Distributive and utilitarian theories of workplace fairness

Fairness in Hiring and Promotion

THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND

Fairness in hiring or promoting employees and their basic rights and duties to the organization can be interpreted in different ways. These can be in line with the distributive theory, which states that all employees be treated alike at all times in every aspect of the organization or business. Or according to the tenets of the utilitarian theory, which argues that what is good or moral is that which contributes the greatest good to the greatest number and avoids all possible harm. The distributive theory sees the individual for what he is, while the utilitarian theory measures him according to his contribution.

Among the many ethical issues in the workplace or business are fairness in hiring and promoting and employees' rights and duties (Murdock, 2011). One theory, which can be used to address these issues is the rights of justice theory or distributive theory. This evolved from the ideas of philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Rawls. Another, and opposing it, is the utilitarian theory. The distributive theory considers or includes employee welfare in corporate decisions. The utilitarian theory, on the other hand, puts the welfare of society or company above individual needs and welfare (Murdock).

Distributive Theory

The most widely used has been that of John Rawls, which he expounded in his books, "A Theory of Justice" and "Political Liberalism (Lamont, 2007). In both works, he proposes two principles. The first says that every person has a claim equal to any other person to equal basic rights and liberties. Everyone has equal political liberties and in the same scheme. The second says that social and economic inequalities occur when they are attached to positions and offices available to all under fair and equal conditions of opportunity. At the same time, these inequalities accrue to the greatest benefits of the least advantaged members of society (Lamont).

In justice and out of a sense of fairness, persons agree to share one another's conditions and fate (Lamont, 2007). They design institutions to secure the resources of nature and social circumstances only for the common benefit. The assets collected are fairly distributed among the diverse members of a group. Everything is done in the spirit and as an act of fairness to all members in exact sameness (Schlinds, 2011). Nothing is done to the detriment of any member. In an organization, everyone receives the same type and quality of treatment as any other member. A "veil of ignorance" dominates this workplace in which every member sublimates some of the things they know about themselves and others. This is done so that all members can continue to behave as equals and contribute to society in this way. Rawls argues that authoritative positions in an organization should allow any employee the chance to occupy a new position, whatever his or her background. Experience and qualification will not make a difference. Both the experienced and inexperienced may compete for the same vacancy position (Schlinds, Lamont).

Strong arguments have been raised against this theory. It goes against the very purpose of an organization to hire, develop and promote employees for greater responsibilities and professional fulfillment and higher salaries. Employees are paid differently and according to their skills, educational background and length of service to the organization. If all employees are paid alike or equally and their qualifications, performance and duration of service were ignored, they will be demoralized and discouraged. Equal or identical treatment will inversely encourage idleness, inefficiency and lack of ambition. Without motivation and a low level of efficiency, the business itself will sag and fail altogether. Another strong argument is that not all employees deserve the same salary rate or amount of vacation or personal leave. Newly hired employees should not enjoy the same benefits as employees who have worked for many years. These loyal employees will surely react against the unfairness of equal treatment.

Rawls' theory will not be feasible in an established company but for a new one. A newly formed company can accept new employees in equal or identical terms. There will be no envying, no competing. Everyone begins in the same and equal footing for those who will occupy identical or similar positions and responsibilities. Management can make their rights and duties clear at the outset and everyone is treated alike in a new environment. They are immediately informed about company expectations as well.The spirit of Rawls' theory of fairness can be adopted in this situation. The important thing is that the employee as a human being is the focus and viewed as intrinsically valuable on his own.

Resolution

Rawls' distributive theory treats every member of an organization or business not only equally but also identically. It discourages competition as it does contention. No one leads and no one follows. This is applicable only to a new business or organization, which set this norm of equal distribution of rights and duties. It can create such a policy, which no member of the organization can object to, as everyone is new.

In comparison, the utilitarian theory may be introduced or applied to an existing organization or business. All organizations and business have some form of ethical culture to carry out their goals, which cannot be inconsistent with the aims of utilitarianism. All organizations aim at the pleasure of achieving or creating something. This line of thought can be strictly infused into the awareness of employees during meetings or seminars. The goals of the theory may also be infused into new employees as part of their orientation. Existing employees may be promoted on the basis of their best contribution to organizational goals and the welfare of fellow employees. These are measurable criteria and a source of motivation to other employees.

The utilitarian theory necessarily states that it is an employee's duty to perform and behave in the best possible way to benefit the business, fellow employees, society and himself or herself. Consequently, he or she has the right to expect the same benefits from the organization, fellow employees, and society or community.

The utilitarian theory focuses on the greatest amount of happiness employees contribute to the ends of the enterprise and the welfare of other employees. By its nature, it treats persons as means to an end, which is pleasure. Distributive theory, on the other hand, focuses on the intrinsic worth or value of each employee, independently of what he or she contributes to the business or fellow employees. The utilitarian theory will be frustrated if a few employees cease to be selfless, which is the case in the real world. The distributive theory does more for the employee by insisting that he or she be viewed and treated as unique and separate from his performance and conduct. #