HRM and Kantian Ethics - Research Paper Example

HRM and Kantian Ethics This report will discuss whether HRM is ever ethical in when it treats employees as resources. The report also provides four recommendations which could help HRM become more ethical. Student’s Name Course Tutor’s Name Date Table of Contents Executive summary This report has a research section that reveals that when human resource management (HRM) treats human beings as resources, tools, instruments, material and means, then it cannot be ethical. The report has a discussion section where it indicates that ethics in HRM does not have to be a hard thing especially if the HR function realises that human beings need to live in dignity in the workplace just as they do when not working. The report makes four recommendations, which if implemented, should enhance ethics in HRM. They include: affording employees freedom of association and collective bargaining; creating fairness, equality and justice in the workplace; creating strategies that involve employees in decision-making; and providing employees with a safe workplace, liberties and fair work conditions. Introduction As a business function that manages relationships in the work place, HRM inevitably is faced with issues that are ethical in nature. For example, HRM has supporters and critics alike in matters related to the rights and responsibilities of the different parties in an employment relationship. It is also faced with issues related to fair treatment, fair remuneration and good working conditions in the workplace. The foregoing issues are ethical in nature. This report will discuss whether HRM is ever ethical in its treatment of human beings as means to an end – an end which benefits the employer organisation. The report concludes by noting that HRM has a tough balancing-act mandate to ensure that the interest of both employers and employees are met. The report further makes four recommendations regarding how HRM can treat employees as ends rather than means to organisational goals and objectives. Research: Is HRM ever ethical when it treats human beings as human resources, tools, instruments, materials and means? Greenwood and Freeman (2011, p.284) define ethical HRM as an implied term whereby, stakeholder engagement is combined with the “moral treatment of stakeholders”. The concept of stakeholder engagement is drawn from stakeholder theory, which indicates that the organisation has a responsibility to treat “employees as an end in their own right and to bear the consequences of its behaviour toward employees and to see employees as full moral persons” (Greenwood & Freeman 2011, p. 284). It is agreeable that HRM appreciates the moral and ethical obligations that it has towards employees (Rose 2007, p. 28); however, it has also been noted that despite HRM’s awareness of the ethical and moral obligations that it has towards human resources, most HRM departments do not uphold the same. In fact, some commentators have openly argued that HRM and the larger organisation has a responsibility to meet the business needs of its shareholders by securing the best possible returns for their investments. Such commentators further argue that businesses that seek to balance profitability and ethics will most likely fail (Rose 2007, p. 28). According to Rose (2007, p. 31), ethics is “concerned with analysing what is right or wrong in people’s behaviour or conduct.” Different organisations have different codes of conduct, but in HRM literature, it is indicated that “using” people is unethical, while “managing” people has some ethical connotation to it (Greenwood 2002, p. 261). Greenwood and Freeman (2011, p. 269) however note that whatever the difference, managing people is a euphemism for using people. As such there is not much difference between the two words because as Greenwood (2002, p. 261) notes, whether HRM manages or uses people to obtain indicated business goals and objectives, it already violates ethical proscriptions. For example, by referring to people as human resources, HRM arguably already places employees in the same category as computers and furniture. Notably, the literature appears to be devoid of ethical scrutiny regarding the use and/or management of employees. Winstanley and Woodall (2000, p.7) however note that whenever discussed in literature, the HRM ethics debate tends to take two extremes namely: considering whether HRM is totally ethical, or considering whether HR practice is ethical. The former is considered macro-level HR while the latter is considered micro-level HR. While macro-level ethical scrutiny is still at an early stage in literature, micro-level ethical scrutiny occurs at an individual organisational level and hence the results therein cannot be generalised. The foregoing notwithstanding, Greenwood and Freeman (2011, p. 282) note that when viewed from a stakeholder perspectives, HRM should take note of the fact that employees are primary stakeholders, without whom the employment relationship would be devoid of cooperation. Greenwood and Freeman (2011, p. 283) further indicate that employees are salient stakeholders who have high power and high legitimacy, and as such, the firm owes them a perfect duty. Crane and Matten (2004, p. 224) and Kaler (2002, p. 93) also support the foregoing point of view, arguing that besides the personal benefits they derive from the employment relationship, HRM should realise that employees are people with identities (faces, names, culture, and a sense of belonging in diverse communities). Oftentimes, employees have to make personal sacrifices (e.g. by moving from one geographical location to another) in order to work in a particular organisation. One of the ways that have been suggested for adoption by HRM in order to advance the ethical agenda is providing employees with fundamental rights to safe working places and liberty (Werhane et al. 2004). Rights to liberty would include: equal opportunities and treatment in the workplace, eradication of forced labour, freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to get into organised unions among other conditions that improve employees’ experiences in the workplace (ILO 2004, cited by Greenwood and Freeman 2011, p. 284). Rowan (2000, p. 366) further indicates that employees have a right to be respected, and this includes giving them rights to equality, fairness and justice, well-being and freedom (flexibility) in the workplace. Employees should also take part in decisions affecting them (Rowan 2000, p. 367). Discussion Ethics in HRM is a difficult concept, not only because the term HRM suggests that employees are a resource, but also because HRM strategies are voluntary and no organisation can be forced to treat people in a manner that it does not consider beneficial to the business. Notably however, ethics in HRM does not have to be a hard thing especially if employers consider the humanity in their employees and hence grant them their rights. As indicated above, such rights include equality, fairness and justice in the workplace, freedom of association, collective bargaining, eradication of forced labour, and enhancing wellbeing and flexibility in the workplace. As indicated above, employees are critical stakeholders in any organisation because without their cooperation, the goals and objectives of the organisation would be unattainable. They cannot therefore be treated with utter disregard of their feelings and opinions as one would do for other resources (e.g. computers or furniture). The mere humanity of employees demands that they be treated ethically; much as some employers would want to treat them as a means to an end, resistance will always arise where they consider their rights to have been violated. Conclusion It is rather obvious that HRM has a tough balancing-act role to play in order to ensure that people working in an organisation are managed in a manner that contributes to the larger organisational goals and objectives, while ensuring that they (employees) are treated ethically. Specifically, and having established that employees are different from other company resources (e.g. computers and furniture), HR ethics demands that people be treated with respect and dignity; ultimately, they should be perceived and treated as ends to themselves rather than means for achieving an organisation’s profitability goals. As was noted in the opening section of this report, ethics in HRM is a controversial subject with opponents arguing that business is simply business and that introducing ethics in HRM is a threat to business success. With the foregoing arguments in mind, it is worth noting that ethics in HRM is still a young concept which will probably evolve as time goes by. Possibly, the concept will have a more defined meaning in future, and perhaps then, more organisations will be willing to adopt the same. Recommendations: How HR can treat employees as ends (human beings as an end in-themselves) and not as means (instrument/resource) By affording employees freedom of association and collective bargaining as indicated in the research section of this report (see page 6), HR would be demonstrating their appreciation of employees’ rights to demand for what they consider right associations and remuneration. HR should create workplace environments where fairness, equality and justice are upheld, and where flexibility in the workplace is upheld albeit within the confines of meeting business goals and objectives. Such conditions should be made in recognition of the important stakeholder role held by employees, and the fact that they too cannot be ordered around as if they do not possess self-will (see page 6). Further, HR should create strategies that involve employees in decision-making in matters that affect them. HRM knows that employees are not just passive recipients of orders and instructions; rather, management directives, orders or communication are perceived either negatively or positively (see page 5-6). Consequently, performance and other employee-related pointers (e.g. the willingness to stay in the same job) are affected in the same manner (negatively or positively). Through employee involvement however, HRM can create a more cohesive work environment where employees have a sense of belonging. Finally, HR should provide employees with safe workplaces, liberties, and fair work conditions (see page 6). Ideally, the foregoing should be done in the recognition that beyond work, employees have personal lives, which they need to live in dignity. References Crane, A & Matten, D 2004, Business Ethics – A European Perspective: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Greenwood, M & Freeman, R E 2011, ‘Ethics and HRM: The contribution of stakeholder theory,’ Business & Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 30, no. 3-4, pp. 269-292. Greenwood, M R 2002, ‘Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis,’ Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 36, no. 261-278. Kaler, J 2002, ‘Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 91-99. Rose, A 2007, Ethics and Human Resource Management, McGraw Hill, New York. Rowan, J R 2000, ‘The moral foundation of employee rights’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 355-361. Werhane, P, Radin, T J & Bowie, N E 2004, Employment and Employee Rights, Blackwell Publishing, Boston, MA. Winstanley, D & Woodall, J 2000, ‘The ethical dimensions of human resource management’, Human Resource Management Journal Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 5-20. Read More