A national organization had reserved a hotel’s
conference facilities in Arizona prior to the passing of legislation in that
state targeting undocumented people of color. One member of its board objected
to the organization going ahead with the conference in Arizona, despite the
financial penalty it would have to pay for canceling the reservation, but a
majority of the board voted to proceed with their meeting plans. What should
those opposed this decision do?
Professional organizations
have ethical responsibilities like individuals. We expect organizations to be
honest in their dealings, prudent in their decision, and fair in their
treatment of others. We also want the leaders of organizations to carry out
their roles dutifully and to assess the consequences of decisions with the
greatest good in mind. Organizations get held to the same ethical standards as
people because such entities remain nothing but collections of individuals.
What we expect of one member of a group, we should expect of all.
That, however, discounts
the effect that interpersonal dynamics can have on the individuals in a group.
As we saw with the often-ordinary German citizens engaging in heinous behavior
under the Nazi regime during World War II, actions that many would likely have
found objectionable prior to the war began to seem normal and socially
acceptable in the perverse psychology practiced by the Nazi’s. The ethics of
the group, in this case, veered far from what most people would consider
ethical. While most Nazis carried out their duties faithfully, their actions
toward the Jews and other minority groups represented an almost complete lack
of virtue – dishonest, imprudent, intemperate, and unfair – and an almost
complete blindness to the dire and ultimately self-destructive consequences of
such behavior.
The Nazi example can make
all other ethical dilemmas pale by comparison, bit it does highlight an
important aspect of organizational ethics. How should an individual member of a
group respond to actions taken by the whole that the person finds ethically
objectionable? Does a member of a group have a duty to accept the will of the
majority or does that person have a stronger duty to follow his or her own
conscience and to refuse to follow objectionable actions by others?
It depends. In a
democracy, citizens not only have the right to vote for those who we want to
represent us, but also the responsibility to obey the law, even when we disagree
with it. We saw that in Arizona when, in response to that state’s enacting of a
law that allows police to target immigrants, people protested for a while, but
the real action will come in the next election when those same opponents have a
chance to elect new representatives willing to change the law.
That same duty, though,
does not apply to those in other states or nations. They did not elect the leadership
in Arizona who passed this legislation and so non-residents who object to the
Arizona law have a right and, ethically, an obligation to put conscience before
convenience and to refuse to participate. The extent to which a person takes
that refusal remains up to them. In this case, one member of the board decided
to resign rather than continue to take part in the organization, while others
decided to remain involved in the group, but to skip the Arizona meeting.
Some might argue that
refusing to take part in an organization or to go to a meeting does little to change
things, but that depends upon what we mean by change. Groups may not care about
isolated protests and individual acts of conscience not sizable enough to disrupt
the whole, but the individuals taking these actions do care and that is all
that matters ethically. The most powerful force on earth remains our refusal to
go along with something that we see as wrong. No amount of social pressure or
physical coercion can match the power of a committed will.
No comments:
Post a Comment