The impact of ethics on the issues of organizational congruence

Thèmes abordés

Business ethics

Résumé du document

In the field of ethics, one is faced with the root development of personal ethics, organizational or systems ethics and impacts on the decision making process. This is often a critical issue for managers while responding to directives regarding work, and can impact the ability of managers to perform with congruence. The potential challenge of ethics, as a critical issue of exploration, focuses on understanding a balance of personal ethics and organizational/systemic ethics on the choices made by organizations and its leaders. It is an adjunct issue to this research, as the field of ethics driven by theological inquiry, often sets the boundaries for individual and organizational action as an outside factor of development; not an internal perspective that is conscious in the minds of leaders within organizations.

The history of ethics reveals a widely shared conviction that ethics can and should be rooted in what has been termed the "moral point of view." For many, the moral point of view is understood in religious terms, a perspective that reflects God's will for humanity. For others, it is understood in secular terms, and is not dependent for its authority on religious faith. Setting aside differences about its ultimate source, there is significant consensus regarding the general character of ethics. The moral point of view is a mental and emotional standpoint from which all persons are seen as having a special dignity or worth. The Golden Rule gets its force; from words such as "ought, duty, and virtue" - each derive meaning from the tenets embedded in the terms; all from the consciousness of responsibility and accountability. It is the principle guide for action.

Two basic features of action are critical to one's understanding of how people and organizations make ethical decisions. Each and every action has an Aretaic Aspect, highlighting the expressive nature of our choices. When a person acts, he or she is revealing and reinforcing certain traits or habits of the heart which are called virtues (and/or vices). The same may be true of groups of persons in organizations. Sometimes the traits and habits are referred to as the culture, mindset, or value system of the organization. The key to the Aretaic aspect of action is its attention to actions as manifestations of an inner look, character, set of values or priorities.

Four classical virtues that have often been the focus of ethical analysis and reflection in the past are: (1) prudence, (2) justice, (3) temperance and (4) courage. Others include honesty, compassion, fidelity to promises, and dedication to community (the common good). Vices of individuals or groups may include greed, cruelty, indifference and cowardice.

Extraits

[...] Management and the Board of Directors are bound, legally and ethically, to a fiduciary role in relation to the shareholders of the enterprise or organization. However, they must also be attentive to other stakeholders. This kind of extended moral awareness, despite the ambitions of some of the great thinkers of the past, is no more reducible to a mechanical decision procedure than is balanced judgment in education, art, politics, or even sports. Ethics is often not a scientific proposition, nor need it be unscientific; it is not a science (which becomes difficult in government where ethics is perceived often as the scientific application of policies and rules). [...]

[...] Questions associated with virtue-based thinking include, How is one to understand the central virtues and their relative priority in a secular world that does not appear to agree on such matters? Are there timeless character traits? Can an emerging awareness change the virtuousness of an issues (such as sexual orientation or domestic violence or corporal punishment for children)? So where does this leave us in the exploration of ethics? This short treatise began with a statement of personal ethics and organizational/business ethics. Too often, individuals, groups, governments seek to blame another rather than accept accountability for PERSONAL actions in the face of organizational demands. [...]

[...] Through another set of lenses, the focus shifts to the transactional significance of what one does. If one's inquiry concentrates on an individual's or organization's habits or culture (content, genesis, need for maintenance or change), it is aretaic. If the focus is on the interests and rights of stakeholders of personal or organizational decisions, it is deontic. Figure 1 Two units of analysis and two aspects of action The figure above demonstrates the moral point of view in business between virtue-based thinking and stakeholder-based thinking and suggests that there is a significant difference between personal action and organizational action. [...]

[...] He beats them, yells at them and is in despair. He complains, but doesn't let off steam at the boss because he thinks the boss is a superior being and he is afraid.” Incongruent actions and thinking create a disharmony in the lives of people as evidenced by the Freire statement. Congruence and ethics are inevitably tied to one another, and thus, impact the success of personal and organizational choices. [...]

[...] This is why their generosity is false. To the oppressor, humanity is a thing and they possess it as an exclusive right, as inherited property.” “Over time, the oppressed gravitate to the behavior of the oppressor as an irresistible attraction, for being one of the haves is important. Self depreciation is another characteristic of the oppressed, which derives from their internalization of the opinion the oppressors hold of them. So often do they hear that they are good for nothing, that they cannot think, that they cannot write, that they know nothing, that they are unproductive, that they are lazy. [...]