Accountability Through Making Ethical Decisions
This book has discussed two parts of an effective corporate ethical management system (CEMS). Context was important in order to explain to organizational stakeholders why the company chose to be ethical. Role modeling at both the top-tier and peer-to-peer levels was a critical part of an effective CEMS as all employees lived out company morality in company-chosen values, behaviors, and ethical leader (EL) attributes, specifically in a succinct, salient, and memorable mnemonic device called the code of ethics (COE). Now, the third critical piece of an effective CEMS grabs our attention—accountability.
Any organization can create a system of ethical components or tools that include context and the role modeling of company-chosen EL attributes and the values and behaviors of the company COE. However, the system is only as good as is the accountability processes put in place to hold personnel responsible or accountable for those attributes, values, and behaviors, including the proper role modeling of those ideals. The company COE is the major ethical component of any effective CEMS, and the COE contains all the appropriate company-chosen EL attributes, values, and behaviors. It is the COE to which all employees should be held accountable for daily workplace actions and decisions.
The next two chapters of this book discuss accountability processes to ensure that the COE is more than a paper document. The COE is a living artifact that forms the foundation for all company ethical decisions and the communication of company ethics. In this chapter, we discuss the idea of accountability through making ethical decisions, specifically the use of the company COE. Another ethical decision-making tool is also introduced for consideration, the company decision-making ladder (DML).
Using the Company COE
Many organizations have a COE, a code of conduct, or statements that describe company values and proper behaviors. As I found, some companies had exhaustive manuals that stated ethical policies and proper behavior expected of all personnel (Dunn 2013).1 For whatever reason, these exhaustive manuals were not readily accessible and neither were they available in an organized, succinct, and memorable format. Companies that shelve ethical policies so they are not readily accessible to employees or that write ethical policies in a manner that is unorganized and not succinct or memorable will find that problems arise in decision making. Company decision makers tend to make decisions by intuition or what they consider best practices versus following the stated ethical policies or COE. Often when faced with an ethical decision, organizational decision makers forget to use company ethical tools, especially the COE.
The organizational landscape is littered with companies and executives that apparently forgot to use their COE in decision making: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, Bear Stearns, Swissair, Lance Armstrong, Martha Stewart, David Petraeus, Bernie Madoff, AIG, several FIFA officials, and many more. Enron employed RICE as their acronym for the company COE: Respect (based on the Golden Rule), Integrity, Communication, and Excellence. Tyco currently uses integrity, excellence, teamwork, and accountability as company values for their COE. Since the ethical debacles of the other companies mentioned above, it is difficult to even find former codes from their operations due to business failure. An organization can have the type of COE discussed in this book, yet behave so unethically that the company fails and employees’ lives and livelihoods are ruined. Why is that so? It is because the COE became a shelved document with little or no attention paid to its valuable contents for decision making. Certainly corporate greed clouded this issue, including the desire to avoid and discount the values upon which these companies began business. When Ken Lay and his Enron cohorts in crime made financial decisions, what if they consulted the company COE, especially the value of respect based on the “treatment of others like you want to be treated” (The Golden Rule)? Would Ken and his crew have liked to be treated as they treated company employees by leaving the company and employee pensions penniless?
The ethical failure of the companies cited above began with dark or unethical leadership at the top of the organization. Dark leadership or unethical leadership research is interesting to consider in this discussion of using the COE as a basis for accountability in decision making. The company COE was ignored, forgotten, or otherwise shelved as these executive pirates looked out for personal interests. Treviño et al. (2000) described an unethical leader as a dishonest person who disregarded the multiple stakeholders of the company, mistreated associates, and whose only interest was in making decisions that bolstered the bottom line.2 Ludwig and Longenecker (1993), based on the biblical story of David and Bathsheba, believed that successful organizational leaders could have a dark side with a propensity toward unethical behavior when those leaders have too much access to company resources, have a loss of strategic focus, and have a hubris that guides outcomes for personal good instead of company good.3 Leaders can turn destructive when they use charisma, fueled by narcissism, for personal gain, and organizations can fall prey to those leaders if there are employees who are conformers or colluders and if there are no organizational checks and balances (Padilla et al. 2007).4 The integration of this dark leadership research seems to indicate that unethical leaders can allow success to blind them to organizational good and to push them to personal gain in decision making since no personnel or no systems in place hold those leaders accountable.
The company COE with its stated values and behaviors should be the device that holds all employees, especially executives, accountable for ethical, company decisions. Executives and employees can avoid dark leadership by the simple use of the COE as an accountability tool to guide decisions. When faced with company dilemmas or decisions, especially of an ethical nature, the possible dilemma solutions or decision alternatives can be filtered through the values and behaviors stated in the company COE.
For example, if the management team where I recently served as a consultant needed to cut operational costs to be profitable, one manager might suggest that the company should cut extra staff so that a beverage cart is not utilized on the course or golf members are not picked up by staff in the parking lot. Less staff for these member non-necessities would save several thousand dollars annually. During dire golf industry days, these possible solutions seem to be reasonable. However, what if the management team filtered these solutions through the company COE—PLAY? How does either of these solutions show Pride for our club? Did we Listen to our customers for their input on these solutions? Does either of these staff cuts demonstrate Attentive customer service? If these staff positions are suspended, do we still believe that You are the frontline employee that makes a first great impression and a lasting impression on our customers? Chances are that without a parking lot pickup, the first great impression of our customers regarding our staff is negative or lost, and our customers have a lasting impression (negative) of our golf club without the benefit of a course beverage cart and beverage staff! The loss of services could well mean the loss of members and additional revenue, which gives us the opposite effect of bottom-line profitability.
The COE is a living and breathing document only if it is utilized for holding organizational members accountable for its tenants, not only in role modeling but also in decision making. Organizational decision makers can quickly and easily filter critical company decisions through the COE. It is simple to ask questions, based on the COE’s values and behaviors, of any critical company decision. First, practice this type of accountability with non-critical decisions to get a feel for the flow or process of working through the COE. Questions like “does this decision demonstrate our values,” “will this decision further our values,” and “how are each of our values supported in this decision,” will help form the process. If a possible decision alternative or dilemma solution cannot meet the criteria of the COE, it should be abandoned for another possibility that meets COE criteria. If a decision meets COE criteria, then at least one factor in company decisions has been met—the ethical factor or accountability for ethical decisions. The decision must first be ethical and then later judged on its merits to meet organizational goals.
Creating a Personal and Company Decision-Making Ladder
Decision making in companies range from informal to formal types of systems. In my organizational research, interviewees believed that their companies’ decision making was more informal and based on company values that seemed to be engrained in their DNA (Dunn 2013).5 Some companies use formal decision-making systems that follow the general pattern of (1) identification of the problem, factual or desired situation and what the problem is, is not; (2) solution generation through brainstorming or using outside experts; (3) solution evaluation, sometimes with mathematical and voting techniques to determine the best alternative; and the (4) implementation of the best solution, including a detailed plan of task assignments (Kinicki and Kreitner 2009; Kreitner 2009).6 Some companies use more technical decision-making tools such as a SWOTT (Strengths, Weaknesses [internal company], Opportunities, Threats, and Trends [external market]: trends may be opportunities, but not all opportunities are trends in the marketplace) analysis, a fish-bone cause-and-effect diagram, a force-field analysis that diagrams the relative strengths of driving and restraining forces behind any decision, or the Kepner-Tregoe criteria-based matrix listing alternative solutions in columns and the criteria to evaluate those solutions in rows (Tubbs 2012).7 Each of these formal and more technical decision-making processes can add the ethical dimension as part of reaching an appropriate decision consistent with company ethics. But, would an ethic-specific decision-making tool add a deeper dimension to workplace decisions? An ethic-specific decision-making tool could supply that deeper context for organizational decision makers, plus hold the company accountable for ethical decisions.
Several years ago, I created an ethic-specific, decision-making tool for a doctoral project, called the EEG (Executives’ Ethical Guide) for making ethical decisions. It is a tool that I have taught to ethical leadership classes at all collegiate levels for the past 6 years. This ethic-specific tool is called a DML. The DML is a method of making ethical decisions based on the foundation of ethical theories chosen for the DML. In a stepped or laddered process, the decision maker asks questions regarding the action proposed based on the principles of the chosen ethical theories. The principles of ethical theories are the basis for moral reasoning per each individual theory and/or philosopher who espoused that individual theory. Students and executives choose three to five ethical theories, from the list discussed next, which give a wide perspective to decision making and that maximize the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of each theory chosen. In short, ethical theories are chosen to be a part of the DML based on the ability of the theories to work in concert to reach a solid, ethical decision. Though the decision maker subjectively chooses theories that seem like a good fit for the personal or workplace DML, the filtering of any decision through this process increases decision-maker objectivity. Since long-held principles of each ethical theory are the basis for decision making, objectivity is raised.
Dunn’s Decision-Making Ladder
Before discussing several trusted ethical theories, it may be helpful to the reader to give an example of how a DML works in practice. Following is my personal and workplace DML based on five ethical theories. The DML is designed to show the principles of each ethical theory for moral reasoning and to show specific questions, to ask of any decision contemplated, based on each theory’s principles. Each of the theories in my DML is discussed in detail later; for now, the brief principles and questions are demonstrated.
My DML begins with divine command (DC) ethical theory as its foundation. I ask these questions based on DC theory principles of concern and justice for others: (1) do I or we desire the best for others in this decision? (2) Does this action further justice and equality for those in our lives, organizations, and society?
My personal and workplace DML continues with Kantian ethics as the second step on the ladder. Kant’s principles of moral reasoning guide us to make moral decisions based on universality, reciprocity, and respect-ability. Kant would have us ask these questions before making any ethical decision: (1) could our actions become universal law where everyone would act the same way, (2) would we want this action reciprocated or done back to us, and (3) are we demonstrating respect and showing value for those in this situation instead of using people as a means to my selfish end?
The first two steps of my DML utilize deontological ethics theories, which rely on duty or principled reasoning without much thought for consequences. Though the DC principles of concern and justice certainly have outcomes, these directives are more “the right thing to do,” which describes deontological ethics.
The third layer or step in my DML considers the consequences of any decision by utilizing utilitarianism or utility theory, a teleological ethics theory. After a harm/benefit analysis, a decision maker chooses the greatest benefit or good for the greatest number of people affected by the decision. How will my or our actions affect costs or harms, benefits, and the greatest number of people? What is the greatest good I or we can do for the greatest number of people by this decision?
My DML next considers the Moore-Dunn ethical theory with principles stated in this simple question: “does this decision complement or complicate my life and the lives of others who will be affected by this decision?”
The final step in my DML considers informational justice and shared or collaborative leadership for decisions. Organizational information should be communicated consistently, fairly, and transparently (Scandura 2011),8 and information should be accurate, timely, useful, and adequate (Thomas, Zolin, and Hartman 2009).9 It is also critical to involve employees in a shared leadership or collaborative effort for decision making. Therefore, have I fulfilled the requirements of fair, accurate, timely, useful, and adequate information to my employees about this decision? Have I made employees a collaborative part of this decision?
My DML utilized deontological ethics in DC, Kantian ethics, informational justice, and shared leadership theories. My DML also integrates teleological ethics by using utilitarianism and the Moore-Dunn theories, plus in small measure the outcomes of concern and justice for others in DC theory. A graphic of my DML is shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Dunn’s DML
As we turn to a full discussion of several ethical theories, both deontological and teleological in nature, note those theories that resonate for your personal and/or workplace DML.
DC Theory: Deontological/Teleological
DC theory emphasizes that a supreme being has offered moral guidance to followers based on verbal or written commands. A supreme being takes on different forms for different belief systems. The Judeo-Christian God is my personal, Supreme Being. As a former pastor, before becoming an educator at the university level, I studied and taught the bible or God’s Word, which I believe is the source of God’s moral guidance. After years of study, I have summarized God’s moral directives or the principles of DC theory toward others into two: concern (love) and justice (fairness) for others. In decision making then, I begin with these dual principles in mind, and I attempt to imitate God’s love and justice as best as humanly possible to move beyond self-interest to the interest of others. Do you have a belief in a supreme being? If so, what are the tenants or moral directives of that supreme being that could be used to question any ethical decision?
Since not all organizational members would believe in God, God should not be forced into the organization. Leaders can speak of the dual principles of concern and justice without mentioning God. Those dual principles would find acceptance within any organization without the mention of their source. Concern and justice for others, beyond self-interest, is a guidance system needed for ethical organizations. Researchers, one an admitted atheist, have utilized DC in attempts to focus organizations on employee and community interests to avoid the dark leadership that often accompanies leaders who only hold a concern for shareholder profits and not all company stakeholders (Dalrymple 2003; McMahon 1985; Siker, Donahue, and Green 1991).10
Some acceptable questions for DC theory principles are: (1) does this decision represent care, concern, justice, and fairness for others? (2) What would my personal supreme being do in this situation? (3) What does my personal faith’s book of spiritual laws say about this decision? Or (4) what do the principles of my personal faith direct me to do in this situation?
DC theory is a strong theory for a DML in that moral directives are sometimes black and white and are written down in a time-tested book of divine inspiration. However, DC theory could offer restraints to decision making in that not all persons believe in a higher power or in a supreme being, and often the book of written laws may not specifically address the particular ethical decision under consideration.
Natural Law Theory: Deontological
While DC theory represents a specific, intentional, or special revelation of moral codes from a supreme being, natural law (NL) theory believes in a more general revelation about moral actions that come from nature, the conscience, intuition, and through general observation about how the universe works around us. Appropriate questions for the decision maker, based on the principles of NL, might be: (1) what is my conscience telling me, (2) what does my intuition or “gut” tell me, or (3) what appears to be the natural thing to do based on my observation of circumstances around me?
NL theory’s main strength and weakness are in its intuitive power. Intuition, based on years of experience in life and the workplace, is a strong tool for any new decisions today. Life and work experiences have taught us how to act and behave. We all have made correct and incorrect choices in life and work that serve as educators for intuition today. However, those whose intuition may not be as developed because of short years in life or work experiences or brevity of time in a particular area of experience might wish to opt away from NL theory in the DML due to an underdeveloped intuition.
Ethical Egoism: Teleological
As the word ego intimates, ethical egoism theory is about what is best for me. Some students, though, in their immediate response to ethical egoism are often offended by the principle of self-interest. Students with a worldview of concern for others and society do not believe that self-interest has a place in decision making. However, once reminded that many of our daily decisions have self-interest at the center (food, shelter, good grades, choosing friends, purchases), students can see the value in this theory. Self-interest is a principle that is not always negative.
Philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Ayn Rand, and Adam Smith each held to versions of ethical egoism, which allowed for decisions to be made in concert with self-interest that did not harm others or self-interest that was controlled by outside entities, such as the government to prevent that harm to others (Jennings 2012).11 The caveat of “no harm to others” makes it understandable how ethical egoism could play a part in ethical decision making since many decisions in life and work have an element of self-interest at the center, and rightfully so. Ethical egoism, as stated here, would be concerned about harm to others, but it would not consider the real interests of other stakeholders.
Based on the principles of ethical egoism, questions to ask of any decision might be: (1) is this decision in self-interest that will benefit me and not harm others, (2) is this decision in the self-interest of the organization that will benefit the company and not harm stakeholders? Ethical egoism finds strength in its natural emphasis on self-interest without harm to others; its weakness is that self-interest may harm others even if we rationalize or attempt to ignore that effect and that the real interests of others are not considered.
Kantian Ethics: Deontological
Kantian ethics holds a prominent place in the hearts of moral thinkers due to Kant’s Categorical Imperative that guides the duty-bound ethicist. Kant’s principles of moral reasoning are chiefly concerned with decisions based on the “right thing to do or duty” with little or no regard for consequences (Altman 2007; Ciulla 2003).12 In Kant’s mind, an action was moral or ethical if that action could become a universal law. In other words, would I want my proposed action to be something that is acted out universally? Kant also considered a form of the Golden Rule by which he believed a proposed action could be implemented if the actor desired the action reciprocated or reversed. Would I want the action I am about to take done back to me? Finally, Kant understood the intrinsic value of an individual and desired that no person be treated as a means to the selfish end of another person. This maxim was a principle of respect-ability. Does my proposed action represent the treatment of others in a manner of respect, not treating them as only a means to my desired end.
To utilize Kant’s thinking in a DML, the decision maker would consider three principled questions: (1) universality: would I want my action to be codified into law whereby it became a universal standard of behavior; (2) reciprocity: would I want my action done back or reciprocated to me—not doing unto others as they have done unto to me, but doing to others as I would want others to treat me; (3) respect-ability: does this decision represent the treatment of others with respect for their intrinsic value instead of the use of others as a means only to my selfish end?
Kantian ethics has a major strength in its premise of objectivity and duty and in its critical thinking of universality, reciprocity, and the respectful treatment of others. It has a focus of the effects of our decisions on the lives of others. Some possible limitations to Kant’s three principles are the subjective interpretation of the actor, the difficulty of placing any action on a universal plain, and the cultural differences in regard to the respectful treatment of others. A group decision-making process in which multiple minds filtered a decision through Kant’s maxims could minimize the subjectivity inherent with Kant and the individual decision maker.
Utilitarianism: Teleological
Utilitarianism or utility theory proposes a harm/benefit analysis of any decision, ultimately choosing the best utility in the form of the greatest benefit or good for the greatest number of people. To utilize utility theory, a decision maker would make a list of perceived harms and benefits or pros and cons of the suggested solutions or possible decisions. The harms and benefits to the greatest number of people should be at the heart of the analysis. If the harms outweigh the benefits in any decision, that decision is abandoned. The solution or potential decision with the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people is then chosen. To push utility theory to its limit, the decision maker might additionally choose the one greatest benefit that indeed benefits the greatest number of people in order to maximize happiness. Act utilitarianism analyzes the action that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people (Cooper 2004).13
The obvious question to ask of any decision from a utility perspective is: what decision brings the greatest good, happiness, or benefit for the greatest number of people? Utilitarianism rests on a strong desire to please or benefit the largest number of people possible. As limitations, utility theory depends on the decision maker to decide what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people and once a decision is reached, some people will not be happy.
Cultural Relativism: Deontological/Teleological
As with any relativistic theory, morals are relative to the culture or to the context of the situation. Cultural relativism understands that different cultures have different ways of behaving, acting, and believing. The way we do things around here may not be the way they do things over there! Since there are so many diverse value systems in our world today, there cannot be one set of universal and absolute morals that integrates all cultures and eras, according to cultural relativism. As a way of moral reasoning, cultural relativism is based on our cultural upbringing and values; therefore, it is deontological, duty-bound, or principled in its reasoning from culture.
As a principle in a DML, cultural relativism is deontological in its questions of how a decision maker’s culture would approach an ethical decision; however, cultural relativism is also teleological in its concern for how other cultures affected by a decision might respond. Questions to use in a DML, based on cultural relativism, might ask: (1) what does my cultural background tell me about this decision, (2) how would my culture teach me to respond to this situation, and (3) how do other cultures affected by this decision think about the proposed action?
The strengths of cultural relativism are its consideration of an individual’s upbringing and culture, plus its sensitivity to the values and beliefs of diverse cultures. The main weaknesses of cultural relativism could be explained in the same way since there is much more to any decision than just individual or multiple cultural values, and it is difficult to choose one decision that appeases all cultures.
Situation(al) Ethics: Teleological
Situational ethics is a form of relativism in its belief that morals (standards of right and wrong) are relative to any situation. Long-held morals can and should adapt or be adjusted to do the loving thing in any situation. For example, most persons hold that lying is unacceptable as a standard of right and wrong. But, in some instances the loving thing is to not tell the entire truth that would hurt someone’s feelings or that would compromise someone’s position.
To effectively utilize situational ethics in a DML, the decision maker would ask: (1) what are the contextual factors operating in this decision, (2) what are my traditional moral standards and do those fit here, (3) what is the loving action needed, and (4) how do my morals need to adapt to meet the loving action required here?
Many decision makers and students who form a DML love situational ethics for its strength of flexibility and adaptability to the context around the decision. It must be kept in mind, however, that situational ethics’ weakness is its tendency to overstate and to focus just on the loving action and possibly to rationalize any decision as loving. Moral drift may well have a start with situational thinking. But, situational ethics allows the decision maker to analyze the context of any needed decision, which always adds a deeper level to critical and moral thinking.
Virtue Ethics: Deontological
The study of virtue ethics is a study of character traits from a deontological perspective of duty, principled actions, and the right thing to do. Though virtue ethics would find prominence in the teachings of Plato, Christ, and other major philosophical figures, it is Aristotle who brings virtue ethics to life. Aristotle determined a virtue as the relative midpoint or mean between a deficiency and excess. For example, the virtue of honesty rested somewhere between the deficiency of secrecy and the excess of loquacity (talking too much). Honesty was the Golden Mean for Aristotle and an acceptable virtue for which to strive. Virtues could be developed and improved with practice, including operating with the right character and right motive.
To practice virtue ethics, it would be important to make a list of personal or organizational virtues that the individual or the company considered critical. If the organization has an accepted list of EL attributes and/or a list of values utilized in the COE, then those attributes are the company virtues. Personal virtues might differ from company virtues in number or in which virtues are most prominent, but the lists should not be in conflict of each other. If the company list is in conflict with an employee’s personal character traits, then that employee must make a decision as to either stay with the company and face possible compromise of personal character, or choose to leave the company for a better company with a better character or value fit.
To use the concept of virtue ethics in a DML, it is possible to filter any decision through an EL list of attributes or the COE values already in place to detect adherence to or drift from those character traits. The question of any decision would be to reflect about how this proposed action would support or deviate from the company’s stated attributes, character traits, or values. It is also possible to not entertain a specific list of character traits and to ask of any decision: “what does this proposed action say about my or our company character?”
Virtue ethics operates from a strong position of specific character traits that are acceptable by most any culture. Virtue ethics gives us the ability to judge our actions and character by a set of traits written in black and white. The weakness of virtue ethics is in the decision maker’s ability to potentially redefine some character traits as a means to rationalize a chosen decision (that was the honest or the caring thing to do). As an added weakness, some cultures might consider a certain character trait as virtuous and another culture would consider that same trait as nefarious.
Justice Theory: Deontological/Teleological
Justice theory is an umbrella for several nuanced theories that always consider the fair distribution of benefits and burdens in any culture, society, family, or workplace. Justice theory is deontological in its “consideration principle” of fairness and equality; justice theory is equally teleological in its application of fairness and equality for proper outcomes.
The most basic question, if justice theory is part of a personal or workplace DML, is to ask: “does this decision represent the fair distribution of benefits and burdens in this specific instance?” In the workplace, do leaders and managers consider the responsibility of fairness and equality in how work assignments are made, how payroll is structured, how benefits and discipline are meted out, and how promotions are handled? Several nuanced theories of justice help the leader or manager decide how fairness is achieved in the workplace.
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism states that benefits and burdens should be distributed equally to all members no matter what. The concept of fairness in this form of justice theory allows leaders and managers to give equal benefits and burdens to employees no matter the circumstance. The DML question is: “does this decision represent equal distribution of all possible benefits and workload in our organization?”
Distributive
Distributive justice theory takes a bit different slant on the placement of benefits and burdens in the organization. This theory looks at the similarities and dissimilarities of employees to determine fairness. For example, two employees who started in the company at the same time have the same skill level, and who work the same job with the same hours are similar; thus, the fair payment of wages is the same hourly rate. However, if two employees have the same job, but one employee has more tenure or more experience, the employees are dissimilar; thus, the fair payment of wages is that the latter employee is paid a higher hourly rate due to tenure and experience. The DML question: “does this decision represent fairness to those who are similar and/or dissimilar?” It is a leader or manager’s duty to distribute burdens and benefits equally among subordinates (O’Boyle and Sandonà 2014).14
Capitalist or contributive
Capitalist or contributive justice theory holds that the fair distribution of benefits and burdens hinges on the contribution that the employee makes to the company. In other words, “what you put in, you get out.” Both benefits and burdens or responsibilities are allotted by the effort, time, or performance outcomes of any employee. To use contributive justice in a DML, the decision maker may judge the contribution level of the employee, but the metric of evaluation really rests with what the employee has contributed to the company, project, or task.
Though often a repellent word for most Westerners, socialism has the basic concept that the distribution of benefits and burdens rests with need and ability. Benefits are distributed according to need; burdens are distributed according to ability. For the organizational decision maker, that is the socialism criteria as a DML filter. That is fairness. This form of justice is quite different from capitalism justice, as need and ability replace contribution. If this theory were utilized in an organizational DML, how often do the needs of employees overshadow employee contribution? Is it possible in the workplace for employee contribution, need, and ability to be considered simultaneously for the just distribution of benefits and burdens?
Informational
Informational or interactional justice theory proposes that organizational leaders must communicate company information fairly, consistently, openly, and honestly among all employees (Scandura 2011).15 The distribution of the benefit of communication is often the crux of company conflict between executives and employees. As a part of the DML, informational justice theory would apply to how decisions are communicated in a fair and just manner.
Procedural
Procedural justice encompasses the entire process of the use of a DML, as it asks the decision maker if his or her procedures in decision making are consistent, just, and fair to all organizational members (Scandura 2011).16 Procedural justice theory might be an umbrella above a company DML and the last question asked after a decision is made. Before implementing a decision made by the filter of the DML, ask one last question: “was the process consistent with other decisions and was the process fair and just for all concerned?”
Narrative Ethics: Deontological
Narrative ethics speaks to the story of our lives as shaped by the bigger story in which we are a part. Narrative ethics would ask about life’s shapers and influencers, and how has the social contract or how has socially constructed knowledge affected my own, personal story? Then, the decision maker might ask how his or her life’s narrative influences or biases the current decision at hand? How do life’s shapers and influencers add to or detract from an acceptable decision? A more global question from narrative ethics would be to ask how the bigger story around me is shaping this story? In a sense, NL theory is a part of narrative ethics in its task to observe the context around me as I make decisions. As such, narrative ethics is a principle from deontological ethics.
Social Media Test: Teleological
Social media is both a blessing and a curse. Through social media we can quickly disperse information around the world. In an instance, I can communicate with other organizational members and even people who see my Twitter, Pinterest, and Facebook feeds. News organizations report global events within moments of their occurrence. This is a blessing! But, unethical behavior is also reported at the speed of sound or social media! What happens in Vegas never stays in Vegas.
Years ago, we often said: “would you want this decision to be on the front page of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times?” The implied meaning was would I be proud or embarrassed by this decision if the media chose to publish my face with my decision. We called this the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times test since those papers were most prominent in the United States. Now, it is important to see that we could call this ethical theory the Facebook Folly test or the Twitter test or the social media test. Would we want this company decision to be all the talk through social, paper, and electronic media distribution avenues? The answer to that question is “yes,” if the decision positively affects the lives of others. Of course, if the decision would be an embarrassment in social media, then I would rethink my proposed decision.
Though not yet a tested or trusted ethical theory, except in practice, I want to introduce the Moore-Dunn ethical theory (deontological/teleological) that gains huge popularity with my students. This theory contains elements of ethical egoism, DC theory, Kantian ethics, and justice theory. The Moore-Dunn ethical theory originated with my wife, Janice Moore Dunn, in a 15-second sermon to our two, college-aged sons (David and Jared) several years ago. While discussing the poor decision making of a friend now in legal and criminal trouble, my wife looked at our boys and said: “Before you make any decision, ask yourself this question: will this complicate or complement your life?” Her question is profound, yet simple. Just like a COE, Janice’s question is succinct, salient, and memorable. I decided that a follow-up question should also be asked, thus the “Dunn” part of the theory. If we believe a decision would complement our lives, then we would ask: “will this complicate or complement the lives of those around me who will be affected by this decision?” We never make a decision in a vacuum, as our decisions have a ripple effect to family, friends, and coworkers.
To exercise the Moore-Dunn ethical theory, ask this question when facing a decision: will this complement or complicate my life and the lives of those affected by this decision? This theory is strong in its simplicity to cut to the heart of any decision; its weakness is the subjectivity involved in predicting the “complements” or “complications” of any decision.
In my organizational research, the DML was one of several a priori (prior existence as opposed to new knowledge) components utilized as a basis for an effective CEMS (Dunn 2013).17 The use of a DML or formal, ethical decision-making device became a part of the interview protocol I utilized when speaking with organizational executives and employees. As stated earlier, most interviewees recalled no formal DML utilized by their organization; decision-making systems were of a more informal nature. Therefore, the DML as a component to an effective CEMS did not rise to a level of significant support in my research. However, some interviewees admitted that a more formal DML would be a good tool to implement. If a company effectively utilizes its COE for all decisions, a DML may be only a secondary or little-needed tool. However, the DML does add one more layer, a deep context layer based on ethical theory, for critical, ethical decisions, both personally and corporately.
The COE is an effective tool for the expectation of, guidance toward, and accountability for company values; it is also an effective tool to hold the company accountable to make sound, ethical decisions. As a company tool or artifact, the COE may very well be the most critical, flexible, and memorable piece in the leadership and management of company ethics.
The DML, based on chosen, ethical theory is a secondary but effective tool to also hold the company accountable for sound, ethical decisions that consider several factors based on deontological and teleological moral reasoning. Principles of moral reasoning and the outcomes of our choices should all be considered in any decision. Is this the right thing to do, regardless of the effect? But, how are organizational stakeholders affected by this decision? The DML helps sort through some of the turmoil surrounding company decisions.
Figure 5.2 Ethical Theory Summary Table
Chapter 5: Workplace Application Exercises
1. Place your COE in several conspicuous places in which you will see the COE multiple times during the day. Repeat the COE until it is memorized.
2. Practice the art of using your company COE for decision making by using it for small, inconsequential personal or workplace decisions.
3. In all company meetings, including the Board of Directors (BOD), constantly remind personnel of the values and behaviors listed in the company COE.
4. Now, filter a consequential workplace decision through the points of your company COE. Use the COE in the BOD meeting for decisions, as described in this chapter.
5. What ethical theories might be a good fit for your personal and/or workplace DML? Is there a difference personally and corporately? Do you have a combination of deontological and teleological theories that maximize strengths and mitigate weaknesses?
6. Think of a recent organizational decision and filter it through your new DML. Would you do anything different based on the outcomes of the DML process?
7. Choose an upcoming company decision and filter it through your chosen DML. Does this aid in making an ethical decision? Why or why not?
8. Would you send your chosen workplace DML to Dr. Don Dunn at [email protected] and describe how you found it beneficial to your company? Would you give permission for inclusion of your thoughts in a future edition of this book?
Notes
1. Ibid.
2. Treviño, “Moral Person and Moral Manager,” 128.
3. Ludwig, “The Bathsheba Syndrome,” 265.
4. Padilla, “The Toxic Triangle,” 176.
5. Dunn, “The Moldable Model,” 183.
6. Kreitner, “Management,” 224.
Kinicki, “Organizational Behavior,” 268.
7. Tubbs, “A Systems Approach,” 292.
8. Scandura, “Rethinking,” 34.
9. Thomas, “The Central Role in Communication,” 287.
10. Dalrymple, “Why Religion is Good for Us,” 753.
McMahon, “The Contributions of Religious Traditions,” 341.
Siker, “Does Your Religion Make a Difference,” 819.
11. Jennings, “Business Ethics,” 12.
12. Altman, “The Decomposition of the Corporate Body,” 253.
Ciulla, “The Ethics of Leadership,” 1.
13. Cooper, “Ethics for Professionals,” 244.
14. O’Boyle, “Teaching Business Ethics,” 329.
15. Scandura, “Rethinking,” 34.
16. Ibid.
17. Dunn, “The Moldable Model,” 1.