Instituciones educativas (I.E.)

In moral philosophy, the ethical theories that have exerted the most influence on the EDM models (particular reference to model by Hunt & Vitell) can be classified as either teleological or deontological (Malhotra & Miller 1998).

Teleological theories focus on the “ends” or consequences of the behaviours whereas deontological theories are based upon the “means” and “motives” of the specific behaviours of an individual (Ferrell & Gresham 1985; Hunt & Vitell 1986). Derived from the Greek word telos that means “goal” or “end”, a teleological act is acceptable and right only if it produces some desired result in terms of pleasure, knowledge, career growth and anything else of utility (Grace & Cohen 2005; Preston 2001, p. 43). Conversely, decisions considered deontological, from the Greek word deon meaning “duty”, are expressed by a sense of moral obligation to repay debts, inter alia, and tell the truth because it is the right thing to do (Preston 2001, p. 43; Reidenbach & Robin 1990).

The key issue in teleological theories is the amount of good or bad embodied in the consequences of the behaviours (Hunt & Vitell 1986). As such, they are regarded also as consequential theories. The two main consequential theories are egoism and utilitarianism. Egoism holds that an act is ethical when the consequences are most favourable for the individual (Hunt & Vasquez-Parraga 1993). In contrast, utilitarianism, which emphasises the principle of greatest net utility, contends that an act is right only if it produces for all people a greater balance of good over bad consequences than any other alternative behaviour (Hunt & Vitell 1986; Preston 2001; Tsalikis & Fritzsche 1989). Though this may be a very pragmatic approach to promote, utilitarianism runs into difficulties of failing to recognise the rights of minorities and requires a lot of self-sacrifice on the part of the individuals for the greater benefit of the group (Francis 1994).

Instead of consequences, the key issue in deontological theories is the inherent righteousness of behaviour based on principles of justice, basic rights, duties, obligations, responsibilities, proper conduct and inherent natural rights of others (Akaah 1997; Cherry & Fraedrich 2002; Hunt & Vitell 1986). Known also as non-consequential theories, two that have found considerable acceptance are [1] the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and [2]

Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which states that a course of action is ethical when it can serve as a universal law. That is, the willingness of the decision-maker to be treated likewise should positions be reversed (Malhotra & Miller 1998).

Malhotra and Miller (1998) and Tsalikis and Fritzsche (1989) have provided short summaries of these theories as well as a hybrid of normative approaches - [1] Ross’s prima facie duties comprising fidelity, gratitude, justice, beneficence,

self-improvement and non-injury;

[2] Rawl’s maximin principle of justice founded on the equal liberty and difference principles;

[3] Garrett’s principle of proportionality which is a synthesis of intention, means and end;

[4] ethical relativism which asserts that all moral standards and rules of conduct are relative to particular cultures and thus morality is entirely a matter of conforming to the norms acceptable in one’s own culture.

According to Francis (2000), deontology requires a commitment to the ethical act for the duties are not in the abstract but rather toward some person, group or idea. In hierarchical form, firstly, they range from duty to self, to family, to local community, to the nation and to humanity and secondly, they range from the intensely personal to conforming to an ideal. They are often faced with a problem of not being able to specify what precisely the duties and moral obligations are as the resulting actions are judged by their intentions.

Even though certain situations could induce some individuals to behave as “strict” deontologists (ignoring teleological factors) or teleologists (ignoring deontological considerations), Hunt and Vitell’s (1986, 1993) model proposed that individuals generally in most situations would depend on both teleological and deontological considerations when making judgements. These together with teleological considerations would then form their intentions.

This proposal has been supported by empirical findings, for example, Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993), Mayo and Marks (1990) and Vitell and Hunt (1990). Between deontological and teleological considerations, Etzioni (1988) and Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993) indicated that decision-makers would rely principally on the former and secondarily on the latter. Hunt and Vitell (1993) also asserted that ethical norms and sensitivities do vary among individuals and organisations of different

cultural, personal, industry and professional environments. These differences could potentially cause two principals with similar ethical processing styles (deontological or teleological) to be dissimilar with regards to outcomes in ethical viewpoints, beliefs or behaviours.

4.9 SUMMATION

By way of summation, Figure 4.1 illustrates schematically the contingency factors (as discussed above) that are influential in the EDM of managers toward FLE. Decision-making is affected by attitudes, which in succession are determined by, among other factors, the personality of the individual. Two main factors impinge upon person: genes and cultural environment. Social, historical and ecological factors of the environment interact with genetic components to impact the cognitive capabilities of the manager. These elements combined in effect influence the person and are responsible for the attitudes that guide the ethical perspective (teleological and/or deontological) of the manager as expressed through his or her decisions and actions. The decision outcome (ethical or unethical) will produce a feedback loop. An attitudinal evaluation occurs and this in turn will affect the individual’s cultural and ethical orientations, which can lead to changes in attitudes and future decision making and action outcomes.

Action/Behaviour [Ethical/Unethical] Decision-making [Deontological/Teleological] Culture Levels Gender Age National Race/Ethnic Attitudes Religious Organisational Industry Professional Personality Cognition Cultural Environment* Genes

Note: *Cultural environment is made up of historical, ecological and social factors

CHAPTER V

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND