230 PROGRESSING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
whether all of this gives HR people scope for anything more than marginal
independent ethical action is something to which we will return. What it is
vital to recognize, however, is that the basic systems and institutions within
which HRM operates are ones which, in principle, formally rule out the right
to introduce into HR decision-making and actions ethical criteria which are
not consistent with corporate priorities.
Just what ‘corporate priorities’ are, in practice, is inevitably open to man-
agerial interpretation. In principle, I have argued, these are ultimately a matter
of working towards continuation of the organization into the longer term.
This, however, still leaves scope for interpretation. But what were referred to
as ‘forces beyond our control’ were pointed to as illustrating the limits which
‘the system’ puts upon moral choices made by managers in a recent interview
with Kevin Musson, an HR manager from a large distribution business (an
‘opportunistic’ interview carried out with the present chapter in mind):
‘I have to say that I have considerable moral qualms about some of the things we have
been doing recently. I have spent a lot of my time on what amounts, if I can put it this
way, tocullingour middle managers. Now, let me say that I have been aware from the
start that making people redundant, as well as sometimes sacking people for various
offences, goes with the territory in HR management. Nobody these days thinks we are
there primarily to look after people. We are business people first and foremost, with
the people side of the business being our focus. OK? I can’t say I have ever been happy
taking people’s jobs away from them. But I think I have been lucky for most of my
career. I’m lucky because I have always seen theneedfor losing those people. A lot of
us in this business ... uhm.’
‘Your own business or the logistics business generally, Kevin?’
“No, I mean the HR business. Sorry about that. Anyway, I am sure that a lot of us in HR
justify the redundancies that we carry out by saying that if we don’t lose a proportion
of the current headcount now we will lose a lot more of them in the future. OK?’
‘Yes, you are saying that you have to lose the jobs of a minority to protect the jobs of the
majority?’
‘You’ve obviously been there. Yeah, that’s it. And that’s been OK with me.’
‘And when you say “justify”—justify to whom?’
‘Obviously to the people that are going to lose out. But, yes, I think we justify what we
are doing to ourselves in ways like this, don’t we?’
‘I suppose we do. But I was interrupting. Do go on.’
‘Well, I think that we have a problem with such a justification in the present situation
in our business—in our company, I mean. I know that my job is not one of providing
people with jobs. But I feel strongly that if I can do this [provide jobs], and in doing
it, help along the business that givesmea job then I am acting in accord with both my
Christian values and my job demands. Now where was I?’