Global Setting Essay Example for Free

Global Setting Essay With the rapid expansion of globalization coupled with an amazing digital revolution, the civilization has taken a quantum leap to land in an era where the world seems to be a global village. Consequently, this new era demands a matching code of conduct from humans, of which the format would be new but the content would be based on ancient values. This is because, the modern lifestyle is full of all kind of communications 24/7, ranging from home, office, family, business associate, society, etc. Human activities have risen to a great height these days, thanks to the state-of-the art communication systems, which expanded and fastened the entire communication process, all the while wiping away physical boundaries of regions and creating a cross-cultural platform for the civilization. All of the above clearly show how much important it is to be culturally competent in the modern world to make the most of the advancement of science and technology. However, at the core of cultural competency remains the ancient set of values, which acts like the steering wheel of human mind and thus the set of values commands primary attention, which contains the elements like personal values, organizational values, cultural values and ethics. This essay explores the nuances of the above elements before analyzing how an individual can reconcile them in a global setting. Background Even as the personal, organizational and cultural values and ethics sound somewhat similar, each of them is unique in its own way. For example, Ethics is the study of the choices people make regarding right and wrong (Paul Elder, 2003, p. 11). Accordingly, it is open to individual interpretation, since determination of right and wrong or good and bad is subjective. This is where the humans need some set principles that would guide them especially in the modern global setting, where people from various cultures work together. It is here the organizational values and ethics differ from the personal ethics – which adopts its own set of values and ethics that would suit their multicultural workplace environment. Accordingly the researchers opine, Organizations are often considered monoliths that have their own persona, values and ethics†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Kruckeberg, 1998, p. 47). However, the universally accepted premise of ethics like doing maximum good for maximum people maintains its place – though again there may be different interpretation of that concept due to different cultural connotations – for example if a vegetarian considers eating non-vegetarian food as unethical, then that would be personal interpretation or choice of the person, besides being a subject of private practice. Now the global setting might bring in the said person with said set of values in such a workplace where most people like non-vegetarian dishes, thereby presenting another interpretation of personal value. However in both the cases the central idea would remain common – that food is our source of sustenance. It is because of such situations amid global setting, the researchers stress on maintaining ethical guidelines in the workplace or in a multicultural society. Accordingly the companies adopt ethical models to establish their ethical culture that would dictate its ethical norms and the employee behavior (Trevino, 1986; Hunt and Vitell, 1986). According to Paul Elder (2002, p. 13), this helps individuals to lessen their attention to the importance of individual judgment in ethical decision-making and instead, concentrate on the organizational ethics. Another important aspect of such models is that they help the members of the organizations to avoid the role-conflict arising out of the differences between organizational ethical culture and personal ethical philosophies. Personal Ethical Perspective Personal ethical perspective depends on the degree of ethical awareness in a person, where s/he might base it either on what it is good to be or what it is good to do, towards attaining moral excellence. However, there are more dimensions to it, since there are various theories that explain the issue in their own way. For example, utilitarian concept can influence a person to see ethics from any of the four angles like Pleasure concept of Jeremy Benthan, Happiness concept of John Stuart Mill, Ideals concept of G. E. Moore, or Preference concept of Kenneth Arrow (Utilitarianism, 2008). However, all of the above dimensions carry the basic insight of utilitarianism, which suggests that the purpose of morality is to make the world a better place and therefore, humans should work towards that direction (Ethics, 2006). Organizational Code of Ethics Organizational code of ethics is a set of standards, rules, guidelines, and values that govern and guide ethical business behavior in a company, profession, or organization of its employees, interactions among the employees, and interactions between the employees and the general public (12MANAGE, 2009). Thus it is distinctly different from the personal code of ethics in the sense that it evolves from the organizational culture – as Trevino would put it, ethical culture is a subset of organizational culture, representing a multidimensional interplay among various formal and informal systems of behavior control that are capable of promoting ethical or unethical behavior (Trevino et al. , 1995, p. 12). Thus here the values are imposed and the employees have the responsibility to align them with their own set of values. However, it is always expected that the code of ethics maintained in a company would never miss the central theme of ethics, i. e. , maximum good for maximum number of people. Mechanism of Personal Ethical Philosophies An understanding on the mechanism of individual difference in personal ethical philosophies is very important towards reconciling the values. The above can be framed by two factors like idealism and relativism, says Forsyth (1980), where he underpins idealism as the indicator of the magnitude of an individuals concern regarding an action, and how the consequence of that action affects the welfare of others. For example, a low idealistic individual might endorse harmful action with the belief that such action would bring greater good, while a high idealistic individual would always believe the opposite and pass on only those actions that would lead to positive consequences. (Forsyth, 1980; Forsyth, 1992). Forsyth (1980) takes relativism as the indicator of the magnitude of an individuals concern regarding accepting or rejecting the universal moral principles. For example, high relativistic individuals would be open to admit that there are more than one ways to perceive the concept of ethics and moral actions, since ethics are dependent on the nature of the situation. On the other hand, low relativistic people would believe in moral absolutes, and would base their ethical decision making process on fixed principles (Forsyth, 1992). The above understanding generates the idea that towards reconciling all values, the individuals need to accommodate the facts like there are many ways to perceive ethics as different situations influence human perception. However, here comes the issue of role conflict, or the fear of losing ones own personal set of values and ethics, since the theories on ethics suggest that organizational code of conduct or norms of ethics affect the personal ethical philosophies of its members, and eventually re-shape their ethical judgment and behavior (Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Baucus and Near 1991). While role conflict emerges when humans find themselves incompatible to the requests, policies and expectations of others (Rizzo et al. , 1970), it is here Forsyths (1980) concept comes in handy, as one can exploit it to find what type of people would go for what – for example, a high-relativistic individual may excuse an unethical decision if that serves their self-interest – since they are the ones who accommodate multiple concept of ethics and believe that ethical actions depend on the specific situations (Barnett et al. , 1996). This shows that high-relativists are less likely to suffer from role conflict due to their adaptive attitude regarding ethics. On the other hand, high-idealists, who prefer to operate on fixed principles of ethics, stand to suffer from role conflict, since the values that their organizations prescribe to maintain may go beyond their fixed set of values (Schermerhorn et al. , 2002, p. 63). Cultural Values Cultural values may influence the making of an idealist or relativist of different magnitudes, yet it has its limitation, since it is mostly confined by geographical boundaries. Therefore, multiculturalism can always extend ones perception of values much in the mold of Chinese delicacies that have become a common feature across the globe. There is another reason – no one is actually forced to remain within the boundaries of ones own culture and thus, the positive sides of other cultures have enough potential to convert even the high-idealists to high-relativists! The above state of affairs clearly shows that reconciliation of personal, organizational, and cultural values and ethics depends on several factors like below: 1. Ones own personal state of belief; 2. Ones own understanding of the concept of ethics; 3. The intensity of it in the persons decision-making process; 4. The nature of the value-set prescribed by the organization; 5. Proximity and involvement to the primary culture; 6. Appropriate training of cultural comepetency. Conclusion While managing cultural values does not seem to be a daunting task (one can easily maintain a good chunk of them in private), the issue of managing personal and organizational values amid global setting may be difficult if people dont prepare them accordingly. And, going by the theorists, this journey seems to start from high-idealist point to high-relativists, and thus, it can also be assumed that there is always the possibility to misjudge the situation or to be driven by the philosophy of convenience. Therefore, the individuals themselves should set their line of control on the scale of high-idealist to high-relativist. A balance in them is always desirable to get the maximum out of the current global setting. For that matter, members of organizations need to learn and practice decision-making in real-life situations. There are several cultural competency training modules available, like Kwongs Model (Kwong, 2008) or Griggs Model (2005) that work towards developing the cultural sensitivity and awareness among the subjects. Apart from that, good knowledge on applicable ethics theories, such as Dialogic Theory (Buber, 1955) can come in handy, because it helps to underpin the state of communication and to act accordingly. Therefore, in todays multicultural global setting, humans require to trade cautiously on the multidimensional sphere of ethics to achieve happiness, peace and prosperity. References 12MANAGE. (2009). Web document. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://www.12manage.com/description_code_of_ethics.html Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G.. (1996). Religiosity, personal moral philosophy, and intentions to report a peers wrong doing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1161-  Ã‚   1174. Baucus, M. S., Near, LP. (1991). Can illegal corporate behavior be predicated? An   Ã‚  Ã‚   event history analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (1): 9-36. Buber, M. (1955). Dialogue. In Between Man and Man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Ethics Matters. (2006). Web archive. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Utilitarianism/