MODUL PERKULIAHAN

Judul :

Business Ethics &

Corporate Govern ance
Pokok Bahasan:

Employer
Responsibilities and
Employee Rights
Fakultas

Program
Studi

Ekonomi dan
Bisnis

Magister
Manajemen

Abstract

Tatap
Muka/Ma
ya

06

Kode MK

Disusun Oleh

35040

Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Kompetensi

Topik ini membahas hubungan baik yang

saling menguntungkan antara tanggung jawab
pemilik perusahaan sebagai pemberi kerja
dengan hak-hak karyawannya di tempat kerja.
Perusahaan bisa menginvestasikan semua
uangnya membeli teknologi terbaru, namun
peningkatan produktivitas memerlukan
loyalitas karyawannya.

Setelah mempelajari materi dalam topic ini,

sdr diharapkan dapat menjelaskan bagaimana
keragaman yang harmonis dapat diciptakan
ditempat kerja karena hubungan baik yang
tercipta antara owner yang berkepentingan
dengan profit produktivitas dan efisiensi kerja,
dengan karyawannya yang berkepentingan
thd lingkungan kerja, kesehatan dan
keselamatan kerja.

Pembahasan:

What is Ethical or Moral?

What do we mean by ethical decision making? Are there decisions that are not ethical in that
there is not ethical component to a choice? In their review of ethical decision making,
Tenbruensel and Smith-Crowe (2008) present a distinction between moral decision making
and amoral decision making. Within each class of decisions, one can make ethical decision or
unethical decisions. They further argue that social scientist should not be in the business of
telling people what they should do, that is define what is ethical and what is not, but they do
acknowledge the necessity to define the criteria by which decisions are placed into their
typology for analytical purposed. It is very difficult to define ethical behavior. Many
definitions exist, but most depend on using some standard of ethical behavior from which to
judge the individuals behavior. Any standard used is subjective and cultural in nature and
subject to intensive debate.
Schulman (2002) defines moral behavior as acts intended to produce kind and/or fair
outcomes (p. 500). This is similar to prosocial behavior or goal identification as a source of
motivation in that the behavior is labeled moral if it is intended to produce a positive
outcome for others. He argues that moral motivation is rooted in three moral systems: (1)
Empathy, (2) Moral Affiliations, and (3) Principles. If we accept this notion that moral
behavior is defined in terms of intention to help others (as opposed to egoistic motives), then
we need to examine the relevant other.
In attempting to define ethical decisions, Jones writes that "An ethical decision is a decision
that is both legally and morally acceptable to the larger community. (1991, p. 387)". This
definition moves away from absolute standard of judgment to a social standard, based on
cultural, organizational, or community standards. It still begs the issue to which stand to use
when one is operating in over-lapping reference groups. I find the other inclusion in this
definition very interesting. He adds to concept of "legality" in is definition implying that
"breaking the law" is by definition unethical or immoral. Personally, I can think of countless
examples of individuals breaking the law and being very moral or ethical. For me, a useful
conceptualization of ethics has to differentiate between legal and ethical. In fact, these are
two of the many social control mechanisms used to curtail unwanted social behavior. Laws
and ethical standards may coincide or reinforce each other, supplement each other, or conflict
with one another.
There is an inherent problem in attempting to define ethical decision-making or moral
behavior. What we are doing in trying to define these concepts is starting with the answer
rather than the question. While the concept of ethics provides a nice category of inquiry, it
isolates the concepts associated with what we call ethics from other models of decisionmaking and motivation. Why do we need special models of ethical decision-making and
moral motivation when we have spent been years developing models of motivation and
decision-making. If our "mainstream" behavioral models are not robust enough to include
201
5

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

ethical issues within them, then they need to be expanded. Rather than start with the answer,
let's start with defining the behavioral phenomena that the concepts of ethics and morals are
attempting to explain. From an organizational or even societal perspective, we are interested
in explaining and understanding cross-individual behavioral consistency (CIBC). What
organizational or societal forces or mechanisms create consistency of behavior among
members? How is behavioral control of organizational and societal members achieved?

The Question of Social Control

How do groups and organizations stops people from doing undesirable things and do
desirable things? Katz and Kahn (1966) argue that there are three fundamental forces
reducing human variability creating some degree of social control. The first control
mechanism is environmental pressures. Task requirements of group and social goals act to
achieve a level of coordinated effort among group members. Individuals sacrifice their
individual short-term needs to accomplish long-term objectives. In doing so they give up
their individual freedoms to the control of the group. The second control mechanism
discussed by Katz and Kahn, is shared values and expectations. When members of a group
develop common goals and mutual expectations these social goals and group norms become
the basis of behavior of the group's members through a system of internalization of these
behavioral standards. Finally, Katz and Kahn argue that variability is reduced by rule
enforcement. Rules can come in the form of laws, regulations, or codes, and are enforced
through a system of an external control. External control systems require some level of
monitoring of behavior and the use of some base of power to ensure that individuals follow
these rules. Rules can also be more in formal, presenting themselves in the form of social
norms, which are enforced through a system of monitoring and contingent use of social
power.
We can use the Katz & Kahn model as a basis for understanding CIBC. Individual behavioral
control can come through internal or external control mechanisms. The standards of social
monitoring can be through observation of processes or behavior or the outcomes or results of
behavioral patterns. A typology of social control mechanisms can be developed as shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1

External Control

Internal Control

Process/Means
Deontological

Norms
Laws
Codes of Ethics

Instrumental values

Outcome/Ends
Utilitarian

Social values
Stakeholder interests

Terminal values
Personal Standards

201
5

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

Internalized interests of others

In most situations when we refer to unethical behavior, we mean one of four things.

Behavior that is Dishonest

When we lie, cheat or steal to achieve a personal or group goal, others view our behavior as
unethical. Using this standard of ethics, it is the means used to achieve an outcome and not
the outcome itself that determines whether the decision leading to the behavior is ethical or
not. Falling into this category are making false representations, not meeting promised
commitments, and misleading others

Compliance with ethical standards

Another important ethical standard is the use of codes, rules, guidelines and other systems
that attempt to identify certain behaviors or means which are in themselves unethical. These
culturally designed and promulgated codes of conduct or ethical systems generally provide
lists of what things one should do and not do. They range from very general, such as the Ten
Commandments, to professionally or organizationally specific, like a legal code of ethics or a
company code of conduct. Most of these rules are designed to create fairness and equity,
respect for others, and systems of non-discrimination. They also function to balance power
and protect the powerless.
From a social psychological perspective these ethical codes operate like other process based
control systems such as state laws, company rules and policies, or social norms in that they
are enforced through both external and internal means. Figure 2 presents a model of rule or
behavioral standard compliance which should apply to any behaviorally-based or process
based standard whether it be termed a norm, rule, guideline or ethical code.
Enforcement. How do social units ensure standards of desirability are adhered to? Another
way to phrase this question is why to individuals adhere to social standards of desirability?
External or internal control mechanisms.
1. External Control Mechanisms. How are rule and social norms enforced
by groups? The short answer is that group members reward compliance
and punish noncompliance- To the extent that members hold some base of
power, individuals can be made to comply with standards.
2. Internal Control. What would happen is all social units had to rely on a
system of monitoring and enforcement to ensure stability? The result
could be that half of the population would be employed to monitor the
other half. Who would monitor the control agents? It would be like
Deadwood, South Dakota in the 1880s which had no laws and few if any
social standards. Many of the residents believed that anything was
acceptable including murder. You can see why it would be impractical to
rely entirely on external control. In most cases, external control is only
necessary for a small portion of the population. Most societal or
201
5

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

organizational members internalize important standards in the form of

private instrumental and terminal values. Individual adopt religious
creeds, professional codes of ethics and civic laws as their own personal
standards.
Figure 2

While this model does not provide an answer to resolving an ethical crisis, it does depict the
various factors that may come into conflict when one is making a decision.

Consistency with personal and social Values

Ethics is sometimes referred to as "the study of values and moral behavior" and "Ethical
behavior is acting in ways consistent with one's personal values and the commonly held
values of the organization and society (Nelson and Quick, 2008, p, 107). In essence this
means using personal and social variables as criteria in organizational decision making and
behavioral choice decisions

Impact on others
A number of the ethical definitions listed above refer to a decision's effect on others. This
stakeholder-based approach is based on the belief that organizational decisions that bring
harm to one or more stakeholders are unethical. This is especially true if the relevant
stakeholder are relatively powerless "at the decision makers mercy." A more rigid standard in
this category holds that individuals should not only avoid doing harm to others, but even
more they should work to help others.
Jones definition of ethical decision making (taken from Velasquez & Rostankowski, 1985)
states that, a moral issue is present where a persons action, when freely performed, may
harm or benefit others (1991). It is hard for me to image an organizational decision that does
not impact on others. So why then have a special model for ethical decision making distinct
from a model of organizational decision making? For this reason, I think a unified model of
organizational decision is essential, complete with the impact of ethics, morals or values on
the decision maker.

201
5

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

I start with the stakeholder/claimant approach I used in developing the political paradigm
(Scholl, 1981). Using this approach, decision makers base organizational decisions on the
way in which these decisions impact claimants to the decision (see Figure 3).
Figure 3

Basic Question. How do decision makers respond when the demands made by the various
claimants are in conflict? The approach that I took is that the relative power of each claimant
over the decision maker determines the degree to which the decision maker attempts to
satisfy this demand. Later Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) developed a model of stakeholder
salience in which they argue that resolution of competing stakeholder claims we be based on
the relative power, legitimacy and urgency of the stakeholder and its claim.
Enter Morals, Values and Ethics. As I later developed the model, I realized the omission of
the values of the decision maker in the model. I added values as an additional claimant. It is
unrealistic to assert that a manager acts as an impartial arbiter of competing stakeholder
claims. When none of the claimants hold significant power over the decision maker, the
manager is free to make a decision based solely on his or her own interests and values
(Autonomous decision maker). The managers or decision makers' perceptions of legitimacy
and urgency are colored by their own values and managers often identify more with the
interests of one stakeholder than with others.
New Question. Why do decision makers attempt to satisfy the interests of claimants with
little to no power over them? In my view, this is the question answered by Jones (1991)
model. He argues that a variable called moral intensity determines the degree to which the
interests (effects of the decision) of non powerful claimants are considered. Moral Intensity
has 6 components:

201
5

Magnitude of consequences

Social consensus

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

Probability of effect

Temporal immediacy

Proximity

Concentration of effect

I would add another factor derived from the self concept model. This factor is the degree to
which the decision makers social identity is tied to the claimant in question (identification),
or the degree to which the decision maker personally identifies with the claimants interest.

ethical conflicts
We are fond of the term ethical or moral dilemmas to refer to intrapersonal conflicts
involving our interests, values and various ethical codes. Here is a partial list of some of the
sources of ethical conflicts. These conflicts are sometimes discussed on the concept of moralexpediant conflict or want versus should conflict (see Bazerman, Tenbrunsel & WadeBenzoni, 1998).
1

Personal values and social values

Self interests and benefit to others

Personal values and organizational rules

Ethical codes and benefit to others

Honesty and benefit to others

Personal values and social norms

University of Rhode Island

Contact information: Dr. Richard W. Scholl, 36 Upper College Road, Kingston, RI 02881

References
Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., & Gottlieb, M. 2002. Positive ethics. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology: 731-744. Oxford: University Press.
Nelson, D.L. & Quick, J.C. 2008. Understanding Organizational Behavior. Mason, OH:
Centage Learning.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. Ethical decision making: Where we've been and
where we're going. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 545-607.
201
5

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

----------------------------------------------

A Practitioner's Guide to Ethical Decision Making

Holly Forester-Miller, Ph.D. Thomas Davis, Ph.D.
Copyright 1996, American Counseling Association. A free publication of the American
Counseling Association promoting ethical counseling practice in service to the public. -Printed and bound copies may be purchased in quantity for a nominal fee from the Online
Resource Catalog or by calling the ACA Distribution Center at 800.422.2648. ACA grants
reproduction rights to libraries, researchers and teachers who wish to copy all or part of the
contents of this document for scholarly purposes provided that no fee for the use or
possession of such copies is charged to the ultimate consumer of the copies. Proper citation
to ACA must be given.

Introduction:
Counselors are often faced with situations which require sound ethical decision making
ability. Determining the appropriate course to take when faced with a difficult ethical
dilemma can be a challenge. To assist ACA members in meeting this challenge, the ACA
Ethics Committee has developed A Practitioner's Guide to Ethical Decision Making. The
intent of this document is to offer professional counselors a framework for sound ethical
decision making. The following will address both guiding principles that are globally
valuable in ethical decision making, and a model that professionals can utilize as they
address ethical questions in their work. Moral Principles Kitchener (1984) has identified five
moral principles that are viewed as the cornerstone of our ethical guidelines. Ethical
guidelines can not address all situations that a counselor is forced to confront. Reviewing
these ethical principles which are at the foundation of the guidelines often helps to clarify the
issues involved in a given situation. The five principles, autonomy, justice, beneficence, non
maleficence, and fidelity are each absolute truths in and of themselves. By exploring the
dilemma in regards to these principles one may come to a better understanding of the
conflicting issues.
1. Autonomy is the principle that addresses the concept of independence. The essence of
this principle is allowing an individual the freedom of choice and action. It addresses the
responsibility of the counselor to encourage clients, when appropriate, to make their own
decisions and to act on their own values. There are two important considerations in
encouraging clients to be autonomous. First, helping the client to understand how their
decisions and their values may or may not be received within the context of the society in
which they live, and how they may impinge on the rights of others. The second consideration
is related to the client's ability to make sound and rational decisions. Persons not capable of
making competent choices, such as children, and some individuals with mental handicaps,
should not be allowed to act on decisions that could harm themselves or others.
2.Nonmaleficence is the concept of not causing harm to others. Often explained as
"above all do no harm", this principle is considered by some to be the most critical of all the
principles, even though theoretically they are all of equal weight (Kitchener, 1984;
Rosenbaum, 1982; Stadler,1986). This principle reflects both the idea of not inflicting
intentional harm, and not engaging in actions that risk harming others (Forester-Miller &
Rubenstein, 1992).
3. Beneficence reflects the counselor's responsibility to contribute to the welfare of
201
5

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

the client. Simply stated it means to do good, to be proactive and also to prevent
harm when possible (Forester-Miller & Rubenstein, 1992).
4.Justice does not mean treating all individuals the same. Kitchener (1984) points
out that the formal meaning of justice is "treating equals equally and unequals unequally but
in proportion to their relevantdifferences" (p.49). If an individual is to be treated differently,
the counselor needs to be able to offer a rationale that explains the necessity and
appropriateness of treating this individual differently.
5. Fidelity involves the notions of loyalty, faithfulness, and honoring commitments. Clients
must be able to trust the counselor and have faith in the therapeutic relationship if growth is
to occur. Therefore, the counselor must take care not to threaten the therapeutic relationship
nor to leave obligations unfulfilled. When exploring an ethical dilemma, you need to examine
the situation and see how each of the above principles may relate to that particular case. At
times this alone will clarify the issues enough that the means for resolving the dilemma will
become obvious to you. In more complicated cases it is helpful to be able to work through th
e steps of an ethical decision making model, and to assess which of these moral principles
may be in conflict. Ethical Decision Making Model We have incorporated the work of Van
Hoose and Paradise (1979), Kitchener (1984), Stadler (1986), Haas and Malouf (1989),
Forester-Miller and Rubenstein (1992), and Sileo and Kopala (1993) into a practical, se
quential, seven step, ethical decision making model. A description and discussion of the
steps follows.
1. Identify the Problem.
Gather as much information as you can that will illuminate the situation. In doing so, it is
important to be as specific and objective as possible. Writing ideas on paper may help you
gain clarity. Outline the facts, separating out innuendos, assumptions, hypotheses, or
suspicions. There are several questions you can ask yourself: Is it an ethical, legal, prof
essional, or clinical problem? Is it a combination of more than one of these? If a legal
question exists, seek legal advice. Other questions that it may be useful to ask yourself are:
Is the issue related to me and what I am or am not doing? Is it related to a client and/or the
client's significant others and what they are or are not doing? Is it related to the institution
or agency and their policies and procedures? If the problem can be resolved by
implementing a policy of an institution or agency, you can look to the agency's
guidelines. It is good to remember that dilemmas you face are often complex, so a
useful guideline is to examine the problem from several perspectives and avoid
searching for a simplistic solution.
2. Apply the ACA Code of Ethics. After you have clarified the problem, refer to the Code of
Ethics (ACA, 2005) to see if the issue is addressed there. If there is an applicable standard
or several standards and they are specific and clear, following the course of action indicated
should lead to a resolution of the problem. To be able to apply the ethical standards, it is
essential that you have read them carefully and that you understand their implications.
If the problem is more complex and a resolution does not seem apparent, then you
probably have a true ethical dilemma and need to proceed with further steps in the
ethical decision making process.
3.Determine the nature and dimensions of the dilemma. There are several avenues to follow
in order to ensure that you have examined the problem in all its various dimensions.
- Consider the moral principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, and
fidelity. Decide which principles apply to the specific situation, and determine which principle
takes priority for you in this case. In theory, each principle is of equal value, which means
that it is your challenge to determine the priorities when two or more of them are in conflict.
- Review the relevant professional literature to ensure that you are using the
most current professional thinking in reaching a decision.
201
5

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

- Consult with experienced professional colleagues and/or supervisors. As they review with
you the information you have gathered, they may see other issues that are relevant or
provide a perspective you have not considered. They may also be able to identify aspects of
the dilemma that you are not viewing objectively.
- Consult your state or national professional associations to see if they can provide help with
the dilemma.
4. Generate potential courses of action. Brainstorm as many possible courses of action as
possible. Be creative and consider all options. If possible, enlist the assistance of at least
one colleague to help you generate options.
5. Consider the potential consequences of all options and determine a course of action.
Considering the information you have gathered and the priorities you have set, evaluate
each option and assess the potential consequences for all the parties involved. Ponder the
implications of each course of action for the client, for others who will be effected, and for
yourself as a counselor. Eliminate the options that clearly do not give the desired results or
cause even more problematic consequences. Review the remaining options to determine
which option or combination of options best fits the situation and addresses the priorities you
have identified.
6. Evaluate the selected course of action. Review the selected course of action to see if it
presents any new ethical considerations. Stadler (1986) suggests applying three simple tests
to the selected course of action to ensure that it is appropriate. In applying the test of justice,
assess your own sense of fairness by determining whether you would treat others the same
in this situation. For the test of publicity, ask yourself whether you would want your behavior
reported in the press. The test of universality asks you to assess whether you could
recommend the same course of action to another counselor in the same situation. If the
course of action you have selected seems to present new ethical issues, then you'll need to
go back to the beginning and reevaluate each step of the process. Perhaps you have
chosen the wrong option or you might have identified the problem incorrectly. If you can
answer in the affirmative to each of the questions suggested by Stadler (thus passing the
tests of justice, publicity, and universality) and you are satisfied that you have selected an
appropriate course of action, then you are ready to move on to implementation.
7. Implement the course of action. Taking the appropriate action in an ethical dilemma is
often difficult. The final step involves strengthening your ego to allow you to carry out your
plan. After
implementing your course of action, it is good practice to follow up on the situation to assess
whether your actions had the anticipated effect and consequences.
The Ethical Decision Making Model at a Glance
1. Identify the problem.
2.Apply the ACA Code of Ethics.
3.Determine the nature and dimensions of the dilemma.
4.Generate potential courses of action.
5.Consider the potential consequences of all options, choose a course of action.
6.Evaluate the selected course of action.
7.Implement the course of action.
It is important to realize that different professionals may implement different courses of
action in the same situation. There is rarely one right answer to a complex ethical dilemma.
However, if you follow a systematic model, you can be assured that you will be able to give a
professional explanation for the course of action you chose. Van Hoose and Paradise (1979)
suggest that
a counselor "is probably acting in an ethically responsible way concerning a client if (1) he or
she has maintained personal and professional honesty, coupled with (2) the best interests of
the client, (3) without malice or personal gain, and (4) can justify his or her actions as the
best judgment of what should be done based upon the current state of the profession"

201
5

10

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id

(p.58). Following this model will help to ensure that all four of these conditions have been
met.

Daftar Pustaka
American Counseling Association (2005). Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Forester-Miller, H. & Rubenstein, R.L. (1992). Group Counseling: Ethics and
Professional Issues. In D. Capuzzi & D.R. Gross (Eds.) Introduction to Group
Counseling (307-323). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.
Haas, L.J. & Malouf, J.L. (1989). Keeping up the good work: A practitioner's guide to
mental health ethics. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critic al evaluation and ethical principles: The
foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist,
12(3), 43-55.
Rosenbaum, M. (1982). Ethical problems of Group Psychotherapy. In M. Rosenbaum
(Ed.), Ethics and values in psychotherapy: A guidebook (237-257). New York: Free
Press.
Sileo, F. & Kopala, M. (1993). An A-B-C-D-E worksheet for promoting beneficence
when considering ethical issues. Counseling and Values, 37, 89-95.
Stadler, H. A. (1986). Making hard choices: Clarifying controversial ethical issues.
Counseling & Human Development, 19, 1-10.
Van Hoose, W.H. (1980). Ethics and counseling. Counseling & Human Development,
13(1), 1-12.

Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., & Gottlieb, M. 2002. Positive ethics. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology: 731-744. Oxford: University Press.
Nelson, D.L. & Quick, J.C. 2008. Understanding Organizational Behavior. Mason, OH:
Centage Learning.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. Ethical decision making: Where we've been and
where we're going. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 545-607.

201
5

11

Etika Bisnis dan Corporate

Governance Modul 6
Dr. Tri Mardjoko, SE, MA

Pusat Bahan Ajar dan eLearning

http://www.mercubuana.ac.id