Who is able to complete this assignment?

Chapter 18

18 ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN TALENT MANAGEMENT

Wayne F. Cascio, Herman Aguinis

Learning Goals

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to do the following:

· 18.1 Strategize the design and implementation of organizational responsibility initiatives

· 18.2 Protect employee privacy and rights regarding the sharing of information

· 18.3 Conduct legal and fair workplace investigations

· 18.4 Apply current ethical standards when implementing testing and evaluation programs

· 18.5 Plan organizational research, recruit and select research participants, and protect their rights, based on current ethical guidelines and standards

· 18.6 Report research results so that they are not misrepresented or censored

· 18.7 Implement strategies for addressing ethical dilemmas when conducting organizational research

· 18.8 Issue research-based public policy statements with confidence

Organizational responsibility (OR) is defined as context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance (Aguinis, 2011). OR subsumes the concept of ethics because voluntary actions or patterns of behavior that have the potential to harm or alter the welfare of others are considered unethical. By taking into account stakeholders’ expectations, the chances of causing harm are reduced; therefore, OR leads to more ethical actions and policies. To be ethical is to conform to moral standards or to conform to the standards of conduct of a given profession or group (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 2014). Ethical behavior is not governed by hard-and-fast rules; it adapts and changes in response to social norms and in response to the needs and interests of those served by a profession. It represents a “continuous adjustment of interests” (Brady, 1985, p. 569). This is very obvious in talent management. What was considered responsible and ethical just a few decades ago (deep-probing selection interviews; management prescriptions of standards of dress, ideology, and lifestyle; refusal to let employees examine their own employment files) would be considered improper today. Increased accountability and concern for human rights has placed HR policies, procedures, and research practices in the public domain (Aguinis, 2011). Civil rights laws, discrimination suits, and union agreements have been effective instruments of social change. The resulting emphasis on freedom of information and concern for individual privacy are sensitizing both employees and employers to ethical concerns.

Our intention in this chapter is not to offer as truth a set of principles for OR and ethical behavior in talent management. Rather, our intent is to highlight emerging ethical concerns in several important areas. We make no attempt to be comprehensive, and, in fact, we limit discussion to three areas: employee privacy, testing and evaluation, and organizational research. Although we cannot prescribe the content of responsible and ethical behavior across all conceivable situations, we can prescribe processes that can lead to an acceptable (and temporary) consensus among interested parties regarding an ethical course of action. Let’s begin by defining some important terms:

· Privacy: The interest that employees have in controlling the use that is made of their personal information and in being able to engage in behavior free from regulation or surveillance (Piller, 1993b).

· Confidentiality: The treatment of information provided with the expectation that it will not be disclosed to others. Confidentiality may be established by law, by institutional rules, or by professional or scientific relationships (American Psychological Association, 2002).

· Ethics and morality: Behaviors about which society holds certain values (Reese & Fremouw, 1984).

· Ethical choice: Considered choice among alternative courses of action where the interests of all parties have been clarified and the risks and gains have been evaluated openly and mutually (Mirvis & Seashore, 1979).

· Ethical decisions about behavior: Those that take into account not only one’s own interests but also, equally, the interests of those affected by the decision (Cullen, Victor, & Stephens, 1989).

Organizational Responsibility: Definition and General Framework

We use the more encompassing term organizational instead of the narrower term corporate to emphasize that responsibility refers to any type of organization (e.g., publicly traded, privately owned, governmental, nongovernmental, entrepreneurial) (Aguinis, 2011). In addition, although initially seen as the exclusive realm of large corporations, we see OR as not only possible but also necessary for startups and small and medium-sized organizations if they want to be successful in today’s globalized and hypercompetitive economy. Finally, we use the broader term responsibility instead of the narrower phrase social responsibility to highlight that responsibility refers to several types of stakeholders including employees and suppliers and issues that subsume but also go beyond topics defined as being in the social realm (e.g., the natural environment). The issues we discuss in this chapter, which have traditionally been the focus of HRM research and practice, refer mostly to internal stakeholders (e.g., employees, participants in a research study) (Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman, & Siegel, 2013) rather than external stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, investors).

Organizational responsibility includes several important components. First, as noted earlier, the definition refers to all types of organizations regardless of ownership structure, mission, and size. For example, although their focus is not on economic performance, even governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) need to be managed in financially sound ways to survive. Second, this definition goes beyond a more passive underlying value position of “not doing harm,” to a more proactive position of “doing the right thing.” Third, as noted earlier, this definition subsumes the concept of ethics because voluntary actions or patterns of behavior that have the potential to harm or alter the welfare of others are considered unethical. By taking into account stakeholders’ expectations, the chances of causing harm are reduced. Accordingly, OR leads to more ethical actions and policies. Fourth, also related to stakeholders, an important component of this definition is that their expectations are taken into account. Stakeholders are the groups and individuals who affect or can be affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Freeman, 1984). Thus, stakeholders can include owners and investors, employees, external contractors, suppliers, customers, partners in various collaborations, and the surrounding community. Considering their expectations means going from stakeholder analysis or stakeholder management to stakeholder engagement. Although HRM researchers and practitioners typically think about employees and other internal issues (Moir, 2007), considering stakeholders’ expectations more broadly forces the HRM field to think about external stakeholders as well. Because there are both internal and external stakeholders, OR is driven both internally and externally, and OR initiatives do not take place only reactively as a consequence of external forces, but also proactively as a consequence of internal and external stakeholders’ expectations. Responsible organizations go beyond merely disseminating organizational information and, instead, communicate with stakeholders in an ongoing two-way process (Burchell & Cook, 2006). Unless there is stakeholder engagement, OR risks becoming an inconsequential statement posted on an organization’s website (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013).

The definition of OR refers to the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance. Unfortunately, the traditional view is that these performance dimensions are negatively correlated. For example, there is the view that a mining company may not be highly profitable if it adheres to strict environmental codes and respects the wishes of the surrounding communities (Alexandrescu, 2007). As a second example, there is the view that a cloth manufacturer may not be able to maximize profits and also provide fair wages and good working conditions to employees in its sweatshops abroad (Varley, 1998).

The skepticism regarding the simultaneous maximization of economic, social, and environmental performance also stems from critics who argue that OR is a ploy of corporations to “look” good, a mere public relations campaign to protect organizations’ reputations and profit margins. The potential incompatibility between economic and social goals and values is a recurring theme in the history of the field of HRM (e.g., Baritz, 1960). As noted rather forcefully by Hersey (1932), “The psychologist … who goes into an industrial establishment for the sole purpose of increasing production, rather than bettering the adjustment of the individual members of the concern … is a traitor to his calling” (p. 304). The skepticism about the simultaneous maximization of what seem to be incompatible goals is reflected well in the following quote attributed to Groucho Marx: “What you need to succeed in business is honesty. Fake that and you’ve got it made.”

In spite of the skepticism surrounding OR, there are two factors that now serve as important catalysts for OR: changes in 21st-century organizations and accountability. Regarding 21st-century organizational changes, a critical one has been caused by the use of the Internet. The Internet allows individuals inside and outside of the organization to access a mind-boggling array of information instantaneously and almost from anywhere. In contrast to just a few years ago, information about organizations and their policies and actions can now be accessed around the globe almost without delay. For example, companies such as Nike and Gap have made important efforts to reduce the abuse of workers in their contract factories in Indonesia and El Salvador, respectively, given intense public scrutiny led by activist groups who used the Internet to disseminate information (Varley, 1998). Websites such as YouTube have been used to show clips of executives from Enron, WorldCom, and ImClone being led away in handcuffs with great fanfare (Greenfield, 2004). There are numerous examples of organizations such as BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, and Starbucks that have adopted more responsible practices due to, in part, how the Internet has allowed people to share information quickly and inexpensively (see Aguinis, 2011).

Another important consequence of the Internet is that the 21st-century organization looks like a web instead of a pyramid because it connects various stakeholders such as partners, employees, external contractors, suppliers, and customers in various collaborations (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008b). The 21st-century organization is boundaryless and global because it uses talent and resources wherever they are available around the globe, just as it sells products and offers its services wherever demand exists around the globe. As noted by Cascio and Aguinis (2008b), “The new global organization might be based in the United States but does its software programming in Sri Lanka, its engineering in Germany, and its manufacturing in China. Every outpost will be connected seamlessly by the Net, so that far-flung employees and freelancers can work together in real time” (pp. 135–136). Regardless of the extent to which an organization engages in OR initiatives, an important implication is that the various stakeholders are becoming increasingly interdependent and, given the flow of information and work, it is difficult to distinguish employees from nonemployees and internal from external stakeholders.

The availability of information and increased stakeholder engagement has led to a wave of accountability that permeates organizations ranging from universities to governmental organizations and NGOs, up to multinational corporations. For example, universities in the United States control about $400 billion in capital and have been under pressure for several decades to invest their endowments in ways that prevent or correct social injury (i.e., activities that violate rules of domestic or international law intended to protect individuals from deprivation of health, safety, or basic freedoms) (Responsible Endowment Coalition, 2009). In addition, many governmental organizations now implement performance management systems that hold managers and employees, and their organizational units, accountable for how they spend taxpayer money and for initiatives that are perceived to be important in their communities (Aguinis, 2019).

In short, 21st-century organizations find it increasingly difficult to hide information about their policies and actions. In addition, the 21st-century organization is increasingly dependent on a global network of stakeholders who have expectations about the organization’s policies and actions. These two factors have led to increased accountability, which is an important motivator for organizations to act responsibly.

Organizational Responsibility: Benefits

The preponderance of the empirical evidence accumulated thus far suggests that pursuing social and environmental goals is related to positive economic results (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Rupp & Mallory, 2015). In other words, there are clear benefits for organizations that choose to pursue the triple bottom line instead of economic performance exclusively and organizations can both do good and well. Although some refer to an antagonistic relationship between organizational profit and productivity objectives, on the one hand, and societal goals and considerations, on the other, this seems a false dichotomy (Haigh & Jones, 2007). Organizations are successful in the long run only if they do both: please shareholders and also please other stakeholders. The challenge is “how to ensure that the firm pays wider attention to the needs of multiple stakeholders whilst at the same time delivering shareholder value” (Moir, Kennerley, & Ferguson, 2007, p. 388).

Consider the following selective evidence (Aguinis, 2011; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012, in press; Rupp & Mallory, 2015):

· Capriotti and Moreno (2007) described a consumer study conducted in Spain and found that 75% of consumers have penalized or were willing to penalize companies they perceived as not being socially responsible. A separate consumer study conducted in the United Kingdom found that more than 75% of consumers consider an organization’s level of social responsibility to be important and about 90% of employees believe their organizations should be socially responsible.

· From an organizational-strategy perspective, results from a 2002 survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers, including 1,200 CEOs from 33 countries (Simms, 2002; Verschoor, 2003), found that about 70% of global chief executives think that corporate social responsibility is vital to their companies, even during an economic downturn. In fact, some argue that OR is even more crucial during difficult economic times. Specifically, “The financial crisis and the subsequent economic downturn represent a significant upheaval in the evolution of markets and the private sector. Restoring trust and confidence, and shifting to a long-term paradigm of economic value creation in the spirit of universal values should therefore be viewed as the central imperatives” (“The Global Economic Downturn,” 2009).

· A study of 602 companies in the Morgan Stanley Capital International World Index that have been included in the Oekom Corporate Responsibility Ratings showed that the 186 companies that received the highest responsibility ratings outperformed the 416 companies that received the lowest ratings by 23.4% between January 2000 and October 2003 (Hollender, 2004).

· A meta-analysis of 52 independent studies demonstrated a positive relationship between social/environmental performance and financial performance (Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003). This meta-analysis found an average correlation between corporate social/environmental performance and corporate financial performance of ρ = .36. This correlation was obtained after correcting for sampling error and measurement error in the predictor and criterion measures and was based on 388 separate correlations and a total sample size of 33,878. The average relationship between corporate social/environmental performance and financial performance was still positive when it excluded correlations computed using reputation measures for social/environmental performance and surveys for financial performance (i.e., ρ = .15).

· A separate meta-analysis (using part of the same database) found that that relationship does not depend on firm size (Orlitzky, 2001). The average correlation between social performance and financial performance was ρ = .47, whereas the average correlation between environmental performance and financial performance was ρ = .13.

· Ambec and Lanoie (2008) conducted an extensive qualitative literature review focusing exclusively on the benefits of environmentally responsible practices. Overall, benefits of such practices are related to both increased revenues as well as cost reduction through separate mechanisms. Specifically, better environmental performance is related to increased revenues due to better access to certain markets, better product differentiation, and better pollution-control technology. Also, better environmental performance is related to a reduction in cost due to better risk management and relations with external stakeholders; lower cost of material, energy, and services; lower cost of capital; and lower cost of labor.

· Numerous organizations are very much aware of the benefits of being responsible. This is why many create a “corporate responsibility officer” position (Marshall & Heffes, 2007). More common titles are vice president or director of corporate social responsibility. Regardless of the title, which can also be chief compliance officer, chief ethics officer, or investor relations officer (Marshall & Heffes, 2007), the point is that OR is seen as an important ingredient of business strategy. Job announcements for such positions include a variety of responsibilities addressing both strategic and operational issues such as working collaboratively with internal business partners; developing industry relationships to benchmark best practices; creating a unified innovative approach to green and community impact initiatives; adopting operating policies that exceed compliance with social and environmental laws; conducting training for corporate social responsibility monitoring firms, suppliers, and brand names; and providing support to internal and external training programs.

In sum, the survey, qualitative, and meta-analytic evidence gathered thus far indicates an overall positive relationship between social and environmental performance and financial performance, but the strength of this positive relationship varies depending on how one operationalizes social and/or environmental performance and financial performance.

Organizational Responsibility: Implementation and the Role of Human Resource Management Research and Practice

Aguinis (2011) proposed the new concept of strategic responsibility management (SRM). SRM is a process that allows organizations to approach responsibility actions in a systematic and strategic manner. It involves the following steps (see Figure 18.1):

· Creating a vision and values related to responsibility

· Identifying expectations through dialogue with stakeholders and prioritizing them

· Developing initiatives that are integrated with corporate strategy

· Raising internal awareness through employee training

· Institutionalizing SRM as a way of doing business on an ongoing basis by measuring and rewarding processes and results

· Reporting on the status of the dialogue and the initiatives through a yearly OR report that is made available internally and externally

Figure 18.1 Steps Involved in Strategic Responsibility Management (SRM)

Source: Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Note: OR = organizational responsibility.

HRM researchers and practitioners are in a unique position to create and disseminate knowledge on how best to implement SRM. First, there is a need to create a shared vision and set of values about responsibility. Organizations cannot go down the OR path without considering management’s personal values. Like any other organizationwide intervention, OR requires sponsorship from senior management and organizationwide ownership. Second, stakeholder engagement is crucial, but we need to define how and to what extent and in what capacity stakeholders are engaged (Greenwood, 2007). We also need to define how various OR policies and actions are directly related to each stakeholder group. These are areas to which HRM can clearly contribute given the vast literature on employee engagement (e.g., Maslach & Leiter, 2008). In terms of the identification of stakeholders, they can be mapped on a chart to indicate their relative importance, and management can prioritize OR issues based on how likely they are to affect the business (Hillenbrand & Money, 2007). The fourth step includes training of all organizational members all the way up to top management about OR and responsibility management. This training can include how SRM works, what is expected of employees, and how employees will benefit from SRM. In terms of specific content, at a minimum, training should provide answers to the following questions (Aguinis, 2011):

· What is strategic responsibility management? Answering this question involves providing general information about SRM, how SRM is implemented in other organizations, and the general goals of SRM.

· How does SRM fit in our strategy? To answer this question, training should include information on the relationship between SRM and strategic planning. Specifically, information is provided on how SRM is directly related to the organization’s strategic goals.

· What’s in it for me? A good training program describes the benefits of implementing SRM for all those involved.

The fifth step addresses the consequences associated with OR. This includes creating indicators of success and describing how each indicator will be assessed, together with clear consequences based on the results. For example, an indicator of stakeholder engagement is the extent to which the communication between staff members as well as with customers and other stakeholders is honest and complete (Hollender, 2004). Thus, the organization’s performance management system must measure and reward OR policies and actions. Many organizations are already doing so. For example, data on 90 publicly traded companies in Canada show that long-term compensation of CEOs is related to OR actions related to products (Mahoney & Thorne, 2005). Finally, the last step involves reporting organizational activities related to OR. This reporting can include corporate financial reporting, corporate governance, OR, and reporting stakeholder value creation. This is also consistent with integrating OR within the organization’s overall strategy.

The topic of OR entered the mainstream HRM research agenda only in recent years (Aguinis, 2011; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Morgeson et al., 2013). Possible reasons for the lack of substantial attention to OR in the HRM literature to date include a general science–practice gap in the field; an emphasis on employees and internal organizational processes, usually at the individual level of analysis versus other external stakeholders; external processes; and organization-level phenomena. Nevertheless, HRM research has made important contributions to understanding certain aspects of OR. For example, consider the area of test-score banding discussed in  Chapter 8 . The traditional approach to staffing decision making is to use a strict top–down procedure in which selection is made based on who obtained the highest test score(s). However, those involved in staffing decisions face a paradoxical situation because using general cognitive abilities and other valid predictors of job performance leads to adverse impact (Aguinis & Smith, 2007). Consequently, users of selection instruments face what seems to be a catch-22: choosing to use general cognitive abilities tests and risk decreasing the diversity of an organization’s workforce, or choosing to use predictors that will not diminish diversity but are not as valid as cognitive abilities tests. Based on this description, the situation seems the classical “win–lose” scenario of pitting social versus economic performance in a mutually exclusive manner. As discussed in  Chapter 8 , test-score banding was proposed as a method to solve this apparent dilemma because it is an alternative to the strict top–down selection strategy that often leads to adverse impact. Banding is based on the premise that an observed difference in the scores of two job applicants may be the result of measurement error instead of actual differences in the construct that is measured. Consequently, if it cannot be determined with a reasonable amount of certainty that two applicants differ on the construct underlying a predictor or criterion score, then there may be little reason to believe that they differ with respect to job performance. In other words, banding groups applicants who have “indistinguishable” scores. Consequently, job applicants who fall within the same band are considered equally qualified for the job in question. Therefore, choices can then be made among these “equivalent” applicants based on criteria other than test scores, such as diversity considerations. The case of test-score banding, although not labeled as such in the HRM literature, is an example of SRM in which the organization considers both economic and social interests.

Looking toward the future, there are many additional areas related to OR to which HRM researchers and practitioners have made and can make additional important contributions (Aguinis & Glavas, 2017; Gond, El Akremi, Swaen, & Babu, 2017). Consider the following selected set of issues:

· The implementation of SRM can benefit from research design, measurement, and data-analytic tools that are routinely reported in HRM and applied psychology research (e.g., Aguinis, Pierce, Bosco, & Muslin, 2009). For example, what are appropriate procedures for data collection from various stakeholder groups? Can HRM researchers and practitioners develop valid and standardized measures to assess the economic, social, and environmental performance dimensions? How can data from various stakeholders be combined or aggregated? What qualitative and quantitative research methods can be used separately or in combination to measure OR processes and outcomes? What types of research design can be implemented to gather convincing evidence regarding the causal effects of OR on various outcomes?

· Like any other organizational-change intervention, implementing SRM must be accompanied with a change in performance measurement and the reward structure. An important HRM and applied psychology literature on the design and implementation of performance management systems, and motivation theories, can help with the implementation of OR initiatives (Aguinis, 2019). For example, performance management systems that include the measurement of both behaviors and results can be used to assess the relative effectiveness of OR initiatives.

· OR is intrinsically a multilevel phenomenon. The measurement and reporting of OR efforts can benefit from the HRM literature on multilevel issues (e.g., Mathieu et al., 2012). Specifically, multilevel data-analytic techniques can be particularly useful for assessing the effects of OR initiatives on individuals, groups, organizations, and society in general, as well as for assessing potential same-level and cross-level moderating effects.

· Issues such as commitment, engagement, dysfunctional and functional turnover, training, and employability are discussed in the OR literature but are typically absent from balance sheets or corporate reports. HRM practitioners can help make the business case for OR by extrapolating, adapting, and using measurement and psychometric techniques developed in other areas (e.g., training evaluation, performance management).

· Business schools are being criticized for not being responsible and are even blamed for training executives deficiently. Moreover, this training deficiency is, to some extent, seen as the culprit in some recent corporate scandals (Bendell, 2007). Should the field of HRM rethink its education and training programs so that OR takes on a more prominent role?

· HRM research tends to emphasize the individual level of analysis, and this type of approach can be beneficial for future OR research directions. For example, in terms of decision-making processes, are there individual-level variables (e.g., attitudes, personality) that explain why some individuals and, in turn, organizations are more likely than others to engage in organization-level responsible initiatives? What is the role of culture (at both the organizational and the national levels), and how does it affect approaches to OR? Related to these questions, what are some of the underlying psychological processes that connect OR initiatives with individual-level attitudes and behaviors (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007)? For example, what is the relationship between OR and organizational attractiveness, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, citizenship behavior, and job performance (cf. Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006)?

· The analysis of jobs and work has a long history in the field of HRM. However, a search on the O*NET database ( http://online.onetcenter.org ) using the term responsibility revealed only two related occupations: chief sustainability officer and sustainability specialist. This is encouraging because there were none just a few years ago. Thus, future applied research 

· can investigate the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for OR officers in various types of industries. Such work would also inform the field regarding the extent to which HRM practitioners may be sufficiently equipped to occupy these positions.

· OR actions and policies can help employees find meaningfulness through work, which, in turn, increases engagement. Thus, a person-centric approach to OR has great potential in terms of understanding benefits for employees, organizations, and their stakeholders (Aguinis & Glavas, 2017; Gond et al., 2017; Rupp & Mallory, 2015).

In sum, since its inception, the field of HRM has walked a tightrope trying to balance employee well-being with maximization of organizational performance and profits. This dual role is a source of tension, as illustrated by the test-score banding literature and the staffing decision-making literature in general. OR is a concept consistent with HRM’s mission as well as the scientist-practitioner model in applied psychology: “Practitioners should look to the scientific literature for guidance on setting up effective workplace systems, and scientists should take their cues from practitioners in identifying issues relevant to employee well-being and organizational effectiveness” (Rupp & Beal, 2017, p. 36). However, concern remains that OR is more rhetoric and public relations than a reality. For example, Soares (2003) noted that “in the ‘game’ of corporations, moral responsibility is a word without meaning” (p. 143). HRM psychology researchers and practitioners can help address these concerns by designing and implementing SRM systems that induce organizations to act in responsible ways. HRM researchers and practitioners can also help make the business case for SRM and demonstrate that it is a win–win approach to management and not philanthropy that hurts the organization’s “real” bottom line. Thus, OR provides a unique opportunity for HRM researchers and practitioners to make contributions consistent with the field’s mission and that have the potential to elevate the field in the eyes of society at large.

Related to our “call to arms,” will and can the HRM function lead the way to more ethical and responsible organizational practices? A survey of 113 U.K.-based HR professionals showed that, although the HRM function clearly needs to play a role of ethical stewardship, HRM professionals face competing tensions and perceptions of their expected role in their organizations (Parkes & Davis, 2013). As noted by Parkes and Davis (2013), “The real challenge for organizations (in providing genuine and visible demonstrations of their ethical and social responsibility credentials) is the way in which they respond to all their stakeholders, including employees. In many ways, there has never been a better time for HR professionals and the institutions of the profession (academic and professional) to lead in this. However, if they are to stop being ‘bystanders,’ they must be prepared to embrace the ethical imperative in their role” (p. 2431).

Talent management research has made important contributions to additional areas directly or indirectly related to OR. These include employee privacy, testing and evaluation, and organizational research. The next sections of the chapter address each of these issues.

Employee Privacy

In the specific case of the United States, the U.S. Constitution, along with numerous federal and state laws and executive orders, defines legally acceptable behavior in the public and private sectors of the economy. Although illegal behaviors are by definition unethical, meeting minimal legal standards does not necessarily imply conformity to accepted community guidelines (Hegarty & Sims, 1979). Such legal standards have affected HR research and practice in at least three ways:

1. EEO legislation, together with the interpretive guidelines of federal regulatory agencies, has emphasized the meaning and extent of unfair discrimination (e.g., with respect to racial or sexual harassment) and how it can be avoided.

2. Both professional standards and federal guidelines illustrate appropriate procedures for developing and validating assessment procedures (see Appendix A). The values implied by these standards are that high-quality information should be used to make decisions about people and that HR professionals are responsible for developing procedures that result in the most accurate decisions possible.

3. Twin concerns for individual privacy and freedom of information are raising new research questions and challenges. For example, does an employer have the right to search an employee’s computer files or review the employee’s e-mail and voicemail? How can confidentiality of information be guaranteed and invasion of privacy avoided while providing information to those who make employment decisions?

Employees clearly are more aware of these issues now than in the past, and they are willing to take legal action when they believe their employers have violated their privacy rights (Tomczak et al., 2018). See Box 18.1 for some examples.

Attention in this area centers on three main issues: the kind of information retained about individuals, how that information is used, and the extent to which that information can be disclosed to others. Unfortunately, many companies are failing to safeguard the privacy of their employees. Thus, a study of 126 Fortune 500 companies employing 3.7 million people (Solomon, 1989) found that

· 87% of the companies allow employees to look at their personnel files, but only 27% give them access to supervisors’ files, which often contain more subjective information;

· 57% use private investigative agencies to collect or verify information about employees, and 42% collect information without telling the employee;

· 38% have no policy covering release of data to the government (of those that do, 38% don’t require a subpoena); and

· 80% of companies will give information to an employee’s potential creditor without a subpoena, and 58% will give information to landlords.

Box 18.1 Practical Application: Is Big Brother Reading Your E-Mail?

When Alana Shoars arrived for work at Epson America, Inc., one morning, she discovered her supervisor reading and printing out e-mail messages between other employees. Ms. Shoars was appalled. When she had trained employees to use the organization’s network resources (including e-mail), she had told them their e-mail was private. Now a company manager was violating that trust.

When she questioned the practice, Ms. Shoars says she was told to mind her own business. A day later, she was fired for insubordination. Then she filed a $1 million lawsuit for wrongful termination. Although she soon found a job at another firm, she still bristles about Epson: “You don’t read other people’s mail, just as you don’t listen to their phone conversations. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.”

Michael Simmons, chief information officer at the Bank of Boston, disagrees completely. “If the corporation owns the equipment and pays for the network, that asset belongs to the company, and it has a right to look and see if people are using it for purposes other than running the business.” The court agreed with this logic. Ms. Shoars lost. In another case, a supervisor at a Nissan subsidiary in California discovered e-mail between two female subordinates poking fun at his sexual prowess. When he fired them, the women sued and lost. The judge ruled (as in the Epson case) that the company had the right to read the e-mail because it owned and operated the equipment (McMorris, 1995).

The results of a survey of top corporate managers of 301 businesses of all sizes and in a wide range of industries revealed another unsettling fact: Fewer than one in five had a written policy regarding electronic privacy—that is, privacy of employee computer files, voicemail, e-mail, and other networking communications. With respect to employee records contained in an HR information system, 66% of HR managers reported that they have unlimited access to such information, while 52% of executives do (Piller, 1993a). The apparent lack of attention to policies regarding information stored electronically is particularly troubling because employees are likely to feel safer when reporting personal information via a computer as compared to face to face (Richman, Kiesler, Weisband, & Drasgow, 1999). Moreover, privacy concerns affect job applicants’ test-taking motivation, organizational attraction, and organizational intentions (Bauer et al., 2006). Thus, because employees are likely to provide personal information electronically that they would not provide in person, organizations should take extra care in handling information gathered electronically.

Safeguarding Employee Privacy

Since September 11, 2001, workplace security and employees’ expectation of privacy have changed in the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 grants broad powers to the government to track individuals’ use of the Internet and requires that employers report any imminent threats to the government (with certain immunities for employers making the reports) (Obdyke, 2002). On May 26, 2011, then-president Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, extending the following three key provisions: roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and surveillance of “lone wolves” (i.e., individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups). In June 2015, the passage of the USA Freedom Act restored and renewed the expired parts through 2019. Because of these changes, it is particularly important for employers to establish a privacy-protection policy. Here are some general recommendations:

· Set up guidelines and policies on requests for various types of data, on methods of obtaining the data, on retention and dissemination of information, on employee or third-party access to information, on the release of information about former employees, and on the mishandling of information.

· Inform employees of these information-handling policies.

· Become thoroughly familiar with state and federal laws regarding privacy.

· Establish a policy that states specifically that employees or prospective employees cannot waive their rights to privacy.

· Establish a policy that states that any manager or nonmanager who violates these privacy principles will be subject to discipline or termination (“A Model Employment-Privacy Policy,” 1993).

· Permit employees to authorize disclosure of personal information and maintain personal information within the organization (Eddy, Stone, & Stone-Romero, 1999).

Fair Information Practice in the Information Age

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 prohibits “outside” interception of e-mail by a third party—the government, the police, or an individual—without proper authorization (such as a search warrant or a United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—FISA—Court warrant). For example, in 2013 the FISA Court issued an order, which was later leaked to the media from documents provided by former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee Edward Snowden, requiring a subsidiary of mobile phone carrier Verizon to provide a daily feed of all call records to the U.S. National Security Agency. Information sent on public networks, such as Yahoo! and Gmail, to which individuals and companies subscribe, is therefore protected, absent a court order to disclose it. However, the law does not cover “inside” interception, and, in fact, no absolute privacy exists in a computer system, even for managers. They may view employees on closed-circuit TV; tap their phones, e-mail, and network communications; and rummage through their computer files with or without employee knowledge or consent 24 hours a day (Elmer-Dewitt, 1993). In fact, a survey including over 1,000 HR managers showed that 78% of participants reported that their organizations monitor employees electronically in some respect, 47% monitor employees’ e-mail, and 63% monitor employees’ use of the Web (American Management Association, 2001). These results indicate that safeguards to protect personal privacy are more important than ever.

Employers should periodically and systematically review their HR record-keeping practices. This review should consider the following:

· The number and types of records an organization maintains on employees, former employees, and applicants

· The items maintained in each record

· The uses made of information in each type of record

· The uses of information within the organization

· The disclosures made to parties outside the organization

· The extent to which individuals are aware and informed of the uses and disclosures of information about them in the records department

Indeed, research has shown that an individual’s perceived control over the uses of information after its disclosure is the single most important variable affecting perceptions of invasion of privacy (Fusilier & Hoyer, 1980).

After reviewing their current practices, employers should articulate, communicate, and implement fair information-practice policies by the following means:

· Limit the collection of information about individuals to that which is relevant to specific decisions.

· Inform individuals of the uses to be made of such information.

· Inform individuals as to the types of information being maintained about them.

· Adopt reasonable procedures for ensuring accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of information about individuals. The objective is to preserve the integrity of the information collected (Mitsch, 1983).

· Permit individuals to see, copy, correct, or amend records about themselves.

· Limit the internal use of records, for example, by implementing security measures such as physical security, system audit trails, passwords, read/write authentication routines, or encryption of data (Mitsch, 1983).

· Limit external disclosures of information, particularly those made without the individual’s authorization.

· Provide for regular reviews of compliance with articulated fair information-practice policies.

Particularly since the corporate wrongdoings of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Adelphia, Tyco, WorldCom, and other organizations, the public in general, as well as peers and subordinates, tend to give executives low marks for honesty and ethical behavior (e.g., Alsop, 2004). However, companies that have taken the kinds of measures described here—such as IBM, Bank of America, AT&T, Cummins Engine, Avis, and TRW—report that they have not been overly costly, produced burdensome traffic in access demands, or reduced the general quality of their HRM decisions. Furthermore, they receive strong employee approval for their policies when they ask about them on company attitude surveys.

To illustrate the consequences of implementing sound information practices, consider an experiment that included 206 undergraduate students recruited to perform work at an on-campus satellite office (Alge, 2001). The students were assigned randomly to conditions that varied as to whether performance monitoring would be focused on job-relevant information (e.g., number of websites verified, which was part of their job duties) and participation in the monitoring procedure (i.e., whether students were able to provide input into the monitoring and evaluation procedure). Students’ perceptions of invasion of privacy were measured using 13 items, two examples of which are the following: “I feel that the information being collected is none of anybody’s business but my own” and “I felt like the manner in which I was evaluated was an invasion of my privacy” (Alge, 2001, p. 800). Both relevance and participation had a negative impact on perceptions of invasion of privacy, with relevance having the strongest effect (η2 = .25, or 25% of variance in perceptions of invasion of privacy was explained by the job-relevance manipulation). The lesson? People are less likely to perceive their privacy has been invaded when the information collected is job related and they have input regarding the procedures used in gathering information.

Employee Searches and Other Workplace Investigations

Thus far, we have been dealing with information privacy, but the physical privacy of employees is no less important. The issue of employee searches in the workplace involves a careful balancing of the employer’s right to manage its business and to implement reasonable work rules and standards against employees’ privacy rights and interests. Reviews of precedents in constitutional law and tort law and of labor statutes suggest the following guidelines for employers (Nobile, 1985; Segal, 2002):

· Base the search-and-seizure policy on legitimate employer interests, such as the prevention of theft, drinking on company property, and use, possession, or sale of illegal drugs on company property. Most employees view reasons such as these as reasonable.

· Conduct searches only when you have a reason to believe you will find the specific object of the search. Avoid random searches, which are likely to result in employee anger and resentment.

· Include all types of searches (e.g., personal office, locker). Advise employees that the offices and lockers are the property of the company issued for the convenience of employees, that the company has a master key, and that these areas may be inspected at any time. This will help to preclude an employee’s claim of discriminatory treatment or invasion of privacy. Such searches (without a warrant) are permissible, according to a federal court, if they are work related and reasonable under the circumstances (Rich, 1995).

· Provide adequate notice to employees (and labor unions, if appropriate) before implementing the policy.

· Instruct those responsible for conducting the actual searches not to touch any employee or, if this is not possible, to limit touching to effects and pockets. This will provide a defense against an employee’s claim of civil harassment or even a criminal charge of assault and battery.

· It is a good idea to have a witness to all searches who can testify regarding what took place and what did not take place. It is also a good idea to choose a witness who is the same gender as the person being searched and to use a union shop steward as a witness if the employee being searched is a bargaining-unit employee.

· When an employee is suspected of theft, conduct the search away from other employees and on company time.

· Whenever searches are conducted, ensure that they are performed in a dignified and reasonable manner, with due regard for each employee’s rights to due process.

Workplace investigations often involve the observation of an employee. There are only five means that an employer can use to do this legally: electronic (photographic or video images), stationary (e.g., an investigator in a van watching an exit door), moving (following an employee on foot or in a vehicle), undercover operatives, and investigative interviews (Vigneau, 1995). Each carries risks.

For example, video and audio recording and photography are off limits in areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a restroom or a home. To do otherwise is to violate privacy rights. Use undercover operatives as a last resort (e.g., at an open construction site or an open loading dock). Employees will probably react extremely negatively if they discover a “spy” in the workplace.

Investigative interviews should be voluntary. To be effective, make the employee comfortable, provide access to a phone, and allow the employee to take a break on request. Offer the employee the opportunity to call or be represented by an attorney, and be willing to conduct the interview with one present. The outcome should be a sworn statement that is written as well as recorded in the presence of a company representative. The employee’s written statement should include an explanation of what happened and how he or she was treated. The recording preserves the true nature of the interview and its integrity (Vigneau, 1995).

Testing and Evaluation

HRM decisions to select, to promote, or to transfer are often major events in individuals’ careers. Frequently these decisions are made with the aid of tests, interviews, situational exercises, performance appraisals, and other techniques developed by HRM experts, often I/O psychologists. These experts must be concerned with questions of fairness, propriety, and individual rights, as well as with other ethical issues. In fact, as London and Bray (1980) have pointed out, HRM experts and applied psychologists have obligations to their profession, to job applicants and employees, and to their employers. Employers also have ethical obligations. We consider each of these sets of obligations shortly, but first let’s describe existing standards of ethical practice.

Among the social and behavioral science disciplines, psychologists have the most richly developed and documented ethical guidelines, as well as institutionalized agencies for surveillance of practice and resolution of public complaints. These include Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2002), Ethical Conflicts in Psychology (Bersoff, 2003), Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCMEA, 2014), and Principles for the Validation and Use of Employment Selection Procedures (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2018—see Appendix A).

Another document, developed by a task force of researchers and practitioners of assessment-center methodology, is Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations (2015). As described in Chapter 13, these standards specify minimally acceptable practices in training assessors, informing participants about what to expect, and using assessment center data. Other ethical issues deal with the relevance of assessment center exercises to what is being predicted, how individuals are selected to attend a center, and the rights of participants. Finally, the Academy of Management has published a Code of Ethics (2011), offering guidelines regarding ethical conduct for its members. It covers the following five major areas:

· Human relations: unfair discrimination, sexual and other types of harassment, conflicts of interest, exploitative relationships, informed consent, and fiduciary responsibility

· Privacy and confidentiality: maintaining confidentiality, avoidance of personal gain, limits of confidentiality, anticipation of possible uses of information, and electronic submission of confidential information

· Public statements: making false, misleading, or fraudulent statements

· Research and publication: reporting on research, publication process, plagiarism, authorship credit, submission of manuscripts for publication, responsibilities of editors, and responsibilities of reviewers

· Ascribing to the Code of Ethics: familiarity with the Code of Ethics, confronting ethical issues, fair treatment of parties in ethical disputes, reporting ethical violations of others, cooperating with ethics committees, and improper complaints

Although the details of any particular set of standards are beyond the scope of this chapter, let’s consider briefly the ethical obligations we noted earlier. Many of the ideas in this section come from Aguinis and Henle (2002), London and Bray (1980), Messick (1995), and the previously mentioned guidelines and standards published by professional organizations, including the Academy of Management, the American Psychological Association, and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, among others.

Obligations to One’s Profession

Psychologists are expected to abide by the standards and principles for ethical practice set forth by the American Psychological Association (APA). HR experts who are not psychologists often belong to professional organizations (e.g., the Society for Human Resource Management, the Academy of Management) and are expected to follow many of the same standards. Such standards generally include keeping informed of advances in the field, reporting unethical practices, and increasing colleagues’ sensitivity to ethical issues.

Keeping up with advances implies continuing one’s education, being open to new procedures, and staying abreast of federal, state, and local regulations relevant to research and practice. Specifically, for example, the APA’s Guidelines for Test User Qualifications (Turner, DeMers, Fox, & Reed, 2001) specify that test users should possess psychometric and measurement knowledge (e.g., descriptive statistics, reliability, validity) and that, in the context of employment testing, test users should have “an understanding of the work setting, the work itself, and the worker characteristics required for the work situation” (p. 1104). Note that the guidelines are being revised as of the publication of this book and should be available soon.

The type of knowledge included in the APA Guidelines becomes particularly relevant in playing the role of an expert witness in litigation. The  Daubert standards guide courts in accepting expert testimony (Barrett & Lueke, 2004). These standards were set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) and clarified through subsequent federal district, appeals, and Supreme Court cases. The criteria used in determining admissibility of scientific evidence include whether the reasoning or underlying methodology is scientifically valid (and not mere speculation on the part of the expert witness) and whether it can be properly applied to the specific issue in the court case. Having adequate knowledge and keeping up with scientific advances is a key component of the Daubert standards.

Perhaps the only positive outcome of the recent corporate scandals is that an increasing number of universities, particularly business programs, are now including ethics components in their curricula. Such components may include the following (Dahringer, 2003):

· A required course in ethics and social responsibility

· Full integration of ethical consideration throughout the curriculum

· A required live case study program that enlists the business expertise of students on behalf of nonprofit organizations in the community

· Retreats such as one entitled “Putting Values Into Action” that can conclude a graduate program

Such educational initiatives may help HRM professionals identify unethical behavior more easily and help them move from the question “Is it legal?” to the question “Is it right?” (Dahringer, 2003). However, identifying unethical behavior when a fellow professional is involved poses especially knotty problems. The Ethical Principles of Psychologists (American Psychological Association, 2002, and amended in 2010 and 2016, see: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code) advises that efforts be made to rectify the unethical conduct directly and initially informally with the individual in question. Failing that, the next step is to bring the unethical activities to the attention of appropriate authorities such as state licensing boards or APA ethics committees. Members, as well as nonmembers, can file complaints with the APA’s ethics committee, or the committee may decide to initiate a complaint (i.e., sua sponte complaint). Complaints by APA members must be filed within one year of the violation or its discovery, whereas nonmembers have up to five years to file a complaint. The Ethical Principles include a specific standard (#1.08) that prohibits any unfair discrimination against people filing or responding to a complaint. Although the peer-review process for all professions has been criticized as being lax and ineffective, at the very least, peer review makes accountability to one’s colleagues a continuing presence in professional practice (Theaman, 1984). Increasing colleagues’ sensitivity to ethical practices may diminish unethical behavior and increase the likelihood that it will be reported.

Obligations to Those Who Are Evaluated

In the making of career decisions about individuals, issues of accuracy and equality of opportunity are critical. Beyond these, ethical principles include the following:

· Guarding against invasion of privacy

· Guaranteeing confidentiality

· Obtaining employees’ and applicants’ informed consent before evaluation

· Respecting employees’ right to know

· Imposing time limitations on data

· Minimizing erroneous acceptance and rejection decisions

· Treating employees with respect and consideration

Since we already have examined the issue of employee privacy in some detail, we focus here on areas not yet considered. Let’s begin with the issue of test accuracy. If validity is the overall degree of justification for test interpretation and use (see Chapter 7), and because human and social values affect interpretation as well as use, then test validity should consider those value implications in the overall judgment. One of the key questions is whether the test should be used for a given purpose. There are few prescriptions for how to proceed here, but one recommendation is to contrast the potential social consequences of the proposed testing with the potential social consequences of alternative procedures and even of procedures antagonistic to testing (such as not testing at all). Such a strategy draws attention to vulnerabilities in the proposed use and exposes its value assumptions to open debate.

Should individuals be denied access to a test because prior knowledge of test items may decrease the test’s validity? Yes, if the results are used in making decisions about them; no, if the results do not affect them in any way. “Truth in testing” legislation in New York and California requires that college and graduate school entrance tests and correct answers be made public within 30 days after the results are distributed. It also requires testing services to provide a graded answer sheet to students who request it. Other laws may someday affect employment. Although the Standards for Educational and Psychological Measurement (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014) do not require that test items be made public, they stipulate that the individual whose future is affected by a career decision based on test results is among those with a “right to know” the test results used to make the decision. Such information should describe in simple language what the test covers, what the scores mean, common misinterpretations of test scores, and how the scores will be used.

How old must data be before they are removed from employee files? One guideline is to remove all evaluative information that has not been used for HR decisions, especially if it has been updated. When data have been used for HR decisions, before destroying them it is desirable to determine their likely usefulness for making future predictions and for serving as evidence of the rationale for prior decisions. Such data should not be destroyed indiscriminately.

Care also should be taken to minimize erroneous rejection and erroneous acceptance decisions. One way to minimize erroneous rejection decisions is to provide a reasonable opportunity for retesting and reconsideration (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014), even to the extent of considering alternative routes to qualification (possibly by an on-the-job trial period or a trial period in on-the-job training if these strategies are feasible). Erroneous acceptances simply may reflect a lack of proper job training. Where remedial assistance is not effective, a change in job assignment (with special training or relevant job experience in preparation for career advancement) should be considered.

A further concern is that employees be treated ethically both during and after evaluation. The most effective way to ensure such ethical treatment is to standardize procedures. Standard procedures should include personal and considerate treatment; a clear explanation of the evaluation process; direct and honest answers to examinees’ questions; and, when special equipment is required, as in the case of computer-based testing, practice exercises to make sure examinees understand how to use the equipment.

Obligations to Employers

Ethical issues in this area go beyond the basic design and administration of decision-making procedures. They include the following:

· Conveying accurate expectations for evaluation procedures

· Ensuring high-quality information for HR decisions

· Periodically reviewing the accuracy of decision-making procedures

· Respecting the employer’s proprietary rights

· Balancing the vested interests of the employer with government regulations, with commitment to the profession, and with the rights of those evaluated for HR decisions

Accurate information (as conveyed through test manuals and research investigations) regarding the costs and benefits of a proposed assessment procedure or training program, together with the rationale for decision criteria (e.g., cutoff scores) and their likely effects, is the responsibility of the HR expert. He or she also is ethically bound to provide reliable, valid, and fair data, within the limits of the resources (time, support, money) provided by the employer. The case in Box 18.2 illustrates this principle (Committee on Professional Standards, 1982).

Another ethical issue arises when HRM professionals are constrained from conducting research because the results may in some way be detrimental to their employer (e.g., they may be discoverable in a future lawsuit). The dilemma becomes especially acute if the HRM professional believes that proper practice has been hindered. It is his or her responsibility to resolve the issue by following the employer’s wishes, persuading the employer to do otherwise, or changing jobs.

Balancing obligations to the employer, to the profession, and to those evaluated for HRM decisions is difficult. These ethical dilemmas are easier to identify than to resolve. The recommendation is first to attempt to effect change by constructive action within the organization before disclosing confidential information to others. Maintaining ethical standards is most important, though the need to support the integrity, reputation, and proprietary rights of the host organization is recognized.

For instance, when organizations request researchers to act in an unethical manner (e.g., reveal the names of individuals providing supervisory evaluations even though participants were promised confidentiality), researchers should make known to these organizations their obligations to follow applicable ethics codes, and the parties should seek a compromise that does not involve a violation of the code (Wright & Wright, 1999). An unbalanced way of handling such dilemmas in which the interests of the employer prevail over ethical standards can give the field of I/O psychology, and HR in general, a reputation as “a mere technocratic profession serving the objectives of corporations” (Lefkowitz, 2003, p. 326).

Box 18.2 Practical Application: What Can an I/O Psychologist Bring to the Table?

A small government agency located in a fiscally conservative community hired an I/O psychologist to prepare six promotional exams for police and firefighters over a period of only 18 months. Since the first exam had to be administered in only five months, there was little time for documentation. There was no relevant reference material at the agency, no additional staff resources beyond limited clerical services, and no adequate job-analysis data for any of the jobs. Attempts to conduct a job analysis for the purpose of test development failed because the employees involved feared that the results would be used to downgrade their jobs. Department heads had great concern over the security of the test items and, therefore, refused to allow internal employees to be involved in writing the test items, pretesting them, or reviewing the final test.

In view of these constraints, it was difficult for the I/O psychologist to upgrade the quality of the employment tests, as required by professional and legal standards. He described the limitations of his services to the agency management. He educated his agency on professional and legal requirements and convinced it to have two consultants carry out components of two promotional exams. Further, he successfully promoted the use of two selection devices, an assessment center and a job-related oral examination, which reduced the adverse impact on minority group applicants.

Through the I/O psychologist’s efforts, the promotional exams for police and firefighters became more job related than they were before he was hired. Considering the limited budgetary and human resources available to the small jurisdiction, he was delivering the best possible professional services he could while trying to make necessary changes in the system.

Individual Differences Serving as Antecedents of Ethical Behavior

So far, our discussion has focused on contextual effects on ethical behavior. In other words, we have discussed regulations, policies, and procedures that encourage individuals to behave ethically. However, there are individual differences in the ethical behavior of individuals, even when contextual variables are the same. Consider the following evidence:

· The implementation of ethics codes is most successful among individuals who achieved the conventional level of moral development (the preconventional level typifies the moral reasoning of children, the conventional level involves going beyond defining right and wrong in terms of self-interest, and the postconventional level involves defining right and wrong in terms of universal principles such as justice and virtue) (Greenberg, 2002).

· Individuals in the highest group of the moral development distribution exhibit more transformational leadership behaviors (e.g., inspired followers to look beyond their self-interests for the good of the group) than individuals scoring in the lowest group (Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002).

· Individuals’ cognitive ability can affect the level of cognitive effort that can be exerted in considering an ethical issue (e.g., in facing an ethical dilemma) (Street, Douglas, Geiger, & Martinko, 2001).

· Women are more likely than men to perceive specific hypothetical business practices as unethical (Franke, Crown, & Spake, 1997).

· Personal values influence the extent to which an issue will be viewed as moral in nature and the subsequent actions taken (Pierce, Broberg, McClure, & Aguinis, 2004).

· A manager’s narcissism (i.e., a broad personality construct described in Chapter 13 that is part of the “dark triad of personality”) is negatively related to supervisor ratings of interpersonal performance and integrity (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008).

Although this discussion points to individual differences, to improve understanding of individuals’ responses to potentially unethical situations at work, a person–situation interactionist perspective needs to be adopted (Pierce & Aguinis, 2005). In other words, depending on how an individual perceives the moral intensity of a particular event, he or she may react in one way or another. For example, investigators of a sexual-harassment accusation are less apt to attribute blame to a male accused of sexual harassment and less apt to recommend that he receive a punitive action (e.g., suspension or termination), if the features of the romance–harassment scenario are low in moral intensity as follows: a non-extramarital (vs. extramarital) romance that was not in violation (versus in violation) of a written organizational policy and that resulted in hostile work environment (versus the more blatant quid pro quo) harassment.

The admittedly selective evidence cited earlier points to an important conclusion: Although the implementation of ethics programs can certainly mitigate unethical behavior, the ultimate success of such efforts depends on an interaction between how the system is implemented and individual differences regarding such variables as cognitive ability, moral development, gender, and personal values. Given the variability in these, and other individual-differences variables, one should also expect variability in the success rate of any corporate ethics program.

Ethical Issues in Organizational Research

In field settings, researchers encounter social systems comprising people who hold positions in a hierarchy and who also have relationships with consumers, government, unions, and other public institutions. Researchers cannot single-handedly manage the ethical dilemmas that arise because they are a weak force in a field of powerful ones, with only limited means for ensuring moral action or for rectifying moral lapses (Mirvis & Seashore, 1979).

Mirvis and Seashore (1979) proposed that most ethical concerns in organizational research arise from researchers’ multiple and conflicting roles within the organization where research is being conducted. Indeed, researchers have their own expectations and guidelines concerning research, while organizations, managers, and employees may hold a very different set of beliefs concerning research (Aguinis & Henle, 2002). For example, a researcher may view the purpose of a concurrent validation study of an integrity test as a necessary step to justify its use for selecting applicants. Alternatively, management may perceive it as a way, unbeknown to employees, to weed out current employees who may be stealing. The researcher may argue that this use of the research results violates participants’ confidentiality, while management may counter that it will benefit the organization’s bottom line to identify and terminate dishonest individuals. Mirvis and Seashore (1979) recommended that researchers clearly define their roles with various constituencies when doing research in organizations and that they openly and honestly address conflicts between the ethical norms of researchers and organizations before conducting the research.

The consideration of ethical issues in organizational research begins not at the data-collection phase, but at the research-planning stage. These activities must be conducted in a manner that respects participants’ rights. Ethical considerations also come into play in the reporting of research results. Let’s consider each of these steps in turn (Aguinis & Henle, 2002).

Ethical Issues at the Research-Planning Stage

Before conducting a study in an organizational setting, researchers must evaluate their competence to conduct the research, their knowledge of ethical guidelines, the soundness of the research design, and the ethical acceptability of their study. For example, poorly designed research will lead to inaccurate conclusions that may hurt the populations to which they are applied. Poorly designed research can also waste the sponsoring organization’s resources.

Regarding ethical acceptability, researchers should attempt to conduct a cost–benefit analysis. Benefits to participants, the sponsoring organization, society, and science (e.g., increased knowledge) must outweigh costs and potential risks to research participants (e.g., wasted time, invasion of privacy, psychological or physical harm). In cases where participants are at risk (e.g., polygraph testing may cause anxiety), steps must be taken to minimize potential harm (e.g., debriefing). It is often useful to seek impartial views regarding the ethical acceptability of the study from peers, potential participants, or similar sources.

An important, yet often overlooked, issue is the cost of not conducting the research. Discarding a research idea that has the potential to benefit many others in important ways because it involves some ethical concerns (e.g., not informing participants of the exact nature of the study) may not resolve ethical concerns, but instead exchange one ethical dilemma for another (Rosnow, 1997).

Ethical Issues in Recruiting and Selecting Research Participants

Using volunteers in research has been advocated as a technique to avoid coercion in participation. However, subtle coercion may still exist through inducements offered to volunteers (Kimmel, 1996). Although offering inducements (e.g., money) increases participation rates, ethical issues are raised when participants feel they cannot afford to pass up the incentive. To determine if inducements are excessive and, thus, coercive, Diener and Crandall (1979) advised offering the incentive to potential participants for studies involving a varying amount of risk, and, if they acknowledge that they would participate even when there is considerable risk involved, the inducement is too strong.

Subtle coercion may also exist when a supervisor “strongly recommends” that all employees participate in the research in question. This is particularly a concern when studying populations that have been discriminated against (e.g., African Americans exposed to discrimination in hiring practices) or exploited (e.g., women subjected to sexual harassment). Particularly in dealing with these populations, researchers must be careful to avoid false advertising of what their study realistically can do, and not unnecessarily raise the expectations of participants regarding the purported benefits of the research results. It is also beneficial to actively seek minorities to assist with research (as assistants or coinvestigators) to help identify issues of concern to particular minority groups (Gil & Bob, 1999).

Ethical Issues in Conducting Research: Protecting Research Participants’ Rights

Although organizational research rarely involves physical and psychological harm, harm can take place. For instance, researchers may design experiments with various levels of stress (e.g., participants are told they failed an employment test or are given an opportunity to steal) or physical discomfort (e.g., physical ability tests). In addition, unanticipated harm can arise. For instance, some participants may become upset when answering questions about their childhood on a biodata inventory. Regardless, researchers must take precautions to protect participants from harm and determine if harm intentionally invoked is justified in terms of the benefits of the research or if other research methods can be used to obtain information in harmless ways.

In addition to protecting participants from harm, researchers must protect the following rights:

· Right to informed consent:  Provide information about the study in such a way that potential participants are able to understand and determine if they wish to participate. This also includes guaranteeing the right to decline or withdraw participation at any time during the study without negative consequences (as in the case of the supervisor described earlier who “strongly suggests” that all employees participate in the study). The researcher must prevent employees from perceiving that their employment status will be at risk if they do not participate. In situations where the researcher has authority over potential participants, using a third party to recruit participants may alleviate the pressure to participate. Finally, researchers should describe how confidentiality or anonymity will be guaranteed (discussed in detail in the next section), answer any questions participants have after reading the consent form, and inform them of whom they can contact if they have questions or concerns about the research. Participants should sign the consent form as well as receive a copy of it. However, obtaining signed, informed consent may not be necessary in many situations, especially when participants can refuse to participate through their actions (e.g., by choosing not to return an anonymous survey).

· Right to privacy:  Researchers must respect participants’ right to control the amount of information they reveal about themselves. The amount of information participants must reveal about themselves and the sensitivity of this information may affect their willingness to participate in research. The right to privacy is violated when participants are given unwanted information (e.g., graphic details of an incident involving sexual harassment between a supervisor and a subordinate), when information that would normally be used to make decisions is withheld, or when information is released to unauthorized parties (e.g., a supervisor is given information from a study and uses it to make employment decisions; Sieber, 1992).

· Right to confidentiality:  Participants should have the right to decide to whom they will reveal personal information. Confidentiality differs from privacy because it refers to data (i.e., not individuals). That is, confidentiality refers to decisions about who will have access to research data, how records will be maintained, and whether participants will remain anonymous. Issues of confidentiality should be resolved in the informed consent procedures by stating how participants’ identities will be protected and unauthorized disclosures prevented. Ideally, researchers will want to guarantee anonymity because participants are more likely to participate and be honest when they know the results cannot be linked to them individually. Unfortunately, organizational research often requires identifying information to link participants’ data to another dataset (e.g., supervisory ratings of performance, employment records). In these cases, code names or numbering systems can be used and identifying information promptly destroyed after coding has taken place.

· Right to protection from deception:  If researchers are considering the use of deception, they must determine if it is justified through a cost–benefit analysis and consider the feasibility of alternatives to deception (e.g., Aguinis & Henle, 2001b). Researchers must demonstrate that the value of the research outweighs the harm imposed on participants and that the research topic cannot be studied in any other way. Although some research topics may be studied only through the use of deception, given their low base rate, their sensitive nature, and participants’ reluctance to disclose honest information, there are serious drawbacks to the approach. It has been argued that deception does not respect participants‘ rights, dignity, privacy, and freedom to decline participation, and it may result in participants being suspicious of research in general and psychological research in particular (Aguinis & Handelsman, 1997a). Given these drawbacks, deception should be used only as a last resort.

· Right to debriefing:  After the study is completed, debriefing must take place to inform participants of the research purpose, to remove any harmful effects brought on by the study, and to leave participants with a sense of dignity and a perception that their time was not wasted (Harris, 1988). Debriefing is the primary method used to ensure that participants receive the scientific knowledge that is often promised as a benefit of participating in research. Debriefing should include information about previous research (i.e., what is known in this particular research area), how the current study might add to this knowledge, how the results of the study might be applied to organizational settings, and the importance of this type of research.

Are these rights protected in practice? Unfortunately, not in many cases. Participants’ rights such as informed consent, confidentiality, and privacy may be violated in organizational settings due to a perception that research participation is simply part of the job. Moreover, the prevalence of the Internet as a research tool raises unique challenges (Aguinis & Lawal, 2012; Stanton & Rogelberg, 2002). Take the case of informed consent. Although researchers can post consent forms online and have participants click on a button if they consent, some have argued that it is not possible to determine if participants really understand what they are agreeing to do (Azar, 2000). However, participants’ concerns about the study could be resolved through phone calls or personal meetings, depending on the geographic locations of the researcher and participants. Researchers should also remind participants that they are free to withdraw at any time and that their participation is voluntary. In addition, confidentiality issues must be resolved. If data are being collected and stored through the Internet, precautions need to be taken to ensure secure transfer and storage of the information so that unauthorized individuals cannot obtain access. Data encryption technology and password protection may help guarantee confidentiality. Finally, debriefing participants may also be of concern. It is difficult to determine if participants will read any statement aimed at debriefing them.

Regardless of the specific research method used to collect data, Mirvis and Seashore (1979) argued that organizations are systems of coercion, which makes protecting participants’ rights, as specified by the APA’s Ethical Guidelines, difficult. Thus, participants may feel pressured to participate in research studies sponsored by their employer, and researchers may not have sufficient control over the research to guarantee the ethical treatment of participants. However, researchers have an ethical obligation to ensure the well-being of multiple research participants in organizational settings. Wright and Wright (1999) called this a “committed-to-participant” approach. They exemplified this approach in a study that examined the effects of different methods of coping behavior on diastolic blood pressure. The researchers informed participants who were engaging in coping methods likely to lead to high blood pressure about the risks of this behavior and recommended appropriate lifestyle changes. Thus, these researchers were able to collect data, participants were warned about risky behaviors, and it is hoped that the organizations will benefit from reducing the number of employees engaging in risky behavior.

Ethical Issues in Reporting Research Results

Ethical considerations do not end with the collection of data, but continue when we write up our research findings in the form of a technical report or submit our research to be considered for publication. This is a particularly timely and worrisome topic because 129 articles have been retracted from business and management journals from 2005 through 2015, and the number of retractions has increased tenfold from 2012 through 2015 (Karabag & Berggren, 2016). In addition, some have estimated that between 25% and 50% of published articles in management, psychology, and other fields have inconsistencies or errors (Goldfarb & King, 2016; Nuijten, Hartgerink, Assen, Epskamp, & Wicherts, 2016; Wicherts, Bakker, & Molenaar, 2011).

There are additional signs that journal articles must be read with a healthily skeptical attitude because researchers are often unable to reproduce published results (Bergh, Sharp, Aguinis, & Li, 2017; Cortina, Green, Keeler, & Vandenberg, 2017). Also, there is mounting evidence that many published articles report positive and strong effects, and support authors’ preferred hypotheses, due to systematic capitalization on change (Aguinis, Cascio, & Ramani, 2017). Systematic capitalization on chance takes place when a researcher searches for a maximally predictive statistical model based on a particular dataset. This process involves many trial-and-error steps that are usually not reported in the published article. For example, consider the case of HARKing—hypothesizing after results are known (Bosco, Aguinis, Field, Pierce, & Dalton, 2016). By starting with results, then working backward to create a plausible back story (a hypothesis about a relation between variables), and not describing this procedure openly and honestly, HARKing removes the idea-generation process that is central to advancing science. Also, this practice involves chasing sample results, even though these results might not be stable or replicable—again, due to systematic capitalization on chance. These concerns raise questions about the trustworthiness of the scholarly work that is produced (Kepes & McDaniel, 2013). To help mitigate these concerns, in reporting research results, researchers must be aware of ethical violations regarding each of the following issues:

· Misrepresentation of results:  Researchers must honestly and accurately report results and not falsify, distort, or omit findings. A classic case involving falsified research results was that of Sir Cyril Burt, a British psychologist studying the inheritance of intelligence. He conducted studies on twins and found substantial evidence of genetic influences on intelligence (see Kimmel, 1996). His findings were not questioned, but, after his death in 1971, it was discovered that much of his research had been fabricated and that coauthors listed on various research studies were fictitious. Less extreme forms of misrepresentation may include recording data without being blind to the hypotheses or participants’ treatment condition, errors in data entry, and errors in data analyses (Rosenthal, 1994). If honest errors in data entry or analysis are found, steps should be taken immediately to correct them. For a fascinating account of great frauds in the history of science, see Broad and Wade (1982).

· Censoring:  Censoring data is especially salient when the results obtained reflect negatively on the organizations in which the data were collected. However, failing to report data that contradict previous research, hypotheses, or beliefs is also deemed unethical (Rosenthal, 1994). Instead, researchers should provide detailed reports of their methodology, data analyses, findings, and study limitations so that other researchers and organizational practitioners can evaluate the research and determine its value and applicability (Brutus, Aguinis, & Wassmer, 2013). Likewise, not reporting findings of unpublished data, especially if the methods used were sound, could be considered unethical because these findings may provide useful information (Rosenthal, 1994).

· Plagiarism:  Researchers should be careful to avoid taking credit for work that is not theirs (i.e., plagiarizing). Plagiarism involves putting one’s name on another’s work, using a large part of someone else’s work without citing it, or claiming others’ ideas as one’s own (Elliott & Stern, 1997). All of these acts are considered stealing. In addition, researchers should avoid self-plagiarism. This refers to making minor modifications to studies previously published so as to publish them again in another outlet; this is considered unacceptable if the data are published as original even though they have been published previously. This practice of “double dipping” can have a biasing effect on subsequent meta-analyses, which may include the same effect size estimate more than once.

· Unjustified authorship credit:  The APA’s Ethical Guidelines state that authorship credit should be given only to those who substantially contribute to the research effort. Thus, conceptualization of the research idea, research design, data analysis, interpretation, preparation of the written description of the study, and so forth would deserve credit, whereas seniority, status, power, and routine tasks such as data entry or typing would not. The first author is the one who has contributed the most, compared to the other authors, in terms of ideas, design, analyses, writing, and so forth. The decision as to the first author should be based on contributions made and not merely reflect status or power. This issue can become important in research involving faculty–student collaborations, where there is a clear status difference. Ethical issues arise not only when faculty or higher status individuals take first-author credit they have not earned, but also when students are given unearned credit (Fine & Kurdek, 1993). Giving students or others undeserved research credit misrepresents their expertise and abilities and may give them an unfair advantage for employment and promotions.

· Methodological transparency:  This issue refers to the need to describe all methodological choices and procedures in an open and honest manner. Transparency is “the degree of detail and disclosure about the specific steps, decisions, and judgment calls made during a scientific study” (Aguinis, Ramani, & Alabduljader, 2018). Thus, transparency is not an all-or-nothing matter, but a matter of degree. Consider that researchers make numerous choices and decisions during the process of conceptualizing and designing studies as well as collecting data, analyzing them, and reporting results. For example, there are choices about modifying existing items from a scale, keeping or removing outliers, and implementing different types of procedures to deal with missing data. The more explicit, open, and thorough researchers are about disclosing each of these choices, judgment calls, and decisions, the greater the degree of transparency.

· Data   sharing : A final ethical issue regarding the reporting of research results is retaining and providing data when requested by other researchers for replication. Replication acts as a safeguard against dishonesty. However, the purpose for requesting existing data should be for reanalysis in order to verify reported findings and not to conduct new research on existing data; if such secondary purpose is intended, then the requester should obtain written permission to do so. If the research is published in an APA journal, data must be retained for five years after publication. Exceptions to providing data are made if confidentiality would be violated or if data are owned by the organization in which the data were collected. Both transparency and data sharing are critical for two related but different purposes: reproducibility and replicability. Reproducibility is the ability of others to draw similar conclusions to those reached by the original authors regarding a study’s results—using the original data. This is different from replicability, which is the ability of others to draw similar conclusions after collecting their own data (but using the same procedures as the original team of authors). It is impossible to conduct a reproducibility study if authors do not share their data. Similarly, it is impossible to conduct a replicability study in the absence of sufficient methodological transparency.

In sum, every researcher in HRM, I/O psychology, and related fields has a responsibility to ensure that their research meets established ethical guidelines in order to protect participants’ rights and further the advancement and positive societal impact of our fields. This requires thoughtful consideration of ethical issues before, during, and after data collection. As noted earlier, this may not be easy in many situations. Next, we describe a conceptual scheme and proposed means to investigate ethical issues in organizational research.

Strategies for Addressing Ethical Issues in Organizational Research

Organizations may be viewed as role systems—that is, as sets of relationships among people that are maintained, in part, by the expectations people have for one another. When communicated, these expectations specify the behavior of organization members and their rights and responsibilities with respect to others in their role system. This implies that, when social scientists, as members of one role system, begin a research effort with organization members, who are members of another role system, it is important to anticipate, diagnose, and treat ethical problems in light of this intersection of role systems. Problems must be resolved through mutual collaboration and appeal to common goals. Ethical dilemmas arise as a result of role ambiguity (uncertainty about what the occupant of a particular role is supposed to do), role conflict (the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role expectations such that compliance with one makes compliance with the other more difficult), and ambiguous orconflicting norms (standards of behavior).

Table 18.1 summarizes strategies for resolving such ethical dilemmas. Column 1 of the table provides examples of typical sources of role ambiguity, role conflict, and ambiguous or conflicting norms encountered in organizational research. Column 2 describes strategies for dealing with each of the column 1 dilemmas. Although the implementation of these strategies may seem excessively legalistic and rigid, agreements negotiated at the start and throughout research projects serve to affirm ethical norms binding on all parties. These ethical norms include, for example, those pertaining to protection of participants’ welfare, preservation of scientific interests, avoidance of coercion, and minimization of risk. Such agreements emphasize that the achievement of ethical solutions to operating problems is plainly a matter of concern to all parties, not only a matter of the researcher’s judgment.

Column 3 of Table 18.1 describes the ethical and social norms that operate to reduce the adverse consequences of ethical dilemmas and at the same time facilitate the achievement of research objectives with a reasonable balance of risk and benefit. Such widely shared norms include, for example, freedom, self-determination, democracy, due process, and equity. Whereas roles distinguish the various parties involved in a research effort, shared norms embody general expectations and bind the parties together. In some contexts, however, one set of ethical norms may conflict with another. This can occur, for example, when full and accurate reporting of research to the scientific community might pose an undue risk to the individual welfare of participants (Reese & Fremouw, 1984). In such cases, the researcher bears the responsibility of invoking the additional norm that the conflict be confronted openly, fully, and honestly. Although all parties’ values may not be honored in its resolution, they should be represented (Baumrind, 1985; Cullen et al., 1989). In short, the conflict should be settled by reason and reciprocity rather than by the preemptive use of power or the selfish reversion to personal whim (Mirvis & Seashore, 1979).

Table 18.1 Strategies for Addressing Ethical Dilemmas in Organizational Research

Source	Strategy	Ethical Norm
Role ambiguity
Regarding which persons or groups are part of the research	Creating an in-house research group composed of all parties implicated directly or indirectly in the study	Anticipating coercion or cooptation of or by uninvolved parties, the researcher, participants, and stakeholders; examining risks and benefits; identifying personal, professional, scientific, organizational, jobholder, and stakeholder interests
Regarding the researcher’s role	Communicating clearly, explicitly, and by example the intended role; clarifying the intended role, means, and ends; examining potential unintended consequences; providing for informed participation
Regarding the participants’ roles	Clarifying role responsibilities and rights; providing for informed consent and voluntary participation; establishing procedures to ensure anonymity, confidentiality, job security, and entitlements; providing for redress of grievances and unilateral termination of the research
Regarding the stakeholders’ roles	Clarifying role responsibilities and rights; establishing procedures to ensure participants’ anonymity, confidentiality, job security, and entitlements
Role conflict
Between researcher and participants, between researcher and stakeholders, within researcher	Creating and building role relations; providing for joint examination of intended means and ends and potential unintended consequences; establishing procedures for resolution of conflict through joint effort within established ethical norms	Avoiding coercion of or by uninvolved parties, the researcher, participants, and stakeholders; acting with knowledge of risks and benefits; representing personal, professional, scientific, organizational, jobholder, and stakeholder interests through collaborative effort and commitment to the ethical basis of the research
Between participants, between stakeholders, between participants and stakeholders, within participant or stakeholder	Organizing full role system; providing for collaborative examination of intended means and ends and potential unintended consequences; establishing procedures for resolution of conflict through collaborative effort within established ethical norms
Ambiguous or conflicting norms
Within or between researcher, participants, and stakeholders	Clarifying ethical norms for research; providing for collaborative examination of unclear or incompatible norms; establishing procedures for resolution of value conflicts through collaborative effort	Establishing ethical basis of research

The final section addresses the controversial issue of the role of a researcher’s values and advocacy postures in conducting organizational research. Because values are closely linked to morality, this issue has an important place in any discussion regarding ethics.

Science, Advocacy, and Values in Organizational Research

Organizations frequently use the expertise of university-based professionals to design various HR systems, to evaluate programs, to direct field research efforts, to serve as workshop facilitators and leaders, and to conduct other similar activities that provide opportunities to influence organizational life. Problems of distortion can arise when a researcher attempts both to extend the base of scientific knowledge in his or her discipline and to promote changes in organizational practice. This is no “ivory-tower” issue, for the problem is relevant to academics as well as to practicing managers.

Many of the ideas in this section come from the excellent discussion by Yorks and Whitsett (1985). When a scientist-practitioner tries to inspire change that runs counter to conventional wisdom, there is pressure to report and present data selectively. Why?

Challenging widely accepted conventional wisdom can generate a strong need to present as convincing a case as possible, without confusing the issue with qualifications. Alternative hypotheses may become adversarial positions to be neutralized, as opposed to alternative interpretations worthy of careful scrutiny. Scientific caution is undermined as one defends prescriptions in managerial forums. (Yorks & Whitsett, 1985, p. 27)

To counter pressures such as these, consider the following guidelines:

· When reporting field studies, lecturing to students, and making presentations to practicing managers, distinguish clearly between what has been observed under certain circumscribed conditions and what is being advocated as a desired state of affairs.

· Avoid use of success stories that managers can expect to duplicate rather painlessly. Doing so has led to the recurring fads that have characterized behavioral science–based management approaches, followed by the inevitable and often unfortunate discrediting of a given approach. This discrediting is almost inevitable when managerial action is based on generalizations from highly specific social situations.

· Respect the limitations of data obtained from a single study. Behavioral science propositions are strongest when they are derived from many situations and are analyzed by a number of independent scholars.

· Do not allow advocacy of certain techniques or organizational policies to masquerade as science, not because such statements do not stimulate useful debate among managers, but because scientific pretensions confuse the issues involved and make it difficult to separate myth from scientific principles. Ultimately, this frustrates the goals both of science and of practice. Managers get tired of hearing still more claims of “scientific conclusions” about how to manage.

What do these guidelines imply?

Hunch and bias provide no basis for decisions, only controlled research and substantiated theory will do. “I don’t know” thus becomes not only an acceptable answer to a question, but in many cases a highly valued one. (Miner, 1978a, p. 70)

Is there a place for one’s values in conducting and reporting research? Lefkowitz (2003) argued that the values of I/O psychologists are congruent with those of the economic system and corporations within which they function. He therefore argued that there is a bias toward serving organizations even when those organizations may stand in opposition to employee rights and well-being. To remedy this situation, he advocated the following changes (p. 327):

· The adoption of a broader model of values—for example, by adding a more humanist dimension

· An interest in and concern for the well-being of individual employees that should be equal in magnitude to the concern for organizational needs, goals, and perspectives

· A consideration of “success” based not only on the narrow criterion of technical competence but also using broader societal concerns as a criterion

· Incorporation of a moral perspective into the field, in addition to the scientific perspective (i.e., descriptive and predictive) and the instrumental perspective (i.e., focused on productivity and organizational effectiveness) that currently predominate

Lefkowitz (2003) and Lefkowitz and Lowman (2017) have raised issues that are increasingly recognized as important (Murphy, 2004) and are currently producing heated debate in some HR subfields, such as selection. For example, Chapter 8 described the debate regarding test-score banding and the competing values involved in deciding whether banding should be used in lieu of top–down selection. Some (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 2004) argue that HR specialists are faced with the choice of embracing the “values of science” or “other important values.” Others (Aguinis, 2004a; Zedeck & Goldstein, 2000) argue that both sets of values ought to be considered. To be sure, this is a thorny issue that is likely to generate further debate in the coming years. As noted by an editorial in the Academy of Management Review (Donaldson, 2003), “At no time has the legitimacy of business depended so heavily on clarifying its connection to human values. Taking ethics seriously, then, has become the mission more possible” (p. 365).

Consider a recent example that implemented the aforementioned recommendations. A team of 14 researchers joined forces to offer policy recommendations on how to improve the U.S. federal government so as to enhance agency effectiveness, improve employee well-being, and save money for taxpayers (Aguinis, Davis, et al., 2016). First, this report relied on the available evidence. Second, the report included examples of successful practices to illustrate more general empirical findings. Third, the report included a description of contingent factors that may limit the effectiveness of the recommendations that were offered. Finally, the authors openly and honestly acknowledged their own values and perspectives in terms of their goals to use organizational science research to serve different types of stakeholders.

Ethical choices are rarely easy. The challenge of being ethical in managing human resources lies not in the mechanical application of moral prescriptions, but rather in the process of creating and maintaining genuine relationships from which to address ethical dilemmas that cannot be covered by prescription.

Evidence-Based Implications for Practice

· Organizational responsibility provides a unique and valuable opportunity for HRM practitioners to make contributions consistent with the field’s dual mission of enhancing human well-being and maximizing organizational performance.

· The preponderance of the evidence suggests clear benefits for organizations that choose to pursue the triple bottom line (i.e., social, environmental, and economic performance) instead of economic performance exclusively.

· Strategic responsibility management (SRM) is a process that allows organizations to approach responsibility actions in a systematic and strategic manner.

· HRM practitioners can help make the business case for organizational responsibility by extrapolating, adapting, and using measurement and psychometric techniques developed in other areas (e.g., training evaluation, performance management).

· Balancing obligations to the employer, to the profession, and to those evaluated for HR decisions is difficult. The recommendation is first to attempt to effect change by constructive action within the organization before disclosing confidential information to others.

· Although the implementation of ethics programs can certainly mitigate unethical behavior, the ultimate success of such efforts depends on an interaction between how the system is implemented and individual differences regarding variables such as cognitive ability, moral development, gender, and personal values.

· There are several actions that researchers can take to mitigate current concerns regarding the credibility and trustworthiness of research results. Overall, these involve open and honest reporting of research results—and detailed descriptions of the processes that led to obtaining those particular results.

· Policy recommendations should be based on evidence. Clearly, researchers’ values play a role, so they should be described as openly and honestly as possible.