Ethics and HRM Essay
At the same time, modern corporations often face ethical problems, while developing their HRM because, today, corporations have to conduct socially and ethically responsible policies. Social and ethical policies of corporations affect their public image, whereas the public attitude to corporations defines their business development and marketing success. Therefore, modern corporations cannot ignore ethical issues. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that modern corporations tend to unitarism in the development of their HRM (Greenwood, 2002). To put it more precisely, managers now have greater control over employment relations, employees are more likely to be employed on staff (or to be on contract), and there is less likelihood of a union involved as a third party. The result is a more individualistic and unitarist environment (Greenwood, 2002).
In such a situation, HRM is accused of redefining the meaning of work and the organization-employee relationship in order to gain the acceptance of such intolerable actions (Greenwood, 2002). As a result, modern corporations face considerable problem in terms of the efficient HRM because the ideology of unitarism is being used to control any divergence of interest between managers and subordinates in order to achieve economic goals. In contrast to “mainstream” writers, “critical” theorists tend to assume a pluralist (multiple purposes and goals) and collectivist (employees as a group or groups) nature to the workplace (Greenwood, 2002).
In such a situation, contemporary corporations, especially those operating internationally, have to adapt to the work in multicultural, diverse environment. The various parties involved in the workplace have differing views, and thus potentially, goals (Greenwood, 2002). Corporations have to conduct effective HRM policies. In this regard, many organizations focus on the affirmative or positive obligation of a corporation, which is taken to mean the organization’s responsibility to take action to promote the “good” for employees (and other non-owner stakeholders) (Greenwood, 2002). As a result, contemporary corporations have little options but to develop ethical business and HRM.
However, in such a context, the problem of elaboration of clear ethical criteria, on the ground of which it is possible to develop ethical and effective HRM. However, there are diverse ethical theories on the ground of which it is possible to develop ethical policies and HRM. Hence, specialists (Greenwood, 2002) argue there is the concern that the obligations of the corporation to do “good” can be expanded without limit. Secondly, specialists (Greenwood, 2002) insist that the injunction to take social responsibilities into account and to assist in solving social problems may make impossible demands upon a corporation. Thirdly, many specialists (Greenwood, 2002) stand on the ground that any such injunction ignores the impact that such activities may have on profit. And finally, there is the question of who is going to define the social problems and determine which has priority (Greenwood, 2002).
In this regard, specialists (Greenwood, 2002) recommend taking the stakeholder perspective as the ground for the elaboration of ethical principles of HRM because this perspective takes into consideration the position of major stakeholders involved in the management of corporations and their organizational performance. In fact, stakeholder perspective is in keeping with a pluralist view of employment relations which assumes that there are distinct groups with their own valid needs and interests with respect to the organization (Greenwood, 2002).
Alternatively, it is possible to use the Kantian ethics, which though is not very efficient in the contemporary business environment (Greenwood, 2002). In terms of Kantian ethics, corporations should develop their HRM on the principle to treat a person as end-in-themselves is to provide them with some of the end-things needed for their sustenance and well-being (Greenwood, 2002). In this regard, utilitarianism can be more efficient for the organizational performance, although quite controversial from the ethical perspective. In terms of the utilitarian perspective, the corporation should be managed for the benefits of its stakeholders: its customers, suppliers, owners, employees, and local communities. The rights of these groups must be ensured, and further, the groups must participate, in some sense, in decisions that substantially affect their welfare (Greenwood, 2002).
Furthermore, today, the trend to the development of an employment relationship free from obligation and commitment may be characterized as challenging, mature, free and creative (Greenwood, 2002). Alternatively, an employment relationship free from obligation and commitment may be characterized as cynical, evasive, meaningless and exploitative (Greenwood, 2002). However, contemporary corporations do not apply either employment relationship in pure form. In such a context, it is obvious that there is a need for principles which may be fairly acceptable across the board (could not be denied from any perspective) which might be considered as a basis for a minimum standard to evaluate HR (Greenwood, 2002).
Conclusion
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that contemporary public and private organizations should change their HRM. They should focus on the quality of HRM and relationships within organizations. They should develop flexible HRM policies and HRM autonomy may be an efficient tool to improve the effectiveness of employees’ performance and organizational performance as well. At the same time, both public and private organizations should conduct their HRM policies ethically and responsibly.
