The Promise and Betrayal of Modern Work - Case Study Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxxx Title: Ethical HRM Date: xxxxxxxxxxx Introduction The contemporary business world has increasingly turned its attention to the issues of ethical business practices. In particular, issues of fairness, justice, equity and transparency in the workplace have dominated the analyses of Human Resource Management (HRM) in many organizations (SHRM 2009). Subsequently, it has become imperative for businesses or companies to foster ethical cultures in the workplace. Most importantly, how HR managers treat their employees and the resulting relationship between employees and management has become the center of focus in the ethical HRM debate. Ethical HRM is essentially concerned with the issue of whether HR managers are treating their employees fairly or not. The moral reasoning in determining whether HRM practice is ethical or not is often grounded in ethical frameworks or theories. One of the most significant ethical views is deontological ethics which draws heavily on the works of philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kantian ethics postulates that the only qualifier for an action to be considered ethical is the intent, not the consequences (Kramar et al 2011). According to Kant, therefore, one would still be acting ethically if they had good intentions and negative consequences. Among Kant’s categorical imperatives is that human beings should treat each other only the way they would want to be treated, with dignity and respect and as an end and never as means. The import of categorical imperatives to an ethical workplace is that for HRM to be ethical, the employees must be treated as ends, not means. This implies that HRM managers should not exploit employees for their services but treat them with dignity, fairness and respect (Kramar et al 2011). This paper seeks to establish whether HRM can be ethical in the deontological sense if employees are treated as tools, instruments or resources. This happens when businesses use hard HRM practices such as performance based evaluation where the value of employees is simply what their contribution is to company bottom lines. Businesses also employ strategic HRM to survive hostile economic conditions such as off sourcing businesses to countries with cheaper labour leading to massive layoffs (Kramar et al 2011). This report will argue that ethical HRM can only be achieved by treating employees fairly which includes respecting their rights and freedoms and providing meaningful work capacity. The report will also outline four recommendations on how employees can be treated as ends, not means. Synopsis The report will highlight some of the issues in ethical HRM debate such as the protection of privacy, meaningful work and transparency in the workplace. It will conclude that HRM cannot be ethical if employees are treated as means and offer four recommendations which would make HRM practice ethical in the deontological sense. The Ethical HRM Debate Ciulla (2000) provides insight into the possibility of an ethical workplace culture through the concept of meaningful work. According to Ciulla, work can only be meaningful if it morally worthy. There are objective and subjective elements of meaningful work. The objectivity of meaningful work is derived from the moral conditions of the work itself. The employees should feel that they are treated with dignity and respect and that the HR manager engages with them on a basis of honesty and fairness. On the other hand, the subjective element is made up of the perspectives or attitudes that workers bring into the workplace (Ciulla 2000). The workers should be able to express their personalities, values and life experiences through the output of their work. The employees should be trained and their skills refined to enhance their confidence and competency and to open up possibilities for career development. Such conditions constitute the Kantian ethical workplace. However, there are ongoing debates as to how HR Managers can balance the obligatory demands of their organization with ethical practices towards employees. This questions the possibility of ethical HRM. Central to the debate on whether HRM can be ethical are the fundamental rights and freedoms of employees in the workplace. For HRM to be ethical in the deontological sense, the employees’ rights and freedoms in the workplace must be upheld. The National Workrights Institute report On Your Tracks: GPS Tracking in the Workplace highlights the issue of privacy in the workplace. The report argues that GPS tracking of employees in and off the workplace is an unacceptable violation of employee’s privacy rights (Kaminski & Tran 2005). In the report, the National Workrights Institute identifies the various ways through which employers track or monitor their employees’ whereabouts using GPS technologies on cell phones, badges and vehicles. The report demonstrates that the use of GPS technologies without the prior consent of the employee is an unconstitutional intrusion into their privacy (Kaminski & Tran 2005). The knowledge that an employee is being watched or tracked by their superiors may influence the employee to avoid certain activities which basically constrains their freedom of movement. Tracking human beings using GPS technology thus treats them like resources or objects which can be monitored and influenced, treating employees as means (Kaminski & Tran 2005). Employee’s privacy rights are also intruded by their HR Managers through social networking sites such as through Facebook (Kramar et al 2011). The use of information gleaned from Facebook profiles of employees to influence selection, recruitment or even termination has recently become a hot topic in the ethical debate. On the one hand, HR managers would be acting out of obligation to the company if they discover information that may adversely affect the company’s activities. But conversely, the use of such information without the employees’ consent is an unethical breach of their privacy (Kramar et al 2011). In addition to privacy, there are also other dimensions through which HRM treats employees as means. A lack of transparency, consistency and fairness in administration of workplace policies creates an unethical subculture in the workplace. According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), inconsistent application of policies negatively affects employee morale and leads to perceptions of unfairness in the workplace (SHRM 2009). For example, HR managers who apply company policies such as sick leave inconsistently and selectively foster unethical corporate cultures characterized by poor communication between HR managers and employees. This contributes to frustration and confusion on the part of the employee who feels de-motivated and is likely to leave the organization (SHRM 2009). On the other end of the scale, The Hewitt Best Employers in Australia and New Zealand survey of 2005 illustrates the possibility of ethical HRM where employees are treated as the ends and not the means (Kramar et al 2011). According to the study, employers who invest in making the workplace flexible and comfortable had fewer problems retaining talent or meeting strategic targets. The key for success for companies such as American Express lies in giving employees autonomy to meet the company’s strategic objectives (Kramar et al 2011). Consistent with stakeholder theory, this treats employees as partners who have invested intellectual skills, time and resources in the company and should therefore be included in decision making, not just exploited for their potential. On the other hand, companies which use “hard” HRM practices such as outsourcing business to cheaper locations or using massive layoffs to keep within profit margins or strategic objectives (such as to survive recession) simply view the employee as a tool or resource to be exploited. This is common in mining and industrial manufacturing companies (Kramar et al 2011). Discussion The Kantian categorical imperative demands that employers treat their employees not just as a means but as the end themselves. Therefore, according to Kant, good intentions on the part of HR managers are sufficient to make the HRM ethical regardless of the outcome. As Ciulla (2000) demonstrates, this includes treating employees with dignity and respect. Conversely, intruding into the privacy of employees through GPS tracking or poaching information from Facebook to use in decision making is unethical. As demonstrated by the Hewitt Best Employers in Australia and New Zealand Study, it is possible for HRM to be ethical. The key lies in the ability to balance between organizational strategic objectives and providing the objective and subjective conditions of a meaningful workplace (Ciulla 2000). Subsequently, employees should be treated as stakeholders (as ends), not just as tools, resources or materials (as means). Conclusions 1) For HRM to be ethical, employees must be treated as stakeholders or partners within the organization itself. They must be treated with respect, dignity, honesty and fairness and given the autonomy to express themselves in the workplace. 2) It is therefore not possible for HRM to be ethical in the deontological sense if employees are treated as tools, resources or materials. Kantian ethics categorically demands that the intent of HR managers be to improve the welfare of the employee regardless of the consequences to the company or organization. Recommendations There are certain practices through which companies or organization can treat their employees as ends and not as means: 1) Investing in employee competencies through practices such as skill training to enable the employee perform their duties with confidence and express themselves in a meaningful workplace (Ciulla 2000). 2) Enhancing transparency and accountability in the workplace. This includes making employees aware of and obtaining prior consent from them before any private information is collected or used to protect their privacy rights. Managers should also educate employees on their rights, clarify how company policies such as sick leave are administered and apply the same consistently (SHRM 2009). 3) Allowing employees the autonomy to determine their own (flexible) work plans within the organizations’ strategic objectives and participate in decision making that affects their personal lives. This is consistent with the stakeholder theory (Kramar et al 2011). 4) Investing in creating a comfortable workplace and providing incentives to boost the morale of employees. This includes allowing recreational activities within the workplace (Kramar et al 2011). References Ciulla, J., 2000, The Working Life: The Promise and Betrayal of Modern Work, Three Rivers Press, New York. Kaminski, N. & Tran, W., 2005, On Your Tracks: GPS Tracking in the Workplace, National Workrights Institute. Retrieved April 20, 2011 from < epic.org/privacy/workplace/gps-traking.pdf - United States > Kramar, R., Bartram, T. & De Cieri, H, 2011, Human Resource Management in Australia-Strategy, People, Performance (4th ed.), McGraw-Hill, Sydney. Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), 2009, ‘Business Ethics: The Role of Culture and Values for an Ethical Workplace’, SHRM Research Quarterly, Fourth Quarter 2009. Retrieved April 21, 2011 from Read More