At its core, human resource management (HRM) is the policy and function put forth by organizations to recruit, retain, and manage the workforce to complete the organization’s objectives (Guest, 1987). This article explores the broad ethical theories moderating these practices in everyday organizational life. The article also explores biblical principles inherent in the creation narrative of man and how those perspectives can be used to shape human resources management ethics.
Some would argue that how one defines ‘ethical’ depends upon the ethics which one adopts and without those theoretical underpinnings HR practices are ambiguous and meaningless (Clark, Skinner, & Mabey, 1998; (Greenwood & Freeman, 2011)). Adopting this perspective can create a worldview perspective where morality and ethics are situational, fluid, and arguably useless. As Clarke et al. (1998) note, for something to be moral it must be consistently universal in nature. If all ethics are socially constructed, then there is no universal morality and ethics and morality are a false construct.
The purpose of this article is to explore how secular perspectives of ethical human resource management relate to a biblical worldview perspective. The author researched foundational HRM ethics literature to establish a background on the history and practices of HRM, as well as to ascertain the ethical and moral philosophies that have been guiding its practices. The author also explored Genesis 1:26-28 to gain a better understanding of the biblical foundations of creation, and the implications of those foundations on ethical HRM practice perspectives.
HRM’s Brief History
Human resources management is relatively new in the lexicon of business speak. It was essentially developed out of the failed personal management philosophy in order to interject more direct and decentralized control within organizations (Guest, 1998). The goal of HRM was to create more employee commitment and flexibility within the workplace (Guest, 1987). Despite its seemingly noble intentions, the phraseology of HRM itself poses some interesting problems. As Greenwood & Anderson (2009) point out, using language as a descriptor has implications. This means that referring to living human beings as ‘resources’ creates possible issues. That is, this language may be iconic in nature (Hamilton, 2001) and that it may unintentionally spawn a perspective of people as a literal means to an end.
Human resources management is often described as having a “dual heritage” – one perspective being “Soft HRM” and the other being “Hard HRM.” Soft HRM is the perspective that HRM exists for personnel welfare and industrial betterment (Wren, 2005). This perspective holds that HRM is an advocate for employees and is constantly at work for improving work conditions, improving employee involvement and autonomy, and supporting the general welfare of employees (Claydon & Doyle, 1996). On the other hand, Hard HRM is the perspective that HRM practices exist to enhance employee accountability and to generate a more efficient and effective working organization (Claydon & Doyle, 1996). One would be well served to picture these two perspectives on a continuum, while recognizing that real organizations hold both perspectives to be true and typically lean one direction or the other.
Biblical Worldview of Man and Creation
In examining HRM from a biblical worldview, one must start by seeking the Bible’s perspective on human beings, work, and the relationship between workers and managers.
One of the clearest beginning points to this analysis is in Genesis 1:26-30, where the biblical account of man’s creation is put forth.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. (Gen 1:26-30, ESV)
In Genesis 1:26, God’s intent to ‘…make man in our image, after our likeness’ is made known. This is a key statement because in the prior passages (Gen 1:20-25) He had created other living creatures, yet set man apart. One can deduce from this that man has a special place in the world – one set apart. Man is both flesh, like the other creations, but also living spirit, like God (Henry, 1997). The passage goes on to declare God’s purpose in this difference, ‘And let them have dominion…’ over those aforementioned creations. It is therefore evident that mankind is set apart and charged with dominion (control).
What is particularly interesting is that the author then reiterates, underscores, and extends the narrative in verses 27-30.
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26-30).
For the Bible-believing individual, this should leave no doubt as to the creation of man and the fact that each person, man and woman, is the image bearer of God. Further, Scripture goes on underscoring that God blessed humanity and told man, once again, to have dominion over all creation and to subdue it (Gen 1:28). This portrays a very specific creation mandate that mankind is God’s regent on earth: a creation set apart, the steward, and controller of all of God’s creation. If one holds this perspective to be a literal truth, then it can be assumed that man was created with the ability and desire to both steward and control whatever is within his grasp.
While all of God’s creation is very good (Gen 1:31), the introduction of sin into the equation (Gen 3:5) perverted this desire to steward and control. While man’s relationship with God was fractured, so too was man’s relationship with all creation – especially with man’s fellow man. This is reflected in the ‘enmity’ that arose between man and woman and the desire of woman for man and his ruling over her (Gen 3:15-16). The co-laborer relationship was broken and a definite ruling hierarchy between the genders within the human race was introduced. The vitriol and enmity was passed from the generation of Adam and Eve to their children, Cain and Abel (Gen 4:3-7), culminating in the murder of Abel by Cain (Gen 4:8).
By the biblical narrative it is clear that the relationships established by God for good were fractured and that right relationships outside of God’s healing is difficult at best and impossible at worst. Whether man recognizes it or not, his thoughts are held captive to his desire to be seen as set apart, a choice steward of God’s creation, and a controller of that creation. These issues also play out in modern organizational life. It is not at all uncommon in the Western world to see a clash between management and labor in a struggle to be seen as set apart, as a steward, and controller of circumstances and conditions. In underdeveloped societies, it is not unusual to see this scenario played out in much harsher ways. This is often manifested in the cruel and inhuman conditions of sweatshops or slave-labor situations.
The creation and fall narrative offers an argument that explains the empirically verifiable state of humanity’s condition. While this presents a dim perspective of humanity and HRM ethics, there is hope for restoration and for right relationships. In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, he states that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17, NIV). As this new creation, mankind in Christ is implored to engage in mutual surrender (Eph 5:21) in love for Christ. In order to engage in mutual surrender, one must love the other person as much as one loves one’s own self (Matt 22:29; Phil 2:3-4).
The difficulty in this is that man, created to have dominion, must surrender that desire and re-engage with the concept of co-laboring. This perspective is evaluated in the HRM discipline-specific theories and perspectives in the following sections.
HRM Discipline’s Perspective of Ethics and Moral Philosophy
The concerns with the ethical use of human beings as a source of labor are surely as old as the practice. The advent of the HRM practice sharpened the critique by narrowing the discussion to a few key ideas: general concern for the individual, the use of people to achieve an organization’s goals, and fair treatment of people in those pursuits.
As one examines the argument about the need for an HRM ethic that displays concern for individuals, there are a few overarching themes. First is the concern about management operating in an ethical and above-board manner when dealing with employees (Heery, Winstanley, & Woodall, 1996). Since employees may be considered a disadvantaged class within the employer/employee relationship (Rowan, 2000), it has been argued that the duty to right behavior shifts to the employer, the presumed advantaged and paternalistic class. This duty generates obligation to the employee by the employer (Greenwood & Freeman, 2011). This argument is best summed up by Rowan (2000), who notes that some degree of personal autonomy is important for a life plan and that autonomy should be granted by management. Warren (1999) argues against this paternalism and that, instead, employees and employers should seek a communitarian approach – that is, to seek mutual benefit. However, this requires moral agency on behalf of the employee (Warren, 1999). Once again, there is general agreement between the secular perspective and biblical perspective. The difference in the biblical worldview perspective is in recognizing that both parties have a mutual duty of right behavior towards one another. In the biblical perspective there is no advantaged or disadvantaged class – just imperfect humans trying to achieve mutually satisfactory and other-honoring objectives.
In order to frame this discussion of ethics, one must first consider the moral framework being used. Rowan (2000) noted that there has to be a moral foundation for employee rights. Rowan’s (2002) argument is that a moral right is one that transcends legal rights and that the moral foundation in HRM is that employees are people, and people are significant. While this is a noble statement, in postmodern society that generally subscribes to Darwinian evolution, using this as a moral foundation is baseless. In order for any action to be moral it must be consistently universal (Clark et al, 1998). With a perspective open to evolution or the postmodern acceptance of any and all viewpoints on morality, a basis for ethics evaporates. Therefore, one could adopt a position that people would only be significant inasmuch as they happened to evolve higher, faster. Could one not also make the ugly argument that the ‘managing class’ within an organization is an evolutionary step ahead of the working class and entitled to a more significant status? This begins an interesting unraveling of the concern for the individual as a base moral foundation within HRM.
Without an absolute morality, ethics are subjective. If ethics are subjective, then any treatment of people is just as valid as the next. Therefore the secular academic perspective and the biblical perspective of ethical treatment of people are not in agreement. The biblical argument is that man was created in the image of God, and therefore a special creation deserving of respect and ethical treatment. The secular argument proposition is that people are significant (Rowan, 2000), but makes no foundational claim as to why.
Clark et al., (1998) note that there are three general viewpoints regarding modern ethical HRM: deontology, utilitarianism, and stakeholder theory. Each element of the individual ethical theories exhibits a form of truth, but each is so isolated in a purest mindset as to render them myopic, theoretical, and impractically useless. The highly purified and theoretical nature of those theories makes them dangerously inept when considering policies that affect real people. However, it is when the truth in each of these theories is connected to the presuppositional acknowledgement in the existence of God that they become valid.
Deontology. Deontological ethical theories subscribe to the concept of duty, within which the oft-cited Kantian ethics fall (Clark et al, 1998). Kantian ethics operate from a mindset that not only must the right things be done, but they also must be done for the right reasons – that is, duty (Clark et al, 1998). However, Kant employed the theoretical device conception of a priori knowledge to isolate that something is true because one sees that it is true, even if one has not observed the root of that truth (Clark et al, 1998). Failing to grapple with the presuppositional issues is damaging in the case of HRM, because the concept of duty is unmoored. Duty to what? Duty for what purpose? Failing to answer these presuppositional questions is devoid of any real meaning while simultaneously purporting to have meaning. In looking at evolutionary theory, there was no duty to evolve, nor was there a duty to continue to evolve, or to help others evolve. This ‘duty’ would be a purely fictitious construct meant to co-opt the resources of another being. However, if one is moored to the belief that humanity was created in the image God, and that there is a mandate to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt 22:29; Phil 2:3-4), then there is, indeed, a duty.
Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism presents an interesting premise, where the goal is to create the greatest good for the most people (Clark et al, 1998). Many view this approach as the norm in most business scenarios (Cornelius & Gagnon, 1999). The merit of utilitarianism is that it seeks to maximize the amount of good, while minimizing the bad. However, for those who endure the bad for the greater good, it is not such a pleasant approach. In this case one runs into the undefined concept of “good,” which has been unmoored from any solid base. How can one determine what is “good” if that is an outgrowth of “ethical,” which is a product of “morality,” which is attached to nothing? Without a solid and un-moveable conception of morality, one cannot get to “goodness.” Again, however, when coupled with an acceptance of the creation narrative and the second greatest commandment, one is offered an absolute morality, ethic, and picture of goodness. In short, one cannot violate the well being of one’s neighbor unless one is likewise willing to make an equal or greater sacrifice.
Stakeholder Theory. Finally, stakeholder theory holds that every party with interest in an organization must benefit equally from decisions or actions (Clark et al, 1998). The idea in its purest form is a noble goal, seeking to benefit all without compromising the results of any stakeholder. The trouble, once again, is that these ideals lack a practical mode of achievement. The mindset of distributive justice once again brings about the concepts of goodness, benefit, fairness, and equitability, but fails to have an absolute reference point for these ideals. One person’s idea of fairness may totally violate another’s idea of fairness. Much like utilitarianism, stakeholder theory becomes a valuable perspective once the absolutes of morality and ethics are anchored. The biblical perspective of creation and right relationship offer this anchoring.
Social Construction and Ethical Egoism as the Source of Morality. The final pieces to the three normative approaches to HRM ethics are the ideas of social construction and ethical egoism. Some argue the point that morality is a social construction agreed upon by society (Cornelius & Gagnon, 199). While all culture engages in some form of social constructivism, ignoring a genesis of culture is detrimental. It fails to address the bigger questions regarding meaning. Additionally, did every person really engage equally or substantively in this social construction? Not likely, so that would render it ‘unfair’ and imbalanced.
An example of the failure with such an approach is the Nazi regime. The socially constructed ethics violated all norms of decency and propriety. Why did an entire society adopt these norms? How is it that most of humanity recognized these socially constructed norms as wrong? Does that point to a more absolute sense of morality? Perhaps socially constructed norms and ethics are not enough.
The second general idea that is used more by the evolutionary camp is the idea of ethical egoism. That is, one is ethical or treats others well because it serves one’s own interest and objectives (Claydon & Doyle, 1996). In evaluating the idea on the surface, it seems to make logical sense. However, a deeper analysis reveals the fatal flaws of such an ethic. First, the idea clearly violates the deontological values of ‘duty’ and doing what is right for the right reasons. Second, ethical egoism seems to be a hybrid and situationally expedient form of both utilitarianism and stakeholder theory. That is, one is a co-stakeholder inasmuch as objectives are aligned. However, once that alignment is gone, the individual reverts to utilitarianism, at best, and unabashed egoism at worst. Ethical theory almost universally extols the virtues of acting beyond personal welfare (Hosmer, 1997). This seemingly positions any form of egoism in a realm apart – one dares argue, outside the realm of what most would consider moral and ethical behavior.
HRM in Practice
With the broad ethical human resource management theories covered, it is important to address the actual practice of HRM. Most of the current perspectives are prescriptive ‘bundles of process’ that is heavily practitioner-centric (Greenwood & Freeman, 2011). That is, most of the practice is around accomplishing the tasks of human resource management as opposed to understanding and addressing the heart of the theory. Many also view the practices employed by HRM practitioners as capricious, manipulative, and paternalistic in dealing with employees – a proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing (Greenwood & Freeman, 2011; Warren, 1999). Human resource management practices appear to align with ethical egoism or utilitarianism. This seemingly affiliates with empirical examples frequently seen in the media surrounding employers and unions or employees. While it would be easy to blame this standoff on HRM practitioners specifically and management in general, that too is an oversimplification of the issue. Since these situations represent complex human relationships, one must also consider the role of employees as an agent in the breakdown.
Summary
As one examines the relationship between the biblical perspective of man and the secular view, one is faced with the conundrum that if everyone’s truth is “true” and everyone’s morality is “moral,” then in fact, nothing is true or moral. This seems to violate the natural order that we see in the world – that there are absolute truths. However, the biblical account of man and the fall (through sin) provides a response to the struggle between management and employees. The biblical explanation of man’s creation as a steward and ruler of the earth offers powerful insight into the struggle between mankind in organizational life.
As indicated repeatedly in this article, without an absolute moral perspective of HRM, it is bound to be transient in its efficacy. Either employees will strive to take an exceeding amount of latitude or managers will seek to rule over employees. It is an interesting perspective considering that man was created to have free will, which one can see employees trying express, and to have dominion, which one can see management trying to express. They are acting out two sides of the biblical mandate to have dominion, but often in corrupted ways due to sin.
Recognizing the fact that all man was created with the drive to have free will and to have dominion can allow for mutual surrender of some of the ground that must be shared. Managers can appreciate and allow for employees to have dominion over their work and to use their God-given creativity to solve problems. Likewise, employees can surrender some ground to managers, recognizing that they have been given specific stewardship responsibilities and will be held to account (Matt 25:14). This means that they may have to surrender some creativity and latitude from time-to-time.
It is only by recognizing that man’s morality and ethics alone are insufficient to engage in truly ethical behavior apart from God’s laws that man can move to a state of true human resource management ethics. By utilizing the biblical perspective of creation, an ethical construct for HRM can be adopted for mutual benefit within organizational life.
The simple three-part construction of a biblically centric human resource management ethic recognizes that man is a special creation – one created in the image of God (Gen 1:26). Second, man was intended to have dominion and authority (read latitude and discretion) in his work (Gen 1:28). The third and final piece is an ethical HRM policy or framework that best facilitates these behaviors is loving one another as one’s self (Matt 22:39) and to operate in a state of mutual surrender (Ephesians 5:21). It is clear that unless one believes in the sanctity of God’s creation, moral and ethical treatment of man will continue to fall short of the intrinsically known standards of ethics.
In reviewing the macro-level issues associated with ethical human resource management practices, it is clear that the issues of morality and ethics are complicated in a postmodern secular world. When any worldview is acceptable, there is great difficulty in establishing a conception of ethics and ethical HRM practices. However, with belief in God’s sovereignty, His creation of man for the purpose of ethical stewardship and dominion, and His establishment of certain absolutes in morality, the missing link in ethics can be reestablished for an ethical HRM perspective.
References
Clark, T., Skinner, D., & Mabey, C. (1998). Experiencing Human Resource Management. London: Sage Publications.
Claydon, T., & Doyle, M. (1996, November). Trusting me, trusting you? The ethics of employee empowerment. Personnel Review, 25(6), 13.
Cornelius, N., & Gagnon, S. (1999). From ethics “by proxy” to ethics in action: new approaches to understanding HRM and ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(4), 225–235.
Greenwood, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2011). Ethics and HRM. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 30(3/4), 269–292.
Guest, D. E. (1987). Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations. Journal of Management Studies, 24(5), 503–521.
Hamilton, P. M. (2001). Rhetoric and employment relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(3), 433–449.
Heery, E., Winstanley, D., & Woodall, J. (1996, November). Business ethics and human resource management. Personnel Review, 25(6), 5.
Henry, M. (1997). Matthew Henry’s concise commentary on the whole Bible. T. Nelson. Retrieved from http://www.getcited.org/pub/100239747
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9507312923
Rowan, J. R. (2000). The moral foundation of employee rights. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(4), 355–361.
Warren, R. (1999). Against paternalism in Human Resource Management. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1), 50–59.
Wren, D. A. (2005). The history of management thought. Wiley Hoboken, NJ. Retrieved from http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?ouvrage=1376554
