-based ethical systems contain a notion of duty, as the writings of ethicists such as MacIntyre (1984), Nussbaum (2001), Slote (1992), Hursthouse (2001), and Foot (2003) indicate, an ethical approach founded upon virtue understands moral decisions as stemming from “who one chooses to be,” not on “how one is to act.” The person is conceptualized as a whole, not a compartmentalized entity, and seeks “happiness,” strives for “excellence,” and desires the “the good life” (O’Toole, 2005). Virtues enable the good life. They are dispositions and inclinations that are part of one’s character that:

"…not only sustain practices that enable us to achieve the goods internal to practices, but which enable us to achieve the relevant kind of quest for the good, by enabling us to overcome the harms, dangers, temptations and distractions which we encounter, and which will furnish us with increasing self-knowledge and knowledge of the good. The catalogue of the virtues will therefore include the virtues required to sustain the kind of households and the kind of political communities in which men and women can seek for the good together and the virtues necessary for philosophical enquiry about the character of the good." (MacIntyre, 1984, p. 219)

Virtues are particular human aspects that give unity to one’s life, and to humanity as a whole. Virtues can be moral (e.g., prudence, justice, compassion and temperance) or intellectual (e.g., wisdom, creativity, and critical thinking) (Aristotle, 1987). They are dispositions and a manner of being in the world. They are ways of living and working that foster human flourishing, the inner striving to reach the fullness of one’s human potential, and the ability to contribute to society. They strongly influence how one establishes priorities and makes decisions. They aid one in being consistent and accountable when making decisions; that is, making a personal and deliberate response to a situation faced (Niebuhr, 1963).


In what does the unity of an individual life consist? The answer is that its unity is the unity of a narrative embodied in a single life. To ask ‘what is the good for me?’ Is to ask how best I might live out that unity and bring it to completion. To ask ‘what is the good for…[humanity]…?’ is to ask what all answers to the former questions have in common…[I]t is important to emphasize that it is the systematic asking of these two questions and the attempt to answer them in deed as well in word which provides the moral life with its unity. (pp. 218-219)

Hauerwas (1981) refines this ethical notion by concentrating on virtue itself, stating that virtue-based ethics is not merely about embodying a set of virtues, but about character and community. It is about the dynamic interplay between character, the nurturing community with an influential culture and challenging stories, decision-making, choice, action and accountability. Virtue involves habit, ways of being and acting that are formed through encountering cultural traditions, engaging with leadership models, and actively self-reflecting in a critical manner. Virtues are fashioned through a paradoxical process of learning character traits and values via cultural stories and norms, and experience. The process entails honest grappling with life’s positive and negative crises in light of what one has learned, hammering out one’s own articulation of them, and making them one’s own by integrating them into one’s personality, behaviors, and work ethic.

A virtue-based or character ethic approach is not about individuals developing a sense of self and ethics in isolation, but in community, for individuals, business enterprises and civic communities highly influence each other. The social communities in which employees live and the business settings in which they work are critical to the development of their moral vision, and their ability to become professionals with integrity.

Hauerwas (1974) stresses that through the making of choices one freely creates one’s self. One is responsible for one’s actions. One’s disposition is formed as a result of a conscious or an unconscious grappling with and interpreting of one’s life experiences, family values, community’s norms and mores, and work experiences. As he states:

"Character is…the qualification of our self-agency, formed by our having certain intentions (and beliefs) rather than others. Character is not a mere public appearance that leaves a more fundamental self hidden; it is the very reality of who we are as self-determining agents. Our character is not determined by our particular society, environment, or psychological traits; these become part of our character,…but only as they are received and interpreted in the descriptions which we embody in our intentional action. Our character is our deliberate disposition to use a certain range of reasons for our actions rather than others (such a range is usually what is meant by moral vision)…" (p. 59)

Personal or organizational virtues are ideals that are standards; that is, benchmarks for character and the norm for actions, as well as aspirations that give direction to professional life and work. Being virtuous involves being embodied in the world, engaged with it, present to others, and striving to flourish as a human person or institution. It is about not only having virtuous character traits, but acting virtuously. Possessing the traits is not enough. Being virtuous means knowingly acting in a virtuous manner, and taking responsibility for one’s decisions. This is true whether speaking about the integrity of individuals, work teams, or business organizations. Both the individual and the organization are agents, and are to be virtuous, and have a sense of responsibility. Both the individual and organization are accountable for their choices, decisions and actions.

Being virtuous as a professional or business entails being actively engaged in the formation of one’s personal or organizational character. As Hauerwas (1975) states:

"Our character gives us direction…Our character is constantly being challenged by situations which seem to contain new elements that we have not taken into account in the previous descriptions which we have embodied....The ability to “step back” is…dependent on the kinds of belief and intentions we entertain within our…character. What we believe and think does not make some difference in what we do, it makes all the difference….. Our future is what we determine it to be from the depths of who we are; it can be as rich or narrow as we make it…Our moral life is not limited to passive accommodations to the good; it includes changing the world through our intentional activity rooted in character. Moreover, the kind of person we are, our character, determines to a large extent the future we will have." (pp. 123-125, Emphasis in original.)

In regards to the workplace, a virtue ethic approach is a challenge to gauge business success not by the mere following of pragmatic business and management principles, but by being a worker, a manager, or a business leader with integrity who makes a lasting contribution. It is a call to conduct business as if people and civic communities are core stakeholders. It is a challenge to establish an organizational culture and work environment that enables people to align their talents and energies with the business’ goals, work to their fullest potential, and maintain quality of life.

Thus, from a virtue ethic perspective, organizational and business ethics are inherently political in nature for they are concerned with not only aiding in decision-making and taking action, but also in “creating the right kind of community” in business enterprises—communities with clearly discerned values that aid the development of people who posses civic virtue and foster the good life (Hartman, 1996, p. 9). The notion of a virtuous community with a clearly articulated sense of ethics integrated into its narratives and traditions is central to understanding organizational integrity, and in developing methods to assist it in formulating its work ethic.

In this ethical perspective, businesses are defined by their “role(s) and responsibilities in the larger community,” and deal more with “individuals in (and out) of business roles as well as the role of business and business in society, the-individual-in-the-organization”, than policies and regulations. It entails a sense of “social and institutional awareness, a sense of oneself as an intimate (but not inseparable) part of the business world with a keen sense of the virtues and values of that world” (Solomon, 1993, p. 111, Emphasis in the original). The business enterprise is to be a “good community” that positively shapes the personal and professional values and behaviors of its leaders and workforce, enables its employees to develop a professional ethical code rooted in what is virtuous, and creates meaningful work and job satisfaction (Hartman, 1996). Thus, not only are business organizations to have an upstanding character, they have a responsibility to form a culture and work environment that empowers employees to flourish as human beings, formulate a fulfilling work ethic, establish healthy and responsible work habits, cultivate meaningful relationships with family and friends, and actively participate in civic affairs.

From a value-based ethical approach, then, organizations conduct business, operate, treat employees and serve customers from a sense of integrity. Such integrity is embodied in the vision, beliefs, and values that are given form in its culture, policies, daily operational procedures, code of conduct, and workplace community.


But how can one speak of organizational character, virtues and values in a pluralistic world and business environment that values diversity, and respects individuality and autonomy? What do you think?

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Week 5: Professional Ethics and Leadership

The discussion now shifts from a critical dialogue about ethics in general to organizations and professionals.

In today’s academic and popular literature, as well as in training workshops there is much talk about organizational cultures and values, as well as professional standards. Often, this discussion quickly involves 3 areas: effective business principles that involve strategic goals and operational productivity, leadership qualities and desired participative organizational dynamics and processes, and local and national laws and regulations. In fact, in many organizations the notion of “ethics” is interpreted as “
compliance.” Compliance offices and professionals, including a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), are very common in corporations and medium size businesses. There are in Chief Ethics Offices (CEO) in some organizations. In health care there are also ethical boards that review hospital members’ professional practices and patient issues that arise.

While valuing this perspective, and recognizing its importance, ethics is more than what is legal or allowed by mandated regulations. What is legal is not necessarily ethical, or always the most responsible thing to do in a particular situation. It may not be the most appropriate response to make in the given situation.

According the
United Nations own work on aiding itself develop organizational integrity, organizational integrity is:

"characterized by a staff whose individual and collective conduct demonstrates consistent adherence high ethical principles and professional standards….A conduct characterized by integrity goes beyond mere compliance with written requirements, but honors the values that lie behind them."

As the discussion turns to exploring organizational integrity and examining business and organizational ethics, numerous questions emerge. Among these questions are: what are the values, ethical principles, and professional standards that undergird organizational cultures that strive to be equitable and collaborative in a manner where all have a professional voice in the organization’s operational and reaching of its mission? What are the values that are foundational to leadership credibility, emotionally intelligent management practices, and empowering work environments? What understanding of worker dignity and rights is fundamental for organizations who authentically accept diversity and promote a “people first” approach to work practices, or who strive to deploy human resource philosophies and operational practices that support work-life balance and corporate social responsibility? What values and professional standards truly enable open and transparent business practices and financial management? What ethical principles are pivotal to organizational cultures and leadership if an organizational is to conduct business and services in a manner that is sincerely sustainable and not just PR or “lip service”?

The first weeks of the course critically examined various ethical systems. As you have seen ethics can be viewed from the vantage point of greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Then there is the sense of human rights and one’s duty to another. People have an inherent dignity that demands a way of being treated. Values and virtues are another foundation upon which an ethical system can be constructed, where the focus is not about what needs to be done, but who one wants to be. The question “What type of person am I to be or I want to be” guides how one acts in each situation. In this ethical perspective not only honesty, truthfulness, responsibility, empathy, forgiveness, justice, etc. are considered praiseworthy, but also prudence, moderation, and courage. Similar to Western perspectives, in the East one is to strive not to do harm to one’s self or another. One is to strive to develop a “skilled mind,” a “calm and peaceful mind” that avoids actions that cause “suffering” or “remorse.” (Buddhist Ethics, 2008, at Buddhanet.net). Compassion for all provides a middle path between exaggerated individualism and socialism. Taoism, rooted in harmony, points towards a life characterized by selflessness, moderation, embracing the mystery, non-contrivance, detachment, and humility.

As with personal ethics, and the ethical norms of a society, professional ethics is equally important. One has a professional code of conduct—values to live by, and standards to uphold. Ways of dealing with clients and customers in a fair and just manner, ensuring that products and services do not harm, that promised quality is provided, and agreements fully rendered.

In Professional Integrity: Thinking Ethically, Pritchard (2006) illustrates that professional ethics addresses:

"[E]thical principles, rules of practice, justification, and decision making…[as well as]…questions about character, perception, and imagination….[Key is]… the integration of ethical values and professional expertise, such that, in the midst of professional practice, the perceptions, imaginings and, finally, judgments of professionals reflect their blending in responsible practice. There are times when it is important for professionals to pause reflectively and ask whether what they are contemplating doing is ethically justifiable. As a subject of study, professional ethics needs to examine ways in which questions might best be answered. However, equally important are the dispositions and values reflected in the very ways professionals come to perceive problems and possibilities in the first place. Professional ethics needs to pose for professionals the questions…”How do agents come to perceive the situations in the way that they do? How does a situation come to have a particular character for a particular moral agent?" (pp. 150-1)

Integrity refers to a sense of wholeness and completeness, plus a willingness to be reflective and act in a discerning manner (p. 67). Professional integrity, as described by Cox, La Caze, and Levine (2003) in Integrity and the Fragile Self, then is:

"[N]ot a matter of remaining true to oneself;..[but]…is…a matter of remaining true to the fundamental role and character of one’s profession—to its principles, values, ideals, goals and standards. This requires that professionals not merely remain true to and publicly endorse personal values and principles but that they remain true to the role they are publicly entrusted with." (p. 104)

Often professionals find themselves in leadership roles. In light of the discussion of professional ethics, one question that emerges is: how does one lead ethically and with integrity.


As Bill George (2003) states in Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secretes to Creating Lasting Value

“leadership is authenticity, not style….Authentic leaders genuinely desire to serve others through their leadership. They are more interested in empowering the people they lead to make a difference than they are in power, money, or prestige for themselves. They are guided by qualities of the heart, by passion and compassion, as they are by qualities of the mind….Authentic leaders use their natural abilities, but also recognize their shortcomings and work hard to overcome them. They lead with purpose, meaning and values. They build enduring relationships with people. Others follow them because they know where they stand. They are consistent and self-disciplined. When their principles are tested, they refuse compromise. Authentic leaders are dedicated to developing themselves because they know that becoming a leader takes a lifetime of personal growth.” (p.11-12)

Leadership means having followers and influence, often accompanied by some form of position or recognition. Position and status bring power. With professional leadership comes authority and power in many forms, and in many degrees. With success comes notoriety and power. How does one retain one’s bearings, one’s ethical compass, when being a manager, department head, a CEO of a corporation or an executive director of major nonprofit organization? How does one not get caught up in the “grandeur” and power of the position? How does one not compromise one’s own values in order to stay aligned with organizational practices, and its desire to obtain success or state competitively in the lead when to do this entails following unethical practices and/or policies?

How would you answer the above questions?