Access the list of ethical companies at Ethisphere Magazine and evaluate their rating methodology and criteria.

in this assignment the writer would have to read a chapter then answer some questions related to the chapter. i will provide the reading material( the chapter to be read). this is the assignment: CHAPTER 4

1. Access the list of ethical companies at Ethisphere Magazine (accessible through the web link http://ethisphere.com/wme2010/ )and evaluate their rating methodology and criteria. Is their critera adequate, effective, and reasonable? Why/why not? Explain.

2. Review the case on page 151 and answer the four questions presented at the end.

3. Identify the six steps in the ethical desision making process. Identify an ethical dilemma/issue and apply the steps to the issue. Which of the three major ethical theories is most relevant to your example and why?

4. Do Employees have Moral and Ethical Rights?

Employees certainly have legal rights, such as the right to be paid a minimum wage, to enjoy equal opportunity in the workplace, and to be free from sexual harassment. Many employees also have contractual rights, such as the right to an employer contribution to a retirement plan, health care, or certain number of vacation and sick days. But do employees really have moral and ethical rights against their employer that are not specified in the law or in the employment contract? Do employers have duties to their employees other than what is required by law and the employment contract? (1) If every human has a right to health care, do employers have a moral and ethical duty to provide health insurance for every employee? (2) Do employers have a duty to provide a just wage? (3) Do employers have a duty to respect employee’s right to privacy?

Please respond to all three questions. In your response please: 1. Cite the question,

2. Indicate what you believe and why;

3. What influences in your life or at work contributed to your answer.

QUESTIONS # 4 WHICH HAS ABOUT 3 QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED WITHING IT SHOULD BE ONE SOLID PARAGRAPH BY ITSELF OR LONGER. i will provide the reading material below which is from chapter 4 of the book: Baldwin, Bommer, and Rubin. Managing Organizational Behavior: What Great Managers Know and Do. Second edition, 2013. McGraw-Hill: New York.:

4
Making Ethical Decisions
O KNBOWJINGE C T I DVOINGE S
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
KO 4-1 Recognize the ethical implications DO 4-1 Use decision rules to help you solve
of a problem. right-versus-right problems.
“I think if you look at people, KO 4-2 Describe the concept of moral DO 4-2 Interpret what form of moral intenintensity.
sity is influencing a decision. whether in business or govern-
KO 4-3 Explain the key differences between DO 4-3 Use the ethical decision-making ment, who haven’t had any moral ethical perspectives. steps to guide an ethical decision.
compass, who’ve just changed KO 4-4 Describe different forms of fairness DO 4-4 Use moral imagination and “quick
to say whatever they thought rules and when to apply them in the tests” to make a diffi cult ethical
workplace. decision. the popular thing was, in the end
KO 4-5 Describe and differentiate three DO 4-5 Demonstrate competence in navi- they’re losers.” types of organizational justice. gating common ethical situations.
—Michael Bloomberg ,
New York City Mayor
118
119
> > Case: Truthy
Since young voters discovered
they could “friend”
Barack Obama on Facebook
during the 2008 election,
social media has become
ingrained in the way we think
about political campaigns. Many
see it as the key to a new type
of politics, whereby campaigns and
candidates can better engage citizens,
facilitate grassroots organizations,
and craft legislation with the
direct input of a tweeting electorate.
The result, optimists argue, will be a
sort of “digital democracy,” defi ned
by a closer, more coherent relationship
between elected offi cials and
their constituents, and where genuine
comments and discourse, unfi ltered
by spin doctors in the national
media, can thrive.
But social media, like any tool,
can be used to erode democratic
practices as well. For example, a few
days before the special election in
Massachusetts to fill the Senate seat
formerly held by the late Edward
Kennedy, the American Future
Fund (AFF) conducted a “Twitterbomb”
campaign against Attorney
General Martha Coakley, one of
the candidates for the position. The
AFF set up nine anonymous Twitter
accounts in the early morning hours
prior to the election that sent hundreds
of tweets to other infl uential
Twitter accounts around the state
accusing Martha Coakley of taking
money from health insurance lobbyists
and providing links to anonymous
websites containing further
details. This sudden spike in tweeting
caused the attacks on Coakley
to turn up in Google searches
for her name, effectively gaming
Google’s real-time search functions.
The approach is not partisan or limited
to particular parties, but it has
been employed to some extent by
all political groups.
1. Why is social media such a powerful
way to engage in ethically
questionable behavior?
2. Beyond politics, in what other
arenas has social media been
used in what you would consider
to be unethical ways?
3. Given the Internet is predicated
on the notion of open, uncensored,
and unfiltered input, how
might unethical behavior in social
media be managed?
THE ANTI-SOCIAL SIDE
OF SOCIAL MEDIA
MANAGE WHAT?
1. Making a Diffi cult Ethical Choice
You have worked for your boss for fi ve years, and he has become a trusted mentor for you in the fi rm. Indeed, there is no one
in the firm toward whom you feel more respect or loyalty. You just met with him and, due to an unforeseen market downturn,
he let you know of a proposed layoff that will affect one of the three people who report to you (Joe). Because the decision
has not been announced, and it will surely send shockwaves through the firm, he asked that you absolutely not tell any of your
subordinates. In fact, concerned the information might get prematurely leaked, he even says, “It is critically important that no
one know. Can I count on you?” You agreed emphatically that he could. Unfortunately, that evening you see Joe, who coaches
a little league team with you. He tells you he and his wife have been accepted into an adoption process for a new child and he
wanted to share his joy with you. He also has heard rumors of a layoff and says, sort of jokingly, “I am not going to be laid off,
am I? We could never afford to take care of a new child without my income.”
What should you do? Is this an ethical issue? You are forced to choose between loyalty and your expressed promise on
one hand, and your sense of caring and honesty toward Joe (and his potential new child) on the other. What factors will you
consider in your decision? On what basis would you justify the ethics of your decision?
2. You Be the Ethicist
Author Randy Cohen serves as The Ethicist for The New York Times Sunday Magazine. He frequently poses ethical dilemmas to
his readers and an adapted set of those (and similar themes) are listed next. Respond to each of the following scenarios, being
sure to identify the ethical frame (utilitarian, universalism, or virtuous person) you are using as the rationale for your response.
a. Is it ethical to buy a sweater to use for a family picture and then return it for a refund?
b. Is it ethical to download a song from the Internet without paying for it given that (a) you would not have downloaded
it if you had to pay, (b) you have no money and the artist and record label (or Apple, Inc.) are beyond wealthy, (c) you
are actually promoting the artist by listening to and sharing your impressions with others.
c. How much is a cat worth? Your affectionate and obedient cat needs a procedure that will cost a few hundred dollars.
Your instinct is to pay for what she needs, but you can’t help thinking it’s wrong. Wouldn’t the cash be better spent
on sick humans?
d. Can you ethically round off your 2.958 GPA to 3.0 when using it on your resumé?
e. Is it OK to take those hotel shampoos and soaps and give them to homeless shelters?
f. Should you tell on someone you observe researching bomb-making on the Internet? Or on a friend having a toofriendly
dinner with a woman who is not his wife?
g. Is it ethical to buy cheap seats to a baseball game you know will be sparsely attended and then sneak down and sit in
the expensive seats? Similarly, is it ethical to grab open first-class seats (once everyone is on board and in their purchased
seats) when you only paid for coach?
h. Is it ethical for a homeless mother to steal a loaf of bread to feed her starving child?
i. If you scored the wrong answer on a test, and the instructor marked it correct and you very honestly let him know, is
it ethical for the instructor to let you keep the points and reward your honesty?
3. Creating a Culture That People View as Fair
You are a relatively new manager and times are tough at your firm. You know you are going to have to make some really tough
decisions regarding promotions, job assignments, bonuses, and even who gets laid off and who stays. When you took your
new management position two years ago, the fi rm was booming, and with ample resources to work with you thought to yourself
that you would just give everyone the same rewards and schedules and anything you controlled and that would solve the
problem. But now resources are scarce and you are worried that if people view your decisions as unfair you will run the risk of
destroying your positive culture and even losing key people. If your goal is to create a fair workplace that is also a productive
one, what should you do? What types of standards would you put in place and then how would you decide “who gets what”?
4. Being a Responsible Whistle-Blower
As a manager in your firm, you have become disturbed with some of the claims that are being made (by people in your marketing
and sales group) about some of your products. Although you often work with that department, you are employed in
a different function and not sure if you should “stick your nose” into that area. Moreover, although you feel something of an
ethical obligation to ensure that no customers are harmed by false information, you also are very concerned that blowing the
whistle in this case could prompt serious repercussions and potentially be detrimental to your career, cause the loss of trust
and friends in the firm, and even impact your family.
120
CHAPTER 4 Making Ethical Decisions 121
Introduction
Most discussions of ethics, particularly directed at young people, have an idealistic
tone. For example, it is common to hear platitudes like “Good ethics pays” and
“Ethics is good business.” Unfortunately (and disturbingly), any casual observer
of business these days knows that behaving unethically can “pay off” as well,
and ethical behavior can often result in a loss of business or desired outcomes.
Further, traditional conceptions of right and wrong are often blurred in organizational
life. Consider that a recent survey of 111 executives found that 52 to
90 percent of executives agreed that behaving unethically was appropriate when
(1) performance contingencies demand otherwise, (2) it is necessary to get the
job done, (3) unfair or overly restrictive performance standards exist, and (4) it
would be necessary to avoid negatively affecting the organization. 1 Most frightening
was that 56 percent of those surveyed indicated managers who bend rules are
more effective than managers who do not. This is hardly encouraging news when
many of these same companies are also claiming that they act with the “highest
moral standards.”
A few other statistics may hit closer to home. In a major study of 6,000 students
on 31 campuses in the United States, researchers found the data presented
in Figure 4.1 . 2
Roughly two-thirds of students in this research admitted to cheating at
least once as an undergraduate. When asked why, students cited pressures and
?? MYTHS 4.1 Ethical Decision-Making Myths3
• It’s easy to be ethical. The truth is that it’s downright difficult to be ethical. In fact,
by definition, merely determining that you are facing an ethical dilemma (that is, the
first step in solving it) is a complex process. Ethical dilemmas don’t come with fl ags
waving, “Look at me. I’m an ethical issue.”
• Unethical behavior is simply a problem of “bad apples.” Even people that most of
us would judge as having strong ethical values make unethical decisions. The truth
is that much of our behavior is guided by watching others and simply following their
lead. When your boss rounds up his expense reports, you rightfully assume that it’s
“okay” to do the same for yours. Does this make you a bad apple? No, but your
behavior is likely unethical.
• Ethics can be managed with codes of conduct. Research shows that formal codes
of conduct can have a positive influence on ethical behavior in organizations. Yet,
in order for them to have such an effect, they must be part of a larger coordinated
part of the organization that supports ethical conduct every day. 4 In other words,
if a senior manager is found to be in violation of the code of conduct and he is not
punished in accordance with the policy, it sends the very real message that the code
of ethics can be practically ignored.
• People are less ethical than they used to be. Incidents of unethical behavior
haven’t changed much for centuries. What has changed is the pace of organizational
life and the access to information via technology that has lent a new creativity to
acting in unethical ways!
“The first of all moral obligations is
to think clearly.”
—Michael Novak
• Managing ethics is not my problem. Like it or not, ethical issues are with us every
day and each decision you make as a manager holds the potential for ethical issues
to arise.
122 PART ONE Personal Skills
FIGURE 4.1
College Student
Actions
Copied from
another student
Helped another
student cheat
Used crib notes
Copied material
without footnoting
Plagiarized
Falsified a bibliography
Turned in work
done by another
Collaborated on assignments
requiring individual work
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3 5 40 45 50 55 60
% of Students
competition related to graduate school admissions. Researchers also collected
information about the students’ future career choices. The lowest number of
admitted cheaters (57 percent) was found in students planning on pursuing
education-related professions. The numbers rise from there, including medicine
(68 percent admitted cheating), government (66 percent), engineers (71 percent),
and future MBAs (76 percent). Students also indicated cheating was a relatively
harmless crime. Of course, as ethics author Rushworth Kidder points out, cheating
really isn’t so harmless: 5
You have only to ask who engineered the bridge you are about to cross, or where your
doctor got his or her training, to begin questioning whether a widespread propensity
for cheating among professionals—and the consequent danger of unleashing into the
world a cadre of individuals who don’t know what they are doing—is in fact a “victimless
crime.”
While it may seem that one small act of cheating may not be such a big deal,
when you consider the ramifications of a professional culture based on cheating,
the act becomes highly objectionable. Think of it this way, if you knew your heart
surgeon cheated her way through medical school, would you be eager to let her
perform a triple bypass?
CHAPTER 4 Making Ethical Decisions 123
The lesson here is that ethics is synonymous with behavior and all behavior
has consequences. Although ethical philosophy implies that we must “think
before we act,” we are not judged on our thinking but on our actual behavior.
Even if you have good intentions, nobody will see your intentions, only your
behavior and its consequences. Consider the Make-A-Wish foundation’s dilemma
in letting a terminally ill boy kill a Kodiak bear (see Chapter 3, Management Live
3.3). Management’s intentions were beautifully aligned with the organization’s
values and yet their behavior resulted in a poor outcome. Unfortunately, ethical
behavior is almost never simple or easy, and it is often not self-evident (and no
shared consensus exists) what the most ethical action is in any given situation.
There are no ethical switches that we can turn on or off, and simply stating that
“I am an ethical person” provides nothing to substantiate that claim.
While the situation sounds rather bleak when it comes to ethics, there is a
great deal of work being done in the field, and some of this work provides us with
important guidelines that we can use to guide our behavior. According to the
Josephson Institute, a center dedicated to the study and practice of ethics, ethical
behavior is multidimensional, and the most ethical people act in ways that refl ect
ethical commitment, consciousness, and competency.
Ethics: Making the Tough Choices
If you choose to strive toward ethical decisions and behavior, it will require your
ethical commitment. Ethical commitment refers to your level of dedication or
desire to do what is right even in the face of potentially harmful personal repercussions.
This requires a healthy dose of courage and integrity (or the adherence
to an ethical code or standard) to make decisions that may be unpopular or go
against the prevailing culture. How do you want to live your life? What do you
want to be remembered for? What values are worth fighting for? What kind of
relationships do you want to have? Do you want to be known as someone who
will take a stand for what they believe is right? It has been and always will be
quite challenging to be an ethical person. Ethical commitment is about accepting
that challenge.
Solving problems ethically also requires an ethical consciousness in which
you develop an ability to understand the ramifications of choosing less ethical
courses of action. Unlike the student who believes that cheating doesn’t hurt
anyone else, students with an ethical consciousness understand the far-reaching
implications of such behavior. Those who are ethically conscious make themselves
aware of the implications of their actions and are not oblivious to the
many ethical concerns around us.
Finally, a third dimension of ethical behavior is ethical competency, which
involves a thoughtful consideration of ethics in each stage of the problem-solving
process. There are no easy ways to ascertain the most ethical choice in a given
situation, but there are very useful models for framing and dissecting ethical
dilemmas. Whether defining a problem, generating alternatives, or making a
decision, ethically competent people consider such models in their choices.
Recognizing Ethical Issues
Ethics may be defined as “the principles, norms and standards of conduct governing
an individual or group.”6 As we noted in the myths of ethical decision
making, ethical decisions are far from “easy.” Perhaps the most diffi cult challenge
in making ethical decisions is recognizing that one is facing an ethical dilemma
in the first place. As researchers Linda Trevino and Mike Brown have noted, the
“Obviously everyone wants to
be successful, but I want to be
looked back on as being very
innovative, very trusted and ethical
and ultimately making a big difference
in the world.”
—Sergey Brin , Google founder
KO 4-1
KO 4-2
DO 4-1
DO 4-2
124 PART ONE Personal Skills
notion that “it’s easy to be ethical” presumes that people know when they are facing
an ethical dilemma and, with such understanding, make the “right choice.”7
The opposite is almost always true—ethical decisions rarely come with red fl ags
waving that call out to you, “Hey, I’m an ethical issue! Think about me in moral
terms!” Consider an employee who is asked to sign a document for her boss. This
employee is likely to see this as a simple act that any “good” employee should
do. Yet what if this employee failed to recognize this as a request to “forge” legal
documents?
Most problems you face do have ethical or moral implications—whether
you consider them or not. Some problems, however, seem to be more easily
identifiable as having ethical implications—that is, we sense the tension or
dilemma immediately. In fact, dilemmas often (not always) present themselves
not as “right versus wrong” but as “right versus right” (or perhaps “wrong versus
wrong”).8 That is, ethical dilemmas, the really tough choices, often don’t involve
clearly right and wrong alternatives, but rather two alternatives that may both
have merit. Consider tough issues like what to do with differing abilities in youth
sports or academics or views on how to spend disposable income.
• It is right to give all little league players equal playing time, and it is also
right to field the best team possible.
• It is right to help out a struggling fellow student by letting him see your
homework, and it is right to keep your homework proprietary.
• It is right to give money to those living in poverty, and it is right to save
money for your family.
These types of dilemmas are what might be termed “right versus right” scenarios
and are discussed next.
Right-vs.-Right Scenarios
“Right-versus-right” scenarios are the most perplexing of ethical dilemmas.
According to Kidder, these dilemmas can be boiled down to a few major themes.
With truth-versus-loyalty dilemmas, the struggle is between providing information
about some objective truth versus compromising one’s loyalty to others. For example,
when a patient discloses to a doctor that she is likely to commit suicide, the
doctor is ethically obligated to breach patient confi dentiality, thus compromising
trustworthiness or loyalty in the doctor–patient relationship. Not all truth-versusloyalty
situations are so clear. Managers often face such dilemmas when caught
between the confidence of a senior manager (“Don’t announce the pay cuts.”) and
an employee who wants to know particular information (“Will there be layoffs?”).
A second major theme is individual versus community. The needs of individuals
such as confidentiality or privacy often clash with those of the community.
Terrorism has brought this dilemma clearly to the forefront with governments
attempting to preserve individual rights and needs while also understanding the
greater good of the community. Much of the controversy surrounding the conduct
of airport security personnel has been related to this very issue.
A third category of dilemmas is short-term versus long-term, which involves
the clash between living in the present versus thinking about the future. Investing
financially for the future, for example, often clashes with enjoying the present.
Finally, a fourth theme has to do with justice versus mercy. Professors who
catch a student cheating face this very problem. On one hand, students who
cheat deserve a punishment commensurate with their behavior. On the other
hand, students are human and sometimes make bad choices and deserve our
compassion to help avoid such mistakes in the future. These themes play out
every day. As you explore ethical dilemmas, try to identify the theme at play, and
it will help you understand the issues more clearly.
CHAPTER 4 Making Ethical Decisions 125
Moral Intensity
As you know by now, human bias often leads to poor judgment. Judging ethical
dilemmas is not different. The framing of an ethical dilemma, for example, leads
to very different judgments of what to do. For example, to what extent would
you agree with the following claim: “People who download music from the Internet
without paying for it are unethical.” What if we state it slightly differently:
“People who steal music from the Internet without paying for it are unethical.”
Is downloading without permission different from stealing without permission?
Not really, but people see stealing as clearly wrong and downloading as more
acceptable. The way in which we perceive ethical dilemmas depends heavily on
the moral intensity the issue possesses. That is, something in the context or
situation of how an ethical dilemma is perceived leads people to endorse the situation
as unethical. Yet the same situation with less intensity would not lead people
to see it as unethical. Consider the following scenario known as the Switch
Dilemma:
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are fi ve people
who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which
will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a
single person tied to that alternative track. Do you flip the switch?”
Now consider a similar scenario known as the Footbridge Dilemma:
A trolley is hurtling down a track toward five people. You are on a bridge
under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in
front of it. As it happens, there is a very heavy man next to you—your only
way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track,
killing him to save five. Do you push the man?”
The consequence in both these scenarios is the exact same—one person is
killed in order to save five others. Yet, in a recent study, researchers found that
while some 90 percent of study participants said they would “flip the switch,”
only 30 percent stated they would “push the man.”9 Despite the consequence
that five people would die, the proximity or nearness one had to the heavy
man made the decision to kill him seem highly unethical, while fl ipping a
switch felt far removed from killing the person on the track. This is a perfect
example of how the intensity of a situation can alter the way people process
ethical dilemmas. Researcher Thomas Jones identified six ways in which ethical
issues are perceived as more or less intense and therefore as more ethical
or unethical.10
1. Magnitude of Consequences. The sum of the cost-benefit to the object
of the action in question. For example, an action that causes the death of
a human being is of greater magnitude of consequence than an act that
causes a person to suffer a minor injury. This is often how people will
judge whether an act was “bad enough” to be considered unethical.
2. Social Consensus of Evil/Good. The amount of social agreement
toward the action. For example, many believe it far more unethical to
bribe a customs official in Texas than a customs official in Mexico. Both
involve bribery, but what is considered unethical in one situation may be
less so in others.
3. Probability of Harm/Benefi t. The likelihood that the act in question
will actually happen and produce the predicted harm/benefit. For example,
selling a gun to a known armed robber has a greater probability of
harm than selling a gun to a law-abiding citizen. We immediately underestimate
the probability that a law-abiding citizen will do harm and overestimate
the probability that the known armed robber won’t.
126 PART ONE Personal Skills
© Arnie Levin, The New Yorker Collection, www.cartoonbank.com
4. Temporal Immediacy. The time between the act and the onset of the
consequences. For example, reducing the retirement benefits of current
retirees has a greater temporal immediacy than reducing the retirement
benefits of current employees who are between the ages of 40 and 50. We
tend to perceive decisions that affect us today as less ethical, whereas we
view decisions in which the consequences are delayed in time as more
acceptable since people might have time to recover from the decision.
5. Proximity. The feeling of nearness (psychologically or physically) that
people have to the object of the action. For example, layoffs in your own
work unit have greater issue intensity than layoffs in another part of the
company. Layoffs are never easy, but we have less trouble endorsing a layoff
as ethical when it doesn’t hit as close to home.
6. Concentration of Effect. The magnitude of the action on those involved.
For example, denying coverage to 10 people with claims of $100,000 each
has a greater concentration of effect than denying coverage to 100,000
people with claims of $10 each. No one wants to lose $10, but it’s not
likely to change your life significantly. On the other hand, losing $100,000
would force many people to make some very tough fi nancial choices.
People perceive a highly concentrated effect like this as unethical.
As can be seen from the six issue intensity types just discussed, the very nature
of a situation can easily change your perspective on what you judge to be ethical
versus unethical.
Ethics and the Law
With centuries of philosophers, religions, and courts of law considering issues of
right or wrong, one would think that progressive communities would have fi gured
out ethics by now and that legal standards would encompass the collection
CHAPTER 4 Making Ethical Decisions 127
of ethical standards. Unfortunately, legal norms and ethical norms are not identical,
nor do they always agree. Some ethical requirements, such as treating one’s
employees fairly, are not legally required, though they may be ethically warranted.
Conversely, some actions that can be legally allowed, such as fi ring an
employee for no reason, would fail ethical standards. For this reason, we might
consider the law to be a “floor” with respect to ethics, certainly not a ceiling.
There are at least five important reasons why the law may not align with ethics
in organizations.
First, consider how slowly law often changes. Just because segregation
was legal in the first half of the 20th century didn’t mean it was the “right”
thing to do. Thus, holding that obedience to the law is sufficient to fulfi ll one’s
ethical duties raises the question of whether or not the law itself is ethical.
Dramatic examples from history, Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa
being the most obvious, demonstrate that one’s ethical responsibility may run
counter to the law. On a more practical level, this question can have signifi cant
implications in a global economy in which businesses operate in countries
with legal systems different from their home country. Some countries make
child labor or sexual discrimination legal, but businesses that choose to adopt
such practices do not escape ethical responsibility for doing so. From an ethical
perspective, you do not forgo your ethical responsibilities by a blind obedience
to the law.
Second, societies that value individual freedom will be reluctant to legally
require more than just an ethical minimum. Such societies will seek legally to
prohibit the most serious ethical harm, but they will not legally require acts of
charity, common decency, and personal integrity that may otherwise comprise
the social fabric of a developed culture. The law can be an effi cient mechanism
to prevent serious harm, but it is not very effective at promoting “good.” Even if
it were, the cost in human freedom of legally requiring such things as personal
integrity would be too high. Imagine a society that legally required parents to
love their children, or even a law prohibiting lying.
Third, on a more practical level, telling business that its ethical responsibilities
end with obedience to the law is just inviting more and more legal regulation.
Consider the difficulty of trying to create laws to cover each and every possible
business challenge; the task would require such specificity that the number of
regulated areas would become unmanageable. Additionally, it was the failure of
personal ethics among such companies as Enron and WorldCom, after all, which
led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and many other legal reforms. If
business restricts its ethical responsibilities to obedience to the law, it should
not be surprised to find a new wave of government regulations that require what
were formerly voluntary actions.
Fourth, the law cannot possibly anticipate every new dilemma facing contemporary
business, because so often there may not be a regulation for the particular
dilemma confronting a business leader. For example, when workplace
e-mail was in its infancy, there were not yet laws regarding who actually owned
the e-mail transmissions, the employee or the employer. As a result, one had no
choice but to rely on the ethical decision-making processes of those in power to
respect the appropriate boundaries of employee privacy while also adequately
managing the workplace. When new quandaries arise, one must be able to rely
on ethics since the law might not yet—or might never—provide a solution.
Fifth, the perspective that compliance is enough relies on a misleading
understanding of law. To say that all a business needs to do is obey the law suggests
that laws are clear-cut unambiguous rules that can be easily applied. This
rule model of law is very common, but not very accurate. Remember, if the law
was clear and unambiguous, there wouldn’t be much of a role for lawyers and
courts!
128 PART ONE
KO 4-3
DO 4-3
DO 4-4
Practice this!
Go to www.baldwin2e.com
Personal Skills
Six Steps to Making an Ethical Decision
Many evidence-based frameworks exist to guide you in ethical decision making.
As you might imagine, however, there is considerable overlap and consensus
about the key elements of the process. In the following, we describe six key steps
that reflect these critical elements. In order to help you work through an ethical
decision, we refer back to the first Manage What? (or the “Joe Case”) used
throughout this section. If you haven’t read this short dilemma, please do so
prior to reading this section.11
Step 1: Gather the Facts
Before you can apply any ethical framework, you need to gather as many relevant
facts in the situation as possible. Sometimes the “cause” of the ethical dilemma
you face is simply that your “facts” are incongruent with someone else’s “facts.” Put
simply, what appears to be an ethical dilemma may more aptly be a disagreement
or difference in perception about the facts. Thus, it is imperative that you act like
a journalist might and start not by drawing conclusions or developing a response,
but by understanding the basic facts of a given situation. Who is involved? Is there
anyone involved who isn’t apparent (in other words, that is operating behind the
scenes)? How did this situation come to be? Have I (the organization or others)
been in this situation before? Is this situation the consequence of previous decisions?
Is this an issue over which I have direct control? These types of questions
can help you make sure you’re working with a reasonable set of objective facts.
According to business ethicist Laura Hartman, an ethical decision is one
that is made with a determination of the facts. As such, Dr. Hartman suggests
that “a person who acts in a way that is based upon careful consideration of the
facts has acted in a more ethically responsible way than a person who acts without
deliberation.”12 Thus, the mere act of getting as much information about the
situation before acting is likely to improve your chances of making the right call.
Step 2: Define the Ethical Issues
Once you’ve got the basic facts of any particular dilemma, the next step is to use
those facts to help you sort through the primary ethical issues involved. The challenge
here is to withhold our natural tendency to determine a quick or knee-jerk
solution based upon the facts we’ve gathered and expose those facts to a systematic
review. Enter ethical theory. Ethical theories are attempts to provide systematic
answers to ethical dilemmas by providing rational justification for why we should
act or decide a particular way. Ethical theories may be divided into two categories:
teleological and deontological.13 The distinction between the two is that teleological
theories determine the ethics of an act by looking to the probable outcome or
consequences of the decision (the ends), while deontological theories determine
the ethics of an act by looking to the process of the decision (the means) and are
based on concepts of universal principles or rights. In the following, we introduce
the primary teleological (that is, utilitarianism) and deontological (or, universalism)
theories that can help define ethical issues. Importantly, there is no one best theory.
In fact, all perspectives have strengths and weaknesses, which means that we cannot
evaluate an ethical dilemma using one perspective, but must subject the facts we
collect to multiple perspectives in order to more fully understand our real choices.
Utilitarianism
The theory most representative of the teleological approach is utilitarianism,
which directs us to make decisions based on the greatest “good” for the greatest
CHAPTER 4 Making Ethical Decisions 129
number. The origins of this direction come from the description that, as humans,
we seek benefits over costs, pleasures over pains, and that this is a good thing
to do because pains/harm are “bad.” This leads to a normative principle (or a
“should”) that we ought to create a balance of pleasures over pains, so the highest
good is to create the greatest good for the greatest number, or minimally, to
reduce harm. The most basic form of utilitarian analysis is cost-benefi t analysis
where one measures the costs and benefits of a given decision and follows the
decision that provides for the greatest overall gain. According to utilitarianism,
ethical decisions are therefore determined by their end results. No act is ever right
or wrong in all cases in every situation. It will always depend on the end results
of that particular decision. For example, lying in a marketing campaign is neither
right nor wrong in itself, according to utilitarians. There might be situations in
which lying will produce greater overall good than telling the truth (for example,
lying about having knowledge of individuals in a witness protection program).
Utilitarianism is the most popular perspective invoked in organizations, usually
in the form of a cost-benefit analysis. It’s viewed as a strong and powerful theory
because it is liberal; it appeals to no authority in resolving differences of opinion—
in fact, differences of opinion are irrelevant except for when they create a majority
or minority. It is also able to describe much of the process of human decision making,
and its process seems “natural” and well suited to many decisions. Further,
using a utilitarian approach is quite egalitarian in that no one person’s “good” is
valued more than another’s. Unlike many approaches, utilitarianism is also very
easy to apply and helps people focus on the potential outcomes of their decisions.
Yet, while utilitarianism is superficially easy to apply (majority rule, profi t/loss
statements, and so on), there remain complexities. For instance, if an action would
render one person exquisitely happy and three people moderately unhappy, does
the happiness of that one outweigh the unhappiness of the three? How do we measure
happiness? Further, when the majority rules, who protects the minority? Who
ensures that a minority voice is heard (or if it even should be heard), and who
ensures that new opinions are expressed so that intellectual growth is possible?
One of the more serious shortcomings of the utilitarianism perspective is that some
decision-makers may reach different conclusions about what is considered “good.”
Consider the ethical and political controversy that arose in recent years
regarding the treatment of hundreds of prisoners captured during the fi ghting
in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. government argued that these were dangerous
individuals who posed a significant threat to the United States and that this threat
justified the treatment they received. Government attorneys even argued that
because these individuals were not members of the military of a recognized country,
they were not protected by international law and prohibitions against torture.
Thus, the government argued that they were justified in using severe treatment
that bordered on torture to extract information from these prisoners if this information
could prevent future attacks on the United States. Yet critics argued that
some actions, torture among them, are so unethical that they should never be
used, even if the result was lost opportunity to prevent attacks. Many argued that
all people, even terrorists, deserve fundamental rights of a trial, legal representation,
and due process. Do the ends of preventing attacks on the United States ever,
under any circumstances, justify the means of torture? It would appear that a
utilitarianism perspective may not help us work through this dilemma very well.
Considering our Manage What? scenario regarding how to deal with Joe, a
utilitarian is likely to focus on the consequences of telling Joe about the layoff.
Although Joe might benefit, on par, a utilitarian would probably find far more
harmful consequences in telling Joe the truth. For example, as Joe’s manager,
you’re putting your own job on the line. In addition, telling Joe would likely send
reverberations throughout the firm, lowering productivity and causing undue
anxiety among employees about who will or will not be out of a job. Further, if the
plan doesn’t go through, the loss of trust and so forth is likely to be fairly large.
Practice this!
Go to www.baldwin2e.com
130 PART ONE Personal Skills
MANAGEMENT LIVE 4.1
The Biology of Ethical Decision Making
For centuries, philosophers have wrestled with how people should make a moral decision. New research in the
area of neuroscience and biology, however, is now exploring not how people should make such decisions, but
rather how people actually make ethical decisions. One new area of study is that of behavioral endocrinology,
which attempts to link biological bases in human beings to certain forms of decision making. A recent study by
Dana Carney and Malia Mason linked testosterone levels to moral judgments. 14 Previous research had suggested
that testosterone is associated with diminished sensitivity to emotional signals, which cause people to have empathy
or to make choices that would suggest concern for others. First, the researchers measured testosterone levels
in 117 graduate students (32 of which were female) by collecting saliva samples from each participant. Next, they
asked participants to respond yes or no to the “switch and footbridge” trolley dilemmas discussed previously
in this chapter. The researchers found that three types of decision making emerged: (1) intransigent utilitarians
who always endorsed trading one life to save fi ve (39 participants); (2) fair-weather utilitarians who gave a utilitarian
response to the switch dilemma but not for the footbridge dilemma (66 participants); and (3) avoiders, who
refrained from getting involved in either case (12 participants). Figure 4.2 shows the results for these three groups
based on the average testosterone levels in the group.
The researchers found that individuals who always endorsed sacrificing one life to save five had signifi cantly
higher levels of testosterone. That is, regardless of the situation (flipping a switch or pushing a man on the tracks
to stop the trolley) these intransigent utilitarians justify their decisions by the ends (saving lives) over the means.
Looking just at the responses to the “push the man” scenario, those willing to push versus not push displayed
consistently higher levels of testosterone. Carney and Malia conclude that “. . . high testosterone individuals
appear willing to endorse a tough and costly decision, provided it promotes the greater good. . . . A heightened
focus on outcomes and disregard for the cost of pursuit may help explain why individuals high in testosterone
have more success on Wall Street and in other contexts where success requires insensitivity to some of the more
immediate consequences of one’s actions.”
In all, this study highlights the notion that on top of thinking about ethical decisions, human beings may be
predisposed to behave in ways of which they are not entirely aware. This makes exposing dilemmas to multiple
ethical lenses even more important so as to ensure that a decision is based on sound logic and judgment and not
simply our biological instincts.
FIGURE 4.2
Relation Between
the Decision-Making
Approach to the
Trolley Problem and
Testosterone
Raw Mean Testosterone Score
120
100
80
60
40
Intransigent Avoiders
Utilitarians
Decision-Making Approach to the Trolley Problem
Fair-Weather
Utilitarians
Error bars are 95 percent confidence intervals (CI); intransigent utilitarians
are highest on testosterone.
Source: Carney, D. R., and Mason, M. F. (2010). Decision-making and
testosterone: When the ends justify the means. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 46, 668–671.
CHAPTER 4 Making Ethical Decisions 131
Universalism
Making decisions based upon the end results certainly should be a part of
responsible ethical decision making. However, you might suggest that some decisions
should be a matter of principle, not consequences. Yet how do we know
which principles we should follow and how do we decide when a principle
should trump truly beneficial consequences? Deontological ethical theories help
us think about the details of such questions. Decision making within a business
context will involve many situations in which one ought to follow legal rules
even when the consequences seem undesirable. Other rules come from various
institutions in which we participate, or from various roles that we fi ll in society.
A referee in a sporting event has the duty to enforce the rules fairly, even when it
would be easier not to do so. Similar rule-based duties follow from our roles as
friends (do not gossip about your friends), family members (do your chores at
home), students (do not plagiarize), church members (contribute to the church’s
upkeep), citizens (vote), and good neighbors (do not operate your lawn mower
before 8 a.m.). The classic deontological perspective is that of universalism or
a consideration of whether a decision would be acceptable if everyone in every
situation made the same decision.
This perspective was put forth by German philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724–1804), who believed that the rightness of rules, rather than consequences,
is how an ethical dilemma ought to be resolved. Accordingly, the rightness of an
act depends little (or, in Kant’s view, not at all) on the results of the act. Thus, the
student who refuses to cheat on exams is ethical if her or his decision springs
from a universal duty, but morally unworthy if the decision is merely one born of
self-interest, such as the fear of being caught. To identify these universal duties,
Kant developed the categorical imperative, the notion that each of us should
act on only those principles that she or he would identify as universal laws to be
applied to everyone. Universalism says that, in reaching a decision, we should
consider whether it would be acceptable if everyone in every situation made this
same decision—“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law,” writes Kant.
The origins of this principle are based on our sense that—as humans—some
things are simply “the right thing to do.” Kant suggests that this is uniquely
human. So, when we make choices, we do so in terms of that which we can
control—and that is the source of morality for Kant. This concept is similar to
a parent scolding a child about to steal candy from another child, “How would
you feel if everyone stole candy from their friends?” Or it may remind you of the
Golden Rule, directing you to treat others only as you would have them treat you.
In sum, applying universalism entails two questions: (1) Would it be all right for
everyone to make the decision you are about to make, and (2) would this decision
infringe on any universal rights, such as those that originate in religious doctrine
or from other fundamental principles?
Universalism carries with it the strength of reflecting collective logic that
is consistent from situation to situation and not based on an arbitrary analysis
of impact. Further, Kant contended that above anything else, people ought to
respect the dignity of each individual human being, no matter what the consequences.
Clearly, this is a much more motivational or inspirational approach
than utilitarianism, which can seem “cold” or impersonal. At the same time, fi nding
“universal principles” upon which to base decisions is not easy, particularly
when such principles or rights conflict (for example, doing the right thing that
results in hurting people, the earth, animals, and so on).
With respect to dealing with Joe, we suspect that a universalist might see the
right to information concerning one’s self, health, or well-being as a universal
132 PART ONE Personal Skills
right. In this case, the universalist might suggest that it’s not the results that matter
here but respect for Joe’s dignity that is the issue. To knowingly withhold such
critical information from Joe would be subversive and violate his basic human
rights.
Virtue Ethics
A third perspective is that of virtue ethics—this is neither teleological nor
deontological but rather emphasizes the affective side of peoples’ character.
Virtue ethics recognizes that our motivations—our interests, wants, desires—
are not the sorts of things we choose anew each morning. Instead, human
beings act in and from character. By adulthood, these character traits are
typically deeply ingrained and conditioned within us. Virtue ethics can offer
us a more fully textured understanding of life within business. Rather than
simply describing people as good or bad, right or wrong, an ethics of virtue
encourages a fuller description. Faced with a difficult dilemma, we might ask
what would a person with integrity do? What would an honest person say?
Do I have the courage of my convictions? In other words, you might consider
someone you believe to be virtuous and ask yourself what that person would
do in this situation.
The major application of virtue ethics comes in the common tension between
self-interest and ethical values. For example, should you act in a virtuous way
if it is likely to have a negative impact on you (for example, loss of a substantial
amount of money or personal reputation)? Virtue ethics suggests that the
degree to which we are capable of acting for the well-being of others depends
on a variety of factors such as our desires, our beliefs, our dispositions, and our
values—in short, it depends on our character. If a person is caring, empathetic,
charitable, and sympathetic, then the challenge of self-interest should be less of
a factor in his or her decision-making process. Thus, virtue ethics encourages
us to think about people who act in ways that embody such character.
Interestingly, scholars have long known that people do in fact differ in their
ability to act in ways that might be consistent with a virtuous person. Researcher
Lawrence Kohlberg has found that people develop moral reasoning capabilities
from childhood through adulthood that have considerable impact on how they
view and approach ethical dilemmas. Higher stages of moral reasoning rely on
thinking that is not available to people at lower stages, and higher stages are
thought to be morally advanced and consistent with principles of ethical theories.
According to Kohlberg’s research, however, very few adults are able to reach
the highest levels of moral reasoning. This suggests that most of us can be striving
to develop an approach that is more selfless and caring. 15
To summarize Step 2, exposing the facts you’ve gathered to these different
ethical lenses is likely to result in different conclusions about the nature of your
dilemma. You might be inclined to be satisfied with applying one perspective—
this is clearly a recipe that will limit the scope of possible decisions. We encourage
you at this stage to “poll the crowd” by asking others how they see the dilemma
and determine the perspective they are taking. Table 4.1 summarizes these major
ethical perspectives.
Step 3: Identify the Affected Parties,
Consequences, and Obligations
Regardless of the ethical perspective you adopt, all ethical decision making
involves understanding who might be affected by your decision. This almost
always requires you to exercise substantial “perspective-taking” or walking in
CHAPTER 4 Making Ethical Decisions 133
TABLE 4.1 Summary of Three Major Ethical Theories
Theory Primary Focus Rule Clues You Are Using This Perspective
Utilitarianism Pleasure over Do that which produces • It’s wrong to impose personal
pain (or benefi t the greatest good for the values on other people.
over harm). greatest number. • Results or consequences are all
that count.
Universalism Individual and 1. Never treat others as a
universal rights. means to an end.
2. Act only in such a way
as it would be all right
for all to act (that is, if it
were a universal rule).
3. Do not infringe on
others’ universal rights.
• I believe some principles can’t be
sacrificed for anything.
• Fundamental right and wrong
don’t change.
• The way in which something is
done is more important than
what is done.
• There are certain things I would
never consider “right.”
Virtue Character traits Actions that enhance human • People should act in ways meant
that enable capacities are good; those to better the world.
ethical behavior. that deter them are bad. • I will always hold myself to
the highest standards or
principles.
others’ shoes. Start by considering the primary stakeholders in the situation.
In Chapter 3, we discussed how to conduct a stakeholder’s analysis. The same
approach applies here as well.
Primary stakeholders are people who will be directly affected by any decision
you make. This means that although there are likely many people and
institutions that might be ultimately affected, it’s best to start with those closest
to the decision and work your way out toward secondary stakeholders. In
many cases as a manager, you are likely to be a primary stakeholder in many
employee-related decisions because your work as a manager is tied so strongly
to your employees. Place yourself in each primary stakeholder’s position. Imagine
how you would feel about any particular decision. If you do this earnestly,
you will quickly find that your perspective on the dilemma will change. What if
you were Joe the employee? You’d probably want a straight answer from your
boss—actually you might expect such an answer as consistent with your trusting
relationship. What if you were your own boss? You’d want to know that information
meant to be confidential is safe with your employees. Importantly, Joe’s
yet-to-be-adopted child is not a direct stakeholder. It certainly is true that he/she
is affected, but it’s Joe, you, your employees, and your manager who are most
directly affected because any decision serves to constrain future actions of these
stakeholders.
Once you feel comfortable that you’ve identified the affected parties, you next
need to consider the consequences of any decision on each of the affected parties.
This is a step that is easily “gamed” if you are not careful. Identify what
consequences might reasonably occur to the affected party and avoid creating
scenarios with a low probability of occurrence that serve to confuse the issues
more. For example, a reasonable consequence of not telling Joe is that ultimately
134 PART ONE Personal Skills
Joe will likely know that you had some privileged information that you chose not
to share, which could strain your relationship in the future. It is not likely (given
what you know about Joe) that Joe will go to the local newspaper and drum up a
negative story about you or the organization.
As we’ve learned already, consequences often have a temporal nature to
them. Some consequences will have a strong immediate impact and will dissipate
rather quickly. Others may take time but will swell to a large impact in a
year or two. Regardless, one must try to sort through the various consequences
likely to occur immediately and in the future. Of course, not all consequences are
seeable or intended. These unintended consequences are difficult to predict but
can turn what is initially seen as the right thing to do into the conclusion that the
decision was a complete failure. One area of such consequences might be ones
that are largely symbolic in nature. For example, if you terminate an employee
who has been underperforming and who is known for complaining a lot about
management, this decision is likely to carry a strong symbolic consequence. That
is, despite having strong justification for the termination decision, other employees
who are not privy to the same performance data as you could easily interpret
the decision as one based on the employee’s complaining (in other words, “You
complain—you’re fi red”).
Finally, you must consider the various obligations you might have to the
affected parties. Obligations are requirements or responsibilities one holds based
upon his or her role, occupation, or position in life. For example, physicians have
an obligation to treat people who have been critically injured regardless of their
life circumstances. They therefore have the duty to not withhold treatment based
upon their own personal biases or preferences. Although many professions (for
example, lawyers, scientists, accountants, psychologists, and others) have extensive
ethical guidelines that govern their practice, not all people have such neatly
prescribed obligations, which makes assessing one’s obligations sometimes difficult.
Virtue ethics plays a significant role here. For example, do you believe
that Joe’s boss has an obligation to tell the truth no matter what? If so, where
does such an obligation originate? Certainly a person of great virtue might hold
to such a claim, but is self-interest always the wrong choice? This is a diffi cult
process, but it’s important to try to tease out what obligations you think govern
each affected party.
An easy way to bring all the elements together from Step 4 is presented in
Tool Kit 4.1, with the Joe case as a backdrop.
Step 4: Consider Your Integrity
Unfortunately, as with most decision making, people begin the process with a
solution in mind and spend time rationalizing why that solution is ethical. In
fact, people go to great lengths to justify their predetermined solution to an ethical
problem. Here is just a partial list of the most common rationalizations used
to justify unethical behavior:
• If it’s legal, it’s ethical. The law stipulates what is minimally acceptable.
Thus, the law is the floor for any ethical decision, not the ceiling. The law
cannot take into account all the various potential impacts of any decision;
ethics does. As a general guideline, we always tell our students that
just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical.
• I was only trying to help. We can rationalize very easily that our behavior
was for the good of someone else. So we withhold the truth from
people and act as vigilantes, protecting others from information. This
CHAPTER 4 Making Ethical Decisions 135
Tool Kit 4.1 Affected Parties, Consequences, and Obligations
Primary Stakeholders
(Affected Parties)
Potential
Consequences
Key
Obligations Unknowns
Me Loss of trust with my boss
if I tell Joe; potential
harm to my career; loss of
friendship with Joe.
To keep my
word—to remain
trustworthy; to
be fair with my
employees (not
necessarily treat
them based on
equality); to ensure
all employees’ rights
are protected.
How my own career
might be impacted longterm
by any decision.
Boss My boss may be blamed
for the information leak;
his own career may
suffer.
To remain loyal
and credible; to
encourage my boss
to uphold basic
employee rights.
What might happen to
the boss or group as a
result of the decision
made.
Employees The fear of job loss now
and in the future; the
loss of a liked colleague;
the fear of workload
increases.
To reduce the
potential harmful
impact on Joe
and the remaining
employees;
to avoid harm
through rumors
or by neglecting
responsibilities.
Reactions upon hearing
that the boss lied or that
layoffs are imminent.
MANAGER’S TOOL KIT
type of behavior generally is not helpful to others but really is a means of
avoiding difficult or uncomfortable situations.
• Everyone else does it. Just because you perceive that others behave
unethically in no way transforms it into ethical behavior. Behaving ethically
takes courage, and bucking norms is often part of it.
• It’s owed to me. People often feel that, due to their hard work or frequent
patronage or the like, certain rewards are owed them. This may be
why office supplies theft, personal copies at work, or Internet abuses on
the job are so commonplace—people see it as a right owed to them.
• As long as I don’t gain. Behaving unethically for the greater good of the
organization is no more ethical than stealing food for your family is legal.
Personal gain is not the sole metric for determining ethical behavior;
the impact of your behavior, regardless of who benefits, has far-reaching
implications.
136 PART ONE Personal Skills
These rationalizations often lead people to move in directions that are away
from their better selves. Business ethicist Craig Johnson notes that three factors
are involved in disrupting peoples’ moral reasoning: insecurities, greed, and
ego.16 First, he suggests that people who have inner doubts are more likely to
fall prey to others’ persuasive messages regarding certain behavior. Second, in a
society that rewards people who take risks, greed is inevitable since many jobs
are based upon a “winner takes all” model. Third, as substantial research suggests,
people tend to believe they are above average in almost every domain of
life, including ethics (see Chapter 3). Such overconfidence unfortunately results
in an inflated ego—or a feeling that things will simply work out in your favor. Yet,
as ethicist Dennis Moberg sees it:
. . . not all corporate misdeeds are committed by bad people. In fact, a signifi cant
number of unethical acts in business are the likely result of foibles and failings rather
than selfishness and greed. Put into certain kinds of situations, good people inadvertently
do bad things. . . . We must identify situational factors that keep people from
doing their best and eliminate them whenever we can.
Moberg’s observations are well established by scholarly evidence on at
least three fronts. First, it is well known that human beings follow psychological
“scripts” that help us navigate our daily lives. We have scripts for how to
order a meal at a restaurant, how to behave in a class, or how to talk to a client.
When we encounter these very familiar situations, we go into “autopilot”
mode—relying on our script to guide us. Although such scripts help us move
through our day with ease, they also serve to block us from hearing, seeing, and
sensing important information about the ethicality of the situation. It’s not surprising
then that ethical violations go entirely unnoticed in an organization—not
because people don’t care or they are complicit, but because they are blinded by
their scripts.
Second, similar to the scripts we have in place, people generally follow
others. Although “everyone’s doing it” isn’t a reason people readily admit as
driving their actions, the power of group norms to guide behavior is well documented.
17 Breaking norms is both uncomfortable and impractical for most.
This is mostly true because formal and informal rewards are geared toward
employees who go along. Further, people do what gets rewarded and avoid
behaviors that do not have rewards associated.18 Rarely are there rewards for
breaking norms even if it would be a good thing for th

Last Completed Projects