Workplaces Nowadays Are More Open and Tolerant - Literature review Example

Research Assignment Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Workplaces nowadays are more open and tolerant Introduction The aim of this essay was to establish the level of tolerance and openness exhibited in current organizations with respect to diversity, leadership and ethics in global scale. Many organizations have evolved to embrace modern paradigms in corporate leadership, diversity, management, quality and social responsibility. The arguments on tolerance and openness in ethics, diversity and leadership have been brought up by various scholars like Dipboye and Halverson (2004) who reiterated on the subtleness of organizations when dealing with diverse workforce. Jackall (1988) also asserts that corporate managers need to be custodians of morality in all business dealings. Gabriel (1997) notes that corporate leadership should be revering and obedient to spiritual goals of humans for ethics and leadership are to be embraced. The essay has learned that organizations have grown in leaps and bounds to embrace diversity, ethics and leadership as opposed to practices decades ago. The essay starts by evaluating historical ethical, diversity and leadership practices of organizations more than four decades ago and compares with current practices. It attempted to bring out the trends and establish the openness and tolerance of the firms. Various articles were reviewed to support the dynamics of organizational leadership as well as arguments to support the positive changes (Goleman 2000). The body of the easy has a theoretical background of Human relations and Total quality management. This was followed by analyses of various empirical findings. Discussion of these findings helped to reach a conclusion that many organizations today have become tolerant and open with regard to diversity, ethics and leadership (Goleman 2000). Conclusions were based on strong arguments by various scholars supporting evolution of organizations to become leaders in a competitive world. It showed that practices driving organizations to be socially responsible embrace participative leadership and integrate employees from any racial, religious and political affiliations. Organizational Ethics, diversity and leadership Business ethics Kubal, Baker and Coleman (2006) notes that ethics is a big deal for corporate worldwide especially in the US. They reiterate on doing the right thing. Their observation is pegged on the dynamics of today’s leading companies becoming more ethical. They assert that ethics is increasingly becoming an organizational imperative. The observation by Coleman and her team points to an interesting ethical phenomena unfolding in that ethics in the 21st century is no longer an option or luxury. Ethics is therefore critical given that the current society growing impatient with irresponsible and selfish actions that enriches the crafty while impoverishing some. Though the aspect of responsibility is the basis for comprehending organizational ethics, the situation is almost too fundamental to merit mention owing to irresponsible behavior of some firms. BHP Billiton Group has ensured that every employee adheres to the company philosophy and corporate values. The consequence of violating this values and code of ethics is dismissal or imprisonment. Jackall (1988) unravels a world devoid of hard work and little success. He laments the sheer luck might, sharp talk, powerful patrons and self-promotion. He notes that cheerfully-bland public figures are disguised in intense competition as they conceal their intentions. This leaves accountability to solely rely on the capacity to outpace mistakes. A similar view was posited by Geissler, Kuhn and McGinn (2011) maintaining that managers in the human world ought to bring often vindictive technology so that the difficulty of making money is based on uncompromising task requiring conventional truths. It is clear that moral questions have become issues of public relations and practical concerns (Kilcullen & Kooistra 2005). Later or sooner, corporate managers will find themselves speculating how to act in this globe and while sustaining a sense of individual integrity. Enron Company was forced to change tact when found with taxation improprieties. It is now of interest to everyone concerned with how large organizations such as Caltex, Shell or Woolworths actually function given the current moral malaise in public life. Greed as fueled by selfish ambition causes leaders to rationalize unethical behaviors and lose perspective (Kilcullen & Kooistra 2005). It is bad news for societal offenders since people are now more alert to ethical recklessness than ever before. In modern organizations, ethical values must achieve recognition from the elite and strategists (Tsalikis & Seaton 2007). Milton-Smith (2002) observes that organizational ethics priority affects both decision-making and institutional culture. He suggests that achieving this ideal requires an alignment of methods that integrates business ethics with vision, mission, strategies, values, and goals. He goes to point out that ethical values are fundamentally social in nature hence, aligning this methods defines relational expectations and shapes relationships. Kilcullen and Kooistra (2005) assert that an ethical culture emerges where people are consistently well treated (Tsalikis & Seaton 2007). Internal relationships are all prized involving followers, leaders, clients, community, customers, and the vendors. It is evident that today’s organizations are advancing beyond a perspective of ethics critical for protecting their image and thereby complying with forced regulations or averting bad media coverage. A monumental opportunity prevails on organizations keen to exercise ethical values to shape their corporate future. This kind of possibility thinking is illustrated in a challenge put to the International Olympic Committee. There is a growing disillusionment with the Olympic Games given the worst characteristics of the competitive culture; unfair advantage of advanced nations, corruption, and winning at any cost (Milton-Smith, 2002). Milton-Smith prevails on the Olympic Games Committee as being capable of influencing society and shaping popular culture on a world scale. It is evident that the present society is desperate to build an ethical culture likely to influence social culture and institutionalize ethical values (Tsalikis & Seaton 2007). These corporate dynamics benefits communities through positively influence from employees at workplace back to friends, families and associates. According to Kidder (2001) ethics is neither an option nor a luxury. People at all strata of an organization require ethical values besides intelligence, competence, drive, and experience. Similar view was shared by Weil (2007) who mentioned that the major task of this decade is nurturing and creating a values-based culture. Therefore, business environment is the only suitable place for nurturing ethics due to the great amount of time people spend at workplace. Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard was committed to ethical integrity. She fired employees whom she felt were not conducting their affairs with integrity. Not all companies are keeping to their company philosophy and values. Some require enforcement by law to shape their corporate direction. In this case, Reynolds Tobacco Company was found to have covered up knowledge regarding nicotine addictiveness. Therefore, corporate should not tolerate bad behavior to justify the ‘not really illegal’ tag or improve the bottom line as it will develop a climate that eventually becomes corrosive. Cutting costs and driving out inefficiencies are constant pressure facing organizations are faced with the constant pressure. This puts resources or time to manage corporate ethics at risk (Kidder 2001). Apparently, organizations do not want to risk not investing their resources or time in developing a broad approach to corporate ethics since trade-off costs may be very high. Take a case of Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC). The company in Medicare business around 1998 paid $144 million in fines and penalties while surrendering a large segment of its business due to employee misconduct. Also, HCSC is today a better company as a result of this incident given that employees are now well equipped. They can handle any ethical challenges even in a highly pressure-paced, complicated business environment.” Diversity According to Wentling (2009), greater tolerance for differences, changes in demography, the global marketplace, and government-steered programs have increasingly improved the diversity of current workforce. It is now that workplaces have begun to accommodate minorities, more women, and persons from different lifestyles and ethnic backgrounds entering the workforce (Cox 2001). It is true that companies will experience similar issues and challenges faced by public schools in utilizing and understanding the broad array of human prospects in a diverse population. Gardenswartz and Rowe (2007) assert that organizations failing to manage diversity effectively cut themselves short from utilizing the full worker potential. They also do not survive and grow in an increasingly competitive and complex business circumstances. The authors established that the principal reason why organizations are striving to integrate diversity is to remain competitive and increase productivity. However, Bennet (2006) regrets that some companies have unwillingly implement diversity programs because they fear legal or social implications. It is clear that the desire to incorporate diversity may seem to develop from notions of economic and social fairness and morality (Cox 2001). They know that the actual need is to increase and maintain profits in regional and world competition. In 2012, the first Australian national retailer Woolworths introduced paid parental leave. Here, more than 2500 employees obtained parental leave. The company gender proportion constitutes 54% of the workforce being women. Women hold 27.8% of leadership roles including board membership. Wesfarmers have signed a Fresh Start agreement with the Australian Government to advance workplace involvement for persons of diverse backgrounds; indigenous workers, older workers, people with a disability, and the unemployed. This commitment is meant to close the gap between non-indigenous and indigenous Australians.   McGuire et al (2009) writes that the impetus for diversity initiatives need to originate from business implications awareness. There should be elaborate plan to address workers needs, satisfying competitiveness demands, and satisfy the requirements of company's community roles. They observe that organizations can accept change linked to diversity provided that the prospective benefits are worthwhile and clear (Cox 2001). This can be a strongest rationale to include diversity through increased worker productivity especially from underutilized or underrepresented groups. Including everyone in the diversity train ensures value and recognition to the workplace of all employees despite their differences (Cox 2001). Companies therefore focus on applying diversity to meet both organizational and individual goals. According to Dipboye and Halverson (2004), based on particular needs, organizations which endear to correct a firm’s bias against a specific group have narrow perspective of diversity. Others argue that reducing racism and sexism in society is weakened through attempts to cover all differences. The evolutionary nature of diversity and the process it represents has far-reaching effects on organizations and individuals (Wentling 2009). Effective diversity management requires capacities beyond sensitivity and awareness. Operational practices and organizational systems should be aligned with diversity goals. These are; hiring, recruitment, compensation or benefits, career development or promotion which influences organizational treatment of employees and diversity uses (Cox 2001). Organizations are now finding a strong need to adjust benefits and scheduling, conduct pay equity reviews, and ensure equal access and fairness through revamping promotional processes. Companies currently have diversity performance objectives for the workforce including diversity in hiring panels (Wentling 2009). This requires managers to consider a diverse schedule of candidates prior to making a hiring decision or systems changes. The individual behaviors and attitudes demand employees to conduct intrapersonal work involving identification of their beliefs and attitudes. Companies currently conduct random interviews on; multilingualism at the workplace, co-worker attitudes, management positions and conflicting union. Earlier in 2000s a number of policies spurred the hottest diversity topic on generational differences, or how sixty-year olds and twenty-year olds vary in their perception of the world of work. Change in this sphere demands acknowledging and identifying the feelings emanating these behaviors and differences (Wentling 2009). For instance, if the attitude of a sixty year old towards a twenty year old is that they are uncommitted and shallow, the young person’s behavior may likely become non-collaborative, standoffish, and unresponsive in trying to acculturate them to the organization (Cox 2001). These behaviors influences organizational outreach, culture, openness to co-workers and service delivery to customers. Siemens and Samsung both have policies and regulations ensuring that all employees irrespective of their backgrounds get fair pay and equal rights to labor and work. They have policies prohibiting forced labors, discrimination, and child labors. Samsung do not differentiate women and men, those working on contract and regular employees. The global compensation and evaluation in Samsung uses similar rate on cadres, irrespective of nationality, gender, age, religion, and social position (Wentling 2009). Siemens identifies the worker rights in the franchises to join or form unions so as to have collective bargain. Leadership According to Bass (2003) companies have little choice but to embrace transformational and inclusive leadership. The world is shifting and moving rapidly as executives know. As companies are attempting to cope with these dynamics, they are employing their best thinking to the systems, processes, and structures needed for healthy competition.  Ephros and Thomas (2005) have noted that conventional wisdom demands that right business structures be used to provide the innovation, efficiencies, and flexibility that organizations require to sustain and succeed. They identify four most crucial capabilities or skills required by companies in the future. These are; strategic planning, managing change, leading people, and inspiring commitment and form the strongest competencies for current individual leaders  (Fernando & Yi-Feng 2006). On the same note, what is changing is the nature of effective leadership. Many companies are now approaching the focus through flexibility, collective leadership, collaboration, and crossing boundaries instead of taking to the basics of making the numbers (Fernando & Yi-Feng 2006). Gabriel (1997) reiterates on human relations as critical in leadership. These sentiments suggest that organizations must constantly seek to strike a balance between enhancing the collective capabilities of groups, teams and networks and nurturing leaders through organizational leadership and individual competencies (Goleman 2000). It can be seen that the common thread is on the choice of the right leadership culture which determines failure and success (Dale & Marilyn 2008). Different purposes are served by different leadership cultures. Cultural hierarchy exists since each advancing culture is potential to deal with bigger and bigger complexity in gaining and leading the others commitments (Goleman 2000). Companies are now emphasizing on work culture strongly biased for action. KONE Group Ltd is engaged in escalator and elevator installation, maintenance business and modernization (Fernando & Yi-Feng 2006). KONE management and employees were initially excellent in problem solving and analytics. They overplayed the skill and soon became a weakness since they got into a short-term mode, reactive, operating on a mono system of one problem at a time. KONE’s leadership failure was improving work on a multiple systems and providing longer-term strategic bearing for the firm. This challenge pushed them to expand their minds, stick to the strategic issues and tolerate more ambiguity despite immediate satisfaction of getting things done and taking action. Changing leadership culture demands a belief on growing both organizational leadership capability and individual leader capacity (Dale & Marilyn 2008). According to Goleman, D. (2000), key people in the company place a high value on leadership and learning development if facing critical changes. What misses the mark is the act based on competencies of continuing down a path that invests only in individual leader development. It is possible that yesterday’s conventional wisdom is a weak spot tomorrow. Organizations need a tolerant and an open perspective to leader development strategies. Individual competencies may be necessary though no longer adequate (Fernando & Yi-Feng 2006). Learning is not just on the dimension of individuals but collective. Informal and formal leaders working and acting together establish if organizations succeeds in adapting to change and executing strategies (Goleman 2000). Individual coaching and development will succeed if emphasis is put on collective leadership capabilities and leadership cultures. Take for instance Abrasive Technology Inc. (ATI) which is a global company of Columbus, Ohio, USA. Involved in design, manufacturing and marketing of diamond-based products, the company developed a new product lines and desired to keep the position. The institution was forced to push for transformation leadership culture after high dependency on the culture of control and command. Company growth in global business demanded great customer service in multiple industries (Fernando & Yi-Feng 2006). The circumstances of diversification prevailed on this company to be more responsive, versatile, and connected. Similarly, BHP Billiton of Australia believes in high performance leadership but think that management is easy but leadership is in turning people on, motivating people, and deriving hundred percent out of an individual relationship (Goleman 2000). Conclusion The aim of this essay was to establish whether current organization have become more open and tolerant to diversity, ethics and leadership. The arguments obtain that organizations have increasingly become open and tolerant. The essay agrees with the statement that “workplaces nowadays are more open and tolerant”. This conclusion was reached after considering various views of scholars as Kubal, Baker and Coleman (2006) who noted that ethics is a big deal for corporate worldwide. Milton-Smith (2002) observes that organizational ethics priority affects both decision-making and institutional culture. Similarly, Gardenswartz and Rowe (2007) asserted that organizations failing to manage diversity effectively cut themselves short from utilizing the full worker potential. Finally, Dipboye and Halverson (2004) asserted that based on particular needs, organizations endear to correct a firm’s bias against a specific group having a narrow perspective of diversity. These dimensions reinforce the dynamics of changing workplace culture that demands revolution in leadership, diversity and business ethics if one is to be competitive and maintain a sizeable market share. Therefore, workplaces nowadays have become more open and tolerant. Reference list Bass, B M Bruce J Avolio, Dong I J & Yair, B 2003, Predicting Unit              Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership.              Journal of Applied Psychology 88.2: 207-218. Cox, T 2001, Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Dale, K & Marilyn L F 2008, Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment:              Mediating Effect of Role Stress. Journal of Managerial Issues. Spring .  Dipboye, R & Halverson, S 2004, ‘Subtle (and Not So Subtle) Discrimination in Organizations’ in Griffin, R. And O’Leary-Kelly, A. (Eds.) The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior Wiley, San Francisco Ephros, P H & Thomas V V 2005, Groups That Work: Structure and Process.              New York: Columbia University Press.  Fernando, M & Yi-Feng Y 2006, Transformational Leadership in a Cross- cultural Setting. Central Queensland University Conference Paper.  Gabriel, Y 1997, ‘Meeting God: When Organizational Members Come Face to Face with the Supreme Leader’ Human Relations 50(4): 315-342. Gardenswartz L & Rowe A 2007, Effective management of cultural diversity, Chicago. Geissler, C Kuhn L & McGinn, D 2011, Developing your global know-how. Boston. Goleman, D 2000, Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review Mar- Apr: 78-99. Jackall, R1988, Moral mazes: the world of corporate managers Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Chapter 4, ‘Looking up and Looking Around’) Kidder, R M 2001, Ethics is not optional. Association management. Washington: 53(13), 30-32. Kilcullen, M & Kooistra, J O 2005, At least do no harm: Sources on the changing role of business ethics and corporate social responsibility.Reference Services Review, 27(2), 158-178. McGuire et al, 2009, Beyond religious and cultural diversity. Journal of Management. Allan Press Milton-Smith, J 2002, Ethics, the Olympics and the search for global values. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 131. Tsalikis, J & Seaton, B 2007, Business Ethics Index: USA 2006. Journal of Business Ethics,  72, 163–175. Weil, N 2007, 5 things I've learned: Thoughts on leadership, ethics and the 21st century from Carly Fiorina, HP's former CEO. CIO, 20(15),1. Wentling R M 2009, Diversity Initiatives in the Workplace, Human Resource Journal. University of Illinois. Read More