Consider yourself ethical? New research says think again

July 12, 2011 By Shannon Chapla, University of Notre Dame

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 ,” 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.

“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. “” 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.”

Explore further: The kids are alright

Related Stories

The kids are alright

May 26, 2011

Children should be seen and not heard... who says? A Philosophy academic at The University of Nottingham is challenging the adage by teaching primary school children to argue properly.

Why employees do bad things for companies they love

January 11, 2011

( -- Employees who love their company and hustle to please their bosses sound like a recipe for success. But two recent studies co-authored by a BYU business professor found that those two factors can lead to ...

Modern society made up of all types

November 4, 2010

Modern society has an intense interest in classifying people into ‘types’, according to a University of Melbourne Cultural Historian, leading to potentially catastrophic life-changing outcomes for those typed – ...

Recommended for you

Modern humans interbred with Denisovans twice in history

March 15, 2018

Modern humans co-existed and interbred not only with Neanderthals, but also with another species of archaic humans, the mysterious Denisovans. While developing a new genome-analysis method for comparing whole genomes between ...

Are palaeontologists naming too many species?

March 14, 2018

A comprehensive new study looking at variations in Ichthyosaurus, a common British Jurassic ichthyosaur (sea-going reptile) also known as 'Sea Dragons', has provided important information into recognizing new fossil species.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
Hillariosity. What is RIGHT (WHITE) and what is WRONG (BLACK).

We live in a world or grays and the struggle to diffentiate between what is "best" is constant. What is "Best" never approaches what is 'right'.
4 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
Simple question: If you found $5000 in a box and thought you know who it belonged to, would you return it on the spot and without consideration?
I doubt it. The decision would be premised upon your feelings for/about the person you think had lost the money. Not that you wouldn't respond differently should the actual 'owner' turn out to be someone other than you suspected.
not rated yet Jul 13, 2011
There is nothing new here.All of the men that history has
called wise have addresed this.
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2011
I think we only need look to our warrior Presidents to see where we get our models for morals. False flags - endless wars - support of thieving banks - a litany of successes.
3.5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2011
Interesting. As a European, I'd say the most poignant example of the phenomenon of "motivated blindless" is certainly the crisis in Greece, however. The Greek electorate largely lends its vote to political parties in direct exchange for secure careers in the public sector. This resulted in a government which is bloated to an extent it currently employs around 400.000 superfluous public officials who appear to have no clear purpose or function.

Combined with widespread corruption, the private sector found itself increasingly taxed to sustain a bureaucratic leviathan which produced nothing. Because it was in the interest of an increasing number of people to keep this status quo intact, however, no steps were taken to avert the disaster.

Today, Europe as a whole shares in the consequences of this "motivated blindness". The United States seems rather well off by comparison if the behavior of rating agencies constitutes the most striking illustration of the phenomenon overseas.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.