Organizational vs. Social Responsibilities
As an individual with no real organizational responsibilities it can be difficult for me to draw conclusions and make arguments based on the thoughts and ideas concerning divided loyalties to an individuals social realm and to ones business realm. That being said, insight on the topic can be found in a thorough understanding of reading materials and in-class lectures. Milton Freidman provides vital information with regards to his theoretical analysis of a business as it pertains to responsibilities of the individual (employee). With specific emphasis on the word theoretical, as opposed to empirical, employees of a firm have an organizational responsibility to uphold goals and objectives of a business, including doing whatever is necessary within legal boundaries to make a profit.
In the case of conflicting responsibilities, I am arguing that an individual has a higher responsibility to the organization as opposed to social standards of living such as his conscious, his country or even his family. These responsibilities are assumed voluntarily, in a sense that they are acted upon not as agents but as moral principles. Let us use an example to further improve our understanding of that fact. If it is in the best interest of a company to export its shoe factory to a country that will perform the same duties as it otherwise would domestically for half the cost, then the social responsibility a person has to his or her country takes a back seat to the goals of the business most notably, its main objective to maximize profits. If social responsibilities can be acted upon using an individual’s discretion then according to Friedman, organizational responsibilities operate on a hierarchy of importance.
Friedman states in the textbook that an employee has a direct responsibility to his employer. That responsibility is to carry out business in accordance with ambitions and aspirations of the firm, in the best interest...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document