Ethical Decision Making: Personal Business on Company Time

The paper to follow shall advocate for the employment of an ethical decision making model for the resolution of moral and ethical organizational issues.  Throughout the paper I will use an example of an ethical/moral dilemma at X-Corp, a fictional corporation.  This paper shall weigh heavily upon Cooper’s ethical decision-making model (2006) and shall incorporate a systems approach, as well as the research and theories of other subject matter experts.  The employment of Cooper’s model allows us a “greater degree of ethical autonomy [...] because we become more aware of both our own values and the external obligations under which we act” (Cooper, 2006).  I will begin with an example case study that unfolds an ethical/moral issue.  Next, I will suggest employing a model that uses a systems approach to decision-making.  I will follow by suggesting that we challenge the status quo by framing the issue of organizational freedoms and constraints as well as personal values and shared organizational values.  Lastly, this paper will suggest the employment of moral imagination in evaluating shared organizational values.

Case Study: Operating a Personal Business on Company Time

Over the course of the past year, it has become apparent that several employees have been conducting business unrelated to their current position at X-Corp.  These employees are operating personally owned businesses such as real estate investments/rental properties and consulting firms during normal X-Corp working hours.  While there has been no attempt to obscure their actions, or to defraud the company, it is viewed by their colleagues as both unprofessional and a breach of shared values and organizational ethics.  Currently, X-Corp does not have in place any policy stating that this type of activity is prohibited.  It is entirely possible that these employees do not believe that they are initiating any wrongdoing as they are productive corporate citizens.  It may be necessary to conduct a company-wide study into whether or not such activity should be allowed to continue at X-Corp.

Systems Approach to Decision-Making

A systems approach to decision-making facilitates the examination of an issue and its interoperability within a system.  “The system involves interactions extending over time, a complex set of interrelated decision points, an array of actors with conflicting interests, […] and a number of feedback loops.  Progress in analyzing [ethical issues] can only be made with a full understanding of the systemic issues” (Wolf, 1999, p.144).  Cooper’s ethical decision-making model (Cooper, 2006) employs a systems approach that breaks a problem down into its constituent parts in order to discover its root and to effectively assess how to change the system if necessary (Werhane, 2002, p.36), it then integrates a solution, or set of solutions, into the organizational system.  “Systems thinking requires [sic] conceiving of management dilemmas as arising from within a system with interdependent elements, subsystems, and networks of relationships and patterns of interaction” (Werhane, 2002, p.33).

A systems approach is critical to comprehending, assessing, and establishing a change in shared organizational values (Werhane, 2002, p.41).  “Systemic arrangements and organization networks create roles and role responsibilities, rights, and opportunities that affect individuals and individual activities and performance” (Werhane, 2002, p.35).  While Cooper’s model for ethical decision-making was chosen as our example model in this paper, there are several other models and methodologies that are equally comprehensive.

Methodology 

Recognizing that a problem exists, the next step in logically implementing Cooper’s model is to collect any accessible data that may apply to the issue and its resolution (Cooper, 2006).  This should include employee and customer opinions collected subjectively though surveys and interviews, current and pending contracts, corporate policy and programs, and any other objective/subjective data element that may prove utility during a systematic evaluation of the issue.    

In order to clarify and identify the conflict and its specific nature, our model’s third step, we must look at any ethical, legal, professional, or moral implications that our issue may broach (Cooper, 2006).  While it is best that an interdisciplinary committee deliberate on this matter in order to acquire diverse viewpoints, one notable implication may include the question of whether or not operating a personal business on company time is viewed as ethical or moral by X-Corp personnel and its customers through the employment of the aforementioned qualitative survey.  This survey also aids in the process documentation phase of our adopted model.  Documentation of the process employed to resolve the issue will serve as a guide for future analysis of lessons learned and a data repository for tracking changing perceptions and shared organizational values should the need arise.  Subject matter experts, such as legal counsel, etc., should be sourced both internally and externally in order to “expand peripheral vision [and] identify overlooked information and circumstances” (2006).      

            

Framing the Issue: Organizational Freedoms and Constraints

Determining the best course of action will be determined by how the issue is framed.  “This is a matter of subtly [sic] discernment of what is important in the situation.  It is very much a matter of reading situations, character, and intentions.  Without fine-textured perception of this sort, moral laws and rules are useless and empty” (Johnson, 1993, p.210).  Due to the intricacy of the issue, it is advantageous to necessitate as many differing viewpoints as possible as there are many potentials in which to frame the issue.  While we are all capable of framing the issue multiple ways (Werhane, 2002, p.39), it is prudent that we attempt to frame the situation in a manner that is most advantageous to both the company and the individual constituents.  To accomplish this, we should abstain from using language that “blatantly create[s] a cast of good guys and bad guys” (Cooper, 2006).

To say that leaders should always increase freedom and relax all constraints is intellectually dishonest and totally unrealistic.  To say that constituents should always accept the constraints and never challenge the status quo is equally dishonest and unrealistic.  Count on people to strive to be free.  Also count on organizations to exert constraints.  Part of a leader’s job is to engage people in grappling with the tension between freedom and constraint (Johnson, 2003, p.176).

We must seek out a balance between organizational freedom and constraints.  To do this, we must look inside ourselves at our own personal values and those that are espoused as shared organizational values. 

Personal Values vs. Shared Organizational Values

 In deliberating the issue, personal values should be weighed against shared organizational values when opposing moral and ethical beliefs are identified.  Cooper suggests considering the “basic moral principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, fidelity, and veracity, and apply[ing] them to the situation (2006).  Does the issue of operating a personal business during X-Corp working hours increase employee autonomy?  Would banning or permitting the practice avoid doing harm to clients or employees?  Which choice or hybrid thereof promotes the most good?  Which decision best promotes equality, honesty, and faithfulness to X-Corp clients?  These are the questions that our panel of employees, customers, and experts should ask themselves.

Employing Moral Imagination in Evaluating Shared Organizational Values

Cooper’s model next calls for the delineation and estimation of the plausible outcomes of any decision that may be agreed upon (Cooper, 2006).  This may best be accomplished through the employment of what some call “moral imagination” (Cooper, 2006; Werhane, 2002).  “Moral imagination helps one to disengage from a particular process, evaluate that and the mindsets which it incorporates, and think more creatively within the constraints of what is morally possible” (Werhane, 2002, p.34).  Using moral imagination, it is recommended that several vignettes be created that would aid in discovering the consequences any particular decision would have on the company, its customers, and its employees.  Cooper advocates for attempting to achieve a balance between offering moral and ethical guidelines that “support each alternative and the projected consequences” (Cooper, 2006), the “ability to defend a particular […] decision if required to do so before a broad audience” (2006), distinguish the “implicit ethical principles at stake” (2006), and that pass the “test of anticipatory self-appraisal [as] a method to seek out how well a course of action fits with our own self-image” (2006).

Using moral imagination and our X-Corp example, it is feasible to foresee several outcomes of our inquiry.  One such outcome might be that the company bans the practice of operating a personal business during company time.  This would certainly appease those that deem the practice unethical.  However, it may cause problems with the employees that currently own their own businesses.  Another solution might be to allow the practice to continue on a case-by-case basis so long as policy is set in place to regulate such activity.  This may cause problems with those that find this practice unethical.  However, some opinions may be swayed with a program that incorporates entrepreneurism as a shared organizational value through training, hiring, and onboarding initiatives.  The latter choice may seem unusual in today’s business world, but may become a competitive advantage in hiring millennials and other hidden benefits.  Kouzes and Posner noted that, “[a] shared value that was once a cornerstone of the organizational foundation can become obsolete” (2003, p.191).    

Conclusion & Recommendations

This paper advocates for the conduct of a company-wide study to investigate the issue of operating a personal business during working hours.  “Allowing more freedom is becoming the norm.  But it would be foolish and irresponsible to expect organizations to abandon all constraints.  Institutions must have limits; the question is not whether there should be constraints, but how many, how much, and of what type” (Kouzes & Posner 2003, pp.176-177). 

This issue will likely not be resolved with a binary decision.  Rather, several outcomes may result.  Among those outcomes, three overarching courses of action prevail.  First, choosing to abstain from selecting a course of action would result in the continuance of current practices and unresolved organizational issues.  Second, the creation of corporate policy banning the conduct of personal business during working hours could protect the organization but affect some of its employees.  Third, entrepreneurialism should be allowed and encouraged as a part of X-Corp corporate culture.  It is likely that any decision made will incorporate the latter two courses of action, possibly in a hybridized format.  Whatever the outcome, the organization stands to benefit from resolving the issue as a community, for we are all corporate citizens that have a duty…an obligation, to protect its constituents and stakeholders in the best manner possible.  Our decision should reflect not only the thoughts of those that lead, but all who follow.

     References

Cooper, T. L. (2006). The responsible administrator (5th ed.). United States: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.

Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press. 210-213.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003) Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 176-191.

Werhane, P. H. (2002).  Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 33-41.

Wolf, S. (1999). Toward a systematic theory of informed consent in managed care, Houston Law Review (35) 144.