Ethical Breakdowns: Good People often Let Bad Things Happen. Why?

Max H. Bazerman; Ann E. Tenbrunsel

Article | Harvard Business Review | April 2011

Ethical Breakdowns: Good People often Let Bad Things Happen. Why?

by Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel

Abstract

Companies are spending a great deal of time and money to install codes of ethics, ethics training, compliance programs, and in-house watchdogs. If these efforts worked, the money would be well spent. But unethical behavior appears to be on the rise. The authors observe that even the best-intentioned executives may be unaware of their own or their employees' unethical behavior. Drawing from extensive research on cognitive biases, they offer five reasons for this blindness and suggest what to do about them: (1) Ill-conceived goals may actually encourage negative behavior. Brainstorm unintended consequences when devising them, (2) Motivated blindness makes us overlook unethical behavior when remaining ignorant is in our interest. Root out conflicts of interest, (3) Indirect blindness softens our assessment of unethical behavior when it's carried out by third parties. Take ownership of the implications when you outsource work, (4) The slippery slope mutes our awareness when unethical behavior develops gradually. Be alert for even trivial infractions and investigate them immediately, and (5) Overvaluing outcomes may lead us to give a pass to unethical behavior. Examine good outcomes to ensure they're not driven by unethical tactics.

Keywords: Ethics; Moral Sensibility; Corporate Accountability; Corporate Governance; Leadership; Behavior; Conflict of Interests;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Purchase

Citation:

Bazerman, Max H., and Ann E. Tenbrunsel. "Ethical Breakdowns: Good People often Let Bad Things Happen. Why?" Harvard Business Review 89, no. 4 (April 2011).

Working Paper | 2019

Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good

Karen Huang, Joshua D. Greene and Max Bazerman

The “veil of ignorance” is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision-making by denying decision-makers access to potentially biasing information about who will benefit most or least from the available options. Veil-of-ignorance reasoning was originally applied by philosophers and economists to foundational questions concerning the overall organization of society. Here we apply veil-of-ignorance reasoning in a more focused way to specific moral dilemmas, all of which involve a tension between the greater good and competing moral concerns. Across six experiments (N = 5,785), three pre-registered, we find that veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Participants first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning about a specific dilemma, asking themselves what they would want if they did not know who among those affected they would be. Participants then responded to a more conventional version of the same dilemma with a moral judgment, a policy preference, or an economic choice. Participants who first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning subsequently made more utilitarian choices in response to a classic philosophical dilemma, a medical dilemma, a real donation decision between a more vs. less effective charity, and a policy decision concerning the social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. These effects depend on the impartial thinking induced by veil-of-ignorance reasoning and cannot be explained by a simple anchoring account, probabilistic reasoning, or generic perspective-taking. These studies indicate that veil-of-ignorance reasoning may be a useful tool for decision-makers who wish to make more impartial and/or socially beneficial choices.

Keywords: policy-making; procedural justice; Ethics; Decision Making; Fairness;

Citation:

Huang, Karen, Joshua D. Greene, and Max Bazerman. "Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good." Working Paper, July 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Read Now

Managers often engage in risk-averse behavior, and economists, decision analysts, and managers treat risk aversion as a preference. In many cases, acting in a risk-averse manner is a mistake, but managers can correct this mistake with greater reflection. This article provides guidance on how individuals and organizations can move toward greater reflection and a more profitable aggregate portfolio of decisions. Inconsistency in risk preferences across decisions is a costly mistake for both individuals and for organizations.

Faculty & Research

Ethical Breakdowns: Good People often Let Bad Things Happen. Why?

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author