Application of Ethics

Understanding, acceptance, and application of ethics are important to individuals and groups for several reasons. Ethics are our basic beliefs, and they come into play constantly. Many times we are using our personal Ethics and we are not even aware of it. Acceptance of ethics is important to individuals and groups because it allows for constructive criticism, and it helps avoid and resolve conflicts. In groups it is very important for ethics to be accepted because it will give a common ground of understanding and respect that a team or group needs to be successful. Accepting ethics of others is important to individuals and groups because it allows the individual and members of a group to gain confidence in themselves which leads to morale and productivity. Application of ethics is important on individual levels because a person who applies their ethics is true to themselves. Application of ethics also makes an individual who they are or who they are perceived to be. Application of ethics on a group level is also important because it allows people to act in a way that they are proud of. It also allows a group to be responsible for their actions. If a group shares ethical beliefs the application of them will also be a common ground. Application of ethics by individuals and groups shows integrity and confidence. This can lead to pride in work, and a group mentality. These effects are important in any group situation, and the effective application of ethics will lead to success. When we work in any organization we are bound to accept the moral ethos of that organization. Relying on our own moral principles only erodes the trust and understanding that is necessary for any cooperative work to function successfully. I will discuss and evaluate these claims. In any position we hold within a company, it is important to make sure that our conduct in that company facilitates the smooth functioning of that workplace. However, if the moral ethos of the organization we work for conflicts heavily with our own, or with a common view of morality, then should we have to obey the rules and regulations of that company, or is there some way we can call the ineptitude of their moral ethos into question without risk to our position in the company? In this essay I shall discuss the problems that can arise with conflicts of organizational and individual moral values by looking at specific role moralities, the role of ethics in a company, whether the boss is really the right person to make ethical decisions and I will decide whether the ffective running of a company entails worker conformity to a company moral ethos or whether individuals should be allowed to reason ethically for themselves in the workplace. When faced with a conflict involving organizational and personal moral codes, the role we fulfill and the requirements that that role entails are important factors in resolving the conflict. Sometimes a pa rticular job will hold with it several responsibilities to be upheld which may not mesh with our own individual ethical standards and values. For instance, a lawyer may find out that their client is guilty, but cannot divulge this information to another because of the obligation of confidentiality that their job entails. In the case where keeping the confidences of another directly and negatively effects somebody else, the personal moral ethos of the lawyer may encourage her to believe that by informing someone of this private information she is doing the right thing. The moral ethos of her profession would hold that to uphold the confidentiality of the lawyer/client relationship would take precedent over doing what would commonly be seen as the ethically right thing to do. This distinction between role morality and common morality is often debated, with many believing that a professional role should provide exceptions to certain areas that are taken to be ethically black and white. Certain roles can only be carried out if a certain amount of ethical leeway is granted for their execution. Although it is widely recognized that some professions prioritize certain values above others and that this prioritization may not be consistent with a common morality view, many argue that even though specialized roles may require a certain amount of confidentiality, breaching some of the most fundamentally universal moral principles should never be condoned, even in such role related circumstances. One of the grounding features of a common view of morality is that it is seen to be universal. The role of ethics in the company is generally kept to a bare minimum, with a code of company conduct providing the skeletal structure for ethical workplace behavior. To this effect, the rules of a company are generally viewed in a more practical light as opposed to being viewed as a form of moral compass. Morality is often viewed as a highly subjective, often religiously defined way of regulating behavior and lacks the political correctness of an objective bureaucratic set of rules and regulations. Indeed displays of moral behavior can even be deemed as threatening in the workplace. They can be threatening to our position in the company if they do not gel with company policies, they can be threatening to our relationships with our co-workers, and they can make others feel uncomfortable about the way they conduct themselves in the workplace. In view of this, ethical concerns are rarely raised and an attitude which adopts company policy and coerces those who don't agree to keep their mouths shut is usually what is seen around the workplace. Raising an issue of ethics in the workplace that conflicts with company policy can lead to a breakdown of the delicate relationships which keep a company functioning. . Business decisions cannot be made based on personal values. This is why it is necessary for every business, whether large or small, to have a code of ethics in which employees can follow to ensure the success of the business. Most importantly, the leaders of a corporation Significantly affect the way the business is being conducted, and the need for strong values leads the way for employees to follow, and contributes to the success of a business (Storm, 2007). Every corporation has their own rules of conduct, or code of ethics, which refers to policy statements that define ethical standards for their conduct. Corporate codes of conduct typically do not have any authorized definition and there is great variation in the way the statements are drafted. The authors of a code are usually the founder, board of directors, CEO, top management, legal departments, and consultants. Also involved in the process, are sometimes employee representatives, or randomly selected employees When business people speak about â€Å"business ethics† they usually mean one of three things: (1) avoid breaking the criminal law in one's work-related activity; (2) avoid action that may result in civil law suits against the company; and (3) avoid actions that are bad for the company image. Businesses are especially concerned with these three things since they involve loss of money and company reputation. In theory, a business could address these three concerns by assigning corporate attorneys and public relations experts to escort employees on their daily activities. Anytime an employee might stray from the straight and narrow path of acceptable conduct, the experts would guide him back. Obviously this solution would be a financial disaster if carried out in practice since it would cost a business more in attorney and public relations fees than they would save from proper employee conduct. Perhaps reluctantly, businesses turn to philosophers to instruct employees on becoming â€Å"moral. For over 2,000 years philosophers have systematically addressed the issue of right and wrong conduct. Presumably, then, philosophers can teach employees a basic understanding of morality will keep them out of trouble. But does this position give them clear moral authority? Robert Jackall in his Drawing Lines (1988, p. 111) article from Moral Mazes believes that â€Å"†¦ people in high places i n big companies at some stage lose sight of the objectives of their companies and begin to focus on their positions†. Imagine if a manager of a grocery store had failed to evacuate his store when a fire broke out in a nearby shop. There was not a high risk of the fire spreading to the grocery store, but there was smoke coming into the store and there had been an evacuation call for the whole complex. The manager of this grocery store gave the explanation that the fire was not a great risk and it would have been unwise to cause unnecessary panic. The actual reason he did not evacuate the store was because he knew that he would not make sales targets for that day if the store had to be closed for a period of time. He may have done the right thing for his profit margins at the end of the year, but he certainly did not do the right thing ethically. In this scenario, the other employees of the store, seeing the inaction of their boss, would either have to obey his wishes and keep working and serving the customers, or they would do what they feel is the right thing and get the occupants of the store out of harm's way. It is difficult to make a decision about ethical conduct which goes against our boss, especially if this decision turns out to be the wrong one. For this reason, most people obey not necessarily the moral ethos of their company or their own personal moral ethos, but they will follow blindly what their boss tells them to do. Robert Jackall continues in Drawing lines (1988, p. 111) that â€Å"Bureaucracy transforms all moral issues into immediately practical concerns. A moral judgment based on a professional ethic makes little sense in a world where the etiquette of authority relationships and the necessity for protecting and covering for one's boss, one's network, and oneself supersede all other considerations and where accountability is the norm. This leads us back to whether conformity to an organizational moral ethos actually does create a smoother functioning and more productive workplace. Of course there needs to be a certain level of conformity in the workplace in order for there to be cooperation between employees and to hence provide a smoothly functioning work environment, but does this necessarily entail a strict fo llowing of a company's rules and regulations. On this point, even many company heads say that a company's moral ethos does not need to be followed exactly as it is written, but that compromise and flexibility are often the best way to approach work life. Of course this does not mean that company heads think it is fine for employees to freely express their own moral judgment, because this often leads to an unpredictable workplace and with this things may start to get out of hand. To keep the workplace running smoothly we often have to leave our personal ethical concerns to rest, unless of course the issue is of a very important nature. It is all about weighing up what is most important in the situation, and whether what is happening is harming anyone. If it is harming someone, then the issue should be raised and we should employ some of our own ethical standards in convincing others of the moral importance of the case. But if the issue is a minor one, it is best from both a company perspective and for our own job security that we do, in that instance, keep our mouth shut. When employees act unethically and/or without integrity, customers lose trust and confidence in organizational products and services. When leaders act unethically and/or without integrity, employees lose trust and confidence in organizational processes, systems and products. Both directly impact the bottom line and the return on investment. Organizations are built on the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Working together creates results and outcomes for the whole that outweigh the results and outcomes of everyone working for them. The secret to success is not the principle but the way synergy is created. Synergy is defined as a dynamic state in which combined action is favored over the sum of individual component actions. Synergy is an emergent behavior that arises out a multitude of simple actions based in ethics and integrity. Everyone in an organization is expected to do the right thing at the right time in order to create synergy. Doing the right thing at the right time creates positive safety, quality, and productivity and cost results. This is ethics-the determination of right and wrong in organizations. Ethics is learned through trial and error. When behaviors are wrong, they are corrected. When behaviors are right, they are reinforced. These lessons learned and best practices are the moral code that defines the synergistic behaviors required for organizational performance. Problems occur when individuals seek to maximize their personal ends through behaviors that violate the ethics of the organization and its moral code. If one gets more, others get less. For example, employees who slow down during the week to ensure overtime pay reduce the return on investment for others. To prevent violations of the moral code, leaders and managers in organizations are entrusted with a fiduciary responsibility (something that is held or founded in trust and confidence) to reinforce and enforce the requisite synergistic behaviors required for organizational sustainability. Corruption occurs when there is an abuse of entrusted poor for personal gain whether it is financial or political. Corruption sub-optimizes the performance and jeopardizes the sustainability of the whole. Corruption often deceivingly masks itself as business reality. In order to ensure business targets are achieved and performance bonuses are distributed, an accepted practice called â€Å"does what it takes to get the job done† rears its ugly head. This may mean cutting corners, applying Band-Aid solutions, suppressing , ignoring or misrepresenting information in order that the problems or defects are knowingly or unknowingly passed on to another part of the process. Since no one wants a product or service with built in defects, the second part of this practice is â€Å"don’t get caught. † This is corruption and it destroys synergy and undermines organizational principles. Corruption spreads. Employees who do what it takes and don’t get caught are rewarded. This creates a culture of knowing where employees know that doing the wrong thing at the right time will be rewarded. In time, many embrace corruption simply because everyone is doing it. Corruption ignores the fact that unethical actions involved in doing the wrong things create a chain of consequences that far outweighs the cost of doing the right thing. For example, organizations that ship product with quality defects to meet production targets lose in product returns and warranty repairs that reduce profitability. It is a short term gain for a few, and a long term pain for the many. Government, through its regulatory agencies, intervenes to control corruption in financial, safety, human rights, and environmental areas. Unfortunately, regulators cannot legislate compliance to the law. They can only enforce consequences to violations. This is where the â€Å"don’t get caught† behavior invokes ingenuity that defies the legal system. The principle of protecting the whole and the right way to do things then falls to the integrity of the participating individuals. The commitment to comply is an integrity based decision. Integrity is defined as wholeness, unfolding and objectivity. If the ethical foundation and the moral code are sound, then individuals have trust and confidence in the organization. Wholeness is completed by doing the right thing. The unfolding is defined by doing the next right things and objectivity is enhanced by doing things the right way. Performance and sustainability are the outcome of individual commitment to compliance and collective synergies arising out of an ethical moral code. If the ethical foundation and moral code is corrupt-benefiting the few at the expense of the many, then individuals lack trust and confidence in the organization and its products. Doing the wrong thing fragments the whole. Not doing the next right thing creates chaos and objectivity is compromised when people don’t do things correctly. Performance is at risk in the short term and long term sustainability is undermined. Ethics and integrity are the cornerstones of performance and sustainability. As seen in the Enron failure, corporations consistently hold more and more impact on the shape and structure of the world as we see it. They are the large and small organizations that society places their trust in to process the economy. Whether it be a large conglomerate such as Enron, or a one person â€Å"mom and pop† shop, society places their trust in these companies and deserves to have this trust upheld. A company's culture is what determines how the company is operated. A company born of poor ethics in the culture is ultimately at risk for unscrupulous acts. The acts of Enron our probably structure from only a small percentage of its employees, however, due to the company's unethical culture, procedures and policies our allowed that did not facilitate personal ethical behaviors. I believe it is this lack of personal ethics that served as the catalyst to the demise of Enron as a company and the damage that they leave behind. Who is responsible for a company's ethical culture? I believe the leaders of the organization are responsible for these ethics through their own personal ethics. One might argue that personal ethics do not have a role, provided they are kept separate from the business world. I believe it is impossible to maintain a separation between personal and business ethics. They inevitably intermingle. The issue is then, how to foster a sense of accountability that transcends the workday. I believe one method of creating a strong sense of personal ethics in all employees, and hence a corporate ethical culture, is through social responsibility. This is done by empowering employees to create and be responsible for their own actions and environment. When employees see a correlation between their actions and direct consequences, they develop pride associated with a job well done and a sense of accountability and responsibility to their jobs. An example of a company that, through its leadership has a great sense of company ethics and has created a culture of social responsibility is Enterprise, an internationally known rental car company. The company began its operation when its founder, Jack Taylor, worked for a car salesman and was tired of the lies and gimmicks that our used by the competing car companies. With his employer, Taylor invested in a new kind of car company whose culture consisted of no tricks or hidden agendas and offered all of the facts up-front to its customers. Taylor's personal sense of ethics determined the standards of his business model. And because his personal ethics centered on straightforward dealings with customers, his customers responded positively. Relieved to find someone in the automotive business who would deal with them honestly, customers helped Enterprise become an industry leader. Its status continues to this day: it has never laid off any of its employees and is considered one of the most financially sound rental car companies by Standard & Poor's. Enterprise's success is also a testament to the influence of social ethics. Their system of promoting new employees fosters a sense of social responsibility. Its primary new employee candidates are new college graduates, who are immediately placed in a junior management program. Upon their success as a branch manager, they are offered their own store location to run. All management from junior manager on up to the board of directors are then rewarded primarily on a commissions basis based on their own individual performance and those of their subordinates. Due to the empowerment of its employees for their own success or failure and the establishment of a reward system, Enterprise has reached success rates that are otherwise non-existent in its industry. Enterprise also has one of the lowest attrition rates in its industry and in many industries around, simply because its employees want to work there. It is evident that the success of Enterprise is largely due to the company's sense of social responsibility and the company's cultural ethics, which stem from the personal ethics of its leadership