In most of the organizations around the world, employees are expected to meet specific standards of professionalism as a precondition for their employment ( Boddy, 2014) . Such measures are instrumental in creating a suitable working condition for all the employees within the organization. As such, one would be expected to learn the standards that govern their workplace so that they can ensure they have acceptable behaviors to enable them to succeed in their work. Similarly, for an individual to get the required acceptance at the workplace, it is prudent for them to have the acceptable behaviors as guided by the professional standards of work within their organization ( Boddy, 2014) . This paper discusses workplace bullying as a unique ethical issue that individuals are confronted with at work, gives a common ethical dilemma associated with the ethical question, identifies utilitarianism and Kantian theory as the two traditional theorists for handling the dilemma. Also, it provides two resolutions to the dilemma and finally defining and discussing ethical relativism.
Discussion
One of the unique ethical issues that often characterize the working place is employee bullying. Workplace bullying could come in different dimensions. Woodrow and Guest, (2014) explain that workplace bullying may include shouting at employees or verbal abuse targeting an employee. In some cases, an employee can be singled out of the group for unjustified blames or criticism. Also, it may take the form of exclusion where an employee's meaningful contribution is purposefully ignored. Additionally, the language used in the organization towards an employee could be demeaning or humiliating. Some may also take the form of negative comments targeting a person's gender or hurtful remarks towards others within the organization. Such actions of employee bullying are also not good for the organization. ( Neall, & Tuckey, 2014) Details that workplace bullying can lead to high employee turnover, low productivity, lack of innovation, and difficulty in hiring qualified employees in the organization. In the end, the organization suffers the pinch of such rogue employees who advance bullying within the organization.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One common ethical dilemma associated with bullying is that sometimes the social context around the bullying ( Fahie, 2014) . Of significance is a relationship between the involved parties. For instance, in some cases, the bully would be a team leader while the victim is a member of the team who consistently let the team and the team leader down. As such, in a bid to address the let-down, the team leader becomes aggressive with the poor performance and would often get harsh and shout at the team member. In such a case, a sympathizer with the team member would believe the team leader is a bully while others would find it commendable that the team leader can deal with the poor performance of the team member. Such is a case where the dilemma comes in. Each of the individuals feel that they are right and justified to hold the claim of bullying (team member) and not bullying (team leader).
The scenario provides an ethical dilemma since one might argue that the team leader acted with good intentions to ensure the team member ups their game and become a better employee. However, on the flip side, the team member feels mistreated and disrespected. As such, the bullied individuals end up having self-esteem issues and cannot perform to their expectations. Similarly, they may suffer incapacity to make decisions that are appropriate for the professional requirements of their job. The net effect would be a low productivity of the individual. Bullying makes the worker get mostly preoccupied with the ruminating about their situation or trying to make it right. It may also bring in the sense of isolation to the individual victim who may result in psychosocial problems like stress and depression.
Much as the effects of the given bulling experience could turn out to be dire, the team leader in the scenario might not have intended to bully the team member. The intentions were meant to bring the best out of the team member for the organization to achieve well their objectives. The team leader found their means corrective and aimed at improving the performance of the team member. A critical look at the situation can also reveal that such an argument only serve to push for rationalization of bullying which by all means is unethical and should not be condoned. Going by the dilemma in such a situation, it might sometimes become a tad too hard for management within any organization to satisfactorily approach the ethical issue surrounding bullying of such nature.
Two traditional theorists that well apply into the dilemma include Kantian theory and utilitarianism. To begin with, Kantian perspective when applied to the dilemma, one can draw an inference that bullying is unethical as it violates the principle that one should not treat others as their means for exercising their power. Kantian perspective argues the rightness of an action or its wrongness not to be dependent on the consequences but rather whether they serve to fulfill the duty of humanity ( Kohl, 2015) . According to Kohl (2015), Kant believed in the supreme principle of morality commonly referred to as categorical imperative. It is an unconditional command and therefore implies that morality is a must and there is no excuse for opting out of it. In that respect, Kantian perspective as a deontological moral theory would invoke an argument in the actions of the team leader based on whether it was morally right or wrong. In so doing, a look at the maxim of the team leader’s action could inform a decision on its morality. It is critical to note that in Kantian perspective the consequences of the actions by the team leader do not matter. Also, when the maxim is universalized, a contradiction seems to arise. The mere fact that the contradiction arises makes it an unethical action. Therefore, despite the positive consequences intended by the team leader on his actions of bullying, it is still morally wrong and thus unethical.
The second is Utilitarianism. A utilitarian perspective would posit that the bullying was undertaken towards achieving a greater good. As such, the end served to justify the means. Utilitarianism explains what a man ought to do ( Chekola, 2014) . In the case provided the team member out to perform well as the rest on their part. As such, an action is deemed right by utilitarian perspective if it promotes happiness and wrong if it causes the reverse of it. But what is happiness? It can be understood from John Stuart Mill’s description that happiness refers to the absence of pain. As such, for utilitarian perspective, happiness is the basis of morality ( Chekola, 2014) . In the context of the scenario depicted above, the team leader’s action towards the team member sought to bring about the overall happiness to the organization owing to the good performance of the team. When all members of the team contribute effectively towards the organization goals, the outcome is a great while when one individual does not do their part to improve the performance of the group, the effect is bringing down the group's performance. The utilitarian perspective would, in the end, vindicate the team leader for wanting to have a good performance of the group.
Two resolutions can be drawn from the ethical issue of workplace bullying based on the context provided above. It is undeniable that bullying is wrong and unacceptable under moral codes. Although, one might argue that the team leader acted with good intentions to ensure the team members up their game and become a better employee. Such an argument only serve to push for rationalization of bullying which by all means is unethical and should not be condoned. Going by the dilemma in such a situation, it might sometimes become a tad too hard for management within any organization to satisfactorily approach the ethical issue surrounding bullying of such nature. Therefore, going by the Kantian perspective, a resolution can be drawn that the team leader's action was morally wrong and therefore unethical. However, based on the utilitarianism, the actions by the team leader in bullying the team member was indeed meant to achieve an overall good and thus was not unethical.
Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativism can be defined as the view that the truth of a moral statement is relative to the society or individual’s beliefs ( Baghramian, & Carter, 2015) . As such, a statement of morality varies across individuals and groups subject to their moral beliefs. The truth or a moral statement will depend on the beliefs of an individual/ group. Therefore, no moral value is objective or universally applied. Similarly, there are no universal or objective norms through which an individual can measure their subjective beliefs regarding morality.
There exist two versions of ethical relativism. The first is individual ethical relativism where an ethical statement is dependent on an individual ( Nichols, 2014) . In such a case, ethical views vary across individuals and each belief in their own. In essence, everyone is equally correct in their faith as long as they are true when looked at from both angles. Therefore, none is deemed true than the other since there is no standard for right and wrong.
The second is social/ cultural ethical relativism. Nichols (2014) explains cultural, ethical relativism to imply that ethical statements are relative to the given culture or society. As such, the norms of the given community would be the only arbiter of what is ethically right or wrong. Therefore, right or wrong is not judged by an individual but what the social construct it to be. Thus, no society holds views better than another as they are all right to subject to the norms of the particular society. Intrinsically, whenever two societies differ over what is right or wrong, they are all correct.
The following are some of the reasons for ethical relativism: the existence of a diversity of moral views across individuals and societies, the uncertainty argument in morality, arguments that involve a situational difference and the tolerance by individuals for variations in an argument ( Khoo, & Knobe, 2016) .
This paper has identified workplace bullying as a unique ethical issue that individuals are confronted with at work. A common ethical dilemma that arises with workplace bullying has been identified to be a delicate dilemma on whether it was a corrective action or intended bullying. Two traditional theorists that best analyses the ethical dilemma are Kantian theory and Utilitarianism. In that case, Kantian perspective finds the act morally wrong and therefore, unethical while utilitarianism finds the action justified based on the intention and thus ethically right. Finally, the paper has ethical relativism to mean that truth or a moral statement will depend on the beliefs of an individual or a group. Hence, no moral value is objective or universally applied. Similarly, there are no universal or objective norms through which an individual can measure their subjective beliefs regarding morality discussing ethical relativism.
References
Baghramian, M., & Carter, A. (2015). Relativism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/.
Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics , 121 (1), 107-121.
Chekola, M. (2014). Utilitarianism. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 6881-6883). Springer Netherlands.
Fahie, D. (2014). Doing sensitive research sensitively: Ethical and methodological issues in researching workplace bullying. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 13 (1), 19-36.
Khoo, J., & Knobe, J. (2016). Moral disagreement and moral semantics . Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/archive/KHOMDA.pdf.
Kohl, M. (2015). Kant on determinism and the categorical imperative. Ethics , 125 (2), 331-356.
Melé, D., & Sánchez-Runde, C. (2013). Cultural diversity and universal ethics in a global world. J Bus Ethics, 116 , 681–687. DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1814-z
Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014). A methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 87 (2), 225-257.
Nichols, S. (2014). Process debunking and ethics. Ethics , 124 (4), 727-749.
Woodrow, C., & Guest, D. E. (2014). When good HR gets bad results: Exploring the challenge of HR implementation in the case of workplace bullying. Human Resource Management Journal , 24 (1), 38-56.
