Blind Spots III — Ethics Training, Ethics Fading, and Ethical Reasoning
"Most of us dramatically
underestimate the degree to which our behavior is affected by
incentives and other situational factors." This is one of the most
important sentences in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Spots-Whats-Right-about/dp/0691147507" target="”_blank”">Blind
Spots:
Why
We
Fail
to
Do
What's Right and What to Do about It</a>, a new book by
Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel (Princeton University Press).<br>
<br>
<b>Ethical Fading</b><br>
This sentence is central to the authors' concept of "ethical fading."
Ethical
fading involves the elimination of the ethical dimension of a decision.
Goals, rewards, informal
pressures, even compliance systems
effectively blind us to the ethical implications of what we do. The
result is that we do not see our behavior as ethical, but as something
else: acting for our agency, acting strategically, considering
the financial costs and benefits, pushing our party's platform, doing
what we are
required to do by law, doing what it takes to look good.<br>
<br>
Ethical fading is an important obstacle to acting ethically. If we do
not recognize a situation's ethical aspects, how can we apply ethics
laws, not to mention go beyond ethics laws to consider the appearance
of impropriety, the possible loss of public trust, etc?<br>
<br>
Ethics training depends on recognizing the ethical aspects of a
situation. If what Bazerman and Tennbrunsel say is true, then ethics
training needs to stop assuming that government officials can recognize
when they have to apply ethics standards and concepts.<br>
<br>
<b>System 1 and System 2 Thinking</b><br>
Ethics training assumes that we approach ethics decisions using
ethical reasoning. But the authors do not feel this is often the case. They have found that emotional reactions precede ethical decision-making, and that instead of ethical reasoning leading to
our ethics decisions, ethics decisions lead to our ethical reasoning.
That
is, our ethical reasoning tends to be used to justify our decisions,
not to formulate them.<br>
<br>
Studies have found that people with damage to the parts of brain
responsible for emotion have a reduced
capacity for ethical decision-making and behavior. Part of this emotion
involves empathy, the ability to understand how others will feel about
our conduct, which is an important element in our ability to act
ethically.<br>
<br>
The authors distinguish between System 1 and System 2
thinking. System 1 thinking involves the intuitive processing of
information, which is more emotional and
efficient. System 2 thinking is slower, more conscious, more logical,
weighing costs
and benefits.<br>
<br>
It takes cognitive energy to stop one's unethical impulses, such as the
impulse to cheat. Think how much energy it takes to stop one's ethical
impulse to help one's family and friends! It also takes energy to get
beyond the way a situation is framed, which often must be done in order to
see a situation's ethical elements.<br>
<br>
System 2 thinking alone doesn't ensure the responsible handling of
conflicts. That is because System 1 thinking includes things like the
smell test, the instinct that something isn't right, which precedes
System 2 analysis of the situation and the consideration of
alternatives ways of handling it. The
two kinds of thinking need to work together, especially when they
disagree. Good ethics training helps officials use both sorts of
thinking to deal with situations where conflicts are involved.<br>
<br>
<b>Unintended Consequences of Ethics and Compliance Programs</b><br>
Those involved with ethics and compliance programs need to
be aware that these programs can have unintended consequences, because
such programs often
ignore ethical fading. In a business
context, a
research project had this result: "When no compliance system was in
place, most saw the
decision as an ethical one. … By contrast, when a compliance system was
in place, most participants believed they were making a business
decision. In this case, they appeared to ask themselves this question
instead: 'what is the likelihood I will get caught, and how much
will it
cost me?' The imposition of a compliance system led to ethical fading,
such that participants were less likely to see the decision as an
ethical one."<br>
<br>
There is also something at work here that the authors call
"psychological reactance," the tendency most people have to rebel
against
constraints on their freedom. "Efforts to direct individuals' behavior
often fail because individuals will devote extra effort to reclaiming
their threatened freedom. … Instead of thinking about doing the right
thing, employees focus on calculating the costs and benefits of
compliance versus noncompliance – and about trying to outsmart whatever they find."<br>
<br>
Psychological reactance is damaging to government ethics programs, especially in a world
full of lawyers, who already think in terms of outsmarting systems.<br>
<br>
Most ethics trainers realize much of this, but it is important to include this in their training programs. When much ethical decision-making is unconscious, it is important to raise officials' consciousness when it comes to the obstacles they face in making ethics decisions. Better for officials to recognize and fight tendencies in themselves than to slosh through and fight a complex ethics code that's not only a bother, but doesn't seem very important to their work.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---