Introduction
As a rule, loyalty and devotion to the job are seen as positive characteristics in staff members, and their willingness to stay overtime in order to deliver the best performance possible are rewarded accordingly. However, in the case under analysis, the sports editor has been using the entire corporate resource of overtime hours, therefore, creating extra costs for the company and preventing other staff members from working overtime as well (Hamilton Skurak et al., 2021).
Therefore, to avoid further conflicts and minimize the expenses while also creating extra opportunities for other employees to work overtime, the company will need to apply John Rawls’ Theory of Distributive Justice and explain to the overly zealous editor that the organization must offer every staff member equal opportunities. By establishing an honest dialogue with the staff member in question and addressing the needs of others when redistributing the resources (extra working hours) within the firm in accordance with Rawls’ Theory of Ethics, one will be able to retain the principal ethical standards while avoiding the conflict with the staff member in question.
Solution: Rawls’ Perspective
The situation at hand can be viewed as a conflict in distributing the resources that a company has to offer to its staff members. The described approach will imply using Rawls’ Theory of Justice since the current situation represents a dilemma in implementing justice and fair distribution of resources in the workplace. Specifically, Rawls’ Theory posits that social cooperation is possible only when two principles of justice are met.
Namely, the first principle suggests that it is only with the presence of equal basic liberties that an individual is likely to agree to cooperate. In turn, the second principle dictates that fair equality and the benefit of the most disadvantaged members of the community should be top priorities when making a decision (Huang et al., 2019). The described principles can be easily applied to the organizational setting, as the case at hand proves.
Specifically, the case represents a dilemma caused by the failure to address the first principle of equality. On the one hand, the employee in question represents one of the newspaper’s main assets since he is capable of keeping the target audiences excited for sports news, as well as attracting new readers. On the other hand, the current distribution of extra working hours has been skewed tremendously, which has demotivated other staff members to the point where they might start leaving the organization.
Therefore, according to Rawls’ theory of Justice, the reallocation of resources is overdue. Specifically, the current situation represents a problem with one of the foundational social goods outlined by Rawls, specifically, the position of responsibility and the resulting income and wealth levels. According to Rawls, an individual is entitled to social goods such as basic rights, positions of responsibility, wealth, and social frameworks for self-respect (Huang et al., 2019). In turn, in the target setting, most employees are deprived of an essential position of responsibility, namely, the opportunity to work extra hours and, therefore, the chance to increase their wealth, as well as self-actualize by proving their professionalism and expertise. In turn, the distribution of extra bonuses will allow for a fair opportunity since it will give all staff members a chance to contribute to the company’s performance accordingly.
Implications: Applying Rawls’ Theory
However, it is worth noting that the proposed model of managing the distribution of corporate wealth, which, in this case, is represented by the number of extra hours per person, a manager can face reluctance or, in the worst-case scenario, complete lack of understanding from the editor. Given the obsession with his work and the enthusiasm that he has for his job, the editor seems currently to be motivated by the gratification that his work offers. Therefore, removing the opportunity for him to embrace the whole gamut of responsibilities and opportunities that his job entails may lead to him feeling demotivated and, consequently, him reducing the quality of his performance. In the worst-case scenario, the editor may even resign, which will lead to the newspaper losing one of its main assets and competitive advantages.
Still, it is believed that the open and honest discussion of the subject matter with the editor will still lead to a range of positive results, including him agreeing to reduce the number of extra hours of work. Indeed, according to one of the key premises of Rawls’ theory, the reluctance to accept change within an organizational setting stems primarily from the lack of awareness regarding the issues that other stakeholders may face as a result of the current situation with resource distribution. Specifically, Rawls suggests that the specified case of reluctance is caused by the so-called “veil of ignorance,” which prevents one from seeing the harm caused to others by the current status quo (Huang et al., 2019, p. 23989).
Therefore, by shedding light on the situation and explaining the issue with the lack of extra hours for the rest of the staff members, a manager of the newspaper is likely to achieve success in the negotiations. Namely, with the removal of the “veil of ignorance,” a manager is believed to be able to convince the editor to accept a fairer approach toward the allocation of resources, specifically, the distribution of working hours among staff members (Stefánsson, 2021, p. 6159). In case the editor refuses to accept the proposed solution, parting ways with him will be the most positive outcome for the company despite the benefits that he currently produces.
Indeed, the ability to accept certain limitations of one’s freedom can be considered a vital product of rational thinking, without which functioning within a community is impossible. Applying Rawls’ idea of a rational compromise to the workplace environment suggests that staff members should be able to compromise and make concessions for the sake of the increase in the number of opportunities for all parties involved, including themselves (Fia & Sacconi, 2019).
Specifically, if the editor can use his rational thinking faculties when analyzing the situation during an open discussion, he should agree that the current distribution of extra hours, while being beneficial to him, adversely affects the rest of the staff. Thus, accepting the need to limit the range of available extra hours to a more sensible amount so that others could also enjoy the specified opportunity should be an understandable and acceptable notion for the editor.
Examining the possible implications of the suggested course of actions, one should outline the possible negative and positive results along with opportunities and threats. The positive outcomes include improved motivation, satisfaction, and engagement rates among the rest of the employees, who will receive the number of extra working hours that they need. In addition, the positive effects of the proposed solution include reinforcing corporate ethics and ensuring that the relationships in the workplace context, as well as the key processes within it, are based on the principles of justice and equity.
However, the offered solution of reducing the extra working hours for the editor will also cause the company several problems. Namely, the drop in the number of extra hours allotted for the editor will mean that he will no longer deliver the exact stellar performance and, instead, will have to cut corners when managing specific tasks. As a result, the quality of his work will suffer, which means that the current competitive advantage of the organization will be minimized substantially (Mitonga-Monga & Hoole, 2018). The described outcomes align with Rawls’ theory fully since the framework correlates the presence of corporate capital and the principles of its distribution to the extent of awareness and understanding in the target corporate setting.
Conclusion
By using Joh Rawls’ Theory of Justice, specifically, the idea of distributing the existing resources (extra working hours) among staff members equally, as well as creating an honest and open dialogue with the editor, the organization will be able to meet the needs of all stakeholders accordingly. Although the editor may continue disagreeing to the point where he decides to leave the newspaper, the organization will still keep its integrity ad workplace ethics by offering the middle ground and preventing the instance of unequal resource distribution from taking place.
Nonetheless, it is expected that, after a direct and sincere conversation with the editor, the middle ground can be reached, and the number of extra hours can be distributed equally among staff members. By promoting the idea of cooperation between the organization and its employees, one will be able to create the setting where concessions can be made and where resources can be divided equally among staff members according to Rawls’ theory.
References
Fia, M., & Sacconi, L. (2019). Justice and corporate governance: New insights from Rawlsian social contract and Sen’s capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 937-960. Web.
Hamilton Skurak, H., Malinen, S., Näswall, K., & Kuntz, J. C. (2021). Employee wellbeing: The role of psychological detachment on the relationship between engagement and work–life conflict. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 42(1), 116-141. Web.
Huang, K., Greene, J. D., & Bazerman, M. (2019). Veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(48), 23989-23995. Web.
Mitonga-Monga, J., & Hoole, C. (2018). Perceived corporate ethical values and organisational justice in relation to employee commitment at a manufacturing company. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 28(4), 298-302. Web.
Stefánsson, H. O. (2021). Ambiguity aversion behind the veil of ignorance. Synthese, 198(7), 6159-6182. Web.