Consider yourself ethical? New research says think again
4 views
Skip to first unread message
hibbsa
Jul 13, 2011, 8:34:29 AM7/13/11
to Beginning of Infinity
Consider yourself ethical? New research says think again
July 12th, 2011 in Other Sciences / Economics & Business
When confronted with an ethical dilemma, most of us like to think we
would stand up for our principles. But we are not as ethical as we
think we are, according to Ann Tenbrunsel, the Rex and Alice A. Martin
Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza
College of Business and co-author of “Blind Spots: Why We Fail to do
What’s Right and What to do About it.”
“A blind spot is an unknown obstacle that prevents us from seeing our
unethical behavior,” Tenbrunsel explains. “It doesn’t allow us to see
the gap between who we think we are, who we’d like to be, and who we
truly are.”
Blind spots can originate with individuals and accumulate to an
organizational-level, from the collapse of Enron and corruption in the
tobacco industry, to sales of the defective Ford Pinto and the
downfall of Bernard Madoff.
This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
“Clearly, Madoff was a crook,” Tenbrunsel says. “But there are a host
of people who supported his decisions and we would argue many of them
did so unknowingly. Why does that happen? Why do we all behave in ways
that contradict our values?”
Tenbrunsel and co-author Max Bazerman show that we are unaware of the
blind spots that keep us from recognizing how we engage in unethical
actions.
They reference a study in which people were asked if they planned to
contribute to Daffodil Days, a fundraising event which supports the
American Cancer Society.
“Roughly 80 percent said they planned to give, Tenbrunsel says. “But
on collection day, only about half actually contributed.
“When we are predicting how we will behave, we are thinking
abstractly” she explains. “But, when we are actually making the
decisions, we are thinking very concretely, looking at feasibility. If
you consider the Daffodil Days example, a participant may say ‘I
didn’t realize that at the time I would be asked to donate, I would
only have five dollars in my pocket, which I could either donate or
use to buy lunch.’ Visceral forces also play a role when we’re called
to make a decision. ‘I’m hungry, I’m thirsty, I’m angry, I’m fearful
that I’m losing my job.’ We become motivated to eliminate these forces
and all else, including ethical values, takes a back seat. These
factors are difficult to predict, but impact us directly and lead to
what we call ‘ethical fading.’”
Tenbrunsel says ethical fading—the removal of ethics from the decision-
making process—have led to tragedies and scandals such as the
Challenger space shuttle disaster, steroid use in Major League
Baseball, the crash in the financial markets, and the energy crisis.
“Blind Spots” demonstrates how ethical standards shift, how we neglect
to notice and act on the unethical behavior of others, and how
compliance initiatives can actually promote unethical behavior.
At the organizational level, there are important implications.
“If you have every individual falling prey to their ethical illusions,
including those leading, an error in judgment can blossom into a whole
series of activities that can damage reputation,” Tenbrunsel says.
“People believe they will behave ethically in a given situation, but
they don’t. Then they believe they behaved ethically when they didn’t.
It’s no surprise, then, that most individuals erroneously believe they
are more ethical than the majority of their peers,” according to
Tenbrunsel.
Going a step further, she says “motivated blindness” is people’s
tendency to not notice the unethical behavior of others because it’s
in their best interest not to notice. She points to credit rating
agencies as a good example.
“They are supposed to provide objective, unbiased ratings of the
creditworthiness of issuers of debt obligations (including companies,
nonprofit organizations and federal, state and local governments) as
well as the debt instruments these financial organizations sell to the
public,” she says. “However, their compensation has been tied to
anything but objectivity. Specifically, the largest credit rating
agencies, including Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch, are paid by
the companies they rate instead of by the investors who have the most
to lose from inaccurate ratings. It is not a surprise that the rating
agencies that provide the highest ratings have the most business.”
“If we are to truly eliminate conflicts of interest,” Tenbrunsel and
Bazerman wrote in an April New York Times op-ed, “we must understand
the psychology behind them.”
Provided by University of Notre Dame
"Consider yourself ethical? New research says think again." July 12th,
2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-ethical.html
July 12th, 2011 in Other Sciences / Economics & Business
When confronted with an ethical dilemma, most of us like to think we
would stand up for our principles. But we are not as ethical as we
think we are, according to Ann Tenbrunsel, the Rex and Alice A. Martin
Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza
College of Business and co-author of “Blind Spots: Why We Fail to do
What’s Right and What to do About it.”
“A blind spot is an unknown obstacle that prevents us from seeing our
unethical behavior,” Tenbrunsel explains. “It doesn’t allow us to see
the gap between who we think we are, who we’d like to be, and who we
truly are.”
Blind spots can originate with individuals and accumulate to an
organizational-level, from the collapse of Enron and corruption in the
tobacco industry, to sales of the defective Ford Pinto and the
downfall of Bernard Madoff.
This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
“Clearly, Madoff was a crook,” Tenbrunsel says. “But there are a host
of people who supported his decisions and we would argue many of them
did so unknowingly. Why does that happen? Why do we all behave in ways
that contradict our values?”
Tenbrunsel and co-author Max Bazerman show that we are unaware of the
blind spots that keep us from recognizing how we engage in unethical
actions.
They reference a study in which people were asked if they planned to
contribute to Daffodil Days, a fundraising event which supports the
American Cancer Society.
“Roughly 80 percent said they planned to give, Tenbrunsel says. “But
on collection day, only about half actually contributed.
“When we are predicting how we will behave, we are thinking
abstractly” she explains. “But, when we are actually making the
decisions, we are thinking very concretely, looking at feasibility. If
you consider the Daffodil Days example, a participant may say ‘I
didn’t realize that at the time I would be asked to donate, I would
only have five dollars in my pocket, which I could either donate or
use to buy lunch.’ Visceral forces also play a role when we’re called
to make a decision. ‘I’m hungry, I’m thirsty, I’m angry, I’m fearful
that I’m losing my job.’ We become motivated to eliminate these forces
and all else, including ethical values, takes a back seat. These
factors are difficult to predict, but impact us directly and lead to
what we call ‘ethical fading.’”
Tenbrunsel says ethical fading—the removal of ethics from the decision-
making process—have led to tragedies and scandals such as the
Challenger space shuttle disaster, steroid use in Major League
Baseball, the crash in the financial markets, and the energy crisis.
“Blind Spots” demonstrates how ethical standards shift, how we neglect
to notice and act on the unethical behavior of others, and how
compliance initiatives can actually promote unethical behavior.
At the organizational level, there are important implications.
“If you have every individual falling prey to their ethical illusions,
including those leading, an error in judgment can blossom into a whole
series of activities that can damage reputation,” Tenbrunsel says.
“People believe they will behave ethically in a given situation, but
they don’t. Then they believe they behaved ethically when they didn’t.
It’s no surprise, then, that most individuals erroneously believe they
are more ethical than the majority of their peers,” according to
Tenbrunsel.
Going a step further, she says “motivated blindness” is people’s
tendency to not notice the unethical behavior of others because it’s
in their best interest not to notice. She points to credit rating
agencies as a good example.
“They are supposed to provide objective, unbiased ratings of the
creditworthiness of issuers of debt obligations (including companies,
nonprofit organizations and federal, state and local governments) as
well as the debt instruments these financial organizations sell to the
public,” she says. “However, their compensation has been tied to
anything but objectivity. Specifically, the largest credit rating
agencies, including Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch, are paid by
the companies they rate instead of by the investors who have the most
to lose from inaccurate ratings. It is not a surprise that the rating
agencies that provide the highest ratings have the most business.”
“If we are to truly eliminate conflicts of interest,” Tenbrunsel and
Bazerman wrote in an April New York Times op-ed, “we must understand
the psychology behind them.”
Provided by University of Notre Dame
"Consider yourself ethical? New research says think again." July 12th,
2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-ethical.html
David Deutsch
Jul 13, 2011, 8:48:28 AM7/13/11
to beginning-...@googlegroups.com
Good heavens, what a tangle of unacknowledged assumptions and unargued calumny. With that notorious ancient theory as subtext: if the common people are so 'unethical' (immoral) and irrational at making decisions, then decisions should be made for them by their betters, namely the philosopher kings (nowadays, the academics who shape government policies and invent their justifications).
-- David Deutsch
John Campbell
Jul 14, 2011, 1:40:53 PM7/14/11
to beginning-...@googlegroups.com
This study appears to be another in the long line of attempts to document and prove how fundamentally, and perhaps irrevocably, flawed we human beings are.
These studies and books seem to be a hodge podge of thinking, theorizing and assumptions without any coherence.
They will grant that we are plucky little monkeys, and fairly bright at times, but our poor thinking seems inevitable. They seldom if ever discuss memes, but imply or state that our errors are pre-wired - part of the human condition.
I just came upon one of the latest books to harp on this - Brain Bugs: How the Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives by Dean Buonomano.
Amazon indicates that he is a professor in the Departments of Neurobiology and Psychology, and a member of the Brain Research Institute, and the Integrative Center for Learning and Memory at UCLA.
This pessimism seems thoroughly at odds with BOI.
John Campbell
Manolis.A.C.
Jul 15, 2011, 1:59:26 AM7/15/11
to beginning-...@googlegroups.com
Business ethics...as if there are many kinds of ethics.
Gardening ethics anyone?
Please excuse my brief email. Sent from my iPhone.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages