11

Ethical Leadership

in Employee

Development

Ashly H. Pinnington and Serkan Bayraktaroglu

Economic capital and cultural capital

If HRM has an ethical purpose we argue it must involve more than ‘following’
the strategy of the business and likewise employee development means a
lot more than developing human ‘assets’. Ethical leadership in HRM would
require at the very least that due attention be given to matters of both eco-
nomic capital and cultural capital. In this chapter we examine the potential of
Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice for its capacity to consider these capitals
within diverse political and societal contexts. We present two empirical case
studies of typical corporate stances on HRM and then make some tentative
recommendations for more ethical leadership in employee development.

Organizational leadership in the practice of HRM?

The arguments for and against HRM have been well rehearsed over the last
twenty years. Its detractors have cogently argued that HRM’s core concepts
are contradictory (Keenoy 1990b; Legge 1989, 1995). For instance, highly
individualized employee treatment can never be synonymous with a primary
orientation towards team work and developing a unitarist company culture
will never be entirely consistent with highly flexible employment practices.
Some of HRM’s proponents however have steadfastly countered these criti-
cisms arguing that alternative forms of organization such as trade unionized
employment relations are inherently conflictual and ultimately are less effec-
tive than HRM (Kearns 2003). Their defence of HRM often revolves around
sets of organizational tenets and processes which are thought to inherently
bring benefit to the individual, the workplace, and the national economy (Beer
et al. 1984; Walton 1985). A demanding test of the successful implementation
of HRM then is its capability for leading a variety of stakeholders especially