Three Ways Leaders Can Manage Ethical Behaviors in Their Organizations
One way is through the establishment of behavioral standards and the development of an ethical code of conduct for an organization. Standards and a code of ethics at the workplace help to shape proper organizational behavior among the staff, as well as cultivate positive virtues (Liebling, Arnold & Straub, 2011).
Thus, it is the mandate of leaders to draft behavioral standards and practices at the workplace to ensure that the prison officers act within a given functional premise.
The second initiative is to develop an evaluation criterion. It is the duty of the prison leaders to ensure that they evaluate every staff applying for employment at the facility. Essentially, evaluation should be part of the recruitment, retention, and promotion processes of the facility (Kerns, 2003). This way, the staff will be able to understand the values of the organization and the consequences of not conforming to the values. In effect, all the staff should have their performance and pay evaluated. The result of such evaluations would help the facility to address any deviations in standards and code of ethics in a timely way. Thus, the deviations can be corrected immediately before they spill over.
Last is that the leaders of the organization should promote trust through being accountable and transparent in the operations. It is imperative that the facility leaders and the service staff interact with confidence (Kerns, 2003). Such interaction and involving the employees in the strategic performance issues of the facility, as well as matters of decision making, makes the workers feel relevant and committed to following their ethical code of conduct. Consequently, the workers act as part of the organization and work toward fulfilling fulfill their roles.
According to the New York State Police, it is imperative that law enforcement agencies operate a code of ethics. Officers getting into the profession are then trained in the code of ethics, and they are expected to adhere to every requirement it stipulates. Thus, every officer on duty is bound by the organization’s code of conduct, and failure to abide implies disciplinary action as stated. This way, the management of the institution is ordered to regulate the behavior of the staff on the job by ensuring that they fulfill their ethical mandate as required.
Are the Management Theories Only a U.S. Concept?
Through analysis of the case study, one management theory that explicitly stands out is the X and Y management theory. This theory is evident in the way the prison officers choose to relate with the prisoners. One group is hard-lined and takes a punitive approach to matters, while the other is quite liberal. According to Theory X and Y, the type of management approach that one chooses to utilize is dependent on their attitude regarding those who are under them. In effect, the hardline prison officers believe that the prisoners are natural criminals and should be handled forcefully. On the other hand, the liberal officers operate with the notion that they need to work in collaboration with the inmates by treating them well and listening to them to enforce positive behavioral change.
The management theories asserted through the case study are not only a confine of the United States. Essentially, all management theories, including the management concepts from Henri Fayol, Theory X, and Y, among others, are applicable in every work setting when all factors are held constant. However, there is a need to understand variance in cultural dimensions, which affect how managers and employees behave (Hofstede, 2011). In effect, it is imperative to apply Hofstede’s understanding of cultural differences to be able to understand the management principles that apply to people from a given culture. Therefore, various cultural dimensions like uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, power distance, and a long-term orientation, among others, should be evaluated. In this case, managers in different countries should understand the cultural characteristics of their employees and apply the theories with consideration (Hofstede, 2011). For example, when dealing with employees from the UAE, managers are likely to take up a masculine approach to management instead of a collaborative/ feminine approach. On the other hand, when dealing with staff in the United States, managers are more likely to practice a feminine approach to things, as the culture of the people is warm, welcoming, and open to collaborative approaches. Similarly, power distance in the United States is low as managers are more likely to interact with their employees and consider them as people with Y behavioral characteristics. This is not the case in Asian countries where there is a high power distance and staff are supposed to adhere to given hierarchical orders. Thus, an X approach to management is likely enforceable.
References
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
Liebling, A, Arnold, H., & Straub, C. (2011). An exploration of staff -prisoner relationships at HMP Whitemoor: 12 years on.Cambridge Institute of Criminology Prisons Research Centre. Web.
Kerns, C. D. (2003). Creating and sustaining an ethical workplace culture. Graziadio Business Review, 6(3).