Bureaucracy: Moral or Immoral?

 CARINUGAN, ROWENA DE LOS REYES

Abstract

Bureaucracy is a joint organization in modern society, but its moral implications are often debated. Some argue that bureaucracy is a rational and efficient way of achieving collective goals, while others contend that bureaucracy stifles individual freedom and creativity. This paper examines whether bureaucracy is moral or immoral from different perspectives by delving into its good and dark sides. It reviews the main arguments for and against bureaucracy and the empirical evidence on how it affects the moral agency of individuals and organizations. The paper concludes that bureaucracy is neither inherently moral nor immoral but rather a complex and context-dependent phenomenon that can positively and negatively affect morality. The paper also suggests ways to improve bureaucratic systems' ethical performance, such as enhancing transparency, accountability, and participation.

Keywords:

Bureaucracy, morality, ethics, organization, and decision-making.

INTRODUCTION

Bureaucracy is a term that refers to the formal structure and rules that govern the behaviour of individuals and groups within an organization. Bureaucracy is associated with both public and private states. (Rockman 2024)

Bureaucracy is often associated with the modern state but can also be found in other domains, such as business, education, religion, and civil society. It is widely used to coordinate complex and large-scale activities, ensure consistency and predictability, and enhance efficiency and effectiveness. However, bureaucracy has drawbacks and limitations, such as rigidity and Inertia, red tape and corruption, alienation and dehumanization, and loss of Innovation and diversity.

           The moral dimension of bureaucracy is a topic that has attracted the attention of many scholars and thinkers from different disciplines and perspectives. Some view bureaucracy as a positive or neutral phenomenon that serves the common good and promotes rationality and justice. Others regard bureaucracy as a negative or problematic phenomenon that undermines individuals' and society's moral values and interests. The question of whether bureaucracy is moral or immoral is not only a theoretical or academic one but also a practical and relevant one, as it has implications for the ethical behaviour and responsibility of bureaucrats, managers, leaders, citizens, and other stakeholders.

This paper analyzes whether bureaucracy is moral or immoral from different angles and approaches, such as sociology, philosophy, and ethics. The paper will review the good and dark sides, the moral dilemmas of bureaucracy, and how it affects the moral agency of individuals and organizations. The paper will also suggest ways to improve bureaucratic systems' ethical performance, such as enhancing transparency, accountability, and participation.

WHAT IS BUREAUCRACY?

             Max Weber (1864–1920) described bureaucracy as a specific form of organization characterized by several key features such as Complexity, Division of labour, Permanence, Professional management, Hierarchical coordination and control, Strict chain of command, and Legal authority. Weber emphasized that bureaucracy is distinct from informal and collegial organizations. In its ideal form, bureaucracy is impersonal, rational, and based on rules rather than personal ties. It can be found in both public and private institutions. Max Weber's Bureaucratic Theory provides a blueprint for efficient and organized management. Despite criticisms, bureaucracy remains a fundamental model in modern organizations, balancing structure with adaptability.

             A bureaucracy is an organized structure made up of different departments or units. Think of it as the gears in a machine—each part has its role, and together, they keep things moving. Bureaucracies exist everywhere, from government agencies to schools to private businesses.

There is no definitive or straightforward answer to whether bureaucracy is moral or immoral, as different angles and approaches may have different criteria and perspectives on morality.

From a sociological perspective, bureaucracy can be seen as a form of social organization with pros and cons.

The Good Side:

Bureaucracy, often seen as a necessary evil, has positive aspects. Chung and Bechky (2018), in their article named "When Bureaucracy Is Actually Helpful, According to Research," explored how bureaucracy can be helpful in these three aspects:

Control and Coordination: Bureaucracy provides a structured framework for managing complex tasks. In projects involving technical work, tracking progress across departments, managing budgets, and ensuring cost control are essential. Bureaucratic processes help maintain order and coordination in such scenarios.

Sense of Control: Experts within organizations can recognize that effective bureaucracy allows them to maintain control over tasks they care about. Understanding and working within the system enables them to navigate administrative processes more efficiently.

Shared Burden: Rather than viewing bureaucracy as an individual burden, considering it a shared responsibility can foster collaboration. When everyone acknowledges their role in maintaining organizational processes, it becomes easier to work together.

Moreover, an article published by Practical Psychology (2023) highlights the following benefits of bureaucracy:

Efficiency: In the realm of organizational management, bureaucracy stands as a structured and systematic approach. Imagine it as a well-oiled conveyor belt, where each employee has a specific role—akin to stations along the belt. These roles are clearly defined, ensuring smooth flow. Tasks move seamlessly, decisions are prompt, and work gets done efficiently. Bureaucracy's structured approach ensures tasks move swiftly and systematically, like a conveyor belt operating flawlessly.

Clarity: Clarity is a fundamental aspect of bureaucracy. Imagine it as a well-organized structure with clear hierarchies and rules. Clarity within bureaucracies fosters order, making it easier for individuals to navigate their responsibilities and contribute effectively.

Predictability: Predictability is a cornerstone of bureaucracy. Imagine it as a well-structured path where everyone knows what lies ahead. Predictability within bureaucracies ensures that employees and clients have a clear roadmap, making their journey smoother and more reliable.

Fairness: Bureaucracies make decisions objectively, without favouritism. Fairness is a crucial principle within bureaucracies. Imagine it as a balanced scale where decisions are impartial. Fairness ensures everyone has an equal chance, creating a level playing field within bureaucracies.

Stability: Established structures and rules provide stability in bureaucratic organizations. Stability is a cornerstone of bureaucracy. Imagine it as the solid foundation upon which bureaucratic organizations rest. Stability within bureaucracies fosters reliability, allowing them to function effectively even in dynamic environments.

Remember, bureaucracy isn't inherently harmful; it balances structure and flexibility to achieve organizational goals.

The Dark Side:

Bureaucracy, while efficient in many ways, has its drawbacks. Here are some limitations based on the same article published by Practical Psychology (2023):

Rigidity: Fixed rules can hinder adaptation to change. Rigidity within bureaucracies refers to their inflexibility due to fixed rules and procedures. Rigidity can be both a strength (predictability) and a limitation (slowness to adapt) within bureaucracies. Finding the proper equilibrium ensures effective functioning.

Red Tape: Excessive procedures slow decision-making. Red tape refers to the bureaucratic entanglements that can hinder swift decision-making. Imagine it as a tangle of procedural hurdles. Red tape can be both a safeguard and an obstacle within bureaucracies. Finding the sweet spot ensures efficient operation.

Dehumanization: Impersonal relationships may undervalue individuals. Dehumanization within bureaucracies is a critical concern. Imagine it as a fading connection between people. Combating dehumanization ensures that individuals remain at the heart of bureaucratic systems, not just numbers or roles.

Resistance to Innovation: Commitment to established procedures can stifle new ideas. Resistance to Innovation is a common challenge within bureaucracies. Imagine it as a tug-of-war between tradition and progress. Overcoming resistance to Innovation ensures that bureaucracies evolve without losing sight of their purpose.

Bureaucratic Inertia: Self-serving tendencies resist beneficial changes. Understanding these challenges helps make informed decisions and identify areas for improvement or change. Bureaucratic Inertia refers to an organization's resistance to change, even when the change would be beneficial. Imagine it as an organizational comfort zone. Understanding bureaucratic Inertia helps organizations navigate the delicate balance between continuity and progress.

Let's delve into the darker aspects of bureaucracy. Here are some insights from various research articles:

Ogunrotifa (2013), in his thought-provoking piece "Democratic Deficit: The Dark Side of Weberian Bureaucracy in Nigeria," critically examines the theory of Max Weber of bureaucracy and its application to Nigerian public institutions, shedding light on the challenges associated with the Weberian model and advocating for more vital democratic values in public service management. Despite its potential benefits, the Weberian model faces challenges in Nigeria, and one major issue is the democratic deficit within decision-making processes. Decision-making often lacks democratic participation, transparency, and citizen input. Policies are sometimes imposed hierarchically without considering diverse perspectives. To mitigate these challenges, the author suggested strengthening democratic values, and public service management should prioritize democratic principles. This measure can help address weak institutional mechanisms, corruption, wastefulness, and inefficiency. The author highlights how bureaucracy, when not balanced with democratic practices, can lead to negative consequences in Nigerian public institutions. Strengthening democratic processes is crucial for better governance and effective service delivery.

Uhr (2012), in his article entitled "Bureaucracy, Discretion, and the Dark Side of Organizations," explores how bureaucrats have power because they have discretion in interpreting and implementing rules and policies and how this power can be abused or misused in various ways explores ethical and integrity issues arising from the exercise of discretion by public service workers. Street-level bureaucrats, who interact directly with citizens, play a crucial role. Understanding how bureaucrats perceive their power and interpret rules is essential. Balancing discretion with ethical decision-making is critical to avoid negative consequences. The article draws on the work of Diane Vaughan, a sociologist who studies how things go wrong in socially organized settings and identifies three kinds of routine non-conformity that can harm the public: mistake, misconduct, and disaster. Moreover, it discusses the challenges and dilemmas of controlling bureaucratic discretion and the role of the rule of law, political processes, and personal values in shaping and limiting discretionary decisions. It introduces the concept of the sociological citizen, who recognizes the interconnectedness and human agency in social systems and has a sense of freedom and responsibility to intervene and experiment in organizations and arrangements.

From a philosophical perspective, bureaucracy can be evaluated according to ethical theories or frameworks. (Velasquez et al., 2015).

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that discerns the morality of an action based on its results or consequences. According to this theory, bureaucracy can be moral or immoral depending on whether it produces better or harm for the people involved. For example, a consequentialist may argue that bureaucracy is moral if it helps to achieve the common good or public interest but immoral if it causes unnecessary suffering or injustice. Deontology is an ethical theory that discerns the morality of an action based on its adherence to specific rules or principles. According to this theory, bureaucracy can be moral or immoral depending on whether it respects or violates the rights and duties of individuals and society. (The Ethics Center 2016). For example, a deontologist may argue that bureaucracy is moral if it follows the rule of law or the categorical imperative but immoral if it infringes on the autonomy or dignity of individuals. Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that discerns the morality of an action based on its expression of particular virtues or character traits. According to this theory, bureaucracy can be moral or immoral depending on whether it fosters or hinders the development of moral virtues, such as wisdom, courage, justice, or compassion. (Cline 2018). For example, a virtue ethicist may argue that bureaucracy is moral if it cultivates the moral excellence or integrity of individuals and organizations but immoral if it corrupts or diminishes their moral character. Care ethics is an ethical theory that discerns the morality of an action based on its responsiveness to the needs and relationships of others. According to this theory, bureaucracy can be moral or immoral depending on whether it supports or undermines the care and concern for others, especially the vulnerable or marginalized. (Kwan 2023) For example, a care ethicist may argue that bureaucracy is moral if it enhances the empathy or solidarity of individuals and society but immoral if it neglects or harms the well-being or interests of others.

From an ethical perspective, bureaucracy can also be examined empirically by examining how it affects individuals' and organizations' moral agency. Moral agency is the ability and responsibility of individuals and organizations to make moral decisions and act accordingly. Bureaucracy can have positive and negative effects on moral agency, depending on various factors, such as the type, level, and context of bureaucracy.

Moral Dilemmas of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy, with its structured rules and procedures, carries moral implications that shape its impact on individuals and society.

Buchanan (2015), in his essay "Toward a Theory of the Ethics of Bureaucratic Organizations," argues that the distinctive ethical principles for bureaucratic organizations are responses to the agency risks that arise from the nature of such organizations as complex webs of principal/agent relationships. These are the risks of moral wrongdoing or inefficiency that result from the divergence of interests or goals between the principals (those who delegate authority) and the agents (those who exercise authority on behalf of the principals). The author identifies some ethical principles relevant to bureaucratic organizations, such as loyalty, accountability, transparency, impartiality, and professionalism. These principles aim to reduce agency risks by aligning the interests and goals of the principals and the agents or by providing mechanisms for monitoring and sanctioning the agents' behavior. The essay acknowledges a moral dilemma for bureaucrats, who often face conflicting obligations to their principals, clients, colleagues, and conscience. The essay suggests that the ethical principles for bureaucratic organizations can help resolve this dilemma by providing a framework for balancing and prioritizing these obligations.

In addition, Juarez-Garcia (2023), in his article 'Official Disobedience: Bureaucrats & Unjust Laws," argues for the legal permission of public officials to disregard legal mandates for moral reasons. He explains how official disobedience would benefit liberal democracies by respecting public officials' autonomy, providing feedback to lawmakers, protecting citizens from injustices, and improving the moral character of bureaucrats. The author acknowledges that public officials face a moral dilemma when they are asked to enforce laws that they consider unjust. They have to choose between wronging the citizens by denying enforcing the law or being complicit in what they believe is an injustice. The article suggests that official disobedience can help resolve this dilemma by providing a legal framework for balancing and prioritizing moral values over legal obligations. It further highlights the need to allow public officials to act morally and how official disobedience can enhance democratic governance and service delivery.

Moreover, in an episode of the Governance Podcast "Morality in Bureaucracy," Zacka (2019) discusses his book, "When the State Meets the Street: Public Service and Moral Agency," which explores the moral dilemmas faced by street-level bureaucrats. These are the frontline public workers, such as police officers, social workers, teachers, and health workers, who interact directly with citizens and implement public policies. They have much discretion in their work, which means they can make choices that affect the lives and rights of others. Zacka argues that street-level bureaucrats face moral dilemmas because they have to balance multiple and often conflicting values, such as efficiency, fairness, responsiveness, and compassion. They also have to deal with the constraints and pressures of their organizational environment, such as rules, resources, incentives, and culture. He proposes that street-level bureaucrats are moral agents with the capacity and responsibility to act ethically. He suggests that moral agency involves perception, reasoning, and imagination. He also explores how various factors, such as training, supervision, peer support, and institutional design, can enhance or hinder moral agency. He highlights street-level bureaucrats' moral challenges and opportunities in their work and how they can exercise moral agency in complex and uncertain situations.

Furthermore, Jackall (1988), in his essay "The Moral Ethos of Bureaucracy," examines how bureaucracy shapes the moral consciousness of corporate managers and how they cope with their work's ethical dilemmas and pressures. The author argues that bureaucracy, the dominant organizational form of modern society, shapes the moral consciousness and behaviour of managers in corporations. He draws on his fieldwork in several corporate settings and interviews with managers and whistleblowers to illustrate how bureaucracy transforms moral issues into practical concerns. He shows how managers operate in a social context of authority, fealty, patronage, cliques, and power struggles, where the main goal is survival and advancement. He claims that managers develop a pragmatic and flexible morality that adapts to the changing situations and expectations of their bosses, peers, and networks. He contrasts this bureaucratic ethos with the professional ethics of a whistleblower who tried to expose irregularities in his firm and was fired. He suggests that bureaucracy erodes the moral foundations of society and makes morality indistinguishable from the quest for one's advantage. The moral dilemma of bureaucracy is that it creates a gap between the internal rules and social context of the organization and the external norms and values of the wider society. Managers who follow the bureaucratic ethos may act unethically, illegally, or in harmful ways to others but justify their actions by appealing to the practical necessities of their work. Whistleblowers who challenge the bureaucratic ethos may face retaliation, isolation, or dismissal but uphold their moral principles and professional standards. The dilemma is balancing the demands of organizational loyalty and personal integrity and reconciling the conflicting moralities of bureaucracy and society.

In summary, bureaucracy presents moral challenges related to agency risks, unjust laws, frontline interactions, and organizational ethos. Balancing ethical principles within bureaucratic structures is essential for responsible governance and service delivery.

Ways to improve the ethical performance of bureaucratic systems

Bureaucratic systems are organizational structures that rely on rules, procedures, hierarchy, and specialization to coordinate the work of many individuals and groups. Bureaucracy can enhance efficiency, accountability, and fairness in public administration but can also pose ethical challenges, such as corruption, red tape, rigidity, and alienation. Therefore, it is essential to find ways to improve the ethical performance of bureaucratic systems and foster a culture of integrity, transparency, and participation among public servants and stakeholders.

Transparency: This means making the information and processes of government more open and accessible to the public and allowing feedback and scrutiny from various stakeholders. Transparency can help prevent or detect corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse and improve the quality and efficiency of public services. Some ways to enhance transparency are implementing and enforcing freedom of information laws, creating online platforms and portals for data and service delivery, publishing budget and expenditure reports, and conducting social audits and evaluations. (Han 2023)

Accountability: This means holding the government and its officials liable for their actions and decisions and imposing sanctions or remedies for any misconduct or failure. Accountability can ensure that the government acts in the public interest and respects the rule of law, human rights, and ethical standards. Some ways to enhance accountability are establishing and strengthening independent oversight and anti-corruption agencies, creating and enforcing codes of conduct and ethics for public servants, providing mechanisms for complaints and redress, and promoting whistle-blowing and protection of witnesses. (Zimmerman 2019)

Participation: This means involving and empowering the citizens and civil society in the governance process and ensuring that their voices and interests are heard and represented. Participation can increase the lawfulness and responsiveness of the government and foster a culture of civic engagement and social responsibility. Some ways to enhance participation are conducting consultations and dialogues with various stakeholders, creating and supporting platforms and networks for citizen feedback and collaboration, facilitating and encouraging volunteerism and social action, and promoting education and awareness on governance issues. (Reeves et al., 2020)

These are some ways to improve the ethical performance of bureaucratic systems, but they are only partial and exclusive. Other ways may be more suitable or effective depending on the context and situation. The important thing is to have a clear vision and commitment to good governance and ethical values, as well as to monitor and evaluate the progress and impact of the initiatives.

 

Conclusion:

The paper has concluded that bureaucracy is neither inherently moral nor immoral but rather a complex and context-dependent phenomenon that can positively and negatively affect morality. Bureaucracy can be a rational and efficient way of achieving collective goals, but it can also stifle individual freedom and creativity. Bureaucracy can promote rationality and justice but undermine individuals' and society's moral values and interests. Bureaucracy can enhance the ethical behavior and responsibility of bureaucrats, managers, leaders, citizens, and other stakeholders, but it can also create moral dilemmas and conflicts.

Therefore, the paper has argued that the moral evaluation of bureaucracy should not be based on a simple or absolute criterion but rather on a careful and balanced assessment of the costs and benefits, the strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities and challenges of bureaucracy in different situations and domains. The paper has also emphasized that the moral impact of bureaucracy is not fixed or predetermined but rather dynamic and contingent on the actions and choices of the actors involved. The paper has proposed that the moral improvement of bureaucracy requires structural and institutional reforms and cultural and behavioural changes, such as fostering a culture of ethics, encouraging moral reflection and dialogue, and developing moral competence and sensitivity.

REFERENCEs

Buchanan, A. (2015). Toward a Theory of the Ethics of Bureaucratic Organizations. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/abs/toward-a-theory-of-the-ethics-of-bureaucratic-organizations/9459A110F7E2E6A475D539D0E96E3EDE

Chung, D. & Bechky, B. (2018). When Bureaucracy Is Helpful, According to Research. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-bureaucracy-is-actually-helpful-according-to-research

Cline, A. (2018). Virtue Ethics: Morality and Character. Other Religions. Learn Religions.  https://www.learnreligions.com/virtue-ethics-morality-and-character-249866

Han, E. (2023). 7 Ways to Improve Your Ethical Decision-Making. Harvard Business School Online. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/ethical-decision-making-process

Jackall, R. (1988). The Moral Ethos of Bureaucracy. Ethics, 98(2), 176-1891. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20006798

Juarez-Garcia, M.I. (2023). Official Disobedience: Bureaucrats & Unjust Laws in Criminal Law and Philosophy. Springer

Kwan, J. (2023). Care Ethics. Markulala Center for Applied Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/care-ethics/care-ethics.html

Martin, R. et al., (2020). The End of Bureaucracy, again? BCG. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/changing-business-environment-pushing-end-to-bureaucracy

Mill, J.S. (2012). The Making of Modern Liberalism. Princeton University Press. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400841950.326/html

Ogunrotifa, A.B. (2013). Democratic Deficit: The Dark Side of Weberian Bureaucracy in Nigeria. International Journal Social Sciences and Education 3(3):541-550.

Practical Psychology. (2023). Bureaucratic Theory of Max Weber (Explanation + Examples). https://practicalpie.com/bureaucratic-theory-of-max-weber/

Rockman, B. (2024). Bureaucracy. Britannica. Last updated 4 January, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/bureaucracy

Smith, I.H. and Kouchaki, M. (2021). Building an Ethical Company: Create an organization that helps employees behave honorably. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/11/building-an-ethical-company

The Ethics Center. (2016). Ethics Explainer: Deontology. The Ethics Centre. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-deontology/

Uhr, J. (2012). Bureaucracy, Discretion, and the Dark Side of Organizations. Australian National University. https://www.jurispro.com/files/documents/doc-1066206597-article-2342.pdf

Velasquez, M. et al., (2015). Thinking Ethically. Markulala Center for Applied Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/

Zacka, B. (2019). Morality in Bureaucracy: In Conversation with Bernardo Zacka. J               ohn Meadowcroft. https://csgs.kcl.ac.uk/podcast/morality-in-bureaucracy-in-conversation-with-bernardo-zacka/

Zimmerman, L. (2019). What makes for better bureaucracy? Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://news.mit.edu/2019/what-makes-better-bureaucracy-1021

 

 

 

 

Choosing Proper Relationship between Teacher and Students: Interpersonal, Contractual and Pedagogical Relationship

 Dameanus Abun

Abstract

Choosing proper relationships is an important matter to be considered particularly in the school setting. Education is intellectual character and spiritual formation. All kinds of relationships must be tailored toward such an aim. The relationship between teachers and students must help the students to grow intellectually and spiritually or morally. Based on my presentation, the nature of the relationship between teachers and students must be pedagogical in nature, asymmetrical relationships or unequal.  The teacher is there to help the students to learn and to grow intellectually and spiritually.

Keywords: Interpersonal, contractual, superficial and pedagogical relationship

Introduction

Teachers are often called heroes. They are on the front line of helping citizens become functional members of society. They are not paid much but their job is the most important in laying the foundation of a great nation. Without teachers, man cannot fully be developed as a human and functional human in society. Thus the job of a teacher is not just simply to teach and fill the empty head of the students with a lot of information which may not be relevant to the life of students but the job goes beyond teaching. It is also about building a proper relationship to develop other aspects of human life.

Learning can happen not only by accumulating knowledge they receive from teachers inside the classroom but also through relationships or associations with their teachers or adults. Many things can be learned through informal relationships. Character formation cannot be just developed through information that they got from the teacher in their class but it is through modeling or example that teachers show to their students. Thus the behavior of teachers matters much to the moral development of students.

Effective teaching is often time not measured by how well the teacher prepares the subject but by how well teachers live their life based on what they are teaching and they relate their life to the lives of students. Thus a teacher is not only in the classroom but extends beyond the classroom. Their whole life must influence and touch the lives of students. It happens only in the relationships. Thus the relationship goes beyond the wall of the classroom. In such cases, the teacher has to be open and available anytime to help the students outside the classroom, anywhere and anytime when the students need them.  

Since teachers are teaching not only the things that they learned from the books but also through their life examples which they reveal in the relationship, thus the question for a teacher is how and what kind of relationship they need to develop with the students. Since the issue is the relationship between teacher and students, thus the relationship may not be any kind of relationship. Thus, we need to explore different kinds of relationships that may or may not help the students. We need to know these different relationships for us to know the nature of man and to know what kind of relationship that a teacher must develop with the students.        

 Interpersonal relationship: A relationship between equals or symmetrical relationship

An interpersonal relationship is an association between two or more people that may range from fleeting to enduring. This association may be created for different reasons such as having a common interest, having regular business interaction, love, liking and some other type of social commitment. The persons who go into interpersonal relationships believe that through such relationships, certain aspects of their needs can be satisfied. In this case, two participants are interdependent, where the behaviour of each affects the outcomes of the other. This kind of relationship can take place in a great variety of contexts, such as school, a community and a relationship between teachers and teachers, teachers and students, the workplace, clubs, and other forms of association. Kelley, et.al (1983) define a close relationship as “one that is strong, frequent, and with diverse interdependence that lasts over a considerable period”.  

An interpersonal relationship is established by voluntary act and therefore it is not structured or regulated and there are no external forces to set the rule of engagement but only the persons who are in the relationship. If the reasons for their relationship are met or not met, then naturally the relationship may continue to grow or disappear. Thus, it cannot be predicted the length of such relationship because it is only the individual person can measure if his needs have been or have not been fulfilled yet by such a relationship (MSG, n.d).       

Why do humans need relationships? It is one of our needs as human beings. It originated from our nature of men as a social being. House, et al. (2003) argued that interpersonal relationships are vital and important to the physical and mental health of individuals. As a social being, humans have a natural need and tendency to relate themselves to other human beings. They depend on another human being to fulfil certain needs and to be able to grow. In such cases, humans may not be complete without other humans. It is only by living with other humans, they can perfect themselves. Decy and Ryan (2000, pp. 68-78) have identified one of the innate psychological needs which is the relatedness need. It is built in all human beings the natural desire to connect themselves to others to grow as a human being.    

The social nature of humans creates dependence. Dependence on others is not only in terms of physical needs but also psychological needs. As an individual person, he/she cannot fulfil all his physical/psychological needs by himself/herself, but he/she needs other people to fill the gap. One of the psychological needs is recognition. As a social being, he or she needs to belong to the group and to be recognized. Abraham Maslow perfectly described the hierarchy needs of human beings as physiological, safety and security, belongingness, self-esteem, and self-satisfaction needs (Stoner, 2000, McShane, 2000). After Maslow, Clayton Alderfer as cited by McShane (2000) also supported the idea of Maslow that humans have three different needs such as existence, relatedness and growth needs. Related needs are the same as the belongingness needs of Maslow that humans as social beings need to relate himself or herself to other people. It is a deep human need to relate and to belong to a group, to be accepted and to be recognized. The same theory of needs is also presented by John W. Atkinson as cited by Stoner (2000). Atkinson argued that humans are motivated by the need for achievement, need for power, and need for affiliation or close association with others.

Human beings are innately social and are shaped by their experiences with others. Such innate social need motivates an individual to relate himself or herself with others and such need must be satisfied because it will continue to push the person to fulfil it until it is fulfilled. There are multiple perspectives to understand this inherent motivation to interact with others. In fact, the need to belong is so innately ingrained that it may be strong enough to overcome physiological and safety needs, such as children's attachment to abusive parents or staying in abusive romantic relationships. Such examples illustrate the extent to which the psychobiological drive to belong is entrenched. Baumeister and Leary (1995) had already argued that the need to belong is a fundamental human need. They further explained that satisfying this need requires frequent, and positive interactions with the same individuals and must be long-term. It is considered imperative to establish long-term relationship with a limited number of people is important.     

The theories that we have pointed out are just indicating that interpersonal relationship is born out of human needs. Those are basic needs that must be realized for a person to grow as a human being and a social being. Those needs can only be realized by establishing relationships with other human beings. Besides fulfilling and satisfying innate social needs, persons who enter into an interpersonal relationship are driven by certain benefits.  Good interpersonal relationship brings satisfaction to both sides of people (UK, 2013) Therefore, the benefits are mutual, not only one side. Individuals seek out rewards in interactions with others and are willing to pay a cost for said rewards. It is in this case, people are willing to sacrifice other things to maintain the relationship. People could not afford to lose a beautiful relationship because it would be considered a loss on both sides.

Studies also pointed out that persons who are going into interpersonal relationships are not just simply to meet their physical needs but as we have emphasized that humans are social creatures and as social creatures, there is a need for attachment, a need to be loved as Insel (2001) argued that attachment requires sensory and cognitive processing that lead to intricate motor responses. As humans, the end goal of attachment is the motivation to acquire love, which is different from other animals who just seek proximity. Based on his study, there is a neurological basis for attachment and further emphasized that pro-social emotions and behaviours are prerequisites for a healthy relationship. The social environment, mediated by attachment, influences the maturation of structures in a child's brain. This might explain how infant attachment affects adult emotional health.      

Based on what Insel (2001) pointed out in his study, we cannot deny then that teachers and students are all social animals, then there is a need to be associated with or to be belonged to, the need for attachment. Thus, as a logical consequence of such an argument, then the school and teachers should promote a healthy interpersonal relationship with their students. Promoting such kind of relationship may help students to grow mature not only as an individual person but also as a social person. However, one needs to be reminded that  interpersonal relationship is a symmetrical relationship, a relationship between equals. Both are there to share their life and to enrich one’s lacking needs. In this case, both are growing together and learn from each other. Therefore this kind of relationship is only applied between the adult, not the adult and the child. Such presentation indicates that interpersonal relationships may not be the proper relationship that teachers develop with elementary, junior or high school students. Such kind of relationship may be applied to higher years in college, depending on the maturity level of the students.   

Contractual relationships: Business Relationships, Superficial and Impersonal

Before going into defining the relationship between teacher and students, whether to choose a contractual relationship or not, one needs to understand the nature of a contractual relationship. Business Dictionary defines a contractual relationship as “a legal relationship between contracting parties evidenced by (1) an offer, (2) acceptance of the offer, and (3) valid (legal and valuable) consideration”.  It is legally enforceable agreement, and any party, person or organization that enters into a contract has a contractual relationship with the other parties. When a party enters into a contractual relationship, it agrees to certain responsibilities and failure to adhere to the agreed-upon responsibilities may constitute a breach of contract. One can only exercise his/her task based on the stipulated contract, nothing more, nothing less. 

There are three things for a contract to exist: an offer, acceptance and validity. A party is offering a product or services and the second party is accepting the offer. To make the agreement valid and binding, the contract has to be written and signed by both parties which stipulate the duties and responsibilities of both parties. Once it is signed and notarized by a public attorney, the contract is legally enforceable. Violating the contract is tantamount to a breach of contract and can lead to the cease of the relationship or court litigation. The relationship emanating from the contract is functional (Markgraf, 2018). The relationship exists as long as both parties are doing their functions stipulated in the contract. Both parties are bound by the law to implement what has been agreed upon. The focus is on the content of the contract and the services to be delivered. There is no human relationship. Any actions done by both parties are only superficial and it is done to enhance the functional relationship. 

Applying such kind of relationship between the teacher and students means that the relationship is established because there is an offer or product to be sold to the students and the students, after some analysis of cost and benefit, accept the offer or purchase the product. Students enroll and pay the tuition fees and the school assigns teachers to teach. Both parties (school/teachers and students) are only allowed to do their duties and responsibilities within the prescribed contract. Teachers must teach because they are paid by the students and students should attend class. Violating the contract means the relationship ceases to exist. Teachers are doing their duties as teachers which are to teach and the students are paying tuition fees for their salaries. The problems of whether the students are listening and understanding their subjects are no longer the concern of teachers. If students listen, understand and then they can pass. If they do not pass, they are terminated or repeat the subject. The concerns of why students do not understand and do not pass the exam are no longer their concern. Looking into the reason behind students’ failure and trying to fix the problem are beyond their functions. No concern for the students. Just do the job as demanded by the contracts (Albu, n.d, Quizlet, n.d). There is a rule of engagement to be followed by both parties.    

Such a relationship implies that knowledge is a commodity. It is like many other things like oil or other products. It is a commodity, widely used and widely available for sale (Adam, 2013). The teachers are only to deliver the knowledge or information and the students listen and pay. It is only by listening they can understand and gain some skills and therefore their investment can have some return. If they do not listen and understand, they lose their investment. It is no longer the problem of teachers as to why students fail.

Following such a line of thought, the relationship between teachers and students are business relationship. There are several types of business relationships. First, is technical relationship. In this kind of relationship, the buyer recognizes that the seller’s product is as good as or better than the competitor's. There is no personal rapport between buyer and seller. The danger here is the buyer can go away once there is a better alternative. The second is social relationships. This relationship is friendly but superficial. The relationship may be friendly, but their conversation does not touch on business issues. Lastly partner relationship. This is the relationship in which the buyer trusts the seller. The buyer knows that the seller is there to help them. The buyer gets the value out of the interaction with the seller. As a result, the buyer would like to stay with the seller (RelatedVision, n.d). The teachers are producers or sellers and the students are customers or buyers. The focus of teachers is how to produce quality products or services so that they can retain the loyalty of the students so they do not go away. The teachers do everything possible to retain the students.  The teachers’ concerns are preparing their lessons and delivering them well in class to retain the students. This is the only way how to maintain their customers’ loyalty. All activities done by the teachers are only to attract the students to enrol on their subject and they can have money in return.

The relationship is just superficial and impersonal. Superficial means “skin deep” or existing on the surface. Teachers are superficially charming, but it is not coming from within. Teachers may converse with the students but there is no solid foundation of their talks (Psychologynet, 2016). Words are said but there is no deep meaning in it.  Teachers become narcissistic because they are charming to draw people in themselves. They fake their emotions. Smiling, laughing and talking with the students are not sincere because in this kind of relationship is just a business strategy to have a personal attachment with the customer and to retain them not to go away and enrol in other subjects or another school. The relationship is between the subject and the object. The teacher is the subject and the students are the object. Students are used so that the teachers can teach and earn their living.

What we have mentioned is being practised in the school environment in postmodern education. Education is a commodity and is no longer an instrument of character development.  It was lamented by Lyotard (1979) that there has been a significant change in the teacher-student relation. This is now no longer seen as a pedagogical relationship but a contractual one. Students, in paying ever higher fees for the privilege of attending an educational institution, expect good value for their (private, self-interested) investment.  When the services they 'purchase' do not measure up to expectations be threatened with legal action for breach of an implied contract.  He further reminded the institutions tertiary institutions must be 'accountable' for what they do, and when they fail to 'deliver the goods', they should pay a (legal and/or financial) price for this.

In conclusion, we may argue that a contractual relationship is not a proper relationship to be developed between teachers and students because in such a relationship, students are treated as customers, and buyers and not as persons who have personal needs such as physiological and psychological needs. Those needs cannot be fulfilled or satisfied if there is no pedagogical relationship.

Pedagogical relationship

Before going deeper into our discussion on pedagogical relationships, I want to share my own experience in secondary education. When I was in secondary education, the subject that I hated most was English subject. Every time a teacher came to the class, I felt nervous because he was used to punishing the students who could not give the right answer in English when he asked questions. What made it worse was the fact that it was not only the English subject that was being feared but also the teacher. The subject was hard and the teacher was hard. I was afraid to ask questions because the teacher might punish me again if I asked the wrong questions. I was not going any further in my subject, the ignorance continued to rule. I almost quit but for the sake of finishing my studies, I endured the situation.

Things changed when I was in the second level of secondary school. The teacher for the English subject was changed. He was an ex-seminarian. He encouraged students to ask questions and correct the mistakes but did not punish the students. The feeling was that it was ok to make mistakes. The excitement was growing. Not only that, he allowed us to ask questions anywhere and anytime. He was always ready to answer us. Such openness allowed us to develop relationships. I became a friend to him and he helped me a lot with my English subject. I was no longer afraid to ask questions and to make a mistake because I knew that he was there to guide me. The result of such a relationship was that I love English subject and I was always longing to see my English teacher. Not only love the subject but I usually confide my personal problems to the teacher and he was there to listen and guide me. Such a wonderful experience inspired me a lot and may the teacher rest in peace.

The experience that I shared is just a simple application and explanation of pedagogical relationships. The pedagogical relation refers to a special kind of personal relationship between teacher and student or adult and child that is different from other interpersonal personal relationships. The pedagogical relation is discussed more recently in English by Manen (1991). Manen thinks that educatorship is at least partly based on the ethical responsibility to offer oneself constantly to be available to the child as a kind of instrument or mechanism. Thereby the educator is assumed to act in such a way that s/he produces the results that s/he immediately feels (believes) the child to intend in his/her own action. It is not about conscious calculation, but a task that opens up to the educator as an immediate requirement and responsibility. This relation between child and parent/teacher is symbolized by 'living with the child in loco parentis'.  Manen means by this the normatively loaded interaction between adult and child which is permeated by the adult's responsibility to take care of the child's life and growth into a responsible person.    

As we have discussed above, teachers have holding big responsibility. The job is not only to master the subject and deliver it correctly with the correct strategy of teaching. It takes more than knowing the content to be a good teacher. Teachers are not only in words but also in action, their behaviour in dealing with the students. One of the most important aspects of teaching is building relationships with their students. Teacher-child relationships influence how a child develops. The relationship can relate to a wide range of school adjustment outcomes, including liking school, work habits, social skills, behaviour, and academic performance.

When teachers are open and communicate with their students, not only inside the classroom but also outside the classroom, they are transmitting not only knowledge but also values that students need in their lives. As Stonkuvienè ( 2010) emphasized when we communicate with each other we are not only transmitting messages, but also enriching experiences, perceiving emotions and cultivating attitudes, values, and ways of being with others and the world. We are co-building people. The educational context is a privileged environment for communication, particularly interpersonal communication. Postic (2008) criticizes theorists who support the study of teaching on the forging of “teaching machines” and underrate the interpersonal influences of the pedagogical context, as supported by Rogers (1985) and other authors. In a dialogical and teleological human sense of education, communication is a transversal element to all cultures. Communicating is a bio-psychosocial act; conducted by the body, it involves personalities, roles and emotions.

The relationship may not be symmetric but asymmetric; it is a relationship between unequal, teachers and students. Teachers and students are not really equal friends and their relationship is a relationship of an adult and a child. Therefore in such a relationship, the teacher is still a teacher who is in the presence of students who need help and guidance. As M.G. Pietyin (2013) pointed out your students are not your friends. She is right because there’s a certain responsibility in a pedagogical relationship. A teacher must never confide in a student, or look to a student for emotional support. It is perfectly appropriate for a student to do these things, however, with a teacher. A teacher stands in loco parentis. Most college students are young people who have not yet made their way in the world but who are going to college as part of their preparation for that. They are more than their student numbers. They are inexperienced adults who occasionally need support and guidance when contemplating life’s larger questions, or simply how to survive a term in which they are taking too many courses to minimize their student loan debt.

It has been always emphasized that to be an effective teacher is not a matter of knowing the subject very well but it is more than that, it is more on our approach to students, and how we view and deal with the students. Students come to school with their different situations, they are not coming to receive information from the teacher which they can get on the internet but they are looking for something that could change their life and it may not be given through the lectures but through our behavior that we show them every day. The subjects that they learn every day may not inspire them and bring them happiness, it is not even help them to become a mature person in the future and help them in their pursuit of “the good life” in the classical sense. But that can be done only by teachers who are willing to engage with their students as human beings and who can draw on their own humanity, and not simply their intellects, in those relationships.

The call of duty as a teacher is not easy after all. The job goes beyond preparing for class and teaching well. Ordinarily, nobody likes to occupy their time entertaining students who come to your office just to see their good teachers. No one likes to worry about the lives of other people but the call of duty as a teacher reminds all teachers that it is one your duty to build a pedagogical relationship with the students. They may not learn values and good behavior in the classroom but they learn it when they are dealing with their teachers. They cannot confide their personal problems and aspirations in the classroom, in front of other students, but they can confide about their lives through their relationship with their teachers. Listening to their aspirations and aspirations will inspire them to define their own life of what kind of life they are going pursue. Teachers need to know their students because by knowing them, teachers know how to deal with and help them. As Noddings (2007) pointed out teachers must know about students’ prior experiences and build on them with new learning experiences.  He continued that as the child’s teacher, you know more about the child than the writers of the book you are teaching. You can adjust the way you teach based on how your students learn and what they take an interest in. The curriculum and content being covered will be much more meaningful if delivered in a way the students favour. Teaching methods would be enhanced by a curriculum that contributed to the relevance and interest level of students' work and learning experiences. When students are forced to go through material that they are not engaged in they will lose interest. Students need to connect with what they are learning through engagement. Curriculum approaches that promote combined social as well as emotional intelligence of students are much more effective (Noddings, 2007).

As a summary of the idea of pedagogical relationship, we may point out some characteristics that mark the difference between interpersonal relationships. In the pedagogical relationship, the adult is directed toward the child and the relation is asymmetrical, a relationship between unequal. The adult is there for the child and the child is not there for the adult. The purpose of such kind of relationship is to help the child grow becoming a better person in the future. This kind of relationship ends when the child grows up and matures. 

Conclusion

After discussing three kinds of relationships, now we know what kind of relationship a teacher needs to develop with their students. The relationship is a need, and it is not only true for adults or teachers but also for children or students. All need to be able to relate themselves to one another. It is a social need and it is inborn. Because of such inborn needs, building up interpersonal relationships is the fulfilment of such needs and it is a must. But this kind of relationship is between adult or symmetrical relationship, between the equals, because both are there to fill the vacuum of each individual’s needs. There is mutuality and reciprocity. Should you consider this kind of relationship? The message is clear that this relationship is between equals.     

The solution is not even to take a contractual relationship as a replacement. This kind of relationship is a business relationship, superficial and impersonal. Therefore, contractual relationship has no place in an educational context, though; it may be prevalent in postmodern education as lamented by Lyotard (1979). Such kind of relationship is considered as subject and object relationship. Both are using each other for individual interests at the expense of the other.         

Therefore, interpersonal relationships and contractual relationships may not be qualified for the relationship between an adult and a child or a teacher and student. It has to be a pedagogical relationship, a relationship that is educational in nature, a relationship that is oriented toward the growth of the child. It is an asymmetrical, relationship between the unequal. The teachers are there to help the students. It is the student who needs a teacher.

References

Adams, M. (2013). Knowledge is a Commodity. The Relationship Economy: Technology and the Human network. Retrieved from http://www.relationship-economy.com/2013/04/knowledge-is-a-commodity/

Albu, C. (n.d). Types of relationship between Teachers and Students. (Slide Presentation). Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/ecaterinaalbu/types-of-relationships-between-teachers-and-students

Baumeister R. F., & Leary M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Essays, UK. (2013). Principles for good interpersonal relationship. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/young-people/principles-for-good-interpersonal-relationship-young-people-essay.php?vref=1

House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (2003). Social Psychology of Health. In: Salovey, P. & Rothman, A. J. (Eds.), Social Relationships and Health. New York: Psychological Press, pp. 218-26.

Insel, Th. (2001). The neurobiology of attachment". Nature Reviews Neuroscience . Retrieved from http://www.neurosciencereview.com

 Kelley, H. H., Burscheid, E., Christensen, A. (1983). Close Relationships. New York: Freeman

Lyotard, J.F. (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. London and New York:  Routledge:   

Manen, V. M. (1991). The Tact of Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness. http://www.maxvanmanen.com/biography/ retrieved, September 8, 2014. 

Markgraf, B. (2018). Contractual Relationship in Management. Chron. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/contractual-relationships-project-management-63182.html

McShane, S. (2000). Organizational Behavior. McGraw-Hill: New York.

MSG (n.d). Stages in Interpersonal relationship. Retrieved from https://www.managementstudyguide.com/stages-in-interpersonal-relationships.htm

Noddings, N. (2007). Critical Lessons: What Our Schools Should Teach. University Press: Cambridge

Postic, M. (2008). A Pedagogical Relationship. Lisboa: Padrões Culturais

Psychologynet. (2016). What is Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.whatispsychology.net/what-does-superficial-mean/

 Pietyin, M.G. (2013). The Pedagogical Relationship on Teaching. Drexel University. Retrieved from http://mgpiety.org/tag/the-pedagogical-relationship/

Quizlet (n.d). Contractual Relationship. Retrieved from https://quizlet.com/14411691/contractual-relationships-flash-cards/

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well-being. American Psychological Association, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 68-78.

RelatedVision. (n.d). Type of Business Relationship. Retrieved from http://www.relatedvision.com/Building-Relationships/business-relationships.html

Stoner, J A., Freeman, F., Edward. G., & Daniel R. (2000).  Management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Stonkuvienè. (2010). Communication as an essential element of the pedagogical process. London: Methuen & Co.

 

 

  

Ethical Relationship between Employees and Management

 Julliene Kay B. Saclayan

Abstract 

The paper addresses the ethical relationship between employees and management. The objective of this article is to review how to enhance the relationship between manager and employee. This article will describe the roles of managers and employees as they achieve the strategic goals of organizations. Despite growing professional and academic interest in business ethics, moral lapses continue in the business sector, which suggests a need to rethink the efficiency of existing ethical strategies. That is, top management’s efforts to promote ethical behaviour among employees tend to focus on the implementation of explicit formal mechanisms, whereas in practice, more informal elements that communicate the true attitude toward ethics may be more useful and necessary. Thus, top managers must work actively to make their personal ethics evident to influence the ethical behaviours of employees. Without a perception of ethics at the top, formal mechanisms likely fail to result in a more ethical workforce.

Keywords: Ethical Role of the Manager; Ethical Leadership; Top Management; Role Modelling; Responsible Management.

Background

The employer-employee relationship should not be looked at simply in economic terms. It is a significant human relationship of mutual dependency that has a great impact on the people involved. A person’s job, like a person’s business, are highly valued possessions that pervasively affect the lives of the employees and their families. With stakeholders everywhere, the relationship is laden with moral responsibilities. Though the pressures of self-interest are very powerful and compelling, both workers and bosses should guide their choices by basic ethical principles including honesty, candour, respect and caring.

Every day, managers and employees need to make decisions that have moral implications. And those decisions impact their companies, company shareholders, and all the other stakeholders in interest. Ethically conducting business is incumbent upon everyone in an organization for legal and business reasons. As a manager, it’s important to understand your ethical obligations so that you can meet your company’s expectations as well as model appropriate behaviour for others.

Despite great attention to and efforts by academics, professionals and society to avoid immorality in the business sector, moral scandals have not ceased. Ethical failures in the business sector (e.g. bribery, falsifying reports, stealing, deceptive advertising) appear in media reports, many of which point to the involvement of high levels of management in immoral acts. The study and understanding of ethical behaviours in organizations thus must advance if we are to minimize further ethical failures in business.

Considerable efforts have been aimed at implementing ethical standards in international business spheres (Weaver, Treviño & Cochran, 1999; IBE, 2008), yet most of the companies that gained reputations as “rotten apples” had in place organizational procedures, mechanisms or systems to promote ethics (Sims & Brinkman, 2003)

Ethical Role of the Manager

In a broad construction of the ethical role of the manager, managing and leading can be said to be inherently ethics-laden tasks because every managerial decision affects either people or the natural environment in some way—and those effects or impacts need to be taken into consideration as decisions are made. A narrower construction of the ethical role of the manager is that managers should serve only the interests of the shareholder; that is, their sole ethical task is to meet the fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder wealth that is embedded in the law, predominantly that of the United States, although this point of view is increasingly accepted in other parts of the world. Even in this narrow view, however, although not always recognised explicitly, ethics are at the core of management practice. The ethical role of managers is broadened beyond fiduciary responsibility when consideration is given to the multiple stakeholders who constitute the organization being managed and to nature, on which human civilization depends for its survival. Business decisions affect both stakeholders and nature; therefore, a logical conclusion is that those decisions have ethical content inherently and that managerial decisions, behaviours, and actions are therefore inherently ethical in nature. Whenever there are impacts due to a decision, behaviour, or action that a leader or manager makes, there are ethical aspects to that decision or situation. While some sceptics claim that business ethics is an oxymoron, the reality is that decisions and actions have consequences and that reality implies some degree of ethics, high or low. Thus, ethics and the managerial role cannot realistically be teased apart.

 Ethical leadership

In the development of the ethical leadership framework, Brown and Treviño (Brown et al.,2005; Brown and Treviño, 2006; Trevion et al., 2003) proposed that ethical leadership is comprised of four components. First, by engaging in behaviours which are normatively appropriate in the eyes of subordinates such as exercising responsibility and showing respect to others, ethical leaders are viewed by subordinates as legitimate and credible role models (Brown and Treviño, 2014). Second, ethical leaders engage in two-way communication with their subordinates about ethical issues. They not only talk to subordinates about ethics and stress the importance to them of acting ethically, PR but also encourage subordinates to voice their concerns and provide feedback (Avey et al., 2012; Brown and Treviño, 2006), thus helping develop the employee’s ethical mindset for future moral-laden interactions and decisions (Zhu et al., 2016). Third, ethical leaders establish ethical standards and ensure their subordinates abide by those standards by rewarding or disciplining subordinates based on their ethical conduct or misconduct (Trevion et al., 2003). Finally, ethical leaders take into account ethical principles when making decisions and ensure that the decision-making process is observable by subordinates (Brown and Treviño, 2006). Taken together, this presents a narrative akin to the social learning process (Bandura, 1977) whereby employees are observing, internalizing, emulating, and then being rewarded for engaging in ethical behaviours such as CCBs, which has been shown to have an influence on employees’ ethical mindsets ( Jennings et al., 2015; Miao et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2016). As highlighted in recent meta-analytical work (see Bedi et al., 2016; Hoch et al., 2018), growing research over the last decade has examined the relationship between ethical leadership and employees’ work outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job engagement, job performance and counterproductive work behaviours. In addition, ethical leadership has been found to enhance employees’ organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) (e.g. DeConinck, 2015; Mayer et al., 2009). OCBs are discretionary behaviours on the part of employees which enable the team to achieve its mission and goals (Graham, 1991). CCBs are similar to OCBs as they are both prosocial behaviours that seek to benefit others, however, the recipients of these behaviours differ. For CCBs, they are focused on those outside of the organization (i.e. charities) (Rodell et al., 2016), whereas OCBs are directed at members of the team or organization (i.e. co-workers) (DeConinck, 2015; Lau et al., 2016).

Top Management Sanctioning Behaviour

Traditionally, the tactics used by top management to reduce immorality in their companies have involved the implementation of organisational and formal mechanisms (Ford & Richardson, 1994; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005), such as codes of conduct, training initiatives, ethical officers, ethical auditing and reporting or ethics ties to the performance system. According to previous research, these tactics also are some of the most commonly used instruments in European companies, especially in the Spanish business context (Guillen, Melé & Murphy, 2002). A system of rewards and punishments based on ethical actions has been cited as a necessary element for achieving a reputation for ethical leadership (Treviño, Hartman & Brown, 2000; Treviño & Nelson, 2004). Such system plays an important role in social influence processes; as Bandura (1977) argues, a person behaves following the negative or positive consequences that attach to his or her behaviours, such as avoiding behaviours linked to negative consequences and acting in ways that lead to positive consequences. Therefore, sanctioning unethical behaviours should encourage ethics among employees. Furthermore, this mechanism fulfils an informative, motivating and reinforcing function in the business organization (Bandura, 1977). Top management efforts to discipline unethical behaviour should offer an effective strategy to encourage ethical behaviour.

Top Management is a Role Model

Even if formal mechanisms are valid and effective in improving the ethical quality of a business organization (Ford & Richardson, 1994; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005), if ethics are absent at the top management level, an ethical organizational climate might not be easily achievable (cf. Schroeder, 2002; Weaver, Treviño & Agle, 2005). Top management’s behaviour thus affects the level of ethics among employees. In role set theory (Merton, 1957), a referent’s level of formal authority determines his or her influence on an employee’s behaviour and attitudes. Because top managers have great formal authority, their behaviour, values and decisions should exert strong influences over employees’ ethical behaviours. It may be difficult for employees to perceive the personal behaviours of top managers directly, but the top management level likely develops (even if unconsciously) a reputation for ethical or unethical, hypocritical or ethically neutral leadership (Treviño & Nelson, 2004). For example, rumours about decisions, strategies and behaviours (both in private and corporate settings) by top managers likely circulate throughout the organization and contribute to their ethical image. Therefore, top management needs to develop a reputation for ethical leadership if ethical behaviour among employees is desired to be encouraged. Ethics must start at the top; even if the firm implements various formal, ethics-related mechanisms, they cannot truly influence employees’ ethics if those mechanisms do not match the ethical image at the top (cf. Schroeder, 2002), in which case top management instead could be perceived as hypocritical (Treviño et al., 2000; Treviño & Nelson, 2004). Thus top management ethicality is one of the most important determinants of company ethics (Zabid & Alsagoff, 1993; Vitell, Dickerson & Festervand, 2000), and making such ethics evident to all organizational members should strongly affect the ethical behaviour of employees.

Responsible Management

Responsible management is defined as managerial practices that integrate and assume responsibility for the triple bottom line (sustainability), stakeholder value (responsibility), and moral dilemmas (ethics)‖ (Laasch and Connaway, 2015: 25). Within this quickly emerging field of research, there is a move towards a more holistic approach to disparate aspects of organizational activity, which used to be researched separately. A new research topic called the trans discipline or inter-discipline of Sustainability, Responsibility, and Ethics (SRE) (Laasch and Moosmayer, 2015; Laasch, 2016), is gaining increasing attention from scholars, with the view to establishing a more accurate approach to responsible business practices and management. As business organizations function with the approbation of society (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994), they need to adapt to the changing societal conditions, for instance, by adopting a new conception of market success where traditional financial bottom-line indicators are being complemented with social and environmental factors‖ (Hilliard, 2013: 365). Responsible management provides a good answer to such challenges by promoting practices that lead to prime management. Prime management refers to superior management practice leading to performance that, at the same time, is socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable; optimizes stakeholder value; and leads to moral excellence‖ (Laasch and Conaway, 2015: 27).

To be able to advance such a holistic perspective, proper use of the basic components of responsible management is crucial. To this end, we address in this chapter the ethics component of responsible management, both in terms of what ethics is and how to manage it. Based on our examination of the literature, we focus on two issues. First, we present an overview of the various ethical criteria for the organizational and managerial levels. Second, we map the mechanisms, strategies and interventions that managers may use to embed ethics within organizations. Ethical and unethical behaviour in organizations is influenced both by individual behaviour and organizational activity (Treviño and Youngblood, 2004)

1990). Notably, ethical problems negatively impact ―the trust and reputation of both leaders and organisations (Kalshoven, Hartog and Hoogh, 2011: 51). We thus argue that developing responsible management research as a holistic approach necessitates taking a step further and addressing not only ethical management at the individual level and ethics management at the organizational level, but also their interconnections, how they complement each other, and how they may enable responsible business practices

Conclusion

In the wake of corporate scandals over the past several years, most organizations have written or updated their Codes of Conduct and Ethics Rules. The first thing a manager should do is to read and understand those documents. That means understanding the actual words used in the documents along with the spirit and intent behind the words. The second thing to do is to be sure that your staff also reads and understands the documents and can come to you with any questions.

If you act consistently with Codes of Conduct and Ethics Rules, you provide a foundation of trust in your relationships with others. Part of your goal is to show others what it means to make ethical decisions. The other part of your goal is to encourage others to come forward if they suspect that someone is not acting ethically. As a result, your organization will be in a position to look at that behavior and stop it before it is out of control or worse, crosses the line into illegal conduct.

Society is changing and so are the institutions that are part of our social reality. If they are to remain competitive in the long run, business organizations need to respond to the growing demands of society (Hilliard, 2013) through wise managerial practices. As ethical, social, and environmental performances are currently under the spotlight of public opinion, financial performance is no longer enough to ensure business success. To be able to achieve long-term, sustainable performance,business organizations need to operate ethically and be socially and environmentally sound while they aim for financial gains (Constantinescu and Kaptein, 2019). This calls for a new managerial perspective for business organizations, one that is robust and visionary enough to lead towards such performance. The umbrella concept of responsible management (Buckingham and Venkataraman, 2016; Ennals, 2014; Haski-Leventhal, 2018; Hibbert and Cunliffe, 2013; Laasch, 2016; Laasch and Conaway, 2015; Ogunyemi, 2012) encompasses these dimensions of an emerging type of management practice. The growing body of research supporting managerial integration of ―triple bottom line (sustainability), stakeholder value (responsibility), and moral dilemmas (ethics)‖ (Laasch and Connaway, 2015: 25) puts forward the new transdiscipline of Sustainability, Responsibility, and Ethics (Laasch and Moosmayer, 2016; Laasch, 2016). One aspect emphasized by current research on responsible management is the need to ensure that ethical decision-making processes are adequately responsive to moral dilemmas and that they strive for moral excellence in managerial practice (Laasch and Conaway, 2015).

REFERENCES 

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Arnold, D. G. (2010). Transnational Corporations and the Duty to Respect Basic Human Rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 371-399.

Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating Leadership Styles and Ethical Perspectives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18: 244-256.

Beams, J.D., Brown, R.M. & Killough, L.N. (2003). An Experiment Testing the Determinants of Non-Compliance with Insider Trading Laws. Journal of Business Ethics, 45 (4), 309-323.

Cavanagh, G. F. (2005). American business values with international perspectives (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Cavanagh, G. F., Moberg, D. J., and Velasquez, M. The ethics of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review vol. 6 no. (3) (1981). pp. 363–374.

Ennals, R. (2014). Responsible Management: Corporate Social Responsibility and Working Life. New York: Springer.

Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic: Working values and values that work. New York: AMACOM.