This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
The purposes of this study were to discover if the type of work that the department was responsible for and the stakeholder groups they served deter mine the ethical work climate of a department within an organization, and whether ethical sub climates are relatively stable over time.
Business ethics models and research have primarily included specific individual difference and situational factors, trying to establish if unethical behavior is caused by "bad apples or bad barrels" (Trevino and Youngblood, 1990). Individual difference characteristics that have been studied include cognitive moral development, personal moral philosophy, strength of religious beliefs, and locus of control, Machiavellianism, gender, nationality, year in school, grade point average and employment. Some of the situational characteristics that have been studied include fraternity/sorority membership, existence of organizational honor codes, types of res, enforced sanctions, top management behavior and ethics training. Trevino (1986) stated that situational variables include the organization's normative structure, referent others, obedience to authority, responsibility for consequences, reinforcement contingencies, and other pressures. These situational factors place individuals in a social context, where they understand that behavior under their control will be compared to a normative standard evaluated by referent others and rewarded or punished based on this evaluation. In other words, individuals are held accountable for their behaviors.
e purposes of this study were to discover if the type of work that the department was responsible for and the stakeholder groups they served deter mine the ethical work climate of a department within an organization, and whether ethical sub climates are relatively stable over time.
Ethics play a very important role in an organization. There is a need to focus in this aspect especially for leaders and decision makers. There is a dire need to be true follower of ethics in the organization, which ultimately results to the positive outcome. Leadership style shadows on the organizational achievements.
The organization core values, integrity, professionalism, caring, stewardship and teamwork play a key role in organizational success. "To behave ethically is to behave in a manner that is consistent with what is generally considered to be right or moral. Ethical behavior is bed rock of mutual trust."(DA Pamphlet). Organizations to some extent define what is right or wrong for the members of organization. Michael Josephson said: "Character is doing the right thing even when it costs more than you want to pay. When it comes to character, you don't have to be sick to get better. It's easier for a good person to get better than for a bad person to get good. " Organizations are social systems, and as such they require reliable behavior on the part of their members (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Now in organizations there is no homogeneity of values, ethics and rules of thumb for appropriate behavior within their workforce (Primeaux, 1992). Because today's workforce is no longer homogenous, but instead varies in age, ethnic origin, gender, and socio-economic level. Additionally, falling trade barriers and increased international business has created opportunities for organizations to expand their operations internationally. Global economy has increased the complexity of dealing with ethical issues due to varying cultural perceptions of morality (Enderle, 1997).
The reason norm is important to discuss ethics. There might be discontent between stated and operating values. I'll take an example there might be a company that has stated tot rat everybody with respect and dignity but whose norms may have permitted and perhaps even encouraged a pattern of sexual harassment over a number of years, do they know that the behavior is wrong but condole it nevertheless?. I'll focus on integrity, lack of moral imagination, and on lacking of benevolence. There is need of honesty and ethical communication in corporation. I'll focus on the ethical theories, models, behaviors and accountability. Accountability influences ethical behavior. Similarly it is important to know about Unethical behavior because it may have an adverse influence on organizational performance. I've tried to figure out when individuals behave face ethical dilemma.
This literature review identifies characteristics of ethical business cultures, describes factors, considered to be important in developing such cultures, describes current practices of developing ethical culture programs, ethical thinking and behavior can be learned and internalized as a result of interpretive work based interactions, and this learning process constitutes an important part of organizational learning. There is need to focus on the creation of conditions, conducive to ethical behaviors; creation of a dynamic program of ethical training for employees on all levels of the organization and up to date development ethical code. "Good ethics is good business", "ethics pays" contention (Chryssides and Kaler, 1993).
The Prudential reasons for ethical behavior by businesses have two categories. They are either positive or negative. The positive are all about achieving rewards. It depends on opportunities and so necessarily demands a proactive stance. The opposite one, on the other hand, are all about avoiding punishment relying on threats rather than opportunities.
Ethics is generally studied using normative theories in business literature, focusing on how individuals should behave. Normative theories tend to be grouped into consequential/utilitarian theories or single-rule non consequential/deontological theories (Tsalikis and Fritzche, 1989).
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory, which holds that an action is right if it produces, or if it tends to produce, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action (DeGeorge, 1999). Actions in and of themselves are neither good nor bad, but are judged on their consequences. Ethical behavior is an action or behavior from which total pleasure/utility exceeds total pain/costs in utilitariasm (Getz, 1990). So, utilitarianism examines the fairness of the outcomes (Molm, 1991). Similarly there is another phenomenon that is unethical behavior which is influenced by social relationships, individual difference characteristics, the moral issue and the organization (Brass et al., 1998; Frink and Klimoski, 1998). Organizations require reliable behavior from their employees as social system (Katz and Kahn, 1978). The reliable behavior to achieve this is through accountability. Individuals defending their actions to an audience with reward or sanction power are likely to conform to the desires of the audience (Tetlock, 1985, 1992). Role theories and accountable social theories help us to understand the way individuals respond to ethical dilemmas when they are held accountable.
The prudential reasons for positive ethical behavior are very often invoked in defense of the instrumental view of business ethics. At their most general, they are claims about being rewarded for ethical behavior through the goodwill it engenders among consumers, employees, general public and many other businesses (Chryssides and Kaler, 1993, pp. 23-26).5 More specifically, positive prudential reasons tend to get invoked in "business case" arguments for particular forms of ethical behavior.
For ethical behavior positive prudential reasons by businesses can just as effectively be external in character as they are internal. That is to say, the human grouping figuring within a positive reason can as easily be drawn from the internal trio of employees, owners, and managers, as it can from any of an indefinite number of groupings drawn from the wider society outside the business. With reasons of negative prudential the situation is somewhat different, providing negative grounds for ethical behavior by businesses, the role of employees, owners, and managers seems problematic and limited also. Unethical behavior is a social phenomenon and is influenced by organization, social relationships, individual difference characteristics andthe moral issues (Brass et al., 1998; Frink and Klimoski, 1998). Being social systems, organizations do require reliable behavior from their employees (Katz and Kahn, 1978). One way to achieve this reliable behavior is through accountability. Individuals defending their actions to an audience with reward or sanction power are likely to conform to the desires of the audience (Tetlock, 1985, 1992). Role theories and accountable theories help us to know the way individual respond to the ethical dilemmas.
Authentic leadership is strongly anchored in values, moral capacity and in character. Authentic leadership is consistent t the attributes of ethical leadership revealed by Trvino et al (2003), specifically on an orientation towards others and their development, on visible ethical traits and actions, setting ethical accountability and standards and possessing ethical awareness, concern for stakeholders effects in decision process. Assuming up to it authentic leadership is consistent to Brown et al (2005). Whereas definition of ethical leadership as the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships and the promotion of such conduct to followers via two way communication one is decision making and other is communication. Kanatian and utilitarian are two leading theories in business ethics. The Kantian theory limelight to follow general principles for human behavior it includes e.g. don't lie or don't steal. Virtue ethics looks to motivate aspiration values. The implementation decision for a code of ethics also arguably creates a series of critical ethical obligations for the corporation in terms of the administration of the code. The obligations revolve around three issues: (1) protections; (2) enforcing the code; and (3) monitoring the code.
The three theoretical assumptions with a working definition of virtue were proposed to guide validation procedure's each stage. Initially it was summed that virtue ethical character items can be deduced from human personality, validated into corporate personality. Items such as mature, patient, attractive, intelligent were eliminated. The decision was related to content and construct validity. Then the second assumption that character items should be able to be used for strategic positioning, items (e.g., peaceful, humorous, talkative, witty, assertive) that do not appear in more than one ethical statement of the Global 500 sample firms which were obscured. The elimination procedure involves content and face validity. Then the third assumption that organizational virtues should be a means to stakeholder satisfaction, the rest of the items were validated and confirmed through correlations with satisfaction and confirmatory factor analysis in a survey of 2548 customers and employees. Mostly the remnants were positively correlated but some items were dropped because they were negatively correlated with stakeholder satisfaction (e.g., tough, aggressive, controlling) and/or didn't have presence in firms' ethical statement (tough, agreeable). The term agreeable was picked up in the content analysis of the ethical statements of the sample on a single occasion. It was often associated with technical terms such as up-to-date information (British Petroleum), or up-to-date knowledge (Barclays), appeared three times. Despite their popular presence in human personality and virtue ethics literature, cheerful, agreeable, and up-to-date were removed due to the lack of their presence in sample ethical statements (Assumption 2). Items like friendly, spirited, proud, sympathetic and competent seem to be strong in both survey statistical analysis and content analysis, offering more strategic and meaningful value when they appear in ethical statements were confirmed on the other hand. Virtual proud seems to be particularly important for employee (self) satisfaction and customers who have high involvement with the organization, like university students or customers of non-profit organizations. Through the survey, the paper also identified a factor structure of the confirmed virtue items. The aim of this project is not simply to maximize 'mathematical fit' but to produce 'psychologically meaningful constructs' (Guilford, 1975, p. 804) while maintaining the empirical evidence of mathematical fit. Finally the results of confirmatory factor analysis of survey data suggested six factors are meaningful and well explained by data. Organizational virtues with six dimensions identified are namely, Integrity, Empathy, Warmth, Conscientiousness, Courage and Zeal. They are labels for latent constructs, which can be observed through 24 associated virtue character traits. All the labels seem to have reflected those in the virtue ethics literature well, and are therefore meaningful as labels for virtue dimensions.
Now there is need of increasing legal attention to ethical practices regarding the environment, diversity management, product development, employment and distribution has also drawn further attention to the organizational ethical orientation. There should be department of ethical work climate within an organization, and ethical sub climates should be stable over time relatively. The living ethical code is the behavioral manifestation identity of a positive ethical organization. The individuals should act ethically which ultimately results in the positive outcome of an organization. The organization which gets on to the ethics achieves the desired outcomes very soon. The organizations who are not following ethical character, values in their respective jobs are on the loss side. The ethical rich organizations drive internal and external stake holder's satisfaction which is just aligned to its strategic positioning. The strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business can no longer be ignored. If there is a room for improvement then sufficient training should be provided to get the best results. The strategic leadership of ethical character in business can't be avoided further.