Ethical

E i g h t M a n a g in g E m p lo y e e

E t h ic s , E n g a g e m e n t , R e t e n t io n ,

a n d F a ir T r e a t m e n t

W h en yo u fin ish stu d yin g th is ch ap ter yo u sh o u ld b e ab le to :

E xplain w hat is m eant by ethics.

D iscuss im portant factors that shape ethical behavior at w ork.

E xercise fair disciplinary practices.

D iscuss at least four im portant factors in m anaging dism issals effectively.

D escribe a com prehensive approach to retaining em ployees.

E xplain w hy em ployee engagem ent is im portant, and how to foster engagem ent.

O v e r v ie w

T he sm all firm ’s C E O paid higher than average salaries but couldn’t keep good

em ployees. “P erhaps you should stop scream ing at them ,” advised his w ife. T he m ain

purpose of this chapter is to explain how to m anage em ployee ethics, engagem ent,

retention, and fair treatm ent at w ork. T he topics w e cover include E thics and F air

T reatm ent at W ork, M anaging E m ployee D iscipline and P rivacy, M anaging D ism issals,

M anaging V oluntary E m ployee T urnover and R etention, and E m ployee E ngagem ent.5/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 1/11 PRINTED BY: tavarahite@ em ail.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book

m ay be reproduced or transm itted without publisher's prior perm ission. Violators will be prosecuted.

E t h ic s a n d F a ir T r e a t m e n t a t

W o r k

P eople m ake ethical choices at w ork every day. S hould I com e in today, or call in sick

and get m y paper done? S hould I take ink cartridges from w ork, or buy m y ow n hom e

supplies? O ur biggest supplier just offered m e a paid vacation— should I take it? M y

boss says she w ants this order out by m orning, and that she doesn’t care if the

pressure could trigger accidents tonight at the plant— w hat should I do?

W h y E th ic s ?

M ost everyone reading this book rightfully view s him self or herself as an ethical

person, so w e should start by asking, “W hy include ethics in a hum an resource

m anagem ent book?” F or tw o reasons. F irst, “ethics” is not theoretical. Instead, it oils

the w heels that m ake businesses w ork. M anagers w ho prom ise raises but don’t

deliver; salespeople w ho say, “T he order’s com ing” w hen it’s not; production m anagers

w ho take suppliers’ kickbacks— all corrode the trust on w hich business transactions

depend, and eventually underm ine the businesses (and the m anagers). T hus, after

P fizer Inc. allegedly suppressed unfavorable studies about one of its drugs, plaintiffs

w ere suing for billions.1

S econd, m anagers’ personnel decisions (including those in this chapter, nam ely

discipline, d ism issal , retention, and w ithdraw al) alm ost alw ays hold ethical

consequences.2 O ne survey found that 6 of the 10 m ost serious ethical w ork issues,

such as w orkplace safety and em ployee theft, w ere hum an resource m anagem ent–

related.35/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 2/11 T h e M e a n in g o f E th ic s

E th ics refers to “the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group”— in

other w ords, to the standards people use to decide w hat their conduct should be.4

E thical decisions alw ays require m aking norm ative judgm ents.5 A norm ative judgm ent

im plies that “som ething is good or bad, right or w rong, better or w orse.”6 E thical

decisions are also alw ays rooted in m orality, w hich is society’s accepted standard of

behavior.7 M orality addresses m atters of serious consequence, such as m urder, lying,

and slander. M any people believe that m oral judgm ents are never situational. T hey

say that som ething m orally w rong in one situation w ould also be w rong in another

situation. O ne cannot legalize im m oral acts by passing law s that m ake them “legal.”8

E th ic s a n d th e L a w

Law s therefore aren’t the best guide about w hat is ethical, because som ething m ay be

legal but not right, and som ething m ay be right but not legal. F iring a 38yearold

em ployee w ith 20 years’ tenure w ithout notice m ay be unethical, but still legal, for

instance. S om etim es behavior is both illegal and unethical. F or exam ple, a m eat

processor faced a federal indictm ent charging it w ith sm uggling illegal im m igrants from

M exico to cut costs.9 O ne vice president for business practices put it this w ay: “E thics

m eans m aking decisions that represent w hat you stand for, not just w hat the law s

are.”10

T he law m ay not be a foolproof guide to w hat’s ethical, but som e m anagers use it as if

it is. “Is it profitable?” tends to be the first screen m anagers use to m ake decisions. “Is

it legal?” m ay com e next, because breaking law s often triggers consequences. T he

question, “is it ethical?” m ay then arise just as an afterthought, if at all.5/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 3/11 PRINTED BY: tavarahite@ em ail.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book

m ay be reproduced or transm itted without publisher's prior perm ission. Violators will be prosecuted.

W h a t S h a p e s E th ic a l B e h a v io r a t W o r k ?

S everal experts review ed the research concerning things that influence ethical

behavior in organizations. H ere’s w hat they found:11

E thical behavior starts w ith m oral aw areness. In other w ords, does the person

even recognize that a m oral issue exists in the situation?

M an ag ers can do a lot to influence em ployee ethics by carefully cultivating the

right norm s, leadership, rew ard system s, and culture.

E thics slide w hen people undergo “m oral disengagem ent.” F or exam ple, you’re

m ore likely to harm others w hen you view them as “outsiders.”

T he m ost pow erful m orality com es from w ithin. In effect, w hen the m oral person

asks, “W hy be m oral?” the answ er is that failure to act m orally m akes the person

feel deeply uncom fortable.12

B ew are the seductive pow er of an unm et goal. U nm et goals pursued blindly can

contribute to unethical behavior.13

O ffering rew ards for ethical behavior can backfire. D oing so m ay actually

underm ine the intrinsic value of ethical behavior. C onversely, don’t prom ote

som eone w ho got a big sale through devious m eans.14

E m ployers should have strong ethics codes laying out w hat is and is not

acceptable. E m ployees w ho observe unethical behavior expect you to discipline

the perpetrators.

T he degree to w hich em ployees openly talk about ethics is a good predictor of

ethical conduct.

P eople tend to alter their m oral com passes w hen they join organizations. T hey

tend to equate “w hat’s best for this organization (or team , or departm ent)” w ith

“w hat’s the right thing to do?”5/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 4/11 E th ic s , F a ir T r e a tm e n t, a n d J u s tic e

C om panies that em ployees view as “fair and just” also tend to score higher on ethics.

O ne study concluded that, “to the extent that survey respondents believed that

em ployees w ere treated fairly . . . [they] reported less unethical behavior in their

organizations.”15 In practice, fair treatm ent reflects concrete actions such as

“em ployees are trusted,” “em ployees are treated w ith respect,” and “em ployees are

treated fairly” (see F ig u re 81 ).16

F a ir n e s s , B u lly in g , a n d V ic tim iz a tio n

S om e supervisors are w orkplace bullies, yelling at or threatening subordinates.

E m ployers should alw ays prohibit such behavior. M any firm s have antiharassm ent

policies. (F or exam ple, at one state agency, “It is the policy of the departm ent that all

em ployees, custom ers, contractors, and visitors to the w ork site are entitled to a

positive, respectful, and productive w ork environm ent.”)17 E m ployees of abusive

supervisors are m ore likely to quit their jobs, and to report low er job and life

satisfaction and higher stress.18 M istreatm ent m akes it m ore likely the em ployee w ill

also show higher levels of “w ork w ithdraw al” (show up for w ork, but not do his or her

best).19 S uch em ployees also exhibit m ore w orkplace deviance, for instance, theft and

sabotage.205/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 5/11 N ote: R = the item is reverse scored.5/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 6/11 PRINTED BY: tavarahite@ em ail.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book

m ay be reproduced or transm itted without publisher's prior perm ission. Violators will be prosecuted.

F ig u re 81

P erceptions of F air Interpersonal T reatm ent S cale.

Source: M ichelle A. D onovan et al., “The Perceptions of Their Interpersonal Treatm ent Scale:

D evelopm ent and Validation of a M easure of Interpersonal Treatm ent in the W orkplace,” Journal

D rasgow , and Liberty J. M unson at the U niversity of Illinois at U rbanaC ham paign. All rights

reserved. R eprinted w ith perm ission.

B u llyin g — singling out som eone to harass and m istreat them — is an increasingly

serious problem . T he U .S . governm ent (w w w .sto p b u llyin g .g o v/#) says that m ost

w ould agree that bullying involves three things:

Im b alan ce o f P o w er: P eople w ho bully use their pow er to control or harm and the

people being bullied m ay have a hard tim e defending them selves.

In ten t to C au se H arm : A ctions done by accident are not bullying; the person

bullying has a goal to cause harm .

R ep etitio n : Incidents of bullying happen to the sam e person repeatedly by the

sam e person or group.

It also says that bullying can take m any form s, such as:

V erb al: nam ecalling, teasing

S o cial: spreading rum ors, leaving people out on purpose, breaking up friendships

P h ysical: hitting, punching, shoving

C yb er b u llyin g : using the Internet, m obile phones, or other digital technologies to

harm others

T he person to blam e for any bullying is the perpetrator. E m ployers m ust have system s

in place, sim ilar to those w e discuss later in this chapter, to ensure that the com pany

can identify unfair treatm ent and deal w ith it. T his includes m onitoring em ployees’ use

of social m edia w ebsites.215/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 7/11 PRINTED BY: tavarahite@ em ail.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book

m ay be reproduced or transm itted without publisher's prior perm ission. Violators will be prosecuted.

H ow ever, num erous studies show that som e people’s traits, and how they behave,

m ake them m ore likely targets of bullying.22 T hese include subm issive victim s (w ho

seem m ore cautious, quiet, and sensitive), provocative victim s (w ho display aggressive

behavior), and victim s low in selfdeterm ination (w ho seem to leave it to others to

m ake decisions for them and to determ ine the course of their careers).

R e s e a rc h In s ig h t

A study illustrates the interpersonal dynam ics. R esearch suggests that people w ith

higher intellectual capability often suffer bullying in school, for instance, in the form of

derogatory nam es such as “geek” and “nerd.” In one study, the researchers found that

it w asn’t just w hether the person w as very sm art that determ ined w hether he or she

becam e a victim , but how the person behaved.23 P eople w ith high cognitive ability w ho

behaved m ore independently w ere m ore likely to be victim ized by bullying. T eam

players w ere less likely to be victim ized.

W h y T r e a t E m p lo y e e s F a ir ly ?

T here are m any reasons that m anagers should be fair. T he golden rule is one obvious

reason: A s m anagem ent guru P eter D rucker has said, “[t]hey’re not em ployees, they’re

people,” and the m anager should treat people w ith dignity and respect.

W hat m ay not be so obvious is that fairness also has organizational im plications. F or

exam ple, perceptions of fairness relate to enhanced em ployee com m itm ent, and

enhanced satisfaction w ith the organization, jobs, and leaders.245/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 8/11 E x a m p le

A study provides an illustration. C ollege instructors com pleted surveys regarding the

extent to w hich they saw their colleges as treating them w ith procedural and

distributive justice. T he form er refers to fair processes, w hile the latter refers to fair

outcom es. T he procedural justice questions included, for exam ple, “In general, the

departm ent/college’s procedures allow for requests for clarification or for additional

inform ation about a decision.” T he distributive justice questions included, “I am fairly

rew arded considering the responsibilities I have.” T hese instructors also com pleted

organizational com m itm ent questionnaires. T hese included questions such as “I am

proud to tell others that I am part of this departm ent/college.” T heir students then

com pleted surveys containing item s such as “the instructor put a lot of effort into

planning this course.”

T he results w ere telling. Instructors w ho perceived high distributive and

procedural justice reported higher organizational com m itm ent. F urtherm ore, their

students had m ore positive reactions to their instructors, and reported higher levels of

instructor effort, prosocial behaviors, and fairness.25

R ig h ts a n d F a irn e s s

A n increasingly litigious w orkforce is a third reason to be fair. F ew societies rely solely

on m anagers’ sense of fairness to ensure that they do w hat’s right by their em ployees.

T hey also pass law s. Law s like T itle V II give em ployees (or prospective em ployees,

and, som etim es, past em ployees) various rights. M anagers therefore need to institute

disciplinary and discharge procedures that w ill survive scrutiny by arbitrators and the

courts.26 F ig u re 82 lists som e other legislated areas under w hich w orkers have

rights.27

A side from legislation, em ployees also have certain rights under com m on law .28 F or

exam ple, an em ployee m ay have the right to sue an em ployer w hose supervisor

published em barrassing private and personal inform ation about the em ployee.295/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 9/11 5/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 10/11 PRINTED BY: tavarahite@ em ail.phoenix.edu. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book

m ay be reproduced or transm itted without publisher's prior perm ission. Violators will be prosecuted.

F ig u re 82

S om e A reas under W hich W orkers H ave Legal R ights.5/25/2017 University of Phoenix: Framework for Human Resource Management

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323329801/print?from=222&to=225 11/11