Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Introduction
In this essay, I am going to argue management at all layers of the organizational chain of command is in fact, ethical- but this concern with ethics may take an unpredicted form. Specifically, I suggest that the denial of the paradoxical concept of ‘ethics’ in organizations, places further anxiety and stresses, that inhibit positive outcomes. I make this argument in 3 sections. In Section One I draw upon the works of various management academics (Clegg and Rhodes 2006; Jackall 1988; Morgan 2006), along with a recent extract from the business press, to demonstrate the ways that the concept of ‘ethics’ has come to the fore in the language of business. In Section Two I use the works of Fernando (2007) to suggest that ethics tends to be defined by the ideals of Corporate Social Responsibility and Triple Bottom Line ethos. In the final section of this essay, I shall consider what ‘being ethical’ means. I will argue that being ethical is not the same as being ‘against management,’ but is a voluntary pledge to better organization and better management, a pledge to an idea where its powerful potential, as envisaged by Roberts(1984) is accomplished.
Management Ethics: an intricate by-product driving the language of business
Managerial ethics is a pursuit of better judgement that involves optional acts upon rules, aided by intentions and measured by consequences of practice. Management and ethics is inextricably linked with the neo-liberal global regulatory framework, organizational culture and community (Clegg and Rhodes 2006: xi). The dominant twentieth century orthodoxy of the organization and the organization man (Whyte 1960:1) is increasingly becoming eroded by divisive global ethical views - of employees, customers, auditors, stockholders, suppliers, tax payers, journalists, activists and politicians and business ethicists (Clegg and Rhodes: xi ). The modern CEO cannot speak from a moral high ground and pass verdict on organizational ethical conduct in a way that does not affect negatively on market indicators (Clegg and Rhodes 2006: 5).
With the progress of neo-liberal globalization through deregulation, privatization, fiscal cutbacks and technological innovation around the world, individuals and corporations have become empowered relative to the role of government. Technological innovation in transportation and communication has particularly enhanced corporations’ mobility and portability (Bakan 2004: 21). Fast and large jet planes and new ship freighting techniques have produced low-cost structures and increased the efficiency rate of transportation (Bakan 2004: 21). Communications have similarly improved with innovations to long-distance phone networks, fax and the recent revolution of the Internet. Corporations are no longer restricted by the jurisdictions of geo-political governments and have flexible leverage to produce goods and services at low cost (Morgan 2006: 321).Expensive tariffs have been dramatically cut since 1948, when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was initiated, which empowered corporate geographic mobility without excessive financial penalties. Corporate hegemony has emerged as corporations dictate the economic policies of governments (Bakan 2004: 22). The managerial rhetoric now espouses no allegiance to governments as embodied in the statement of Clive Allen, VP of Research and Innovation at Nortel Networks, “just because we [Nortel Networks] were born [in Canada] doesn’t mean we will remain there... The place has to be attractive for us to be interested in staying there.” A resulting ‘Americanization’ and ‘Japanization’ culturally induced ‘race to the bottom’ has emerged as a result the removal of significant worker protection, tax reduction and the rollback of social welfare programs with uncontained ignorance for the human and environmental consequences(Bakan 2004: 22).
Managers by becoming part of a power which is felt as unbreakably solid, eternal, and alluring, participates in its strength and glory. Yet supersedes the interests, identity and freedom of others; gaining a new refuge and a new pride (Fromm 1942:134).
Organizational corporate culture is the means by which management achieve amazing results through normal people (Peters and Watermen, 1982: 238-9). As Klein notes that, formal organizations can function like a ‘moral person’ in that they are quasi-characters, which can be evaluated as inhuman or honourable (Klein 1988:56). Such dispositions engender particular practices and emotional commitment. Honourable practices derive from the cultivation of honourable values (MacIntyre 1985:149). In other words, senior managers- those who have internalized the culture, exercise such values in the shaping and sustaining of the corporation (Peters and Watermen, 1982: 238-9). This pursuit of excellence by practice must be circumstance contingent and withstand the corrupting power of the institutions in its environment, such as competitors, suppliers or financial intermediaries- which in turn can result in a negative feedback loop ( Moore and Beadle 2006: 375). Jackall (1988) advocates for a power-balanced structure that will ensure the views of various parties are not advantaged over others. He argues that ‘functional rationality’ in the hierarchy of organizations can result in strategic plans that are calculated to obtain ‘some goal, any goal.’ This decision making is in spite of no instituted codes or systems for tracking responsibility; thus enabling top-level management to become empowered while restricting the power of those beneath, but not the blame. As is exampled by the use of the ‘fall guy’ in big corporations where a subordinate ‘takes the rap’ for senior managerial decisions and mistakes. As one high-ranking official in Covenant Corporation, jokingly put it:
“We should appoint a position entitled Chief Fall Guy…He would be well-paid; plenty of benefits. And if things go wrong, he would go to jail, and his family will be provided for.” Further it is said that some top-level managers move so fast that ‘their feet never hit the ground.’ They never remain long enough in one organization so that their problems catch up with them, becoming hostage to ‘take the money and run’ ethos of short term gains at the expense of their organizations and ultimately community wellbeing.
Community and corporate interests are not always identical in all large organizations. The highly bureaucratic systems of decision making, frequently mean that senior managerial interest relate to cost-cutting, growth or strategic development of the corporate organization as a whole, and usurp community and national interests in decision making process(Morgan 2006: 321). Thus, when strategic plans lead senior executive managers to divest its holdings in a particular industry, close down a particular plant, or streamline global ventures, the consequences can be shattering for communities and countries (Morgan 2006: 321 ). As is exampled, by the shift in search of cheaper, non-unionized labour which has led the exiting of firms in relative high-price cities in varied First World Economies to locations such as in Africa or Asia. Regional ‘jobs flight’ has removed the economic lifeblood of regional communities. This organizational event has left entrenched structural unemployment, welfare reliance and increasing fiscal problems for state governments (Morgan 2006: 321).
The Global Financial Crisis with its large scale corporate collapses, dishonest business dealings- in the sub-prime mortgage market as well as ongoing issues of corruption-has attracted major attention in the business world such as by politicians and the community in general. So much so the systematic lack of individual diktat, rising evidence of fraud, clash of interest, lack of concern to suffering and negation of responsibility has produced an ‘administrative economic massacre’ and an ‘economic crime against humanity’ (Zuboff 2009).
The ideals of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
Fernando (2007) supports the intriguing answer of CSR and TBL ethos which I have taken as the focal point of this article. He argues in favour of ‘net positive returns’ in the social, economic and environmental spheres of corporate sustainability (Fernando 2007: 4). Companies that uphold the CSR and TBL ethos strive to survive and be cost-effective in the marketplace, but they also aim to promote pro-social organizational behaviour and environmental care(Fernando 2007: 4). Many well known global companies are already changing the face of the functioning of corporations. There has been response that every consumer is an integral part of the wider community and the promotion of social responsibility as part of managerial strategy, ensures the long-term survival of the organization:
“{CSR and TBL are enshrined in} … values, culture, decision making, strategy and operations in a transparent and accountable manner and thereby establish better practices within the firm, create wealth and improve society” (Berger et al 2007:33).
Unilever Sri Lanka’s CSR and TBL response was fixed in its “3G mantra… our brands, our people and our community.” Thus, when the Asian tsunami struck, Unilever was able to utilize its efficient distribution channels to provide direct crisis-aid operations including “essential food and hygiene products” (Fernando 2007: 4). Similarly, Brandix Sri Lanka also achieved positive CSR and TBL marks whilst supporting the community on the Southern and Western coasts with its desalination and water purification plants. After the tsunami struck, Brandix did the ‘right thing’ by cleaning “4000 water wells along the whole of the affected coastal belt” (Fernando 2007: 5). Further, the executives and employees of both companies realised the moral decency to not use the humanitarian crisis as a “PR exercise” (Fernando 2007: 5). Conclusively, Fernando (2007) aptly shows that CSR and TBL, is more than just a promotional strategy, but a justification of the corporation as genuine, responsible and accountable.
Bauman (1993) recognises a potential crisis where the scale of human power has risen such that peoples behaviour can have far reaching consequences than ever before, yet where no individual, accepted or dependable mix of ethical rules or principles are in place to ‘solve’ the crisis (Bauman 1993:21). Thus the post modern managerial ethical condition yearns for guidance to trust and rely upon, so that the ‘haunting responsibility’ of decision making could be raised from their shoulders. As a result, leading Bauman to assert that being ethical means being “bound to make choices under conditions of acute and painful certainty” (Bauman and Tester 2001:46).
However, my point of reflection as envisaged by Jones et al (2004) is that managerial ethical care must go beyond the computable function or describing process (Derrida 1992:24). Such care is grounded away from “perfect and clear knowledge and absence of decision making difficulties, but are themselves emergent in and even defined by the experience of double blinds” (Jones 2004:53). As Derrida evokes, ethics requires a degree of uncertainty- a non rational component of having to make choices about the varied possibilities of action, and accountability for taking them, rather than defining codes. Indeed codes of practice situated in the unpredictability of practical solutions are pretentious and offer a thin envelope of comfort. Also Derrida extrapolates from the ‘ordeal of the undecidable’, claiming that ethics is “foreign to the order of the calculable and the rule” (Derrida 1992:24). Additionally, managerial ethics should descend from a moral high ground and absolute sureness to take on the doubts of the world and the ethical character. Thus, democratization of managerial ethics involves self-critique and allows for corrective action and freedom of speech in challenging of managerial self-understanding (Fritsch 2002:579).
“The official discourse is, in short, an ideology that naturalizes the status quo, obscures contradictions and tensions that would otherwise translate into social conflict, and universalizes the section interests of America’s corporations” (Neimark 1993: 88).
Better management, better organization
By going deeper than the path of CSR and TBL and engaging with the uncertainties of the world, managerial ethics can be used as a vehicle for overcoming global poverty, inequality and environmental insecurity (Goodpaster and Matthews 1982:135). This requires an evolution of managerial ethical practice in the promotion and organization of new voluntary governance frameworks of democratic organizational participation (Goodpaster and Matthews 1982:135). Also this means realising that managerial ethics is rarely utopian, or even fairly pushy, in its aims. Its means is to aid self growth, or perhaps wise reform, as reasonable ends. Such reserve is creditable in the overall, often out of breath area of management, but if slack creation is allowed, then perhaps little is likely to be achieved (Parker 2002: 98).
Managerial theory stresses the ethical neutral fibre of managerial practice, fixed merely on a set of techniques. However, in practice such techniques are inept for the task set for them, only by admitting the ethical fibre of their practice will managers be truly effective ( Roberts 1984:288). As is manifested by empirical research of the change process in the design of PYT Ltd:
We’re trying to create an environment where people act responsibly.
We’ve got to treat staff with respect; we need leadership by involvement and by example.
Although the pledge to change in PYT Ltd was primarily economic, it nonetheless embodies the sociological imagination. A state of mind that will aid people to use information and develop reason in order to achieve clear summations of circumstance contingency in the world and psychoanalysis (Mills 1959:11). PYT Ltd found that repeat business purchases was less than 30 per cent, and long term viability was skydiving. Corporate head office blamed this mainly on managerial style. They felt that the rigid budgetary controls of high sales targets incentivised by bonuses and threats of job cuts were creating short-term orientation in employee practice (Roberts 1984:289). The use of relatively refined sales techniques enabled the sales people to oversell to customers, therein achieve their targets and bonus payments and freeing them from managerial pressures and gain short term revenue (Roberts 1984:289). However, this led to a high staff turnover rate (80-90 per cent per annum) and strong customer resistance. Thus a package of changes was wilfully accepted such as by the Area Manager of the North West Regional Office, who embraced the work of Douglas McGregor and the shift from ‘theory X’ to ‘theory Y’ style of management (Roberts 1984:289).
Val, a manager of eight T.A.R.s, embodies such a paradoxical personal style of management in her relationship with Rita. Through rebuilding the confidence which the senior manager, Dave had shattered, she was able to realise her own and Rita’s optimal interests (Roberts 1984:289). Dave’s purely instrumental interest in his staff resulted in destructive management derived from coercion and manipulation. Had he recognised ‘integration’ of his staff with the organizations goals and the need to get to know his staff, he would have been able to exercise control better. Thus if Dave realised ethical managerial practice, through ‘stepping down from the podium’ of instrumental rationalization, this would have enabled circumstance contingency in tune with the differences in beliefs, feeling and aspirations of staff (Roberts 1984:289).
However, in Val’s case, her relationship with Christine is clearly dramaturgically instrumental (Roberts 1984:289).Instead of sacking Christine for failing to meet the Mersey target, Val was able to relate to Christine’s personal problems. Yet there was no real commitment to Christine as a person and was motivated by Val’s personal interest to improve the sales results and to control her work. Christine’s personal problems were regarding her boyfriend, who also worked at another PYT office. Val’s attempt to fix this problem, through liaison with the boyfriend’s manager- only exacerbated the problem, and resulted in counter-control measures (Roberts 1984:300). Thus the managerial denial of communicative and expressive recognition of staff can lead not into conformity but resistance (Roberts 1984:300). By stepping outside the views of absolute certitude about staff control, instrumentally as an end, rather than a means of assuring production, then the independence that is reproduced through coercion and manipulation can be viewed as negative(Roberts 1984:300). As Val ironically points out:
You’ve got to know staff. You can’t expect to understand them otherwise.
Thus the sociological imagination enables subordinates to determine whether the process is functioning well, and aids them to navigate managerial ethics through the
usual contingencies of the real work process (Roberts 1984:300). Further, this ethical fibre will ensure greater managerial accountability and not a “means for the higher-ups to cover their asses"(Jackall 1988: 80).
Conclusion
In this essay I have argued management is in fact ethical, but the rise of individualism as an esteemed value has blunted the ethical senses of management. In place of the search for ethical certainty, it is perhaps the case that something like the sociological imagination or Robert’s (1984) recognition of managerial ethical fibre is vital in the context of the challenges of post-modern managerialism. Such an imagination would not “expropriate the individuals right to moral choice” (Bauman 1993:45), but provide a framework where better choices can be made, rather than just an appeasement of anxiety.
In this essay, I am going to argue management at all layers of the organizational chain of command is in fact, ethical- but this concern with ethics may take an unpredicted form. Specifically, I suggest that the denial of the paradoxical concept of ‘ethics’ in organizations, places further anxiety and stresses, that inhibit positive outcomes. I make this argument in 3 sections. In Section One I draw upon the works of various management academics (Clegg and Rhodes 2006; Jackall 1988; Morgan 2006), along with a recent extract from the business press, to demonstrate the ways that the concept of ‘ethics’ has come to the fore in the language of business. In Section Two I use the works of Fernando (2007) to suggest that ethics tends to be defined by the ideals of Corporate Social Responsibility and Triple Bottom Line ethos. In the final section of this essay, I shall consider what ‘being ethical’ means. I will argue that being ethical is not the same as being ‘against management,’ but is a voluntary pledge to better organization and better management, a pledge to an idea where its powerful potential, as envisaged by Roberts(1984) is accomplished.
Management Ethics: an intricate by-product driving the language of business
Managerial ethics is a pursuit of better judgement that involves optional acts upon rules, aided by intentions and measured by consequences of practice. Management and ethics is inextricably linked with the neo-liberal global regulatory framework, organizational culture and community (Clegg and Rhodes 2006: xi). The dominant twentieth century orthodoxy of the organization and the organization man (Whyte 1960:1) is increasingly becoming eroded by divisive global ethical views - of employees, customers, auditors, stockholders, suppliers, tax payers, journalists, activists and politicians and business ethicists (Clegg and Rhodes: xi ). The modern CEO cannot speak from a moral high ground and pass verdict on organizational ethical conduct in a way that does not affect negatively on market indicators (Clegg and Rhodes 2006: 5).
With the progress of neo-liberal globalization through deregulation, privatization, fiscal cutbacks and technological innovation around the world, individuals and corporations have become empowered relative to the role of government. Technological innovation in transportation and communication has particularly enhanced corporations’ mobility and portability (Bakan 2004: 21). Fast and large jet planes and new ship freighting techniques have produced low-cost structures and increased the efficiency rate of transportation (Bakan 2004: 21). Communications have similarly improved with innovations to long-distance phone networks, fax and the recent revolution of the Internet. Corporations are no longer restricted by the jurisdictions of geo-political governments and have flexible leverage to produce goods and services at low cost (Morgan 2006: 321).Expensive tariffs have been dramatically cut since 1948, when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was initiated, which empowered corporate geographic mobility without excessive financial penalties. Corporate hegemony has emerged as corporations dictate the economic policies of governments (Bakan 2004: 22). The managerial rhetoric now espouses no allegiance to governments as embodied in the statement of Clive Allen, VP of Research and Innovation at Nortel Networks, “just because we [Nortel Networks] were born [in Canada] doesn’t mean we will remain there... The place has to be attractive for us to be interested in staying there.” A resulting ‘Americanization’ and ‘Japanization’ culturally induced ‘race to the bottom’ has emerged as a result the removal of significant worker protection, tax reduction and the rollback of social welfare programs with uncontained ignorance for the human and environmental consequences(Bakan 2004: 22).
Managers by becoming part of a power which is felt as unbreakably solid, eternal, and alluring, participates in its strength and glory. Yet supersedes the interests, identity and freedom of others; gaining a new refuge and a new pride (Fromm 1942:134).
Organizational corporate culture is the means by which management achieve amazing results through normal people (Peters and Watermen, 1982: 238-9). As Klein notes that, formal organizations can function like a ‘moral person’ in that they are quasi-characters, which can be evaluated as inhuman or honourable (Klein 1988:56). Such dispositions engender particular practices and emotional commitment. Honourable practices derive from the cultivation of honourable values (MacIntyre 1985:149). In other words, senior managers- those who have internalized the culture, exercise such values in the shaping and sustaining of the corporation (Peters and Watermen, 1982: 238-9). This pursuit of excellence by practice must be circumstance contingent and withstand the corrupting power of the institutions in its environment, such as competitors, suppliers or financial intermediaries- which in turn can result in a negative feedback loop ( Moore and Beadle 2006: 375). Jackall (1988) advocates for a power-balanced structure that will ensure the views of various parties are not advantaged over others. He argues that ‘functional rationality’ in the hierarchy of organizations can result in strategic plans that are calculated to obtain ‘some goal, any goal.’ This decision making is in spite of no instituted codes or systems for tracking responsibility; thus enabling top-level management to become empowered while restricting the power of those beneath, but not the blame. As is exampled by the use of the ‘fall guy’ in big corporations where a subordinate ‘takes the rap’ for senior managerial decisions and mistakes. As one high-ranking official in Covenant Corporation, jokingly put it:
“We should appoint a position entitled Chief Fall Guy…He would be well-paid; plenty of benefits. And if things go wrong, he would go to jail, and his family will be provided for.” Further it is said that some top-level managers move so fast that ‘their feet never hit the ground.’ They never remain long enough in one organization so that their problems catch up with them, becoming hostage to ‘take the money and run’ ethos of short term gains at the expense of their organizations and ultimately community wellbeing.
Community and corporate interests are not always identical in all large organizations. The highly bureaucratic systems of decision making, frequently mean that senior managerial interest relate to cost-cutting, growth or strategic development of the corporate organization as a whole, and usurp community and national interests in decision making process(Morgan 2006: 321). Thus, when strategic plans lead senior executive managers to divest its holdings in a particular industry, close down a particular plant, or streamline global ventures, the consequences can be shattering for communities and countries (Morgan 2006: 321 ). As is exampled, by the shift in search of cheaper, non-unionized labour which has led the exiting of firms in relative high-price cities in varied First World Economies to locations such as in Africa or Asia. Regional ‘jobs flight’ has removed the economic lifeblood of regional communities. This organizational event has left entrenched structural unemployment, welfare reliance and increasing fiscal problems for state governments (Morgan 2006: 321).
The Global Financial Crisis with its large scale corporate collapses, dishonest business dealings- in the sub-prime mortgage market as well as ongoing issues of corruption-has attracted major attention in the business world such as by politicians and the community in general. So much so the systematic lack of individual diktat, rising evidence of fraud, clash of interest, lack of concern to suffering and negation of responsibility has produced an ‘administrative economic massacre’ and an ‘economic crime against humanity’ (Zuboff 2009).
The ideals of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
Fernando (2007) supports the intriguing answer of CSR and TBL ethos which I have taken as the focal point of this article. He argues in favour of ‘net positive returns’ in the social, economic and environmental spheres of corporate sustainability (Fernando 2007: 4). Companies that uphold the CSR and TBL ethos strive to survive and be cost-effective in the marketplace, but they also aim to promote pro-social organizational behaviour and environmental care(Fernando 2007: 4). Many well known global companies are already changing the face of the functioning of corporations. There has been response that every consumer is an integral part of the wider community and the promotion of social responsibility as part of managerial strategy, ensures the long-term survival of the organization:
“{CSR and TBL are enshrined in} … values, culture, decision making, strategy and operations in a transparent and accountable manner and thereby establish better practices within the firm, create wealth and improve society” (Berger et al 2007:33).
Unilever Sri Lanka’s CSR and TBL response was fixed in its “3G mantra… our brands, our people and our community.” Thus, when the Asian tsunami struck, Unilever was able to utilize its efficient distribution channels to provide direct crisis-aid operations including “essential food and hygiene products” (Fernando 2007: 4). Similarly, Brandix Sri Lanka also achieved positive CSR and TBL marks whilst supporting the community on the Southern and Western coasts with its desalination and water purification plants. After the tsunami struck, Brandix did the ‘right thing’ by cleaning “4000 water wells along the whole of the affected coastal belt” (Fernando 2007: 5). Further, the executives and employees of both companies realised the moral decency to not use the humanitarian crisis as a “PR exercise” (Fernando 2007: 5). Conclusively, Fernando (2007) aptly shows that CSR and TBL, is more than just a promotional strategy, but a justification of the corporation as genuine, responsible and accountable.
Bauman (1993) recognises a potential crisis where the scale of human power has risen such that peoples behaviour can have far reaching consequences than ever before, yet where no individual, accepted or dependable mix of ethical rules or principles are in place to ‘solve’ the crisis (Bauman 1993:21). Thus the post modern managerial ethical condition yearns for guidance to trust and rely upon, so that the ‘haunting responsibility’ of decision making could be raised from their shoulders. As a result, leading Bauman to assert that being ethical means being “bound to make choices under conditions of acute and painful certainty” (Bauman and Tester 2001:46).
However, my point of reflection as envisaged by Jones et al (2004) is that managerial ethical care must go beyond the computable function or describing process (Derrida 1992:24). Such care is grounded away from “perfect and clear knowledge and absence of decision making difficulties, but are themselves emergent in and even defined by the experience of double blinds” (Jones 2004:53). As Derrida evokes, ethics requires a degree of uncertainty- a non rational component of having to make choices about the varied possibilities of action, and accountability for taking them, rather than defining codes. Indeed codes of practice situated in the unpredictability of practical solutions are pretentious and offer a thin envelope of comfort. Also Derrida extrapolates from the ‘ordeal of the undecidable’, claiming that ethics is “foreign to the order of the calculable and the rule” (Derrida 1992:24). Additionally, managerial ethics should descend from a moral high ground and absolute sureness to take on the doubts of the world and the ethical character. Thus, democratization of managerial ethics involves self-critique and allows for corrective action and freedom of speech in challenging of managerial self-understanding (Fritsch 2002:579).
“The official discourse is, in short, an ideology that naturalizes the status quo, obscures contradictions and tensions that would otherwise translate into social conflict, and universalizes the section interests of America’s corporations” (Neimark 1993: 88).
Better management, better organization
By going deeper than the path of CSR and TBL and engaging with the uncertainties of the world, managerial ethics can be used as a vehicle for overcoming global poverty, inequality and environmental insecurity (Goodpaster and Matthews 1982:135). This requires an evolution of managerial ethical practice in the promotion and organization of new voluntary governance frameworks of democratic organizational participation (Goodpaster and Matthews 1982:135). Also this means realising that managerial ethics is rarely utopian, or even fairly pushy, in its aims. Its means is to aid self growth, or perhaps wise reform, as reasonable ends. Such reserve is creditable in the overall, often out of breath area of management, but if slack creation is allowed, then perhaps little is likely to be achieved (Parker 2002: 98).
Managerial theory stresses the ethical neutral fibre of managerial practice, fixed merely on a set of techniques. However, in practice such techniques are inept for the task set for them, only by admitting the ethical fibre of their practice will managers be truly effective ( Roberts 1984:288). As is manifested by empirical research of the change process in the design of PYT Ltd:
We’re trying to create an environment where people act responsibly.
We’ve got to treat staff with respect; we need leadership by involvement and by example.
Although the pledge to change in PYT Ltd was primarily economic, it nonetheless embodies the sociological imagination. A state of mind that will aid people to use information and develop reason in order to achieve clear summations of circumstance contingency in the world and psychoanalysis (Mills 1959:11). PYT Ltd found that repeat business purchases was less than 30 per cent, and long term viability was skydiving. Corporate head office blamed this mainly on managerial style. They felt that the rigid budgetary controls of high sales targets incentivised by bonuses and threats of job cuts were creating short-term orientation in employee practice (Roberts 1984:289). The use of relatively refined sales techniques enabled the sales people to oversell to customers, therein achieve their targets and bonus payments and freeing them from managerial pressures and gain short term revenue (Roberts 1984:289). However, this led to a high staff turnover rate (80-90 per cent per annum) and strong customer resistance. Thus a package of changes was wilfully accepted such as by the Area Manager of the North West Regional Office, who embraced the work of Douglas McGregor and the shift from ‘theory X’ to ‘theory Y’ style of management (Roberts 1984:289).
Val, a manager of eight T.A.R.s, embodies such a paradoxical personal style of management in her relationship with Rita. Through rebuilding the confidence which the senior manager, Dave had shattered, she was able to realise her own and Rita’s optimal interests (Roberts 1984:289). Dave’s purely instrumental interest in his staff resulted in destructive management derived from coercion and manipulation. Had he recognised ‘integration’ of his staff with the organizations goals and the need to get to know his staff, he would have been able to exercise control better. Thus if Dave realised ethical managerial practice, through ‘stepping down from the podium’ of instrumental rationalization, this would have enabled circumstance contingency in tune with the differences in beliefs, feeling and aspirations of staff (Roberts 1984:289).
However, in Val’s case, her relationship with Christine is clearly dramaturgically instrumental (Roberts 1984:289).Instead of sacking Christine for failing to meet the Mersey target, Val was able to relate to Christine’s personal problems. Yet there was no real commitment to Christine as a person and was motivated by Val’s personal interest to improve the sales results and to control her work. Christine’s personal problems were regarding her boyfriend, who also worked at another PYT office. Val’s attempt to fix this problem, through liaison with the boyfriend’s manager- only exacerbated the problem, and resulted in counter-control measures (Roberts 1984:300). Thus the managerial denial of communicative and expressive recognition of staff can lead not into conformity but resistance (Roberts 1984:300). By stepping outside the views of absolute certitude about staff control, instrumentally as an end, rather than a means of assuring production, then the independence that is reproduced through coercion and manipulation can be viewed as negative(Roberts 1984:300). As Val ironically points out:
You’ve got to know staff. You can’t expect to understand them otherwise.
Thus the sociological imagination enables subordinates to determine whether the process is functioning well, and aids them to navigate managerial ethics through the
usual contingencies of the real work process (Roberts 1984:300). Further, this ethical fibre will ensure greater managerial accountability and not a “means for the higher-ups to cover their asses"(Jackall 1988: 80).
Conclusion
In this essay I have argued management is in fact ethical, but the rise of individualism as an esteemed value has blunted the ethical senses of management. In place of the search for ethical certainty, it is perhaps the case that something like the sociological imagination or Robert’s (1984) recognition of managerial ethical fibre is vital in the context of the challenges of post-modern managerialism. Such an imagination would not “expropriate the individuals right to moral choice” (Bauman 1993:45), but provide a framework where better choices can be made, rather than just an appeasement of anxiety.
