Ethics and Governance Assignment 1
Christensen, SL. and Kohls J, 2003, ‘Ethical Decision Making in Times of Organizational Crisis A Framework for Analysis, Business & Society’, Vol. 42 No. 3, 328-358.
|Critical Analysis Column (student’s own analysis)||Direct Illustrative Quotations (Not included towards word count)|
|The reading focuses on addressing ethical and unethical decision making under crisis. Therefore, it is compulsory to acknowledge the theory that authors implement to explore further in the topic. Moreover, the theory is the essential element as it is the primary dimension that the reading is based on to conduct decision making whether it is ethical or unethical.
The chosen paragraph is selected because it contains an explanation of the leading theory used in the reading.
The paragraph emphasized defining the meaning of what is an ethical or unethical decision. In order to strengthen arguments, authors have applied ethics knowledge. In this case, non
consequentialist is a proper ethics perspective. Based on the meaning of ethical decisions proposed in the reading, the authors have implemented a justice ethics approach. The reading claims that ethical decision is what the decision-maker has afforded to all stakeholders by intrinsic value. Justice
The focus of this article, threats to ethical decision making in crisis situations, requires a definition of an ethical decision (as opposed to an unethical decision). An ethical decision is defined as a decision in which all stakeholders have been accorded intrinsic value by the decision maker. This is a process definition of ethics. There are some advantages to using this definition: (a) When it is extremely difficult to get consensus on specific outcomes required by ethics (e.g., level of pay, benefits, and safety for employees), it is easier to get consensus on process (e.g., what should be considered in determining level of pay and other factors, and how that consideration should take place). There will be controversy here as well, but it is more manageable. (In Jones’s  discussion of a parallel problem with identifying corporate social responsibility, he observed that “it is virtually impossible to define social responsibility in terms of specific decisions” [p. 65] and asserted that
|ethics theory is defined as an action taken by a higher level of decision-maker with authority over the legal case. In addition, the justice ethics is separated into three principal types which are distributed justice, retributive justice, procedural justice. Firstly, distributive justice applies because decision-makers share wages and benefits equitably among all employees in the organization. Secondly, retributive justice is implemented because the decision maker will directly monitor and punish through processes. Thirdly, procedural justice is also used because decisions will not base on ethical principles and codes. However, a decision will lay on processes to create fairness to allot benefits and burdens.
There are several advantages to implementing justice ethics: protecting the voiceless and forcing decision makers to consider how fair benefits and costs should be appropriately distributed. A truly ethical decision is considered in the interest of all parties affected by it (Schaefer 1984). Moreover, there is another benefit of using the non consequentialist approach over the consequentialist approach because it is easier to agree on processes by duties or rights than specific outcomes stated in
|corporate behaviour should be judged not by actual decisions made, but by the process that led to those decisions.) (b) Ethics principles, codes, and training cannot anticipate most, and certainly cannot anticipate all, ethical questions. They can, however, provide processes for ethical decision making. (c) It is easier to monitor and sanction processes than it is to evaluate the ethics of the resulting decisions. A focus on process makes the institutionalization of a commitment to ethics more promising than an attempt to list the decisions that should be made. We believe that this process definition of ethical decision making is practical and defensible. Furthermore, this definition of an ethical decision, a decision which all stakeholders have been accorded intrinsic value by the decision maker, although not often used in the literature, is consistent with some. For example, in their discussion of “Kantian Capitalism,” Evanand Freeman (1988) argued that stakeholders have the right to participate indecisions that affect them and the right to not be used merely as means to the organization’s ends (p. 103). This right belongs by nature to each stakeholder, so it is intrinsic. Bowie (1998) used Kant and Rawls to suggest four requirements for rule making in a moral firm: 332 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / September|
|the selected paragraph. Besides, there exist some disadvantages to applying justice ethics. For instance, it can be challenging to quantify benefits and costs as the authors also argue that this would also be controversial. According to Hosmer 1987, a conflict between individuals and organizational interests is an issue of organizational ethics. Furthermore, sometimes in order to have a fairer sharing, the rights of some may have to be sacrificed as the authors stated in the selected paragraph that their definition does not require all stakeholders to be satisfied.
Therefore, it is not enough to base on the non-consequentialist approach to judge ethical or unethical decision making. Wide-angle leads to greater legitimacy and ethicality (Kernisky 1997). Normative theories, especially consequentialist approaches, will be applied for further study of this ethic. Both utilitarianism and justice ethics are focused on costs and interest. However, because justice ethics concentrate on distributing fairly, it still may lead to harmful consequences. Hence, decision makers need to consider the outcome to make a decision.
|2003 1) . . . consider the interests of all the affected stakeholders in any decision made; 2) . . . get input from all the affected stakeholders; 3) the interests of one stakeholder [should not always] take priority; and 4)… establish procedures to insure that relations among the stakeholders are governed by rules of justice. (p. 47; also see Wicks, 1998) Kernisky (1997) found, with regard to corporate messages, that those that incorporate the widest range of perspectives (stakeholders) are rated higher illegitimacy and ethicality (p. 851). Schaefer (1984) argued that to be truly ethical, a business decision must take into account the interests of all parties who might be affected by the decision. Bowen and Power (1993) defined a moral manager as one willing to engage in fair and open dialogue with all interested stakeholders, toward a goal of genuine consensus. Bowen and Power (1993) suggested that when the situation does not allow an actual dialogue to take place, the moral manager will engage in an imaginary dialogue to ensure that all perspectives are considered. Our definition does not require that each stakeholder claim be satisfied, only (minimally) that the stakeholder is given explicit consideration and that the decision to not satisfy the stakeholder|
|claim can be justified by the decision maker.
(Christensen, SL. and Kohls J 2003, page 332, para 1 “Ethical Decision”)
|Find other scholarly readings that support your definitions, e.g. that support your above findings.||Husted, B.W 1993, ‘Reliability and the design of ethical organizations: A rational systems approach’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 761-
Kernisky, D. A 1997, ‘Proactive crisis management and ethical discourse: Dow Chemical’s issues management bulletins’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 16, pp. 843-853.
Schaefer, T. E 1984, ‘Professionalism: Foundation for business ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 3, pp. 269-277.
Hiekkataipale, M. and Lämsä, A.-M. (2017), ‘(A)moral agents in organisations? The significance of ethical organisational culture for middle managers’ exercise of moral agency in ethical problems’, Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 155, No. 1, 147–161
|Critical Analysis Column (student’s own analysis)||Direct Illustrative Quotations (Not included towards word count)|
|The reading aims to examine further the importance of different dimensions of ethical organisational culture for the exercise of self-determination by middle managers in the context of ethical issues in the workplace. In order to explore the topic, authors have implemented ethics perspectives. Hence, two selected paragraphs are critical because it points out two main ethics perspectives used in the reading.
Two paragraphs are selected because they include two theories that are significant dimensions to evolve in the reading. The authors apply both moral agency, and corporate ethical virtues approach to explore the topic.
The first ethics perspective is the moral agency approach which is considered as Kantians ethics. Kantian acts as duty are good will, and good will is unconditionally good (Dimmock & Andrew 2017). There are two main versions of this duty which are duty to act and duty to treat. To demonstrate, the authors have applied the duty to act because they stated in the
The social cognitive theory (Bandura 1991; Bandura et al. 1996, 2001) suggests that the relationship between moral thought and conduct is mediated through the exercise of self-regulation and, more specifically, the mechanism of moral agency. Self-regulation, which is a key concept with regard to the theory of moral agency, includes self-monitoring one’s own conduct, exercising moral judgment of the rightness or wrongness of one’s conduct in terms of one’s personal standards and the relevant circumstances, and affective self reactions (Bandura 1991, 2001). External social sanctions (such as isolation in the workplace, dismissal, or reprimands) and internalised self sanctions (such as self-contempt, guilt, or self-condemnation) play a major role in self-regulation (Bandura 1991, 2001).
(Hiekkataipale, M. and Lämsä, A.-M 2017, page 148, para 1 “Moral Agency”)
Corporate Ethical Virtues
|chosen paragraph that the right or wrong of moral judgment is based on individual standards, relevant circumstances, and affective self-reactions. Specifically, this claim means that acting morally occurs if a decision-maker feels comfortable for everyone in the world to do the same.
The second ethics perspective is the corporate ethical virtues approach that is considered as virtue ethics. The paragraph argues that an organisation would be evaluated as organisations are an ethical entity. Hence, it is virtue ethics because this theory will judge based on the character of the moral actor. The virtue ethics is conducted lay on two core virtues include integrity and constancy. Due to, the author stated in the paragraph that the more substantial presence of good virtues would result in more ethically behaved behaviour by the members of the organisation, it will adequately match with constancy. According to Maclntyre 1999, constancy is defined as pursuing the same objective for an extended period.
There are some benefits from applying both sides of ethics perspectives. An ethical environment can create the potential for an effective ethics agency when responses to ethical issues (Wilcox
|Operationalisation of the concept of ethical culture has progressed from Trevin˜o’s one-dimensional construct to a more explicit definition of the different sub-dimensions of ethical culture (e.g. Kaptein 1998, 2008). In this study, we draw upon the only multidimensional model of ethical organisational culture, developed by Kaptein (1998, 2008). This corporate ethical virtues model (CEV) builds on Solomon’s (2004) virtue-based theory of business ethics, which suggests that virtues are desirable operational dispositions of both people and groups as moral agents. According to Kaptein (2015), the organisation’s ethical virtues are embedded in the organisation’s strategies, structures and culture. The key idea of the CEV model is that the ethical culture of an organisation can be assessed, since organisations are moral entities (Kaptein 2008, 2015). The model assumes, further, that the stronger the presence of each of the eight virtues, the more ethically the members of the organisation will behave (Kaptein 2015).
(Hiekkataipale, M. and Lämsä, A.-M 2017, page 149, para 2 “Corporate Ethical Virtues”)
|2012). In addition, in term of kantians ethics, the ethical critcal of moral codes is implied in their existence and they have the potential to drive ethical decision-making (L’Etang 1992).
On the other hand, there are also some disadvantages from both ethical perspectives. In Kantian ethics, if two or more moral obligations are in struggle, the theory will not propose which one should follow. To apply Kantian ethics, obligations must be clear and carefully described (Lincoln & Guba 1985). In some cases, virtue ethics would go wrong if it only focuses on the judge the moral standard without considering the reason for a particular action. To make an accurate ethical decision, it is necessary to understand the interaction between all factors (Ferrell & Gresham 1985).
It is clear that both ethics perspectives in the reading are not considering the outcome, which may lead to wrong ethical judgment. Hence, the normative theories, especially the consequentialist approach, should be considered to give a broader perspective that would make ethical decisions more legible. According to Marshall and Rossman 1999, data and information should be collected to
|investigate further to make more rigorous ethical decisions.|
|Find other scholarly readings that support your definitions, e.g. that support your above findings.||Dimmock, M & Andrew, F 2017, ‘Ethics for A-Level’, Problems and Responses: Conflicting Duties, pp. 16-20.
Ferrell, O. C & Gresham, L. G 1985, ‘A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 49, pp. 87-96.
L’Etang, J. A 1992, ‘Kantian approach to codes of ethics’, J Bus Ethics, vol. 11, pp. 737-744.
Lincoln, Y & Guba, E 1985, ‘Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills’, CA: Sage.
Macintyre, A 1999, ‘Social structures and their threat to moral agency’, Philosophy, vol. 74, pp. 311-29.
Marshall, C & Rossman, G. B 1999, ‘Designing qualitative research’, USA: Sage.
Wilcox, T 2012, ‘Human resource management in a compartmentalized world: Whither moral agency?’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 85-96.