Perhaps the easiest moral philosophy to grasp is the Rule of Conscience. This philosophical system simply holds that one’s
162
● ● ●
own conscience is one’s guide, as the old adage states. In the- ory, this is an excellent system as each individual self-polices, and this relieves others of the obligation of moral enforcement.
However, in practice, this moral system falls short of being ideal as individuals have a wide range of behaviors that they can easily live with. A positive example is seen in the recent move by Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple. It is suspected that Mr. Jobs did not feel ethically comfortable making such a high profit (approximately 55%) on the Apple’s iPhone and made an announcement that those who purchased the product within a certain number of weeks prior were either entitled to a partial refund or a voucher for other Apple products. In this case, the rule of conscience appears to have compelled Mr. Jobs to act in a manner beneficial to his customers. But, as mentioned, the rule of conscience does not always yield positive results. For example, one would hope that an employee who works at a weight-guessing booth at an amusement park would not make snide comments about those who were on the higher end of the scale. However, an employee in this position could simply be working for a paycheck and not feel a responsibility to be nice as she works for an hourly wage and customer satisfaction does not factor into her behavior. Thus, her conscience may be perfectly comfortable with her disrespectful comments.
Relativism is another common moral philosophy. This stan- dard moral system holds that what is determined to be moral comes from what is normative in the culture in which the thought or behavior occurs. For example, in some cultures, it may be considered standard business practice to bribe the host of a restaurant for a table when no reservations have been made or to get a table that offers a better view. In other cul- tures, this may be considered bribery and unfair as others had enough forethought to call ahead and make a reservation and otherwise followed the standard “rules” of obtaining a table.
There is a category of moral philosophical systems called Consequentialism or Teleology. Aptly named, this division of sys- tems places emphasis on the outcomes. An easy way to concep- tualize these systems is to think of the phrase the end justifies the means. Let’s take a look at general consequentialism before we get into the subtypes. Consequentialism is seen in the use of Electronic Performance Monitoring (EPM) which is “the use of electronic instruments, such as audio, video, and com- puter systems to collect store, analyze, and report individual or group performance” (Ambrose, 1998, p. 62). Organizations utilize EPM to observe, record, and report a wide range of worker activities with or without the employees’ knowledge.
Proponents of EPM state that monitoring is similar to other
Human resource management’s role in ethics within the hospitality industry
163 ● ● ● ●
widely accepted managerial practices, and if implemented properly, will not create the abuses feared by critics. Proponents further argue that monitoring is an important tool that organi- zations can use to increase productivity, improve quality and service, heighten safety, and reduce costs. Advocates also sug- gest that electronic monitoring increases employee satisfaction and morale by resulting in more objective performance apprais- als and improved performance feedback (Ambrose, 1998). For example, casinos typically use EPM to observe both employee and customer behavior to ensure rules are abided by and that no employee steals money. Thus the focus is on the end (i.e. rule following and money saving) to justify the means (i.e. monitor- ing of every employee movement). So, from the casino’s per- spective, the use of EPM is fully justified and stands on high moral ground. On the other hand, casino employees may feel differently as it enables employers to track how often and for how long employees make trips to the restroom, which could be construed as a violation of privacy.
As mentioned, consequentialism has subtypes, one of which is Utilitarianism. This moral philosophy is quite common and thus easily understood. Essentially, decisions are based on the perceived end result that offers the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Now, this begs the question of what constitutes the “greatest good” but this is solved by each individual’s own perception of the greatest good in any given decision. Also, please take note that the greatest number of people does not award status differences to individuals; it simply implies that all people potentially affected by the deci- sion are equal or interchangeable. An example should serve to clarify the concept.
Several years back, a national restaurant chain sent out a memo to all waitresses explaining that the new policy was to ask each customer who requested water whether a lemon slice was also desired. The memo further explained that each lemon slice cost the company one cent and with the approximated number of waters with lemon served to customers who did not want the lemon, this cost the company a sizeable loss of reve- nue annually. This decision could have been justified from the utilitarian perspective. The number of people inconvenienced (i.e. number of servers) was far outweighed by the number of people who benefited (e.g. customers who did not want lemon polluting their water, the prep cooks who sliced the lem- ons, the bussers who did not have to throw away unwanted lemon slices, and hypothetically the restaurant owners and stockholders who would enjoy increased net profits though cost savings).
164
● ● ●
Another subtype of consequentialism is Egoism. Again, the focus is on the outcome and not the means of obtaining it. However, egoism, as the name implies benefits one’s self.
Egoism itself subdivides into Psychological Egoism and Ethical or Enlightened Egoism. Psychological egoism suggests that individ- uals do act in manners that promote their own best interest. For example, let’s say that a small hotel has no vacancy and a cou- ple wanders in and bribes the front desk clerk into giving them a room someone else reserved. This becomes an ethical choice on the part of the front desk clerk and the couple who offered the bribe. This sounds counter to what we generally think is right and wrong; however, the basis on which we are making our decision is psychological egoism, not our own particular value system. Thus, the front desk clerk profits by pocketing some cash and the couple benefits by obtaining a room for the night. Each party served him/themselves. There is less initial consideration for others (i.e. the poor schmucks who took the time to make the reservation) from this moral system.
Ethical or enlightened egoism changes the focus from what some people tend to do (psychological egoism) to what people ought to do. To be clear, ethical egoism recommends that indi- viduals make decisions that benefit them. At first glance, this seems counter to what is general thought of as moral advice.
However, if we take a step back and look at the outcome of all individuals making their decisions on this basis, then each person ensures the best outcome for him/herself and with everyone individually bettered, then in aggregate, the group is bettered, as well. In addition, ethical egoism does inherently suggest that one would take into consideration the interests of others, when doing so would lead to more self-benefit, as is often the case. This aspect also makes this ethical perspective a little more palatable. For example, servers in a restaurant gen- erally want to maximize the cash they take home at the conclu- sion of their shifts. Ethical egoism says that they should care about this as it increases their consumer purchasing power, ability to meet their financial obligations, etc. The moral sys- tem continues by suggesting that their self-interest in money will lead them to look for ways of augmenting their tips. The most obvious way to do so is to better please the customer.
Thus, although it is a selfish interest that drives the service to improve, both the server and the customer benefit in the end.
Quite opposite to consequentialism is Universalism. Whereas consequentialism dispenses with the means to focus on the end, universalism does not care so much about the ending result because the emphasis is placed on the means. Essentially, uni- versalism involves upholding certain values regardless of their
Human resource management’s role in ethics within the hospitality industry
165 ● ● ● ●
immediate consequence. To revisit an earlier example, when Steve Jobs decided to lower the prices of the iPhone and refund money to those who were willing to pay the higher price, it is suspected that his action was propelled by his sense that he was choosing the right course of action. The concern was on the means of returning the money, not the negative effect it might have on the tremendous number of people who purchased their iPhones between their release date and 2 weeks before his announcement. Those affected individuals would be doubt- less angry that they spent an additional $200 on a product that others got so much cheaper by waiting a relatively short time.
Such an action also sets a bad precedent for any future Apple product as people will want to wait to see if the price drasti- cally drops after it has been available for a while or people may continue to be late adopters of the product. In the worst case scenario, some people may never actually get around to pur- chasing the product because any day the price might drop and they never wish to purchase it before that happens. In essence, they are paralyzed from ever making the purchase.
Deontology is also easily contrasted with utilitarianism.
Whereas utilitarianism regards each individual as equivalent to each other individual and the emphasis is on the greatest number of individuals impacted, deontology focuses on the rights of an individual. Each individual has rights and each one is to be respected. Following these lines, if there is an action that would benefit many, but would trample on the rights of one, it would not be considered as a viable, ethical option. For exam- ple, in this day and age when so many companies (e.g. Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, WorldCom) are in the headlines for scandals, it becomes tempting for a company that is suspected of wrong- doing to quickly name a scapegoat and expeditiously put the matter to bed. While this action may curry favor with the sus- picious public and save many innocent employees’ positions, such behavior would not be considered ethical under the deon- tological moral system as the scapegoat’s rights have been vio- lated. To aid your understanding, the same example would be considered an ethical choice according to utilitarianism because the greatest good for the greatest number of people was served.