The ethical limitations and dangers of managerial roles
Ethical limitations dangers managerial roles
Ethical Limitations dangers Managers roles can take one of the five positions in their approach to ethical issues, and each has characteristic ethical strengths but also its own ethical dangers or limitations. The analysis is shown in figure 4.1 (p. 168) and it illustrates how twelve managerial roles show varying degrees of closeness to the five positions of: Prophets, Subjectivists, Rhetoricians, Quietists and Balancers.
The roles are accounts of positions that people may adopt and abandon according to preference and circumstances. The degree to which the twelve roles reflect the four stances will be in proportion to their distance in the matrix of figure 4.1 from each stance.
The roles are defined by two dimensions. The first dimension concerns a person‘s beliefs about the whole or fragmentary nature of the wider cultural field in which they live and work. The second dimension concerns the extent to which a person believes their own ethical values to be a whole or, to a greater or lesser degree, a changeable set.
The managerial roles can be categorized into three elements:
1.Principle – represents a low fragmentation of values, principles are fixed.
2.Policy – represents a medium fragmentation of values, policies change and adapt.
3.Aporia – represents a high fragmentation of personal values , it means being uncertain. The ethical limitations of prophets
Prophets want to act on the world, or at least their organization, without the constraint of comment or caution from others. Their monocular ethical vision means they may do great harm if their vision happens to be wrong or bad. In contrast to system designers gurus are positive prophets.