Bureaucracy as an Ethical Way

Bureaucracy as an Ethical Way to Lead

Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant believed that the categorical imperative was the basis for ethical action in business. The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, which he defined as any proposition that declares a certain action or inaction to be necessary and denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that "asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as and end it itself" (Kant 30). In essence, Kant believed that the moral character of an action depends solely on the principle behind it and not upon the consequences it produces, and therefore, ethical obligations are "higher truths" which we must obey regardless of the results (Josephson Institute 1). In viewing this obligation to follow the higher truths that are presented to someone throughout his or her life, the question of ethics and follow-through comes into play. While many of us would like to say that we hold true to these standards, the truth is that a complete adherence to this categorical imperative is hard to come by, especially in viewing the business world. A complete adherence to ethics within the business world appears to be something that is seen far less in the public eye than is seen a straying away from these moral standards. However, in understanding how the categorical imperative is used within business, one can better understand how this concept can successfully lay the foundation for ethical business practices in any company or organization.

Categorical Imperative in Business

The ability to hold business ventures to ethical standards envisioned by Kant is not as difficult as one may imagine. The categorical imperative does not exist only to aid business managers and employees in the understanding and decision-making processes of large-scale projects. Rather, the categorical imperative exists on all levels. Norman E. Bowie (2002), notes that Kantian philosophy can be applied to any business question or venture, simply by assessing that Kant would require us to universalize the maxim of an action (Bowie 4). Bowie uses the example of an executive questioning whether he should borrow money to finance a project, knowing full-well that he has no intention of paying the money back upon the project's completion. Kant would lay the scenario out in the following ethical terms: is it ever ethical to make a lying promise? In viewing the scenario in a clear-cut manner, any moral person can see that the answer is clearly, "no."

The same standards can apply to any situation in the business world, but the capacity of an individual to comply with this categorical imperative is less likely as the infraction against morality becomes smaller or less noticeable in their own minds. For example, while lying to receive funding may seem a clear-cut infraction upon a business and its ethical codes, do individuals or businesses believe lesser infractions to be off less importance? Take an individual who calls in sick in order to avoid a business meeting. Under the categorical imperative, this action holds just as much weight as the prior infraction. As previously noted, under Kant's standards, there are no exceptions.

Recipe for Success

The longevity and success of any business stems from its ability to most successfully serve its employees, customers and stakeholders in a forthright and transparent manner. In a world where it is all-too-common to see and hear stories of corrupt businesses and corporations misleading their stakeholders, companies who chose to uphold higher standards for themselves have the capacity to gain significant respect and therefore patronage of the general public. Kant believed that our duty to uphold the ethical standards of the categorical imperative is truly inflexible. In other words, there is no ability, under Kant's guidelines, for one to exclude themselves from the duties that human beings under this standard are all held to.

The belief that looking the other way in terms of ethical standards cannot hurt the greater good of a company is a completely naive notion. Much like the adage, "one bad apple spoils the bunch," so too can a mere instance of unethical behavior within a business throw a theoretical wrench in the works of everything that company has set out to do. Therefore, an ethical framework must be laid out within a company from the ground-up, cemented in all levels of employee actions, in order to ensure that a certain standards of ethics and excellence is required. In situations such as this, business managers as well as entry-level employees must hold themselves to the same standards, each operating on an even playing field. Author Lisa Keele notes that, "making excuses for yourself does not get you out of your moral duty . . . no one is above the moral law" (Keele 1).

Again, an understanding that a blanket ethical code is necessary for the functioning of a business is key to that business' relative success. As mentioned previously, infractions against company insiders and stakeholders are never tolerable under Kantian standards. One exception to the rule will do nothing but lead to a downward spiral of ethical violations. No matter how small these infractions might seem, in theory, they will add up to catastrophe.

Such operations against the categorical imperative have been seen in recent years, placing shame upon businesses whose ethical violations have been made public. Take, for example, the Enron scandal, which not only left the company in disgrace, but is still considered to be one of the most deceitful business catastrophes in recent history. Not only did this instance leave the company in disgrace, but it left other companies looking inward at their own transparency policies and ethical codes.