Blog
SPROWT ARTICLE | Ernesto M
Between The Affirmation And Disaffirmation Of Ethical Responsibility in Organizations
Table of Contents
PART I: Key Concepts
Organizational Ethics
Ethical Responsibility (and Affirmation)
PART II: Introduction and Methodology
PART III: Affirmation of Ethical Responsibility in Organizations
Institutionalization of Organizational Ethics
Behavioral Trajectory and Ethical Responsibility
PART IV: Disaffirmation of Ethical Responsibility in Organizations
Consolidation of Phase 3 Practices
Consolidation of Inequalities (e.g., gender, color, physical condition, ethnicity)
PART I: KEY CONCEPTS
1.1. ETHICS (ORGANIZATIONAL)
Broadly speaking, organizational ethics can be defined as the overall framework of organizational culture, as Craig Johnson (2021) refers to it, characterized by a set of principles and rules that guide the promotion of behaviors reflecting values for professional and social interaction within the organization, and also in its relationship with stakeholders.
1.2. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY (ETHICAL AFFIRMATION)
Accordingly, ethical responsibility can be understood as the commitment of both the employee and the organization to adopt these principles and rules that guide the promotion of conduct, which reflect values for professional and social interaction within the organization, and for its relationship with external stakeholders. It is precisely in the institutionalization of this ethical responsibility commitment that the affirmation of organizational ethics lies (Van Vuuren & Groenewald, 2021).
PART II: INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
This article serves only as a reflection guide on the challenges of organizational ethical responsibility. In other words, while it is true that modern organizations recognize or accept the requirements of human labor relations—whether due to obligations stemming from international compliance standards (e.g., gender equality quotas, environmental/nature protection quotas, etc.) or due to the particular course of the organizational culture intrinsic to a given organization (e.g., organizations with reward systems, social solidarity, sensitivity to difference, social interaction, among many others)—it is also true that the success of organizational ethical responsibility remains a serious issue.
The methodology of reflection in this article is based on: i) the presentation and conceptual discussion of the core notions surrounding organizational ethical responsibility, and ii) the description of cases (whether reflective of behaviors, discourses, beliefs, mindsets, or myths)1 that reveal organizational behavior with ethical impact on performance or organizational culture. It is through these two aspects that we aim to discuss the boundaries of organizational ethical responsibility (and its affirmation), as a product that is both corporate and behavioral in nature.
1 In the speeches, there are testimonies from employees of companies, both with undisclosed identities.
PART III: AFFIRMATION OF ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY IN ORGANIZATIONS
3.1. INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS
Organizational ethics is institutionalized through formative processes to maintain conduct; through coaching processes; (i) through the structuring of entities (e.g., ethics champions) and/or governance/management sectors of ethics; and (ii) through normative processes to establish regulations for the organization and reprimanding of conduct (e.g., codes, procedure manuals).
The corporate role lies precisely in investing in leadership committed to affirming an ethical vision and responsibility within the organization. Van Vuuren & Groenewald (2021) would frame this ethical governance in the following terms:
However, the stage of ethical culture goes beyond the combination of organizational chart arrangements, flowcharts, formative and normative processes. Behavioral commitments (or commitments to behavioral changes, most of the time) are considered a crucial element.
3.2. BEHAVIORAL TRAJECTORY AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY
It can be inferred from authors like Spector & Fox (2005) that, parallel to the formal institutional framework of corporate ethics management/governance, there is an evolving framework of conduct to be analyzed. This evolution tends, in summary, to manifest in three phases, where the order and appearance are not necessarily sequential and/or infallible.
This behavioral evolution would begin with an embryonic phase (phase 1), which is the entry of the employee into the organization; followed by a full contract phase (phase 2), during which the full employment relationship between the employee and the organization is in effect; and lastly, a decaying phase (phase 3) in terms of the effectiveness of labor obligations, including organizational performance itself.
The distribution of these three phases tends to follow the pattern of a normal distribution (in Statistics), with phase 2 being equivalent to the mode of behavioral frequency normality. On the same scale of normal distribution (see below), the values are fixed depending on how much and in what way each phase prevails over the others.
In phase 1, the employee would be in an ascending performance stage. Although their productivity may be low due to integration or production errors, there is greater obedience to the rules and lines (both horizontal and vertical) of command; there is a high motivational level, due to submission and conformity to any social grouping, generating a relationship of greater control from the Organization over the employee.
It seems that in this phase, the Organization has more chances for what Vorster & Van Vuuren (2022) and Roussow (2023) refer to as promotional ethics responsibility, and the individual is in their most receptive phase for absorbing the precepts of an ethical culture and responsibility.
In phase 2, performance would be more balanced, with a productivity/operations rhythm in the “comfort zone.” The employee’s obedience is more inclined toward the vertical line than the horizontal (ego conflicts); formal/established groups still prevail over informal ones; the individual reduces their predisposition toward the Organization, settling into a purely “50-50” relationship.
Here, it becomes clear that ethical responsibility takes more the shape of compliance obligations, or normative/deontological ethics (according to Roussow, 2023); in other words, it is very common to see people with behaviors contrary to their Organization’s codes of conduct, and the Organization either doesn’t care or, if it does, sets up anonymous mechanisms for verifying/checking the behavior of its employees outside the Organization.
In phase 3, the organizational equilibrium relationship is compromised (Spector & Fox, 2005); the employee’s motivational state is low, and consequently, organizational productivity decreases; the organizational response is more administrative in nature; work failures stem from negligence or sabotage; the dynamics of organizational life (including commands) follow strange/doubtful logics; informality and political correctness take over the modus operandi, modus vivendi, and thinking of the Organization.
It is interesting to note how many Organizations (without the ability to diagnose the manifestations of this phase) continue, for example, betting on the “rotten apples”2 (e.g., for training, leadership, etc.).
2 Slang term in organizational ethics given to people with behaviors that tempt or challenge the ethical culture.
PART IV: DISAFFIRMATION OF ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY IN ORGANIZATIONS
4.1. CONSOLIDATED PRACTICES OF PHASE 3
The success of affirming ethical responsibility lies in the fluidity of the ethical culture. In its absence, it does not mean there is no organizational culture – on the contrary, there will be an anti-ethical culture established through the success of phase 3 mentioned earlier. Among the aspects of the affirmation of practices in phase 3, we can highlight:
(i) The informality of unethical behaviors that transform the organization into an extension of private life, for example: a) disorientation or avoidance of customers (e.g., “come back in 15 days”); b) “culturalization” of reduced work time and/or motivation (e.g., Monday or Friday, first or last hours of the daily work period); c) skills for deceiving work performance or attendance; d) privatization of organizational resources (e.g., using the printer for private documents; using the driver for personal errands); e) establishment of procurement schemes based on personal advantages; f) corruption, theft, or bribery under slogans like “nothing ventured, nothing gained,” “the goat eats where it’s tied,” “we steal because the salary doesn’t stretch,” “here everyone does it,” etc.; g) terrifying coaching for newcomers (e.g., “you better look out for other things because you haven’t seen anything yet”); among other behaviors (e.g., disrespect, harassment, arrogance, theft, bribery, cyberloafing, mistreatment, withholding information, offenses, corruption, absenteeism).
(ii) There are also counterproductive aspects brought from sociocultural practices into the organization, such as body contact with colleagues, loud voice/tone during communication, flattery/cult of the boss, etc. (Zoogah, 2012). Additionally, influences from the sociological context of the socio-political or socio-economic life of society in general (e.g., the presence of “backers” or “protected individuals”; schemes of complicity to evade taxes, or for external audits, or for procurement processes, etc.).
4.2. CONSOLIDATION OF INEQUALITIES (e.g., gender, color, physical condition, ethnicity)
The failure of ethical responsibility in an organization is also evidenced by unofficial or negligent stances taken by management regarding the experiences of differentiation and/or exclusion faced by employees (Robertson et al., 2007). This includes unequal treatment, unequal access to resources/opportunities/positions, discrimination in promotion or career progression, biased or distorted performance evaluations, wage injustice, and social discrimination (e.g., based on race, ethno-tribal/sociolinguistic identity, gender, physical condition, religious affiliation, political ideology, place of birth, etc.)3.
In particular, regarding gender relations, various studies (e.g., Biernat et al., 2021) show that organizations are not immune to the patriarchal model4 of structuring roles, language, discourse, power, and privileges, all of which reveal the presence of patriarchal dominance (i.e., male-dominated norms in social relations). Gender inequality is not exclusively visible in actions of men against women, but can also be reproduced by women who adopt patriarchal power dynamics—for example, women who believe that hiring other women might jeopardize organizational performance, or those who are more inclined to question the technical, professional, or leadership competence of other women.
3 E.g. resistance to assigning leadership positions to women, people of certain skin pigmentation or race, or people with disabilities; resistance to recognizing or granting extended maternity and/or paternity leave; resistance to equalizing salaries between men and women.
4 Male-dominated model of social and societal life.
Bibliography
Biernat, M., Tocci, M. J., & Williams, J. C. (2012). The language of performance evaluations: Gender-based shifts in content and consistency of judgment. Kansas City: SAGE Journal Publications.
Johnson, C. (2021). Organizational ethics: A practical approach (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Robertson, L., Galvin, B., & Charles, A. (2007). When group identities matter: Bias in performance appraisal. New York.
Rossouw, D., & Van Vuuren, L. (2023). The business ethics (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: APA.
Van Vuuren, L., & Groenewald, L. (2021). Institutionalising ethics handbook. Ethics Handbook Series. Pretoria.
Vorster, P., & Van Vuuren, L. (2022). Ethical culture handbook. Pretoria: TEI.
Zoogah, B. (2012). Managing organizational behavior in the African context. McMaster University.
