Organizational Ethics

HR’s Role in Organizational Ethics

The human resource department of an organization plays a huge role in ethical behavior. They set the tone for the rest of the company. They make the ethical programs and train employees on how to be ethical and what to do in unethical situations. They set up the hotlines for employees to leave anonymous tips and they also make ethical models, just like the one I have shown above. They ensure that all of the activities going on inside of the organization are ethical, legal, and up to par on government standards and regulations.

 Employee Engagement

According to the textbook, the 13^th edition of Human Resource Management, employee engagement is defined as, “the extent to which individuals feel linked to organizational success and how the organization performs positively”. (Mathis and Jackson 12)

Employee organization is essential in an organization and it can make or break the success of the company. If employees feel that they are part of the group and can contribute, they are more likely to be motivated to do good work. An employee needs to feel valued in order to be driven and inspired.

Ethics Program

When a company has an ethics program, it helps to make it possible to be more ethical. There are four main elements of an ethics program. They are as follows:

1. “A written code of ethics and standards of conduct” (Mathis and Jackson 13)
2. “Training on ethical behavior for all executives, managers, and employees” (Mathis and Jackson 13)
3. “Advice to employees on ethical situations they face, often made by HR” (Mathis and Jackson 13)
4. “Systems for confidential reporting of ethical misconduct or questionable behavior” (Mathis and Jackson 13) 

Ethical Model

An ethical model is made to help everyone in the organization better understand business ethics and how to make sure they are always being ethical. There have been many different ethical models that have been created over time by all different kinds of business people and managers. I found the ethical model below that was made in late 1980's and early 1990's. 

“Trevino (1986) offered a general theoretical model, whereas Ferrell and Gresham (1985), Hunt and Vitell (1986), and Dubinsky and Loken (1989) offered models that focus on marketing ethics. Rest (1986) presented a theory of individual ethical decision making that can easily be generalized to organizational settings. Among the empirical contributions to date are the works of Hegarty and Sims (1978, 1979), Fritzsche and Becker (1983), Frederick (1987), Laczniak and Inderrieden (1987), Fritzsche (1988), Dubinsky and Loken (1989), and Weber (1990). One reason for this relative paucity of theoretical and empirical work in ethics may be that few scholars are interested in both ethics and organizational behavior and decision making. The models that have emerged are the products of scholars in psychology or psychology-based disciplines, including organizational behavior and marketing.” (Jones 366-395)

HR-Related Ethical Misconduct Activities

Three main examples of human resource related misconduct activities are as follows:

1. Compensation - being unfair during performance reviews, lying on work reports, lying about the number of hours or time worked, etc.
2. Employee Relations – lying, stealing, giving false information, etc.
3. Staffing and Equal Employment – favoritism, discrimination of any kind, false background checks, giving or using false information, etc. 

Organizational Ethics: A Stacked Deck

“The idea of a ‘stacked deck’ has three elements which are of significance here. There is (1) a magician, ‘the deck stacker’, (2) a ‘straight man’, the member of the audience asked by the magician to ‘pick a card’, and (3) a situation in which the ‘straight ma’s’ choice turns out to be exactly the card the ‘deck stacker’ had intended to be chosen. Similarly, in organizational ethics there is (1) an organization which has so structured relationships within it that (2) members in the performance of their responsibilities typically choose (3) the organizations preferred way of doing rather than alternative behaviors which might be though by some to be ethically superior.” (Carroll 95-100)

Sarbanes – Oxley Act (SOX)

“The Sarbanes – Oxley Act (SOX) was passed by congress to make certain that publicly traded companies follow accounting controls that could reduce the likelihood of illegal and unethical behaviors.” (Mathis and Jackson 16)

There are three main rules that SOX enforces, they are listed below.

Rule One: “The first rule deals with destruction, alteration, or falsification of records” (Rouse)

“Sec. 802(a) ‘Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.’” (Rouse)

Rule Two: “The second rule defines the retention period for records storage” (Rouse)

“Sec. 802(a)(1) ‘Any accountant who conducts an audit of an issuer of securities to which section 10A(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78j-1(a)) applies, shall maintain all audit or review workpapers for a period of 5 years from the end of the fiscal period in which the audit or review was concluded.’” (Rouse)

Rule Three: “This third rule refers to the type of business records that need to be stored, including all business records and communications, including electronic communications” (Rouse)

“Sec. 802(a)(2) ‘The Securities and Exchange Commission shall promulgate, within 180 days, such rules and regulations, as are reasonably necessary, relating to the retention of relevant records such as workpapers, documents that form the basis of an audit or review, memoranda, correspondence, communications, other documents, and records (including electronic records) which are created, sent, or received in connection with an audit or review and contain conclusions, opinions, analyses, or financial data relating to such an audit or review.’” (Rouse)

References

Mathis , Robert L. , and John H. Jackson . Human Resource Management . 13th ed. . Mason : South-Western Cengage Learning , 2011. Print.

Jones , Thomas M. . "Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model." Academy of Management Review . 16.2 (1991): 366-395. Print. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/258867.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true>.

Carroll, Archie B. . "Organizational Ethics: A Stacked Deck ."Journal of Business Ethics . 3.2 (1984): 95-100. Print.

Rouse, Margaret . "Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)."searchcio.techtarget. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec 2013. <http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/Sarbanes-Oxley-Act>.

Affirmative Action

Background

“The affirmative-action approach President Johnson proposed in that speech was to be a moral and policy response to the losses, both material and psychological, suffered by African Americans during and after the time of slavery: “We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.” Johnson’s speech was followed in 1965 by executive orders aiming “to correct the effects of past and present discrimination.” Universities and colleges across the land soon adopted affirmative-action policies. More than 45 years have passed since that June afternoon on the Howard campus. What is the fate of Johnson’s triumphant vision in the world we now occupy?” (Chace)

“Affirmative action is one of the most controversial government interventions in the labor market since the abolition of slavery. In recent years, two major criticisms of affirmative action have found prominent voice. The first is that affirmative action does not work; therefore, we should dispose of it. The second is that affirmative action does work; therefore we should dispose of it.” (Leonard 47-63)

What is Affirmative Action?

According to the textbook, the thirteenth edition of Human Resource Management, the definition of affirmative action is, “the hiring of groups of people based on their race, age, gender or national origin” (Mathis and Jackson 80). Employers do this to give off the appearance that they do not discriminate against any groups of people. This comes with pros and cons, where basically it is all based on one’s opinion and how they feel about the topic. One person may totally agree with this policy while another may think that it is not a good idea. It is all based on opinion. Not all organizations practice affirmative action, but many do.

Affirmative Action Policy (AAP)

An affirmative action plan is defined as, “a document reporting on the composition of an employer’s workforce, required for federal contractors”. (Mathis and Jackson 81)

For reference, below is a link to a sample affirmative action plan.

http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/pdf/sampleaap.pdf

Pros of Affirmative Action: Why is it necessary?

• “Affirmative action  is needed to overcome past injustices or eliminate the effects of those injustices” (Mathis and Jackson 81)
•  “Affirmative action creates more equality for all persons, even temporary injustice to some individuals may result” (Mathis and Jackson 81)
•  “Raising the employment level of protected-class members will benefit U.S. society in the long run” (Mathis and Jackson 81)
•  “Properly used, affirmative action does not discriminate against male or whites”  (Mathis and Jackson 81)
•  “Goals indicate progress is needed, not quotas” (Mathis and Jackson 81)

Cons of Affirmative Action: Why isn't it necessary?

• “Affirmative action penalizes individuals (males and whites) even though they have not been guilty of practicing discrimination” (Mathis and Jackson 81)
• “It is no longer needed as an African American has been elected president” (Mathis and Jackson 81)
•  “Affirmative action results in greater polarization and separatism along gender and racial lines” (Mathis and Jackson 81)
• “Affirmative action stigmatizes those it is designated to help”  (Mathis and Jackson 81)
• “Goals become quotas and force employers to “play by numbers” (Mathis and Jackson 81)

Effects of Affirmative Action 

Affirmative action is intended to help people and accompanies but it may in fact be hurting both.

“The idea that affirmative action might harm its intended beneficiaries was suggested as early as the 1960s, when affirmative action, a phrase introduced by the Kennedy administration, began to take hold as government and corporate policy. One long-simmering objection to affirmative action was articulated publicly by Clarence Thomas years before he joined the Supreme Court in 1991. Mr. Thomas, who has opposed affirmative action even while conceding that he benefited from it, told a reporter for The New York Times in 1982 that affirmative action placed students in programs above their abilities. Mr. Thomas, who was then the 34-year-old chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, didn’t deny the crisis in minority employment. But he blamed a failed education system rather than discrimination in admissions. “I watched the operation of such affirmative action policies when I was in college,” he said, ‘and I watched the destruction of many kids as a result.’” (Slater)

“Scholars began referring to this theory as “mismatch.” It’s the idea that affirmative action can harm those it’s supposed to help by placing them at schools in which they fall below the median level of ability and therefore have a tough time. As a consequence, the argument goes, these students suffer learningwise and, later, careerwise. To be clear, mismatch theory does not allege that minority students should not attend elite universities. Far from it. But it does say that students — minority or otherwise — do not automatically benefit from attending a school that they enter with academic qualifications well below the median level of their classmates.” (Slater) 

My Opinion 

Personally, I believe that there is an upside and a downside to affirmative action. While I think that it is really important to have a vast amount of different people in the workplace, I don’t think that should be a reason for hiring someone for a job. If it came down to two candidates, I think that the manager that is hiring should choose the person that is most qualified for the position, regardless of their race, gender, etc. So overall, if I had to choose, I would vote no to affirmative action. I have listed the reasons below on why I feel that affirmative action is not necessary and may be a bad idea.

I believe that affirmative action is not needed because:

• While it is put in place to prevent discrimination, people are still offended when it takes place and see that act as discriminatory
• An employer may not end up choosing the best possible fit for the job, if they are of a different race or culture that is just a bonus. It should not be a basis for hiring an employee. You should base it on skill sets, past experience, and work integrity.
• We have overcome segregation issues years ago, this is not something that we should be worrying about when running a business

References 

Chace , William M. . "Affirmative Inaction ." American Scholar . (2011): n. page. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://theamericanscholar.org/affirmative-inaction/

Leonard, Jonathan S. . "The Impact of Affirmative Action Regulation and Equal Employment Law on Black Employment ." Journal of Economic Perspectives. 4.4 (1990): 47-63. Print. <http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic185351.files/leonard2.pdf>.

Mathis , Robert L. , and John H. Jackson . Human Resource Management . 13th ed. . Mason : South-Western Cengage Learning , 2011. Print.

Slater , Dan . "Does Affirmative Action Do What It Should?." New York Times 16 MAR 2013, Sunday Review n. pag. Print. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/does-affirmative-action-do-what-it-should.html?pagewanted=1>.

Sexual Harassment

What is sexual Harassment?

When one hears the term sexual harassment, it is automatically linked to unwanted sexual favors when in most situations, this is not the case. There can be many different types of what we have generalized as “sexual harassment” in the work place. For example, just making comments or giving any unwanted attention that can make the other person uncomfortable can be classified as sexual harassment. According to the textbook, the thirteenth edition of Human Resource Management, sexual harassment is defined as, “actions that are sexually directed, are unwanted, and subject the worker to adverse employment conditions or create a hostile work environment” (Mathis and Jackson 83).

Example

“An English factory worker suffered for two years while a colleague exposed himself to her, placed pornographic material in her workspace, and pressed himself against her, simulating sex. She strapped a tape recorder to her bra to collect evidence of the harassment before lodging a formal complaint. Fortunately for the victim, United Kingdom law prohibits sexual harassment. A labor tribunal awarded the victim monetary compensation, recommended that her employer transfer the harasser to another location, and urged the employer to implement a company policy that explicitly prohibiting sexual harassment. The victim is only one of the millions of women who endure sexual harassment in European Community workplaces.” (Carter)

Types of Sexual Harassment

There are two main types of sexual harassment and they are quid pro quo and hostile environment. Quid pro quo is defined as, “harassment in which employment outcomes are linked to the individual granting sexual favors” (Mathis and Jackson 88). An example of quid pro quo would be that the potential employee will only get the job if they grant the manager’s request for a sexual favor or only giving them a promotion if they do the sexual favor. Hostile environment is, “harassment exists when an individual’s performance or psychological well-being is unreasonably affected by intimidating or offensive working conditions” (Mathis and Jackson 88). An example of hostile environment would be inappropriately commenting on the way that an employee is dressed or suggesting they should date outside of work.

Potential Sexual Harassers

A sexual harasser can literally be anyone that works for the company, inside or outside of the organization. They can be male or female. Although this person is always thought of as male, there have been cases where female employees were harassing male employees. Though it is not as common, it can still happen and should still be taken just as seriously and in the same manner. In an article titled Sexual Harassment, Workplace Authority, and the Paradox of Power, it is stated that, “Power is at the core of feminist theories of sexual harassment, although it has rarely been measured in terms of workplace authority. Popular characterizations portray male supervisors harassing female subordinates, but power-threat theories suggest that women in authority may be more frequent targets” (McLaughlin, Uggen, and Blackstone).

Potential sexual harassers could be any of the following:

• Managers or supervisors 
• Employees or co-workers
•  Suppliers and vendors 
• Customers
• Past employees

Causes of Sexual Harassment

According to www.westerncape.gov, there are six common causes of sexual harassment. They are socialization, power games, moral values, divorce and cultural differences, credibility and victim-blaming, aggressiveness or bravado, and lack of company policy. They are explained in more detail below. 

Socialization

“The way in which men and women were brought up to see themselves and others strongly influences their behavior.” ("Western Cape Government ")

Power games

“Some men feel threatened by the career advancement of women and people of colour, or are uncomfortable with women's newfound independence and assertiveness at home and / or at work.” ("Western Cape Government ")

Moral values, divorce and cultural differences

“In times of moral laxity, when extramarital affairs and "one-night stands" are broadly accepted, when some people equate monogamy with monotony, it is relatively easy for people to indulge in office flirtations, whether one-sided or mutual.” ("Western Cape Government ")

“The prevalence of marital stress and divorce in our society means that some men and women come to work in a state of emotional distress that could make them vulnerable to sexual harassment.” ("Western Cape Government ")

“Some confusion results from cultural differences about what is, or isn't, acceptable in our rapidly-changing society. For example, when action was taken against sexual harassment at the University of Cape Town, black male students claimed it was their cultural and traditional right to act in that way.” ("Western Cape Government ")

Credibility and victim-blaming

“The credibility of the victim is often called into question, as it is usually her word against that of the harasser/s.” ("Western Cape Government ")

Aggressiveness or bravado

“Men in groups often behave differently from how they would as individuals. This can explain some of the "gang harassment" that occurs when a woman enters a plant or walks past a group of workers at lunch; after a few drinks at an office party; or when a group of colleagues attend a conference. Alone, those men would probably be ‘harmless’, or less bold.” ("Western Cape Government ")

Lack of company policy

“Women often resign rather than complain, since they do not know where to go, or if they do complain, it is either treated as a joke, or no action is taken by management.” ("Western Cape Government ")

Preventing Sexual Harassment

Employees that have become victims of sexual harassment are protected under equal employment laws. Sexual harassment can be a massive liability for an organization. A company needs to have a strict no-harassment policy and enforce it to their employees. I’m not saying that it is never going to happen because it will, it most cases multiple times. But, just having guidelines can help to prevent it and show the workers that it is not tolerated. If it does happen, the company needs to be prepared to take the appropriate steps in dealing with it. Ignoring it will solve nothing; it will just give them a bad reputation and more problems down the road. An employer should train its employees on sexual harassment topics just like they would anything else; it is just as important. 

Dealing with Sexual Harassment

Every incident of sexual harassment should be taken seriously and looked into. Even if the claim turns out to be false, an employer should want its workers to know that they are safe and protected.

References

Mathis , Robert L. , and John H. Jackson . Human Resource Management . 13th ed. . Mason : South-Western Cengage Learning , 2011. Print.

"Western Cape Government ." Sexual Harassment: Causes, Consequences, and Cures . N.p.. Web. 27 Nov 2013. <http://www.westerncape.gov.za/general-publication/sexual-harassment-causes-consequences-and-cures>.

McLaughlin, Heather , Christopher Uggen , and Christopher Blackstone . "Sexual Harassment, Workplace Authority ,and the Paradox of Power ." American Sociological Review . (2012): n. page. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://asr.sagepub.com/content/77/4/625.full.pdf html>.

Carter , Victoria A. . "Working on Dignity: EC Initiatives on Sexual Harrassment in the Workplace."Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business. 12.3 (1992): n. page. Print.

Equal Employment Laws

There are a countless number of laws that protect all different types of people with a variety of conditions. They prohibit employers from discriminating against hiring, promoting, and firing employees and/or applicants based on certain circumstances. I have only named six but there are many more. 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII came to stand during the civil rights movement in the United States and it proclaims that an employer cannot legally discriminate against any race, color, sex, religion, gender, or national origin. The civil rights act was revised from the equal employment opportunity act of 1972 and was first thought of by John F. Kennedy but ended up being signed by Lyndon Johnson and then later approved through congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII states, “To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.” ("Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964")

Civil Rights Act of 1991 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII was amended in November of 1991 and it was signed by George Bush. It proposed that women and minorities were to be included in the protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on certain characteristics of a person. The law was put into place due to the court case: Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio. In a journal titled Army Lawyer, there was an article titled “The Civil Rights Act of 1991”. In that article, the author, Davidson, states, “It significantly altered two federal discrimination statutes--the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Noticeably absent from the new legislation, however, was any substantive change to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Most important from a federal defensive litigation perspective, the new legislation altered the law of disparate impact…” (Davidson 3) 

Equal Pay Act of 1963 
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes it illegal for employers to use different pay scales for different genders. It states that a female should make the same amount of money as a male doing the same job. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 states, “No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.” ("Equal Pay Act of 1963") 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 
President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009. This was the first law that he signed as president. After he signed the act, he said that it would, “send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody.” (Stolberg) During a press conference, after signing the bill, Obama explains, “It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness…” (Stolberg) Stolberg, the author of the article "Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation “, writes, “He said was signing the bill not only in honor of Ms. Ledbetter — who stood behind him, shaking her head and clasping her hands in seeming disbelief — but in honor of his own grandmother, ‘who worked in a bank all her life, and even after she hit that glass ceiling, kept getting up again’ and for his daughters, ‘because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams.’” (Stolberg) 

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against pregnant women on the basis of hiring, promoting, and firing an employee or applicant. This law was a revised version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. I found an article that involves the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 where a teacher was fired due to a pregnancy that was conceived outside of wedlock. The article is titled Pregnancy Discrimination Act Violated When School Fires Teacher for Premarital Pregnancy and was written in May of 2012 by Judy Greenwald. Greenwald writes, “A teacher at a Christian school, who was fired after she told the administration she had become pregnant before her marriage, has presented sufficient evidence to establish she may have been terminated because of her pregnancy, and not the premarital sex, says an appellate court.” Because of the presence of her work place, premarital sex was not an option in her religion and that of the religion of everyone in her workplace and it is not protected under the Civil Rights Act. Greenwald then says, “After she told Southland’s administrator and assistant minister, John and Julie Ennis, what happened, she was fired four days later ‘purportedly because she had sinned by engaging in premarital sex and, as John Ennis put it, ‘there are consequences for disobeying the word of God’”. The teacher sued for the violation and the court through it out. 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 makes it illegal to discriminate based on age forty and above on the basis of hiring, promoting, or firing an employee or an applicant. In a Harvard article that I found, the author explains, “Age discrimination in employment is a problem that faces thousands of American workers. Many employers establish arbitrary age limits that both restrict the availability of new jobs and force the premature retirement of older employees. Even during periods of relatively low unemployment, the percentage of older persons who are unable to find work is disproportionately high.” (Harvard Law Review)  

References 

United States . Equal Employment Opportunity Commission .Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Web. <http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm>.

Davidson, Michael J. "The Civil Rights Act of 1991." Army Lawyer . (1992): 3. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <http://www.lexisnexis.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=165651&sr=TITLE(The Civil Rights Act of 1991) and date is 1992>.

United States . Equal Employment Opportunity Commission .Equal Pay Act of 1963. 1963. Web. <http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm>.

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation ."New York Times 01 30 2009, n. pag. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

Greenwald, Judy . "Pregnancy Discrimination Act Violated When School Fires Teacher for Premarital Pregnancy."Workforce . N.p., 21 May 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2013.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Dec.,1976), pp. 380-411