Ethics and Organizational Development
"For many organisations 'ethics' is something to be defined and managed by senior executives."Consider the arguments for and against this control-oriented position.In today's world it is all too prevalent to see more and more people hungry to gain success at an ever-increasing rate. Modern culture can and indeed is labelled 'greedy' and 'thoughtless'. Through my relatively short time spent in business, I have encountered many of these types of people. But who are they hungry for? Who benefits from their thoughtlessness, and why do they do what they do? More importantly, who is to blame when things don't go according to plan?These are all questions asked constantly in the business domain, questions that often seem to include the word 'ethics' in their answer. Whether we look to consequentialism and always consider the outcome of a particular action, or conform to a more deontological form of ethical thinking and focus on always acting in a manner that seems 'right', I believe that a person cannot always be 'ethical', all of the time. If it were that easy, ethics would be a very small area of study.So what does the word 'ethical' mean? To me, it is to take into account every aspect involved in any given situati
Third, responsibility is sometimes used to indicate that an action or its consequences are attributable to a certain agent" (Velasquez, 1983). An employee, therefore, willingly submits to the thoughts and ideals of the organisation when they sign the contract of employment. In listing these two types of approaches and the degree of control that they attempt to possess, can it be said of any one organisation that it has successfully adopted a control-oriented or autonomous approach, and that there is no middle ground? I believe there to be a large scope for contention with any organisation that states outright it has employed one of the two approaches in its entirety. " Whilst this addresses the issue of whether organisations can be morally responsible, it does not answer the question. McMahon identifies that the legitimacy of managerial authority lies within a contract or promise. In such free-speaking times as we now live therefore, why do organisations attempt to dictate our thoughts and actions? As I earlier identified, the organisation does not want to be seen to be 'socially unacceptable' whilst simultaneously achieving the best possible results. This control paradigm for organisational ethics is largely concerned with extracting the best possible results for the organisation as a whole. The term responsible is "firstly, sometimes used to mean 'trustworthy' or 'dependable'. Otherwise the employee is attempting to renege on a morally binding agreement" (McMahon, 1989). When put simply, it allows little room for individual thought or expression, only rewarding good actions and punishing those that are bad. His moralistic view, as he claims, is extremely outrageous. (1989) 'Managerial Authority', Ethics, 100:33-53.
Common topics in this essay:
Kant's Kohlberg,
Murders Inc,
,
De George,
Lawrence Kohlberg's,
BIBLIOGRAPHY Haworth,
Authority' Ethics,
Beauchamp Bowie,
moral judgement,
de george,
Prentice Hall,
moral responsibility,
velasquez 1983,
morally responsible,
own actions,
control-oriented approach,
Jersey Prentice,
jersey prentice hall,
nor agents,
individual expression,
seen 'socially,
theory business jersey,
ethical theory business,
business jersey prentice,
1979 ethical theory,
|
Acceptance Essays
