Ethics Defined The term ethics is associated with many definitions like trust, integrity and values figure in human lives. But among all, ethics is best defined as the study of morality. Morality refers to the values and norms that are accepted and practiced by the society as a whole. Ethics produces guidelines for human conduct that translate morality into everyday behavior. Ethical behavior is the behavior within the limits prescribed by morality. The concept of trust, responsibility and integrity are part of the value system of total quality. Ethical questions often fall into a gray area between the two extremes of clearly right and clearly wrong Guidelines for Determining Ethical Behavior
The concepts of legal and ethical must be
distinguished to determine the guidelines for ethical behavior. The reason is that a behavior that is legal will not necessarily become ethical, vice versa. David L. Goetsch introduced Tests of Ethical Behavior with the assumption that the behavior is legal. Tests of Ethical Behavior Morning-After Test How will you feel about this behavior tomorrow morning? Front-page Test How would you like to see this behavior written up on the front page of your hometown newspaper? Mirror Test How will you feel about this behavior when you look in the mirror? Role Reversal Test How would you feel about being on the receiving end of this behavior? Common Sense Test What does everyday common sense say about this behavior? Blanchard and Peale suggest a test to determine the ethical choice in a given situation. T They also describe The Five P's of Ethical Power. The Five P's of Ethical Power Purpose. Individuals see themselves as ethical people who let their conscience be their guide and in all cases want to feel good about themselves. Pride. Individuals apply internal guidelines and have sufficient self-esteem to make decisions that may not be popular with others. Patience. Individuals believe right will prevail in the long run, and they are willing to wait when necessary. Persistence. Individuals are willing to stay with an ethical course of action once it has been chosen and see it through to a positive conclusion. Perspective. Individuals take the time to reflect and are guided by their own internal barometers when making ethical decisions. Trevino suggests that three personality measures can influence a person's ethical behavior; ego strength, machiavellianism and locus of control. Ego strength: In Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality, ego strength is the ability of the ego to effectively deal with the demands of the id, the superego, and reality. Those with little ego strength may feel torn between these competing demands, while those with too much ego strength can become too unyielding and rigid. Ego strength helps us maintain emotional stability and cope with internal and external stress. Machiavellianism : is the term that some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. The concept is named after Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolo Machiavelli Locus of control : The locus of control can either be internal (meaning you believe that you control yourself and your life) or external (meaning you believe that your environment, some higher power or other people control your decisions and your life). It was developed by Rotter in 1954 as an important aspect of personality. Prebel and Miesing suggest that certain social factors like gender, role differences, religion, age, work experience, etc can also influence ethical behavior in organizations. Trust and Total Quality Trust is an essential element in total quality. There are various elements of total quality that depend on trust. These elements include: Communication Interpersonal relations Conflict management and problem solving Teamwork Employee involvement and empowerment Customer focus Values and Total Quality Values are also important in total quality. Total quality will be achieved if values are included in the production process. For example, an organization that values quality will only produce quality products and services. Furthermore, individual employees and organizations as a whole will most willingly apply their knowledge and skills to what they value, what they believe in and what they feel is important. Integrity and Total Quality Integrity that combines honesty and dependability will lead to ethical behavior. People with integrity are assets to organization. According to Peter Drucker, integrity can be achieved by observing the part of the Greek physician's Hippocratic oath that reads primum non nocere, or above all, do not knowingly do harm. This rule applies to employees and the organization as a whole. Managers who follow this rule will keep the best interest of their organization and employees in mind when making decisions and in all aspects of their jobs. The Hippocratic Oath The Hippocratic Oath is an oath traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine. It is widely believed that the oath was written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, in the 4th century BC, or by one of his students. Based on the Hippocratic oath, according to Peter Drucker, every professional can only try to do what is the best for his client regardless if he is a doctor, lawyer or manager. But the client can have full confidence in him that he will definitely not do any harm to the client. Case study 1 Wai Manufacturing has guaranteed Ryan Products that it will deliver the complete order of small machines by the 10th of the month, a Friday. Ryan had already extended its deadline once. This time, it insists, the date must be met. Tim Vinson, head of quality control, had been confident the deadline would be met. But on the 8th he learns that a new component of the machines is in short supply. He thinks of several options: 1) Approve breaking up and regrinding the remaining supply of the old component that was being replaced. This could probably be accomplished in time, but the speed at which it would have to be done raises concerns about impurities in the process. 2) Approve using the old component in place of the new one. The product would still function well, and it would be unlikely that Ryan would ever detect the difference. Although Ryan would not be getting exactly what it ordered, the product would meet minimal safety and durability standards. 3) Discuss the problem with the design engineer and see what he suggests. Which of these options would you recommend? Can you think of any other options that might be preferable? Case Study 2 John Budinski, quality control engineer at Clarke Engineering, has a problem. Clarke contracted with USAWAY to supply a product subject to the requirement that all parts are made in the United States. Although the original design clearly specifies that all parts must satisfy this requirement, one of Clarke's suppliers failed to note that one of the components has two special bolts that are made only in another country. There is not time to design a new bolt if the terms of the contract are to be met. USAWAY is a major customer, and not meeting the deadline can be expected to have unfortunate consequences for Clarke. John realizes that the chances of USAWAY discovering the problem on their own is slim. The bolts in question are not visible on the surface of the product. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that those who work on repairs will notice that the bolts are foreign made. In any case, Clarke is under contract to do the repairs. Meanwhile, it can work on a bolt design so that it will be ready with USA bolts when, and if, replacements are needed. What should John do? Case Study 3 XYZ orders 5000 custom made parts from ABC for one of its products. When the order is originally made ABC indicates it will charge $75 per part. This cost is based in part on the cost of materials. After the agreement is completed, but before production of the part begins, ABC engineer Christine Carsten determines that a much less expensive metal alloy can be used while only slightly compromising the integrity of the part. Using the less expensive alloy would cut ABC's costs by $18 a part. Christine brings this to the attention of ABC's Vernon Waller, who authorized the sales agreement with XYZ. Vernon asks, "How would anyone know the difference?" Christine replies, "Probably no one would unless they were looking for a difference and did a fair amount of testing. In most cases the performance will be virtually the same -- although some parts might not last quite as long." Vernon says, "Great, Christine, you've just made a bundle for ABC." Puzzled, Christine replies, "But shouldn't you tell XYZ about the change?" "Why?" Vernon asks, "The basic idea is to satisfy the customer with good quality parts, and you've just said we will. So what's the problem?" The problem, Christine thinks to herself, is that the customer isn't getting what was promised. Further, even if XYZ would be satisfied with the different part, shouldn't it be given the opportunity to decide if it finds the change acceptable -- and to benefit from lowered cost? Should Christine share her further thoughts with Vernon, or should she simply drop the matter?
