Introduction
In management activity, it is not uncommon to face the choices that influence the ethical nature of the organization and its employees. According to Yawar and Seuring (2015), “the management of social issues includes decisions that prevent a firm from taking up unethical practices and indulging in socially unacceptable practices” (p. 624). Choices like these, despite their encompassing influence, should be made by the person in charge to avoid negative consequences, especially if they require immediate attention.
On the other hand, it does not mean that employees have no way of contributing to the decision-making process. The paper is going to explore a scenario where the manager is faced with a crucial choice. As already mentioned previously, the research will point out the necessity of employees’ contribution to the decision itself, the ways of making it possible, and the manager’s responsibility about them.
Contemporary business researchers bring up several new trends into the study which come in handy, given the chosen scenario. These trends include the concepts of moral intelligence and ethical leadership, and it is essential to use them in research due to the ethical nature of the problem. They are also necessary for explaining the value of employees’ involvement in resolving the issue. Afterward, the study will shift to the practical implementation of said concepts, as well as the specific measures that can be taken while dealing with the issue. In the end, one should make a conclusion both theoretical and practical aspects of employees’ cooperation in ethical questions.
Morality and Leadership as the Keys to Solution
First of all, one should contemplate the general guidelines for the problem-solving in management, which aree based on the cooperation with workers. The most relevant concepts, which can be applied during the research, seem to be the terms of moral intelligence and ethical leadership. These concepts are among modern business trending that concentrates on the employees’ well-being. Since the essence of the problem lies within the field of moral consequences for the organization, it is not wise to avoid these trends. They appear especially valuable because of the theoretical background they are able to build up, which, in turn, offers ways of resolving the problem.
First and foremost, the research is going to refer to the moral intelligence idea as one of the helpful tools. Although the exact definition can be considered rather broad, the general sense behind the concept is following – a performer should take up intelligence actions that are based on the central human values. Researchers note that “One interpretation of this definition, it is ethics as a priority, which means that people have a natural tendency to operate with integrity, responsibility, compassion and forgiveness are” (Pahlavania and Azizmalayeri, 2016, p. 32). This statement perfectly sums up the necessity of the concept’s application when the workers encounter a tense situation that can influence the ethical culture of the entire organization.
Since such a crucial thing is at stake, and it is deeply linked with moral questions, the primary task would be to consider the main moral lines before making up any decision. According to Goodrich and Luke (2017), “ethical norms for conducting group work research not only protect the integrity of the process through agreement about procedures, knowledge, and truth, but also reinforce protective prohibitions against problematic conduct” (p. 109). In other words, morality-based decisions would keep the staff united and prevent any outcomes that are undesirable.
Afterward, the research should address the concept of ethical leadership. It should be included in the process of picking up the right choice since an organization’s manager also serves as a leader who guides the rest of the employees. Mayer et al. state that “ethical leadership focuses on the ethical dimension of leadership rather than including ethics as an ancillary dimension” (as cited in Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, and Wu, 2018, p. 506). It means that in the ethical leadership model, ethical aspects of dealing with problems and with employees remain as the primary task. This model cannot be applied in every scenario since not all the questions revolve around the moral issues, and a lot of them apply only to the dealings. However, it perfectly suits for the case where the ethical dimension is an actual headline of the problem.
Thus, the model should be used to its fullest extent, even if it is only a temporary change. After all, the ethical consequences can affect the staff itself if the manager does not act for the sake of solving the problem. It may be unavoidable to involve it in the process of solution; first of all, the manager is interested in keeping the employees’ moral state in check, and, therefore, they should stick to the ethical-based decisions. Secondly, it is desirable for employees to play a significant role in such an activity – they also possess moral codes and are able to suggest rightful choices.
Proceeding with the Decisions
When the general guidelines become clear enough, it is time to move onto the practical field of the said principles’ deployment. Taking into account the ethical dimension of the issue, the manager offers employees to take part in the process of finding the right decision. Nonetheless, the organization’s corporate structure can differ noticeably in some cases. Hence, the research suggests taking two types of sales’ management team as an appropriate example. According to Ingram, LaForge, Ramon, Schwepker, and Williams (2015), the selling teams can be divided into two groups: core selling team (permanent) and selling team (temporary).
If one uses the first variation, there are several aspects to highlight. It should be noted that a permanent team consists of a relatively narrow circle of employees. The researchers note its primary characteristics, such as relative permanence, specialization, and stability of each member (Ingram et al., 2015). The said kind of group may be assumed to be more reliable and trustworthy in ethical decisions. So, most of the members can take part in the process. Perhaps, only the recent employees or trainees should not participate due to their inexperience.
First of all, it would be the most appropriate course of action to contact most of the staff members immediately after the ethical issue had appeared, either virtually or in person. Secondly, the manager should describe the situation overall and its specific details, after which, they should ask employees about their honest opinion and suggestions for resolving the issue. At the same time, the manager should emphasize the urgency of the problem to find a solution as swiftly as possible. After several rounds of suggestions proceeding and a reasonable discussion of the options (if the time allows it), the manager should be able to reach a definitive conclusion. This outcome should appear as a balanced synthesis of the colleague’s options, which is also based on their ethical perception. With such a model, the manager can be sure that the morale of the team stay high even if the decision itself is not practically favorable.
The impermanent model stands as the opposite side of the coin. In this model, the term “core members” does not accurately apply to the collective. Researchers describe such a team as temporary, fluid, depending on the opportunities, and having a tactical mission in mind (Ingram et al., 2015). This means that it is more challenging to obtain all possible opinions since a lot of them can reflect only the personal interest of a staff member. Because of this reason, the manager needs to distinguish the employees who are the most knowledgeable in corporate ethics. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily a rule to hold on only to such employees since the opinion of the uninvolved party can often matter as well.
The process of consulting and making the right decision is essentially very similar to the previous version. Nevertheless, the manager should consider the specifics of the advice that a chosen circle can offer. As already mentioned previously, narrow specialists in the fields of business ethics could be unable to notice several real-life aspects, while the other employees could face them in everyday practice. This means that some piece of advice from the latter group can make an essential input into the general solution. On the one hand, due to the absence of permanent and thus the most reliable employees, the end decision would depend on the manager more than previously. Therefore, the result would undergo the significant influence of the manager’s moral code, and it is up to them to decide how exactly they can include the opinions from the consulting.
On the other hand, according to Thrane, Jarmatz, Fetahi Laursen, and Kornmaaler (2019), the example of sales management “is a collective social process in which multiple actors interact and enact practices to overcome problems of information, coordination and control” (p. 139). While the manager’s professional opinion would matter the most, the advice of the employees, both specialists, and non-specialists, still would turn the view into a complex and encompassing one.
Conclusion
To sum up, ethical decision making in the management profession appears to be a complex issue affecting most of the organization’s employees. Because of this reason, it should be clear that the workers themselves should also participate in creating a solution strategy. As for theory, the concepts of moral intelligence and ethical leadership serve as decent guideposts in developing an ethical resolution based on one’s morals, as well as the morals of one’s subordinates. Practically, it means that the manager should contact a circle of employees and reach a satisfying solution to the problem. However, the cast of the consulting members depends on whether the team is permanent or temporary. In addition, the manager, as a leader in charge, is mainly responsible for the final idea, especially in the second case.
References
Goodrich, K. M., & Luke, M. (2017). Ethical issues in the research of group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 42(1), 108-129.
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529.
Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W., Ramon A. A., Schwepker, Jr., C. H., & Williams, M. R. (2015). Sales management. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pahlavania, F., & Azizmalayeri, K. (2016). The relationship between moral intelligence with organizational development. International Academic Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, 3(6), 31-38.
Thrane, S., Jarmatz, M., Fetahi Laursen, M., & Kornmaaler, K. (2019). A practice-based approach to collective decision-making in pricing. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 16(1), 117-143.
Yawar, S. A., & Seuring, S. (2015). Management of social issues in supply chains: A literature review exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 621-643.