Homework #3 for MGT3000

Organization Management
HW # 3
Chapter 4
Matthew Henderson

1. Dr.  Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “As long as there is poverty in the world, I can never be rich...As long as diseases are rampant, I can never be healthy…I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.”  Discuss this quote with respect to the material in this chapter.  Would this idea be true for corporations, too?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was using the Justice Approach in this statement to point out the unethical treatment of people worldwide.  His statement claims that the world is unethical because of its seemingly unfair treatment of those in poverty and those with disease.  Dr. King was a well known advocate of Distributive Justice, saying that different treatment of individuals should not be based on arbitrary characteristics; instead everybody should be treated equally.  Dr. King’s statement is saying “the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so let’s improve the quality of our links”.

There may be some corporations that adopt this Distributive Justice Approach, but there are quite a few that adopt an Individualism Approach or Utilitarian Approach.  Their view of the chain would be, instead of strengthening weak links, to eject or replace weak links for the greater good of the chain (the organization or themselves).

2. Environmentalists are trying to pass laws for oil spills that would remove all liability limits for the oil companies.  This change would punish corporations financially.  Is this approach the best way to influence companies to be socially responsible?

This approach might be effective on a preconventional moral level depending on the size of the corporation.  The company may decide that the financial punishment is more expensive than exceeding limitations and change their ways.  However, it is more likely that the financial punishment will be planned for and the corporation will still save money by exceeding limitations and paying citations.  Generally, a company willing to exceed environmental limitations is looking out for their own self-interest.

In order for environmentalists to see a real change, they would need to find some way to develop the morality of the corporations from within.  The corporation that decides to exceed environmental limits is most likely preconventionally morally developed.  Once they develop a Conventional or Postconventional moral code, they will monitor their environmental limits and take responsibility to ensure they don’t exceed those limits for the good of social expectations and their own internal values.

3. Is it socially responsible for organizations to undertake political activity or join with others in a trade association to influence the government?  Discuss.

It is socially responsible to themselves, their workers and their shareholders.  It is irresponsible to the “greater society”.  Organizations are generally looking out for the best interest of themselves and their shareholders.  If they can do this through politics and/or trade associations, they will.  They will find any way to bend the rules or change the rules in their favor.  This ensures that they will have a handle on the changing environments.  It is the epitome of uncertainty avoidance.

On a broader social level, this type of action takes deciding power away from the people who, in a democracy, are supposed to be the ruling force.  This type of action not only portrays a corrupt and conniving organization, but also a corrupt and conniving political and/or trade system.  So it is irresponsible on a greater social scale.

4. A noted business executive said, “A company’s first obligation is to be profitable.  Unprofitable enterprises can’t afford to be socially responsible.”  Do you agree?  How does this idea relate to the bottom-of-the-pyramid concept?  Discuss.

Considering the thousands of successful non-profit companies, many of whose goals are socially responsible, I do not agree with this executive’s saying.  These non-profits are more interested in social responsibility than they are profits.  If a company is determined, they can be socially responsible without profit.  However, if they value profit over social responsibility, then they will probably trade one for the other.

The bottom of the pyramid concept says that corporations can alleviate poverty and other social ills, as well as make significant profits, by selling to the world’s poor.  This idea is saying that a corporation can be both profitable and socially responsible at the same time.  Its idea is that by being socially responsible, an organization builds a market for itself.

5. Which do you think would be more effective for shaping long-term ethical behavior in an organization: a written code of ethics combined with ethics training or strong ethical leadership?  Which would have more impact on you?  Why?

While both ideas have value, I think strong ethical leadership would be more effective than written code and ethics training.  Considering the leaders are the ones who build the organization’s culture, they would also be the ones hiring new management and employees, so hopefully they would use their strong ethics to decide who and who not to hire.  Ideally, this would create an environment of strong ethical people.  However, even if they didn’t there’s an old proverb, “lead by example,” and even unethical people under ethical management will most likely follow the example they are given.

A written code is very impersonal and seems almost more like a set of rules (and we all know rules were made to be broken, right?... like the fresh coat of paint that says “don’t touch, wet paint”… people still touch it).  Ethical training can be seen as more of an obligation than a help.  It is probably helpful, but it can also be easily written off as “unnecessary” or “boring”.  Even with these systems in place, there always seems to be at least one person who thinks of themselves as “above the law” and they usually come from higher-up.

Personally, I would rather have strong ethical leadership.  Not only would I be grateful that I am working for an ethical person, but I also would have some assurance that the organization will follow that leader’s ethical path.  I feel like most people have a great moral compass, just not everyone decides to follow its direction.  With strong leadership, I think people would choose to use their compasses more.