Ethics During Change, Essay Example

Introduction

In modern organizations, a distinct ideology has emerged in which change is heralded as both inevitable and beneficial, an ideology blatantly discarding traditional adherence to established structures. While this thinking is explicable, it may easily ignore certain critical issues vital for organizational success,  the most evident of which is that change itself is neither inherently negative or positive. Its quality is determined by its being and how it is implemented, and both of these factors rely in turn on a foundation of ethics. To ignore the ethics, in fact, is to greatly weaken, if not destroy, potentials of positive change, for the disregard must obstruct the imperatives required by organizational change itself.  As the following will support, only an underlying maintenance of ethics can assure an organization’s successful incorporation of change.

Discussion

Today’s organizations, largely through globalization, face obligations and circumstances unknown to past generations.  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), in fact, has arisen to address the new and integral nature of modern organizations, for the day when a business’s sole obligation was to generate profit for stakeholders is gone. Management must deal with broad implications going to social and environmental responsibilities, even as globalization exponentially increases competition (By, Burnes, 2013,  p. 14). This is then a form of change simultaneously shifting and firmly in place; as the variables organizations must address evolve themselves, the organization must demonstrate a structure flexible enough to accommodate the changes demanded by the interaction of the variables.

At the same time, a potentially insidious element of organizational change today lies in this very acceptance of it as a norm, which then goes to ethical imperatives. It is ordinary for businesses to now assert that change is the only constant, but this in itself translates to something of an abnegation of responsibility on the part of those dictating the change. The change is then often embarked upon with, not cohesive structure or planning, but hope (Whitehead,  2001, p. 185). This equates to a neglect of both corporate responsibility in organizational terms and ethics, simply because too careless a reliance on change must go to a similar carelessness regarding employee welfare.  It is one thing for an organization to comprehend that its success, if not survival, demands the ability to change; it is another to understand and address how any change will inevitably create challenges for all within the organization.

Consequently, a significant element in this process is accountability, in that employees continually faced with new tasks and/or moved within departments are simultaneously responsible for meeting standards and adjusting to varied roles and duties (Rieley, Clarkson, 2001, p. 162).  If parameters regarding performance were in place, they are no longer the same, and management is ethically obligated to perceive and react to how employees handle the new roles.  This likely presents immense challenges.  Essentially, employees are typically identified by degrees of known ability, which in turn generates levels of trust and expectation. It is understandable that the organization, changing in such a way as to require a shift in position for a trusted individual, will assume the same levels of ability will be evident in the new role. It is nonetheless weak ethically, for it ignores the possibility of fundamental change demanded of the employee as beyond that individual’s talents.  Then, there is the issue of inclination, as new duties invariably deviate from those initially accepted by the employee. The primary obligation of the organization, then, when seeking to implement change at such levels, is to fully take into consideration the histories and full identities of the employees, as well as elicit feedback as to their reactions to the proposed changes. The organization acting ethically must realize that, in embracing change of any kind, it is changing something of its own nature, and thus creating a work environment different from that which the employee initially knew.

Change of any process within an organization, as may be obvious, has effects going beyond the immediate.  Change intrinsically creates a field of uncertainty; no matter how well-researched and planned the alterations, there remains a range of possible outcomes, and this is likely to generate anxiety both in management and staff. It is all the more probable, then, that management concerns may have a negative effect on employees, in that increased expectations translate to heightened pressures on the latter.  It cannot be overstated how unpredictably change may affect the organization, so it is logical that management focus on performance would be all the more intense, and thus create an unfavorable environment. In terms of ethics, management must then accept its innate responsibility as the source of the change, and not transfer that responsibility as such to the employees. In any circumstances, the employee is obligated only to fulfill those expectations agreed upon between them and their superiors; as the employee is not empowered to order change, so too is it unethical to ask that they be accountable for it in any way beyond performing their work in a satisfactory way.

A further issue exacerbated by change is that of the underperformer.  Typically, such individuals reveal issues with attitude, focus, and subsequently time management (Furnam, 2002,  p. 24).  Not unexpectedly, change is usually unwelcome to such individuals as well, and it is then all the more likely that the organization undergoing change will be inclined to dismiss or discipline such employees.  What is barely acceptable in ordinary circumstances, essentially, cannot be tolerated under new pressures.  However, this same dilemma presents ethical opportunities for management.  On one level, it basically compels management to confront problems long allowed to continue.  On another, there is the opportunity to give the employee “a new start,” and work with them in a way to facilitate enthusiasm and performance.  Both courses then promote a furtherance of ethical responsibility on management’s part, and employ change as the impetus.

Conclusion

Organization’s today are essentially obligated to shift policies and processes in order to meet the demands of equally shifting, and global, conditions.  This is an immense pressure, and it is inevitable that ethics may easily be set aside as these seemingly larger considerations are addressed.  What organizational change actually translates to, however, is an even greater need to adhere to ethics.  Management must accept that it creates the change, that employee responsibility is inherently lesser, and that the change demands a consideration for what is now expected from the employee.   If change is intrinsically a variable, ethics must be all the more in place, for only an underlying maintenance of ethics can assure an organization’s successful incorporation of change.

References

By, R. T., & Burnes, B.  (2013).  Organizational Change, Leadership and Ethics: Leading Organizations Towards Sustainability. New York: Routledge.

Furnham, A.  (2002). Managers as Change Agents.  Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 21-29.  Retrieved from  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/714042525#.UihmKsZQGTw

Rieley, J. B., & Clarkson, I. (2001). The Impact of Change on Performance. Journal of Change Management, 2 (2), 160-172. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/714042499#.UihkNMZQGTw

Whitehead, P. (2001). Team Building and Culture Change: Well-Trained and Committed            Teams Can Successfully Roll Out Culture Change Programmes. Journal of Change Management, 2 (2), 186-192. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/714042495#.UihlhsZQGTw