Category Archives: Ethics

Predicting someone’s propensity to morally disengage (IO Psychology)

Reply

Topic: Assessment, Personality, Ethics, Counter-Productive Work Behavior, Workplace Deviance
Publication: Personnel Psychology (SPRING 2012)
Article: Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior
Authors: Celia Moore, James R. Detert, Linda Klebe Treviño, Vicki L. Baker, & David M. Mayer
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin

Organizations obviously want their employees to be ethical. While there are existing measures that are used to predict who will act immorally, the authors of this paper proposed a new construct that they called an individual’s propensity to morally disengage – an individual difference in how people think about ethical decisions and behavior that allows them to act unethically without feeling bad about it.

Celia Moore and her colleagues developed a measure of an individual’s propensity to morally disengage. In a series of studies, they then validated the measure for working adults by showing that the propensity to morally disengage was positively related to unethical behavior after accounting for a number of other related traits, orientations, and emotions. Predicted outcomes included self-, supervisor-, and coworker-reported unethical behavior, decisions to commit fraud, and self-serving decisions in the workplace.

You may be wondering how this paper is relevant to practitioners. This new measure of the propensity to morally disengage predicts unethical behavior, and it is short – it only includes eight items. While it has yet to be validated for employee selection, this measure certainly shows promise for its ability to predict unethical behavior. The authors also found that this measure had a low correlation with social desirability, so it seems to be fairly resistant to test-takers faking their responses to receive a good score. If your organization is using a lengthy integrity test in the selection process for the sole purpose of predicting those who would conduct unethical behavior, then this new measure may be something your organization might want to consider using instead.

Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Business_Team_Thinking_p46925.html

Big Decision? Take some time to think about it (IO Psychology)

Reply

Topic: Decision Making, Ethics
Publication: Academy of Management Journal (FEB 2012)
Article: Contemplation and conversation: Subtle influences on moral decision making
Authors: Gunia, B. C., Wang, L., Huang, L., Wang, J., & Murninghan, J. K.
Reviewed By: Katie Bachman

In the workplace, important decisions can hinge on the ethical strength of your decision makers. It may be more profitable to make an unethical or self-interested choice, but long term consequences can be dire (I’m lookin’ at you, Wall Street). When it comes to choosing between right and wrong, it is sad to think how easily employees can be swayed. Good news! It works the other way too! You can encourage your employees to make more ethical decisions with just a couple of simple actions. How? Oh, let me tell you!

In an experiment measuring how often individuals would be tell the truth about money (a jackpot to be split between the two of them), participants were more likely to tell the truth about the amount of money to be split if they had some extra time to think about it (contemplation) or if they talked to someone who suggested they make the moral choice (conversation). Take note—they could be swayed to lie if they were encouraged to do so as well, but the relationship was stronger for the positive. Now, isn’t that nice?

So, in this experiment, the choices were pretty clear–tell the truth or tell a lie. If only everything were that easy! For us folks living in the real world, lines tend to be fuzzier, but the bottom line still holds. When faced with a decision, time to think and talking to someone on the high road can help us make more ethically sound decisions.

Gunia, B. C., Wang, L., Huang, L., Wang, J., Murnighan, J. K. (2012). Contemplation and conversation: Subtle influences on moral decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 13-33.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Business_Man_p23435.html

The Makings of Morality: The Factors Behind Ethical Behavior (IO Psychology)

Reply

Topic: Ethics
Publication: Academy of Management Review
Article: Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action
Authors: Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R.
Reviewer: Neil Morelli

When it comes to identifying unethical behavior in politics, business, and sport, all it takes is a casual flip through your Sunday paper. With a greater spotlight being placed on understanding and promoting ethical practices in the workplace, Hannah, Avolio, and May’s goal was to help determine what it means to have “moral capacity” in the workplace and how that capacity affects ethical behavior.

Hannah et al. specifically focused on moral challenges, or knowing the correct thing to do but having conflicting values. The reaction to a moral dilemma is usually made of two parts a cognition process and a conation process. In other words, how you think about the dilemma and what you do about the dilemma. The authors’ offered a theoretical model that describes the factors underlying the moral cognition and conation (action) processes.

To summarize the model, the moral cognition process includes having the moral sensitivity to identify the dilemma and the judgment to choose the best option for handling it. The conation, or action, process includes having the motivation to commit to a particular course of action and the persistence to overcome fatigue or obstacles that get in the way. The factors underlying the moral cognition process are grouped into a category called moral maturation capacities, or the ability to attend to and retain morally relevant information. The factors underlying the moral conation process are similarly named moral conation capacities, or the ability to take responsibility for a moral dilemma and take action in the face of adversity.

A closer inspection of the individual components of both moral maturation and moral conation is highly recommended for both researchers and practitioners who are interested in the psychological processes of ethical behavior in the workplace, but what immediate impact can this model have for practice? The authors note that these capacities are both malleable and measureable, meaning that these capacities could be targeted in selection processes and training and development initiatives. The ultimate goal is to decrease the amount of unethical behavior by increasing moral capacity.

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011). Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 663-685.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Gropu_Of_Business_People_p33897.html

Responding to Mistreatment of Others

Reply

Topic: Motivation, Human Resource Management, Ethics
Publication: Academy of Management Review
Article: A Model of Third Parties’ Morally Motivated Responses to Mistreatment in Organizations
Authors: O’Reilly, J. & Aquino, K.
Reviewer: Rachel Marsh

Have you ever noticed a college student being mistreated by someone else in the organization, be it peer, subordinate or superior? What actions did you take because of what you witnessed? According to O’Reilly and Aquino you have several choices. You could rally against the perpetrator, going to their superior to explain what happened. You also have the option of punishing the offender on your own, vigilante style. There is also the possibility that you could comfort the victim or you could just ignore the situation. The authors propose that your actions are determined by your moral identity, the perception of power, and your belief in your organization’s justice system.

A moral identity is how you view yourself morally. Do you think you are a moral person? If you do think you are a moral person, is that one of your core values, something that you perceive as an important aspect of you. If so, you will be more likely to take action against the perpetrator than if you don’t think of yourself as a moral person. The more important you consider morality as a core aspect of yourself, the more likely you are to take action. Power is also an important aspect in taking action against coworker mistreatment.

Position power and resource power both play a role in your decision. Position power is part of the traditional hierarchy of your organization. Do you have any power over the perpetrator? Resource power is not determined by the hierarchy of the organization but is more defined by your social network, political skill, or even time. If you have neither position nor resource power, you are likely not to take action, but if you have either you likely will take action.

So what part of mistreatment in the workplace and employees’ response can an organization control? Their organizational justice system. If employees perceive the justice system is fair and “punishes” people who have purposefully done wrong things while not punishing employees who report mistreatment, then an employee will report mistreatment. However, if an employee does not believe in the organizational justice system, they will act on their own to address the mistreatment, ignore it, or go outside the organization to alleviate the problem. All three of those scenarios reflect badly on an organization, giving the appearance they cannot handle their own problem, and in today’s business world perception is important.

O’Reilly, J., & Aquino, K. (2011). A model of third parties’ morally motivated responses to mistreatment in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 526-543.

human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

Teams Behaving Badly: A Combination of the People and the Environment

Reply

Topic: Ethics, Teams, Decision Making
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (MAR 2011)
Article: Thick as Thieves: The Effects of Ethical Orientation and Psychological
Safety on Unethical Team Behavior
Authors: M.J. Pearsall & A.P. Ellis
Reviewed By: Ben Sher

Individuals faced with ethical dilemmas are always free to choose between their perceptions of right and wrong. But some situations are more complicated than that. What happens when an entire team must collectively decide what to do? What factors might sway the group decision in favor of acting unethically? According to research by Pearsall and Ellis (2011), certain types of groups are more prone to ethical violations than others.

The authors first distinguish between two common attitudes people may have:
utilitarianism and formalism. Utilitarianism is when a person tends to make decisions by only focusing on possible outcomes and striving to maximize benefits. Formalism is when a person makes decisions while trying to stay within the guidelines of specific rules and regulations.

After conducting an experiment in which work groups were presented with an
opportunity to cheat on a self-scored evaluation, the authors found that groups whose members had a high level of utilitarianism were more likely to cheat than groups whose members do not espouse a high level of utilitarianism. Groups whose members espoused formalism cheated less than groups whose members did not espouse formalism, although this effect was not as strong as predicted.

Even among groups whose members had a high level of utilitarianism, some groups were more likely than others to act on it. The determining factor was psychological safety, which is the extent to which group members believe that they will not be punished for making suggestions that seem out of the box or risky. On teams that have a high level of psychological safety, unethical people feel free to suggest solutions that may compromise ethics, without fear that the group will chastise or look down upon them. On these teams, utilitarianism is more likely to lead to actual ethics violations.

So if utilitarian-minded people and psychological safety lead to unethical behavior, does that mean they are bad? Not necessarily. In fact, utilitarian people are known for their innovation and can be quite valuable on teams. Likewise, psychological safety is something that organizations strive to increase in order to foster idea-generation and creativity. So what can organizations do to curb ethics violations? One solution is for managers to practice ethical leadership. The authors explain that this might influence followers to uphold ethics standards, even when utilitarian-minded people exist in a psychologically safe environment. And while it may be impractical to completely avoid situations that encourage ethics violations, identifying when they are most likely to occur is the first step in reducing their frequency.

Pearsall, M.J., & Ellis, A.P. (2011). Thick as Thieves: The Effects of Ethical Orientation
and Psychological Safety on Unethical Team Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(2), 401-411.

human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

The need for ethical leadership in a global and capitalist world

Reply

Topic: Ethics, Leadership
Publication: Journal of Business Ethics (2010)
Article: Ethical leadership and global citizenship: Considerations for a just and sustainable future
Authors:  Deborah C. Poff
Reviewed By: Bobby Bullock

In a scathing critique of global capitalism and its effects on social, economic, and environmental justice, Poff (2010) lays out the argument for a realignment of values.  The problems associated with global capitalism, Poff argues, are numerous.  It threatens the environment in order to support the massive production of material goods, its problems are being used by charismatic extremists to win over the populations of developing nations, and the tenets of consumerism are distorting values towards possession of material goods over quality relationships and meaningful pursuits.  How, then, is the world to shift away from such a destructive course?  Through a massive realignment of values; championed by ethical leaders in business, education, and government.

According to Poff, we are at war with our current value system.  This system tells us: “that we are what we wear, what we drive, where we live and that what we own reflects what we are worth” (Poff, 2010, p. 10).  She warns that these values have been reflected in business, where recently leaders of organizations like Enron and Worldcom have chased the drive for profits to an excess that breaks with ethical norms.  Given that leadership to a large extent influences organizational culture and normative behavior, it is important that global leaders have a strong moral and ethical compass. 

Continue reading →

Ethical Leadership and OCBs?

Reply

Topic: Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Ethics, Gender
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (DEC 2010)
Article: Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership:  Exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics.
Authors:  Michele Kacmar, Daniel Bachrach, Kenneth Harris, and Suzanne Zivnuska
Reviewed By: Bobby Bullock

Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris, and Zivnuska (2010) sought to expand on ethical leadership research by examining its relationship with organizational citizenship behavior.  First, they examined the direct relationship between ethical leadership (honest, fair, and transparent leadership) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB- prosocial behavior at work such as helping fellow employees with difficult tasks).  The results of their blanket study indicated that the presence of ethical leadership in an organization led to higher rates of OCB.  This showed that when employees feel indebted to ethical leaders, they may seek to “repay” them with OCB.  If it were that simple it would be great- make sure leaders act ethically and you could create a positive, prosocial work environment just like that!  Things aren’t always so simple, as we find out in the latter parts of their study.

However straightforward the above findings are, they do not take into account various social and political factors that are present in most workplaces.  Here’s where things get interesting.  Employee gender roles and perceptions of organizational politics (POP- an employee’s perception of the political environment of their workplace, whereby high POP would indicate a politicized work environment where employees act selfishly and are motivated by self-interest) can influence the strength and direction of the above relationship.   In terms of gender roles, social role theory (SRT) suggests that men engage in OCBs in part to increase their status and further their careers.  In contrast, SRT would indicate that women engage in OCBs in part because of stronger social orientations and the desire to strengthen bonds with fellow coworkers.  

Continue reading →

Implicit Assumptions and Organizational Context- A Recipe for Immoral Behavior?

Reply

Topic: Ethics
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology
Article: Automatic ethics: The effects of implicit assumptions and contextual cues on moral behavior.
Authors: Reynolds, S. J., Leavitt, K., & DeCelles, K. A.
Reviewed By: Bobby Bullock

 

In recent years, the news has been filled with stories about organizations committing
gross violations against the environment, their stakeholders, and even the American public.  So it’s not a stretch to imagine that many people view business itself as inherently immoral.  What are the effects of such implicit assumptions about the moral nature of business?

Reynolds, Leavitt, and Decelles (2010) sought to answer questions like this in a recent study where they examined how employees’ implicit assumptions about the morality of business in general can impact day-to-day business decisions and moral behavior on the job. Their research supported the idea that organizational cues which support individual beliefs about the moral nature of business can combine to create more extreme conclusions (i.e., more immoral behavior or more moral behavior) than would be the case without such organizational cues.

Reynolds’ team found that individuals who inherently believed that business is moral (e.g., intense competition and emphasizing shareholder obligations and financial performance is okay) were much more likely to behave in an immoral fashion when their environment emphasized
success and competition On the other hand, individuals who believed that business is inherently immoral (e.g., business practices are overly aggressive and harmful) were much less likely to act immorally when similar cues were presented. However, it is also important to note that when opposite cues such as an emphasis on collaboration were presented in this study, both groups behaved morally!

  • The implications for moral behavior from this study are profound:
  • The organization holds much more influence than previously thought concerning whether or not employees behave morally or immorally
  • Although one can measure an employee’s implicit assumptions regarding their beliefs about the “morality” of business, it is the organizational culture itself that will most likely cue immoral behavior
  • Organizations should be aware of the messages that they send to their employees- if there is an extreme focus on competition and success at all costs, many people will dowhateverit takes to achieve it (hmm… sound familiar?)
  • And, according to Reynolds et al. (2010), organizations might want to take a more proactive approach to influence employee perceptions about the moral obstacles present in the complex world of business so that they may be more aware of this interaction effect

 

Reynolds, S., Leavitt, K., &
DeCelles, K. (2010). Automatic ethics: The effects of implicit assumptions and
contextual cues on moral behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 752-760.

It’s Easier to Deceive via e-Mail

Reply

Topic: Workplace Deviance, Ethics
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (MAR 2010)
Article: The finer points of lying online: E-mail versus pen and paper
Authors: C.E. Naquin, T.R. Kurtzberg, and L.Y. Belkin
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

While lying and deception may come easily to some (certain politicians come to mind…), research suggests that generally, people find face-to-face deception to be more difficult than deception through a communication medium (telephone, letter, etc.).

In a recent article on the topic, Naquin, Kurtzberg, and Belkin (2010) hypothesized that deception (lying) may be even more likely via email than pen and paper communication.  In their series of 3 studies, Naquin et al. showed that although deception occurred quite frequently for participants using both (e-mail vs. pen and paper) communication mediums, deception was indeed more common through email and the extent of deception (how big the lie was) tended to be greater via email.

The authors further demonstrated that this was due to people finding it easier to justify deception when communicating via email. Importantly, however, the first two studies utilized an artificial game with no “real” consequences for deception, as would certainly not be the case in a work setting (e.g., IRS audit).  Thus, Naquin and colleagues conducted a third study with full-time managers working on a more realistic (albeit not real) simulation.

In this study, deception was revealed to others, thus, providing real consequences to the deceiver.  Nevertheless, the results were largely the same for all three studies, suggesting that even in the face of consequences; people tend to engage in more deception via email to promote self-interests. 

Unfortunately, Naquin and colleagues’ paper highlights a dark side of human nature and suggests that the media through which employees communicate can impact their propensity to lie and engage in deception.  The authors suggest that their findings may also point to a general tendency for people to more easily justify unethical behavior via online media.  These findings are perhaps even more disturbing when we consider the frequency with which business is conducted online.

Now…what expenses can I think of to write-off this year?

Naquin, C.E., Kurtzberg, T.R., & Belkin, L.Y. (2010). The finer points of lying online: E-mail versus pen and paper. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 387-394.

Corporate Social Responsibility – An Inevitable Paradox?

1

Topic: Culture, Ethics
Publication: Academy of Management Perspectives
Article: Is the socially responsible corporation a myth?  The good, the bad and the ugly of corporate responsibility.

Author: T.M. Devinney

Featured by: Lit Digger

Happy hand Is it even possible to have a corporation that is truly socially
responsible?  Sure, some companies
like Johnson & Johnson and Ben & Jerry’s are perceived to demonstrate
more corporate social responsibility (CSR) than others, but let’s stop pointing
fingers for a moment and instead think critically about what CSR actually
means, shall we?  Timothy Devinney
has added his two cents to an ongoing debate about CSR, a topic that has been
difficult to scientifically examine in part due to the looseness of its
definition.

Devinney presents three perspectives in his examination of the
issue, which I will broadly summarize below.

First of all, “Who is Sanctioning Whom?”  The traditional idea
is that that society morally sanctions corporations, such that corporations
must then operate within the rules and ethical practices of that society.  However, this is confusing because
societies are often not comprised of one crystal clear set of norms (e.g.,
liberals and conservatives, people of various ethnicities, and those of
differing sexual orientations could live on the same neighborhood block).  So the question becomes: to whom should
the corporation really be responsible, especially when societal groups or
ideals are in conflict?

Secondly, Devinney
considers “The Good of CSR” versus “The Bad of CSR.”  On the bright
side, corporations can help identify the needs of society.  If people are shopping at a shoe store,
and the shoe store is doing well, then the business must be addressing a need and everyone has happy feet, right?  Through research, corporations know
about the societal trends and the current technology available, so they are
also able to experiment with new ideas, and let brutal competition decide what
will stick.  This opens up the
possibility of solving new, social problems!

Continue reading →