More from the Author

• Article | Academy of Management Perspectives | February 2019

  Bounded Ethicality and Ethical Fading in Negotiations: Understanding Unintended Unethical Behavior

  McKenzie Rees, Ann E. Tenbrunsel and Max Bazerman

  The business scandals in the past several decades led to the rising importance of ethics as a topic central to management scholarship. Behavioral scientists in particular were attracted to the topic in far greater numbers, and the study of ethical decision-making emerged as a core subfield (Messick & Tenbrunsel, 1996). This paper draws on that framework and applies it to negotiations, arguing that not all unethical behavior is intentional; rather, negotiators fall prey to bounded ethicality, engaging in behavior that is contradictory to their values without realizing they are doing so. We further argue that ethical fading—when individuals do not “see” the ethical implications of the situation or their action—is central to explaining why this occurs. Relying on past empirical research, we identify negotiation “cues” that have been linked to unethical behavior and explore how they make a negotiator particularly vulnerable to ethical fading, resulting in subsequent unethical behavior. We discuss several opportunities for future research in the negotiation discipline and other disciplines that draw on motivated social exchange or assume intentionality and conclude with a call for scholars to define normative standards as they pertain to negotiator ethics.

  Keywords: Ethics; Behavior; Negotiation; Situation or Environment; Perception;

  Citation:

  Rees, McKenzie, Ann E. Tenbrunsel, and Max Bazerman. "Bounded Ethicality and Ethical Fading in Negotiations: Understanding Unintended Unethical Behavior." Academy of Management Perspectives 33, no. 1 (February 2019): 1–17.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at HarvardPurchase

  Related

• Article | Negotiation and Conflict Management Research | May 2018

  Linda Babcock: Go-getter and Do-gooder

  Max Bazerman, Iris Bohnet, Hannah Riley-Bowles and George Loewenstein

  In this tribute to the 2007 recipient of the Jeffrey Z. Rubin Theory‐To‐Practice Award from the International Association for Conflict Management (IACM), we celebrate Linda Babcock's contributions to diverse lines of research, her tireless and effective efforts to put the insights of her research into practice, and at a personal level, the impact she has had on each of our lives. Innovative ideas and novel methods have been the hallmarks of Linda's research on diverse topics: the impact of self‐serving conceptions of fairness on negotiations, the labor supply behavior of cab drivers, the impact of damage caps on settlements, the propensity of men and women to initiate negotiations, and the readiness of each gender to volunteer for, and work on “nonpromotable tasks.” Linda won this award, however, not only for her path‐breaking academic research, but also for her interest in and ability to convert it into actionable initiatives. From founding the Program for Research and Outreach on Gender Equity in Society (PROGRESS), whose mission is to develop tools to teach women and girls how to harness the power of negotiation, to her leadership of the Carnegie Mellon Leadership and Negotiation Academy for Women, Linda shows how academics can play a leading role in translating theory into practice.

  Keywords: Personal Development and Career; Biography; Research; Negotiation; Leadership; Practice;

  Citation:

  Bazerman, Max, Iris Bohnet, Hannah Riley-Bowles, and George Loewenstein. "Linda Babcock: Go-getter and Do-gooder." Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 11, no. 2 (May 2018): 130–145.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related

• Article | Management Science

  If You're Going to Do Wrong, at Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency

  Netta Barak-Corren, Chia-Jung Tsay, Fiery Cushman and Max Bazerman

  We study how people reconcile conflicting moral intuitions by juxtaposing two versions of classic moral problems: the trolley problem and the footbridge problem. When viewed separately, most people favor action in the former and disapprove of action in the latter, despite identical consequences. The difference is often explained in terms of the intention principle—whether the consequences are intended or incidental. Our results suggest that when the two problems are considered together, a different judgment emerges: participants reject the intention principle and embrace either the principle of utilitarianism, which favors action in both problems, or the action principle, which rejects action in both problems. In subsequent studies, we find that when required to choose between two harmful actions, people prefer the action that saves more lives, despite its being more aversive. Our findings shed light on the formation of moral judgment under normative conflict, the conditions for preference reversal, and the potential polarization of moral judgment under joint evaluation. Organizational implications are discussed.

  Keywords: Moral Sensibility; Judgments; Problems and Challenges; Conflict and Resolution;

  Citation:

  Barak-Corren, Netta, Chia-Jung Tsay, Fiery Cushman, and Max Bazerman. "If You're Going to Do Wrong, at Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency." Management Science 64, no. 4 (April 2018): 1528–1540. (Published early online: February 16, 2017.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related