The Social Psychology of Ordinary Ethical Failures

By Max H. Bazerman, Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2004

132 citations recorded by the source corpus.

After the collapse of Enron, the fraud at Worldcom, and a host of other corporate scandals at the start of the new millennium, the media immediately began a search for the underlying cause of the failure of ethics that caused these scandals. These searches led to answers such as regulatory failure, a few bad apples, and the poorly created incentives of the gatekeepers. The scandals led to decline in the perception of business leaders in society, and business schools were challenged to rethink their training of future leaders. Implicit in the calls for action was the assumption that changes were needed to keep corporate actors from explicitly engaging in unethical behavior. The passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 made a variety of changes targeted to reduce intentionally corrupt behavior, including the regulation of public accounting firms. Although we applaud such changes in the incentive structure to make organizational actors act more ethically, we believe that such measures simply bypass the vast majority of unethical behaviors that occur without the conscious awareness of the actors who engage in them. The papers in this special issue provide insight into the types, magnitude, and causes of unethical behavior that can occur without the conscious awareness in the actor performing the unethical action and the consequences for those affected by their actions. These ordinary unethical behaviors are conceived to be ordinary because they are assumed to be rooted in the basic mechanics of the mind’s abilities and constraints (Banaji, 2001). They are also ordinary in that such unethical behaviors are not characteristic of a special group of unethical people, the bad apples that Enron had to cast away, but rather of all of us. If this is true, then the pervasiveness of what is termed “unethical” must be rethought, and as such the solutions to contemporary ethical scandals may need special attention. To engage in a satisfactory discussion of these issues, we

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ff7c04f3d53442d03db1378c682e0b639ba616e8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking (2012, background): “…well-known implicit biases may have a bearing on why employees would characterize their self-interested deviance as pro-social, particularly in terms of conflicts of interest as described by Bazerman et al. (Banaji, Bazerman, & Chugh, 2004; Bazerman & Banaji, 2004; Bazerman, Chugh, & Banaji, 2005).”
Fairness, Feelings, and Ethical Decision- Making: Consequences of Violating Community Standards of Fairness (2007, unknown): “This work includes both theoretical models of ethical decision-making (e.g., Lewicki, 1983; Trevino, 1986) and empirical studies of ethical behavior (see Bazerman and Banaji, 2004; Ford and Richardson, 1994; Loe et al., 2000 for reviews).”
The Ethical Mirage: A Temporal Explanation as to Why We Are Not as Ethical as We Think We Are (2010, background): “Recognizing the temporal trichotomy of prediction, action and recollection According to Bazerman and Banaji (2004), to make more ethical decisions, people first need to recognize their own susceptibility to unconscious biases.”
When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical behavior (2009, background): “Their research suggests that much unethical behavior is unintentional and inconsistent with the preferred action that someone would engage in if he/she had greater awareness of his/her own behavior (Banaji et al., 2003; Bazerman & Banaji, 2004).”
The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model (2007, background): “The intuition part of the SIM builds on a growing interest among organizational and business ethics scholars in implicit cognition (e.g., Bazerman & Banaji, 2004).”
Implicit Ingroup Favoritism, Outgroup Favoritism, and Their Behavioral Manifestations (2004, background): “, 1986; Gaertner and McLaughlin, 1983) who adapted cognitive psychology’s new tools, particularly reaction time tasks, to assess attitudes and beliefs spontaneously associated with social groups for the study of prejudice and stereotypes respectively (for more detail on the history of implicit socia”