Comm 527 Midterm
Low vs. high degree of dialogic communication
Low degree: -if you can't talk to your boss about everyday things, you won't talk to them about ethical issues -enables a lot of independence and autonomy of employees...not in a good way -leads to diminished identification w org, enables people to act unethically High degree: -involving employees in comm. and decision making makes them want to do more for org -when people are doing more, makes it easier to do the right thing and be ethical -also enables more productivity
Case Study 2: Dilemmas, perspectives, practices
To what degree should employees w differing family situations be treated differently/similarly in their orgs? Dilemmas: -Individual vs. collective: married individuals & those w kids benefit while singles take on more work -Short term vs. long term: AH meeting their goals, getting work done but long term employees burning out -Truth vs. loyalty: Rob speaking up about mistreatment vs. staying quiet bc of his promotion Perspectives: -What AH took: Utility; just focused on outcomes and overworking employees to finish work (could also say Duty, like with AH acting like employees had to do work extra even if it hurt them) -Needed virtue perspective: org encouraging flourishing and employees taking advantage of it -also rights: org protecting and applying rights equally Practices: -Dialogic communication: needs to be able to speak up without fear of retribution, also need clearer expectations and timely orders; also alignment **AH needs a more foundational approach w how it enforces policies
Ethical agility
What May wants us to develop; this is the ability to be strong, assertive, flexible, and skilled when it comes to discussing ethics--> when faced with ethical situations, we'll be able to recognize them, judge them, act on them consistently
Right/right dilemmas def.
genuine dilemmas where each side is firmly rooted in one of our basic core values; more challenging than right/wrong decisions
Ethical tensions def. and types
differences in ethical perspectives, people tend to fall on a continuum in terms of their ethical orientations; types: foundational/situational, individual/community
Ethical perspectives (list)
duty, rights, utility, virtue, relationship
Rights perspective test (you MUST include this)
"Veil of ignorance/original position" --What kind of position would a person take if they resided behind this veil of ignorance? --veil of ignorance comes once you stop stripping away your standpoints --once you've done that, you make a decision about how you understand individuals --**Asks you to make a decision/action if you took away things that inform your beliefs and opinions
Relationship perspective
--"Ethics of care" --High quality relationships as the basis of ethical behavior --These relationships are made up of effective communication, especially dialogue --Not just about having a relationship, but about the nature of it --Think about the nature of the comm. and how we account for different stakeholders --focuses more on means and processes than on ends; How do we get to a conclusion/decision/action?
Ethical practices (list)
--Dialogic communication --Transparency --Participation (commitment) --Ethical courage --Accountability
Duty perspective
--Foundational perspective!!! --Individuals have an obligation to the collective, towards others --These duties are seen as natural, self-evident, rational, shared by others (like an intrinsic obligation) --judge the quality of ethical actions based on the intrinsic nature of the act --NOT self-interested, you're acting responsibly towards others even tho it's against your self-interest
Virtue perspective
--Goal: look at how we enable people to flourish in society (like self-actualization) --Kind of a middle ground between duty and rights --Every individual has an obligation to flourish but each org/collective also owes it to them to help them do this --Principles: Assumes that people are born with inherent potential, all individuals strive toward flourishing (a good society integrates both of these simultaneously) --What does this look like in an org? Ideally like a nonprofit --if an org holds you back, that's unethical --if you don't take advantage of how an org helps you, you're unethical
Categorical imperative (you MUST include this in duty perspective answer)
--Key principle in Duty perspective --kind of like an ethical test --People can look at a behavior and say whether it follows the categorical imperative or not --Start by asking: what is the principle/core essence of that action? --Second question: would we want that action to become a universal law in a world in which we'd hope to live? --If the answer is no→ that's unethical behavior --If it's yes→ that action is right moral and good **a kind of check to make sure we're not applying different standards to others' behavior vs. our own
Case Study from class #2 (about Sarah at the family business)
--Sarah is a new employee in a leadership role at a family-owned business --CEO/boss tells her he wants her to take over layoffs --doesn't even have the criteria to lay people off bc these people never wanted performance reviews --ethical dilemma: whether or not she should go forward with the layoffs or speak to the CEO about it; truth vs. loyalty, individual vs. collective, short vs. long-term --duty, utility, and rights could all be applied
Alignment
--relationship between an organization's espoused ethics and how it functions on the ground; does the org walk the talk?
1st Case Study about Ron and Jane from Worksheet
--two businesses are merging, lots of upheaval --Ron (long-term employee) goes on retreat with new VP Jane --retreat sucks but when Jane asks him how he thought it went, he doesn't know what to say --does he have an obligation to tell the truth? to himself? to Jane? to their employees? --seems like a truth vs. loyalty dilemma, but could also be individual vs. collective or short term vs. long term
Case Study 1: Ethical Dilemmas in the Financial Industry (summary)
-2008 financial crisis grounded in idea of homeownership as part of "American Dream" -myth created # of supporting systems that help people buy houses and encourages orgs and gov to take risks -during 80s, policies to regulate lending were rolled back...made things much more risky -employees in financial instits. came up w clever ways to disguise risks -led to hella people getting loans/mortgages who shouldn't have been able to -made it seem like housing market was booming, but it was all a lie -when it got shady, orgs sold off bad mortgages w good ones -economy slows down, housing prices plummeted ***"Few bad apples" blamed but this WASN'T an individual problem; doesn't change systems in place that encourage risky and unethical behavior
case Study 6: Toyota--Oh what a feeling, or oh, what a mess? (summary)
-August 2009, off-duty highway patrolman makes 911 call when Lexus sped out of control -911 call brings issue into public conversation -during early phases of issue, Toyota refrained from speaking to public but talked a lot to lobbyists and regulators (shows where their priorities were) -Toyota finally makes public statements but focuses on actions to find solutions vs. apologizing -direct apologies only came later when media forced them to -Toyota forced to pay $34 mill in fines **Case shows need to consider ethical tensions between corporations, govs, and broader publics **Also highlights who gets to be a valued stakeholder?
Value of transparency + low transparency
-Bosses usually hate transparency/struggle with it bc it could open them up to scrutiny or question their power/control -Ironic bc the more transparent leaders are, the more loyal and hardworking their employees are High transparency as a leader: employees more willing to work, less contestation, less questions Low transparency: less ethical behavior; bosses not transparent, then employees aren't either
Case Study 4: Just Window Dressing? The Gap RED Campaign (summary)
-CSR seems essential for NGOs, not enough to only worry about your profits anymore -must be communicated as a genuine gesture, not just as a marketing ploy -RED is a business model meant to raise awareness and money for The Global Fund -companies "partner" with RED and sell their products, % of $ goes to help fight AIDS in Africa -The Gap is known for its huge CSR claims -partnered w RED, but seemed shady; didn't publish on website, used a lot of celeb campaigns for publicity, created trichotomy of heroes, victims (those with AIDS), and villains, never published $$ info about RED, consumption of philanthropy, etc. -but, also did some good: established ethical trade, opened themselves up to scrutiny, Gap continues giving back through RED
Case Study from Class: Considering Profits and Principles in Technology Adoption Decisions
-Company is known for being environmentally conscious -had innovative products and are engaged in CSR w environment -company didn't pick up new anti-odor tech products bc dangerous -other companies didn't drop it and they profited -have to choose whether to pick up new product with least damaging chemical -risking profits, risking business relationship w supplier, but also has unknown health and environmental effects
Case Study 5: Ethical Contradictions in the Email Comm. at Enron (summary)
-Enron started as pipeline company, then went into trading -created "RICE values": respect, integrity, comm., excellence and was world's leading company -as company ramped up, CFO created a scheme and manipulated people to keep it up -execs and management driven by deals/bonuses to look the other way -strong cultish culture kept people loyal -"rank and yank" Performance Review Committee--> sink or swim mentality, all competitive -company embodied values of greed and aggression -email messages finally showed employee dissent -company ended up going bankrupt in 2001 and now isn't a thing
Case Study 11: Ethical Storm or Model Workplace? (summary)
-Mitsubishi had honesty, fairness, and respect as core values -behavior not living up to values through widespread sexual harassment -accusations gathered against Mitsubishi back in 1992 but complaints went back as far as early 80s -happened from all levels in company -29 women came forward, EEOC got involved and launched federal investigation -ended up representing 350-400 women -Mitsubishi first denied and discredited the women -Brought in former US Sec of Labor to make changes -Union refused to help women -Mitsubishi eventually had to pay the original women almost 10 million dollars, made it clear they weren't apologizing
Case Study 9: Resistance and Belonging: Chicago Blackhawks and 2010 Annual Chicago Pride Parade
-Pride parades date back to Stonewall Riots in NYC in 1969 -today's mainstream Pride parades create tension w its history (resistance vs. inclusion) -2010: Chicago Annual Pride Parade invites Cubs and Blackhawks to attend -Cubs accept right away but Blackhawks didn't -Issue with timing: Blackhawks only agreed to come after homophobic comments came out from their players -Blackhawks coming looked like good PR and also had peer pressure bc Cubs were going -Blackhawks never apologized for comments made
Case Study 8: Tata Motors, What about the people in the 'people's car'? (summary)
-Tata known as being one of India's most trusted, socially responsible companies -huge demand for cheapest car, Nano -new factory to be built in Singur -got the land from the government who paid landowners but not laborers who got laid off -people started protesting, 50 people ended up dying -Tata never responded, let the State speak for it -Finally addressed protests when it shut down Singur plant
Case Study 2: The Ethics of the Family Friendly Organization (summary)
-more and more orgs are adopting "family friendly" work-life policies to help employees balance work and family obligations -raises question: how inclusive/exclusive are these policies? whose needs come first? -Aon Hewitt: firm that manages human capital, benefits packages, etc. -Rob's story: starts out as single, his time was never valued until he was engaged -Spouses & kids only responsibilities that were respected at AH -Even after Rob is married, work is still being dumped on him constantly -doesn't feel like he can come forward to AH about it, only rewards employees who work 24/7
Case Study 10: Is Agriculture Spinning Out of Control? (Summary)
-starts in 1995 when Anton Pohlmann wants to build large egg-laying plant in Ohio (a megafarm/factory farm) -Neighbors start protesting -Regulating agencies ignore Pohlmann's criminal record and gives him permit to build -Starts seeing environmental issues from farm in 1997 -company pretends to "shut down" but gets new name and keeps going -eventually State Attorney General shut down farm in 2001
3 dimensions of ethical agility
1. Awareness: you can recognize ethical dilemmas 2. Judgment: where course concepts come in; after recognizing a dilemma, we apply what we learn in class to understand them better 3. Action: do people take action in the dilemma? How do we take action, what does that look like? What are the risks of taking action? How do we minimize these risks?
Communicating about ethics (3 ways)
1. Descriptive ethics: provide a neutral, objective, unbiased account of circumstances 2. Normative ethics: where we start to enter into defending judgments of right and wrong; include our own biases and perspectives 3. Analytical ethics: decides whether an ethical decision/position is appropriate in comparison to other perspectives and points of view; need to exert a rationale and explain it more **As we talk about cases, we need to use all of these ethical approaches
Case Study 6: dilemmas, perspectives, practices
Dilemmas: -Individual vs. collective: Toyota as a company prioritizing its interests/values vs. collective consumers' safety -Short vs. long term: Toyota more concerned w recall and immediate profits vs. long term scandal effects Tensions: foundational vs. situational -situational bc Toyota treated issue like a case by case basis instead of calling it a quality issue and treating it seriously enough Perspectives: -Toyota used Utility: cared more about reputation and relationships with gov/stakeholders -need Rights: company obligated to protect consumers' safety and rights Practices: -Transparency -Accountability
Case Study 1: Ethical dilemmas, perspectives, practices
Dilemmas: -Individual vs. collective: risk was socialized and individuals profited; employees in finance prioritizing themselves vs. people who needed their help -Short term vs. long term: giving out loans to people to make short term money vs. thinking about the long term and how the system could crash -Truth vs. loyalty: employees emphasizing loyalty to themselves and orgs over telling the truth about corruption Perspectives needed: -Utility: thinking about most good for most # of people; employees should've come forward and told truth -Duty: individual orgs having obligations to clients/homeowners -Rights: orgs protecting homeowners' rights and interests Practices: -Transparency: literally everything was a lie about how good the market was doing -Accountability: orgs needed to hold themselves accountable for their shady behavior and what they did to people *could also say ethical courage or dialogic comm.!
Case Study 8: Dilemmas, perspectives, practices
Dilemmas: -individual vs. collective: Tata valuing profit and production over impact on community; lack of meaningful stakeholder engagement -short term vs. long term: Tata filling in demand for Nano car, huge profits, but displaced entire community of laborers Perspectives: -Duty: What is Tata's duty to stakeholders in this emerging economy? -Utility: Was this truly the greatest good for greatest number of people? Practices: -dialogic comm -transparency -participation
Case Study about environmental tech cont.: dilemmas, perspectives, practices
Dilemmas: -short term vs. long term: making profits now vs. possible environmental/health issues -truth vs. loyalty: being honest about issues with tech vs. being loyal to business relationship and going forward w product Perspective: (if they use it) -Utility: looking at greatest good for greatest number; product and profit ultimately worth the potential risks (if they don't use it) -Duty: company owes its consumers and stakeholders to not put out potentially problematic product Practices: -Alignment: bc hard to live up to CSR company brags about
Foundational vs. situational ethical tensions
Foundational ethics: ethics seen as universal, constant, coherent and consistent; tends to have a stability/persistence; assumption that people tend to see the world as given, self-evident, neutral, objective, patterned, stable; these ethics based on principles, precepts, guidelines that provide a regular and consistent direction for behavior (ex: making an ethical training for an org where you argue for a core set of values) Situational ethics: views reality as socially constructed, subjective, and interpreted; these ethics are context-specific, less about principles; looking for cues in the environment, relationships between people about how to proceed, these all guide our behavior; more detail-oriented and asks more questions to figure out situations and ethics involved (ex: tailoring ethical services to specific needs of particular orgs)
Rights perspective
Foundational perspective (consistent, coherent, regular, treated as natural)...bc all individuals have human rights --Casual relationship from collective to individuals --We have an obligation to one another; a duty is owed to individuals in the form of rights --Idea is that by being human, we already have these inherent rights --It's the task of organizations to manage those rights and make sure they're applied to all individuals --Majority/minority interests become really important: often focusing on minority members to make sure they get the same rights as majority in culture/society
Value of high participation and low participation
Higher participation = greater likelihood of ethical behavior Lower participation = more unethical behavior -if you participate more in the org, you'll be more invested in it (less likely to be unethical) -if there's nobody participating in decisions, you WILL get unethical behavior in the org (like a predictor) **this is important for an ethical component but also affects performance
Participation (commitment)
How committed is the org and its people to ethical behavior? Individual ethical commitment -Employees keep ethics alive in the daily life of the company -The ethics demonstrated in the org make employees likely to remain Organizational ethical commitment -Leaders set the tone that ethical behavior is a core component of the business -Ethical considerations are integrated into management decision-making processes -Principled conduct is supported by management
Case Study 11: Dilemmas, perspectives, practices
How does an org navigate a situation where its core values don't match the treatment some of its employees receive? Dilemmas: -right/wrong -individual vs. collective: protecting itself vs. the women; not protecting the women as individuals but protecting company as a whole Perspectives they applied: -Utility: focused only on protecting their reputation; very outcome-oriented with how they responded to situation They needed: -Rights: right to NOT be sexually harassed at work and protected by company Practices -Alignment -Accountability
Ethical courage
How does the org and its people do what's right when risk is involved? Practice ethical judgment -Employees identify the relevant ethical principles and tools that enable them to do the right thing -Employees have the skills to navigate tough ethical dilemmas Integrity in action -Employees can question the behavior of their superiors -Org is willing to break from established practices in order to uphold its values -Org is willing to change course for ethical reasons even if financial risk is involved **One of the best predictors of ethical behavior: whether someone can talk about unethical behavior with their superiors
Dialogic communication
How opened, informed, reciprocal and honest is our communication? Candid feedback: -Communication is accurate and timely -Expectations are explicit -Employees deliver bad news without fear of retribution Open comm.: -Info and ideas are openly shared and exchanged -Communication is truthful and reciprocal -Leaders seek and consider other's views
Transparency
How transparent are the org's governance structures, decision-making processes, policies and procedures? Values, mission and goals are visible -Employees are aware of the org's stated values, mission and goals -The espoused values, mission and goals align with the "way it really works around here" Policies, procedures and governing structures are visible -Employees understand policies, procedures and how performance is evaluated Rationale for org's actions is visible -Stakeholders have access to relevant info -Management explains how and why decisions are made
Accountability
How well do the organization and its people hold themselves accountable for anticipating and responding to ethical challenges? Personal responsibility for ethical behavior -Employees take responsibility for their own ethical behavior -Employees understand how their decisions impact others in the org Organizational responsibility for its behavior and its impact on others -Org is responsive to public scrutiny -Org considers stakeholders' concerns -Leaders are accountable for responsibilities they have delegated
Case Study 4: Dilemmas, perspectives, practices
Is it acceptable for Gap's RED campaign to be leveraged for financial gain as they're attempting to operate w social responsibility in an already existing capitalistic system? Tensions: foundational vs. situational -Gap made it seem like CSR was taken seriously and practiced this throughout its business -but not all Gap merchandise was RED products Dilemmas: -short term vs. long term: Gap using RED campaign to profit in short-term vs. worrying about long-term effects with creating African dependence and marketing nightmare blowing up on them if it comes out that RED is fake/they're using RED -could also say ind. vs. collective Perspectives: -Duty (What Gap used): individual to collective, you buy these close for AIDS victims; made to seem intrinsic and naturally motivated -could also say they used Utility Needed to use: -Rights: Gap protecting these individuals' rights, giving back to them bc it's the right thing to do and not bc they profit from it Practices: -Transparency: Gap not including info on website, not releasing $ reports, non RED products, consumption philanthropy -could also say Accountability
Right/right dilemmas types
Justice vs. mercy, truth vs. loyalty, individual vs. collective, short-term vs. long-term goods
Case Study 5: Dilemmas, perspectives, practices
Overidentification w Enron and its values of profit and greed led employees to look the other way until it was too late Dilemmas: -Truth vs. loyalty: overidentifying w company led to people not speaking up, buying loyalty -Individual vs. collective: collective sense of culture made employees ignore individual thoughts of dissent, just listened to execs' lies Tensions: Foundational vs. situational; only applied some of RICE values when it helped them (more situational) Perspectives: -Utility (what Enron used): just thinking about consequences and outcomes, profits over everything; interested in ends not means -should've used Duty: individual execs/management owing it to collective employees to enforce all RICE values, not encouraging them to be unethical Practices: -Transparency: Arthur Andersen and Enron hiding their numbers and profits, lying -Dialogic communication: employees need to be able to voice dissent to superiors -Ethical courage: both execs and employees speaking up and doing what's right
Foundational ethics pros and cons
Pros: --Consistent, don't have to think too much about it, automatic --Basis of judgment is clearcut, you can point to it as a reference --It makes things seem fair ideally --Could make behavior more predictable --Efficient and quick Cons: --Not seeing context, skipping over important info --No room for movement, individuals to grow --Caring more for integrity vs. the people involved, the outcomes
Situational ethics pros and cons
Pros: --Understanding the context, seeing all the details --Allows for different ideals and more variety in how people see things (diversity of ethical perspectives) --Able to evolve over time Cons: --Could allow people to make excuses for their actions --Allows people to get away with repetitive behavior, inconsistency in standardization --Less predictable --Slower, less efficient
Value Shift by Lynn Sharp Paine
Reasons why businesses have shifted towards more ethical approach: Risk management -ethical issues affect reputation of org and perceptions of integrity -affects whether people invest in org -sometimes orgs just fail bc of ethical issues Organizational functioning -talking about ethics improves org performance; ethical orgs = high performing orgs (employees would leave/not do work if their orgs were unethical) -affects productivity + recruitment Ethical orgs tend to be more creative/innovative Market positioning: where we're thinking about reputation -how is an org located within its market? ethics impacts these perceptions in relation to other orgs in market Civic positioning: how we're located/perceived within a community -ethics impact the ways local/state gov treat that org -orgs using volunteerism to help civic positioning **out of all of these--> Paine says "Do the right thing" overcomes all of these
Individual vs. community ethical tensions
Should the individual (libertarian approach) or the community (communitarian approach) be primary? Three questions you need to ask to figure this out: 1. Is the advancement of the individual good for the community or is the advancement of the community good for the individual? 2. Is the individual the source of morality, or is the collective wisdom of the community the basis of ethical judgment? 3. Is ethics better served by justice or by compassion?
Utility perspective
Situational approach!!! --Consequentialist, very outcome oriented --What are the consequences/effects/outcomes of a human action? --Evaluating ethics/quality of a behavior based on these and whether it produces good outcomes --Does it produce the most good for the most number of people? (utility test basically, must include this) --Short and long term consequences focus --Challenge: always oriented towards the hypothetical; about what could be, not what's certain; also very majority-based so could hurt minority members --Benefits: you can gather more info and consider context/specific situations
Trilemma solution
Supposedly the best way to solve a right/right dilemma; it's a third solution, a sort of compromise between the two values
Case Study 10: Dilemmas, perspectives, practices
Tensions: -Situational: factory farm/case treated like it was "just a bad egg" vs. a systemic issue -individual vs. collective Dilemmas: -Individual vs. collective: dep. of ag. (& factory farms) vs. concerned public -Buckeye egg farm as one bad egg vs. larger systemic issue Perspectives: -Relationship: regulating agency/Buckeye and neighbors = not good relationship -Utility: need to look at long term consequences of factory farms -Rights: humans should have right to be safe in their own homes and on their own land Practices: -dialogic comm. -transparency -participation/commitment
Case 9: Dilemmas, perspectives, practices
Tensions: individual vs. community -BH agreed to be in parade, but received good PR for being a prof sports team supporting Pride -having prof team at Pride also helped Pride's success -Question of whether spotlight used for right reasons on either end Dilemmas (presenters said individual vs. collective) -Short vs. long term (I think this is better): short term good PR boost for both Pride and Blackhawks but long term questions of being genuine Perspectives -Organizers': Rights: BH being there was symbolic, helped break down stereotypes in queer community -BH: Duty: dedicated participation to young, gay hockey player who died Practices: -alignment (from BH and Pride) -Participation/commitment (not everyone in Pride parade getting a say