4 results
16 - Ethical learning: releasing the moral unicorn
-
- By Dolly Chugh, New York University's Stern School of Business, Mary C. Kern, City University
- Edited by Donald Palmer, University of California, Davis, Kristin Smith-Crowe, University of Utah, Royston Greenwood, University of Alberta
-
- Book:
- Organizational Wrongdoing
- Published online:
- 05 July 2016
- Print publication:
- 18 July 2016, pp 474-503
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Of all the legendary animals of art, folklore, and literature, the Unicorn is the one with the greatest hold on our imaginations. Other fabulous beasts are clearly inventions, existing only in a mythical landscape of our own collective creation. But the Unicorn strikes us as more than imaginary. It seems possible, even probable – a creature so likely that it ought to exist.
(Nancy Hathaway 1987: 3)Unbounded ethicality and unbounded rationality are the unicorns of social science: persistent in our imaginations and representative of the beauty we crave in the world, but lacking empirical support. Like the unicorn, such behavioral elegance feels like it “ought to exist.” The concepts of bounded rationality (Simon 1957) and bounded ethicality (Chugh, Bazerman, and Banaji 2005; Chugh and Kern, working paper) offer more empirically valid representations of reality, reminding us not only that we and others are prone to departures from rationality and ethicality in our behavior but that these departures are the outcome of systematic and ordinary psychological processes.
Still, despite the reveal of the illusion of the moral unicorn, we cling to what it offers, an alternate reality in which good people are ethically infallible, and in which we (all of us) are among the good. Many people care about being ethical (Aquino and Reed 2002; Higgins 1987; Mazar, Amir, and Ariely 2008; Nisan 1991). And, not only do people care about being ethical, they also believe that they are ethical (Tenbrunsel 1998). Despite caring about ethicality and believing in their own ethicality, ample evidence suggests that there is a significant gap between how people view their own ethicality and how ethically people actually behave (Bazerman and Tenbrunsel 2011). But, our “bounded ethicality” is often outside of awareness (Chugh et al. 2005; Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008), allowing for the illusion of the unicorn to persist despite evidence contradicting its existence.
The evidence for this gap is significant. Most of us believe that we are more ethical than the majority of our peers, which is a statistically untenable belief for at least some of us (Tenbrunsel 1998). We tend to mispredict our future behavior, overestimating the likelihood that we would behave in socially desirable ways (Epley and Dunning 2000). We overclaim credit for group work (Caruso, Epley, and Bazerman 2006).
9 - was not that long ago: A story of gateways and pathways
-
- By Dolly Chugh, Assistant Professor, Management and Organizations Department New York University Stern School of Business, Arthur P. Brief, George Eccles Chair in Business Ethics and Presidential Professor, University of Utah
- Edited by Arthur P. Brief, University of Utah
-
- Book:
- Diversity at Work
- Published online:
- 19 May 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 April 2008, pp 318-340
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
How long ago was 1964? A long time ago, some would say. The Beatles had just arrived in America, the World Trade Center design was underway, and Nelson Mandela was sentenced to his eventual 27-year imprisonment. The world of 1964 seems very distant from the world of today.
In that year, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act became law in the United States, outlawing discrimination in employment in any business on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Black or white, male or female, the gateway to opportunity opened.
Yet, stunning levels of segregation still exist in the workplace (Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 2006). In the United States, male–female and black–white segregation lessened between 1966 and 1980, but after 1980, only male–female segregation continued to significantly decline. Black–white segregation has essentially remained the same since 1980, and may have worsened in some sectors since 1995.
In fact, in order for sex-neutral employment distribution (i.e., true desegregation) to exist, more than half of all workers would have to switch jobs; for race-neutral (black–white) employment distribution to exist, more than half of all African-Americans would need to switch jobs (Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 2006). Both race and gender segregation remains significant, more than 30 years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
This puzzling state of affairs can be explained, we propose, by distinguishing between the gateway to opportunity and diversity in the workplace, and the pathway to success and effectiveness in the workplace.
1 - Introduction: Where the sweet spot is: Studying diversity in organizations
-
- By Dolly Chugh, Assistant Professor, Management and Organizations Department New York University Stern School of Business, Arthur P. Brief, George Eccles Chair in Business Ethics and Presidential Professor, University of Utah
- Edited by Arthur P. Brief, University of Utah
-
- Book:
- Diversity at Work
- Published online:
- 19 May 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 April 2008, pp 1-10
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Since 2000, 19% and 14% of the work published in peer-reviewed psychology and sociology journals (respectively) dealt with race or gender or diversity. Much of this work is based on a deep theoretical foundation and demonstrates innovative social science methods. It is rigorous, empirical, and exciting.
Having established that these topics were receiving significant research attention in the social sciences, we did a similar search in the Academy of Management journals. Since 2000, only 5% of organizational research tackled these topics. What does this small percentage imply about the other 95% of organizational scholarship? What assumptions rest in most organizational work about the composition of the workforce, particularly the racial composition?
In fact, most of organizational scholarship looks as if no people of color work in organizations, else we would see more attention paid to research topics such as race and racism, as well as those often entwined with race – social class, immigration status, and coping with discrimination. As of now, all of these topics remain neglected in the management literature. In this chapter, we introduce this volume about diversity at work with a focused look at the topic we see most lacking in organizational research: race. We believe this narrow focus is required, given the infrequent attention the topic is receiving in our top journals and the serious racial inequalities that exist in organizations.
5 - Bounded Ethicality as a Psychological Barrier to Recognizing Conflicts of Interest
-
- By Dolly Chugh, Harvard Business School, Max H. Bazerman, Harvard Business School, Mahzarin R. Banaji, Harvard University
- Edited by Don A. Moore, Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania, Daylian M. Cain, Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania, George Loewenstein, Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania, Max H. Bazerman, Harvard University, Massachusetts
-
- Book:
- Conflicts of Interest
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 April 2005, pp 74-95
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
But there is a more subtle question of conflict of interest that derives directly from human bounded rationality. The fact is, if we become involved in a particular activity and devote an important part of our lives to that activity, we will surely assign it a greater importance and value than we would have prior to our involvement with it.
It's very hard for us, sometimes, not to draw from such facts a conclusion that human beings are rather dishonest creatures…. Yet most of the bias that arises from human occupations and preoccupations cannot be described correctly as rooted in dishonesty – which perhaps makes it more insidious than if it were.
– Herbert A. Simon, 1983, pp. 95–96Herbert Simon's perspective (1983) is broadly compatible with Moore, Loewenstein, Tanlu, and Bazerman's (2003) recent research on the psychological aspects of conflict of interest in the context of auditor independence. Moore et al. (2003) focus primarily on the work on self-serving interpretations of fairness. The current work broadens this theme, and develops a conceptual framework for understanding how unchecked psychological processes work against an objective assessment and allow us to act against personal, professional, and normative expectations when conflicts of interest exist.