Junko Motohashi: Ethics Management and Job Satisfaction

2024/09/02

Along with the phrase "recurring corporate scandals," the word "compliance" began to be widely used in Japanese corporate society about twenty-some years ago, in the early 2000s. Before that, it seems it was more commonly used as a term in medical sciences. I remember being confused back then when I searched for the word on the internet—which I was finally getting used to—only to find photos of lungs and medical equipment.

It is said that in the United States, the introduction and thorough implementation of compliance in corporations began to advance rapidly about ten years before compliance, in the sense of observing laws and regulations, became a household word in Japan. At the same time, the necessity of ethics in corporations—not just legal compliance, but something that exceeds or encompasses it—also began to be questioned.

Lynn S. Paine, who was teaching at Harvard Business School at the time, organized ethics management in corporations into compliance-oriented and integrity-oriented approaches, arguing for the superiority of the latter. Rather than focusing solely on observing laws and rules that are "outside" the company and avoiding violations, the latter—integrity-oriented ethics management—realizes the "goodness" of the organization by having managers and the organization clarify "their own" ethical ideals and values, which are then shared and practiced by all members. Here, ethics is something to be practiced rather than just something to be protected, and proactive judgment is required rather than passive obedience. Of course, this does not mean neglecting laws and rules for self-interest; rather, it requires a proactive, responsible adherence, and the "way of being" that integrates these elements is what is called into question.

These concepts of agency and autonomy are also important when considering the management of people within an organization, and they have been receiving more attention in recent years. One way of thinking about the motivation of workers is to distinguish between extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation refers to taking action based on external rewards provided by others, such as salary or rewards and punishments. Intrinsic motivation refers to acting voluntarily because the work itself is interesting and enjoyable—being motivated by the activity itself. To generate the latter, intrinsic motivation, both autonomy and a sense of competence are required. In particular, since autonomy is brought about by a sense of self-determination, control and monitoring through specific instructions and orders can become hindering factors.

There are various purposes for working, and in many cases, both extrinsic factors like money and rewards and intrinsic factors like the enjoyment of the work itself are necessary to motivate workers. However, when speaking of "rewarding work," the latter—motivation through intrinsic motivation—is indispensable. It is necessary to be aware that compliance-oriented ethics management, which tends to emphasize control and monitoring, can easily fall into a trade-off relationship with workers' sense of self-determination and autonomy.

On the other hand, it is becoming clear that integrity-oriented ethics management, in particular, can contribute more positively to people's job satisfaction. While there are various components of "job satisfaction," one of them is a sense of meaningfulness in work. This is the feeling that one's work has "meaning," and such work is also called "meaningful work."

To find this "meaning," two types of "importance" are required: importance to oneself, such as a sense of self-actualization and growth, and importance to others, in terms of the impact on those around them and society. A factor that can foster awareness of the latter—importance to others—is the social nature of the organization and workplace, as well as the ethics of doing good work for society and its management. This can include large projects directly linked to solving social issues, but daily work and business activities also have aspects that contribute to customers and society in some way. When executives and frontline managers view business in this way, re-examine the purpose of the company, and change the meaning that workers find in their work, it can create job satisfaction and, by extension, lead to upholding social norms.

With the spread of the word "compliance," corporate social responsibility has also come to be questioned as something larger and heavier. I believe that how to balance fulfilling this responsibility with people working vibrantly and leading good professional lives will be a challenge for management in the future. At the same time, isn't this also a question of how we, as society, define "desirability as a whole"?