“Scripts and Skills” Ethics in Management Giving Voice to Values curriculum The University of Winnipeg

Understanding Others (and Ourselves) What factors / conditions affect others’ (and our own) perceptions and responses to ethical situations –Be aware of how those influence us –Learn how to acknowledge and address others under those influences Mobilize these factors / conditions to support ethical actions

Decision Tendencies that May impact Ethical Choices Teaching Ethics, Heuristics and Biases Robert Prentice, Journal of Business Ethics Education, 2004 Obedience to Authority Social Proof False Consensus Over optimism Self-Serving Bias Framing Process Cognitive Dissonance Sunk Costs and Loss Aversion Tangible versus Abstract considerations Time value of consequences

Obedience to Authority “My boss ordered me to do it.” –Milgram experiments demonstrated that people will follow orders from a perceive authority figure to a disturbing extent! Are there higher authorities which we can invoke? “Orders” are not always absolute

Social Proof Peer pressure, the need to fit in Create alternative reinforcing social contexts –Lisa Baxter meeting with other women executives in her company

False Consensus Effect “Others (always) see things the way we do” OR “Everyone is (always) against us” Neither is true. People are neither as uniformly ethical or uniformly unethical as we may imagine and will at times oscillate between the two –Test assumptions about what other people are thinking

Over-optimism “No one will ever know” “They’ll never find out” “Things will work out somehow” Appeal to optimism for a positive result from ethical courses of action

Self-Serving Bias We tend to look for information and interpret it in ways that will confirm pre- existing views Seek out or invent a contrarian perspective as a counterbalance

Framing “Is the glass half full or half empty?” Framing is a very powerful tool, can be used for positive and negative purposes –often used in politics Proper use is to achieve clarity

Process “Slippery slope” towards progressively less ethical choices and environment Small steps towards positive ends can create momentum for significant progress

Cognitive Dissonance Highlighting incongruence with something else well accepted Lisa Baxter case –Chairman’s objection to firing an employee was highlighted as incongruent with his support for the new corporate strategy.

Sunk Costs and Loss Aversion Keeping going down a suboptimal path, just to avoid having to admit having been wrong, or to avoid a writeoff. –e.g. Holding on to a losing investment Can we bring closure to a past course of action by identifying some benefit from it? –“it was a valuable learning experience”

Tangible vis a vis Abstract Immediate consequences are often concrete and relatively certain. Consequences removed in time and space are less certain, less tangible, and are therefore discounted Need to make the future and far away more tangible, less abstract

Theories about the World Ethical Leadership and the Psychology of Decision-making Messick and Bazerman, Sloan Management Review, Winter,1996, Vol.17 No.2 Ignoring low-probability events Limiteing the search for stakeholders Iognoring the possibility that the public will “find out” Discounting the future Undervaluing collective outcomes “Externalities”

Dangerous Dichotomies Ways of Thinking About and Across Differences Mary C. Gentile (Harvard Business School # , January 1995) Rights versus Responsibilities Winners or losers; controlling or controlled Self-definition through Oppositionality Difficulty changing because implies past was bad Pareto Optimality – resource scarcity; assumption of a zero sum game

Systemic errors in assessing future outcomes Denying Uncertainty Risk Trade-offs Risk Framing Focus on People – one bad apple Different Events Sins of Omission

Levers for Influencing Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People’s Minds Howard Gardner, Harvard Business School Press, 2006 Reason Research Resonance Representational Redescriptions Resource and Rewards Real World Events as examples

Tools for Changing Minds Emphasizing commonality with audience Inviting target audience to collaborate Establishing a two-way dialogue, to keep lines of communication open and relevant Paying attention to tone.

Typologies of Ethical Dilemmas Truth versus loyalty Individual versus community Short term versus long term Justice versus mercy –Rushworth Kidder –Institute for Global Ethics

Rationalizations Expected or Standard Practice –“Everyone does this; it’s expected so it’s OK” Materiality –“This doesn’t really any difference to anyone” Locus of Responsibility –“This isn’t my responsibility; I’m just doing what I’m told” Locus of Loyalty –“I don’t want to hurt / disadvantage X”

Techniques for Influencing Invoke the long run, not just short run Consider the wider purpose Consider the nature of competitive success Deal in solutions (continuous improvement), not constraints, Point out addictive cycles Point out limitations to the game mataphor for business

Techniques for Influencing (con’t) Consider what’s at stake – costs and benefits for all parties involved (including those with whom you disagree) Assume target audience are pragmatists – make it feasible to do the right thing Counter the potential assumption that others are operating at the lowest common denominator of ethical behaviour

Framework for Analysis What action / decision do we believe is right? What are the main arguments – reasons, rationalizations - against this course that we’re likely to encounter? What’s at stake for key parties, including us? What are the most powerful and persuasive responses to the reasons / rationalizations –To whom should these be made? When? How?