150 ANALYSING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
they do, at least in the USA, insufficient protections exist. This is particularly
alarming when many codes of ethics specifically refer to an obligation to obey
the law. Indeed, in an analysis of the codes of ethics of professional business
organizations in the USA, Gaumnitz and Lere (2002) found that 60 per cent
included a statement about obligation to obey the law.
The conflicts that arise in this area of ethical behaviour create signifi-
cant issues for HR managers. Similar issues might be purported to exist for
employee lawyers (Kandel and Kilens 1999) and accountants (Lovell 2002).
However, HR managers have a unique role and unique associated issues.
Marchington and Wilkinson (1996: 3) argue that HR managers are able to
‘make a distinctive contribution by adopting a clear ethical and professional
stance on issues which some other managers might wish to ignore’. Beatty,
Ewing, and Tharp (2003), too, point out that HR has a fiduciary responsibility
to ensure legal compliance, and that as research indicates that HR managers
are more likely to act on legal and ethical issues than other employees, it
follows that if HR managers do not adopt the role of agent of the state in
EEO matters, then possibly no one will. Thus there is little doubt that the
HR manager role is different to other professionals—they need to serve the
employer, the interests of individual employees, and the society (Miller cited
in Hart 1993).
But, it is probably impossible to uphold this trifold responsibility without
conflict. Some managers will often choose to subordinate their knowledge of
legal requirements in order to satisfy the expressed or implied requirements of
the employer. Being a team player, a valued member of management (Losey
1997), aligning oneself with the objectives of the business and so on are argued
as having the predominant influence on behaviour. Not diverting the attention
of the business from profit objectives and not disrupting the business are
seen to be important. Perhaps, too, there is an acknowledgement that HR is
relatively powerless to bring about the kind of social change that would be
required (Torrington 1993).
British authors, Winstanley and Woodall (2000a) have called for the ethical
‘rearmament’ of HR to provide some balance. They argue that business will
be more successful anyway if it is ethical. However, when the courts do not
support or protect HR managers in opposing unlawful discrimination and
unethical conduct, it is understandable that many will choose to act with
‘rational bias’ or self-interest. In the USA the right of the employer to breach
the law seems almost more acceptable than for an HR/EEO professional to
act honestly, professionally (showing due care), and ethically, in cases of
employer discrimination. HR managers are all too often forced to confront
difficult ethical decisions: they can tow the company line and face their own
internal psychological consequences of feeling powerless and not act ethically,
or they can oppose discrimination and face the consequences which may be
some form of retaliation by the employer. Sometimes this retaliation may be