Processes Whereby Men and Women Come to Ethical Decisions in Their Own Particular Way - Assignment Example

Name …………… Instructor……….. Subject………….. 23 August 2007. Ethical Issues Introduction The psychological processes of individuals contribute to, and are affected by, organizational life. Memberships of organizations affect the way an individual thinks, feels and behaves. Various psychological theories have been influential in how organizations and employees influence each other. Some of the dominant theories like equity theory, personality theory, behavioral theories, motivational needs theory, psychosocial theories and various other psychological models have been influential in dealing with a variety of organizational issues like team work, managerial style, job insecurity, employee motivation. The application of these theories to organizations helps to understand the mental states and processes associated with behavior in structured social groups and systems. All this plays an important role in how business ethics is perceived and conducted within organizations. Ethical issues The social cognitive model of business ethics elaborated by Stajkovic and Luthans (1997) helps the managers to understand how business ethics and employees relate with each other. He describes a social cognitive model of business ethics that can begin to help international managers better understand how business ethics is perceived and conducted Introduction Although there have been philosophical approaches to the field of business ethics, these theories and approaches have undertaken a limited or no analysis of existing business practices. There have also been ethical theories such as utilitarianism, rights of justice, and differential association and concepts from humanistic psychology such as moral development as well as theological foundations to study business ethics (Stajkovic and Luthans). Researchers from management have been trying to apply these theories and concepts to business settings for a long time. Bandura’s social cognitive theory plays an important role in how personal factors and relationships affect business ethical standards. (Social Learning Theory). The major premise of Bandura's social cognitive theory is that human action is determined by the triangular interaction among the specific environment (e.g, institutional factors), person (e.g, personal factors), and behavior itself (e.g., organizational actions) all within a particular social context (e.g., national culture) (Social Learning Theory). Thus culture, organization and personal factors affect the conduction of business ethics in an organization. Culture The ethical behavioral conduct in an organization depends on the unique characteristics of each national culture. This is due to the fact that the social behaviors and the knowledge utilized for interpreting experiences is situated in the culture. It is the foundation of human thought and action. Business ethics necessarily needs to be examined within a cultural context since culture forms the meaning of all the concepts related to ethical inquiry. Organizational factors Viewed from a social cognitive perspective the creation of business ethical standards by the employees is neither instinctive, nor spontaneously transmitted by institutional, organizational, or personal ethical norms. Rather, the theory would explain creation of ethical standards and subsequent ethical behavior in terms of a triangular relationship among the key variables. Institutional and organizational factors are cognitively processed by individuals which in turn help in the formation of ethical standards. The macro-level forces like the organizations which help in generating relevant information are cognitively processed by individuals. This individual level is analyzed by the social cognitive approach which examines the ethical standards. It focuses on how individuals perceive business ethical standards which further defines their ethical behavior in social environment. These three factors that influence ethical standards are said to affect each other in a bidirectional way. (Stajkovic and Luthans). Because of this, there is a direct influence of legal institutions, the respective policies of the organizations, and the personal values and beliefs on the ethical standards and conduct of the individuals. As it is concluded in an article, “The perceptions of business ethical standards are formed at the individual level through cognitive assessment, using self-regulative processes, of combined triadic influences of institutional constrains (e.g., ethics legislation), organizational circumstances (e.g., policies and codes of ethics), and personal variables (e.g., values and beliefs) that are all shaped by the specific cultural context.” (Stajkovic and Luthans). Personal Factors A variety of psychological constructs influence the personal factors that affect perceptions of ethical business standards. Elements like individual values and beliefs, stage of moral development, and, especially from the social cognitive perspective, self-regulated mechanisms play an important role in how business ethics are perceived.(quote) Values and Beliefs Personal values can be defined as the most stable personal characteristics of individuals which lay the foundation for moral opinion, personal standards, critical decisions, and life directions (Whetten & Cameron, 1995 as cited in Stajkovic and Luthans). An individual’s behavior is greatly influenced by his own personal value which is also responsible for developing certain attitudes and behaviors. Similarly it also affects his notion of judging people as well as his preferences and choices. At the same time his adaptation to a particular social environment is also determined. Since every individual brings his/her values and related beliefs into the organization, it forms an important part of the background to business ethics. Moral Development According to Kohlberg (1976) the moral development of an individual influences the way in which values and beliefs flow into ethical standards and conduct. (Stajkovic and Luthans).He states that individuals at a low level of moral development are prone to make decisions by seeking realistic ways of getting ahead and avoiding any difficulties. At an intermediate level, individuals are prone to uphold the legal requirements and conform to expectations by peers, supervisors, or society at large. At the highest stage of moral development called the principled level, individuals develop an internal set of ethical principles that are more important than legal or social expectations to the individual. This may occasionally result in breaking the law if necessary. For instance civil disobedience. At other times it takes the form of sustaining high moral standards (e.g., Greenpeace actions on protecting the environment). Self-Regulation The social cognitive perspective also takes into consideration the importance of self-regulating mechanisms that determine and regulate the ethical standards and behaviours. (Bandura, 1986, Wood & Bandura, 1989 as cited in Stajkovic and Luthans). The means through which people implement self-influence in regulating their behaviors are: (1) symbolizing and forethought; (2) vicarious learning; and (3) self-reflection. Symbolizing and Forethought Capability. Bandura suggests that humans possess extraordinary symbolizing and forethought capability that helps them to effectively change and adapt to their particular environments. (Social Learning Theory). Symbols are utilized by individuals to process and transform visual experiences into internal cognitive models. These in turn act as guides for future actions. Through such a symbolizing activity, people also assign meaning and form to their past experiences. Instead of imitating behavioral responses, individuals test possible solutions symbolically first, and then discard or accept them on the basis of apparent outcomes. Then they engage into action. With regards to international managers, meaning is assigned by them to their previous experiences of ethical conduct, before they create perceptions of ethical business standards and resulting conduct. These experiences help them in forming new perceptions of what should be the current ethical standard. The reasonable outcomes that the new ethical standards and behaviors are likely to produce, again demand a modification of the newly formed ethical perceptions. “In other words, using symbolizing capability, international managers would first cognitively evaluate their previous ethical experience which in turn would result in a broader concept of ethical standards for the near future” (Stajkovic and Luthans). Thereafter, the managers use forethought capability and anticipate the likely consequences of those ethical standards, modify them if required and set final ethical standards. Thus, the creation of ethical standards is guided in anticipatory fashion through the symbolizing and forethought capabilities by the international managers. The outlook is necessarily one of cause and effect which is adequately determined by the cognitive processes exercising symbols and forethought in the present. Vicarious Learning Capability According to Bandura almost all forms of learning can take place vicariously by observing the behavior of others and the consequences of these behaviors that follow. (Social Learning Theory). This capacity to learn by observation is very helpful to international managers to acquire and amass rules for different behavioral patterns without having to acquire them by risky trial and error methods. The type of business ethical standards that international managers create for themselves may be strongly influenced by the opportunities to vividly observe ethical business behavior of others, and importantly, the consequences these others experience for their behaviors. For example, if a brand manager who is fired for overstating the features of a product, this provides a life-long lesson that ethics are more important than an undeserved increase in sales. The acquisition of ethical business standards vicariously seems critical for learning culturally appropriate ethical behaviors in international business. This is because if international managers were to base their ethical conduct only on trial and error in a given cultural context, this could (and often does) result in costly consequences, especially in the complex global arena. This reliance on vicarious learning increases with the increase in the complexity of the environment and a rise ijhn the possible mistakes of unethical conduct. Self-Reflective Capability The self-reflective capability which enables people to think and analyze their experiences and thought processes is considered by Bandura very important. (Social Learning Theory). Their personal experiences provide the managers with specific knowledge about their environment and about themselves which in turn helps them to define the ethical conduct. It also equips them with a capacity to judge and deal effectively with different environmental realities. These types of perceptions are called as self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, the ethical business standards that are determined by international managers for themselves are in reality determined by the faith in their personal capability to successfully execute those standards through their actual behavioral conduct. Other than cognitive theories there are other theories which play an important part in defining business ethics. Aspects of gender differences go a long way in the perception of business ethics. With the increase in the role of women in today’s work force, as well as in the managerial positions held by them, has led to an increase in the research activities concentrating on the impact of women on business practices. Gender differences and ethical issues Thus gender difference is another factor in ethical decision making. The difference in moral reasoning and judgments in men and women and its implications for ethical conduct in the work environment is examined by various theorists. Most notable has been Carol Gilligan, a Harvard psychologist, widely recognized for her research suggesting that men and women differ in resolving moral dilemmas (Dawson). According to her, men are likely to consider moral issues in terms of justice rules, and individual rights. Women, on the other hand, view such issues in terms of relationships, caring, and compassion. In her book In a Different Voice (1982), Gilligan explains that the developmental constructs derived from the study of lives of women, a strikingly different moral conception from that of men is recognized (Dawson). They conceive a different notion of development. Gilligan bases her research on the premises of gender socialization theory. With influences from the work of Freud, this theory maintains that gender identity is the core of personality. This becomes established through the mother-child relationship at the age of three and thereafter cannot be changed. Sex differences of infancy are reinforced through the pattern of childhood games. Whereas traditional boys' games teach respect for rules and fairness, traditional girls' games teach respect for inclusion and avoiding hurt. Gender socialization theory predicts that as adults the sexes will bring different ethical values to their work roles, differentially shaping their work-related decisions. This gender socialization theory states four aspects where men and women differ regarding ethics. (Ambrose) First area is moral development. According to this, women reflect caring as their primary moral orientation. At the same time, women have lesser selfish interests as compared with men. There are also differences in the way the moral and value systems of both the sexes develop. Similarly education, occupation and marital status affect men and women differently. Second area is ethical values. Here for women, self-respect and inner harmony are most important of the values than men. At the same time men display a more cynical attitude towards ethics than women. The next area is ethical sensitivity. Here, it is noticed that women are better able to recognize ethical issues as compared to men. The final area is ethical behavior. It is noticed that women behave more ethically than men do. In the context of business ethics the validation of this prediction through empirical research has produced conflicting results. Ford and Richardson (1994) reviewed the literature of business ethics studies and concluded that sex was reported on more often than any other single variable. Several studies revealed that in certain situations females act more ethically than males. Other studies find that gender differences hardly affect ethical beliefs. This inconsistency in the studies is explained by Betz, O'Connell, and Shepard (1989) (as cited in Dawson). The rewards and costs associated with their roles in organizations have a far greater influence than the impact of early socialization or traditional roles. According to the structural approach, similar organizational conditions make women very similar to men. All the above mentioned four aspects of the socialization theory can also be viewed from the perspective of the structural approach. (Ambrose) Thus the first area of moral development shows no sex differences. According to Snarey (1985) who reviewed 17 cross-cultural studies of Kohlberg's framework in 15 countries, concluded that in 14 studies no significant sex differences existed. In the area of ethical values, Sikula and Costa (1994) examined four values like equality, freedom, honesty, and responsibility. It was found that men and women did not differ in terms of four values identified as "ethical" (Ambrose) Similarly the area of ethical sensitivity showed no difference in the perception of unethicality of various business practices. According to Tyson (1992 although women seem to show greater ethical sensitivity to unethical behaviors when they join the work place (e.g., concealing negative performance facts from a superior, distorting facts in internal and external reports, blaming a subordinate for one's own mistakes), those differences disappear with experience (as cited in Ambrose). In the area of ethical behavior, various studies have revealed that there are not many differences between the sexes. According to Jones and Kavanagh (1996) men and women did not differ in behavioral intentions in an ethically ambiguous situation, as far as padding expense reports were concerned (as cited in Ambrose). Similarly Stanga and Turpen (1991) discovered that sex did not matter in determining whether accounting majors would engage in unethical activities like submitting false reimbursement claims, use of insider information, adjusting accounting entries to show more favorable financial trends, and receiving questionable side-payments in exchange for granting contract work (as cited in Ambrose). Finally, Barnett and Karson (1989) found that predicting behavior in a variety of ethical situations like a padded sales commission or expense reports, a company buyout, or the illegitimately obtained marketing plan of a competitor was not influenced by sex differences (as cited in Ambrose). Conclusion What Gilligan states, is that, instead of quantitatively examining the ethical differences between men and women, it would be more appropriate to examine the processes whereby men and women come to ethical decisions in their own particular way. (Dawson). Women’s impact on ethical decision making in organizations will be better understood when the differences in moral reasoning that characterize the sexes are estimated. Works cited Stajkovic, Alexander D. and Fred Luthans (Spring 1997) Business Ethics across Cultures: A Social Cognitive Model. Source:Journal of World Business Vol. 32.1 p.17. Dawson, Leslie M. (July-August 1995) Women and men, morality and ethics. (sexual differences in moral reasoning). Business Horizons Vol.38.n4 p.p61(8).  Ambrose, Maureen L. and Marshall Schminke (Winter 1999) Sex Differences In Business Ethics: The Importance Of Perceptions. Journal of Managerial Issues Vol.11.4 p.454.  “Social Learning Theory” 1996. Viewed August 22, 2007. http://condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/~hhartman/Overview%20of%20Bandura's%20Theory.htm Read More