Main Behavior Principles
Associates at the firm W. L. Gore & Associates are not constrained by work orders from management above as they would be in a traditional hierarchy. Instead, they are free to choose commitments and work on projects they select themselves. As such, workers at the company are expected to maintain rigid self-discipline for the benefit of both entities. Individual initiative is also encouraged, as long as it does not endanger the project in question or the firm as a whole.
The relationship between freedom and self-discipline is expressed as the credibility bucket. Those employees who choose projects and see them through become more trusted by others, while unreliable associates risk a decrease in their options to join future teams. Self-discipline and individual initiative take the form of the waterline principle, where significant decisions can be made by anyone but require guidance from more knowledgeable coworkers before they are implemented. Lastly, freedom and initiative are expressed in the company’s promotion of risk-taking, even if it leads to mistakes and failures.
Company Culture and Virtue Ethics
The culture of W. L. Gore and Associates enable its employees to be in control of their activities. The firm ensures variety by giving people the freedom of choice when it comes to different projects. It engenders associates with a sense of their significance by acknowledging their unique contributions to the teams in which they participate. The free-form nature of the collective offers numerous opportunities for connection-making. People can choose projects where they will acquire new knowledge and grow, as a person and as a worker. Lastly, by splitting the work into various smaller projects, the firm allows everyone to make a tangible contribution to the company’s success.
W. L. Gore & Associate’s approach is consistent with virtue ethics because it promotes the exhibition of specific positive traits. The company values reliability and helpfulness to others but does not directly reward them. Instead, displays of these qualities are expected to improve an associate’s popularity and standing, eventually granting him or her universal acceptance or the ability to become a leader. This concept is consistent with the virtue ethics’ concept of eudaimonia, through which showing desirable traits will improve one’s life.
Commitment and Kantian Ethics
The principle of the commitment signifies the idea of autonomy that is present in Kantian ethics. As explained by Formosa, in the context provided by Kant, dignity cannot exist without self-direction (164). In this context, there are two types of dignity: status, which governs respect of one’s properties, and achievement, which is related to the deeds performed by a person. The firm attempts to minimize the influence of the former and to promote the latter, following a system that awards leadership positions to those elected by popular vote.
In a company context, the deeds of an individual would refer to his or her work performance. According to Formosa, achievement dignity, and virtue in general, are the performance of all of one’s duties while respecting the moral law (168). Thus, once an associate chooses to undertake an obligation by joining a project, he or she is expected to complete the commitment and to adhere to the guidelines. By doing so, he or she will attain respect from his or her peers and come closer to the perfectionist ideal.
The Absence of Control and Financial Results
A traditional rigid structuring of duties can constrain the performance of individual employees depending on the identity of the person that assigns them. A superior would likely not have a complete understanding of each worker’s capabilities and, thus, potentially assign them unsuitable tasks. In W. L. Gore & Associates, everyone can choose their own tasks and maximize his or her performance. Consequently, projects show increased results and there is an improvement in the overall performance of the company.
In addition, this alternative approach may result in improved motivation, as associates are only responsible for their performance. In a traditional company, there are expectations set for each department, and failure to meet them can lead to significant disincentives. This collective nature makes the determination of specific factors challenging, and so the benefits or punishments usually affect everyone. However, in W. L. Gore & Associates, each employee is responsible for his or her decisions and receives recognition or reprimands for them personally, leading to improved morale and superior performance.
Theoretical Aspirations
If I were to work with W. L. Gore & Associates, I would aspire to improve myself first and foremost. I do not believe that I want to lead others, though I would consider a leadership role if one was offered to me. As such, it is important to look for projects that would allow me to learn and further my skills set. I would not maintain large numbers of commitments because I do not believe it would be possible to sustain them.
I would choose any further actions based on my opinion of the company after I had worked there for a considerable amount of time. If I liked its culture and working conditions, I would begin seeking career growth along with more important roles. I would try to participate in new projects and possibly offer ideas myself. If I did not like the environment, I would seek employment elsewhere using the expertise I had gained during my time at the firm.
Work Cited
Formosa, Paul. Kantian Ethics, Dignity and Perfection. Cambridge University Press, 2017.