Do you see a connection between the subject of the lawsuit discussed above and the choices made surrounding the t-shirt line? Do you that Abercrombie & Fitch did anything wrong in its choice to sell these t-shirts that would justify the protests and negative attention? What are the key facts relevant to your determination? What are the ethical issues involved in your decision? Who are the stakeholders involved this scenario? Are the stakeholders rights abridged? In what way? Even if you answer no to the first question, above, evidently certain stakeholders believed that Abercrombie & Fitch acted inappropriately. Other than not selling the shirts at all, is there any other way to have prevented this from happening in the first place? What alternatives were available to it originally? How would each of these new alternatives have affected each of the stakeholders you have identified? Moving forward from this point, what alternatives now exist for Abercrombie & Fitch to heal relationships with its stakeholders? What recommendations would you offer to Abercrombie & Fitch? We all have decisions to make about how we will treat others in the workplace and how we will ask to be treated. Ethics at work and in human resource management is about our relationships with others and with our organizations. Research demonstrates that “companies that place employees at the core of their strategies produce higher long-term returns to shareholders than do industry peers.”[1] The same holds true for interpersonal relationships. Notwithstanding these truths, less than half of U.S. workers feel a strong personal attachment to their organization or believe that the organization deserves their loyalty. Only one in four workers is truly loyal to their place of work. When asked about the greatest influence on their commitment, workers responded that the most important factor is fairness at work, followed by care and concern for employees – all key components of an ethical working environment. [1] Walker Information, “Committed employees make your business work,” Employee Relationship Report, (1999). 9 Decision-Making @ Work (insert obj. 1) There are two very distinct, and sometimes competing, perspectives on the ethics of workplace relationships. On one hand, employers might decide to treat employees well as a means to produce greater workplace harmony and productivity. When employees see that a firm values their emotions, as well as exhibits values such as honesty, respect and trust, they feel less pressure, more valued as employees and are also more satisfied with their organizations. The consequentialist approach, above, could be reminiscent of the utilitarian ethics discussed in Chapter 3 if couched in terms of the creation of a better workplace for all. Though, it also raises a question about moral motivation and simply instrumentalist, self-interested reasons for doing good that is similar to our discussion of CSR in Chapter 5. A comprehensive review of research by Jeffrey Pfeffer suggests that effective firms are characterized by a set of common practices, all of which involve treating employees in humane and respectful ways.[1] [1] Jeffrey Pfeffer, The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, (Boston, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1998). Example: As an example of these concerns, one might consider the role of emotion in the workplace. Though a relatively new area of research, studies suggest that management can have a significant impact on the emotions of their workers, and this impact can greatly affect productivity, loyalty, as well as perceptions of fairness, care and concern. Scholars Neal Ashkanasy and Catherine Daus suggest that managers should pay attention to the emotional impact of various jobs within their workplace and model a positive emotional environment.[1] Rewards and compensation structures can clearly impact the emotions of workers, as can the composition of teams or the power relationships within a workplace. Consider how Sears explored emotions in its workplace in the Reality Check that follows. [1] Neal Ashkanasy and Catherine Daus, “Emotion in the workplace,” Academy of Management Executive, v. 16, no. 1 (2002), p. 76. Refer to: REALITY CHECK: Sears and Emotions 10 Decision-Making @ Work On the other hand, of course, employers might treat employees well out of a Kantian sense of duty and rights, regardless of the either utilitarian or self-interested productivity consequences. This deontological approach emphasizes the rights and duties of all employees, and the interest in treating employees well simply because “it is the right thing to do.” This sense of duty might stem from the law, professional codes of conduct, corporate codes of conduct, or such moral principles as fairness, justice, or human rights on the part of the organization’s leadership. Defenders of employee rights argue that rights should protect important employee interests from being constantly subjected to utilitarian and financial calculations. "We can invest all the money on Wall Street in new technologies, but we can't realize the benefits of improved productivity until companies rediscover the value of human loyalty." - Frederick Reichheld, Director, Bain & Co.
