Junko Motohashi: Ethics Management and Job Satisfaction

Along with the phrase "recurring corporate scandals," the term "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—and only photos of lungs and medical equipment would appear.

It is said that about ten years before compliance in the sense of observing laws (and regulations) became common knowledge in Japan, the introduction and thorough implementation of compliance in corporations was rapidly progressing in the United States. At the same time, the necessity of ethics in corporations—not just legal compliance, but something that exceeded or encompassed 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 "outside" the company and avoiding violations, the latter—integrity-oriented ethics management—realizes the "goodness" of the organization by having management 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 one is required to make active judgments rather than passively following rules. Of course, this does not mean neglecting laws and rules for self-interest; rather, it requires a proactive adherence accompanied by responsibility, questioning an "ideal state" that integrates these elements.

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 inhibiting 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 likely necessary for motivating 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. There are various components of "job satisfaction," and one of them is a sense of significance in one's 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. In particular, a factor that can foster awareness of the latter—importance to others—is the social nature of the organization and workplace, the ethics of doing good work for society, and the management of those ethics. This can include large projects directly linked to solving so-called social issues, but daily work and business activities also have aspects that contribute to customers and society in some way. When management and frontline managers view business in this way, re-examine the purpose of the company, and change the meaning of work for the people working there, 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, think about "desirability as a whole"?