“Everyone is a genius. But if we judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, then it will live all its life thinking it is stupid.” Albert Einstein

Is it ethical to entice an employee to change his behavior for the organization’s interest? Is Organizational behavior a form of unethical manipulation or not?  This controversy stems from a common conflict between the temptation of organizational managers (1) to manipulate or control individual behavior to do what is “right” – both for the individual and the organization’s interests, OR (2) to allow individuals the freedom to act and to decide for themselves what he perceives to be right.

 

Leaders on the one hand may want to “manipulate or control” — or more acceptably, ” encourage, inspire, or motivate” — individual behavior, for several reasons, say to ensure that the final outcomes are good for the organization; or to ensure that plans are properly executed for example. Stakeholders are all expected to want to promote their best interests. This is why they get involved in a business in the first place.  So company managers give the carrot or the stick, rewards or reprimands,  to fulfill organizational goals, greater sales, lower costs, higher value added, and so forth.

 

On the other hand, some leaders are tempted to give individuals the freedom to act, to choose for themselves, according to what they think is best, and hopefully what will not violate their personal values and beliefs.  The intention behind this is to ensure “buy-in” or  participation, or volunteerism.  Volunteerism, in fact is the most powerful and most passionate forms of “motivators.”  It ensures higher commitment, fosters individual self discovery, and a host of other benefits.

 

There is no conflict, when it comes to the underlying needs in the “conflict” between leaders controlling indivdual behavior and letting go or giving freedom. The underlying needs of (1) the need of organizations for the final outcome   to be ultimately profitable, or of value to organizations, (2) then need of individual for the final outcomes to be for the long term interest or welfare of the individual.

 

To resolve this ethical dilemma, leaders must ensure that all engagements are win-win, or where outcomes of the engagements are genuinely GOOD for both the organizations and for the individual, and if I might add for all “stakeholders” as well.  Win-win or no deal. This is the only way towards genuine sustainability.

There are many alternative “win-win” resolutions around the above “ethical dilemma” or “conflict.”  In what possible ways perhaps, can we “encourage” employees to do what is good for the organization, in ways that eventually help them achieve their own individual goals?  The concept of “work-life-balance” for instance has proven to be a deep source of internal strength for organizations. A happy, balanced person is a productive person!  And a company that offers work-life balance, attracts the better and brighter people, which creates an upward spiral of good things.

 

Another  example of win-win  is  when mission-critical projects are assigned, deliberately to maximize the unique individual strengths of assigned employees. BOTH parties i.e. the individual who deploys personal talent and the organization that needs it.  Let a numbers guy do the budget. Let a design-conscious employee spearhead changes in office layout.  Allow a born-writer to be editor of the company blogsite or newsletter,  and so forth.

Well-meaning individuals and prudent organizational leaders, ultimately,  pursue the long term success of the organization itself,  setting goals for the interest not only of the business, but for the good of employees, as well, thereby improving health care benefits, upgrading competency, improving job design, training new skills, and so forth.  The deeper challenge is how to align these goals towards the same strategic ends, at the right time, triggering consonance and not dissonance, say, as in grabbing more shares of a shrinking pie.

Key is to match real individual talent (say, in hiring, placing or delegating), with real organizational needs that address core conflicts and root causes, solve real problems, or that  tap the best of available opportunities. Consider the uniqueness and strengths of individuals and match these with critical work requirements. This resolves the dilemma as it moves from win-lose, lose-win, to win-win. It is not unethical to do this.  In fact it would be imprudent to do otherwise.

 

Another example of win-win is to forge a more clear and shared understanding of the meaning of “value” for the organization.  The “right” thing to do is what adds – not diminishes – “value”. But what is “value”? Is it customer value, share-holder value, value added as in taxation, or is it value to an employee – i.e. his benefits and compensation? Ultimately the end-customer pays for everything in the value chain, and so it can be strongly argued that “value” – for the business-  is what the customer is willing pay for.  So if “value” is defined by the customer, is the customer always right?  By agreeing on unified definitions of VALUE, we can align actions of people with organizational goals. We can synchronize strategic plans with strategic execution.  We can limit our actions to what the customer is willing to pay for.

 

I dream of  less schizophrenic organizations, where inspired individuals pursue company  goals alongside their own individual dreams.  I dream of integrated organizations where strategic plans are aligned with implementing structures and systems are synchronized with jobs. I dream of  organizations that respect – and are therefore able to draw from – the  genius of even seemingly ordinary people.

 

Manipulation and coercion are for the lazy. There is absolutely no need for it, when people voluntarily commit time and resources and passion, to do what they want to do, because they are  cut out and created  to do that. This happens when common purposes and shared values are clear and  individual talents are aligned to them. This happens when structures, policies and systems empower, and do not disempower people from deploying themselves.

 

An organization is one of integrity when it clearly and  collectively defines VALUE, not just to shareholders or to employees, but  to customers and all stakeholders as well. Such is an organization of real sustainable power, that more meaningfully and convincingly  delivers value; the kind of value that blesses the world, and changes it for the better.

by Joseph Pangilinan, Sept. 26.2011