Contents
Business Social Responsibility. 8
Introduction
The management practices that integrate and deem responsible for the triple-layered bottom line that comprises of sustainability, responsibility, and ethics, also termed as stakeholder’s value, and moral dilemmas are also regarded as responsible management practices. As the business corporations operate with the consent of the society, they are expected to make adaption as per the changing societal situations. For instance, the business organizations can make adoption of the new outset of marketing success where the core and the bottom line of the business are supported and harmonized with societal and biological aspects. Responsible and good management can answer these challenges by encouraging and promoting the practices that direct to the notion of prime management. Prime management is a term that is referred to the managerial approaches that are leading to performance, and are also socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable. But the present scenario does not go well with the above-mentioned management practices. Most of the business organizations are involved or are found to be encouraging bad management practices.
The below-presented essay is focused on the bad management theories that are destroying good management practices.
Bad management theories
Management Theory refers to any set of rules and regulations that enable guide and assist the employees in achieving set goals for their organizations. These theories are deployed into the action plan by the managerial level desk and followed by all, ensuring coherence and familiarity in the work practice of all the small units of an organization (Spencer, 2020). Good management theory is all-encompassing and focuses on all the aspects of the corporate world, from profits, productivity to employee engagement and workplace atmosphere. Well-built management theory is easy to apply as well.
Along with being beneficial to the organization, management theories are extremely helpful to the managers as well. It is owed to these theories that managers are able to fulfill their roles in an organization. A good manager is known for his knowledge of all such theories and his intelligence and wits that enable him to apply the most suitable one according to the situation. As the name suggests, a Management Theory is a concept based on observations for the purpose of explaining the relationship between various corporate features, so that one can know how much a variable should be changed with respect to another in order to yield optimum results. The application of these concepts according to real-world observations of the many variables in an organization is the job of a manager.
Despite the accessibility to the knowledge of Management Theories, in the real world, one can still observe companies falling down, economies crashing, organizations going bankrupt and other similar corporate chaos (Ridge and Ingram, 2017). Even the wittiest and the most experienced managers can seldom save such organizations and the company is liable to face the doom. This disparity between the bookish knowledge of management theories and the real-life applicability of it arises due to the lack of practicality of such theories.
If an organization follows certain theories of management, in case of failure, the workforce seldom doubts the credibility of the theories but the blame is always on the way the theories have been adopted. However, most of the time, it is not the case. The chosen management theories are not competent enough to sustain the dynamics of the corporate world. No matter how excellent the management practices are, to surf on the back of such theories is next to impossible. This further creates a debate about how bad management theories are destroying good management practices.
Bad management theories have a characteristic feature that is based on one’s observation, that is, they deteriorate the business culture. It is a broad approach to judge a theory for its goodness or badness but so is the vagueness of the term ‘bad’, very subjective. If one trace’s the root of this problem then it can be concluded that the business schools are the ones responsible behind this spread. A theory truly becomes bad when it is tested and applied to the real world by people, in this case, management graduates, and then it is found that it only harms the subject and does no betterment to it. These theories are cherished by authors and theorists in the books and celebrated in classrooms, wherein one cannot imagine the plethora of variables that actually play a role in the dynamic business world, apart from the bunch of assumptions and circumstances mentioned in the theory itself.
A serious allegation of bad management theories is that they spare the management from any moral duties (Ridge and Ingram, 2017). Most of the management duties focus on profits and the material well being of the firm. The use of words like “efficient”, “optimum”, “best” and “maximum” are a few to name that can be found easily in any management theory, However, this is not the case in real life. One cannot always yield the best, maximum, optimum or efficient result that he is expected to form the manager, owing to these ill phrased and device management theories. The modern management theories to claim to understand this concern and take into consideration the “average” productivity of an employee are also very far from the real world. As every day is different, every day’s productive outcome is also different. An approach that takes an average of all the days is just an average approach.
Hence, managers become clinical in expecting the “best” and “optimum” out of everyone all the time because the real world changes every moment and employees, at the end are humans with a lot on their plate already. These expectations seldom make managers cynical and hence immoral in pushing and expecting more from their employees. Managers are taught to think in harmony with the shareholders and investors because they play a great role in the sustenance of the organization. Whereas, the employees play a greater role in the sustenance of the organization, as an organization is nothing but people. If the workforce is not looked after, even the greatest investors and stakeholders give up on the organization. A bad management theory will push a good manager to focus his attention on investors and shareholders, hence making him turn a blind eye on his own workforce. A manager’s duty, of managing the organization, hence fails (Spencer, 2020). A good management theory will always prioritize the inner circle of people and then the external support, as a well-functioning organization always attracts investors and share buyers by the word of the mouth in the market alone.
Another reason why bad management theories are destroying good management practices is that they tend to focus on the past more than the present and rarely in the future. Most of the theories believe that whatever patterns have been going on in the past will continue to occur hence making calculations based on them is just (Teece, 2017). However, as the market is a dynamic arena and something or the other keeps happening every now and then, it is a totally false assumption. Every political, social or economic change in the world brings a chain of changes for every business, either good or bad. As the world is a small pace and fast-placed due to globalization, it is difficult to escape these changes and function in isolation. Hence, focusing on past behaviors to draw norms for the present is a dubious approach.
Moreover, businesses are risk-oriented (Davies, 2017). These risks are taken because of the uncertainties that are prevalent in the surroundings. When the organizations focus on the future, which is a big shot to fame, they tend to invite more uncertainties and risks. But if one is to stick on the past patterns and never look towards the future, the business will then definitely lack innovation. A business without innovation cannot survive in the long run as it will function with old technology and manufacture older goods and services.
Bad management theories are a toxin for the corporate world. These toxins are often produced by the business schools and spread into the markets. As schools, it is their responsibility to better the market by polishing young managers who can drive the market with innovation, creativity and break existing ill practices (Evans and Tourish, 2017). Business-schools should emphasize in practice the motto of “come to learn, go to serve” as they hold the full backstage to the drama of business that occurs on the front stage.
Conclusion
After analyzing the above-presented essay it is concluded that bad management theories are having a strong influence over the good management practices of the business organizations. And this leads the organization in a reduction in its sustainability in terms of societal, environmental and economical.
Introduction
The whistle-blower is an individual or a person who steps forward and shares the knowledge or the information in regards to any wrongdoing, which is occurring in the organization or in a particular department. A whistle-blower could be anyone, an employee, a vendor, or a contractor who has witnessed any of the illegal activities within the premise. Majorly there are two types of whistleblowers internal and external. Internal whistleblowers are those individuals who witness and account the delinquency, fraud, or disorderliness to superior authorities of the business corporation such, whereas, the external whistle-blowing is utilized when the whistleblowers witness and state the misconduct to the people outside the firm, for instance to the media, higher governing authorities, or police.
The below-presented essay is concentrated on the notion and phenomenon of whistle-blowing and also how socially responsible organizations ought to regard whistleblowers.
Whistle-blowing
In the period of 1970, the term Whistle-Blowing was initially brought to public knowledge and since has gained a high degree of significance. Pentagon Papers in 1971 has not been regarded as the first released example of whistle-blowing but it was debatably the first time to be known on wide range (Dungan, Waytz and Young, 2015). The term whistle-blowing has three major competing explanations for its derivation, and these explanations offer useful insights in the vagueness and the tensions that are still covering the approach. The most often experienced descriptions that it comes from an analogy that is made with police officials blowing a whistle for attracting the attention of a person with whom the officials are looking to have a word with, or also to bringing the other officials in the environs to the scenario. Another recommended analogy can be regarded as the use if whistle by the referees at any of the spots event for calling for a break in the game after the commitment of a foul. The third analogy perhaps the less likely, but however captivating, description, is that the term is derived during 19th century US legislation that needed train motor-men to blow a whistle when they arrived at a crossings (Culiberg and Mihelič, 2017). The individuals will have to pay fines in case of failures in the scenario and moreover, citizens seeking attention to these failed scenarios were expected to receive rewards.
Whistle-blowing refers to the act of illegitimately passing confidential information about one’s previous or current organization of employment. The information passed can be to anyone, either inside the organization or outside the organization. It is done with the intention to reveal the ill-doings of a company (Cho and Song, 2015). It is getting progressively normal as an ever-increasing number of individuals are standing to oppose in regards to their ethical apprehensions. It can be clearly observed that the approach of whistle-blowing is integrated with an overabundance of concerns and problems, for both the informer and the employer being shamed. Nevertheless, it tends to have contended that Whistle-blowing has been regarded as an empirical and substantial technique for attempting to have a hold over the untrustworthy occurrences by the companies. With the fear of any illegal information being shared, companies do not create illegal matters in the first place. Therefore, it is significant for societal communities to maintain a degree of support and assistance towards the informants, with a motive that the obligation towards extracting out the bad behaviors by the corporate.
The individuals who have experienced miss-conduct or a bad behavior within an organization are confronted with a less options, and which comprises of both the negative and positive standpoints (Chen and Lai, 2014). In most of the scenarios, an informant may chose to remain silent or a delay can be caused for filing the miss-conduct because of a fear of losing their job or being transferred to an ill-fated area, discomfiture, or also losing the standard of life due to getting fired, ability and emotional wellness. Moreover, they can also have a struggle with the sense of unfaithfulness, where they accidentally have a sense as though they are misleading their family members or the organization (Anderson, John and Keltner, 2012). However, an unwavering representative will distinguish that any deceitful demeanor can never be in the favor or in the benefit of a business firm, and to ignore it with silence is in itself backstabbing. Whereas, the last difficulty an informer may face is one in terms of a person’s dependability, to their own morals and virtues. In the scenario, obligations and devotion in a perfect world ought not to outweigh the principal obligation of being moral and just.
Whistle-blowing includes a goal to prevent something awful that would somehow occur. In general sense it comprises of the information that is not supposed to be revealed normally (Cassematis and Wortley, 2013). Whistle-blowing has been regarded as a moral practice according to most of the ethicists. According to the “standard hypothesis” on Whistle-blowing, the notion is morally needed when it is demanded by any draw out of the imagination; the individuals have an moral obligation to preventing mischievous of other people. However, it should be noted that such theories are stricter on the informant’s front and quite liberal of the organization’s front, which is unfair (Andrade, 2015). In the present world, theories, which are then practiced in the real world, should ensure informant security and safety. Social responsibility is the thought that an organization is a part of the society where it is surviving and should operate in such a manner that it not only benefits the organization but also offers the public (Bliuc, McGarty, Reynolds and Muntele, 2007). Ethical standards and the principles shift largely among the individuals, the business organizations, and the societal communities.
With Whistle-blowing determinedly on the rise, like never before, the business corporations are being examined and monitored to organize the corporate social responsibility into their operations and working priorities (Farrell 2015). That is, the issues of the individuals remaining silent in concern to the dishonest occurrence within the workplace, integrated with the advanced indemnity from retaliation for informers, can be regarded as an enormous hindrance to probable miscreants. It is getting increasingly apparent for the business leaders that an assurance to CSR can offer a specific bit of leeway in drawing in and attaining the employees, managing vendors, strengthening relations with the clients and offering positive response to the stockholders (Bjørkelo, Einarsen and Matthiesen, 2010).
The insurance of informants has become pertinent enough that in July 1999, the U.K. propelled the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA), which allows a very elevated level of insurance to informants in private, open, and charitable associations, just as empowering and shielding outer informants with legitimate reasons. The U.S. as of late presented the noteworthy Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Among the numerous new types of security accessible under this Act, corporate officials who fight back against informants might be confronted with as long as 10 years in jail, and the U.S. The Work Department has the ability to restore representatives without a preliminary trial (Ayers and Kaplan, 2005). In Australia, enactment to ensure and secure informants has been effectively embraced in each state, with a typical plan to secure those who create disclosures of debasement and criminal operations in the public.
Conclusion
In the limelight of the above-presented analysis, it is concluded that the notion of whistleblowing plays an essential part of the management practices within an organization as it aids and generates awareness regarding any of the misconducts happening in the premise. It is also concluded that this approach is one of the most traditional forms of getting aware of the misconducts in a business corporations and are still regarded at top priority approaches.
Business Social Responsibility
BSR (Business Social Responsibility) is a set of applied moral values and norms that inspect moral standards in the industrial sectors (Spence, Frynas, Muthuri and Navare, 2018). It is liable to all the sections of the business directly from the superiors or supervisors of the workforce to the managerial representatives. Most persons harmonize that elevated moral standards need the two, an organization and the individuals to get fit in with good benchmarks. Some uncommon outlooks must be observed during the application of ethics to the business. For continuing, the business corporations must generate revenues and profits. In the scenario that the profits are recognized by ill-fated actions, in that situation, the existence of the business might be short. The organizations should make necessary adjustments in their necessities for the benefits as compared to the needs and wants of the public. Maintaining this equalization can be proven problematic (Spence, 2016). And in order to assist and help in this matter the governing authorities has developed and created regulations that are lawful and verifiable for controlling the business in their activities for gaining advantages in the terms that will not hurt the public or society.
BSR is an ethics that a business must subscribe to in order to function in society. It is made mandatory by society as society is the most prone to any malignant activity of a big firm, to be responsible socially means to expand productive results and restrict negative consequences for the public (Grayson and Hodges, 2017). The obligations of a business are to deliver products and ventures that recognize the problems and requirements of the society at a value that can sustain the business while additionally fulfilling the requirements of the buyers. However, apart from the financial duty, the legitimate duties of organizations are the laws that they should comply with. The common laws are the rights and obligations of people and associations. The criminal laws preclude explicit activities and force fines as well as detainment as a punishment for violating the law. Organizations are relied upon to be answerable for their workers complying with all kinds of state and government laws. The last commitment a business is expected to do towards society is magnanimous duties. These are the practices and exercises that society wants and business esteems. Humanitarian obligations speak to the organization’s craving to offer back on the name of a noble cause.
BSR alludes to any intentional business movement that goes past lawfulness, upgrading financial execution and adding to feasible advancement of nature and the network in which a business works. Business Social Responsibility is a choice for business and for the most part, an organization’s BSR action will fall under one of four need headings: work environment, condition, network or commercial center (Crane, Matten and Spence, 2019). The striking feature of BSR is that no organization is bound by law to comply with it but it is a choice that it makes. The business’s will to make this choice for society speaks volumes about it. This will is recognized by the public as well and people prefer to attach themselves to such organizations. It is a wishful concept that sheerly works on faith and trust, not on theories and stats.
References
Anderson, C., John, O. P., and Keltner, D. (2012) The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80, 313–344.
Andrade, J. A. (2015) Reconceptualising whistleblowing in a complex world. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 321–335.
Ayers, S., and Kaplan, S. E. (2005) Wrongdoing by consultants: An examination of employees’ reporting intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 121–137.
Bjørkelo, B., Einarsen, S., and Matthiesen, S. B. (2010) Predicting proactive behaviour at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of whistleblowing behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 371–394.
Bliuc, A., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K. J., and Muntele, D. (2007) Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 19–32.
Cassematis, P. G., and Wortley, R. (2013) Prediction of whistleblowing or non-reporting observation: The role of personal and situational factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 615–634.
Chen, C. P., and Lai, C. T. (2014) To blow or not to blow the whistle: The effects of potential harm, social pressure and organizational commitment on whistleblowing intention and behavior. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23, 327–342.
Cho, Y. J., and Song, H. J. (2015) Determinants of whistleblowing within government agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44, 450–472
Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L. eds. (2019) Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context. Routledge.
Culiberg, B., and Mihelič, K. K. (2017) The evolution of whistleblowing studies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 787–803.
Davies, J. (2017) Revisiting Ghoshal’s views on the implications of bad management theory–a systems view of moral governance and managerial practice. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 3(2).
Dungan, J., Waytz, A., and Young, L. (2015) The psychology of whistleblowing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 129–133.
Evans, S. and Tourish, D. (2017) Agency theory and performance appraisal: How bad theory damages learning and contributes to bad management practice. Management Learning, 48(3), pp.271-291.
Farrell, P. (2015) Detention centre staff speak out in defiance of new asylum secrecy laws. The Guardian. [Online]. Accessed on 10th April 2020], Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/01/detention-centre-staff-speak-out-in-defiance-of-new-asylum-secrecy-laws.
Grayson, D. and Hodges, A. (2017) Corporate social opportunity!: Seven steps to make corporate social responsibility work for your business. Routledge.
Ridge, J.W. and Ingram, A. (2017) Modesty in the top management team: Investor reaction and performance implications. Journal of Management, 43(4), pp.1283-1306.
Spence, L.J. (2016) Small business social responsibility: Expanding core CSR theory. Business & Society, 55(1), pp.23-55.
Spence, L.J., Frynas, J.G., Muthuri, J.N. and Navare, J. eds. (2018) Research handbook on small business social responsibility: global perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Spencer, D.A. (2020) Economics and ‘bad’management: the limits to performativity. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 44(1), pp.17-32.
Teece, D.J. (2017) Towards a capability theory of (innovating) firms: implications for management and policy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3), pp.693-720.