• Replies 10 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 10290 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

The moral responsibility of people managers

Victoria Dmochowski

"All people managers have a responsibility to look after their staff. This is not just a financial or performance responsibility - this is a moral responsibility, it's part of being a human." says Tony Vickers-Byrne in TV interview: bit.ly/2SVLh9a 

If people tend to be promoted into management roles because they're expert in their field rather than experts in managing people, are we expecting them to do too much safeguarding of people?

Does your organisation train line managers on how to manage people or does HR tend to step in when things go wrong? What does support for transitioning into management roles look like?

Parents
  • "the very purpose of limited liability was to liberate business from the constraints of ethical scruples"

    source:
    www.vhi.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/.../paper-WS-rona
  • in reply to Daniel Rodger

    Hi Daniel

    I've skimmed your article and can 't find the quote you have picked out, so I'm not sure if what I have to say actually answers the point made.

    The problem I have with the quote is the reference to "the constraints of ethical scruples". A corporate entity cannot have ethical scruples and therefore cannot be constrained by them. There is a long section in the article on two competing views of groups or bodies of people. In stating that a corporate entity cannot have ethical scruples, I am coming down on one side of the argument: it seems to me that the individuals that make up a group can clearly have moral scruples but a body corporate, being a notional entity, cannot. In everyday speech we may talk about a company as if it does have a moral character: Company X is an ethical employer, Company Y is dodgy. That is just a convenient shorthand. What we are really commenting on is how the management and staff act.

    Coming back to the quote, there are constraints on the activities of a business. Limited liability does not liberate the directors from the consequences of acting unethically (which is not the same as having ethical scruples - you could have scruples but go ahead anyway). If the directors act ethically and with due diligence, then their liability is limited but if they break the law, limited liability won't liberate them from going to prison or whatever penalty the law imposes if responsibility can be traced to them. If they act legally but unethically, limited liability will not liberate them from the consequences of public scorn.

    As I couldn't spot the quote I don't know if it was a conclusion drawn by the author of the article or a quote from someone else, but either way, I think it is inaccurate.

  • in reply to Elizabeth Divver
    One has to grit teeth and endure it all until the very end, Elizabeth - the very last sentence I think contains that quote.
    (I was taught that the limited liability company arose in consequence of and / or in order to facilitate The First Industrial Revolution and that it was nothing to do with 'ethical scruples'. Indeed, in the 150-odd years between c 1730 and 1870 British Society was permeated by (Christian) 'ethical scruples' - consider such things as employment law / factories acts / abolition of slavery / (even) the Poor Laws..........)
  • in reply to Elizabeth Divver
    Hi Elizabeth,

    Thank you for your response. I understand what you are saying. I could be wrong in my opinions. To be honest, I found that article a bit heavy going, but I was interested in the quote which supported some ideas of my own. Here are some other quotes from other articles:

    "Suppose a corporation owns a warehouse. Through the improper storage of highly flammable materials, the warehouse catches fire and burns to the ground. Additionally, the flames spread and five homes adjacent to the warehouse are destroyed. The damage to the homes totals two million dollars.
    The corporation only has one million dollars in assets. It declares bankruptcy and one million dollars are distributed to the damaged homeowners. Under the doctrine of limited liability, the shareholders of the corporation are not liable for the additional one million dollars. The homeowners, for the remaining damages, are simply out of luck."

    objectivistanswers.com/.../is-the-practice-of-limited-liability-for-corporations-morally-justified

    "Although corporations are an entrenched force in our civilization that probably aren’t going anywhere soon, it’s not obvious that corporations are morally justified or supported by any system of justice. Libertarian justice don’t necessarily support limited liability considering that it allows companies to disrespect human rights and refuse to pay the full damages done. Utilitarian justice doesn’t necessarily support corporations because it’s not clear that limited liability is really best for the “greater good.” Rawls’s theory of justice doesn’t necessarily support corporations because limited liability can give the wealthy more rights and less responsibilities than are enjoyed by the poor, and it’s not clear that the poor will benefit from it."

    ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/.../

    ‘The consequences of the Companies Act 1862 completed the divorce between the Christian conscience and the economic practice of everyday life. Legally speaking it paganised the financial and commercial community. Henceforward an astute man by adherence to legal rules which had nothing to do with morality could grow rich by virtue of shuffling off his most elementary obligations to his fellows.’

    Sir Arthur Bryant

    'Limited liability is contrary to biblical teaching because, exceptionally in the law of contract, it allows that certain debts may be left unpaid. As a result shareholders, who retain rights of ownership, are excused responsibilities of ownership, while directors bear some of the responsibilities of ownership, and share some of the rewards, but carry few of the risks. This flaw at the heart of corporate structure leads to problems in corporate governance, absence of corporate social accountability, and an unhealthy trend towards corporate giantism. Solutions lie, it is argued, in policies that restore shareholder liability, and incentives for business not to incorporate.'

    Source:
    http//www.jubilee-centre.org/risk-reward-and-responsibility-limited-liability-and-company-reform-by-michael-schluter/

    'It's time to recognize limited liability for what it is: a subsidy for corporations paid by those hurt by malfeasance'

    Source:
    https//www.thenation.com/article/reforming-limited-liability-law/

    My experience in the workplace is that people don't take ownership. There is always a gap where someone is not taking ownership of a matter. Having reflected on this and researched and read a bit online I think it may be connected with the Limited Liability Act which separated ownership from management. The Quakers were opposed to this Act on the grounds that it was amoral (or immoral?).

    "...was it morally right to relieve the owners of a business from responsibility for its actions? "

    Source:
    throughtheflamingsword.wordpress.com/.../

    When we own something we tend to manage or treat it better than if we don't own it. If we don't something we may be more negligent with it. I think this may explain why companies are not as well managed as they could be.
  • in reply to Daniel Rodger

    All this seems to be straying well away from the topic of individual HR professionals’ moral compasses (Or TomToms or Garmins or whatever).

    Arguably the financing and therefore the very existence of the infrastructure which now supports all our lives today wouldn’t have been possible without limited liability companies - for example, the canals and later the railways typically involved huge projects which were (a) impossible for any sole proprietor to finance and (b) only attractive to the millions of investors that collectively funded them because their personal liabilities in investing were limited to the amount invested.

    Long ago, CIPD Professional membership required serious study of Economics and Social Sciences broadly. It’s something of a pity IMHO that it’s now seemingly so narrow.

Reply
  • in reply to Daniel Rodger

    All this seems to be straying well away from the topic of individual HR professionals’ moral compasses (Or TomToms or Garmins or whatever).

    Arguably the financing and therefore the very existence of the infrastructure which now supports all our lives today wouldn’t have been possible without limited liability companies - for example, the canals and later the railways typically involved huge projects which were (a) impossible for any sole proprietor to finance and (b) only attractive to the millions of investors that collectively funded them because their personal liabilities in investing were limited to the amount invested.

    Long ago, CIPD Professional membership required serious study of Economics and Social Sciences broadly. It’s something of a pity IMHO that it’s now seemingly so narrow.

Children
No Data