attached is the discussion instructions and reading material and link to video or article. please respond substa

attached is the discussion instructions and reading material and link to video or article. please respond substantively to the instructions using the chapter reading and article or video to support claims.


Corporate Social Responsibility:
Organizations are increasingly concerned with sustainability and corporate social responsibility whether for business, legal, or values-based reasons. The HR function is uniquely positioned to
assist in both developing and implementing a sustainability strategy.
Go to The Guardian’s Corporate Social Responsibility page and select a video or article from the
list provided. If possible, avoid selecting videos or articles already chosen and discussed by
classmates. After viewing the video or reading the article you have selected, provide a summary
of it and a response to the following discussion prompts:



Explain how the organization in the video or article demonstrates corporate social
responsibility.
Explain HR’s role in formulating corporate values and developing an overall business
sustainability strategy.
Identify examples of sustainable HR practices that support a culture of corporate social
responsibility.
Use this week’s lecture as a basis for your post. Reference the source and cite the textbook in
your original post
Reference and link:
Corporate social responsibility. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/corporatesocialresponsibility
The Ethics of HRD and
Corporate Social Responsibility
10
anyaberkut/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Summarize the issues of ethical HRD.
• Describe HRD’s social responsibility.
• Explain social responsibility at the operational level.
• Evaluate work–life balance issues.
• Examine the critical perspective of HRD through the social history of training.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.
—Warren Buffet
Introduction
Chapter 10
Pretest
1. Using a one-size-fits-all model of employee training contradicts ethical principles for
human resource development.
a. true
b. false
2. Organizations with dedicated corporate social responsibility programs tend to rank
lower and report less return on investment than other companies.
a. true
b. false
3. The glass ceiling that can keep qualified women and minorities out of leadership positions often manifests as a lack of access to training development.
a. true
b. false
4. Multitasking is a focusing strategy that allows employees to accomplish more and
reduce stress.
a. true
b. false
5. Rather than simply supporting workers, historically training programs have often
served as means of oppression.
a. true
b. false
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
In this, our final chapter, we now change our focus from HRD as the interdisciplinary field
with the processes and goals to enhance employee performance through learning, to HRD’s
impact on, and responsibilities to, the environment in which it operates, both internal and
external. Specifically, as discussed in Chapter 1, we will recall Swanson’s metaphor for HRD as
a three-legged stool—psychological, economic, and systems—which sat on a base of ethics.
We will discuss HRD not only in the context of ethics, but also as an extension of social responsibility known as corporate social responsibility (CSR), which includes organizational
issues such as work–life balance, equal opportunity, and access to career-advancing training
and development.
Although the field of human resource development (HRD) is dedicated to the activities and
processes that influence organizational and individual learning and development, HRD has
not ignored or overlooked ethics. As early as 1978, there was an awareness and recommendations of ethical practice for training and development professionals (Clement, Pinto, & Walker,
Ethical Human Resource Development
Chapter 10
1978). Currently, there exists the Academy of Human Resource Development’s Standards on
Ethics and Integrity (http://www.ahrd.org).
Recently, however, an emerging theme in HRD surrounds how human resource development is
increasingly expected to facilitate ethics and corporate social responsibility; that is, organizations are taking the initiative to assess and assume responsibility for the organization’s effects
on the environment and impact on social welfare (Ardichvili, 2013; Bierema & D’Abundo,
2004; Hatcher, 2003; Hatcher, 2002; MacKenzie, Garavan, & Garbery, 2012). This expanding
responsibility extends HRD stakeholders to include not only the individual, group, and organization, but also society (Ardichvili, 2013; Bierema & D’Abundo, 2004; McLean, 2004).
By placing this CSR lens onto HRD, we focus in on the so-called triple bottom-line approach
(Savitz, 2013); that is, a balanced attention to both the economic aspects of organizational
performance and the organization’s impact on the environment and attention to social justice
(Bierema & D’Abundo, 2004; Kim, 2012a; MacKenzie et al., 2012; Marquardt & Berger, 2003).
10.1 Ethical Human Resource Development
Not unlike other disciplines, HRD affirmed early on how the field’s effectiveness and credibility depended on ethical practice (Clement et al., 1978; Hatcher, 2010; McLagan & Suhadolnik,
1989; Russ-Eft & Hatcher, 2003; Swanson & Holton, 2001). The initial practice of HRD dealt
with ethical issues that were relatively straightforward, including maintaining confidentiality,
striking a balance between organizational and individual needs, and using influence appropriately (Jerling, 1996; McLagan & Suhadolnik, 1989). McLagan et al. (1989) put forth 13
ethical issues a training and development professional needs to consider:
1. Maintain appropriate confidentiality. For example, do not reveal a trainee’s deficiencies to other organizational members.
2. Decline inappropriate training requests. For example, decline a manager’s request to
create training that is not really needed or to conduct the training at an unnecessarily
expensive venue when more economical venues are adequate.
3. Respect copyrighted sources and intellectual property. For example, acknowledge
the work of an original author whose work is used, and ask permission to use copyrighted training materials.
4. Ensure truth in any claims, data, and recommendations. For example, do not falsify
training results to make them appear better, including the training’s ROI.
5. Balance the organization’s needs with the employee’s training and development needs.
For example, avoid only looking at cost as the sole factor for training effectiveness or
not favoring certain employees for training over others.
6. Ensure that all customers and users have an opportunity to participate and take ownership. For example, be sure to involve line management in the assessment of training
needs.
7. Avoid conflicts of interest. For example, do not promote nepotism (favoring family
members) in the marketing to vendors of training programs.
8. Manage personal biases. For example, guard against using training techniques or
modalities that only satisfy the trainer rather than the trainees.
9. Be guided by the trainees’ needs. For example, ensure that training objectives are
guided by the assessment performed in the needs analysis phase of ADDIE.
Ethical Human Resource Development
Chapter 10
10. Regarding diversity, show respect for, interest in, and representation in the workplace.
For example, treat trainees equally and avoid discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, or age.
11. Be aware of the direct and indirect effects of intervention and act to rectify negative
consequences. For example, consider trainee expectations and even the unintended
effects on the trainees.
12. Price and cost products or services fairly. For example, ensure that training programs
are not overpriced and provide the organization a fair return on investment.
13. Do not use power inappropriately. For example, avoid using personal power to influence training processes to favor certain groups or departments.
Werner and DeSimone (2011) further extended the awareness of ethical HRD practice by
including warnings about the use of deception, as well as the pressure to produce positive ROI
results. For example, a trainer may state some other reason why she is observing the employees in a department rather than the truthful reason of observing to see if they are applying
(level 3) the training they received weeks earlier.
Also, with the growing need for organizations to show competitive advantage, organizations
may tend to focus more on transactional (performance-driven) versus transformational
(developmentally based) outcomes (Rousseau, 1989). Doing so puts additional pressure on
HRD ethical practice. As a result, HRD professionals might feel compelled to show that a training program was effective, especially at times when the HRD professional is the person who
purchases or designs, develops, and implements the training. The implication is that if the
evaluation of that training is shown to be ineffective, the HRD department may lose funding
and support (Werner & DeSimone, 2011).
Different Ethical Frameworks
According to Northouse (2012), in an organizational context, applying business ethics outcomes can be framed from a shareholder to stakeholder continuum. Let us review a few frameworks for organizational ethics:
• Ethical egoism. In this ethical framework, organizations act to create the greatest
benefits they can for themselves. An organization and its employees therefore make
decisions to achieve the organizational goal of maximizing profits. Here is a case
in point from Clemson University’s Institute for the Study of Capitalism: Although
Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Sam Walton greatly benefited humanity by providing it with lightbulbs, cheap automobiles, or cheap consumer retailing, each was
motivated by self-interest and his own satisfaction and fulfillment. With such an
ethical framework, the most efficient and productive businesses can earn the most
profit while simultaneously providing consumers with affordable goods and services
(Clemson University, 2014). From a training and development standpoint, this framework supports the resource-based view of human capital described in Chapter 9;
that is, leveraging the economic benefits of a highly trained and developed workforce
towards achieving competitive advantage.
• Utilitarianism. In this ethical framework, organizations balance their self-interest
with the interests of society. Specifically, they try to benefit the greatest number and
maximize social benefits while minimizing social costs. An example of an organization that practices this is the ice cream maker Ben and Jerry’s™, whose social mission
Ethical Human Resource Development
Chapter 10
statement articulates such a utilitarian framework (visit http://www.benjerry.com/
values to read the company’s mission statement). Ben and Jerry’s actively seeks out
and financially supports causes that the company feels will have a positive impact on
the community at large. For example, Ben and Jerry’s promotes the Refinery Efficiency
Initiative, whose goal is to reduce refinery accidents to prevent the release thousands
of pounds of toxins into the air; and ETC Group, which strives to promote biodiversity,
democratic technology assessment, and just and sustainable food security and livelihood systems for the benefit of society.
Panera Bread Company, too, has its Panera Cares program, in which customers who are going
through a difficult financial time can “pay whatever they can afford” (“Panera Cares,” 2013)
for food. The training of Panera employees also reflects this ethical framework, and it is a job
requirement that all employees at a Panera Cares location understand or critically reflect on
being a good corporate citizen. Panera Cares workers are specifically trained to deal with
a population that is in need. “What they told us to do is just to smile at every customer, so
even if they don’t want to make eye contact with us, the fact that we’re smiling is a sign that
we’re here and that we care. The smile is everything that will make their day,” (“Panera Cares,”
2013) says employee Yetunde Bankol.
• Altruism. In this ethical framework, actions are moral if their primary purpose is to
promote the best interest of society; naturally, many nonprofit organizations adopt
this framework as part of their mission. Recently, Entrepreneur magazine spotlighted
five organizations considered to be exceptionally altruistic. Included on the list was
the Salesforce.com Foundation, whose a philanthropic approach is to leverage not
only technology and resources, but also its people to build collective knowledge—a
core component of strategic human resource development (Swart, Mann, Brown, &
Price, 2012)—to take action to improve communities throughout the world.
Did You Know? Altruism for Generation Y Employees
According to an article from Forbes on the new generation of employees entering the
workforce, the millennial generation—the so-called generation Y—recent research from the
Center for Work-Life Policy shows that ambition, dedication and, above all, concern for social
welfare are alive and well among this cohort.
Author Sylvia Hewlett writes:
Perhaps it’s not surprising that the children of the Me generation are
developing into a We generation. The baby boomers wanted to stop war and
promote peace; the echo boomers have equally ambitious goals to connect
cultures and save the planet. What’s new is that they not only want their
employers to recognize their enthusiasm, they expect them to support it.
Corporate social responsibility isn’t just talk for Gen Ys. They volunteer
extensively, care deeply and seek employers who feel the same: 88% of Gen
Y women and 82% of Y men believe it’s important to be able to give back to
community through work.
Source: Hewlett, S. A. (2009, July). The altruistic gen Y employee. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/07/gen-y-volunteer-mentorforbes-woman-leadership-community.html
Ethical Human Resource Development
Chapter 10
Globalization Means Global HRD
Consider, too, that the practice of ethical HRD may become more complex because many organizations continue to expand globally. For example, of McDonald’s $24 billion in revenue in 2013,
66% was from overseas markets, the majority of its revenue from Europe and Asia (about 400
stores in China alone!). About 315 (45%) of the 700 hotels Marriott is developing will be located
outside North America (Newman, 2014; International Trade Administration, 2014).
Clearly, one HRD framework will not fit all organizations (or countries). As organizations
become more global and diverse, global HRD must adapt its practices. A notable example is
found in Gary McLean, Professor Emeritus of HRD at the University of Minnesota and CEO of
McLean Global Consulting. McLean introduces a general HRD framework to his international
initiatives (such as assessing the gap between the present state and the desired future state),
but then adapts it to the international community and social projects, including projects in
Pakistan, Thailand, and Morocco (McLean, 2004). In Pakistan, for example, McLean and his
colleagues, under a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development, worked with a
group of Pakistani consultants from social development agencies and nongovernmental agencies (NGOs) to develop their organization development consulting competencies. In Thailand,
McLean and his colleagues used HRD processes for the purposes of moral, social, and community development; HRD tools identified and assessed leadership development, training, and
social and moral development through retreats and instruction.
These and other projects underscored McLean’s and other HRD practitioners’ assertion that
the field of HRD can ultimately serve all of humanity (Kim, 2012b). McLean particularly has
promoted HRD practice to assist with the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for
2015. As articulated by United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, the UN’s MDGs
include:
Eradicating extreme poverty continues to be one of the main challenges of
our time, and is a major concern of the international community. Ending this
scourge will require the combined efforts of all, governments, civil society
organizations and the private sector, in the context of a stronger and more
effective global partnership for development. The Millennium Development
Goals set time-bound targets, by which
progress in reducing income poverty,
hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter and exclusion—while promoting
gender equality, health, education and
environmental
sustainability—can
be measured. They also embody basic
human rights—the rights of each person on the planet to health, education,
shelter and security. The Goals are
ambitious but feasible and, together
with the comprehensive United Nations
development agenda, set the course for
the world’s efforts to alleviate extreme
Comstock/Stockbyte/Thinkstock
poverty by 2015. (as cited in United
Maintaining ethical practices becomes more comNations, n.d.)
plex as companies expand globally.
HRD and Social Responsibility
Chapter 10
With global HRD, cross-cultural understanding of the meaning and goals of HRD will vary
from country to country, as will the way HRD is viewed as national policy around the world
(McLean, 2004). For example, how is HRD practiced in India? (See India’s National HRD Network, https://www.nationalhrd.org/about-nhrdn/overview.) Consider that, unlike in the
United States, India has a collectivist culture with a historical focus on the group versus the
individual (Hofstede, 1984; Hong & Lee, 2014). As a result, it is possible that decisions regarding who gets access to career-advancing training in India is influenced by whether or not
the employee is in the in-group. Compare this to the United States, where those decisions
are supposed to be based on qualifications with equal access guided by labor laws (Gelfand,
Chiu, & Hong, 2010). Wang and McLean (2007) suggested discussions be ongoing regarding
the practice of international HRD because the field of HRD still struggles over the meaning
of the term; specifically, they assert that there exists a dilemma in defining international and
cross-national HRD.
Although culture differences make it difficult to operationalize global, homogeneous HRD
practice, Russ-Eft & Hatcher (2003) assert there is a rationale for an international HRD code
of ethics, with the AHRD Standards on Ethics and Integrity providing a good first step, albeit
still tied to a North American view.
10.2 HRD and Social Responsibility
Like other social sciences, HRD invokes at a minimum a do no harm principle, a primary ethical obligation to avoid doing harm to employees of the organization (Bierema & D’Abundo,
2004; Fenwick & Bierema, 2008; Hatcher, 2010; Porter, 2008) and the community from which
they operate. Corporate social responsibility includes organizations who choose to assess
and take the initiative and responsibility for how the organization affects the environment,
as well as social justice and welfare (Ardichvili, 2013; Bierema & D’Abundo, 2004; Hatcher,
2003; Hatcher, 2002; Kopp & Desiderio, 2009; MacKenzie et al., 2012).
This perspective extends HRD stakeholders to include not only the individual, group, and
organizational levels, but also society (Ardichvili, 2013; Bierema & D’Abundo, 2004; McLean,
2004). Corporate social responsibility itself has evolved and is typically divided into four eras
(Frederick, 1998):




Corporate social stewardship, 1950s–1960s
Corporate social responsiveness, 1960s–1970s
Corporate and business ethics, 1980s–1990s
Corporate and global citizenship, 1990s–21st century
Although the field of HRD continues to demonstrate increasing concern with ethics, integrity, and sustainability, moving away from a strict performance model and evincing a “greater
attention to power relations, equity, social justice and reflexivity in HRD” (Fenwick & Bierema, 2008, p. 26), HRD’s focus on social responsibility is still evolving (Garavan & McGuire,
2010). Some might even contend that it is getting off to an inauspicious start; in reviewing
600 articles from 1996 to 2000, Bierema and Cseh (2003) concluded that “HRD focuses little
on issues concerning social justice in the workplace or larger social context” (p. 23). Additionally, Hatcher (2002) considered that HRD professionals were part of the problem because so
little was done to enhance the human spirit or protect the environment. As discussed, with
HRD and Social Responsibility
Chapter 10
CSR, organizations focus on the triple bottom-line approach (Savitz, 2013). Furthermore, the
employee relations component of CSR is a significant part of the corporate citizen scoring,
tied for the highest component at 19.5%.
The 100 Best Corporate Citizens list from Corporate Responsibility Magazine ranks firms
according to how well they perform in these eight categories: shareholders, community,
governance, diversity, employees, environment, human rights, and product. Their scores
reflect financial information, as well as measures of corporate social performance; the Global
Reporting Initiative also developed guidelines to enable organizations to comparably report
on the social impact of a business.
According to Gatewood and Carroll (1981), organizations fall on a spectrum as they adopt
certain responses to societal demands. They range from being proactive, where the organization actively takes social initiatives, to obstructive, where the organization denies social
responsibility Carroll (Gatewood & Carroll, 1981) (see Figure 10.1). Therefore, where an
organization operates will determine where its HRD practice and philosophy fall.
Specifically, within the context of HRD, corporate social responsibility can be framed as how
organizational activities affect an employee’s physical and mental health and well-being—in
short, how the stress of work practices affect human systems (Fenwick & Bierema, 2008; Pfeffer, 2010). This consideration includes avoiding direct and immediate harm and implies an
obligation to weigh carefully how the decisions, future consequences, and impacts of training
affect others from both the internal and external environments (Kotler & Lee, 2011). This primary obligation, therefore, should supersede the outcomes of training and performance for
Developing
society’s macro goals (Fenwick & Bierema, 2008; Garavan & McGuire, 2010; Hatcher, 2003).
Examples of practice could include aspects of work–life balance or ethical mentoring.
Figure 10.1: Spectrum of corporate social responsibility standard
Levels of CSR vary among organizations. Depending on their philosophy, organizations
may be proactive, seeking out inequities; or obstructionist, taking the view that social
responsibility is not the role of business.
• Proactive—
Organization
takes social
initiatives
• Accomodative—
Organization
accepts ethical
responsibility
• Defensive—
Organization
does only what
is legally
required
• Obstructive—
Organization
denies all social
responsibility
High
Low
Source: Adpated from Gatewood, E., & Carroll, A. B. (1981). The anatomy of corporate social response. Business Horizons, 24, 9–16.
f10.01_BUS375.ai
HRD and Social Responsibility
Chapter 10
Nurturing Corporate Social Responsibility Within the Organization
According to Kash Rangan, a professor at Harvard Business School, in many companies,
“There’s always a marketing strategy, an operations strategy, an HR strategy, but what is
the CSR strategy?” (as cited in Filtz, 2013). Within his executive leadership courses, Rangan
teaches organizational leaders to integrate CSR aspects into their corporate strategies by
adopting these practices:
• Align social responsibility strategies and goals with organizational objectives.
• Sustain the CSR strategy over the long term by embedding CSR within the business
culture.
• Use hiring and partnerships to build CSR expertise; for example, recently, the Silicon
Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) and YourCause, both leaders in CSR, teamed up
to create a corporate social responsibility center where organizations can look for
and develop their CSR acumen (http://ef.siliconvalleycf.org/blog/silicon-valleycommunity-foundation-and-yourcause-announce-partnership-create-csr-center).
• Integrate social responsibility metrics into general performance management systems; for example, in addition to accessing the so-called triple bottom line, organizations are mindful of the CSR metrics of community, governance, diversity, employees,
environment, and human rights.
• Share information about CSR policies throughout the organization.
• Demonstrate how CSR practices continue to affect individuals and departments.
• Communicate the impact of social responsibility to capital markets, shareholders, and
other stakeholders. Accurate and timely communication is key to CSR efforts. Interestingly, unless corporations communicate their CSR achievements accurately, they risk
being accused of “greenwashing,” a new term that, according to communications professor Laura Illia (Illia, Zyglidopoulos, Romenti, Rodríguez-Cánovas, & González del
Valle Brena, 2013), refers to the use of environmentalism to suggest that a company’s
policies and products are environmentally friendly. More broadly, the term describes
public relations aimed at giving the false impression that a corporation is genuinely
engaged in CSR and has green credentials.
HRD in Practice: Unethical Mentoring
In a recent blog, business coach Catherine Day reflected on the ethics of mentoring:
I am passionate about mentoring and cannot understand why some
organizations allow behaviors from mentors that are destructive or corrosive.
Not only do these behaviors undermine the mentee and diminish their trust
with the organization, they send a message that the mentor’s behavior is
condoned. The following is a recent example shared with me by a senior
executive I am now mentoring.
”A mentor was appointed by the organization to address perceived gaps in
the experience of the newly appointed executive. This was the first mistake—
arbitrarily appointing a mentor without giving a choice to the person being
mentored. It’s so important for a rapport to develop between the two for the
mentor to be effective.
(continued)
HRD and Social Responsibility
Chapter 10
Mistake number two was not agreeing on the rules of engagement between the mentor and
the company. In this case, the mentee discovered that matters discussed during a mentoring
session were reported back to his superior. This was entirely unethical on behalf of the
mentor, and shouldn’t have been condoned by the CEO. The probable motivation of the
mentor was to ingratiate himself with the CEO to gain more business in the organization. The
mentee had a discussion with the CEO and it was agreed that a new mentor would be found
who would meet the gap criteria and clear guidelines would be agreed by all concerned.”
Source: Reprinted with permission from Day, C. Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management, Executive Mentor. (2014.) Unethical mentoring. Retrieved
from The CDA Blog: http://cdainspired.com.au/unethical-mentoring
Consider This
1. How should the “rules of engagement” in mentor–mentee relationships be formalized?
2. Is there ever a rationale for the mentor to discuss the mentoring session with the
mentee’s supervisor?
3. How does Day’s story underscore the risks of assigning mentors versus letting this type
of relationship emerge?
Not everyone is sold on the idea that organizations should be in the CSR business. Table 10.1
reviews arguments for and against corporate social responsibility (see http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=5nRQNNidbV8).
Table 10.1: Arguments for and against corporate social responsibility
Should organizations be in the CSR business?
For
Against
Social problems have resulted from the rise of the
modern corporation. Therefore, the corporate world
should take the lead in addressing these problems.
Confronting social and moral issues is not economically feasible. Corporations should focus on earning
a profit for their shareholders and leave social issues
to others.
Large corporations enjoy the benefits of huge
reserves of human and financial capital. They should
devote at least some of their resources to addressing
social issues.
Those who are most capable should address
social issues. Those in the corporate world are not
equipped to deal with social problems.
Assuming social responsibilities is in the long-term
best interests of corporations. Doing so will increase
the chances that corporations will have a future and
will reduce the chances of increased governmental
regulation.
Corporations that assume social responsibilities are
at a competitive disadvantage relative to those who
do not.
Source: Adapted from Reference for Business. (2014). Corporate social responsibility. Retrieved from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Comp-De/
Corporate-Social-Responsibility.html#ixzz2LSk4PPE7
Notwithstanding the for or against arguments of CSR, it is important to note that organizations can take a middle ground. Rarely is an organization’s CSR policy a binary, all-or-nothing
proposition. For example, early on, Gatewood and Carroll (1981) proposed that in addition
to being proactive (for) or obstructionist (against) regarding CSR, there were the midline
HRD and Social Responsibility
Chapter 10
propositions of an organization being accommodative and accepting ethical responsibility of
CSR and, at the very least, complying with the legal requirements that support CSR (for example, phasing out incandescent office lightbulbs with efficiency lighting as they will be illegal
to produce in 2016).
Going back to the Panera Cares example, coauthor of Understanding Business Ethics Peter
Stanwick points out that the ethical framework could be a middle ground between ethical
egoism and utilitarianism because it could be argued that because Panera Bread “expects that
the payments needy people will make will be close to the actual cost of the food” (Stanwick &
Stanwick, 2014, p. 9).
Case Study: When Job Performance Aids Attack
As discussed, job aids can be designed to assist in work or life; they give information that
enables the user to know what actions and decisions a specific task requires. Instructions or
directions themselves are considered forms of job aids. Consider this interesting story.
In the summer of 1905, an exasperated mother retrieved a box of Kopp’s Baby’s Friend (no
relation to author) from the washroom cabinet. Inside the box was a small bottle of the elixir
she had purchased through mail order. This “king of baby soothers” offered the promise of
putting crying babies to sleep (Adams, 1912). Indeed, the young mother must have thought
that it would make her crying, 9-month-old, colicky baby feel better. She was unclear on the
dosing instructions and read the directions from the box to assist her.
A few hours after giving her infant half a teaspoon—per the dosing instructions—“the baby
went into a stupor, his pupils were pin-pointed, skin cool and clammy, heart and respiration
slowed” (“Poisoned a Child,” 1905, p. 24). Minutes later, her baby was dead. An autopsy later
revealed the cause of death to be a morphine overdose—morphine being the elixir’s main
ingredient.
Certainly, this is a dramatic example that shows that, at the detail level, we cannot always
assume that job aids are giving out safe information. However, in the ethics of training and
social responsibility, the larger issue is that, although job aids are—axiologically speaking—
value neutral on their face, there are examples where they have historically been the means
to facilitate the ends of what might be considered dubious performance. From patented
medicines of the 19th and early 20th centuries to vocational training and labor methods
used within the Third Reich, what emerges is how ordinary training processes, including job
aids, were part of extraordinary and, sometimes, perverse contexts!
Consider This
1. Although an extreme example of a job performance aid, do you see any parallels in
today’s consumer world?
2. What, if any, role should the training and development profession take in ensuring that
training tools are used ethically by end users?
CSR and Social Justice Within the Organization
Chapter 10
“Walking the Walk” of Social Responsibility
Among the organizational strategies for promoting CSR are action learning and field projects
and global-service learning projects (Ardichvili, 2013; Kim, 2012b; McLean, 2004). Ardichvili
(2013) gives an example of a CSR initiative at Unilever. Here, hundreds of leaders from the
company’s Asian division worked together with Westerners
to create communities of learning and sharing, by completing development
projects in villages, schools, and shri