5.2.3 Individual responsibility
Individual leaders have responsibility to ensure ethical practices. This involves communicating with discretion:
At its best, discretion is the intuitive ability to discern what is and is not intrusive and injurious, and to use this discernment in responding to the conflicts everyone experiences as insider and outsider. It is an acquired capacity to navigate in and between the worlds of personal and shared experiences, coping with the moral questions about what is fair and unfair, truthful or deceptive, helpful or harmful. Inconceivable without an awareness of the boundaries surrounding people, discretion requires a sense for when to hold back in order not to bruise, and for when to reach out (Bronowski, 1978:41).
With discretion, leaders need to communicate relevantly to the purpose at hand; to apply information relevantly and dispose of it relevantly. Further, accuracy of communication, including acknowledgment of a range of interpretations, should be addressed. Finally, leaders need to consider the timing of communication and its fairness. Ethical communication, then, involves leaders' consideration of these five attributes. Power is frequently adopted by leaders to communicate decisions and directives. This power abuses the concept of partnership and returns to a leader-subordinate relationship. This has profound ethical considerations.
It is the responsibility of the leader to uphold ethics in communication. Perhaps this is most succinctly stated as follows:
Communication is ethical when it values the essential dignity of human beings and supports the ability of individuals to realise their full potential. Whether ethical communication is described as supporting informed choice making, contributing to growth and development, or valuing the innate worth of human beings, it depends on individuals taking responsibility for personal behaviours. This personal responsibility underscores the importance of developing criteria or guidelines for ethical communication behaviours (Shockley-Zalabak, 1988:327).
Reading 1
Seglin, JL (April 01, 1998) 'Brother, Can You Spare 30 Cents on the Dollar?', Inc. magazine . Sourced at http://www.inc.com/incmagazine/article/0,,ART905,00.html
WARNING : This article includes language some may find offensive.
Activity 8
Were the actions by George Naddaff (in Seglin's article) unethical or were his standards and values different to Daniel J. Driscoll's?
- Would all companies want to see such requirements implemented by law?
- Reflect on the scenario in the reading; what are some of the ethical concerns leaders should consider with regards to the following stakeholders?
- Shareholders
- Banks
- Staff
- Customers
- Based on your view of ethical behaviour, should the workplace leader communicate information or not in each of the following scenarios?
- A leader meets with a key staff member who has failed to secure team commitment to a goal. The staff member gives valid, personal reasons for the failure to align with team effort. However, personal information is exchanged and the leader promises not to disclose information given in confidence by the employee. A circumstance arises where the leader has to make an exception and reveal the confidences to the company general manager. Should the information be revealed?
- An engineering team leader has worked ten years in a design team to develop the most advanced piece of motor vehicle technology in its area. After release it become apparent the technology is fine, but how it has been installed is a safety hazard. Despite formal requests, the engineering team has neither the power nor the capacity to influence the company to initiate a recall. The engineer makes a personal decision and becomes a whistleblower. He informs the press and relevant government agencies. Was this a correct action?
- A government program supervisor is in charge of implementing innovation and technology development. The agency is responsible for allocating funds to assist R&D in high technology areas. The public funds in the areas are significant and many prospective companies seek the supervisor's good will and assistance to ensure that available funds are allocated to support their project. The supervisor is offered a job with a significant multinational corporation. The job is to head up its team for an R&D project that is being proposed and considered by the aforementioned government agency for funding support. The job is very attractive and they need an immediate response. The supervisor's agency has not completed a preliminary assessment as to whether the proposed project is valid and eligible to receive the necessary public funding support to get it off the ground. Should the supervisor take the job?
Revisit your views on each. Are these judgments your own, or are these judgments likely to be held universally by all in the relevant workplace?