AUGUST 2005 - ISSUE 5 - ISSN 1448 - 632

PUTTING MORAL TEMPERAMENT TO WORK DISCERNING THE PRESENCE OF "MORALITY" IN THE WORKPLACE   PETER DEVENISH-MEARES

ABSTRACT

Business is increasingly naming ethical corporate practice and the creation of people-centred workplaces as key goals. These imperatives are underscored by employees’ needs such as equity, meaning and transparent, holistic decision making. In that human flourishing is a key goal of spirituality and employee satisfaction is a crucial HR goal made at work, this article considers personal temperament in the context of workplace characteristics. Some differences between compliance-driven, reactive based tactics as opposed to relational, growth-oriented ways of enacting work choices will be explored. This is done in the hope of stimulating further inter-disciplinary conversations between business leaders and ethicists about how to facilitate life-giving workplaces.

Workplaces are a useful field of study because the tension between organizational and personal imperatives may cause us to discern and determine what is important to us.  It also periodically manifests inappropriate or unjustified behaviours especially if we use a social justice lens or base our review on ethical grounds.   A workplace is an also an ideal choice for morality issues because it enables us to interact with others in arguably, complaint (super ego driven?), preservation leaning or growth oriented ways.

What is at work here? situations that are overpowered by rules and corporate-speak (for the good of the company) or encounters oriented towards integrity? Well, many workplaces are relatively authoritarian and unfree places of unsophisticated discernment however this comes at a cost to human functioning.  Perhaps this is because organisations are often oriented to accumulate and become successful. If this is so, then is temperance, that is, actioning needs in terms of well being a primary driver, at work?

Research indicates that there is considerable personal costs associated with sick leave, occupational health and family issues arising from workplace dysfunctionality.  But what of peoples’ own goals and the recipocracy of their work contract especially; the phenomena of people who give three decades of (work) life to the firm then due to enforced redundancy, find themselves cast out, no longer needed.  What dignity, human flourishing and needs are met in this situation?  In this light then, the key question of this brief research is

Does the workplace enable contemporary moral theological characteristics to be actualised; so as to enable growth, integrity and balance to be achieved?

The link with moral theology is that workplaces are increasingly recognised as places of societal engagement, personal work/life balance and growth and mutually advantageous co-operation; where corporate goals can align with individual satisfaction and flourishing.  All of this takes active reflection and conviction as anchors for taking heart and acting with courage.  James Keenan in his paper on The Virtue of Courage picks up on the call to courage; where we activate justice, fidelity and self-esteem, arguably essential workplace characteristics. [1]

Despite the challenges of balancing corporate needs against personal goals, workplace can underpin issue a growing call to be true to one’s own synderesistic call and yet function within the requirements of workplace collectivity. [2]

  People justify workplace activity or organizational imperatives as reasons for their actions a workplace is an essential form of working out actions it could be termed a place where “Moral science” is operationalised  – the process of working it out – seeking advice and object reality; I link this to the personalistic criterion vis, the person adequately considered (Chapter 5 Gula)

To set the scene further, a workplace is an opportunity to examine the revealed reality of Christian faith and consider if our actions are based on love when we respond to others and on growth-oriented temperance when we make determinations? Further, the rule-oriented workplace paradigm is under stress from values-oriented calls and work-life balance.  This offers us a chance to test our temperaments and decision-making processes not only for obedience’s sake but also for the sake of growth, balance and integrity. 

Workplaces are also interesting because they contain certain minimum expectations of behaviour based on law or industry or personal codes of practice or Conduct.  Yet, are these enough?  Well, they would be appear to have a foundation in positive law where we set a minimum standard which may nor may not drive a positive value.  For example, I know a workplace where an Internet and Email Code of Conduct prohibits certain illicit behaviours but does not actively drive more positive outcomes such as pro-active communications that could be termed dignity or relational building. The proof of this is the plethora of emails that are indifferent, blame-oriented or demanding yet are “OK” (sic) because they contain no illicit material in terms of the Code.

We have heard people justify their actions on the basis of the organizational imperative (someone told me to do it) or the need (sic) for individual empowerment (I have permission to exercise my own delegation). [3]

 Oftentimes we hear the call to allow staff freedom to use common sense or personal judgements (however informed) with little regard for outcomes.  Although exhibiting rejection of morality and perhaps not “amoral” to use Soren Kierkegaard’s term such workplaces illustrate the tension between informed conscious, unmitigated freedom, collective actions and actus hominus are often well illustrated.

Perhaps one way to consider this is to assume that we are called to a life full of integrity.  Then arguably, this imperative is required across all fields of human endeavour.  In this way workplaces offer an opportunity to fulfill our nature but more importantly, and problematically, keep God central. [4]

 This allows us to review the rule of thumb that people are responsible unless careful study indicates otherwise.  Moreover, the relationship is two way as applied academics now realize  “…workplaces affect people and the world of work affects the building of a community, facilitates good human relationships and human fulfillment…,” which moral theology would term “human flourishing”. [5]

Using flourishing as a key goal, we can consider moral and ethical issues in the workplace on a scale ranging from the compliance/preservation orientations end towards growth-oriented perspectives. Arguably the more compliant oriented approaches while not necessarily relationally no well being oriented still encourage ethical behaviour.  Neither end is necessarily right nor wrong, and both offer challenges.  They are shown here in more detail:

 

Compliance / Preservation	Growth
Prescriptive Orientation	Contextual/relational Orientation

Compliance

In terms of compliance, a workplace can allow the super-ego fuller reign to work.  This is because there is often absolute authority, disproportionate power, operational fear and punitive issues at work.  These are justified to gain staff compliance where a person will seek to avoid exceptional or aberrant behaviour out of sense of avoiding punitive action.  They are pervading environments often seen as maintaining order (e.g. the military).  This may still bring about appropriate outcome, because while it may not be so much for wholeness’s sake but to avoid error/evil or other things detrimental to the corporate “good”. 

Preservation

While not offering the same compliance driven framework these too seek to maintain what us as opposed to existential expressions as an internal set of values, workplace codes of conduct seek to provide some ethical framework for right conduct with others.

Growth

From a growth-oriented perspective, a workplace can enable right relationships.  Opening ourselves to challenge offers opportunities to learn balance and become more integration-oriented. This re-visits Janssen’s point about the beneficial acts of a person in the context of others. [6]   Moreover, a workplace also operationalises teleological phenomena in that people are goal directed to achieve personal and corporate outcomes.

Workplaces enable us to consider the place of social sin, for example, a workplace can demonstrate collective think around bullying (e.g. a building site or university hazing [7] ) or indifference to the plight of the oppressed.  For me, this may be underscored by a sense of inappropriate allocation of resources – i.e. it costs too much to do what we want to do to protect rivers from pollution. 

As opposed to exclusively individual consequences social sin is the systemic sense of sin arising from how individuals create or support structures; structures arise out of our personal choices.  As Gula says, since we participate in creating society we share responsibility for causing social sin…” [8]   For a workplace, this, as Gula indicates albeit in a social context, offers us the option of making further decisions to support such structures.  This may best be illustrated in these paradoxical examples

(a) Managers publish and enforce occupational health and safety rules in the workplace about substances and chemicals (ostensibly to protect people) but feel unable to prevent contexts where corporate goals encourage people to disrespect each other in the name of competition

(b) Managers preside over environmental damage not so much by encouraging disrespect for nature (i.e. polluting) but more subtlety in that environmental matters are considered too costly or not considered organisational imperatives.

Post-conventional Movements

When considering goals, Australian business is increasingly committed to making absolute best use of our most critical non-capital resource, people.  If appropriately informed such action can also support attainment of individual, corporate and societal goals. [9]   So, conversely, while workplaces are relatively authoritarian places lacking sophisticated discernment and arguably close to Kohlberg’s “conventional” stage of conscience, they are also evidence that post-conventional ideas such as social contracts are afoot. 

Considerable information is emerging overseas about mutual benefits from supporting individuals in the workplace and immunising against emotional and physical stress. [10]   In this context, some Australian workplaces have sought to move away from compliance-based action towards balanced, integration-oriented places where corporate and personal goals can both prosper.  Examples include, companies such as the CBA engaging with and recruiting staff to help community and land care groups, adopting contracts of learning, promoting individual workplace staff performance coaching and implementing ethical annual business reporting around environmental issues. [11]   James Keenan’s “stewardship” principle around the ideas of preserving what we have would tend to capture this set of emerging trends. [12]

Discernment and Temperance

Workplaces offer rich opportunities to learn true discernment by gathering information, acting appropriately and then seeking feedback.  This active dialogue of discernment engages with wisdom which seeks to source itself in experiences, the “insights” and reflections of people and groups that we are associated with and draw on our heritage. [13]

While this is eminently non-moral theological language and hence readily useable in the workplace, it nevertheless activates the work of theologians such as James Keenan.  His work on temperance – here explained in terms of managing our needs, “integrating and (seeking) well-being” gives voice to discernment as a growth-oriented and personal and professional life-giving action.  Of particular relevance to workplaces that would in fact use and do use the same language is Keenan’s model of temperate consideration and action set out below with my crude association with management speak in Column 2.

Workplaces are creating opportunities for individual growth, reflection and shared stories that touch a deeper level of relating and meaning.  In my experience these are now activated via such individual opinion gathering methods as Gallup surveys, 3600 feedback for managers drawing on anonymous assessments by peers, bosses and staff who report to them and holistic staff evaluations.  In terms of collective approaches we see directed retreats and a noticeable increase in mission-oriented language and approaches.  Further, more immediate and behavioural and psycho-social approaches as evidenced by personal coaching sessions are regularly funded by Australian corporations.

I contend that workplaces, where we spend 20% of our lives, are places where we can become more personally oriented and act with integrity.  They are evaluative opportunities because such environments offer a context to derive felt knowledge through action and reflection. Arguably in terms of the following map from Keenan’s work to secular contexts there are many cross-overs and opportunities to actualise the imperatives of integrity, personal growth and balance.  In fact, Keenan’s work needs very little de-theologising because it appears holistic and reasonable in its own right and easily contextualised in contemporary management speak.

Column 1	Column 2
Keenan's Temperance Steps	Secular Workplace Orientation
Admitting the problem: the issue	Identifying the performance concern: owning the issue
Finding the right person to speak with so as to shed the vice	Analysis and process review: SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities & Threat analysis)
Finding the right exercises: ·  Balance ·  Integration ·  Consistency and Endurance ·   Not for its own sake	Considering the various courses of Action – consequences; weighting up options, considering the whole person all implications; seeking repeatable work behaviours and sharing “best practices”
Enjoying the results: celebration / reward	Performance review / outcomes
	Goal review and publication of Results

Figure 1.  Integrating Discernment into the workplace

The map shows but one example of how workplaces offer opportunities to learn and use true discernment by gathering information, acting appropriately and using reflection to review actions.  Other work, for example mapping courage, stewardship and fulfilment in the workplace could produce rich dividends (if you’ll excuse the share terminology).  Not surprisingly, these core values or goals are Kingdom oriented.

Finally in terms of enabling people the live the fullest of lives perhaps changes towards holistic discernment models and values-oriented workplaces enable the reign of God to draw closer in time and space.  Such a relational approach may just be the opportunity to invite people to inner conversions of heart and manners.

Selected References

Peter Devenish-Meares, ‘A strategic analysis of the performance of the telephone banking channel – strategy, behaviour and people’, Master of Commerce (Honours) Dissertation, Faculty of Commerce, University of Southern Queensland, September 2003

Richard M. Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, (New York: Paulist Press, 1989)

James. M. Gustafson, “Spiritual Life and Moral Life”, Theology Digest, 19:4 (Winter 1971), 296-307.

James Keenan, The Virtue of Courage , Church, 10:2 (Summer 1994)

Mark Trainor and Elizabeth Morris, Making Decisions of Conscience, St Pauls Publications, Homebush, 1996. P. 50.

Trinity and All Saints College at University of Leeds, professional studies; http://www.tasc.ac.uk/depart/theol/attachment.htm

 

FOOTNOTES

[1] James Keenan, The Virtue of Courage , Church, 10:2 (Summer 1994), 41-43.

[2] Due to threat of punishment, loss of reward or withdrawal of favour.  At worst, withdrawal of the work contract by the employer (i.e. dismissal) a most final and punitive threat to enhance conformity

[3] Perhaps this is an example of Actus Hominis – I didn’t chose – hence I am not responsible.  Yet, feeling responsible or not a number of issues confront the individual at work, the call to provide good service and be response to client and other staff members’ needs. 

[4] A key concept for Gustafson; see James. M. Gustafson, “Spiritual Life and Moral Life”, Theology Digest, 19:4 (Winter 1971), 296-307.

[5] Such personal responsibility is also informed by another related disciplines which inform moral questions at work; ethics; industrial relations legislation, human resource management; see also classes in professional studies as offered by such places as the Trinity and All Saints College at University of Leeds vis: http://www.tasc.ac.uk/depart/theol/attachment.htm

[6] Louis Janssens, “Norms and Priorities in an Ethics of Love”, Louvain Studies 4 (Spring 1997) pp. 213-214

[7] I would define “hazing” as a group consciously and inappropriately singling out an individual of class of individuals for inappropriate treatment, action or abuse ostensibly in the name of “fun” (sic) or “induction”; it leads to ostrecisation, emotional damage and collective abuse; for example, the student activities were reported some years ago at the Royal Military College, Duntroon.

[8] Gula, p. 120

[9] See research on workplace trust as a driver of performance; Peter Devenish-Meares, ‘A strategic analysis of the performance of the telephone banking channel – strategy, behaviour and people’ , Master of Commerce (Honours), Faculty of Commerce, University of Southern Queensland, September 2003

[10] Not only do corporate benefits ensue but employees stand to gain from a combination of recognition, wellness and work-life approaches thus keeping people more healthy on and off the job.

[11] termed “Triple Bottom Line” reporting; this is used increasingly by corporations such as mining companies in their annual set of financial accounts

[12] James Keenan,

[13] see the action oriented Chapter (Five) “Principles in Practice” in Mark Trainor and Elizabeth Morris, Making Decisions of Conscience, St Pauls Publications, Homebush, 1996. P. 50.

 

Peter Devenish-Meares MLitt.  MCom (Hon) is a business leader with experience in banking, education leadership and health governance. This background has been augmented by postgraduate degrees in pastoral care and ministry, business strategy, cultural history and psycho-therapy.

Email: "Peter devenish-meares" <devenip@hotmail.com>

 

 

© Copyright is retained by the author