1. Ethics was first introduced as a component of Business law at UTS in 2000. The primary driver of this expanded content and subject agenda was the need to respond to the social and economic impacts of the growing number of cases of corporate mismanagement.
2. At UTS, we took seriously our obligation to ensure that tomorrow's corporate leaders receive within their tertiary education an understanding of the following:
that leadership is a privilege bestowed within a context of trust;
that the relationship is reciprocal ie. that the privilege of leadership imposes obligations such as :
a. the obligation to strike an appropriate balance between stakeholder interests and self interest
b. the obligation to treat the large pool of financial resources generated by corporate activity as the resources of others and utilize those resources in the best interests of those others;
c. the obligation to steer the corporation as a Captain steers a ship ie. just as the Captain uses the lifeboat only after the last passenger is safe so too the leader/s of a company in decline allocates company resources according to stakeholder interest rather than self interest.
d. So, what do we seek to impart to students about the public expectations of a corporate leader and how do we go about the business of transmitting these messages to the students? My paper last year put forward the argument about why I believe that it is preferable to teach ethics an integrated component of a core law subject in a cross-disciplinary course such as the Business Law subject. For me it is to
discourage disjointed decision-making where issues are compartmentalised and dealt with one at a time;
avoid the possibility that the subject be seen as an abstract intellectual exercise with no real relevance to professional education.
to acknowledge the reality that socialization will naturally occur and to socialise students into a culture where moral considerations are seen as central to the 'nuts and bolts' issues of commerce.[2] Despite the frequently raised objection to the idea that education serves as a socializing medium, the decision to actively seek to socialise students through the teaching of ethics was based on a belief that those who object to educational socialisation fail to acknowledge the reality that socialization will naturally occur as part of the educational process. Therefore, the question is not whether education should or should not socialise but rather it should be about the values our educational institutions should or should not endorse.
to encourage the pursuit of consensus about fundamental values and the pursuit of understanding about the beliefs of others
to develop an understanding of the cause and effect link between commercial sector failure and government regulation and demonstrate that 'good ethics is good business' principle is made easier
3. Edited reading materials containing a carefully selected mix of theoretical extracts and current journal and newspaper articles have been designed to expose the students to a variety of arguments that challenge beliefs and extend the boundaries of learned behaviour beyond childhood and pre-adult experiences. Thus, students are encouraged to develop an understanding that ethical principles do not come in neat packages - one set for business and another for one's private activities - as well as to appreciate the nature of the complexities that render the learning of childhood and adolescence, insufficient for corporate decision making.
4. As part of the preparation to deal with the problems commonly encountered by business leaders, the readings have been selected with a view to providing a broad range of topics covering some of the more pressing contemporary issues. These include the cost of environmental vandalism and urban decay; the nature of the values generated by competitiveness and the social impact of the behaviours it rewards; the positive and negative features of globalisation; balancing work and family commitments, industrial regulation of a diverse work force, and responsible management of scarce resources. These topics are addressed within the context of their importance in relation to what has been identified by the author of this paper as ten responsibilities of corporate and commercial professionals:
a.to appreciate the breadth of the corporate role ie. that it extends well beyond profit maximisation;
b.to engage in debate about values and application of judgment;
c.to see business and management education as a moral endeavour rather than just the transfer of skills and knowledge;
d.to deal satisfactorily with increasingly pressing global pressures without compromising local established cultural values;
e.to develop the capacity to recognise and articulate the ethical dimension of managerial decisions and to develop an appreciation for the legitimate place ethical discourse has in business;
to understand that the separation of commercial activities from community concerns is a divide that is not in the best long term interest of a business;
g.to explore the systemic causes and consequences of unethical behaviour;
h.to identify opportunities to contribute to the broader community;
i.to identify the indicators of poor leadership;
j.to understand how absence of vision, insufficiency or inconsistency of values, 5.inability to distinguish between power and authority and a preoccupation with self interest lead to disabling outcomes such as workplace morale deficits, loss of organisational and individual purpose, decline in production and profits, diminished trust and erosion of legitimacy.
6. The materials expose students to a diverse range of moral beliefs and viewpoints, which they can apply to solving hypothetical dilemmas that arise out of the procedurally oriented legal content of the business law component of the subject.
The success the BLethics team has enjoyed since its introduction is very satisfying because it confirms that the team is fulfilling what we believe to be our primary aim as educators. Responsible universities have an obligation to develop something more in students than profit making acumen. As succinctly pointed out by former Harvard President Derek Bok, a responsible university has a basic obligation to society
...which it violates by refus[ing] to take ethical dilemmas seriously. And a university that fails to engage its members in a debate on these issues and to communicate with care, the reason for its policies gives an impression of moral indifference that is profoundly dispiriting to large numbers of students and professors who share a concern for social issues and a desire to have their institutions behave responsibly.[3]
7. In other words, the university must assume a significant share of responsibility for the way the corporate sector operates and its leaders behave. This requires students to develop an understanding of the way that commercial sector failure, which arises out of impropriety, prompts the government regulation. As Daniel Vogel points out "...new scandals often lead to the establishment of a new statute, regulation or regulatory agency.[4]
8. The response from the students to the idea that ethics has an important place in the business curriculum and to the requirement that they must engage in open and reflective discussion of moral issues, has been positive. The resistance that one expects when sacred beliefs and values are challenged has been surprisingly minimal. This is partly due to the fact that the need to provide for dealing with student resistance to the entire exercise of teaching and being taught ethics was acknowledged in the developmental stages of the subject content. Ruth Macklin's work on pluralism and indoctrination was seen as very valuable in this regard. She suggests that resistance arises out of a tension produced by conflicting obligations imposed on ethics teachers in societies where pluralism is highly valued. Firstly, there is the realization of a need to avoid the possibility of undermining the plurality of values on which our community is based and thereby failing to fulfil the obligation to be tolerant of a variety of moral beliefs. Secondly, the positive obligation to promote the diversity of views and moral convictions housed in a pluralistic culture cannot be fulfilled in circumstances where there is a contrary requirement to impose models of moral convictions and ethical positions.[5]
Those students, who could be described as falling into the resistant category, have responded well in workshop discussions of the issues raised in the readings, all of which have been designed to expose them to counter-arguments presented in an non-threatening way throughout the carefully selected and edited reading materials. The real value of this approach is that it does not exert pressure to change from entrenched viewpoints, particularly those arising out of religious influences. Rather, it acknowledges what Lisman describes as ...providing [students] with an understanding of opposing viewpoints [which]...might eventually result in their coming around to a more moderate way of looking at issues.[6] It also focuses on the five general goals recommended by Callahan for teaching ethics - stimulating the moral imagination; recognizing ethical issues; eliciting a sense of moral obligation; developing analytical skills[7] and promoting a tolerance of disagreement and ambiguity - while it minimises the possibility that students will feel pressured to change fundamental beliefs and developed behaviours.
8. Its success is evident in the high level of student engagement in discussion of the moral issues associated with commercial activity and the clear willingness of the students to probe into the more difficult dilemmas that arise for corporate leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment