Abstract
This paper aims at discussing the ethical and legal foundations of the two-factor motivational theory and the impacts of the biblical scriptures on business ethics. The religious perspectives discussed here include the religious social teachings and the natural law of antiquity. This work builds a conceptual framework from the religious teachings and natural law that can be adopted by business leaders to develop a business leadership. This phenomena forms the concrete needs bridge between contemporary business-leaders and time-tested Christian behaviours. Dignity of human has been used to portray the notion that businesses are built on social structures to fulfill human needs. The ultimate framework virtues and principles are guided by a logic that inspires excellence as for the prosperity of the business. This paper portrays the conceptual framework used to examine the two-factor motivational theory. The study also represents dire leadership problems that transform ethical pillar of virtues and principles and mechanisms for results. Each element and its effect on business leadership are described in the accompanying narrative. Multiple biblical scriptures and their implications on the dignity of humans are also discussed in this narrative. Company questions and example that can be adapted to benefit human prosperity have been illustrated.
Keywords
Dignity of human, Theory X and Theory Y, spirituality and business models
Introduction
To explain employee motivation, Douglas McGregor proposed Theories X and Y. The motivational factor states that the leadership purpose in a business is to put together the factors of production, including human labour, for the business’s economic good. Theory X assumes that the individual is not ambitious, is not responsible, follows instead of leading, hates responsibility and tries to avoid it, not intelligent (gullible), is egocentric (does not care about organizational goals), and resists change. This theory assumes the average person works for monetary value and security. Theory X approaches leadership of business from a hard approach to a flexible approach. The hard approach is based on close monitoring, coercion, implicit threats, and harsh control and command conditions.
On the other hand, the hard approach relies on a harmonious and agreeable approach that offers hope with an objective that workers will perform when required to perform.
Neither of the approaches is optimal. The hard approach leads to dire union demands, low output, and hostile environments. On the other extreme, the flexible approach permits continual requests for more rewards in compensation for the constant work output. Under Theory X, the best leadership approach should lie in between a soft and hard approach. However, Douglas states that neither extreme is correct as the approaches of the theory are not suitable.
He argues that a once a need has been achieved it stops being necessary (Maslow). Business enterprises rely on benefits and money to meet workers’ basic needs, and when the needs have met, the foundation of motivation is lost. Management styles in this theory prevent the fulfillment of luxury needs. As a result, the workers will seek more compensation in an attempt of fulfilling their secondary needs. They will likely concentrate more on monetary rewardsinstead ofthe job. Monetary rewards might not be suitable method to self-fulfillment, but in such a condition, money is ultimate purpose. This theory implies that persons are employed only to fulfill their secondary needs during their free time.The employees, however, work best when the focus is to fulfill other needs.
McGregor states that a control environment and command is not suitable as it depends on basic needs as factors of motivation. Lower needs cannot be a motivational factor because they have been satisfied in modern society. Under such conditions, employees would hate their work, not concentrate in organizational goals, rigid to change and avoid responsibility. Thus Theory X is rendered as a selfish motional factor. Hence Theory Y was proposed.
This phenomena states that other needs of self-actualization and esteem cannot be fully satisfied as they are recurring. Therefore the motivation of employees should be based on these higher-level needs. The business ought to adopt motivational factors that motivate people to be responsible employees, committed to the goals bestowed to them. Employees would be motivated to meet the business objectives bestowed to them. Proper motivation of people commits them to their responsibilities.
The assumptions give room to orient individual objectives with business objectivesby utilizing the people’s thirst for satisfaction. Theory Y management avoids a flexible directive. However, it is evident tighter measures need to be relaxed because some employees had not reached the maturity level to help employees develop a level of maturity. If Theory Y holds, the company would disseminate control and minimize the number of leadership levels. It would increase an employee’s job objectives and offer more opportunities to satisfy secondary needs. Besides, there would be a chance for participative management. The workers will be engaged in the process making decisions, which will provide the workers some aspects of ownership in their business environment. Again the firm will have job appraisals where people will set targets and participate in their evaluation. These conditions, if properly implemented in a company, would motivate the employees to work. Thereby satisfying their high personal needs in their works.
Conceptual frameworks
Naturally, humans are inspired by goodness, beauty and logic and repelled by evil. Modern business culture has pressures that make it difficult to differentiate what lies between economics. As a person climbs the ladder of success, he is likely to be stack on the things he should do. New sources for improving business ethics should be devised. Firms cannot prosper without foundation in moral norms. Dignity of human and business leadership are the keys to firm endurance. Corporates are failing because they lack faith-inspired lessons. They don’t act on the real good despite the apparent attraction on the good exerts. This paper provides a technical foundation for effective and just business undertakings. Codes of conduct are foundations of right and wrong standards that guide human actions. They are pillars of rights, obligations, fairness, and specific virtues of human doctrines. This paper is guided by the rich religious literature and numerous efforts of people who assimilated christian teachings into leadership models. A dignity of human model is drawn from these doctrines to guide business ethics. Teachings from natural law and religious insights that offer the framework pillar are reviewed in this paper. Conceptual underpinnings are also described.
Natural Law
A framework of good conduct is needed to guide how people reason. Natural law provides a foundation for making good decisions. This law dates back to Aristotle and is composed of human conduct and behaviour insights built into our nature by our Creator. This law is designed via the natural human reason (Engelland, 2017, p.31). Everyone is knows thatdisrespect of practical instructions leads to suffering. This code of ethic cut across and applicable to moral challenges faced by firm leaders. The phenomena proposed aligns itself with the premise that ethical firms practice. It does not rely on positive law but relies on natural law.
This law emanates from natural springs and natural law is sort of a supreme call that has been naturally implanted into the human mind. Thomas Aquinas states that people can understand particular general principles found in human nature and highlight that people should pursue and do good and avoid evil (Wenner 2018), which is the first principle of Natural Moral Law. Nemeth (2017) interpreting Aquinas highlights that the natural law should be self-evident, indemonstrable, without exception and immutable principle. (p.98). The law is planted in the human mind and is rational (Mea & Wall, 2016, p.8). Other philosophers state that natural law principles are underived, practical and self-driven. For example, murder a common evil to all societies. According to Schockenhoff and McNeil (2013, p.3), “the fundamentals of natural law are similar to one another and to the rigid constructions of meaning that offer humans a successful human existence image.
This law dates back to philosophies of the Stoics, Plato and Aristotle (George &Tollefsen, 2013). Aquinas expanded on this law by stating that pagans can lead moral lives rationally with this law. The law develops practical fundamentals for the choice that reach their principles in the good of people, even in businesses. The economic context is one of fulfilling one’s ultimate desires as a channel for self-actualization. Natural law is fundamental in CSD/T ethics and dignity of human conceptual framework.
Religious Social Doctrine and Teaching
Most religious moral values don’t appeal to postmodern business culture. Legalistic norms have failed and thus the need for religious sources to intervene. The business character can be improved by intertwining faith and reason. Christian philosophers have made significant impacts on business ethics (Brixler et al. 2017). Christian philosophers, for centuries, championed for fairness in contracts and transactions. Francisco de Vitoria initiated international law while other theologian fought for the common human rights in the seventeenth century (Scott, 1934). In the nineteenth century, the Church started fighting for human rights. Hence, scholars of Christianity made the economic world profound out of the profane. The Christian scholars explicitly stated that organized business leads to soul uplifting.
Religious insight offers significant notions for decision making and ethical management practices. The Church teaches on matters of social justice such as wealth and poverty, community, the role of the government and economics and criticize relationships issues in institutions and among people. The stage for ethical, economic behaviour principles was set by Leo’s encyclical RerumNovarum (Pullen 2018). Countless religious documents and encyclicals guide business ethics such as the catechism, Vatican Council and John Paul II. These documents guide Christian behaviour to uphold greater integrity in business activities. The authoritative document teaching religious social behaviour is the “Compendium.”
Conceptual Framework Implications
The current economic world is increasingly changing due to technological advancement. Nevertheless, the CSD/T provides coherent ethical principles to guide the changes.
The relevance of the moral guidelines is explained in the Religious Church’s global reach. Also, academic researchers can gain from CSD/T doctrines. Understanding CSD/T and natural law improve our knowledge of the dignity of people in relationship to business activities. Dignity of human is an ideology that individuals have a moral code that lives in their instincts. This is an aspect that makes a human a person. Clark and Mattson (2011) state that this context is irrelevant differently seen as a value, consequence and principle. Clark defines dignity of human as an occurrence of philosophy, pragmatic, legal, cultural and psychological perspectives (p. 303). Dignity of human is described by Mele (2015) as an ideology that every person is worthy of respect, honour and esteem. Dignity of human was first uttered by Dignitas that specifies a type of a forced recognition responsibility. In some aspects, dignity of human principles contradict the common good but can be improved by the common good (Smith 1995). Dignity of human appears complex, but its significance is more specific in CSD/T. Persons have two ends in themselves, according to John Paul II’s formulation. John Paul describes a person as a responsible, blessed with freedom and conscience that help him or her live a responsible life in history and society (p.119). There is a contradiction in various dignity of human arguments.
In the business environment, people have more than one role besides that of production. The purpose is “human” in them. According to Salvato (2018), every person is accountable to himself or herself.Dignity of human in the economic world has two dimensions, work in dignity and work at dignity, an insight offered by Bolton (2010). Work in dignity is based on the following pillars satisfaction of work, respect for employees, individual development, the importance of work itself and autonomy. On the other hand, dignity at work involves voice, reward, security, equal opportunity, and wellbeing. Dignity of human is viewed by Mattson and Hayes (2017) as universal personal wellbeing that is streamlined by humans interacting with each other (p. 303).
The dignity of human approach to people contradicts direct dealings that characterize some business premises, whereinsteadofhaving a personal relationship, they have transactional relationships. Most people in the world believe that work can be anything but dignifying. According to Clike (2019), unequal power interactions are present in the modern world economy when employees are coerced to choose work that is health-threatening, exhausting and demeaning. Thus business liberation should adopt measures that target equal power among the business agents (p. 188).
Religious doctrines suggest that when one person represents the ultimate end of society, the hierarchy of things is subordinate to the order of people, not vice-versa. Sison et al. (2016) suggest that according to human beings, their dignity is based on their personhood, resulting in a personalist principle. This phenomenon (Dignity of human), if applied to work, the objective would be to serve the other. The ontological significance of a being is the person’s key value but not his or her contribution, achievement or talent (Svd 2019). Management of human is viewed in many ways. The development of human virtue orients the human condition (Wagner 2018). According to John Paul, every individual is unique, united with his conscience, which is universal to everyone in the universe (p. 68). He defends the concept of dignity of human by referring to ancient truths that human beings are characterized by free will and intellect. John Paul’s approach is an alternative to various modern major business assumptions of ever-greater material goods.
A religious insight can help improve economic ethics in the contemporary business environment that values materials over people. Corporate culture is also improved by ancient religious lessons and philosophies that chip in new ideas to the contemporary code of conduct in business. Recent spiritual outlook teachings have triggered numerous developments to improve the economic world. The Religious Church has formulated a guide for entrepreneurs to especially at this period that has seen businesses exploiting their customers.
Important religious insights have been highlighted, unified and conveyed in the rhetorical device, Dignity of human. Two leadership virtues, generosity and humility, have been incorporated in this framework. Honesty enables leaders of economies to visualize their God given talents and understand their weaknesses and borrow expertise of other people for the common goal. On the other hand, the act of struggling to achieve great things concerning a person’s ability is called kindness.
The Church provides guiding principles but does not offer technical solutions. Benedict (2009) says that for people to fulfill economic objectives that are humane and value humanity only when they accept the revelation of faith and light (Sect. 9). Virtues and fundamentals taught by the religious insights provide a background that guides business problems that result in good outcomes. The key objective is to concentrate on ethical thinking and to act at a greater level.
Economic ventures that are guided by dignity of human are likely to succeed compared to those that lack moral values. First, people principle is a common good principle that allows firms to help their employees meet their proper fulfillment. For a person to do the right thing, he needs to develop good moral habits.