Managers are, for the most part, responsible for everything that occurs in the working environment. This incorporates the activities of their representatives and any errors they make. However, it is only possible if workers care about the business’s benefit. Sometimes, employees themselves can likewise be responsible in specific cases, especially in those where they are concerned about their personal interests. Employers are typically held responsible for the activities and wrongdoings of their workers (Matthews, 2014). They need to train their workers appropriately and give direction. In the presented cases of Jane Doe and the engineer, the organizations are at fault regarding building their image, the absence of sound methodology, and the absence of broad experience to build a unique culture in the workplace. The concept of the invisible hand can no longer be viable in the demanding modern world where workers need to be corresponding to the company’s goals.
When an employee acts following his or her own interest, there is always a possibility that the moral code within the workplace will be endangered. Not all workers have genuine motivation when performing his or her duties (Smith, 2014). Some employees may have egoistic intentions where they use the privileges provided by the workplace and add the least of their efforts to complete their basic duties. Hence, in case the company does not set certain rules of ethical behavior at work, there is always a risk of the misconception of the organization’s image and its moral values.
At my previous workplace, I had a young colleague responsible for greeting and communicating with customers who would often scroll her phone during working hours. The manager was not very strict and did not restrain us in our actions and free time. The store had the invisible hand philosophy since it trusted that the staff free in its actions could benefit the business and increase creativity and employee motivation to work. Nonetheless, my colleague continued to spend her time while she was in charge sitting in social media and chatting with her partner. Once, there was a time when the customer was asking her about the collaboration terms. The colleague just ignored the customer as she was distracted with her phone. Subsequently, the client left a negative comment about the store’s poor customer orientation and service on the well-known feedback website, which compromised the employer’s reputation. I believe this is the example of an organizational dilemma as it did not set specific restrictions on the worker’s behavior, which led to the employee’s permissiveness.
Even though an employer and workers can be mutually responsible in such cases, in this situation, the company ought to consider making policies and impart them to the organization’s workers (Smith, 2014). While endeavoring towards establishing an open workspace ought to be one of the organization’s main concerns, the company also ensures individuals assume liability for their errors and become mindful of the potential consequences (Smith, 2014). The company may decide to draw certain lines on phone use that rely upon the idea of the organization’s business, every worker’s task, and the issues the company has encountered. It is essential to outline when it is fit to use a personal device during the workday and the recurrence and length of calls allowed during working hours. The invisible hand concept is mostly no longer viable in the contemporary world where businesses without clear ethical values and strict policies are at risk of going bankrupt.
References
Matthews, C. (2014). The ‘invisible hand’ has an iron grip on America. Web.
Smith, N. C. (2014). The moral responsibility of firms: For or against? INSEAD Knowledge. Web.