Egoism:
Psychological and Moral
Ethical egoism is the claim that
people should always act to promote their own self-interests. Psychological
egoism, covering morality and self-interest claims that everyone always seeks
to promote self-interest, independent in which field you work, ranked position
or if it is related to personal causes. It defends the idea that one engagement
in moral behavior is the best way to advance his own interest. Although it gives
a brief notion that is a selfish way of thinking, it holds some moral truths in
it, as neglecting the motives and consequences, the roots of one’s action, the real
and perceived interests, and the frequency of when it happens (LaFollette,
2019).
I rather apply relativism in the
subject of egoism. One’s motives and consequence of his acts shouldn’t be put
aside. I also understand there are limits to whether someone neglect herself in
favor of others and do not realize that the only way to give to others is when our
own wellbeing is taken care off. For instance, if someone volunteer in a remote
place, where diseases are spread around, the is no basic condition of life, and
food provision is a scarce, for how long this philanthropical action will last
and which real impact will bring. Even if the motives are genuine, eventually,
there will be a point that we need to be egoist to give back to the world,
otherwise there won’t be something to give.
One
problem of egoism, in the organization field, is when ego gets in the way of
the decision-making process. Ego is defined as a person's sense of self-esteem
or self-importance. An ego that is never satisfied and always craves more never
appreciates the moment and is never grateful for the present (Miller, 2017). I believe
ego blinds one thinking, and when it comes to decision making it impact on the
effectiveness of the results. A perfect illustration is observed on the TV series
Suits, where the character Louis Litt, because of his ego, constantly makes poor
decisions, leading to him to lose trust of his coworkers and making him stagnate.
Naïve
is to ignore that one is completely absent of ego. The problem is not the
existence of egos, but in whether one lets it get in the way of decision
making, especially large egos, as stated my Miller (2017). A large ego is
threatened by anything or anyone who could possibly damage their notions of
self-worth. This leads one to act constantly on the defensive mode,
being necessary some ego checks to avoid being trapped on this pitfall.
Although
I believe benefits is a form of incentive, I do not believe that leaders should
get it by the decision they made. It should get contractual benefit,
independent of results, if its intention is to use benefit as a motivational
tool. When results are involved, I believe the entire team should get benefits,
as a leader does not act alone in the workplace. A leader without a follower,
is not a leader per se. A perfect example that happens in my organization
is that high ranked leader gets bonuses in all profitable years, while the
workforce and the leadership at the bottom of the ladder, is due to company’s
discretion. My question is, who implemented the decisions? A decision without
implementation is simple a talk, if no one walks it.
When
it comes to rewards and ethics, I do not believe a leader should be rewarded to
promote ethical behaviors. It gives the idea that being ethical is going
beyond, while being ethical is the basics of one’s employment, a non-negotiable
requirement. A reward to leader, in the wake of ethics, in my opinion, is an
unethical decision on itself.
References
LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing
Miller, R. (2017, February
7). Unwelcome egos in the workplace. Retrieved from timesunion.com/tuplus-business/article/Unwelcome-egos-in-the-workplace-10916035.php
No comments:
Post a Comment