John Rawls Theory of Justice Summary

John Rawls Theory of Justice Summary A Theory of Justice (1971), by John Rawls, is one of the most influential works in moral and political philosophy written in the twentieth century, according to Samuel Freeman in the Collected Papers of John Rawls (1999). A Theory of Justice is Rawlss attempt to formulate a philosophy of justice and a theoretical program for establishing political structures designed to preserve social justice and individual liberty. Rawls writes in reaction to the then predominant theory of utilitarianism, which posits that justice is defined by that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Rawls proposes a theoretical person who, shrouded in a veil of ignorance, must design a just society without foreknowledge of his or her own status in that society. Rawls asserts that from this objective vantage point, which he calls the original position, the individual will choose a system of justice that adequately provides for those positioned on the lowest rungs of society. The ind ividual will do so because he or she may end up in such a disadvantaged position and will want to be adequately provided for. Rawls draws from earlier theories of political philosophy that posit a social contract by which individuals implicitly agree to the terms on which they are governed in any society. Rawls concludes that such a social contract, formulated from the perspective of the original position, will guarantee a just society without sacrificing the happiness or liberty of any one individual. Rawls addresses issues of liberty, social equality, democracy, and the conflict of interests between the individual and society. A Theory of Justice Summary: Justice as Fairness In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, Justice is the first virtue of social institution, meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of justice. Rawls asserts that existing theories of justice, developed in the field of philosophy, are not adequate: My guiding aim is to work out A Theory of Justice that is a viable alternative to these doctrines which have long dominated our philosophical tradition. He calls his theory-aimed at formulating a conception of the basic structure of society in accordance with social justice-justice as fairness. Rawls sets forth to determine the essential principles of justice on which a good society may be based. He explains the importance of principles of justice for two key purposes: first, to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society; and secondly, to define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of society. He observes that, by his definition, well-ordered societies are rare due to the fact that what is just and unjust is usually in dispute. He further notes that a well-ordered and perfectly just society must be formulated in a way that addresses the problems of efficiency, coordination, and stability. Critique of Utilitarianism A brief synopsis from Wikipedia: In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice (inspired by David Hume), and a fair choice situation (closer in spirit to Immanuel Kant) for parties facing such circumstances. Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic: they have ends which they seek to advance, but desire to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favored principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and libertarian accounts. In 1974, Rawls colleague at Harvard, Robert Nozick, published a defense of libertarian justice, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.[3] Because it is, in part, a reaction to A Theory of Justice, the two books are now often read together. Another Harvard colleague, Michael Walzer, wrote a defence of communitarian political philosophy, Spheres of Justice,[4] as a result of a seminar he co-taught with Nozick. In a related line of criticism, Michael Sandel (also a Harvard colleague) wrote Liberalism and the Limits of Justice,[5] which took Rawls to task for asking us to think about justice while divorcing ourselves from the very values and aspirations that define us. Sandels line of argument in part draws on critiques of Rawls advanced by both Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre who argue for the importance that moral ontologies have on ethical arguments.[6] Robert Paul Wolff wrote Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of Justice[7] immediately following the publication of A Theory of Justice, which criticized Rawls from a roughly Marxist perspective. Wolff argues in this work that Rawls theory is an apology for the status quo insofar as it constructs justice from existing practice and forecloses the possibility that there may be problems of injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property or the market economy. Feminist critics of Rawls, such as Susan Moller Okin,[8] largely focused on the extent to which Rawls theory could account for (if at all) injustices and hierarchies embedded in familial relations. Rawls argued that justice ought only to apply to the basic structure of society. Feminists, rallying around the theme of the personal is political, took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the gendered division of labor, especially in the household. The assumptions of the original position, and in particular, the use of maximin reasoning, have also been criticized (most notably by Kenneth Arrow[9] and John Harsanyi),[10] with the implication either that Rawls designed the original position to derive the two principles, or that an original position more faithful to its initial purpose would not lead to his favored principles. In reply Rawls has emphasized the role of the original position as a device of representation for making sense of the idea of a fair choice situation for free and equal citizens.[11] Rawls has also emphasized the relatively modest role that maximin plays in his argument: it is a useful heuristic rule of thumb given the curious features of choice behind the veil of ignorance.[12] Some egalitarian critics have raised concerns over Rawls emphasis on primary social goods. For instance, Amartya Sen has argued that we should attend not only to the distribution of primary goods, but also how effectively people are able to use those goods to pursue their ends.[13] In a related vein, Norman Daniels has wondered why healthcare shouldnt be treated as a primary good,[14] and some of his subsequent work has addressed this question, arguing for a right to health care within a broadly Rawlsian framework.[15] Philosopher Allan Bloom, a student of Leo Strauss, criticized Rawls for failing to account for the existence of natural right in his theory of justice, and wrote that Rawls absolutizes social union as the ultimate goal which would conventionalize everything into artifice.[16] Recent criticisms of Rawls theory have come from the philosopher G.A. Cohen. Cohens series of influential papers culminated first in his book, If Youre An Egalitarian, How Come Youre So Rich?[17] and then in his later work, Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cohens criticisms are leveled against Rawls avowal of inequality under the difference principle, against his application of the principle only to social institutions, and against Rawlsian fetishism with primary goods (again, the metric which Rawls chooses as his currency of equality). Philosopher and Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen, a former student of Rawls, critiques and attempts to revitalize A Theory of Justice in his 2009 book The Idea of Justice. He defends the basic notion of justice as fairness but attacks the notion that the two principles of justice emerging from the Original position are necessary. Sen claims that there are multiple possible outcomes of the reflective equilibrium behind the veil of ignorance. A Theory of Justice (1971), by John Rawls, is one of the most influential works in moral and political philosophy written in the twentieth century, according to Samuel Freeman in the Collected Papers of John Rawls (1999). A Theory of Justice is Rawlss attempt to formulate a philosophy of justice and a theoretical program for establishing political structures designed to preserve social justice and individual liberty. Rawls writes in reaction to the then predominant theory of utilitarianism, which posits that justice is defined by that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Rawls proposes a theoretical person who, shrouded in a veil of ignorance, must design a just society without foreknowledge of his or her own status in that society. Rawls asserts that from this objective vantage point, which he calls the original position, the individual will choose a system of justice that adequately provides for those positioned on the lowest rungs of society. The individual will do so because he or she may end up in such a disadvantaged position and will want to be adequately provided for. Rawls draws from earlier theories of political philosophy that posit a social contract by which individuals implicitly agree to the terms on which they are governed in any society. Rawls concludes that such a social contract, formulated from the perspective of the original position, will guarantee a just society without sacrificing the happiness or liberty of any one individual. Rawls addresses issues of liberty, social equality, democracy, and the conflict of interests between the individual and society. A Theory of Justice Summary Justice as Fairness In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, Justice is the first virtue of social institution, meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of justice. Rawls asserts that existing theories of justice, developed in the field of philosophy, are not adequate: My guiding aim is to work out A Theory of Justice that is a viable alternative to these doctrines which have long dominated our philosophical tradition. He calls his theory-aimed at formulating a conception of the basic structure of society in accordance with social justice-justice as fairness. Rawls sets forth to determine the essential principles of justice on which a good society may be based. He explains the importance of principles of justice for two key purposes: first, to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society; and secondly, to define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of society. He observes that, by his definition, well-ordered societies are rare due to the fact that what is just and unjust is usually in dispute. He further notes that a well-ordered and perfectly just society must be formulated in a way that addresses the problems of efficiency, coordination, and stability. Critique of Utilitarianism Throughout the twentieth century, the dominant philosophical theory of justice in Western philosophy was utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was first developed in the nineteenth century by the great utilitarians, whom Rawls lists as David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism essentially posits that a just society is one based on achieving the greatest good, or happiness, for the greatest number of people. However, many theorists have found this principle ultimately unsatisfactory because it implies that the  » Complete A Theory of Justice Summary I fondly recall arguing about Rawls theories in John Singers Values and Institutions class at Colgate, so it was interesting to finally try reading it.   It turns out, the revolution that Rawls created was based on a simple but totally specious change in the assumptions about human nature, and upon this rotten foundation he built up a shaky edifice to justify Liberal yearnings.   The book is reminiscent of a treatise by a Medieval scientist, working out the elaborate orbital patterns that planets would require if the Universe actually were geocentric. In order to accomplish his revolution, Rawls posited a counterintuitive and antihistorical starting point for the discussion of political theory. The great political philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, etc., had used the state of nature as the starting point for their theories.   In this state of nature, men were assumed to be completely self-centered and dedicated only to their own interests, with the result that life was nasty, brutish and short and only the strongest survived.   But gradually men tired of this blood sport and entered into a social contract wherein they surrendered some personal sovereignty to a central governing entity, which, in whatever form, would enforce a set of impartial laws in order to protect men from one another.   This is a pretty minimalist position, the social contract and the government that it creates serve only to provide a certain level of physical security, leaving men free to pursue their own fortunes and taking no interest in the degree to which they succeed.   But it conforms with our intuitive understanding of human nature, our observations of our fellow man and, most importantly, it has proven a workable basis for understanding politics for some 300 years. The essential change that Rawls made was to replace the State of Nature with his Original Position, wherein, when it came time for primordial man to enter into a social contract, because he would be ignorant of his own capacities (the veil of ignorance), he would pursue a low risk strategy and choose a social contract based on egalitarianism; he would seek the most equal distribution of wealth and power possible, just in case it turned out that he was the least fit of the species. If Rawls is right, if men acted on the assumption that they would be one of the ones left behind once the race of life begins, then the rest of his theory might be worth examining.   But, of course, this assumption runs counter to everything we understand about ourselves and our fellow human beings.   It is a fuzzy headed liberals view of the appropriate strategy for lifes losersmake political decisions on the basis of the likelihood that you are a loser and need help.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   But look around a casino or a Lottery Ticket line and you will see that the losers think that they too are winners.   Look at polls about taxation levels and you find that the lower class does not want the upper class taxed too heavily, because they assume that they, or their children, are headed for that bracket eventually.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   It turns out that people act very much as the great philosophers expected them to; they act out of naked self interest and the belief that t hey are capable and deserve whatever they can achieve.   The justice that men seek is in fact little more than an impartial application of a set of laws that are fair to all, not an equal distribution of goods and power, which would necessarily impinge on the freedom of all. Rawls great error is to try to base his theory on a generalized yearning for happiness.   Rawls was seeking a positive definition of Mans aspiration in the original position, but the inevitable result, because we will all define happiness differently, is to create a foundational quagmire for his theories.   After all, you may define happiness as having a lot of stuff, but I may define it as spiritual enlightenment.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   The classic understanding, basing the social contract on the avoidance of death, is obviously universal, we are all agreed that our own deaths are to be avoided, and, therefore, more sound.   . Finding the basic supposition that props up Rawls whole theory to be fundamentally incorrect, it behooves us little to examine the superstructure he seeks to construct upon this error.   Suffice it to say, no system of government has ever achieved a more equal distribution of wealth and power than has the American Constitutional Republic and it is based on the classic understanding of human nature found in Hobbes and Locke.   Nuff said. (Reviewed:) John Rawls is perhaps the most significant intellectual in philosophical ethics to have written in the past hundred years. It is nearly impossible to address ethics in contemporary philosophy without saying something about John Rawls. Central to his theory of justice are the concepts of fairness and equality from behind what he terms a veil of ignorance. Rawlss veil of ignorance is a component of the way people can construct society. He refers to an original position in which a person is attempting to determine a fair arrangement for society without any preconceived notions or prejudices. In this original position, people are behind what Rawls calls a Veil of Ignorance and do not know where they will fall in the social hierarchy in terms of race, class, sex, disability, and other relevant factors. Rawls is a Kantian liberal in that he believes that principles of justice should be universalizable, and so the only way to ensure that people will select fair principles of justice is to be certain that they do not know how the principles they select might affect them as individuals. A person behind the veil of ignorance does not know which side of a social contract he or she will be on, does not know his or her race, class, sex, or status in society. A person who does not know what privileges he or she will be born with (or without ) is, in Rawls view, more likely to construct a society that does not arbitrarily assign privilege based on characteristics that should have no bearing on what people get. Rawls believes that a society cannot be just without fairness and equalit y and believes this veil of ignorance both reveals the biases of In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to make a rational study of social ethics by using reason to determine what a just society should look like and how a rational group of people would organize themselves. One major  topic of interest that Rawls presents is the veil of ignorance concept and its role in the creation of original position. Two further concepts of importance to the theory of a just society are the difference principle and the concept of individual liberty in society. Together, these three concepts provide a basis for the discussion and critique of Rawls theory and its implications for the pursuance of justice. Current society and can help to prevent biases in establishing future social arrangements. Rawls method to justice as a theory proposes that principles of justice can be determined through the rational thinking of individuals shrouded by a veil of ignorance. In a purely hypothetical situation, the veil of ignorance creates an original position of equality in which persons under the veil have no knowledge of status, position in society, personal wealth or natural abilities. From behind the veil of ignorance, a rational, objective and disinterested group of people would choose a system of justice that ensures an equal distribution of rights and duties. The term reflective equilibrium was coined by John Rawls and popularized in his celebrated A Theory of Justice as a method for arriving at the content of the principles of justice. Abstract John Rawls Theory of Justice (1971) is the single most important philosophical work of the Left since Marx. Rawls A Theory of Justice can be understood as two theories addressing two different subjects. The split can also be seen textually. The first half of the book deals almost exclusively with the hypothetical theory of justice founded in the original position. The second half of the book addresses how actual institutions should operate given the findings of the initial theory. There are many instances, such as Rawls distinction between fair and formal equal opportunity, where Rawls claims that the purely speculative arguments of his theory can justify his claims concerning actual situations. However, as Sher argues, it is not necessarily the case that Rawls can make the connection. Rawls hypothetical theory can operate on its own. Rawls theory of just institutions is a stronger argument if he does not try and connect the two theories. The problem of desert is one example of how R awls theory of justice as fairness should be read as two theories. Rawls offers a theory of a just and well-ordered society which would distribute wealth, income, liberties, opportunities and positions of authority. He considers justice as fairness as a political -moral conception of justice. The principles of justice are two according to Ralws and these would justify a given body of social, moral and political ideas since they are congruent to our ferments convictions. Utilitarianism was first developed in the nineteenth century by the great utilitarians. Utilitarianism essentially posits that a just society is one based on achieving the greatest good, or happiness, for the greatest number of people. However, Rawls rejects Utilitarianism, for it fails to take into consideration, the distinction that exists between individuals. Since it aims at the greatest happiness and tries to maximize greatest welfare, it fails to secure individual rights. Rawls relies on the social contract tradition in its Kantian form to account for principles that would guide individuals noumenal selves, secure equal basic liberties to all and account for social values and community. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, Justice is the first virtue of social institution, meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of justice. . Rawls asserts that existing theories of justice, developed in the field of philosophy, are not adequate: My guiding aim is to work out A Theory of Justice that is a viable alternative to these doctrines which have long dominated our philosophical tradition. He calls his theory-aimed at formulating a conception of the basic structure of society in accordance with social justice-justice as fairness. He claims that justice as fairness provides a practical political procedure, which satisfies the demand of modern democracies societies. Pluralism entailed by industrial societies is presumed to be the permanent features of modern democracies, which challenges the priority of philosophy over democracy. However, Rawls theory has received large scale attention by some well-known Academicians. Some of them have disagreed and challenged its basic assumptions. These critical appraisals, but, indicate the importance of his work if one wants to deliberate on problems of contemporary social and political theory. In this thesis will try to excavate the philosophical understanding of the Rawlsian theory of justice and also try to identify the philosophical shift in his position under the light of some of major critiques.

Moving Away from Home Can Be Astessful Experience for Young People

Moving away from home can be a stressful experience for young people Nowadays, many young people don’t want to live with their parents because they think if they live along, they can do whatever they want. But maybe few months later, they will find some problems that they never know how to do before because their parents always do everything for them when they are at home. At that time, they will feel stressful. However, I think it’s a good way to teach them how to live by themselves, especially for teenagers. They can’t be dependent on their parents all of their life so they have to learn many things and do many things by themselves. Moving away from home not only can be a stressful experience for young people but can also be a good way to let them learn how to become independent. The other reason that young people will feel stressful when they move away from home is they don’t know many people in the new place or even they don’t know anyone there. When they have something they can’t solve, they don’t know they can ask who or who can help them. They will feel so lonely and upset in the beginning, especially for someone who has nothing is smooth. In conclusion, moving away from home is a stressful experience for young people but also it is a helpful experience to them because they can learn many things by this kind of experience.

Personal Values

Personal values are beliefs, missions, or philosophy that is meaningful on a personal level. They are reinforced by emotions and feelings, which turn mental perceptions into vital passions that we hope to realize in our lives. Whether we are consciously aware of them or not, every individual has a core set of personal values. Whatever our values are, when we take them to heart and implement them in our lives, great accomplishments and success happens. When we implement, commit to, and apply personal values in our lives, energy is released that attracts success, achievement, and well-being. Some of the more common personal values include; accomplishments, freedom, prosperity, success, friendship, punctuality, self-reliance, concern for others, harmony of purpose, accountability, quality of work, goodwill, reliability, goodness, cleanliness, commitment, creativity, customer satisfaction, equality, loyalty, justice, resourcefulness, family, independence, spirit, hard work, and faithfulness. People relate to personal values in a number of ways; thoughtful people continually think about those things they cherish and believe in, while the powerful are motivated and driven to implement personal values in their lives. Interestingly, not only do values energize us, but when we implement them, it energizes everything we come in contact with. Personal values drives and motivate us to move forward in life, which in turn enables progress. Whether they drive our own individual lives in a positive direction, improve the economic, social, and cultural conditions of a nation, or move society forward in a path of progress, personal values are important in our lives. We all have values that determine our decisions and guide our lives. Accomplishments in life depend not only on physical energy, but also on the psychological energy we are able to bring to our actions. Personal values also direct our psychological energies for accomplishment. The quality of the values we embrace and the intensity of our commitment to them determine the level of our accomplishment in life. Values, personal values, and core values all refer to the same thing. They are desirable qualities, standards, or principles that are the driving forces in our lives, and also influence our actions and reactions. They are inherited, and/or learned from our environment. Knowing your values helps you to follow a clear set of rules and guidelines for your actions, make good decisions, nd choices, find compatible people, places, and things that support your way of living, live with integrity, learn to identify and live from your values, and to manage stress (Ibtissem, 2010). Cultural Values Cultural values are sets of common understandings around which actions are organized, and the finding of expressions in language, whose finer distinctions are peculiar to the group. They are sets o f meanings shared by a group of people that are largely inferred among members, and are clearly relevant, and distinctive to the particular group. Cultural values are also passed on to new members. These values are systems of knowledge, standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating, and acting that serve to relate human communities to their environmental settings (Khalil, & Seleim, 2010). They are also deeper levels of basic assumptions and beliefs that are learned responses. Any social system arising from a network of shared ideologies consisting of substances – the networks of meaning associated with ideologies, norms, and values, and forms – the practices where the meanings are expressed, affirmed, and communicated to members, defines the cultural values of an organization. Culture is what naturally emerges as individuals transform themselves into social groups. A culture encompasses distinct observable forms – language, use of symbols, ceremonies, customs, methods of problem solving, use of tools, or technology, and design of work settings – that groups of people create through social interaction, and use to confront the broader social environment. Culture can be characterized as consisting of three levels; the first and most visible level is behaviors and artifacts, which consists of behavior patterns and outward manifestations of the culture. This is the privileges provided to executives, dress codes, level of technology utilized, and where it is utilized, and the physical layout of the work spaces. Artifacts and behavior also tell what a group is doing, but not the reasons why. The second level of culture is its values. The cultural values determine behaviors, but values are not directly observable, as behaviors are. There is a difference between stated values and operating values. To really understand culture, we have to get to the deepest third level, the level of assumptions and beliefs. Underlying assumptions grow out of values, until they are taken for granted and discarded. Many are unaware of, or unable to articulate their beliefs and assumptions. To understand culture, all three levels have to be understood (Vauclair, 2009). There is an additional aspect that may complicate the study of culture: the group or cultural unit which owns the culture. An organization may have many different cultures or subcultures, or even no apparent dominant culture at the organizational level. Recognizing the cultural unit is essential to identifying and understanding the culture. Organizational cultures are created, maintained, or transformed by people, and by organizational leadership (Khalil, & Seleim, 2010). Leaders at the executive level are the principle source for the re-infusion of an organization's ideology, articulation of core values, and the specification of norms. Organizational values express preferences for certain behaviors or certain outcomes, and organizational norms express behaviors accepted by others. They are the culturally acceptable ways of pursuing goals. Leaders also establish the boundaries for the formal lines of communication, and the formal interaction rules for the organization. Values and norms, once transmitted through the organization, establish the permanence of the organization's culture. Groups, societies, or cultures have values that are largely shared by their members. These values identify those objects, conditions or characteristics that members of the society consider important. Values are related to the norms of a culture, with the norms being the rules for behavior in specific situations, and the values identify what should be judged as good or evil. Members take part in a culture even if each member's personal values do not entirely agree with some of the normative values of the culture. This reflects an individual's ability to integrate and extract aspects valuable to them from the multiple of sub-cultures they belong to. If a group member expresses a value that is in serious conflict with the group's norms, the group's authority may carry out various ways of encouraging conformity or stigmatizing the non-conforming behavior of its members. Commonly held standards of what is acceptable or unacceptable, important or unimportant, right or wrong, workable or unworkable, in a community or society, is determined by cultural values. These values determine the ideas about what is good, right, fair, and just. Creating a culture based on moral excellence requires a commitment among managers to embody and develop two qualities in their leadership: virtue and wisdom. Creating an organization characterized by moral excellence is a lengthy process, because it involves changing the organizational culture (Vauclair, 2009). One of the primary responsibilities of strategic leadership is to create and maintain the organizational characteristics that reward and encourage collective efforts, with the most fundamental of these being the organizational culture. An organization's culture develops to help cope with the environment. Organizational leaders are confronted with many complex issues during their attempts to generate organizational achievement. Their success depends to a great extent on understanding organizational culture. Many of the problems that organizational leaders face are caused by their inability to analyze and evaluate organizational culture. Many leaders, when trying to implement new strategies or a strategic plan leading to a new vision, will discover that their strategies will fail if they are inconsistent with the organization's culture. Difficulties with organizational transformations arise from failures to analyze an organization's existing culture. Strategic leaders have an additional set of challenges; they have to create the means, and the opportunities to infuse their employees with new ways of looking at themselves, and their capabilities. Leaders' new ideologies and values need to be communicated effectively, internalized by employees, and then translated into productive methods of thinking, and working. Organizations consist of subgroups that have specific characteristics and a sense of identification. Within organizations, people can easily classify themselves and others into various social categories or groups based on identification with their primary work group, occupational, or professional skills, or union membership. Subgroups in organizations can and do create subcultures that comprise specific networks of meaning, and they remain associated with the ideologies and values of the organization's leadership. Organizations do not always have standardized or consistent subcultures. The social products produced by subcultures within organizations can be widely diverse, and even result in countercultures. These countercultures can have both productive and unproductive outcomes. The key to a counterculture's success is the group's ability to demonstrate how its unconventional behaviors are consonant with the core ideologies, values and norms of the dominant culture. Cultures provide members with a reliable means to interpret a highly vague environment. It is the organization’s leaderships’ responsibility to specify the features of the environment that are relevant to the organization, and then provide the supporting assumptions, and rationale for its operating strategies. Leadership should recognize that their cultural messages should specifically address cultural uncertainties associated with subculture practices within the organization, and limit their attempts to eliminate distinctions that are important to the subculture's identities. They would have a better chance of creating, or transforming an organization’s culture if they accept, and foster productive organizational subcultures, and consistently communicate how employees must perform in order for the organization to achieve its objectives. Cultural change then relies on leaders' communication techniques that cross sub cultural boundaries and carry messages about ideologies, values and norms that can be internalized by all employees. Cultural forms function as the linking mechanism by which networks of understandings develop among employees. These cultural forms act as a medium for communicating ideologies, values, and norms. They also enable leaders to transmit messages about desirable behaviors to influence thinking and ways of behaving. Cultural forms also address the emotional aspects of organizations that are commonly referred to as cohesion or camaraderie. Productive cultural change will occur if leaders correctly analyze the organization's existing culture, and evaluate it against the cultural attributes needed to achieve strategic objectives. They must first possess a clear understanding of the strategic objectives for their organization, and then identify the actions needed to reach those objectives. The next step is to conduct an analysis of the organization’s existing ideologies, values and norms. Strategic leadership needs to be transformational if it is to serve the organization, and it must operate from a foundation of high morality and ethical practices. Even though culture is deep seated, and difficult to change, leaders can influence or manage an organization's culture. It isn't easy, and it cannot be done rapidly, but leaders can have an effect on culture. An understanding of culture, and how to transform it, is a crucial skill for leaders trying to achieve strategic outcomes. Strategic leaders have the best perspective, because of their position in the organization, to see the dynamics of the culture, what should remain, and what needs transformation. This is the essence of strategic success. Values and ethics are one of the most important characteristic of an individual. They basically define who we are and what we believe. There are many factors that determine our values and ethics. Culture, religion, and many other factors affect our beliefs. Many times our values and ethics can clash with different people who hold different views and beliefs. This doesn't mean our values or ethics are wrong it just means we think differently than others. Most people have a good sense of ethics and values. Knowing between right and wrong is a good foundation to practicing good ethics and morals. Family members, Grandparents, friends, and school teachers all influence our thoughts and beliefs. Educational Values Education is not all about book learning and passing exams, it is also about developing personal values and living these values. Ethical Values To behave ethically is to behave in a manner that is consistent with what is generally considered to be right or moral. Ethical behavior is the bedrock of mutual trust. Values are what we believe to be right, individually or organizationally. Values distinguish between right and wrong, and doing what is right or wrong is what we mean by ethics. The first place to look in determining what is right or wrong is society, because almost every society makes some determination of morally correct behavior. Societies not only regulate the behavior of its members, but also define their societal core values. Experience lead societies to develop beliefs about what is of value for the common good. Societies may differ from one another in the specifics, but not in the general principles; reciprocity – one good deed deserves another, the notion of good intent – a person’s word is their bond, or the appreciation of merit in others regardless of personal feelings – give the devil his due. To determine what is generally considered to be right, look at the positive values of society and the organizations one belongs to. Societal or organizational norms are other aspects that should also be considered. Norms are the unstated rules, usually informally reached by the members of a group, which govern the behavior of the group's members. Norms often have a greater effect on what is and isn't done by the members of a group than formal rules and regulations. Norms are a important part of ethics, in that they allow and/or even encourage certain OK behaviors that are not in keeping with societal or organizational stated values. Ethics and morality are important for individuals, groups, organizations, and society. they should also be important for public officials, and for very much the same reasons. Some very important individual, group, organizational, and/or societal ethical values are; basic honesty and conformity to law; conflicts of interest; service orientation and procedural fairness; the ethics of democratic responsibility; the ethics of public policy determination; and the ethics of compromise and social integration. People behave unethically because of the complexity of the strategic issues that may cross that ethical line, difficulty in determining what the most ethical alternatives are, competition for scarce resources, power, or positions, conflicting loyalties, groupthink, is. There are several systemic factors also contribute to people behaving unethically; the competition for scarce resources, trying to gain a competitive advantage in the race for position or power, conflicting loyalties, groupthink among homogeneous groups with strong leaders, the presence of ideologues, or individuals who view their own extreme positions as right and any opposing positions as wrong, and an organization's negative response to dissent. Organizational members have only three choices when confronted with unethical behavior: Exit, the most direct response, means if you can't live with behavior that does not meet your own ethical standards, leave. Voice, means expressing discomfort with and opposition to the observed unethical behavior. Go public, to engage in ‘whistle blowing’. The final response to unethical behavior in an organization is loyalty, the alternative to exit. Instead of leaving, the individual remains and tries to change the organization from within. An organization cannot maintain high ethical standards without ways for eliminating unethical behavior. The steps to building an ethical climate, and to foster corporate ethics; (1) Determine the actions of strategic leadership and the ways they deal with ethical issues. The pattern of top leaders' behavior determines organizational values. (2) Make explicit ethics policies. (3) Increase awareness of how to apply ethical codes. (4) Training on how to deal with situations with an ethical dimension. 5) How to anticipate situations that involve ethical choices. (6) Expand the information system to focus on areas where ethics may come into play. Knowing what actually is going on in the organization is essential to understanding the ethical principles which govern behavior. The information system should also support ethical behavior, and allow the strategic leader to know when or where there are potential ethical breaches so that corrective action can be taken. There is real danger when unethical behavior goes unnoticed, or unpunished, members will assume it is excused by the organization's leadership. Encouraging leaders to pursue their own moral development is critical at higher levels because strategic leaders set the moral climate for the organization. Business ethics is the application of the disciplines, principles, and theories of ethics on the organizational level. These are the principles, and standards that guide behavior in the business environment. Ethical behavior in business is critical. When businesses are charged with infractions, and when employees of those firms come under legal investigation, there is concern raised about the moral behavior of that business. The level of mutual trust, which is the foundation of our free-market economy, is threatened. Business ethics is also concerned with the day-to-day ethical dilemmas faced by millions of workers at all levels of an organization. All people have their own sets of personal values that come from society, families, religions, and experiences. Ethical dilemmas can arise when those personal values conflict directly with the company’s practices. Organizations can manage their culture and ethical climate by trying to hire employees whose values match their own. Some firms even measure potential employees’ values during the hiring process and strive to choose individuals who fit within the ethical climate rather than those whose beliefs and values differ significantly. Family Values Some of the more common family values are; belonging, it is important that each member of a family feel that they are loved, that they belong and that they matter; flexibility, the order, schedules and structure of the family that helps to maintain a level of sanity; respect, to take feelings, thoughts, needs, and preferences in to account when making decisions; acknowledging and valuing everyone’s thoughts, feelings and contributions to the family as a whole; honesty, the foundation of any relationships that are meant to last; forgiveness, forgiving is an important choice to make (yes, choice); generosity, giving without thinking about what you will receive is an important value for anyone wanting to be a responsible, contributing ember to society; curiosity, which helps to build critical thinking skills, includes the spoken word, tone, volume, expression, eye contact, body language and effective listening; responsibility is something that is learned; and traditions, which ma kes a family unique (Arnier, & Stein, 1998). Religious Values Religion plays a vital role in our lives and in reinforcing personal values. It does not matter what our religious preferences are, personal values are formed and reinforced through religious teachings. Tolerance, honesty, truthfulness, respect for others and elders, purity are some of the values formed and reinforced through religious teachings. Organizational Values Organizations and institutions have values and ethics are that are central to its existence. Often time, there are one or more business values that are the key to a business’s success. Examples are Sear’s commitment to ‘trusting the customer’, Apple Computer's belief in ‘the value of solving the problems of society’, or the Marriott's value of ‘systemization and standardization’. Values are those things important to or valued by someone, whether they are an individual or an organization. Organizational values are important to its vision, which is based on and consistent with the organization's core values. Organizational values are more than words; they are the moral, ethical, and professional attributes of character, and what professionals judge to be right. These core values must be instilled in all organizational members. They determine our character, guide our lives, and are central to our profession. Some of the more common organizational values; loyalty, duty, honesty, selfless service, professionalism, caring, teamwork, stewardship. and integrity. When these values are shared by all organizational members, they can be very important and useful tools for making judgments, assessing probable outcomes of contemplated actions, and choosing among alternatives. Organizational values put all members on the same page with regard to what all members as a body consider important. These values are the embodiment of what an organization stands for, and should be the basis for the behavior of its members. When we implement, commit to, and apply personal values in our lives, energy is released that attracts success, achievement, and well-being. With organizations and nstitution’s employees, customers, products, services, and all the stakeholders, their energy attracts success, new opportunities, new sources of revenue and income, and other material and psychological benefits. In some organizations, any discord by its members may be rewarded by termination, or they may be expelled, or ostracized from the group. Group members quickly learn the operating values, or they don't survive for long. To the extent they differ from stated values, the organization will not only suffer from doing things less effectively, but also from the cynicism of its members, who have yet another reason for mistrusting the leadership, or doubting its wisdom. Organizational values provide the basis for judgments about what is important for the organization to succeed in its core business. There are three aspects to ethical behavior in organizations: the development of the individual as an ethical person, the effect of the organization as an ethical or unethical environment, and the actions or procedures developed by the organization to encourage ethical behavior and discourage unethical behavior. Most of an individual's ethical development occurs before entering an organization. The influence of family, church, community, and school will determine individual values. The organization is dealing with individuals whose value base has already been established. The organization also has a major impact on the behavior of its members, and can have a positive or negative influence on their values. There are three qualities individuals must possess to make ethical decisions; the ability to recognize ethical issues and to reason through the ethical consequences of decisions, the ability to look at alternative points of view, deciding what is right in a particular set of circumstances, and the ability to deal with ambiguity, uncertainty, and to make decisions on the best information available. Individual characteristics and organizational influence are very important attributes that determines ethical behaviors. The ethical standards that one observes in the organization will have a significant effect on individual behavior. The organization has the greatest impact in the standards it establishes for ethical and unethical conduct in its formal reward systems. Informal norms also have a strong influence on individuals' behavior as do the actions of the leaders of the organization. Strategic leaders must understand that their actions, more than words alone, will determine the operating values in the organization. Many people behave ethically, in spite of the apparent lack of gain. Ethical behavior is intrinsically rewarding; most people behave ethically because it's the right thing to do. People are guided by their personal value systems.

What is Sustainability - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1802 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2019/08/02 Category Biology Essay Level High school Tags: Sustainability Essay Did you like this example? Sustainability is the ability to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations. The most noticeable environmental issues are water, air pollution, deforestation, and climate change. Other sustainability issues involve agriculture, energy conservation, recycling, overfishing, and reducing the adding of chemicals into the environment. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "What is Sustainability?" essay for you Create order While children are taught in elementary school how to reuse, recycle and conserve, generalizing these practices into lifelong strategies are imperative to our future well-being. Companies address corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a way to enact self-regulation, compete with other companies, make public altruistic intentions, and appease various stakeholder groups such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). (Sprinkle Maines, p. 446) Corporate CSR can be seen as a cost of doing business that addresses profits (performance), people (social), and planet (environment). Triple bottom line is a term John Elkington, a business writer, claims responsibility for coining in 1994. Triple bottom line is an accounting framework that measures the results of a company’s CSR results in profit (financial), people (social) and planet (environment). Although there are is an accounting framework to measure social and environmental benefits, it is complex and monetizing non-monetary effor ts or using an index does not do justice to the activity. Triple bottom line measures the activity and the resulting benefits to the company, the consumer and to the cause. All businesses creating a CSR must choose the best way to meet the needs of the present without infringing upon the ability of future generations ability to meet the same needs in the future. A company’s CSR will show the public the results of choices made during the year, which pressures executive decision makers, to weigh these decisions carefully since they will be held accountable. This also applies to maintaining the business so that the business continues and provides for future generations of employees as well as for stockholders. Just as marketing campaigns measure positive improvements in business through sales, so can CSR and sustainability efforts be measured in many ways. There are also defined practices for how to measure the results of social efforts, environment efforts, and of course financial efforts, thus the three P’s again; profit, people and planet. (Sprinkles Maines, p. 448-451) The possibility of leaving the environment, generation after generation, with less species in the ecosystem is not something that is obvious to executive management, but poses a risk for the future ecosystem and therefore to the human race. For example, a species that is almost undetectable may seem relatively unimportant, but the complete absence of this species could in fact change the environment forever by permanently changing the ecosystem. No one knows if this will leave the ecosystem unaffected, or severely and irreparably damaged until the actual occurrence. Unfortunately, the change in the environment is the first warning that scientists receive to study how the ecology is interdependent and learn what is changing in the ecosystem. Business decisions must rely on superior knowledge to make the best decisions, to avoid a public relations nightmare and to perform this responsibly in their role. If corporations have the power to alter the ecosystem, they become stewards of the environment. â€Å"In 1970, Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, expressed his viewpoint that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.† (Sprinkle Mains, p.445) The opposite of this sentiment, that businesses are completely responsible for any damage they cause to the environment, is a contrasting opinion becoming popular in the early part of the twenty-first century. â€Å"Corporate sustainability focuses on increasing shareholder value by incorporating principles in nine areas: ethics, governance, transparency, business relationships, financial return, community involvement, product value, employment practices and environmental protection.† (Sprinkles Maines, p.446) CSR activities to be included are corporate donations of cash or products, allowance for employee time off (for volunteering), activities relating to employee health and welfare, improving the environmental profile of the products produced, the humane treatment of animals, and the eradication of product testing on animals. Also included is the incorporation of â€Å"green† production practices into the current business by acquiring a green business, architecting one from scratch or accentuating current practices that are green in nature already. (Unruh Ettenson, p. 96-98) Other activities affecting the CSR are the production and the whole value chain which should be reviewed for conserving energy, reducing emissions, using recycled materials, reducing packaging materials, and sourcing materials from vendors located geographically close to manufacturing facilities. (Sprinkles Maines, p.447) Manufacturing must include analysis of the environmental impact of the products entire lifecycle from development to disposal. Companies also should look into their value chain to calculate improvements for reducing transportation, energy waste, duplication of efforts, etc. For those companies who build, they should invest in becoming ‘leadership in energy and environmental design† (LEED) certified which aims at strategies to improve performance across all metrics. Attributions determine if the public is going to react positively to the company’s CSR efforts. Engagements must be aligned with the corporation as the customers must be able to reason why the company is involved in the activity in order for it to appear sincere. (Bhattacharya Sen, p. 14) Attachment is created internally by consumers when the identification to the cause and the company is powerful and taps into their needs for self–definition and social identity. (Bhattacharya Sen, p. 15) â€Å"Cause-related marketing is the process of†¦marketing activities that are characterized by an offer†¦.to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives. (Varadarajan Menon, 1988, as cited in Berglind Nakata, p.444) The benefits of cause related marketing (CRM) go hand-in-hand with CSR initiatives; assisting a nonprofit will also have the desired effect of increasing customer lifetime value (CLTV) as well as improve brand recognition with brand building for new customers. An example of this is the results that American Express calculated of an increase in card use of up by 28% when it sponsored the Statue of Liberty Campaign. (Berglind Nakata, p.447) If the CSR initiative helps a noteworthy cause, and the cost involved is not greater than the calculated spend for total customer cost it will be a worthwhile cost. Other benefits include improving the corporate reputation, generating more r evenues, goodwill, and enhancing employee morale and retention. Also the CRM increases funding of nonprofit organizations (NPOs), heightens NPOs exposure and message efficacy. It also provides much needed non-financial resources to the NPOs. (Berglind Nakata, p.447-8) Just as there are unlimited activities to participate in CSR there are also many different reasons why companies participate in CSR. Because of altruism, to appease various stakeholders groups such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), focusing on environmental concerns could lower the cost of production, easing legal or regulatory constraints. (Sprinkles Maines, p.448) The costs associated with CSR can be measured by identifying the activities chosen by the company that are intended for CSR purposes, the estimated cost of activities the company refrained from doing due to the involvement with CSR, and the estimated revenue that would have been derived from company activities. Another factor is the company must consider the opportunity cost of doing not performing another charitable or different activity and estimate what exposure are they losing from that activity. Measuring the cost inflows or outflows, tax credits, sales tax exemptions, property tax abatements, free advertisi ng, as CSR attracts, motivates and retains talent, turnover is reduced and can be estimated. â€Å"Firms can translate increased retention rates†¦ to the costs of employee turnover.† (Sprinkles Maine, p.450) The United Nations’ developed seventeen Sustainable Development Goals to achieve by 2030 that is considered a blueprint for a better tomorrow. This comprehensive list is referenced by companies in their own CSR to ensure they are not overlooking the recognized goals to achieve and must look into their own value chain to achieve these goals if possible. Of the 17 issues some are the eradication of poverty and hunger, making vaccinations available, cleaning the ocean and social issues such as gender equality, and reduced inequalities among people. There is back up for every item, for example, if you explore poverty eradication, it says that â€Å"by 2030 167 million children will be living in extreme poverty if the world doesn’t take action†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (un.org, sustainability). This and other facts about children are heart-breaking and reach people with a more powerful message which work well for CSR initiatives. Fortune 500 companies spend $15 billion on CSR activities and companies who increased their giving by more than ten percent noticed an increase in revenue and pretax revenue. All companies should be doing CSR work, not only to perform charity, but to compete, since it is expected by the public. Companies shrewdly foster brand development and awareness to improve customer loyalty and customer lifetime value with CSR initiatives. Companies should want to create an employer brand as well to turn their employees into brand ambassadors. â€Å"A strong employer brand attracts and retains workers and turns them into advocates for the company. It differentiates their organization from the next.† (Gallup, p.23) The Gallup Study introduces the idea of allowing remote workers to contribute to savings which are financial but also a benefit to the environment with an unexpected tradeoff of, increased employee engagement. Employees save on transportation costs, lunch costs, and business attire and laundering while employers save on energy (heat or air conditioning), electricity, and space savings on the workspace. The savings for the city is on congestion from employees traveling to and from the city either in personal vehicles or on the city buses or trains. Fewer people translates to less traffic congestion. Under Obama’s leadership, the Federal Government allowed employees who weren’t executive leadership to work remotely at least one day a week, in an effort to reduce emissions and reduce the agency’s carbon footprint. This was very progressive when the Federal Government acknowledged that people are happier, more fulfilled and productive when given a flexible work sched ule and allowed to telecommute regularly. According to the 2017, State of the American Workplace Study, by Gallup, 37% of employees would switch to a job that gives the kind of flexibility that remote working affords. The study found that working remotely positively influences employee engagement and employee engagement climbs when employees are able to work remotely and also come into work to a home base part of the time. Surprisingly, the optimal gain was when employees were remote 60-80% of the time. (Gallup, p.153) Another surprising fact is â€Å"fully remote workers are 17% more likely than employees who work in the office 100% of the time to strongly agree they have a clear job description. (Gallup, p.157) These findings should change the view of the office and employment of the future. People should be given a chance to work remotely to see if productivity increases as the Gallup Study suggests; this is what companies need to survive and thrive in the future.