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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment