Employee Conduct and Organizational Loyalty
Discuss about the Ethicality Of The Conducts In Question.
A review of items in Brenda’s list has a lot to be desired given that she has an advantage in enjoying the use of the offices properties. First and foremost, it is essential to note that upon accepting employment, employees are obliged to promote the interests of their employers, thus evident in the traditional law of agency that opines that employees have the legal obligation to act loyally or carryout lawful acts or commands within a work environment. Morality in this case requires the employees to defend the interest of an organization at all times, efforts that transfer the good to an entity as an approach that demonstrates loyalty. As evident in the list of things provided in the case study, it is essential to note that the items provided are morally impermissible (Pimenta, 2015 p.20). This is attributed to the fact that some things work against the interest of an organization. As a sign of loyalty to an organization, employees need to at all times protect the property of an organization as the principle of beneficence connotes.
In a lay man language, the principle rule of beneficence infers to the normative roles and moral obligations accorded to employees in an effort to act for the principal benefit of others by aiding them to advance their authentic welfares, potently achieved by thwarting any possible destructions that may hinder the functioning of an organization. In my dimension, the application of Brenda’s list appears to inculcate and appeal to obligatory beneficence in an implicit way that requires the employees to devoid of actions listed in point one to five that may defraud the organization of its legit profits (Calderón, Ferrero, & Redin, 2012 p.24). As established in the first five items in regards to the use of office properties for personal interests, it is essential to note that this amounts to unethical acts since the use of such properties may lead to losses within the organization (Hanson 2014 p.516). This is hedged on the fact that employees are obliged to use office properties for the sole objective of meeting the functions of the company. However, it is essential to note that employees may have the priority to use organizations properties for urgent reasons but not to the extent of misuse, often evident as an approach to motivate and appreciate workers who hold on to higher ranks in an organization.
The Principle of Beneficence and Ethical Employee Conducts
Secondly, it is essential to note that points 6 to 11 as established in Brenda’s list of items are morally impermissible, thus denoting the fact that they are acts that are unacceptable in organizations. This lies in the fact that they lead to massive damages and losses of the organizations resources whilst the employees are compensated and paid for their services. Subjecting this case in the lenses of Kant’s theory reveals vital elements in the moral obligations of employees in an organization. Kant adduces that employees have the moral duty to be beneficent, thus implying that they must be supportive to the organization in accordance to their means without the hope for any forms of favors or gains (Doran, 2014 p.134). In other words, the Kantian theory assumed that employees are indebted at some levels to consider sacrificing a bit of their welfare for the advantage of others devoid of any anticipations of recompense.
Besides this, there are some cases in which employees may be forced to use office property especially in cases of emergency such as passing crucial information to their families. In such cases, employees may consider asking for permission to use the offices phone, an aspect that may be considered as ethical as adduced in the deontological theory. According to the deontological theory, an action may be considered as morally sound as a result of some characteristics of action and not because the end products of such actions are perceived as good (Kaptein, 2015 p.415). In other words, the theory holds that some acts may be morally obligatory put aside their consequences on the welfare of an organization. However, in cases where the offices phone lines are used for personal businesses may be viewed as unethical since this may be against an organizations policies, thus infringing on the profits of the company. Lastly, a review of the points in a preferential manner to the treatment of clients, not working within the specified office hours, the passing of vendors outside, the calling of sick offs when in need of personal time may pose harms to the image of the company, thus making such actions morally unacceptable, considered as unprofessional acts in the workplace that taint the reputation of an organization.
Utilitarianism according to Adler (2012) is hedged on the belief that an individual’s actions may be in the organization, an aspect that amounts to theft. On the other hand, it is essential to establish judged as right in the event that its end results produce happiness to a majority of a populace. In the case at hand, so long as all the listed activities established by Brenda for the employee do not cause any harms to the company and they make all the other employees contented during the cause of the actions, then the acts may be viewed as morally permissible as evident in the utilitarian theory (Ader p.12). In this regard, actions such as the use of office postage, office telephone, making unnecessary trips at the expense of the office, using the offices transport system, and the taking of afternoon off may be supported by the principle of utilitarianism.
Kantian Theory and Moral Obligations of Employees
Arguing from the perspective of Brenda’s list, the degree of the rightness or wrongness of a matter such as the taking of a pad of papers may be considered as wrong given the fact that these acts are committed without the permission of the managers that companies have policies and rules that govern the conduct and the manner in which the employees should act. Employees in an organization are therefore required to respect the codes of conduct in regards to the handling of organizations resources (Hill, 2008 p. 160). This therefore means that the unlawful handling of a company’s properties or resources may imply a breach of the codes of conduct, an aspect that is punishable. Probing this case from a utilitarian angle could additionally imply that the actions of the employees may not be received well by the employees and the employer of the firm. This is evident in the fact that unlawful handling of an organizations resources or property is a violation of the terms and conditions of employment, an aspect that would make the employer unhappy. The end result of this may led to the loss or termination of an employee’s job.
On the contrary, it is of essence to consider that Kantianism and utilitarianism both have different approaches of determining as to whether the acts of employees are rights or wrong. As adduced in the views of Kant, there is a need to look at the employee’s maxims, or rather intentions in a particular committed action. In other words, Kantians hold on to the belief that human life remains valuable since humans are bearers and holders of a rational aspect of life (Gustafson 2013 p. 326). In other words, human beings as alleged in this theory are free rational beings who have the capacity to deploy rational behaviors in different circumstances, an aspect that should not be utilized purely on the premises of achieving happiness or enjoyment.
Additionally, the Kantian perspective there is a need to consider the employees actions such as the taking of a pad of paper in an effort to understand the intent of such actions before arriving at its ethicality. In other words, there could be chances that the employee resorted to working at his home, a move that promoted the collection of the pad of papers to aid in the process (Shermer, 2018 p. 80). If this was the case, then the Kantian approach would consider such an action as morally right, thus proving that the wrongness or rightness of an action may be consider as a matter of degree and that an action can either be trivial and wrong at the same time.
Utilitarianism and Employee Conduct
It is therefore assumable that an action may be considered as morally right as viewed in the lenses of the Kantian ethics as opposed to the utilitarian principle. The Kantian theory therefore provides much precision as opposed to the utilitarian method in understanding the list of items provided by Brenda, an aspect that determines if the employees are only used as a means to justify an end or the impact of their happiness is ambiguous (Sims & Quatro 2016 p. 26). Contrastingly, the utilitarian approach takes heed in comparing all the items in an effort to determine which of them have the best effects. In this regard, it is essential to note that the making of decisions through the use of this method in determining the rightness and wrongness of the issues raised in Brenda’s list relies on the calculation of the costs and benefits of the actions displayed in an effort to determine the happiness accrued from the actions, an aspect that is time consuming.
Arguing to separate facts from half-truths from different points of view as provided by equivocal opinions and schools of thoughts, the use of resources and properties of an organization where an individual is employed has no harm to the company or the employer given that the employees benefit from where they work; a view that lacks a torch of ethics (Moller, 2012 p. 12). These fallacies are based on the arguments that the use of a company’s resources motivates employees by granting them privileges and liberties for the efforts they put in running the functions of an organization. If this argument was to be upheld, then it is essential to consider the elements itemized in Brenda’s list as ethically questionable or dubious may be considered as the employee’s entitlements, a view that is biased and unethical.
On the contrary, it is essential to note that by accepting employment, the employees agreed to perform their responsibilities and tasks during the specified office hours for exchange of money. The employees therefore entered into an oral or written agreement that affirmed their working relations and terms through a provided framework that established there mutual obligations that required loyalty to the organization in an effort to promote the interests of the employer as opposed to their personal gains, an aspect that is considered as morally permissible even in a case where morality is not required (Lawler & Mohrman 2011 p.124). This therefore establishes that the employees are required and expected to work towards protecting the interests of the company and not their own interests at all times. In other words, it is morally erroneous for employees to use office properties and resources for the purposes of self-gratification or for personal use. This is evident in the fact that the entitlement of such priorities to the employees may result in the development of bad working habits that may drive the interests of an organization in danger through losses.
Codes of Conduct and Unlawful Handling of Company Resources
Moreover, the employees may develop a mentality of pride by utilizing an organizations resources and properties such as the making of photocopies through the use of office machines, the making of long personal telephone conversations through the office lines as well as other office utilities such as the internet for personal gain, thus indicting the itemized items in Brenda’s list as employees non-entitlements (Pinnington, Macklin, & Campbell 2009 p.127). The rationale behind the use of office resources and properties as their personal entitlements is unjustifiable given the fact that they are primarily entitled to basic salaries. The argument that these items may never lead a company into losses since they are expenses accrued by the organization during the course of its operations is unwarranted and unethical since the resources are construed for a purpose that is based on the need to satisfy the interests of the employer.
Besides this, considering the properties and resources of a company as entitlements to employees may result into different conflicts of interests that may lead to misunderstandings. Personal interests on the other hand could result in the making of decisions that are detrimental to the interests of the employers (Chauvin & Remley, 2011, p. 564). According to work ethics, organizations expect employees to act on their behalf in a manner that is unprejudiced or influenced by their own personal interests, thus implying that the employees have no moral obligation to consider the office resources and properties as their entitlements, evident in the fact that employees are not expected to lower the benefits of an organization for their own personal gains. This therefore reveals that such unethical conducts have a possibility of resulting into chaos and misunderstandings among the employees, denoting the need for the management to deny the accenting of such privileges as employees entitlements given that this may affect the employees who are likely to lose their focus (Mowchan, Lowe, & Reckers, 2015, p. 98). The Human Resource Personnel’s (HR) in the company therefore need to review the company’s code of conduct in an effort to repeal and enlighten the employees on the need to conduct themselves in an ethical manner that gives consideration to the interest of the organization.
As presented, the organizations inaction to take cognizance of Brenda’s itemized list and its contents on dubious conduct may result to challenges on its operations given that this would imply that the company finds the actions of employee’s morally permissible. The company therefore needs to establish stringent measures aimed at taming such incompetent conduct since employees who lower the interests of an organization are exposed to the charges of dismissal, disloyalty, disciplinary actions, and the freezing of their job statuses (Barnett, Bass, & Brown 2008 p.470). Prudentially, employees who consider their self-interests downplay the element of ethics and morality within a work environment. It is therefore arguable that in the event that the prudential interests of the employees outweigh the moral elements, then there is likelihood that the employees may consider their best interests as opposed to those of the company. On the other hand, if the moral reasoning of the employees overrides their prudential interests, then there are higher chances that the workers may choose to honor their obligations and resort to permissible ethical conduct (Varner 2013 p.57)
Consequently, it is essential for the company to take consideration of the fact that morality may not necessarily require the employee’s to resort to enormous sacrifices with the motive of writing small wrongs, thus denoting the need for the ethics of doing something. In light of this, the company may choose to understand the intentions of the employees in every conduct in order to understand the rationale behind their actions before arriving at the dubiousness of such conducts. This is hedged on the fact that employees are obliged to use office properties for the sole objective of meeting the functions of the company (Hartmann 2011 p.118). However, it is essential to note that employees may have the priority to use organizations properties for urgent reasons but not to the extent of misuse, often evident as an approach to motivate and appreciate workers who hold on to higher ranks in an organization. Prudential reasoning among employees is in this case colored by their characters and their developed perceptions of self-interest (Harris & Brown 2009 p.856). In light of this, it is unethical for employees to make use of their official job positions to gratify their self-interests, an issue that is of moral concern to the company suppose it fails to consider the listed items in Brenda’s notice as provided in the case study.
On the second argument as to whether the itemized elements in Brenda’s list are unethical unless the firm had explicitly established rules against such actions, there is a need to understand that organizations, irrespective of whether they are legally mandates to develop a code that defines there employees conduct may need a code that guides conduct and that clarifies the companies mission, principles, and values as well as the manner in which these standards are directly linked to professional conduct in the organization (De George 2009 p.64). The code in this regards would help the organization to articulate its values as well as the principles of conduct it wishes to foster among its employees and leaders, and in so doing, would mold the behaviors of the working fraternity of the company. It is therefore essential to emphasize that writer codes turn out to be the benchmarks upon which organizations and individuals conducts and performances are measured. Codes on the other hand encourage discourses among the employees on the essence of ethics and compliance, an aspect that empowers the employees to address the ethical dilemmas encountered during the course of their work (Betz 2012 p.670). This can additionally serve as a valuable tool for reference that would help the employees locate the relevant documents and resources needed to understand the essence of ethical conduct in the company.
Employees have a moral obligation of ensuring that the interests of their employers are taken into consideration through loyalty. As established in the contract of employment as well as the law, employees have a duty and obligation to their employers that include the duty to uphold honest and do what is reasonable in their eyes in every situation. On the other hand, employees are required by their employers never to cause disruption to the cause of business such as engaging in any illegal actions. Employees are equally required to uphold an organizations values and exercise their rights by disclosing any illegal actions if this amounts to incrimination (Baker & Comer 2012 p.96). In as much as the welfare of the organization and its workers should in this case remain dominant, employees may need to consider the needs of ethical employers who are in a position to make decisions and implementing policies in a way that demonstrates their concerns even in the event that there are other associated costs that may impact the profitability of an organization (Vevee 2014 p.160). As established, employees are entitled to fair treatment and respect, thus denoting an employer’s obligation to ensure that its managers do not at any cost abuse the powers granted to them to mistreat or discriminate against their subordinates.
The killing of the messenger behavior at the management level of an organization remains an improper action given that it may result to passive or active encouragement of deceitful reporting. This therefore grants the employees full entitlement to raise ethical concerns or other issues in an organization without any fear of retaliation. Employees are additionally entitled to count on the opinions and commitments of the employers on key issues within the organization such as the misuse of organizations resources (Arnold, Audi, & Zwolinski 2010 p.560). This therefore means that employers, who are bound to chisel employees, treat their employees as if they are instruments of an organizations interests, renege on unfruitful promises may feel to meet their moral obligations and responsibilities. On the contrary, the employees also have a moral obligation in their daily operations at work with their other co-workers and customers. Loyalty in this case is an element that is required among the two parties, the employees and employers. Employees additionally have a moral duty to an organization aimed at ensuring that the resources and properties of an organization are managed responsibly for the interests of the employers.
On the subject of if organizations have moral rights that may be violated by workers, it is essential to note that employee’s moral rights as well as responsibilities remains a matter that is debatable. According to Mill’s utilitarian theory of justice, there are aspects that justify workers responsibility to help others, thus employees are likely to also have a work environment that can aid them in bettering their lives. However, according to Nozick’s libertarian theory, the responsibility to help others is justifiable (Mohan & Wilcox 2008 p.135). This therefore denotes that organizations may have moral rights to ensure that employees are free from injuries through well provided work environments and conditions that are beneficial to the employees. However, it is essential to note that employees may violate these rights by overstretching their rights within a company. No matter the theory of justice presented herein, there are reasons to assume that employees may have certain rights that may be withdrawn from them as well, an aspect that may be considered as slavery given that employees are stripped off their rights (Whipple & Swords 2012 p.672). Lastly, it is essential to note that there no moral differences that exist between the taking of things that belong to other individuals and taking that which belongs to a company given that this is an act theft. Acquiring an individual’s property or a company’s resources without anyone’s consent amounts to an ethical misconduct surcharged as theft.
Adler, Matthew D., 2012, Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.
Arnold, D, Audi, R, & Zwolinski, M 2010, ‘Recent Work in Ethical Theory and Its Implications for Business Ethics’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 4, pp. 559-581, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Baker, S, & Comer, D 2012, ‘“Business Ethics Everywhere”: An Experiential Exercise to Develop Students’ Ability to Identify and Respond to Ethical Issues in Business’, Journal Of Management Education, 36, 1, pp. 95-125, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Barnett, T, Bass, K, & Brown, G 2008, ‘Ethical Ideology and Ethical Judgment Regarding Ethical Issues in Business’, Journal Of Business Ethics, 13, 6, pp. 469-480, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Betz, J 2012, ‘BUSINESS ETHICS AND POLITICS’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 4, pp. 693-702, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Calderón, R., Ferrero, I., & Redin, D. M. 2012. Ethical codes and corporate responsibility of the most admired companies of the world: Toward a third generation ethics?. Business & Politics, 14(4), 1-24. doi:10.1515/bap-2012-0044
Chauvin, J, & Remley Jr., T 2010, ‘Responding to Allegations of Unethical Conduct’, Journal Of Counseling & Development, 74, 6, pp. 563-568, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
De George, RT 2010, ‘BUSINESS ETHICS AND THE CHALLENGE OF THE INFORMATION AGE’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 10, 1, pp. 63-72, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Doran, C. E. 2014. Ethical codes of conduct: Theory and application in small and medium businesses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford).
Gustafson, A 2013, ‘In Defense of a Utilitarian Business Ethic’, Business & Society Review (00453609), 118, 3, pp. 325-360, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Hanson, K. O. 2014. Six Unavoidable Ethical Dilemmas Every Professional Faces. Business & Society Review (00453609), 119(4), 537-552. doi:10.1111/basr.12045
Harris, C, & Brown, W 2010, ‘Developmental Constraints on Ethical Behavior in Business’, Journal Of Business Ethics, 9, 11, pp. 855-862, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Hartmann, CJ 2011, ‘ETHICAL ISSUES IN BUSINESS: A PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH/ETHICAL THEORY AND BUSINESS (Book)’, American Business Law Journal, 18, 1, p. 118, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Hill Jr., TE 2009, ‘Assessing Moral Rules: Utilitarian and Kantian Perspectives’, Philosophical Issues, 15, 1, pp. 158-178, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Kaptein, M. 2015. The effectiveness of ethics programs: The role of scope, composition, and sequence. Journal of business ethics, 132(2), 415-431.
Lawler, E, & Mohrman, S 2011, Useful Research : Advancing Theory And Practice, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Mohan, T, & Vilcox, M 2008, Contemporary Issues In Business Ethics, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Moller, G 2012, Banking On Ethics : Today’s Perception Is Tomorrow’s Norm, London: Euromoney Trading Ltd, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Mowchan, M., Lowe, D. J., & Reckers, P. J. 2015. Antecedents to Unethical Corporate Conduct: Characteristics of the Complicit Follower. Behavioral Research In Accounting, 27(2), 95-126. doi:10.2308/bria-51186
Pimenta, M. 2015. Ethics in human resource management: a study on ethical perceptions of HRM practices (Doctoral dissertation).
Pinnington, A, Macklin, R, & Campbell, T 2008, Human Resource Management : Ethics And Employment, Oxford: OUP Oxford, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Shermer, M 2018, ‘You Kant Be Serious’, Scientific American, 318, 5, p. 80, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Sims, R, & Quatro, S 2016, Executive Ethics II : Ethical Dilemmas And Challenges For The C-Suite, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Varner, EI 2013, ‘ETHICAL ISSUES IN BUSINESS COMMUNICATION’, Bulletin Of The Association For Business Communication, 56, 4, pp. 56-57, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Vevere, V 2014, ‘ETHICAL LEADERSHIP: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF EXERCISING ETHICAL INFLUENCE IN ORGANIZATION’, European Integration Studies, 8, pp. 159-167, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018.
Whipple, T, & Swords, D 2012, ‘Business Ethics Judgments: A Cross-Cultural Comparison’, Journal Of Business Ethics, 11, 9, pp. 671-678, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 May 2018
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
