Literature is very scanty on this subject and the field is wide open for research .It has been neglected by scholars and philosophers so far , and I hope more research is done in this very important, practical area of life .Till that happens , be very careful about the words like synergy and team building .These are fine as long as going is good .But as soon as things are questioned , you begin to think what prompted you accept the membership of the group , team or committee in the first place .
Recently I read one excellent book called "Individuals, Groups and shared Moral Responsibility" by Gregory Mellema.It is 214 pages , published by Peter Lang Publishing,Inc.,New York in 1988.I quote him:" Among those employed by formal organizations is experienced a great deal of uncertainty as to the moral status of their participation in group actions.When decisions are made by groups or committees, when these decisions are implemented by the cooperative activity of several people, or when representatives from different organizations jointly design policy , questions about the ascription of responsibility frequently arise.These questions are not always raised in an overt fashion. ;sometimes individuals simply wonder to what extent they bear responsibility for what happens.But these are questions of considerable importance , questions which deserve to be considered not only by philosophers but by those in fields such as organizational behavior,sociology.communications, and anthropology."This book has given me a completely new and unexplored view about the working of teams and committees.I strongly recommend you to read this book , especially if you are working in Government or large corporate or public sector corporation.
Policy decisions in both the public and private sectors are increasingly designed and implemented by groups of individuals.Recommendations are made by committees and their presentation , approval and implementation is also done by committees. Within a committee, there could be hierarchies , seniorities and pressures. Which factors affect the degree to which an individual bears responsibility when the responsibility is shared with others.There are at least four factors:
1.The agent's motive
2.The agent's contributing action
3.The corcumstances surrounding the performance of the contributing action .
4.The degree of risk one knowingly takes that the outcome will occur.It can be intention , recklessness and negligence.
Sharing responsibility does not mean that agents are equally responsible.It is also not clear whether responsibility is borne by each and every individual employee of the organization .
Recently I read one excellent book called "Individuals, Groups and shared Moral Responsibility" by Gregory Mellema.It is 214 pages , published by Peter Lang Publishing,Inc.,New York in 1988.I quote him:" Among those employed by formal organizations is experienced a great deal of uncertainty as to the moral status of their participation in group actions.When decisions are made by groups or committees, when these decisions are implemented by the cooperative activity of several people, or when representatives from different organizations jointly design policy , questions about the ascription of responsibility frequently arise.These questions are not always raised in an overt fashion. ;sometimes individuals simply wonder to what extent they bear responsibility for what happens.But these are questions of considerable importance , questions which deserve to be considered not only by philosophers but by those in fields such as organizational behavior,sociology.communications, and anthropology."This book has given me a completely new and unexplored view about the working of teams and committees.I strongly recommend you to read this book , especially if you are working in Government or large corporate or public sector corporation.
Policy decisions in both the public and private sectors are increasingly designed and implemented by groups of individuals.Recommendations are made by committees and their presentation , approval and implementation is also done by committees. Within a committee, there could be hierarchies , seniorities and pressures. Which factors affect the degree to which an individual bears responsibility when the responsibility is shared with others.There are at least four factors:
1.The agent's motive
2.The agent's contributing action
3.The corcumstances surrounding the performance of the contributing action .
4.The degree of risk one knowingly takes that the outcome will occur.It can be intention , recklessness and negligence.
Sharing responsibility does not mean that agents are equally responsible.It is also not clear whether responsibility is borne by each and every individual employee of the organization .
If a group recommends , is it responsible for the final outcome , or is it the group which approved it , or is it the group which implemented it?What is a contributing action?Is it to make some recommendation , or is it also the same if an agent remains silent and let others decide?Is deliberate inaction also a contributing action?If there are distinct meetings, does each meeting become a distinct action leading to
to final action?Does an unwilling participant have the same responsibility as a willing participant?Does it make a difference in responsibility if an agent has a power to veto , and another agent does not have power to veto?Is the responsibility of an agent more if he presents and promotes the recommendation?A contributing action need not always be a causal contribution.
The person in charge is particularly responsible. We assume that the choice is free, but is each agent really free to express views?
When a person is nominated as a member of a committee,he acts as a representative of his organization/department and can contribute views which are to be regarded as the department's views.it is important to distinguish between the acts of individuals in their official capacity and in their private capacity.
Were the rules of the game properly observed?
Was there any prior planning?
Ethical dilutionism is a view that the degree of an individual's moral responsibility for a state of affairs is lessened or diminished by the fact that others in the group are responsible for the same state of affairs.Many Philosophers including Mellema do not agree with ethical dilutionism.
Responsibility with respect to outcome and with respect to the decision to participate are different.
Very little has been said of the social dynamics of participating in group actions and their impact upon the manner in which the members of the group come to share responsibility for what happens.
When we see the actual working of a committee in a government in India , we find the committees broadly agreeing with the views of the chair person .There is rare scope of dissent, or even a different view.The decision making represents the power structure in the composition of the committees.But when the recommendations , decisions , approvals and implementation are questioned , responsibility is sought to be attributed equally.In such a scenario, it is important to reflect carefully before agreeing to become a member of a committee.If one does become a member of a committee, one must be clear about one's role and express boldly and get recorded one's views .This presumes an open system for free and frank discussion , which alas is quite infrequent.Till this happens , there is a need to have a fresh look at the way we allocate and distribute responsibility among members of the committee , group or team .This is the other side of working in teams.
to final action?Does an unwilling participant have the same responsibility as a willing participant?Does it make a difference in responsibility if an agent has a power to veto , and another agent does not have power to veto?Is the responsibility of an agent more if he presents and promotes the recommendation?A contributing action need not always be a causal contribution.
The person in charge is particularly responsible. We assume that the choice is free, but is each agent really free to express views?
When a person is nominated as a member of a committee,he acts as a representative of his organization/department and can contribute views which are to be regarded as the department's views.it is important to distinguish between the acts of individuals in their official capacity and in their private capacity.
Were the rules of the game properly observed?
Was there any prior planning?
Ethical dilutionism is a view that the degree of an individual's moral responsibility for a state of affairs is lessened or diminished by the fact that others in the group are responsible for the same state of affairs.Many Philosophers including Mellema do not agree with ethical dilutionism.
Responsibility with respect to outcome and with respect to the decision to participate are different.
Very little has been said of the social dynamics of participating in group actions and their impact upon the manner in which the members of the group come to share responsibility for what happens.
When we see the actual working of a committee in a government in India , we find the committees broadly agreeing with the views of the chair person .There is rare scope of dissent, or even a different view.The decision making represents the power structure in the composition of the committees.But when the recommendations , decisions , approvals and implementation are questioned , responsibility is sought to be attributed equally.In such a scenario, it is important to reflect carefully before agreeing to become a member of a committee.If one does become a member of a committee, one must be clear about one's role and express boldly and get recorded one's views .This presumes an open system for free and frank discussion , which alas is quite infrequent.Till this happens , there is a need to have a fresh look at the way we allocate and distribute responsibility among members of the committee , group or team .This is the other side of working in teams.
6 comments:
I appreciate your thoughts and example of Indian Governmental committees.
I tend to think that in Industrial scenario it is usually different.Teams, whether cross functional or within the department have much better defined structure and responsibilities for every member. They can participate and influence the decision. They can also make the group to choose their option of decision if they succeed to create consensus through proper data and justification. Once the decision is taken it is a group decision and every person has the moral responsibility to accept the ownership even if outcome is not positive. Off course the leader of the group has the maximum responsibility as responsibility commensurate with the authority.
Thank you for your comment.I agree that the situation is different in industry in the private sector, as far as the process of making decisions through committees is concerned .Though , I do know cases in the private sector too where decisions appeared democratic , but actually a minority decided.But when things go wrong , there is no standard of distributing the moral and legal responsibility.It has not been researched much .It is all done by common sense of the people at the top.
Thank you once again for taking the discussion forward. . . . . . . .Vidyanand
Thank U Sir for writing a revealing fact. The dichotomy of moral and assigned or assumed responsibility are always found as the ingredients for corporate and institutional governance but the big question before us to reach the heights of responsibility herein discussed in the article ,whether we are matching the frequency. Making the rules may not a real problem but the real problem lies with practice. Chalking out the rules and subsequent amendment by finding lacunae in the system during practice time may be made by the group or even by participation theory but the real crux is moral philosophy in practice. The hypocrisy in walking, taking and doing becomes very visible either in the corporate governance or in government department. Openness of mind and burying the ego is the need of time as it is covered in the article that in Committee , no one takes the courage to place his views because everybody wants to be Yes man of the Head of the Committee and makes injury to the principles of delegation of authority. One of the principle of delegation of authority is that there should be a parity between authority and responsibility as said by Madhavi herein . No doubt the changing scenario in the surrounding demands for participative theory of leadership rather than authoritative because of complexity posed by the factors .
I agree.But alas , in India ,especially in public sector , participatory leadership is a distant dream .Thank you for adding to the discussion.
. . . . Vidyanand . .
Sir you right . In govt we employees has to act as rulers directs. Since we are public servants we can not act as our individual opinion attitude or thoughts. In govt teams or committees can only used for how to better the fulfill the rulers will even that is for his personal gains or his followers .
Well, sometimes that happens , but good officers should strive to change things .Public servants are meant to serve public.
Post a Comment