|
MORE FREE TERM PAPERS
SOCIOLOGY:
|
|
|
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL
ETHICS IN CONTEXT OF CULTURE AND COMMUNICATION PROCESSES IN GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONS
With high pressure to perform, the need for purpose, meaning, altruism,
virtue, in work has assumed critical importance. Transcendental needs
and values have become critically important. Work-related outcomes are
important as they affect bottom-line but they are also related to ethical
treatment of employers like fair treatment, caring, and compassionate
working environment. Few topics over the last five years have gained the
amount of national and international attention within both scholarly (Anand,
Ashforth, & Joshi, 2004; Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Davis & Ruhe,
2003) and mainstream media outlets (Calain, 2002; Craig & Hechinger,
2005) as corruption and ethical breaches. Those guilty of such charges
hail from governmental to corporate organizations and instances range
from single individual behaviour to systemic breaches and collapse of
institutions. Ghoshal (2005:76) traces this apathy to a dominant ideology
that is amoral in nature and breeds an attitude of lack of moral responsibility
and this position is supported by Kanter (2005),Pfeffer (2005), Mintzberg
(2005) and Donaldson(2005).The act of interpretation of a phenomena also
influences those phenomena very much like the quantum reality(Ferraro
et al.2005). Most of these approaches are based on individual motivations,
responsibilities and accountabilities and are analysed through frameworks
of agency theory, game theory and transaction cost economics; these individuals
are self-regarding, opportunistic and isolated rather than embedded in
community. These theories promote and legitimise behaviour (Mueller&
Carter 2005:222) and are underpinned by normative assumptions about society
and human nature. It paints a pessimistic viewpoint of self aggrandizing
individuals whose single agenda is wealth appropriation and social action
that is atomistic, fragmented, and incoherent but utterly fails to incorporate
the individual in larger human network.
There is a rising trend in amoral behaviour despite the
legal checks and balances that arose in the early 1990s to prevent such
abuse (Driscoll & Hoffman, 1999). For instance, to deter unethical
behaviour a system of heavy fines and probation conditions is being stipulated.
Moreover, a stern warning to key individuals, such as directors, that
they could be held personally liable for corrupt or unethical corporate
behaviour and cultural ethical breakdowns are being held out; these scenarios
tend to offer little in the hope of moving ethical management forward.
Rather, these cases emphasize the punitive approach to fixing ethical
lapses. More importantly, punitive approaches also tend to be reactive—the
damage to a firm’s stakeholders has already occurred. Indeed, the bankruptcy
and partial liquidation of such corporate giants as World- Com, Baring
bank and Enron are painful exemplars of the catastrophic loss in jobs
and in financial investments that correlate with a reactive approach to
building character. The large body of leadership literature is shorn of
‘values, ethics, and morality have been leached away’ (Sankar 2003:45).
Rather terms like trait, situational, and contingency separate the leader
from their context and the relational aspect of context have been ignored
(Grint 2000).
LITERATURE REVIEW:
We focus on developmental and positive approaches to ethical
and character development. The United States Military Academy at West
Point has a pro-active HR policy and practice and ethical issues are evaluated
painstakingly; Specifically, West Point relies on rigorous recruiting,
selection, job rotation, and training practices to foster character development
among its members by managing communication, organizational learning,
organizational design and development, and organizational socialization
and culture shaping.
INSTITUALISATION OF ETHICS
To fulfil the character component of this mission, West
Point developed and deploys a comprehensive Honour System whose “larger
and more encompassing purpose is education” (Honor Systems and Procedures,
2001, p. 19). The foundation of the honor system begins with the honor
code, which reads, “a cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those
that do.” Earlier, the punitive aspects of the system were stressed notably
the practices of immediate dismissal or “silencing” a cadet found guilty
of an honor violation; Until 1976, the West Point Honor System remained
relatively unchanged and gradually transformed from a rule based/ enforcement
system of honor to a developmental and commitment-oriented approach.
Today, even more emphasis is placed on ethical development as opposed
to ethical discipline. The finding regarding learning from ethical lapses
is an important, new contribution to the HR field; organizations can use
ethical transgressions as a tool to transform the ethical development
of their members and to build a strong moral-ethical climate. They successfully
communicate expectations and signal forcefully the overriding concern
with ethics. In the long-run these have positive correlation with job-satisfaction
and reduce voluntary turn-over apart from intensive emphasis on socialization
process (Bretz& Judge, 1998).
The training programme offers an ethical foundation in the form of Honour
Code: “a cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those that do”.
With this “starting point” and with minimum ethical expectations clearly
communicated, they are able to motivate cadets to meet the “Spirit of
the Code,” which are “set of broad and fundamental principles, not as
a list of prohibitions”. Further they have a decision-assisting tool namely
the Three Rules of Thumb. The use of decision-making heuristics is common
as G. A. Klein (1999) demonstrated how medical emergency and first aid
responders use simple decision making trees to reduce ambiguity and complexity
that surround major accidents. Furthermore, studies of pilot training
indicate that aviators rely on basic decision-making formulas to ensure
safety in the midst of dangerous circumstances (Flin, O’Connor, &
Mearns, 2002). A major benefit of these decision-making rules is that
they marginalize environmental influences that may confuse or distract
the decision maker. Not surprisingly, rationalization is believed to be
a significant and potent antecedent to corrupt behaviour (Anand et al.,
2004).
Since rationalization is believed to contribute to unethical and immoral
decision making along with corrupt behaviour (Anand et al., 2004), the
authors investigated whether West Point is, indeed, effective in reducing
rationalization tendencies as West Point depends on training to mitigate
the force of rationalization. The cadets entering West Point come from
a variety of background, some of which may not have emphasized character,
ethics, or honor. In order to educate “the basics” they issue the Hip
Pocket Values Education Guide, a booklet that is aimed at providing each
cadet the same core basic knowledge through the identification and definition
of key terms. In particular, the Cadet Leadership Development System (CLDS)
is the vehicle to test the effectiveness of the West Point Honour System.
The premise of these two programs is that character can be best built
and tested under leadership positions involving various stakeholders,
perceived levels of high stress, and limited time. This leadership training
mirrors managerial reality—namely, leaders often must make timely decisions
under stress that, incidentally, involve conflicting stakeholder priorities
(Badaracco, 1997; G. A. Klein, 1999). Practice in dealing with stakeholder
influence, stress, and time constraints are particularly important since
these factors impair judgment, or, directly contribute to unethical and
immoral decisions (Badaracco, 1997; G. A. Klein, 1999; Werhane, 1999).
Interestingly and contrary to traditional agency arguments that emphasize
control mechanisms that restrict decision making to deter unethical behaviour
(Eisenhardt, 1989a), West Point appears to promote a liberating, not constraining,
perspective on developing moral ethical reasoning, best accomplished through
realistic leadership practice.
Central to the moral-ethical development program is their
reliance on social cognitive theory and vicarious learning. The essence
of social cognitive theory is that individuals learn new behaviour by
watching others in a social situation and then imitating their behaviour
(Bandura 1977). Closely related with social learning theory is the notion
of vicarious learning, which is an individual’s capacity to learn through
observation without direct participation (Bandura, 1977; Davis & Luthans,
1980). Consequently, this is preferable since individuals are not required
to engage in trial-and-error behaviour and is cost-saving also. This finding
is interesting, since contemporary social capital research almost exclusively
frames trust and commitment as an antecedent to social capital (Adler
& Kwon, 2002; Leana & Van Buren, 1999).
In contrast, the researchers found ethical-moral development to be both
an antecedent and consequence of social capital. Here, the primary benefit
is that informal social systems are working to strengthen the ethical-moral
component of the culture. This can occur, however, only when ethical-moral
development is integrated with organizational development .While West
Point enjoys strong internal and external leadership, whose contribution
in shaping and promoting mission of moral ethical development of its cadets
is praiseworthy; they devote considerable energy to establishing and emphasizing
organizational priorities, which include moral-ethical development. One
of the keystones to this approach is an intensive personal development
opportunity offered to students who have committed a violation of the
cadet honor code. Just as an individual may experience quantum growth
only following physical trauma or the death of a loved one (Calhoun &
Tedeschi, 2001; Linley & Joseph, 2003), this personal development
opportunity allows individual students and the organization as a whole
to grow because of— in spite of — an ethical transgression.
The case study attempts to enrich an individual’s ethical reasoning from
exposure to another’s ethical lapse. Indeed, Nonaka (1994) indicates that
exposure to environmental stimuli challenge mental models and assumptions
and promote a deeper level of organizational learning. Rather than being
“old “news,” the deviation or, cheating scandal becomes part of the fabric
and folklore of West Point. In a phenomenon not unlike what Weick and
Roberts (1993) describe as a collective mind, these transgressions remind
West Point cadets and leadership of “what could be” when there is little
emphasis on the moral-ethical portion of an organization’s culture by
means of certain core HR policies .
HRM and ETHICS
Here, HRM can use orientation and socialization program
to build an ethical foundation. In addition, HRM can play a proactive
role in shaping and managing the communication process to ensure understanding
of key moral-ethical issues and definitions. Also, HRM, through organizational
design and involvement in leadership development program, can ensure the
integration of such programs with character and honor development. Rather
than pursuing these programs as two disparate streams, HR professionals
could integrate both. as such. HRM can provide managers with decision-making
heuristics and other tools to help manage the simple to complex ethical
quandary.
The management of communication process help these individuals
grow ethically and morally. The character development process can actually
inform and improve existing communication channels. As a result of this
heightened trust, communication is generally efficient and avoids costly
contractual hazards (Williamson, 1985). Moreover, this trust also may
limit political hidden meanings often embedded in messages in favour of
rich, honest, and more transparent dialogue, which are key components
of relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998).In conclusion, Whereas traditional HR research has employed
as dependent constructs such outcomes as job satisfaction (Robie, Ryan,
Schmieder, Parra, & Smith, 1998), job performance (Vinchur et al.,
1998), and promotion rates (Wentling, 1992), recent research has looked
at the ethicality of HR practices themselves as the construct of interest.
For instance, Ferris, Hochwarter, Buckley, Harrell-Cook, and Frink (1999)
highlight the need to focus on justice and political perspectives in the
conduct of such HR practices as personnel selection, performance evaluation,
and compensation. Similarly, Rowan (2000) focuses on practical ethical
questions concerning employee rights to such things as safety, due process,
and privacy. More critically, Greenwood (2002) raises the question of
how ethical is the very concept of viewing humans as resources rather
than as ends in and of themselves. Admittedly, these are important issues
and ones that we address, by shifting the focus from the ethics of HR
to ethics through HR, which can open the doors to a fruitful stream of
practical ethics research.
Heifetz talks of how the burden of organizational action and dilemma is
shared challenging the community to face problems for which there are
no simple, painless solutions and this forces people to learn in new ways.
Nonaka & Toyama (2002) describe this mode of engagement where issues
of authority are worked out across different levels of the organization
and it is done iteratively as problems are gradually addressed; in other
words the leadership has to identify key challenge of resolving question
of authority and responsibility and this is done by changing context to
transcend contradictions and manage improvement (Nonaka& Toyama 2002:1005).
Such improvisations are capable of changing the situation and contradiction
can be resolved and simultaneously new contradictions are generated. Synthesising
apparent contradictions is a sign of advanced thinking (Kramer 1998).
Only a dialogic technique elicits this response and such tolerance inevitably
enacts distributed engagement which requires that a shared space is created
to control stresses produced by problem solving. Heifitz idea of a holding
environment and dialectics of action interact to solve problem. For effective
distributed form of engagement necessitating examination of assumptions
about activity of leading, notion of responsibility and the need to challenge
existing mental models (Senge 1990) or social scripts (Schank& Abelson
1977, Mueller& Carter 2005) often understood as cultural resources
that can challenge and infer decision-making and guide behaviour A script
might make one person responsible, moulded either in the role of hero
or villain.
Enabling one to challenge assumptions is in itself an acknowledgement
that complexity is not only acceptable but that it is not the sole responsibility
of the leader to resolve tension; unquestionably a major role of the leader
is to orient the others towards action agenda while the others have to
assume the responsibility to handle and manage the implications of the
contradiction (Morrel 2004a) which entail growing maturity to share responsibility
and accountability. Tackling such problems demand not only understanding
needs of different communities but also addressing them and the enlightened
leader prefers to empower them to make choice and choose for them (Katz
1969).
In the Socratic tradition questioning is fundamental to understanding
basic principles through rigorous argument and this forms and informs
our wisdom. In fact incoherence between espoused values and actual practices
is the dialectical tension that exposes the basic inconsistencies between
the local and universal values leading to moral confusion among citizens
and men. For example when we refer to people as assets, capital, or resources
we produce incoherence in our organizational talk and that in other talks
happening in some other settings. Commentators voice their concern at
the abysmal lack of virtue and ethics in organizations (Deakin& Konzelmann
2003, Watkins 2004). Jennings advances the argument that a formal guidance
was a better institutionalized mechanism to influence the character, motivations
and attitudes. Actually the concept of “Ram-Rajya” is also such a formal
guidance system based on assumptions of virtue but it calls for continuous
vigilance and striving to uphold the moral order. This would involve a
process of critique to challenge the discrepancies between espoused theories
and theories-in-use.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE and ORGANIZATIONAL
ETHICS
Argyris holds that it would surface issues that render
the undiscussed in the open for scrutiny and debate and an appropriate
vehicle could be dialogue. However since management science has no absolutes
such discussions are difficult because organizational actors have to take
decisions in ambiguous situations and there is need to create trust at
both individual and collective level. Perhaps then dialogue can then be
taken up as technical modality for identifying problems and as a metaphor
to scrutinise. Given the fact there are cultural diversities in an organization
and the potential harm caused by hegemony and the prevalence of fads and
fashion in management bringing incoherence in management (Abrahamson&Fairchild
1999; Alvesson &Sveningsson 2003) it is worthwhile to facilitate processes
that encourage people to work on their own, but with some kind of guidance
mechanism available to them rather than seeking off-the- shelf solutions.
The primary importance of multiple perspectives on a problem is valuable
as it is capable of challenging the received wisdom (Arlin 1990). A culture
that promotes dialogue also can mobilise collective action and inculcate
ethical behaviour.
Core values are important because they affect views and
behaviour but there is no unanimity on the kind of nature that value has
both within and without the company especially in context of relationship
dimension (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). Burns noted that values specify
certain standards that guide behaviour at work-place and sets down criteria
for guiding choices between or among alternatives. Values percolate down
and employees fix the personal standard by emulating the top leadership.
Often unethical behaviour results into inefficiency and ineffectiveness
and missed opportunities and sullied reputation (Neilson, Pasternack,&
Mendes,2004; Sims & Brinkmann,2002). On the other hand organizations
exercising value-based and ethical behaviour impact organizational culture
that strengthens social integration and positively affects profitability
and sustainability (Grojean, Resick, Dickson,) .The governing ethics of
an organization is potentially stable and provides continuity even under
situation of change. This continuity is referred as “sameness”. It is
thought that ‘sameness” has led to the development of such philosophy
like Population ecology, entrepreneurship theory, design theory, evolutionary
economics etc. Many interesting possibilities have been explored in the
context of sameness. For example how can an entrepreneur sustain identifiable
advantage? How can managers diffuse strategic vision and fix long-term
objectives while having to integrate the short-term adaptations? How can
organizations arbitrate between exploration and exploitation in negotiating
with environmental constraints? How does an organization balance between
inertia and action? By using sameness principle to understand OC process
there are serious limitations such as constrained depiction of organizational
and individual behaviour like aggressiveness,; opportunism and compliance;
secondly “otherness” is an imitation of sameness and thirdly there is
less discretion available when one has to focus both on conformity to
institutional norms and distinction from competitors and above all there
is no normative guideline to as to why one change is preferable to another.
It must be acknowledged that organizational ethics had always included
“otherness” in business models like stakeholder theory (Donaldson&Dunfee
1994, Donaldson&Preston, 1995; Jones 1995; Jones &Ryan, 1997).
Instead of studying ideological duality of egoism and altruism the sameness
and otherness can be used to shed light on OC and OE (Ford &Ford,
1994) to analyse evolutionary and revolutionary changes within OC processes.
The two dimensions of sameness are “the pursuit of self-centred goals
and “unbalanced relationship”. Organizational theorists have studied this
paradoxical continuity-versus- disruption nature of change as change falls
short of critical change to transmute it radically beyond recognition;
in nutshell change does not affect some enduring trait that remain constant
over time characterising an organization’s existence, bracketed between
onset and termination.
The “end-prevalence” dimension of sameness emphasise survival and above-average
performance and the enduring propensity to retain some core traits; ‘unbalanced
relationship” is unequal treatment of others and precedence of self over
others. Sameness –based OC theories is premised on reductive principles
of opportunism and compliance which is aggressiveness and subordination.
At the same time we have some exceptions too as alternative behaviour
exist; sympathy, empathy, generosity, charity which appeal more to otherness
than to sameness (Huy, 1999). As stakeholder theory holds that organizations
have multi-dimensional relationship with their environment and they strive
to better the community (Freeman, 1984; Jones, 1995).
OC theories appreciate otherness and integrate competitors and partners
under the sameness banner. Nash models like “Prisoner’s dilemma” surfaces
ambiguity of situation as well as interdependence of decision makers where
end prevalence and unbalanced relationship of sameness and are oblivious
to otherness and the underlying changes unfolding surreptitiously Above
all sameness leaves them in dark about changes they should make adopting
either exploitation or exploration. For example if first –movers have
advantages in terms of performance but followers also have their set of
benefits which leaves us with a sense that we are same and at the same
time different as well (Deephouse,1999). Organizational behaviour does
not depend on only sameness principle but also on general organizational
traits, like ownership or strategic positioning; for instance family owned
firms rely on altruistic principles rendering agency theory redundant
to understand their performance and development (Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino,
&Buchholtz,2001). In fact an otherness consideration under OE can
help us to build a change theory that dialectically intertwines the two
approaches.
A major shortcoming of OE theory has been its failure to
handle organizational plasticity and changes. Nevertheless a major contribution
of OE was in reconciling descriptive and instrumental view of ethics with
a normative conception of ethics. Bounded moral rationality and macrosocial
contracting establish the basis of integrative social contract theory
which offers free space along with contractor’s permission to consent
or exit and the existence of authentic norms and a set of priority rules
among these norms. At organizational and community level microsocial contracting
must be compatible with hypernorms, and the complementary evolution of
ethical, transaction-specific micronorms having allegiance to basic principles
of morality emanating from cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions.
Hosmer (1995) identifies that in a joint endeavour trust is visualised
as being based on moral duty where trust is translated into expectation
by stakeholders for an ethically justifiable behaviour. A radical theory
in the form of Stakeholder theory held that both shareholders and stakeholders
have same rights and same goals (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Scholars
like Jones (1995) agreed with the instrumental stakeholder theory which
holds the practice of ethical principles of trustworthiness, trust, and
cooperation yielding long-term benefits amounting to significant competitive
advantage. Yet another school of thought like Jones and Wicks held a convergent
view of stakeholder theory and found it sound in normative sense as well
as pragmatic (1999).
The principle of sameness applies as much to OC and OE. The passive ethics
of not harming others is not pessimistic as is mistakenly believed but
it is an ex ante recognition that an organization is accountable for the
consequences of its action and acknowledgement of others sameness as the
consistency provides a basis of interaction and capable of establishing
norms of ethical behaviour for themselves. It is hypothesised that there
is strong alignment between organizational and individual values (Brass
et al., 1998). But there is also strong reason to believe that powerful
actors develop diverging approach to their sameness relative to the sameness
in the organization. A contrary model proposes that OC and OE may tie
together based on otherness through organizational design to influence
moral action. The gap between expected moral ideal and the desired moral
approbation creates the moral intent and moral behaviour.
All OC proceed from organizational discrepancies in values-
Different subgroups have interest dissatisfaction and their respective
value commitment so much that the ethical dimension impact on OC process
is overlooked but incongruously recognize moderating influence of power
dependencies and capacity for action on the relationship between value
commitments and OC processes but do not adequately account for the available
range of actions to the powerful actors. By contrast self is derived from
the continued experience of life instituted in the engagement with the
others which posits the sameness against otherness. This otherness “belongs
instead to the tenor of meaning and to the ontological constitution of
selfhood” (Ricoeur, 1992). It introduces a paradox of the self between
sameness and selfhood; the former enacts universal principles of actions
and being, while the latter strives to mediate between the historical
and contextual situations one faces. Solving this riddle implies use of
practical wisdom. A practically wise man is a symbol of moral exemplarity
and reciprocity He recognises a priori the value and interest of others
opinion and judgment while reciprocity consecrates the equal nature of
the other. Powerful agents influence the relation between same and other
by way of changing orientations, make strategic decisions, shape organizational
identity; they have capacity and responsibility to bestow legitimacy,
by designing strategies, structure and processes.
In OC literature such powerful agents look at themselves in evolutionary
sense as undifferentiated elements of organizational routines or as reflectors
of environmental trends and endowed with the task of positioning and legitimising
the organization. In entrepreneurial and strategic theory powerful agents
are invested with the responsibility to design the mission and objective
that flow down to the bottom level. In OE perspective they play crucial
role in advancing organizational values and morality (Hosmer, 1994; Jones,
1991; Weaver, Trevino, &Cochran, 1999). These agents are aware of
the organizational strengths and weakness, are more alert, and gather
important informations that have critical bearing on conducting change
and although they stretch the goal they never embark on unrealistic quest.
They are not control hungry, and are open to people and ideas and are
less vulnerable to cognitive bias and earn respect and consideration from
their colleagues.
For practical wisdom to manifest in the form of moral exemplarity and
reciprocity during OC process the essential conditions are exemplary narratives
and conversation spaces. Ricoeur has elaborated on narrative identity
in his study of the relationship between individual sameness / selfhood
and otherness (1992).The interstice between sameness and selfhood is made
accessible through the narrative identity which indicates whether context
exist or not and the extent of influence that practically wise people
can operate during OC process. Such agents use promise in moderation and
are particular with honouring their commitment. Direct benefits of exemplary
narratives lie in reducing cost of information and enforcement and also
prevent siren songs and censor deviant behaviour. The narratives reinforce
presence of practically wise powerful agents and evolutionary OC processes.
CORPORATE VISION and CULTURE CHANGE
The limitation of culture change as a way of redirecting
the organization and its performance was increasingly questioned during
1980’s. Its failure to deliver during stark period was evident especially
true in case of organizations that were praised for their organizational
culture (Chakravarthy, 1986). As a result attention was focussed on the
need for inspiring vision and several theories were proffered. The vision
concept has dealt with corporate strategy rather than being concerned
with substantive content. It has led to a neglect of the role of visions
in social construction and control; the neglected issues range from visionaries’
claims to foresee aspects of the future; to generate an ethical dimension
for the organizational life; to validate their vision with intuition-based
insights. This is correlated to the way narratives are created out of
these elements and how these interact with power as expressed within strategic
decision making processes. Another difficulty is accessing those in power
to understand the discourse (Clegg, 1993:34). Corporate visions reflect
the position occupied by the powerful and the way it influences strategic
direction of their organization.
These narratives exercise powerful social control and shape
social institutions and their overt reliance on past to sanction or prescribe
behaviour. Visions like narratives also tell a story and help the recipients
to make sense of their environment. Apart from creating and affirming
organizational identity they are also specific to individuals situated
in their environment, are placed to anticipate a particular future for
them. Vision is then seen as a motivational tool. The focus is on how
to make a good vision and how to implement them and how to overcome impediments
in implementing them (Bertodo, 1990; Wilson, 1992; El-Namaki, 1992; Nanus,
1992). Their analysis highlighted only the rational and logical side and
overlooks the intuitive side; in a sense they emphasised the aspect of
communication of vision and ignored the substance of vision.
However in recent time substantive issues have taken the centre-stage.
As old strategic planning fell in disrepute due to increasing technological
complexity and shifting markets required a new approach which adopted
a visionary posture in which the role of intuition is acknowledged. Growing
importance of intuition is also on account of uncertainty and the link
of intuition with futurist dimension is now well accepted. There was reference
to the benefit of holistic approach to problem solving as vision was recognised
as a narrative. For example the vision of global markets led to strategic
organization and production changes at Hoechst (Kennedy, 1990).
Similarly there were several such instances when corporate culture changes
were more in response to environmental changes. The shift in public value
was oriented to ‘self-fulfilment’, ‘fairness’, ‘cultural identity’ and
‘environmental regard’ and increasingly values of affluence and luxury
of the top-management was questioned as values were revealed arising out
of shock that led to a new set of values to moderate the future relationship
of the organization and its environment. Moving to the next stage of evolution
the revelations were linked to business objectives and a programme of
strategic change were initiated and it strove to create a sense of identification
with the company’s goals and it tried to ensure that those goals were
compatible with their own ethics (Kennedy, 1993:19). A programme of organizational
restructuring aimed to inculcate attitudinal change in employee especially
the younger ones and it sought to create a participatory sense in actively
shaping them. Intense competition and rapid obsolescence necessitate that
a war like strategy be adopted. The ethical appeal is needed so that members
relate to the organization in the way that the citizen by implication
commits to the state in time of war.
The public expects that the CEO has a vision as to where the company is
headed. Aspirational goal for the company as opposed to where one finally
lands up calls for new thinking and new processes (Harvey-Jones, 1988:36).
Why a war metaphor is suitable can be gauged from the fact that it provides
a discourse to structure the relationship of the business organization
to the environment and provide a vision intended to appeal to , and shape,
the organization’s member’s response. There is a possibility that there
are multiple visions about what one sees and seniors may view tomorrows
as not significantly different in their predictions. Since long-term view
is redundant and there is a need to limit the futurist aspect of vision.
Hence an in-born instinct guides need and that raises the question whether
a five year goal can be really chased and the importance as well as the
need for desirable and flexible corporate vision.
It is also seen that personal background of the leader becomes a solid
base for the formative experiences behind their managerial style and vision.
Leaders who had more of a rebellious streak in them during formative phase
had been seen to break away from conservative style of functioning and
presented a radically different vision convincingly to the employees and
the union. Their growing disillusionment with the dysfunctional nature
of authoritarian style leads them to the insight on their democratic and
anti-bureaucratic management style. This new approach led to momentous
change and unleashed energetic commitment which led to unparalleled success
when vision is fortified with ethical dimension and foreshadowed by intuition.
These elements are linked together to constitute a form of narrative which
is marked by internal consistency, completeness, and dramatic import.
One must analyse the individual element to comprehend how its appeal and
power is evoked along with its limitations. A vision attempts to locate
the organization in temporal term because it renders the appeal relevant.
Although future portends major discontinuities, yet the leader must have
a dim view and inspite of it, future springs surprises and catches us
unprepared. Even scenario planning throws dilemma and compels that trade-offs
be made; risks be balanced and an array of internal and external factors
be incorporated.
Notwithstanding the obstacles the visionary has to produce a rationale
for changing the attitudes in the organization as well as those in the
external environment to the organization. The application of the strategy
can be seen as a narrative which defines the changing relation favourably
with the intention to influence various stakeholders and by implication
defining and manipulating the environment in its favour. Corporate visionaries
establish the basic values in the discourse to convince and persuade the
participants in the organizational environment to view the organization
in a certain way and set agenda to enable participants to select and react
to what is significant in the environment. Visions derive authority from
the way in which the insight of a particular individual.
Key insight and future direction derive from intuition and hence the ‘authority’
of the individual for which experience is only corroborating evidence.
When the imperative to follow the vision becomes important the issue of
ethical dimension becomes critical. In order to command respect of even
the dissidents it must be backed by ethics and moral imperative. A vision
is the glimpse of the Promised Land and it has to be idealistic and it
can do so only when it clearly and demonstrably depicts a future that
is better for people and society. The ethical dimension of vision is an
appeal to values which go beyond self-interest and it includes an appeal
to larger social good and can mobilise others like stakeholders and entities
like government, employees, and the community. Visions are created by
authentic individuals who restructure relationship with environment and
their sole power is derived from ethical dimension which give direction,
purpose and credibility enabling the organization to own it. The vision
is a dream of the visionary but it is a dream that is people centred,
not very precise but inspiring and co-owned.
Building vision is a shared, on-going activity and a lot of leadership
activity encompasses not only vision but also purpose and core values
as well. Visions take time to germinate and are time consuming as well
as less glamorous. Anyone who wants to practice shared vision building
must operate out of his comfort zone and this requires that we learn to
manage the creative tension. It is no longer an idea but a living force
in the sense that it is both compelling and inspiring and creates an identity
of commonalty which permeates the whole organization and gives coherence
to diverse activities by connecting and binding people together by common
aspiration. It generates infectious enthusiasm and excitement. Intrinsic
vision is ennobling and uplifting which converts work into larger purpose
embedded in system, style, and climate of the organization. Vision in
this sense act as gravitational force pulling and pushing people to some
uplifting goals and in the very act it challenges the routine activity
and undermines the organizational inertia.
GLOBALIZATION and Crisis
Globalization has also impacted the structure, strategy,
form and function, size, scale and scope of corporations. It has redefined
their identity and role as well as their perception. Some kind of organizational
convergence can be noticed as they have increasingly incorporated code
of ethics to reflect their response to external environment. Apart from
respecting the first generation ethics which focussed more on legal context
of corporate behaviour and the second generation ethics that locate responsibility
to groups directly associated with the corporation they have begun to
embrace the third generation ethics which is more grounded in responsibilities
to the larger interconnected environment. This is self-evident as more
than three quarters of organizations have adopted the third generation
ethics. New dynamics of interconnectedness is visible as there are signs
of environmental crises threatening the globe, exposes of work-place misdeeds
having global ramifications and this has triggered new forms of organizing,
novel types of organizational constraints and opportunities and growing
public awareness globally about corporate social responsibility.
Irrespective of structure, and location virtually every organization is
forced to accommodate complexities of operating within a multicultural
communicative, legal, moral, and social context where boundaries are becoming
fuzzy and blurred. Corporate Codes of Ethics are formal public statement
of corporate principles and rules of conduct that govern interorganizational
and intra-organizational practices and guides their present and future
behaviour underlining ethical values that is upheld by the employees to
one another and to organizational stakeholders(Kaptein and Schwartz,2008).
Ethical issues are pre-dominant in global matters.
CORPORATE CODE OF ETHICS - an evolutionary
perspective
Corporate Code of Ethics is now more common and widespread(Carasco
and Singh,2003; O’ Dwyer and Madden,2006) not only as the imperative to
comply with law but it also guides the employees in the cross-culture
contact that are compelled by the logic of globalization as it facilitates
practice and interpretation. With a plethora of national and international
laws, and emergence of newer nations due to fission tendency and the growing
role of non-governmental organizations a broad stream of initiatives to
encourage development and compliance with ethical codes have been instituted.
Public activism and social justice movements are forcing monitoring and
evaluation of corporate activities. Both regionally and across industry
and sectors the unmistakable growth in ethical consciousness is visible.
Mass-media scrutiny also has led to stringent monitoring of corporate
activities. Most corporations have veered to the idea that Codes of Ethics
can be used as marketing instruments of legitimation and capable of winning
employee commitment to their corporate vision. Popular public campaigns
have been targeted at corporations operating within apparel and extraction
industry regarding global impact of their action on environment and health.
Corporate ethical responsibility spans issues related to welfare, health
and safety of employees and its impact on societies. Apart from rights
granted to the individual and preventing workers exploitation earned over
time and referred as first and second generation of Ethics, the third
generation embodies social and material as well as reflexivity associated
with globalization and ethical behaviour is firmly planted in the larger
interconnectedness of the environment within which organizations operate
and function. The “Gaia hypothesis” acknowledges the non-duality of existence
and how life in all its varied form and function is interconnected and
a single unity. Globalization is reflective of this underlying unity.
To this effect Code of Ethics is a concern that consistently reflects
the dynamics of globalization. However there are differences in the degree
to which Codes of Ethics reflect the interconnected dynamics of globalization.
In this sense western European corporations are leaders in adopting third
generation thinking into their Codes of Ethics. Third generation thinking
are ethical guidelines that transcend profit motive and enhancement of
stockholder positions and the protection of employees and include greater
consideration of external global stakeholders. Corporate Codes of Ethics
of largest organizations have begun to converge and becoming commonplace
which institutionalises standards and values and are embodied in formal
communication guidelines.
In the twentieth century the world has had to learn that nations cannot
prosper without institutions like law and order, stable governance and
property rights. More than two thousand years ago Aristotle had objected
to Plato’s ideal of common ownership of property as he had argued that
it is the middle ground of liberal’ self-interest’ which drives ordinary
human beings. But this self-interest must be regulated as illustrated
by Prisoner’s dilemma for we observe that if individuals only pursue self-interest
they undermine collective good and harm themselves.
Corporate Code of Ethics seeks to design such institutions that balances
selfish and unselfish motivations and impels them to act responsibly because
of enlightened public scrutiny and an executive that has legitimate and
superior authority to maintain order and punish those who breach the moral
rules. Being embedded in a global network of alone does not provide sufficient
impetus for changes in values, communicative expectation, or standards
of action as this spillover to organizational behaviours in other sectors
so that experience and effectiveness of cooperative frameworks in one
technical sphere are reproduced in other spheres. In fact these forces
are tempered by local environment and have given rise to the phenomena
of glocalization. An important role therefore befalls on the authority
figure as the meaning has to be created for others and CSR is a conceptual
architecture for collective choice (Weber 1948).
Argandona (2003) proposed a model for fostering values in organizations.
His process was based on need identification, communication, institutionalization,
commitment, aligning values and practices, redesigning policies and review
of the process. One needs to articulate an integrated system of ideas,
values, beliefs, and attitudes that posits enlightened self-interest,
and also upholds the higher social values or common good. Often these
ideas are organized into clusters that take into cognitive, emotional,
and moral needs that constitute organizational ideology. In ethical organizations
it is found that these cluster network and produce high resonance of core
organizational values and it is equally reflected in their performance
and outcome (Jin, 1991, 1997). Organizational values affected ethical
attitudes of managers (Ferrell and Skinner, 1998; Howard, 1990; Posner
and Scmidt, 1984, 1992; Vitell and Davis, 1990; Vitell and Festervand,
1987).
All organic organizations have value cluster characterised like openness,collaborativeness,creativeness,
and relationship-oriented; whereas in a mechanistic organization managers
perceive it as closed for political control, cautious, task-oriented,
rigidly structured, hierarchical and processes that are biased in favour
of pressure, power and centralization. Researches results (Jin and Drozdenko,
2003, 2005) show unambiguously that managers of organic organizations
were more ethically scrupulous than managers of mechanistic organizations.
It can be surmised that organic core values are reinforced and strengthened
by ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility and wherever this interaction
is strengthened the organizations driven by them outperform, although
the dynamics could be more complex.
MAHABHARATA and INDIAN ETHICS
Compassion is central to Dharma as our consciousness acknowledges
the other. The story of seer Jajali depicts how one is transformed from
self-absorbed entity to someone who cares for others. Yudhishthira’s existential
pain protests living in a world, where goodness is not repaid with goodness
and where capricious death reigns.
Mahabharata can be interpreted variously; a cosmic allegory of the eternal
struggle between good and evil; at another level it is a royal story of
war and thirdly it is crisis of conscience. Are we condemned or can we
redesign our institutions to humanise existence? Does MAHABHARATA’s message
have some relevance particularly for the management as far as ethics and
responsibility is concerned?
Our vanity spawns emotions of envy, hypocrisy, and status anxiety. The
two virtues of actively helping and passively avoiding harm can neutralise
them. Similarly ethical standards are incoherent in Mahabharata as all
characters experience different pulls and pressures. For management of
organization, Mahabharata is an excellent text to study as we have rich
elucidation of ethics and spirituality in shaping attitude related to
work and organization, work reward and job involvement; it can be a powerful
resource for problem solving and a metaphor to assist change. It can enhance
creativity and emotional intelligence. Organizational culture benefits
by such stories that create sense of identity and commitment to something
larger than one’s self-interest. But there is no discussion on how such
institutionalization can be done. And the mechanism of delivery is left
to imagination.
FUTURE DIRECTION:
In considering these multiple aspects of Ethics, Organizational
Culture and Communication processes under the historical context of globalization
we have seem how the concepts have evolved and the implementing mechanism
have been refined and fine –tuned to address the emerging concerns. The
existing literature on ethics, culture and communication are diverse but
consistent. However there are some future directions for research. These
research objectives could be:
RO1.What could be the implication of embeddedness for organizational
performance?
RO2.Does nature of politics impact insecurity and breed unethical behaviour?
RO3.Can the architecture of vision overarch differences and variation
in ethical connotation and allow space for the variety of norms and values
to create core values that can sustain and nurture social responsibility?
RO4.Can organizations create moral point of view and action that is practiced
and believed because it protects us against tragic vulnerabilities?
CONCLUSION:
As per Indian concept of DHARMA everything keeps evolving
and is continually contested. Today the meaning of Ethics is to create
and sustain social harmony, the cultivation of ethical self and socially
responsible organizations. In this sense, dharma has universal appeal
and deals with inner traits; Swami Vivekanand spoke about it as ‘dharma
of humanity’ regarding it as an ethical code applicable to the whole of
man-kind. It is not surprising to note that the word ‘DHARMA’ has evolved
and enriched from the time of Rig Veda through a process of contestation
and adaptation.
I have surveyed the western and Asian perspectives on the ideas of corporate
ethics, culture, organizational communication, and social responsibility
in the twentieth century and how the concepts have evolved within the
context of globalization. Ideas like CSR and ethics are not ritualised
actions that connect stimuli and response alone but that the encounter
is ongoing productive engagement. The ability to adopt a reinterpretative
framework like the idea of Dharma gives flexibility to organizational
actors to select aspects of organization to improve performance. When
we resort to the vision we actually shape expectations and are also influenced
by expectations of other stakeholders. It is a mindful enactment to deliberately
adapt structure, strategy and form to respond to societal concerns on
part of powerful actors who exercise intuition and logic to adjust to
external environment.
REFERENCE
1. Bernard James,” Narrative and Organizational control:
corporate visionaries, ethics and power” The International journal of
human resource management 5:4 December 1994
2. Kevin Morrell and Michael Anderson, “Dialogue and scrutiny in organizational
ethics” Business Ethics; A European Review volume 15 Number 2 April 2006
3. Carl Rhodes, Alison Pullen, and Stewart R.Clegg, ‘If I Should Fall
From Grace...: Stories of Change and Organizational Ethics, Journal of
Business Ethics (2010) 91:535-551
4. Dawn S. Carlson, Pamela L. Perrewe, ‘Institutionalization of Organizational
Ethics Through Transformational Leadership’, Journal of Business Ethics
14: 829-838, 1995
5. Charles Garofalo ‘Toward a global ethic: Perspective on values, training
and moral agency, ‘The International Journal of Public Sector Management;
2003; 16, 7;
6. K.T.Connor ‘Assessing organizational ethics: measuring the gaps’ PAGE
148 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 3 2006, pp. 148-155,
Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 DOI
7. Muel Kaptein and Johan Wempe ‘Twelve Gordian Knots When Developing
an Organizational Code of Ethics’ Journal of Business Ethics 17: 853-869,
1998
8. Shannon A. Bowen ‘Organizational Factors Encouraging Ethical Decision
Making: An Exploration into the case of an Exemplar’, Journal of Business
Ethics 52: 311-324, 2004
9. Cam Caldwell ‘A ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity: A Positive Approach
for Business Schools’ Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 92:1-13
10. Rommel Salvador and Robert G.Folger,’ Business Ethics and the Brain’
Business Ethics Quarterly 19:1(January 2009)
11. Harrison McCraw, Kathy s. Moffeit and John R. O’Malley Jr. ‘An Analysis
of the Ethical Codes OF Corporations and Business Schools’ Journal of
Business Ethics (2009) 87: 1-13
12. J.J.Graafland ‘Do Markets Crowd Out Virtues? An Aristotelian Framework’
Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 91:1-19
13. Cynthia Stohl, Michael Stohl and Lucy Popova ‘A New Generation of
Corporate Codes of Ethics’ Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 90:607-622
14. K.Gregory Jin, Ronald G. Drozdenko, ‘Relationships among Perceived
Organizational Core Values, Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, and
Organizational Performance Outcomes: An Empirical Study of Information
Technology Professionals ‘Journal of Business Ethics (2010)
15. Evan H.Offstein and Ronald L.Dufresne ‘Building Strong Ethics and
Promoting Positive Character Development: The Influence of HRM at the
United States Military Academy at West Point’ Human Resource Management,
Spring 2007, Vol.46, No.1, Pp.95-114
DOWNLOAD
FREE TERM PAPER »
» »
Besplatni
Seminarski Radovi
FREE TERM PAPERS
|
|