|
Analyze One's Own Ethical Leadership Framework
OLB 7005, Assignment 8 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Jamiel Vadell 24 June 2018 Introduction This signature assignment articulates best practices for ethical leadership from current research. This assignment includes ethical leadership from multiple perspectives: ethical leadership characteristics, ethical communication, the leadership theory I most associate with, viewpoints on ethical social responsibility, ethical global leadership, and a personal leadership assessment. The purpose of this assignment is to help isolate personal leadership strengths and weakness in order to become a more effective ethical leader. The concluding self-assessment will address these issues. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Current research on ethical leadership delineates several characteristics leaders need which will be addressed throughout this paper. These characteristics are best encapsulated by the ethical leadership model of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Caldwell, 2011). Caldwell (2011) noted that ethical leaders who model Organizational Citizenship Behavior embody and model characteristics which serve the primary purpose of building trust throughout the organization. This is modeled both in personal communication and behavior toward employees. While there are other benefits resulting from Organizational Citizenship Behavior – such as improved profit margins, a more flexible, dynamic, and adaptable working environment, and the development of ethical employees – each benefit is built upon the foundation of trust established by ethical leadership. Trust building Research on organizational leadership has consistently demonstrated the importance of trust building in every organization (Caldwell, 2011). Despite this fact, trust building seems to be the one aspect of leadership that is proven to have been neglected when an organizational crisis rises to the surface. Research would suggest that this is more than mere opinion. Robinson and Rousseau (1994) found that a lack of trust is the norm rather than the exception in the work environment, even though trust building is acknowledged to be essential for organizations. The implications of these findings are staggering for leaders of all organizations, regardless of size. These findings suggest that most employees in organizations do not actually operate on the basis of trust in their relationships with employers and organizational leaders. This highlights the need for intentional and ethical trust building by organizational leaders. Organizational Citizenship Behavior is a model which proves to be effective in accomplishing this important and necessary objective. Specifically, Organizational Citizenship Behavior builds trust throughout organizations by including employees in the organizations decision-making processes (Caldwell, 2011) and paying the moral debt owed by leadership to employees (Lennick & Kiel, 2007). Caldwell (2011) noted that one of the most effective ways of building trust in an organization is to include employees in organizational decision-making processes. This communicates to them that you value their opinion as well as their expertise. They become an integral part of the team. It also communicates trust in more ways than one. It demonstrates to them that you trust them enough to allow them to speak into the decision-making process. It also communicates and demonstrates transparency to allow them to be directly involved with the leadership. Lennick & Kiel (2007) and Caldwell (2011) associate certain moral debts owed by employers to employees. These include doing no harm, creating value in the present, and creating value for the future (Lennick & Kiel, 2007). By recognizing that, as organization leaders, you owe a moral debt to your employees, you create an ethical climate in which they are valued. When employees are valued, the working environment becomes a place of which they are proud and in which they will seek to benefit the employer who values them so much. Organizational leaders who embody these characteristics by modeling Organizational Citizenship Behavior will build the necessary foundation of trust with their employees and stakeholders. Research also points to additional organizational benefits for leaders who model Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Developing ethical employees Organ (1988) noted that employers who implement a culture of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, characteristically modeled by leadership, develop employees who model the desired behavior. When organizational leaders begin to display and model ethical behavior as an expectation and institutional norm, employees themselves begin to follow suit. This creates an ethical climate where ethics are not a theoretical, abstract concept, but a practical part of everyday life. Organ (1988) concluded that much of the reason that employees begin to develop an ethical code for themselves is that they witness their organizational leaders modeling such ethics. When employees observe their leaders sacrificing for their good and the good of the company, they begin to internalize such behavior. Jurkiewicz (2012) also concluded that employees are much more likely to sacrifice for the organization when leaders do. When employees are daily in an environment where Organizational Citizenship Behavior is modeled, valued, and adhered to, research has demonstrated that they soon follow suit in their own behavior and personal as well as professional codes of conduct. Dynamic working environment Jurkiewicz (2012) noted that when ethical leadership is modeled through trust-building and the development of ethical employees, organizational working environments become increasing dynamic, flexible, and adaptable. This inevitably culminates in financial stability and growth. One example of such an environment was reported by Collins (2015) and his research findings on organizational surveys. The organizational surveys and the ethical model reported by Collins (2015) are both intended to be flexible in nature. Every department within an organization has the freedom and latitude to personalize their survey to that which best suits their departmental structure. Because a foundation of trust has been established throughout the organizations, such flexibility to adapt is granted and even expected. Once this occurs throughout an organization, flexibility and dynamism become the norm and potential problems are able to be identified and addressed at lower levels within the organization. This entire system comes about as a result of an ethical culture of Organizational Citizenship Behavior which is modeled by the leadership. As the leadership trusts those within the organizations, and grant the flexibility to adapt, a dynamic working environment is created in which growth can occur rapidly without breaking the organization. Organizational wealth creation An ethical foundation of trust, which leads to the development of ethical employees and the creation of a dynamic working environment will lead to organizational wealth creation (Hosmer, 1994). Hosmer (1994) noted in his research that wealth creation occurs in organizations where Organizational Citizenship Behavior is practiced within an ethical framework. Employees are valued by their company and organizational leaders, and thus are enthusiastic about their work. Soon, they begin to develop and adopt the ethical system practiced and espoused by the organization, making them more focused and productive employees. This sense of being valued is reinforced when they are allowed and encouraged to speak into the decision-making processes of the organization. When this occurs, their voice becomes a meaningful part of uncovering the best practices of the organization. As a sort of consummation of this entire process of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, they begin to reproduce themselves by recruiting, hiring, and training employees who will be inculcated with those same values and expectations. Research has highlighted that not only are leaders integral in establishing ethical climates, but that establishing ethical climates drives those within the organization to increase their own ethical standards and behavior. This establishes an organizational climate where employees are not only motivated to perform and behave well, but also to continually raise the standard of their performance and behavior. Leaders are poised to not only tap into stakeholder motivation and personal values, but, more importantly, to increase and expand motivation and personal values by motivating them to take such values to higher levels (Singh, 2011). These characteristics of ethical leadership – valuing employees, personally investing in others, creating a dynamic working environment – are best modeled by Organizational Citizenship Behavior and provide tangible and intangible benefits. Ethical communication None of these benefits associated with the embodiment of ethical leadership characteristics will be accomplished apart from ethical communication. Ethical leaders must consider the consequences of communication if ethical culture is to be created and trust established. Current research indicates important considerations for organizational leaders including employee tendencies and best practices. Kiyomiya (2012) conducted a research study of Japanese organizations to determine the tendencies of employees regarding ethical communication. Kiyomiya (2012) concluded that employees were likely to carry through an unethical order if given by a superior. Furthermore, employees were very likely to follow work-place customs even if those customs were knowingly unethical. This research is important for ethical leaders in relation to ethical communication because it highlights the unintended consequences of unethical communication. Employees are not likely to challenge organizational norms, even if those norms are unethical. It is imperative, then, that organizational leaders take a proactive approach to ethical communication with employees and stakeholders. It further underscores the importance of ethical communication in direct communication with employees. Since employees are not likely to disregard or disobey an unethical order from superiors, it places the burden on organizational leaders to ensure orders are ethical. Padgett, Cheng, & Parekh (2013) concluded from their research that ethical communication from organizational leaders can help organizations successfully navigate crises. Building trust with stakeholders prior to a crisis is necessary to ensure organizational stability and success through a crisis (Padgett, Cheng, & Parekh, 2013). They cite as a recent example the communication efforts of BP’s CEO Anthony Hayward following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Hayward not only took blame for actions which were not directly his responsibility, but he also established a social media presence to proactively engage stakeholders during the crisis (Padgett, Cheng, & Parekh, 2013). Ethical communication is necessary for establishing and building trust, but research has also concluded that ethical communication must be proactive. Organizational leaders must seek out their stakeholders and communicate directly and ethically. Personal leadership theory While many leadership theories exist, the leadership theory of servant leadership is most compelling for the author. In 1977, Greenleaf developed the theory of servant leadership (Landis, 2014). Servant leadership states that leaders who serve others make the most effectual leaders (Landis, 2014). Servant leadership espouses the idea that leaders who genuinely care about the people they lead will generate the greatest level of motivation and dedication throughout all echelons of the organization. Servant leadership best aligns with the characteristics espoused by Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Servant leadership establishes trust by genuinely caring for those within the organization. As concluded by Landis (2014), this trust will generate the greatest level of motivation in followers to excel as members of the organization. Due to the building of trust between leader and stakeholder, servant leadership also creates open and honest lines of communication. As employees are encouraged to communicate, their input is invited into the decision-making processes of the organization. Servant leaders will also relationally invest in their employees as a result of their genuine care for their well-being. This will more effectively create not only ethical organizations but individual ethical employees as well. As noted earlier, research indicates that this will lead to the retention and recruitment of further and additional ethical employees. Servant leaders who demonstrate a care for those within their organization will base such care upon ethical stances and values rooted in compassion and empathy. Singh (2011) concluded that servant leaders are integral in establishing ethical climates, and that establishing ethical climates drives those within the organization to increase their own ethical standards and behavior. Servant leaders establish an organizational climate where employees are not only motivated to perform and behave well, but also to increase their continually raise the standard of their performance and behavior. Leaders are poised to not only tap into stakeholder motivation and personal values, but, more importantly, to increase and expand motivation and personal values by motivating them to take such values to higher levels (Singh, 2011). These reasons highlight for the author that servant leadership is not only the most effectual means of motivating employees to perform, but also are the most likely to establish an ethical climate and develop ethical employees. Social responsibility An integral component of ethical leadership includes developing socially responsible employees and organizations. Collins (2015) concluded that modern organizational leaders must emphasize Corporate Social Responsibility in their efforts. The benefits of being socially responsible as a corporation are obvious. Organizations perceived as socially irresponsible frequently receive negative publicity and suffer financially. Collins (2015) gave as an example of Corporate Social Responsibility the United Nations who, in 1999, established principles for conducting business globally. These includes principles regarding anticorruption, labor, and human rights. Collins (2015) also provided examples of corporations establishing objective requirements for suppliers which encourage social responsibility. Wal-Mart recently instituted such a certification for their suppliers to ensure that everyone they do business treats employees ethically and is involved with sustainability initiatives as a company (Collins, 2015). This has served to change the perception of the company by those who have disparaged them for what have been perceived as socially irresponsible practices. Corporate Social Responsibility is a necessary component of ethical leadership in the modern world and has been proven to increase profit as well. Global leadership Current research also addresses ethical leadership on a global scale. As technology makes communication easier, broader, and more widely accessible, more organizational leaders must consider their impact globally (Alas, 2006). Best practices indicate that ethical leadership take a values-based approach to global organizational leadership. The research of Alas (2006) demonstrated that, although there are various cultural conceptions of ethics, certain cross-cultural values do exist. Ethical leaders must rely on such values in their approach to cross-cultural leadership. Pertinent to this recommendation is the research of Werhane (2014) who concluded that even though certain operating environments are unethical, operating ethically in an unethical environment can produce good, ethical results. In other words, values-based ethical leadership can have a positive effect on the surrounding culture even when that culture is generally unethical. Global organizational leaders must set ethically objective, measurable barometers for their global organizations. Such barometers may include a reduction in the frequency of certain crimes in and around areas where the organization operates. One specific example from research comes from (Cateora, Gilly, & Graham, 2011) who noted that bribery is common and accepted in many cultures. In fact, it was specifically concluded that global organizations are at a greater risk of bribery because of their cross-cultural operations. It is important to note the research of Lestrange (2013) who concluded that a strong ethical reputation is itself a deterrent for bribery, even in areas where bribery is common. This may serve as one barometer of whether a values-based approach to ethical leadership is positively impacting the area of operations. An additional barometer to consider would be the degree to which the organization is successfully retaining and attracting employees with similar value sets. If such retention is occurring, then such a values-based approach to leadership is resulting in positive cultural change. Sadri (2013) noted that conflict resolution is one of the most important skills that global organizational leaders can develop as an ethical consideration. This is primarily since different cultures resolve conflict very differently. The failure by global leaders to take this important cultural distinction into account could have catastrophic results. Sadri (2013) gave the contrast of the Chinese culture of indirectness in conflict resolution and the American culture of directness in conflict resolution. A global leader and organization operating in these two environments needs to build in and allow flexibility for culturally appropriate methods for conflict resolution. Leader evaluation While many tools for leader evaluation exist, Showry (2014) provides a “Style Questionnaire” designed to offer one type of assessment tool for leadership evaluation. To help increase awareness of personal leadership traits and characteristics, three style questionnaires were completed independently by subordinates and the three assessments were all within 2-3 points of one another. Each questionnaire categorized responses as either “task” or “relationship” and delineated leadership styles as either primarily task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Each category was scored on a scale from very low to very high, with categories including very low, low, moderately low, moderately high, high, and very high. These categories provided a baseline for the leader to understand their leadership style within the larger spectrum of leadership styles. This style questionnaire served as an assessment tool for the leader as a means of increasing self-awareness for the purpose of increasing ethical leadership effectiveness in relation to both people and tasks. The three scores from subordinate assessments were as follows: Table 1. Style Questionnaire Scores QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER CATEGORY SCORE RANGE 1 Task 34 Moderately Low 1 Relationship 43 High 2 Task 30 Moderately Low 2 Relationship 44 High 3 Task 32 Moderately Low 3 Relationship 46 Very High The three scores from these assessments did not yield any unexpected results. The leadership strength of the author has always been relationship development over task fulfillment. When people are treated as the greatest and most valuable resource, relationships will be valued over tasks. This has always been the leadership philosophy of the author and, thus, the results did not provide any surprises. Furthermore, similar assessments and evaluations have previously been submitted to the author by other followers and subordinates which yielded results similar to this questionnaire. Nevertheless, while relationships receive priority from the leadership, ethical progress will not be achieved without the accomplishment and fulfillment of individual and organizational tasks. To become a more effective and efficient leader, an equilibrium must be achieved in balancing the development of relationships and the accomplishment of tasks. In the future, steps need to be taken to bring up the consistently “moderately low” score of task-oriented leadership. These steps could and should include intentionally and strategically developing a leadership team with task-oriented individuals as well as relationship-oriented individuals, centered on personal and organizational ethics. On a personal level, cultivating an openness with subordinates and followers to communicate honestly about specific times and instances when task-oriented leadership is needed or lacking will prove to serve as a positive development to overall leadership. This assessment is useful in that it positively contributes to awareness on the part of the leader and how his/her actions are perceived by those around them. As with all feedback from human subjects, one must keep in mind that no feedback is completely objective. However, the leader can use discernment and judgment to receive feedback from those around them to become self-aware of “blind spots” and, thus, increase in effectiveness. Showry (2014) notes that awareness is not learned in isolation but in dynamic relationships with others and with an accompanying openness on the part of the leaders to receive feedback from those with whom he/she has a relationship. Concluding self-evaluation Each leader is unique and must recognize and acknowledge their own strengths and weaknesses. Leaders come in a variety of personalities and styles, but impactful leaders will exercise their own style with confidence and seek to minimize and develop their weaknesses. In my case, servant leadership suits my personality and leadership style. It is a leadership style that research has proven to be effective, but it also develops relationships with stakeholders, which is a personal strength of mine. Knowing weaknesses is equally important as knowing strengths for organizational leaders. My self-awareness, combined with the style assessment completed by multiple subordinates, allows me to acknowledge my shortcomings in task-oriented relationships and cultures. To address and correct this weakness, I must be intentional in surrounding myself with others who possess strengths in these areas where I am weak. Due to the inherently relational elements involved in communication, I do excel in direct communication with employees and stakeholders. This is an area which I can lean on as a strength, but also leverage to continually develop my task-oriented weaknesses. As I invite others to provide input into my life and leadership, this feedback will provide continual input about strengths and weaknesses which I can use to continually develop into a more effective organizational leader. The characteristics discussed in this paper will provide the criteria for assessment as they serve as personal and professional developmental objectives. References Alas, R. (2006). Ethic in countries with different cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 237-247. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9088-3 Caldwell, C. (2011). Duties owed to organizational citizens: Ethical insights for today’s leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 343-356. doi:10.1007/s10551-001-0819-8 Cateora, P. R., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2011). International marketing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Collins, D. (2015). Operational best practices in business ethics: A practical and systematic benchmarking tool. Business and Society Review, 120(2): 303-327. Hosmer, L. T. (2007). The ethics of management. (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2012). Developing a multicultural organizational code of ethics rooted in the moral obligations of citizenry. Public Organizational Review, 12(1), 243-249. Kiyomiya, T. (2012). Collaborative organizational communication and its impact on ethical dilemmas: The dark side of tacit knowledge in Japanese management. International Studies of Management and Organization, 42(3), 49-68. Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014) A synthesis of leadership theories and styles. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2), 45-56. Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2007). Moral intelligence enhancing business performance and leadership success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton Business School Publishing Lestrange, J. J., & Tolstikov-Mast, Y. (2013). Can global organizations use values-based leadership to combat bribery and corruption? Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 10(4), 41-56. Neera, J. & Anjanee, S., & Shoma, M. (2010). Leadership dimensions and challenges in the new millennium. Advances in Management, 3(3), 18-24. Organ, D. W. (1990). The subtle significance of job satisfaction. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 4(1), 94-98. Padgett, D. R., Cheng, D. R., & Parekh, V. (2013). The quest for transparency and accountability: Communicating responsibly to stakeholders in crises. Asian Social Science, 9(9), 31-44. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 245-259. Sadri, G. (2013). Choosing conflict resolution by culture. Industrial Management, 10(1), 10-15. Schwepker, C. H., & Schultz, R. J. (2015). Influence of the ethical servant leader and ethical climate on customer value enhancing sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(2), 93-107. doi:10.1080/08853134.2015.1010537 Showry, M. & Manasa, K. (2014). Self-awareness – Key to effective leadership. The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 3(1), 15-26. Retrieved January 21, 2018. Singh, K. (2011). Develop ethics at the workplace through transformational leadership: A study of business organizations in India. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 4(2), 31-58. Werhane, P. H. (2014). Competing with integrity: Richard De George and the ethics of global business. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 737-742. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2183-y
0 Comments
Compare Ethical Operations in Global Organizations
OLB 7005, Assignment 7 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Jamiel Vadell 17 June 2018 Comparing & Contrasting Aflac and Amazon Two global corporations – Aflac and Amazon – have recently been in the news for their treatment of corporate ethics. One of these global organizations, Aflac, is consistently ranked as one of the most ethical companies in the world. Conversely, Amazon has been in the news for recent unethical businesses practices which were discovered at a Chinese factory manufacturing their products. The following chart is a comparison and contrasting of such practices by these companies. Ethical Practice (Aflac) Consequence Unethical Practice (Amazon) Consequence Stringent ethical code of conduct for suppliers Stakeholders of Aflac (consumers, employees, administration, beneficiaries, etc.) have confidence that products are of the highest quality. This includes both quality in production as well as (and most importantly) quality in the moral and ethical treatment people and businesses practices. Code of conduct for suppliers disregarded Not only do current suppliers receive negative publicity from their association with the company, but potential additional suppliers are frightened from aligning themselves with Amazon. Not only does current production take a negative turn, but future production is limited as well. Proactive community service Communities welcome the presence of Aflac in their lives. Communities recognize the benefits Aflac brings and encourage their business. Aflac is seen as a welcome presence due to their proactive involvement in serving local communities. Failure to hold agencies accountable While certain accountability structures exist on paper, Amazon suppliers were discovered not to hold partnering agencies accountable. The result is that agencies are subjected to scrutiny and investigation to ensure that accountability exists. This not only creates a public relations headache, but also slows production and strains business relations. Investment in sustainable business practices Aflac prioritizes corporate social responsibility in their corporate business practices. They allocate a portion of their profit to ethical sustainability initiatives. This allows stakeholders to invest time, money and energy into the company with confidence. Taking insurance payments without providing benefits This action constitutes a serious breach of trust between the company and primary stakeholders – employees. Records must be carefully examined in order to reimburse payments or to retroactively cover insurance premiums. It will extensive trust-building by the company to rebuild trust. Working to affect positive change throughout industry Aflac not only seeks to positively affect local communities, but also the entire insurance industry. Investors and stakeholders are assured that their business practices are not only ethically good for their employees and company, but for the entire industry. Overworking employees with excessive overtime Not only were employees not paid proper overtime wages, but they were subjected to excessive working hours by the company. This constitutes a legal violation by the company, requiring law enforcement officials to become involved in company affairs. This also contributes to a loss of trust in the company by the community and stakeholders. What Constitutes an Ethical Culture? The above companies of Aflac and Amazon have both been featured in national news for their ethical cultures as organizations. The primary difference is that one company, Aflac, is praised for their positive ethical culture while the other company, Amazon, is criticized for their negative ethical culture. The above chart delineates some of the major differences in what each ethical culture receives praise and criticism. Understanding what constitutes a positive or negative organizational culture is imperative for organizational leaders of all sizes, regardless of their field or sphere of influence. The first major difference in the two organizations is their code of conduct for suppliers. In the case of Aflac, their code of conduct includes corporate values which guide their business practices (Aflac, 2016). Additionally, they provide a toll-free number for employees to call to report any suspected ethical violations by employees and suppliers (Aflac, 2016). In contrast, Amazon has been cited by multiple media sources for their failure to uphold such supplier codes of conduct at a factory in China which produces their Echo products (Chamberlain, 2018). These failures include mistreating employees – overworking and underpaying them – as well as failing to comply with labor laws in the countries in which they operate which, in the case of this supplier is China (Chamberlain, 2018). Another major difference in these two organizations is their treatment of community service and investing in sustainability initiatives corporately. Aflac continues to be recognized by Ethisphere as one the world’s most ethical companies due to their sustainability initiatives (Ethisphere, 2018). Aflac retains as a corporate sustainability working to eradicate pediatric cancer (Aflac, 2015). Additionally, they work in their local companies with Habitat for Humanity to build homes for individuals and families in need (Aflac, 2015). Conversely, Amazon finds themselves under attack as an organization due to the lack of sustainability initiatives by one of their factories in China. In fact, the management at this factory was specifically cited for not only failing to give back to the community, but for taking from their own employees (Chamberlain, 2018). Foxconn, the company operating the Chinese factory for Amazon was noted for accepting insurance payments from employees without applying them toward their benefits (Chamberlain, 2018). In doing so, Foxconn was deceptively, and unethically, taking from their own employees who were already underpaid and overworked. This is more than a simple failure to invest in corporate sustainability initiatives in this instance, but highlights a deeply unethical view of workplace culture, employees of the company, as well as the community at large. Best Practices for Ethical Culture Research in organizational leadership highlights several best practices for global organizations to consider in pursuing ethical leadership and an ethical organizational climate. Thanetsunthorn (2014) concluded that various cultures have vastly different understandings and levels of sustainability engagement depending on their uniquely cultural contexts. She concluded, for example, that cultures with a more highly structured view of social classes have lower levels of social engagement. Peng et al. (2012) researched this same correlation between corporate social responsibility initiatives and power distance index (PDI) and came to the same conclusion. Similarly, Ho et al. (2012) and Peng et al. (2012) discovered a clear and statistically significant association between culture and corporately social responsibility awareness and performance. In the case of Amazon, this factory was operating in an environment in which corporate social responsibility and organizational ethics and are not prominent organizational and cultural factors (Thanetsunthorn, 2014). Consequently, research has demonstrated that organizations are inherently less likely to be concerned with corporate ethics and sustainability initiatives and projects. Organizational leaders at Amazon, like all other global organizations, must take extra precautions to ensure that such initiatives are in place and being followed. These operational environments lend themselves to poor ethical cultures and stringent codes of conduct because they are not culturally reinforced. These oversights can lead to certain unethical organizational climates remaining unaccountable for extended periods of time. The result is that once such a climate is exposed, it provides a major setback for organizations financially, operationally, and in public relations. Amazon now finds their company in a reactionary position due to ethical violations being uncovered by an auditing firm. Aflac, on the other hand, has proven to be extremely proactive in both their corporate approach to ethics as well as their approach to sustainability initiatives. Ethisphere, which annually publishes a list of the world’s most ethical companies, has listed Aflac in their prestigious list every year since their inception in 2007 (Aflac, 2016). This is due, in part, to Aflac’s awareness of the cultures in which they operate. Sirmon and Lane (2004) discovered that cultures subscribe to certain values, and that these values shape individual attitudes toward other individuals as well as corporate entities. Recognizing this, Aflac publishes and trains their employees on their corporate values and encourages and allows them to express those values both within the organization and in the communities in which they live and work. This is just one of the reasons that Aflac continues to be recognized and praised as a globally ethic company. Conclusion Research has reached several conclusions regarding what constitutes an ethical climate and culture for global organizations. Organizations must be culturally aware of ethical constructs in the environments in which they operate. This is true both of knowing what cultures value and proactively seeking to align corporate values to cultural values, as Aflac continues to do. This also includes knowing the gaps in cultural ethics and proactively planning to compensate for anticipated ethical shortcoming, as Amazon failed to do. Both perspectives are needed by global organizational leaders to ensure an overall ethical climate across various cultures. Ethisphere delineates that positive cultural ethics include: ethical codes of conduct, proactive community service, investment in sustainable business practices, and working to affect positive change throughout the industry. In the case of Aflac and other companies that are routinely recognized as ethical organizations, there is intentional and focused effort on their part to meet such requirements. In this singular case of Amazon and their Foxconn factory in China, these were not organizational targets and now the company is suffering in more ways than one because of their failure to prioritize such efforts. This proves that efforts to create an ethical organization are recognized as are failure to put forth a corporate effort to prioritize ethical climates. Organizations and organizational leaders who operate on a global scale must not neglect these best practices which are encouraged and supported by research. Organizationally which are ethically-minded and culturally-aware will be rewarded not only by positive publicity, but this will also be reflected in an improved profit margin. As communities and individuals recognize the value companies bring into their lives, they will invest their lives into the company in more ways than one. References Aflac. (2015). Code of business conduct and ethics. Retrieved from investors.aflac.com/corporate-governance/code-of-conduct.aspx Aflac. (2016). Corporate social responsibility report. Retrieved from https://www.aflac.com/about-aflac/corporate-citizenship/corporate-social-responsibility-report/default.aspx Chamberlain, G. (2018, June 17). Amazon supplier in China will tackle illegal work practices. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/17/amazon-foxconn-china-will-tackle-illegal-work-practices Ethisphere. (2018). Leading practices and trends from the 2018 world’s most ethical companies: An ethisphere research report. Retrieved from https://bela.ethisphere.com/practices-trends-2018-wmec/ Ho, F. N., Wang, H. M. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2012). A global analysis of corporate social performance: The effect of cultural and geographic environment. Journal of Business Ethics. 107(1), 423-233. Peng, Y. S., Dashdeleg, A. U., & Chih H. L. (2012). Does national culture influence firm’s CSR engagement: A cross country study. International Proceedings of Economics Development & Research. 58(9), 40-44. Sirmon, D. G., & Lane, P. J. (2004). A model of cultural differences and international alliance performance. Journal of International Business Studies. 35(4), 306-319. Thanetsunthorn, N. (2014). Ethical organization: The effects of national culture on CSR. Organization Development Journal. 3(1), 89-109. Interpret Ethical Leadership in a Global Organization
OLB 7005, Assignment 6 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Jamiel Vadell 10 June 2018 Christian & Missionary Alliance The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) is a global not-for-profit organization which operates in 81 countries (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). While the organization is overseen by an elected board known as the Board of Directors, this board is chaired by an elected President (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). The current President of the C&MA is Dr. John Stumbo, and as President his responsibilities include not only leadership of the National Office but also of staff and offices around the globe (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). This paper will examine the leadership of Dr. John Stumbo as an ethical executive leader of a global organization. Furthermore, it contains recommendations on global ethical leadership from best practices identified by current research. Ethics in Decision-Making Ethics is a relevant and daily concern for organizational leaders (VanderPal & Ko, 2014). While ethics impacts organizations at a corporate level, ethics begins at an individual level (Werhane, 2014). Consequently, ethics must be emphasized in various forms of training for the individual and not simply emphasized on a corporate level. Additionally, ethical decision-making is a process which should be stressed and delegated to the lowest reasonable organizational level (Werhane, 2014). Clegg & Kornberger (2007) suggested that organizations should emphasize this by instituting ethical training in the form of individual action and behavior. Ethics, they noted, is best exemplified by what someone does and not by what someone has. When ethics is examined in light of the actions of organizational followers, it allows for “disagreement, conversation, idea-exchange, and negotiation” (Clegg & Kornberger, 2007, p. 66). Given this information, the first recommendation for Dr. John Stumbo is to seriously consider a values-based approach to leadership. Values-Based Leadership Values-based leadership is an approach to leadership which takes certain moral characteristics and inculcates them into those scattered throughout the organization. These values are modeled by leadership and observed and, ideally, internalized by members of the organization. In global organizations such as the Christian & Missionary Alliance, a values-based approach to leadership takes these moral characteristics, modeled by those in leadership, and allows members of the organization to observe and discuss these values in a way that is consistent with the dialogue encouraged by Clegg & Kornberger (2007). Furthermore, once these values are properly observed, communicated, and embraced it allows for organizational decision-making (which will be guided by these values) to be disseminated across all levels of the organization. VanderPal and Ko (2014) pointed to the importance of values-based leadership in global organizations. The larger an organization grows, the greater will be their need to delegate and disseminate decision-making to broader levels across an organization. Additionally, sixty-two countries were studied to determine commonality of leadership values. It was discovered that all sixty-two countries shared similar desirable leadership values and attributes. This matters to global organizational leaders because an ethical, values-based approach to leadership is demonstrated to be generally favorable and profitable across cultural boundaries. Bass (2008) gave the example of Johnson & Johnson who ordered a voluntary recall of Tylenol when it was discovered that cyanide was inadvertently inserted into some packaging. This recall was costly for the company and caused a short-term profit loss. However, the goodwill and trust earned by the company with consumers led to long-term gain and benefits which for outweighed the cost of the recall. These examples, among many others which could be mentioned, demonstrate that embracing a values-based approach to ethical leadership has not only positive effects on organizational decision-making processes, but also on public relations and the ever-important profit margin. Ethics Influences Culture In addition to these benefits, however, a values-based approach to leadership is discovered to influence culture. Research proves this true not only when operating in a single culture but, importantly for Dr. John Stumbo and the Christian & Missionary Alliance, across multiple cultures as well. The second recommendation, then, follows the first: put in place agreed upon barometers for gauging how your values-based leadership is impacting both the organization as well as the environments in which it operates. Pertinent to this recommendation is the research of Werhane (2014) who concluded that even though certain operating environments are unethical, operating ethically in an unethical environment can produce good, ethical results. In other words, values-based ethical leadership can have a positive effect on the surrounding culture even when that culture is generally unethical. Additionally, and of equal importance, is a study undertaken by Alas (2006). The research of Alas (2006) demonstrated that, although there are various cultural conceptions of ethics, certain cross-cultural values do exist. Global leaders, like Dr. John Stumbo, would be prudent to nest their corporate goals within these global values. What might these barometers look like? Such barometers may include a reduction in the frequency of certain crimes in and around areas where the Christian & Missionary Alliance operates. One specific example from research comes from (Cateora, Gilly, & Graham, 2011) who noted that bribery is common and accepted in many cultures. In fact, it was specifically concluded that global organizations are at a greater risk of bribery because of their cross-cultural operations. It is important to note the research of Lestrange (2013) who concluded that a strong ethical reputation is itself a deterrent for bribery, even in areas where bribery is common. This may serve as one barometer of whether a values-based approach to ethical leadership is positively impacting the area of operations. An additional barometer to consider would be the degree to which the organization is successfully retaining and attracting employees with similar value sets. If such retention is occurring, then such a values-based approach to leadership is resulting in positive cultural change. Cross-Cultural Considerations Perhaps the most important and pertinent consideration for Dr. John Stumbo and the Christian & Missionary Alliance is the element of their simultaneous operating in numerous cultures. Not only do different cultures observe differing business practices, but research has demonstrated that cultures respond very differently to the same scenario and circumstances Lestrange (2013). Lestrange (2013) gave, as an example, organizations and their treatment of formal business practices and structures. While in some cultures, formal business practices and structures and normal and widely accepted, in other cultures the same formalized structure would be treated with suspicion and contempt. In fact, Lestrange (2013) specifically highlighted the issue of bribery, concluding that in certain cultures bribery is more frequent when formalized practices and structures are imposed. Consequently, leadership and management in the new millennium requires leaders to operate across multiple cultures and develop organizational targets which take unique cultural elements into consideration (Neera, et al, 2010). In other words, while certain values can sustain across cultures, practices cannot. Global leaders, such as Dr. John Stumbo, must then consider how these values translate into corporate objectives which are not limited by cultural boundaries. There are several examples of such practices to consider. Sadri (2013) noted that conflict resolution is one of the most important skills that global organizational leaders can develop. This is primarily since different cultures resolve conflict very differently. The failure by global leaders, like Dr. John Stumbo, to take this important cultural distinction into account could have catastrophic results. Sadri (2013) gave the contrast of the Chinese culture of indirectness in conflict resolution and the American culture of directness in conflict resolution. A global leader and organization operating in these two environments needs to build in and allow flexibility for culturally appropriate methods for conflict resolution. While there are many aspects of global leadership which present challenges for Dr. John Stumbo, research concludes that these are the best practices and worthy of consideration. Firstly, establishing organizational values which can be modeled by the individual and measured by the organization must take place. These values are those which transcend cultural boundaries and, thus, can be kept in place across the organization cross-culturally. This not only establishes organizational values but also disseminates decision-making to all levels and across all cultures throughout the organization. Secondly, these values must be translated into measurable objectives to ensure that they are influencing culture in a manner consistent with intent. This is accomplished by looking both inside and outside an organization. These objectives should be measurable and attainable, and regularly examined by those in leadership. Finally, Dr. Stumbo must consider how these inflexible values are applied in a flexible manner throughout the organization. Conflict resolution, for example, can be an organizational value, but the implementation of that values needs to be applied at the local level which fits the local context. The application and implementation of these values can and should be left up to the discretion of regional field directors. In observing these principles, which are consistent with the best practices recommended by research, Dr. John Stumbo and the Christian & Missionary Alliance should experience greater success in their leadership of their cross-cultural, global operation. References Alas, R. (2006). Ethic in countries with different cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 237-247. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9088-3 Bass, B. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press. Cateora, P. R., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2011). International marketing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Christian and Missionary Alliance. (2018). About us. Retrieved from https://www.cmalliance.org/about/ Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2007). Business ethics as practice. British Journal of Management, 30(1), 56-69. Lestrange, J. J., & Tolstikov-Mast, Y. (2013). Can global organizations use values-based leadership to combat bribery and corruption? Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 10(4), 41-56. Neera, J. & Anjanee, S., & Shoma, M. (2010). Leadership dimensions and challenges in the new millennium. Advances in Management, 3(3), 18-24. Sadri, G. (2013). Choosing conflict resolution by culture. Industrial Management, 10(1), 10-15. VanderPal, G., & Ko, V. (2014). An overview of global leadership: Ethics, values, cultural diversity and conflicts. Jornal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 11(3), 166-175. Werhane, P. H. (2014). Competing with Integrity: Richard De George and the ethics of global business. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 737-742. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2183-y |
NG, LR, & NCUMy collection of personal papers written over the years Archives
March 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Justin DuBose | 2013-2022
All Rights Reserved
All Rights Reserved