Dear Dr Gopinath,

There are several ways to improve the employee morality in Workplace. Apart from what you suggested - there are few more that could be added to make it more efficient.

1. Empower the employees with vertical and horizontal training development at regular interval. This comes with promotion in view of the skills attain.

2. Extend reward and benefit like Google providing free flow daily meals and other perks to its employees in the name of motivation and improving employee workplace morality.

3. Get the employees involve in the management decision because they are the ones to implement them. If they object, it is not because they hate the job, their officers or the organization. But more because they love the latter which made them offer their solution(s) - sometimes acidly but not without reason(s)

There are more considerations to uplift the spirit of the workplace in making the employees would want to stay. Like in the healthcare sector, high salaries alone could induce employees to work beyond their biological clock..

It might be bad for the body but eventually the enticing perks and self-awareness are the motivators that always work wonders. Though most do so out of sheer compassion to help and heal the people of the world.

Best regards - Mariam

Working condition and enumeration should be improved 

Operating an ethical and moral business depends not only on how the owners and managers of a company behave, but also its employees and how they interact with each other and with customers.

What are the current scenario to improve the employee morality in Workplace?

From my personal experience, following approach can be considered:

It is very important to promote the construction of scenarios  where moral regularly is a big issue: THE BEST FOR ALL.  While dicussing, ethical issues should come up. The decisión should be made thinking on the success of the company , as well as having a positive impact on employees and costumers.

Theodore Roosevelt said: "In any moment of decision, the best you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

As per my view, it is essential to create, develop, and maintain an ethical culture to improve the employee morality at work place. Ethical culture is a critical part of the organizational culture that consists of the moral values, beliefs, and rules which are utilized to govern the way employees are supposed to behave when dealing with parties inside and various parties outside the organization and when making decisions individually and collectively. Present era is an era where employees (specially lower level), customers, government, and citizens of the general society do scrutinizing actions and decisions of organizations (particularly large organizations).

Following strategies are suggested: 

1.       Prepare a code of conduct

It is essential to prepare a code of conduct that specifies standards of ethical behaviour. It includes ethical values and norms. Some examples of moral rules about right in respect of a specific management function, i.e., performance evaluation include Do evaluation on the basis of representative information; Do evaluation on the basis of relevant information; and Be honest in assessment of all the facts obtained. Some examples of moral rules about wrong in respect of a specific management function, i.e., performance evaluation include Do not accept another’s evaluation without knowing the basis on which it was made; Do not give an average evaluation to an employee who is performing very poorly; and Do not do evaluations on just the ones whose performance you do not like.

 2.      Train all employees

All the employees including senior managers should be trained in respect of ethical behaviour and unethical behaviour, and consequences. Serious training of all personnel on personal character-excellence in morality-will lead to enhance virtues and alleviate vices of individuals. An ethics training course needs to be conducted by resource personnel who are indeed people of ethics.

 3.      Reward ethical behaviour

It is possible to encourage adherence to ethics by providing various financial and non-financial incentives. A scheme to recognize and appreciate employees who adhered to the code of ethics within ten years is an example. Integrating ethical decision making into the performance evaluation system is another example.  

 4.      Punish unethical behaviour

There should be a good fair disciplinary procedure to punish unethical behaviour in order to reform offenders, deter others from similar unethical behaviour and make the code of ethics effective. Punishments may include oral warning, written warning, fining, stoppage of salary increments, demotion, and even dismissal.

 5.      Allow whistle-blowing

Whistle-blowing occurs when an employee informs an outside person or organization, such as a government agency or newspaper or television reporter, about an organization’s illegal or unethical behaviour (frequently on the part of its top managers) (George and Jones, 2005). Whistle-blowers need to be protected. To try to destroy or revenge from whistle-blowers is mal practice and that may be illegal. 

6.      Handle grievances

When an employee presents a grievance (a written complaint or an oral one), it should be accepted by a relevant manager and it needs to be settled. It is appropriate to develop and implement a formal grievance settlement procedure to deal with employee grievances which arise owing to bad treatment, purposeful ignorance for benefits, discrimination, sexual harassment etc.

7.      Make structural additions

An ethics officer can be appointed to deal with unethical behaviour. An ethics officer is responsible for investigating claims of unethical behaviour and for training employees about ethical behaviour. An ethics committee consisting of highly respected senior managers can be appointed for the purpose of considering findings which are in reports provided by the ethics officer and making formal judgements about offences. Another good strategy for ensuring ethical behaviour within the organization is to create a strong board of directors, from outside the company who have no ties to top managers.

8.      Be good role models

Managers, specially top managers should encourage ethical behaviour among the employees by being good role models for them to follow. The manager should constitute the philosophy that ethical behaviour is critical through his or her own behaviour that is ethical. Before making others’ behaviour ethical, the manager himself or herself is supposed to behave ethically. 

The main problem of ethical behavior in todays organizational, but and also social, international, political, corporate life, is that ethical behavior do not enable enough satisfing human needs, e.g. social advancement, profit, or sometimes and somewhere not even human survival. E.g. sometimes if you want to survive ethical behavior is not adaptable if others (nonethical individuals, organizations) wants subordinate to their own goals, i.e. sacrifice your life to their own goals/agendas.

The instant measure to improve ethical behavior is to punish unapropriate (amoral and antimoral) behavior and award apropriate (moral or prosocial) behavior.  Longterm measure is education (breeding) the values, attitudes and habits in different institutions (from family, school, organizations, other influental groups). 

Of course the most difficult is to implement high ethical standards on powerful and extremely inteligent people and organizations, because it is well known that powerful and inteligent can be very manipulative and so very dangerous.

For diagnosis of such dark side behaviors on different level of aggregation (individuals, groups, organizations) should be engaged well trained HRM people to recognise and deal with key  problems of unethical behavior of e.g. Dark Triad/Tetrad personalities, impression management, stupidity management, manipualtive strategies of human mind, power and obedience problems, etc. 

It starts with the CEO and top management having a moral code that is publicly announced. All employees must be educated about this in training. Employee must be selected carefully. Promotions and raises must be based on adhering to the code and people who violate it must be fired. The best company I know for this is BB&T, a east coast banking company. See their website. They did not buy sup primes and have not had any scandals.

Use of a reliable, ethical, problem solver/mediation, from outside the organization, as well as a Clinical Psychologist to evaluate" fit for employment" evaluations if HRM can not obviate or identify source of problem. This can lead to increased supervision, evaluation of other mental health problems so an appropriate referral can be made to address the problem, such as substance abuse, personality disorders,depression or aggression in the work place. I know many companies that employ an outside resource to evaluate the improvement or compliance of employees  and/or management, with immoral violations. This would be in addition to all the other above remedies suggested. Pre-emplyment screening is important on the front end with all levels of employees, the level of intrusiveness depending on the level of risk the prospective employee would be if a problem were to evolve, such as carrying a gun as a security or police officer. Also, debriefing sessions, outside agency often can more readily help stressed out employees in a confidential setting, to address and name the situation, and get specific counseling on how to deal with it. I agree, a whistleblowing venue that protects the whistleblower will help identify corruption, and the merits of the complaint can be investigated as true or not, through various means available within or without the organization.

Lastly to build good employee relations, a shared goal outside of work productivity, is one way to bring cohesiveness to a group, such as allowing employees to discern together a mutual one or two charitable programs they could join, working and bonding related to an employee managed program of this nature, with some oversight and reporting to management level of operations and successes. This will or has the potential to boost the moral of any group of employees, and company, and especially gives those who do not have much input on a daily based to the operational decision making that effects the company itself.

Always find time to allow employees to vent a problem or offer ideas for solutions or growth for the company. There are many methods to accomplish this, but the end result is that employees of the company will feel more invested and proud in the work they do,allowing every employee to belong to the company as part of a team approach where appropriate.

I think that there might be some confusion concerning the question? Some replies address "morality", while others address "morale"...Seems that clarification of terms is needed...

Morality is about personal character of a person which is the extent to which that person has virtues and vices. Personal Character is a person’s moral attributes. It is the nature of his or her moral qualities or characteristics. It is his or her degree of morality and immorality. Good character is morality or civility. Bad character is immorality or incivility.

Here there are two terms to be emphasized, i.e. virtue and vice. A virtue is a good habit. It is a good attribute that is useful for you, other persons, the organization, and the society as well. Patience is a virtue. Honesty is a virtue. Benevolence is a virtue. A vice is a bad habit. It is a bad attribute that is harmful for you, other persons, the organization, and the society. Anger is a vice. Jealousy is a vice. Selfishness is a vice. Virtues need to be built, enhanced and if possible maximized within the person. Vices need to be minimized within the person and if possible they need to be eradicated from the person. 

Morale is about enthusiasm of members of a certain group.  It can be defined as the feeling of enthusiasm that a certain group has with regard to its work or job. 

Morality is individual while morale is collective. Morality is concerned with moral ethics while morale is concerned with motivation of a group (willingness to exert the needed effort to perform the group task successfully). Morality leads to spirituality. Morale may or may not. A group can have a high level of morale to do a task which is even unethical.   

Dear Dr. Ruth Maria Tappin,

Morality meaning below:

noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, correctness, ethicality More

a particular system of values and principles of conduct.

plural noun: moralities

"a bourgeois morality"

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

"the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

Origin

Source: https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=_iiJV-2-C6bv8wfqjKGwBQ#q=morality+meaning

From HRM is known that organization may consider it has enganged excellent people in moral sense, and this people really can act some time in such a way and during the time they can become amoral or even antimoral. Moral behavior=prosocial behavior; amoral=behavior who do not helps others, improve others life and so make specific damage which otherwise easily could be avoided; antimoral behavior=behavior that make damage to others. Social experiments showed this very clearly (e.g. Stanford experiment and later ones e.g. Zimbardo, 2007). So the most of people are ruinous asset. Tipical example here is greed. Greed is havy moral desease and one of the source of amoral/antimoral behavior, also greed for power as special type of greadyness.

Because no human is free from evil (such is the human nature-because of evolutionary reasons, there should be control for everyone, especially for the people with highest social and hierarchy level, especially we need the control of controllers. So the highest power should limit himself (this limiting only by moral is mostly not enough), So, humans are more and more powerful (because of technology improvement) and less and less moral, but powerfull moral human beeing should limit himself (against his evil nature).

So it should fear of the human inteligence and power without limitation (control) because it is possible that it will be used against majority of human beings and nature (it is no matter in which area-medical, legal, business, research, technological, etc.).

We also can have excellent ethical protocols, good laws and normative acts, but the problem is in people who implement this in the practice,  So the main question is how to prevent evil if we do not know or is not appropriate to change the people (to destroy the evil in the humans)?

 One of the way is creating the social system who do not allow the explosion of amorality/antimoral behavior. So it should prevent such situations where is amorality/antimorality normal (normalization of amorality/antimorality) . E.g. limit the power of the people, avoid hierarhy/obedience principle, do not award harmful behavior, do not punish prosocial behavior, avoid situation who stimulate aggressive and amoral behavior (war situation, injustice, distribution differences), enable whistleblowing etc, But such systems/practices have some negative effects on people/groups/organizations in power so they will try to avoid them (e.g. whistleblowing can be not appropriate for people/groups in power because their power can be lower, and the tendency of power to grow to be lower).

Morality improvement in global sense also means the change of socio-economic relationships and socio-economic formations what is for some privlieged groups not appropriate so is hard to achieve. Profit, globalization of market state and morality/humanity maximalization, enrichment of one gruop of people on the cost of another one (power vs. morality), are not  the goals who are directed in the same but opposite direction. The main question here is:"Is amorality/antimorality in some extent necessary, although it is not right?" If it is we can only allow/have such a system who will ballance this two opposite goals. 

So for maximalisation of morality is needed specific ideology. And there is another important questions: "Which ideology is the most appropriate one for the humankind?"- Is this who maximize morality (e.g. justice for all), or something else? and "Which type of morality to whom" (e.g. which  values are appropriate for collective life, and which values are appropriate for specific human groups life  e.g. leaders/Goods on the Earth, if we accept the principle "Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi")?

The answer to what morality is, why we need it and what virtues we should possess has been answered. See Peikoff's: Objectivist: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

This question (which virtues/values/system of values and ideology) whatever it is can't  be answered on todays level of human evolution, because it will define the definitive ideology (one option i.e. the optimal one) and we know that in this area there are more options. It is self-deception or manipulation that in ideology/ value system/morality system question there is only one and definitive answer, because in this way we will have the answer on which way (i.e. optimal way) should all humans live, i.e. according which values, in which intensity and in which combination in each situation should they feel, think and behave. Perhaps is for someone this hypotetical very clear value system ideal/optimal system, but there we have the problem with the value of freedom as important value (Evil can be what is against the freedom). So there can be questioned what values are higher in hierarhy and how to resolve difficult ethical dilemmas e.g. happyness, freeedom, purpose, consciousness, transcedence, etc.

Because human inteligence is not unlimited but quite limited there is also not definitive answer because of that reason. Sometimes different situations needs different solutions by means of different main values. Decision primarily depends on ethical ideology of decision maker, so managers decision in organizations primarily differ in this variable (not knowledge or inteligence). Also can be questioned if superior inteligence, or even power has the right to define the life (ideology/value system) to the less inteligent, or developed beeing/societies and define/command their value system or ideology. Typical example can be the collison of diferrent value systems/ideologies (extermination of different people/cultures because of their different way of the life, known in the human hystory is en extreme but very clear example).

Also, if this were resolved the question of optimal value system/ideology there is also the question of declared and hiden value system (hiden curriculum) and the relationship between this two system (real- and parasystem), it is known the hypocrisis as such hidden value of each value system nowdays. The existence of such para-systems and even the hiden value of hypocrisis (it is nowdays also high valued in the social advancement matters), tell us that the question of ideal/optimal value system/ideology is not resolved nor on theoretical neither on practical level. Of course we have approximation of normative matters from different authors which operate with different methodologies by which they achieved their results in value research matters (religion, philosophy, positive psychology, empirical examination i.e. experimental, correlational or other studies like cultural studies, etc.), but still can not be answered how should live/work the people, or concrete is better way the way (dominant value system of life/work) in USA, West Europa, China, Japan or some other dominant way of living. So we can hear from some politicians that american way of life can not be the matter of question, so could be concluded that this is the best or unquestionable way. But can this be questioned from smaller and less powerfull societies, or simply different societies? Also we can question which organizational life/ideology/value system is optimal in that sense. 

Who will know the secret of optimal value system/ideology/morality, will know the secret of human motivation (values direct humans in every situation) in the organizational and economic life and by my opinion without any doubt deserve Nobel price.

I disagree that you cannot have an objective value system--the key is your starting point--why do men need values at all and what is the ultimate standard? Here is where Ayn Rand made an earth-shaking breakthrough--and the fact that men are not omniscient does not negate reason--reason, based on the material of the senses, is man's only means of knowledge--because men are not automatically correct, you need an epistemology including a theory of concepts--here again Rand made a radical breakthrough--

Each value system necesarilly represent some kind of ideology and I disagree that any value system can be objective one, it is always subjective one (defined by some group of people or individual and represent some of their/his/her interest). So people mostly have positive attitude (positive valuation) to the things that support their interests, and negative valuation to the things that do not support their interests (so there is no objectivity).  The matters which are the product of humans (e.g. phyilosophy which is main tool in creating the values in normative sense)  i.e. have not from the human beeing independant existention (humanistics) are different from the science (natural), and are subjective by the nature od discipline (product of human mind), altough we can think that our thinked values are the best in fulfiling human needs, that they are optimal i.e. objective and that they have independant existence of humans like subject in natural sciences.

The same thing is with the law, although we have theoretics who wanted to make law (which in fact consist of norms, relationships and values) objective (cf. Kelsen), and natural law (try to make it objective by means of higher authority i.e. Good or from Good given authority). In fact law should be derived from values (morality), and represent some kind of value system (but of course not objective one, but from specific group of people-i.e. which as human beings have their interest which are in the norms). Different value systems can be hystorically known and we can see the evolution of them (e.g. Hamurabi law or Bible which has two different value system in Old and New Testament), and are they objecitve?. Perhaps G.W.F. Hegel would say in his classic idealistic phylosophy that they are because the values and law are exactly such as the possibility of socio-economic system and that they are objective because reality is already such as it should be. But such idealistic philosophy that reality is already as it should be make equal existence with values (so values can be objective) is not without serious objections it can be widely discussed.   From that reason every law (also value system) has problem with general, individual and special interests, and if it were objective (main supstance of legal norms are the values i.e. morality) this problem would not exist. We know from experience that what should be is not equal what it is, and only for that reason values (as product of human mind which) can not be objective if objectivity means the independant existence from the human being(s). 

If there is no objectivity then that applies to skeptics also--so skepticism is just another subjective opinion--this approach leads to a dead end--further, in ethics, objectivity does not mean independence from humans beings--a code of ethics has to be based on the nature of human beings, most fundamentally the fact that life is a conditional process-

If we do not agree with Hegels constatation that what should be (values) is exactly what it is (reality) what represent the concept of objectivity, also Kelsen thinked like that in his try to make law objecitve, we can conclude that there is present some kind of subjectivity, or to change the definition of objectivity concept.

Obejectivity can be defined as identity of reality with some measure (which can be objective or subjective). Measuremet of phisical object by non-psychological measurement instrument (i.e. when the object of measurement/olina is the same quality with measurement instrument e.g. by measurement of the distance) has very low measurement error (so is valid), because different subject can make error in lower degree (greater is objectivity), so we can talk that such measurements are objective (in regard that different subject in measurement will make only very small error, what is practically mostly not important-of course there are some exeptions).

But in psychological measurement (value measurement is also that kind) where the measurement instrument is not the same quality as object of measurement (validity) we also have serious problem with the objectivitivity expecially with nonstructured material. So the school degrees when the object of measurement is nonstructured (e.g. by essays), the  different evaluators will give quite different degrees (what shows small or no objectivity). This no-objectivity can be corrected by more evaluators who evaluate the same non-structured material and such evaluation has his limes in objectivity. This is so if we use psychometric view.

So If we define the term OBJECTIVITY in psychological, i. e. operational terms (terms of measurement instruments and procedures) so we can  tell that objectivity of school degree is the identity of knowledge/competence with  the measure of it.

According that principle objectivity of values in this sense would mean the identity of goal/target/aim/purpose (values) by different individuals/group of people/cultures. So which is the identity of values/morality between different people/group of people/cultures?

If this identity is high we can talk about the objectivity of values, if there is not such identity we can conclude that values are subjective. Hofsteade make his study in about 51 country and the values in different cultures do not show such identity. Perhaps are made research that showed more identity in the frame of one culture. Although I do not know the research about the identity of values in different organizations, from my small researches and experience know that management always has different values than nonmanagement staff, also my own values are not the same of my colleagues.

So if we masure the values it in psychometric tradition I am suspicious that we will find objectivity values and of course on them founded morality. The values present in legal norms represent as I stated earlier the interests of legal bodies members (e.g. parlament) and such norms has problem with balancing of general, particular and special interests which they should regulate. So in practice we can find injust legal norm, and so can not say that such norm is objective (identity of their content and values which it protect by all the people) if it support only interest of very small (special) group of people on the damage of other e.g. large group of people. 

Objective legal norm (values) should protect the interest of all the people or the people which should pay the consequence of implementation of such norm/value, Otherwise the implementation of such norm/value is violence (no present identity of values by different people)-which is the result of no-objective norm/values. On todays level of human/society/organization development by my opinion, we still do not have the condition, for make the norms/values objetive ones (valid for all).  

Objectivity is based on adherence to reality--with morality it starts with man's nature: what kind of entity man is. It begins with the fact that life is conditional; it requires goal directed actions of a certain kind or life goes out of existence. It continues with the fact that reason is one's means of survival.

So, what should be (values, morality) adhere to what it is (reality) and that is objectivity. Perfect identity/ adherance between what should be and what it is means perfect objectivity, and where we can not prove this identity, adherence this means imperfect or non existing objectivity- as I stated earlier. So now is the question only if exist such identity/adherence and if exist in which extent. As I stated earlier this adherence if far from the perfect one, so the values/morality is far from objectivity-but this objectivity should be the goal for humans/societies, organizations, civilisation. So if the value system of Bible (10 Goods imperatives) totally adhere ie. is identic to the real world, we would have totaly different society/oganizations.

E.g. it is not moral to lie (one of Goods imperative in Bible), and politicians (who should be the most moral human beings) lie almost all the time. Is this the sign of adherence/identity between values and reality i.e. objectivity?

In western philosophy is normal to have goals and purpose which we achieve throught wishes (psychic feeling of need). In some eastern philosophy the ultimate human goal is to have no goal, no wishes, but because this is not possible on Earth the goal is to have this as less it is possible. Namely in such a philosophy (e.g. S.S. Baba) the ultimate, perfect state is apsolute freedom - i.e. independance from any outside influence. The conditional (dependance) state of human being, means that he is slave of this conditioning. Of course the perfect freedom is not given to any human on the Earth because the purpose of mortal human life is in relationship with others and dependance about others.

But what we have less and lower wishes, greater is our freedom. Perfect freedom is so the state of apsolute absence of whishes (i.e. goals). Perhaps such view can be treated as mental illness in western society, because contradict market economy, but can be also treated as legitimate way of thinking i.e. values and morality. Therefore I mentioned earlier that every value system, morality implicit include some kind of ideology. 

Morality employees in the workplace are the impact of academic morality, especially academic honesty and responsibility. Therefore, the behavior on campus can be carried over into real life, including in the world of work. Read my research below,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303837761_Alternative_Assessment_Developing_Teacher_Candidate%27s_Academic_Honesty_and_Responsibility_through_Self-Report_Assessment

Conference Paper Alternative Assessment: Developing Teacher Candidate’s Acade...

Absolute absences of wishes is a revolt against reality-no wishes means no values and no values means a rejection of the nature of life which is a goal directed process.

Socialization in the value system where is purpose and goal oriented approach dominant one, produces that such system is near to the so socialized individuals but also other type of socialisations which have other apporach should understand (e.g. socialisation in budistic temples, extraordinary people, mystics because this also can be legitimate).

So values are internalized by means of some ideology, and are strongly aquired in early human life i.e.  for value internailzation it is important the early socialisation (e.g. it is known that poor childern have different values than rich ones and that this socialization has significant impact also in adult age). In the history are known different ideologies with analogues idolatries, who can apllied, e.g.:

Ideology of fascism with idolatry of the race.

Ideology of capitalism with idolatry of the capital/money/economy

Ideology of communism with idolatry of the proleteriate

also another ones.

New Testament (christianity) with values of love, justice, social equallity is also some kind of value system who operates with humanistic values.

Important question here is the economic efficacy of ideology/idolatry. It is known that facism was extremelly economic successful in Germany, although we know it is not moral because people were sacrificed for their goals. So democracy as value is also not necessarily connected with economic efficiacy-also civilisations based on slave work were in hystory very successful (e.g. Roman empire, Chinese empire)

Capitalism hystorically showed also economic more successful than communism in implementation. But capitalism is not moral system it is economic system, i.e. some authors argue that capitalism is amoral system (but for their better functioning is important indoctrination with values of democracy, freedom and free choice (in practice are mostly illusions if we think thouroughly about that and have insight in empirical evidence about the essence of the system).

Communism is noble idea and somewhere in the implementation because is near humanism, because it has similarity to christian values (e.g. social equality, principles of communist justice in distribution, etc). The problem with communism is because of deviations in implementation because of dominant evil human nature. Namely, for thousand years people try to find systems where the people will live better, without exploatation, but still we can not escape from exploatation of one human being on other human being, and this is not because of lack of knowledge, or difficulty in solving this problem but in dominant evil human nature.  

For morality here is the crucial question how to integrate capitalism ideology /idolatry with Bible (christianity) values or in broader sense humanistic values (e.g. truth, correct behavior, love, peace/equanimity, nonviolence).

Also there is the problem of serving to different value systems (e.g. imperialistic/pagan values or capitalistic and humanistic values in the same time).

So, is it possible to serve to the Good of Mamon (idolatry of gold/money/greed-known as the story of Golden calf in Bible) and in the same time to Good Jahve (justice, love, social equality.

The Bible answered that nobody can serve two masters (two different value systems), because you will hate the one Good (dominant value), and love the other Good (dominant value). So nobody can serve to Good Jahve and  Greed (Good Mamon) in the same time.

So when we talk about morality in some ideological and idolatric framework we can not avoid this framework. So the question is how to integrate, or reconcile or transform the existing dominant value system who is e.g. based on capitalism ideology and money/capital idolatry with morality (e.g. humanistic values). Namely morality by my opinion can not avoid the humanistic framework i.e. humanistic values mentioned earlier.

Different value systems have totally opposite and incompatible values (i.e. humanistic and capitalistic or fascistic or pagan values) which can not exist together without hypocrisis, hidden curriculum and  existing parasystems of values. So, have humanistic value system for presentation and impression management and other value system (e.g. pagan values) for practical usage is nothing  than hypocrisis and in fact represent crisis of morality.

So to achieve morality which is humanistic one i.e. with humanistic values (perhaps this could be the goal, otherwise I do not see that any real morality can exist), the dominant ideology and practice should be also humanistic. Otherwise if we do have integrity (uniqueness in thinking, feeling, speaking, doing) in every level of aggregation (individual, group, organizational, systematic/social) in the moral questions it can not be expected to have moral individuals, moral organizations, moral society and moral civilization.

Communism is not an ideal system at all- it makes man a slave of the state and denies individual rights--how many more than 100 deaths do you want?

To validate a code of morality you have to start with the conditional nature of life and the role of reason in human life.

And capitalism is a moral system: it is based on voluntary trade, value for value-- see Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Morality by deffinition is concern for the good of others (other human beings). The morality is not if there is no concern and doing for others good/benefit, or value "for me everything for other nothing/or minimum" or "Only me (ego) is important not "we". Communism so is not crime neither in idea nor in true implementation of this idea, but in deviation. This deviation is product of dominant evil human nature as I stated earlier. The idea (value) i.e. "what should be" is not the same as their realization/reality i.e. what it is. So typical example is that what humans think they will behave (idea of their behavior) is not what their behavior is in problematic situation actually is (as I stated earlier this proved different social experiments).

Is capitalism moral system or not explained very well Marx, Karl (1867). Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. Also are interesting the other parts Vol. II (1885) and Vol. III (1894). Marx is considered by Britsh BBC as greatest thinker in the 19 century (G.W.F. Hegel as greatest thinker of the 18. centuy), so it can be recommendad to have impression about the morality of it. Also because of some capitalism concept shortcommings we have also two main types of capitalism "American" and "European-Rhein type", so we can disscuss which is more moral (which values more satisfy common good and which way of life is more appropriate from moral point of view).

Perhaps somebody will arugue that it is moral because society/economy can not be effectively organized otherwise, but than we have the mistake of equaling the morality and reality (what is effective is not moral necesarily) - i.e. objectivity, and of course the problem is this statement true. E.g. Nikola Tesla (great inventor in electrotechnic) proposed with his invention the energy who will be free for all humans (derived from etar of planet) in early 1900 but this was refused by the USA government, today we can read the explanation that capitalistic elite had monopoly and that their power should not be deminished by the free energy for all. So today if this Tesla invention and noble idea (value) was accepted we will probably have cars without fuel and polutions (much earlier). Also if some state, individual is totaly independent in entergy sense (have enough energy for anything), you can not have power over them and control it/him so easy - so creating the dependance of people/states can be treated as moral? So it can be doubtful if capitalism has not alternative or that he can not be transformed to be more moral and more effective.  

Professor Slavko Kulić argued that capitalism is amoral society (http://www.novilist.hr/Znanost-i-tehnologija/Znanost/Slavko-Kulic-Kapitalizam-je-amoralno-drustvo). This article/interview is on croatian but it can be translated on english. Shorty cited: "We have relationships and society in which morality is not what regulate the relationships between people. Politics was and remain what regulate relationships between people. So politics never needed moral people, or moral peoples could nothing make in politics..."

Also one newer book to understand the moral ideas of socialism i.e. theoretical pre-stage of communism is: Horvat, Branko (1983). The Political Economy of Socialism: A Marxist Social Theory (1983), Routhledge, p. 660.  For this work Branko Horvat was nominated for Nobel price in economy. 

Of course as I stated earlier idea (value) is not the same as the realization (which can be connected with different human deviations - some of them have their source in human nature) so I argued that the value (what should be) is not the same as the reality (what it is) so we have the problem of value objectivity. Also ideologies/idolatires are connected with the morality/value systems that could be applied somewhere, e.g. in organizations.

Morality is not by definition concern for other people--this is an arbitrary package deal--it is trying to make altruism an axiom which it is not-concern with the good has to start at a deeper level: why does man need a code of morality at all and if so what is the ultimate standard? Only Ayn Rand has approached morality at the deepest level.

"According to the every theory of ethical behavior (morality), basic criterion of morality is always "concern for other people", i.e. concern about human good- so called PROSOCIALITY- (prosocial behavior)" cited Pastuović, Nikola (1999). Educology, Zagreb: Znamen, p. 225-226. In literature we can also find and cite a couple of moral definition with similar definition.

According to every moral theory, Mario says, the basic criterion has always been concern for others, which basically means altruism. This is not true, cf. Aristotle and Rand. Conformity to the majority is not the standard of truth about ethics or any other issue.

Conformity is neither ethics, nor moral behavior. Conformity and obedience are non-moral behaviors. Conformity and obedience can produce catastrofic unmoral and damagefull results (this is well known fact, and to my students I mention several examples about it  - because examples are giants in ethical education. For example we can learn a lot from examples of Chemical Trails in the sky, radiation problems after wars in Irak, Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia, HAARP systems on Alaska, whistleblowing examples (Snowden), corruption, manipulations of human mind, impression management, deviant systematic and indiviudal behaviors, para-system behaviors, human organs trafficking, etc.

So in the context of moral education we should educate assertiveness and free thinking (not educate what to think-this is education of conformity and obedience, but how to think), not comformity and obedience but quite opposite. Of course the important question is: "Is this according dominant ideology/idolatry?". If it is not such educator/education can become the object of system violance, although it is moral i.e. prosocial.

Prosocial behavior is something totally different from the conformity and obedience.

Gopinath,

This study may offer some insights

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299604127_Human_Factors_Affecting_Productivity_in_Jamaica_Technical_Report_on_Preliminary_Findings

Technical Report Human Factors Affecting Productivity in Jamaica: Technical R...