In this time of crisis, three core principles are invaluable for employers to consider
The business world has been dealt a terrible blow by COVID-19. Given how poorly understood the virus’ long- and short-term effects are on both the people (body and mind) and the economy, leading in a pandemic is akin to managing a medical research project. Leaders must determine how to provide essential services, sustain their organizations and protect the safety of employees, customers and potential guests in uncertain circumstances.
This situation has raised significant issues for HR leaders who are among the most likely people to be charged with finding a way to balance these issues and restore some semblance of normalcy to the workplace. In most cases, they are looking to address these issues in an ethical fashion, with sympathy for both individuals and the organization that employs them.
However, positive intentions are not always enough when resources are limited and people disagree on various responsibilities. Leaders can find them-selves struggling to lead meaningful conversations with co-workers who frequently have different assessments of risk to lives and revenues. Without a solid philosophical and rhetorical framework for these discussions, odds are they will devolve into a power struggle where each side dismisses the perspectives and experiences of the others.
Even if the desire to be ethical is not sufficient motivation, failure to be thoughtful now may result in lawsuits and government regulations that often prove more onerous and expensive than preventive measures. In addition, the public relations problems that emerge years later when records are leaked or investigations reveal willful disregard for employee safety can damage an organization’s bottom line.
Engaging in a thoughtful effort to maximize employee safety and reduce coercive employment practices should both minimize risks to employees and the business, and identifying frameworks for discussing the ethics of risk and safety plans is a valuable investment.
Leveraging ethical frameworks
There is a variety of principles for evaluating the ethics of risking people’s health and well-being in pursuit of worthy causes. These principles have been developed through a combination of best practice, theory and learning from very real ethical mistakes and failures, and they provide a public reference point for beginning a conversation and exploring other ethical principles.
While the exact rules — as described in documents such as the Belmont Report by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research — may not translate directly to a business framework, the three core principles are invaluable for employers to consider as they grapple with the pandemic:
The principle of respect for persons
This requires that employees understand and freely choose to participate in work that may put them at risk. When employees are unable to make such autonomous choices, the employer should provide additional protections.
Informed consent: Do all parties have full and equal access to current knowledge about the risks involved? Ethical organizations should seek out and share the best risk and safety information available by providing relevant and empirically rigorous resources about potential health risks to employees or directing them to such resources.
Avoid deceptive practices: Is the organization falsifying, omitting or choosing not to learn about or share important information that would cause employees to resist its efforts? Are changes to procedures and equipment that make employees feel safe — but have little impact to overall health and safety — clearly and consistently advertised as distinct from actual safety efforts?
Freedom from stigma or reprisal: Are employees able to provide critical feedback about working during the pandemic without fear of retaliation from the organization or co-workers? Are there accessible, anonymous or confidential methods for employees to provide feedback? Does the organization have a clear action team responsible for responding to such feedback in a timely manner?
The principle of beneficence
This principle would require employers not to inflict unnecessary harm and, where possible, to promote the well-being of employees.
Minimize risk: What safety procedures or equipment is the employer using to minimize the risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19 at work? Is it ensuring that all employees have equal access to protective measures within the workplace (such as providing masks to those who can’t afford them)? Is the organization following guidelines from recognized experts in epidemiology and public health?
Review and adapt work processes: Organizations and employees should actively discuss whether risky tasks are necessary or alterable. If they are not necessary, they can be abandoned or delayed until a safer time. If deemed necessary, the dialogue should explore ways to make them safer. Ongoing remote work, contactless delivery and curbside pickups are all examples of this principle in operation.
The principle of justice
This would oblige employers to distribute the benefits and risks of work fairly.
A goal worth the risks: Are the tasks assigned to employees necessary to the organization’s mission or survival? Is there a clear business case, supported by data, that’s informing the expectations of employee performance? If not, is there a plan to collect such data during normal operations and re-evaluate whether the current process is necessary or effective? Are we adhering to old ways of working because they are demonstrably effective or because they are familiar or popular?
Just distribution of risk and reward: Who decides how work gets done and what constitutes a safe work environment? Are those making the decisions subject to the most serious risks created by those decisions? If not, how are they incorporating the feedback of the most vulnerable employees? Are employees receiving a fair share of the additional rewards created by their higher-risk labour? These questions are especially important during a time when the world is dealing with systemic racism, sexism, classism and other injustices.
Not all costs are equal: What are the costs incurred by the work beyond money? Does the work situation cause employees additional stress, damage their health or negatively impact their relationships? How will you support workers with COVID-19? While organizations can recompense employees for their risky work through hazard pay, non-financial costs may have long-lasting effects that no amount of money can undo.
For some leaders, this may seem like a lot to address all at once, especially when resources have been heavily tapped during this pandemic. As with most ethical situations, it is important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Focus on what you can do now and build toward what you can do tomorrow. You may not be able to do everything, but the world will still be a better place if you do something.
Kenneth Matos is the director of people science at Culture Amp in New York. For more information, visit www.cultureamp.com.
