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.
