ethical leadership

chapter2.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >ethical leadership

Chapter Two The Ethical Decision-Making Process In Chapter 1, we looked at the “good or bad apple” approach as well as the situational perspective to help explain ethical and unethical decision making. But this is only one part of the ethical decision-making picture. We also need to understand the ethical decision-making process as well. Yes, different people act differently under the same circumstances based on their individual moral character, and yes, the same person will act differently when the situational context changes in terms of the nature of the issue, the ethical corporate culture, and the personal situation and pressures that are being faced. But we also need to understand the decision-making process we go through when we make ethical decisions, and at what stage of the process each of the individual and situational factors we have already discussed might influence or moderate decision making. Building on and borrowing from a series of academic disciplines and theories including moral philosophy, moral psychology, social psychology, social economics, organizational behavior, criminology, behavioral science, cognitive neuroscience, and business ethics, a number of descriptive ethical decision-making theoretical models have fortunately been proposed to help explain the decision-making process of individuals leading to ethical or unethical behavior or actions.

Unfortunately, however, to date there does not appear to be a fully comprehensive ethical decision-making model. For example, following a comprehensive review of ethical decision- making research, some researchers suggest the following: “If the field of descriptive ethics is to move forward to strengthen our understanding of the ethical decision-making process, it is imperative that future studies focus more attention on theory development.”1 Similarly, according to others there remains a deficiency in ethical decision-making theory: “Unlike in the past, researchers no longer need to justify their rationale for studying ethics; instead, their attention needs to focus on developing a more comprehensive theoretical platform upon which empirical work in behavioral ethics can continue.”2 In other words, the current disagreement among scholars over which theoretical ethical decision-making model (if any) is the most appropriate, especially when engaging in empirical research, needs to be addressed. In fact, some continue to refer to the ethical decision-making process as a “black box.”3

After looking at the various approaches and ethical decision-making models, my own version of a descriptive ethical decision-making model is outlined in this chapter that attempts to consolidate the various models that have already been proposed while incorporating other important aspects of the ethical decision-making process that have at times been neglected.4 The goal is to not only build upon previous ethical decision-making models, but also to address the key divergence between what has been referred to as the rationalist (reason) and non-rationalist (intuition and emotion) approaches to ethical decision making. For those who are interested in reviewing the dominant ethical decision-making descriptive models that have been suggested, please refer to Appendix B, which summarizes the key aspects of each of the

Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Business ethics : An ethical decision-making approach. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-06-27 02:50:21.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

models. Since the proposed framework attempts to integrate much of the ethical decision- making literature, the reformulated ethical decision-making model is called Integrated Ethical Decision Making (or Integrated-EDM). The proposed model, which is shown in its entirety in Figure 2.1, will now be described.

Figure 2.1 An integrated ethical decision-making model. Primary Sources of the Integrated- EDM (I-EDM) Model: Rest (1984) (Four-Component model); Jones (1991) (Issue- Contingency model); Treviño (1986) (Person-Situation Interactionist model); Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008) (Lack of Moral Awareness); Haidt (2001) (Social Intuitionist model). Legend: Solid Box – Mental State; Dotted Box – Mental Process; Solid Circle – Active Conduct; Dotted Circle – Factor/Variable.

Source: Schwartz, M.S. 2016. Reproduced with the permission of Springer.

Try not to be too intimidated by all of the different aspects of Figure 2.1. By the end of the chapter the model should make more sense. At its most basic level, there are two major components to the Integrated-EDM model: (i) the ethical decision-making process; and (ii) the factors (or variables) that influence the ethical decision-making process. The ethical decision- making process is composed of four basic stages: (i) awareness; (ii) judgment; (iii) intention; and (iv) action/behavior, and in this respect continues to reflect the basic process framework proposed by most previous ethical decision-making models.5 One important additional set of processes takes place when impediments potentially interfere with the moral judgment stage. Given their importance, the impediments to ethical decision making which include cognitive biases, psychological tendencies, moral rationalizations, and self-interest will each be discussed further in Chapter 3.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

The precursor to the ethical decision-making process includes basic environmental norms, while the subsequent stages of the process include potential learning feedback loops. The ethical decision-making factors that were discussed in Chapter 1 that influence the process fall into two basic categories: (i) individual; and (ii) situational.6 The Integrated-EDM model assumes that ethical behavior is contingent on which particular individual is facing the ethical dilemma (e.g., different individuals may act differently when faced with the same dilemma depending on their moral character), and (ii) the situational context within which an individual faces a dilemma (e.g., the same individual can behave differently depending on the particular situation one is facing or environment one is situated within).

In order to gain a better understanding of how the Integrated-EDM model works, a common ethical situation faced by many employees and managers in the workplace will be considered. Imagine that you work for a business firm, and a current supplier has sent you a very expensive bottle of wine during the holiday season. Your firm does not have a policy specifically addressing receiving gifts. Assuming this is the situation you are facing, let's now see how the Integrated-EDM model would apply in terms of your decision-making process.

Environmental Norms In terms of the process of the Integrated-EDM model, the initial starting point is the norms that are prevalent in the external environment that tend to determine whether an ethical issue or dilemma potentially exists. Environmental norms are defined as follows:

Environmental norms: those prevailing standards or expectations of behavior held by members of a particular group or community.

Several ethical decision-making models propose that there is an “environmental” context within which the existence of an ethical issue or dilemma can arise.7 Norms can simultaneously exist at several different levels, including at the societal/cultural/national level, at the industry, organizational, or professional level,8 or at the work group level within the organization. The sources of these norms might include deeply embedded sociological, political, economic, legal, or religious considerations or views.9

For the Integrated-EDM model, a potential ethical issue or dilemma arises when there is a situation whereby different norms apply, each of which cannot be followed at the same time. This basic starting point of the ethical decision-making process has also been referred to as the eliciting situation.10 For example, there may be norms around gift giving, such as societal norms (bribery is considered unacceptable), industry-level norms (everyone gives and receives gifts in business), organizational norms (the firm frowns upon conflicts of interest), professional norms (which restrict gifts), and work group norms (everyone considers gift receiving acceptable). If your personal view conflicts with any of these norms, or if any of these norms conflict with each other, you face a potential ethical issue that you may or may not be aware of.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

The next four stages of the Integrated-EDM model are based on the “Four-Component” model of ethical decision making, which include awareness, judgment, intention, and action.11 We will now work through each of these four stages of ethical decision making in more detail.

Moral Awareness Stage Assuming that a situation with a potential ethical issue or dilemma exists due to conflicting norms, the next question is whether we become aware of the existence of the issue or dilemma. Moral awareness is defined as follows:

Moral awareness: the point in time when an individual realizes that they are faced with a situation requiring a decision or action that could affect the interests, welfare, or expectations of oneself or others in a manner that may conflict with one or more moral standards.12

Moral awareness that a particular situation raises ethical issues can take place simply due to an individual's moral character and inherent ability to recognize ethical issues,13 or as a result of a firm's ethical corporate culture (i.e., including codes, training, meetings, or other disseminated ethical policy communications).14 If you become aware that an ethical issue or dilemma exists, then you have by definition identified at least two different possible courses of action, and you will then potentially engage in an ethical decision-making process consisting of the moral judgment and intention stages.15 In the case of receiving an expensive gift, the awareness stage involves whether or not I realize that there are ethical implications to receiving a gift from a current supplier, or if I merely see this as an economic (self-interest) issue.

To understand this phenomenon better, the following will now explain how the lack of moral awareness process takes place, considered to be an equally important component of the Integrated-EDM model.

Lack of moral awareness Most ethical decision-making theoretical models presume that only through moral awareness of the potential ethical nature of a dilemma can you ultimately engage in ethical behavior.16 In other words, moral awareness is viewed as being binary – you either recognize the ethical issue or you fail to do so.17 As a result, most researchers have tended to focus on whether moral awareness is present or absent as a precondition for activating the other stages of decision making.18 What appears to be lacking in current ethical decision-making models, however, is the depiction of our lack of moral awareness, which is defined as follows:

Lack of moral awareness: the state of not realizing that a situation we are experiencing raises ethical implications.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

There are now several overlapping theories that have been proposed in ethical decision- making literature to help explain the processes or reasons by which we might lack moral awareness, also referred to as unintentional “amoral awareness”19 or unintentional “amoral management.”20 For example, we can lack moral awareness due to ethical fading. Ethical fading is defined as the process by which the “moral colors” of an ethical decision fade into “bleached hues” that are void of moral implications.21 In order for ethical fading to take place, we engage in self-deception through the use of euphemistic language (e.g., “aggressive” accounting practices as opposed to being “deceptive”; “borrowing” company funds with the possible “intention” to return them rather than stealing) and other techniques to “shield ourselves” from our own unethical behavior. Another similar concept used to explain our lack of moral awareness is ethical blindness, which means that the decision maker is temporarily unable to see the ethical dimension of a decision at stake.22 Ethical blindness includes three aspects: (i) people deviate from their own values and principles; (ii) this deviation is temporary in nature; and (iii) the process is unconscious in nature.23 The classic example of ethical blindness comes from Dennis Gioia, the recall coordinator of the defective and deadly 1970s Ford Pinto vehicle that would potentially explode upon being rear-ended. Gioia asked himself after failing to take any action regarding the defect: “Why didn't I see the gravity of the problem and its ethical overtones?”24

Another theory related to a lack of moral awareness is the use of non-moral decision frames, which occurs when one focuses on the economic or legal implications of issues rather than on the ethical considerations.25 The process of framing in a non-moral manner leading to a lack of moral awareness can result due to insufficient or biased information gathering, or socially constructing the facts in a particular manner.26 Moral myopia can also take place which is similarly defined as a distortion of moral vision that prevents issues of a moral nature from coming into focus.27 These initial theories or processes appear to each relate more directly to our work environment leading to a lack of moral awareness. In other words, if we are situated in a work environment which tends to ignore ethical considerations in its decision making or consistently prioritizes the bottom line over ethical concerns, as well as uses non-moral language in its operations, then we would likely be less inclined to be morally aware when facing a dilemma.28

The bottom line emphasis at Enron contributed to each of these processes taking place including ethical fading, ethical blindness, non-moral decision frames, and moral myopia. This all led to a lack of moral awareness contributing to misconduct at all levels of the organization. Former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling would reportedly say: “… all that matters is money … Profits at all costs ….” The use of a “rank and yank” system whereby a percentage of the weakest performing Enron employees would automatically be fired each year also appeared to contribute to the lack of moral awareness among Enron employees.29 Several of my former students worked for Enron, and although they realized impropriety was taking place, they were able to ignore the misconduct and did not raise any concerns. What was their number one reason for doing nothing? Because they were extremely well paid, and certainly didn't want to “rock” the boat.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Moral awareness, however, could be attributable to the particular individual's inherent nature, and thus directly related to the individual's moral character described in Chapter 1. For example, moral awareness can result from moral attentiveness, which has been defined as the extent to which a person chronically perceives and considers morality and moral elements in his or her experiences.30 Similar to the notion of moral attentiveness, others have linked moral awareness to the concept of mindfulness, which is described as the awareness of an individual both internally (awareness of their own thoughts) and externally (awareness of what is happening in their environment).31 It may be that a lack of mindfulness exacerbates our self- serving thoughts, self-deception, and unconscious biases leading to unethical behavior.32

Applying the process of moral imagination might also potentially lead to moral awareness, while failing to engage in moral imagination might lead to a lack of moral awareness.33 Moral imagination takes place when a person reframes their situation outside of its current context in order to discern all of the possible alternatives along with the potential impacts of each course of action on others.34 When we are only able to see one option rather than create imaginative options, we may be unaware that we are even facing an ethical dilemma with potentially more ethical alternatives being available.

For example, when faced with the dilemma whether to accept an expensive bottle of wine from a current supplier, you might initially think that your only option is to accept the gift, because otherwise you will offend the supplier, which might seriously affect the relationship. But if you realize through your sense of moral imagination that there are other options, such as accepting the gift in a particular way, you might become morally aware of the situation leading to a different outcome. You might imagine for instance that it could be possible for the gift to become the property of the company (and maybe hold a raffle for the gift among the employees), which would diminish the likelihood of a conflict of interest or at least perceived conflict of interest for you individually. You might also imagine that you can still accept the gift as long as the arrangement is reciprocal, whereby you agree to pay for the next meal together with the supplier. The issue would shift from being an economic self-interested decision to a moral decision, and a moral judgment process could then take place. In terms of the individual factors, a person with a strong moral character and in particular strong moral competence would also have a high level of moral attentiveness, moral mindfulness, and moral imagination, and would therefore likely be aware that receiving a gift from even a current supplier raises ethical considerations. Figure 2.2 summarizes the theories or processes discussed previously that help explain and contribute to moral awareness or a lack of moral awareness.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Figure 2.2 Processes affecting moral awareness. Source: Schwartz, M.S. 2016. Reproduced with the permission of Springer.

By not including the phenomenon of lack of moral awareness in ethical decision-making models, an important stream of ethical decision-making research is being ignored. Even if we are not aware that an ethical dilemma exists when we are asked to accept an expensive gift of a bottle of wine, we can still engage in what might be considered “unintentional” ethical or unethical behavior.35 Due to the importance of understanding why there might be a lack of moral awareness and the processes leading to it, which would presumably increase the potential for unethical behavior, the lack of moral awareness path is depicted in the Integrated- EDM model.

Moral Judgment Stage The moral judgment stage represents the crux of the Integrated-EDM model, and might be referred to as the actual ethical decision-making process that takes place. Moral judgment is defined for the purposes of the model as follows:

Moral judgment: the determination of the most ethically appropriate course of action among the alternatives.

This is the point in the Integrated-EDM model where several different processes either affect moral judgment directly, or potentially interact with each other leading to a particular moral judgment. These mental processes include: (i) intuition; (ii) emotion; and (iii) reasoning. While some would distinguish between the rationalist (reason) and non-rationalist (intuition;

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

emotion) approaches to ethical decision making, the Integrated-EDM model considers each of these interrelated mental processes to be of equal relevance.36 Each of these three processes will now be described.

Intuition The Integrated-EDM model presumes that for most ethical situations, including those that are non-complex ethical dilemmas or involve moral temptations with clearly right versus wrong alternatives, an intuitive mental process takes place at least initially after being evoked by the situation, and in this respect intuition plays a significant role in the ethical decision-making process.37 Intuition is defined as follows:

Intuition: an automatic and non-deliberative cognitive process leading to an initial judgment that may or may not be acted upon.

The intuitive process is reflexive in nature, effortless, immediate, and involves a one-step mental process. The position of intuitionists is that people have a “built-in moral sense” that creates pleasurable feelings of approval toward benevolent acts and corresponding feelings of disapproval toward evil acts.38 The judgment might be considered to be self-evident, with the truth essentially being engrained or innate in each of us as human beings. The process is inaccessible and not controllable, and only the results enter our awareness. Our intuitions may be based on “prototypes” of right and wrong that have been stored over our lifetimes in our hidden memory based on our experiences.39 When we come to a judgment based on intuition, we can be morally dumfounded, in that we can't provide the reasons for our judgments of approval or disapproval. For example, several situations may provide an automatic gut “sense” of rightness and wrongness, such as paying a bribe or overcharging a customer.

To understand the nature of intuitions better, consider the following experiment. The participants were provided with a series of what were called “harmless-offensive” stories in which an actor does something likely to be considered offensive, yet there are neither harmful consequences nor intention.40 For example, one story was designed to trigger the emotion of disgust: “A family's dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog's body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.”41 Other stories include a woman who cuts up an American flag and uses it to clean up her bathroom, a son who breaks his promise to his dying mother to visit her grave every week, a brother and sister who make love to each other,42 and a man who has sexual intercourse with a dead chicken and then eats it.43 The respondents upon reading the stories know the actions are wrong, but they are also morally dumbfounded in that they are not able to provide reasons for their judgments of disapproval.44

Just like these stories, we sometimes in the workplace automatically and without any real reflection just know what is right or wrong through our intuitions or “gut sense.” When we are asked to cover up mistakes that cause harm to our clients, we automatically and intuitively

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

sense this is wrong. When we see our firm pollute the natural environment, we know this is wrong without reflecting on it. When employees are denied breaks or are required to work on a religious holiday, we intuitively sense this is wrong. As part of the non-rationalist approach to ethical decision making, some argue that intuition should be considered central or “sovereign” to the ethical moral judgment stage of ethical decision making:45 for these theorists, if moral reasoning takes place at all, it happens after the intuitive judgment has already been reached. In this sense, reasoning is retroactive in nature, in that it is used primarily to rationalize previous judgments and not to arrive at those judgments.46 One way to express the intuitive process is by saying: “I don't know, I can't explain it; I just know it's wrong.”47

In the case of receiving an expensive bottle of wine as a gift from a supplier, our inner intuitive sense or gut instinct may simply raise an ethical red flag that there is something possibly wrong in accepting the gift, even if we are not certain exactly why.

Emotions The second mental process that impacts the moral judgment stage of ethical decision making is emotion. While for many years the main focus of most ethical decision-making research was on the moral reasoning process, emotion (along with intuition) continues to receive more attention in the literature.48 Emotion tends to be defined broadly but for our purposes is defined as follows:

Emotion: a person's positive or negative “feeling state” that arises from the appraisal of an arousing situation.49

Emotions can vary in intensity from mild to intense. The sorts of emotions that have been suggested to impact ethical decision making include: anger, anxiety, compassion, disgust, distress, dominance, embarrassment, empathy, fear, grief, guilt, hope, humiliation, love, meaninglessness, mercy, pride, regret, remorse, responsibility, sadness, shame, and sympathy.50 Several of these emotions have been considered to be moral emotions, in the sense that they more directly relate to ethical decision making. Moral emotions can be categorized into: (i) prosocial emotions which promote morally good behavior such as empathy, sympathy, concern, or compassion; (ii) self-blame emotions such as guilt, shame, and embarrassment; or (iii) other-blame emotions, such as contempt, anger, and disgust.51 In many cases, emotion might be the first response when faced with an ethical situation or dilemma.52

In order to understand better how emotion can impact our moral judgments, consider the following example, known as the “runaway trolley” dilemma:

A runaway trolley is headed for five people who will be killed if it proceeds on the present course. The only way to save them is to hit a switch that will turn the trolley onto an alternate set of tracks where it will kill one person instead of five. Should you turn the trolley to save five people at the expense of one?53

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Did you hit the switch and turn the trolley onto a different track? Most people say “yes” and approve of turning the trolley to a different track. One explanation provided is that since the dilemma is “impersonal” in nature, no emotional response is triggered. Individuals can then fully engage in a moral reasoning process not impeded by emotion by simply reflecting on the consequences of the two alternatives. When this reasoning process takes place, most people determine that it is morally acceptable to kill one person in order to save the lives of five other people. The second version of the dilemma, however, is as follows:

A trolley threatens to kill five people. You are standing next to a large stranger on a footbridge spanning the tracks, in-between the oncoming trolley and the hapless five. This time, the only way to save them is to push this stranger off the bridge and onto the tracks below. He will die if you do this, but his body will stop the trolley from reaching the others. Should you save the five others by pushing this stranger to his death?54

Would you push the stranger off the bridge to save the lives of five other people? Most people now disapprove of the action of saving five people by pushing a stranger to his death. Although there is no consequential difference between the first and second versions of the dilemma, we respond differently due to the harm or violence resulting from the more personal act of actually physically and directly pushing someone to their death. When we think about this more personal involvement, a negative emotional response of disgust is triggered in most people, leading to a judgment of moral disapproval of the act regardless of the fact that additional lives will now be lost.55

Just as our emotions affect how we feel about pushing someone to save the lives of others, our emotions can impact how we behave in the workplace and therefore they are considered an important part of the Integrated-EDM model. Several researchers have attempted to explain the relationship between emotion and ethical decision making. Some directly link emotion to intuition with little emphasis placed on reason.56 Others suggest that emotion can facilitate the reasoning process by acting as a regulator of our conduct.57 Various emotions such as empathy, guilt, or anger may also impact other stages of the ethical decision-making process in addition to moral judgment, such as the intention stage by creating a motivation to act.58 Now that we understand the different ways in which emotion can influence the ethical decision-making process, let's look at the various types of moral emotions and how they might influence behavior in the workplace.

Pro-social emotions such as empathy can lead to intuitive judgments or “affect-laden intuitions,” often referred to as “gut feelings” about the rightness or wrongness of certain actions.59 As a manager I might feel empathy towards an employee who is facing serious health and financial issues, which might impact how I handle a situation where the employee in dire straits has engaged in misconduct or needs to be fired. When senior executives of business firms see actual pictures of the injuries their products have caused to their consumers rather than simply reading reports, or when they actually meet the families of the victims, the emotion of empathy might trigger taking responsibility to ensure similar injuries won't happen again to someone else. While pro-social or positive emotions such as empathy are generally associated with ethical behavior, it may also be the case that positive emotions can arise following

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

unethical behavior such as cheating, which can then reinforce and contribute to additional future unethical behavior.60

Self-blame emotions such as embarrassment and guilt can also be a powerful motivator of ethical behavior in the workplace. For these emotions, we might not act a certain way because we would expect to be embarrassed if our actions were discovered or because we would simply feel guilty. When I ask my students whether they would inform a friend about a job position during a difficult job market when the friend would be more likely to get the job offer, the majority of students indicate they would tell their friend. For some of these students, the feelings of guilt they would experience if they did not inform their friend and then got the job plays a role in their decision making. Unfortunately, however, we are not always able to foresee the shame and embarrassment we later experience from acting unethically.

Consider these examples. According to Nick Leeson, who went to jail for over four years for fraud and illegal trading after financially crippling his employer Barings Bank, his overwhelming emotion looking back on his fraud was one of embarrassment, rather than shame or remorse. Leeson states: “You go through them all. But the lasting one for me is embarrassment. Because it's the complete opposite of what I wanted. I'd want to be remembered for my successes rather than my failures, but nothing that I do is probably ever going to change that.”61 Bernie Madoff only later realized his fraudulent actions under his Ponzi scheme were problematic in terms of the shame he ultimately caused to his family. After receiving his 150 year sentence, Madoff said: “I've left a legacy of shame to my family and my grandchildren that is something that I will live with for the rest of my life.”62

In addition to pro-social and self-blame emotions, we might also experience other-blame emotions such as anger or disgust. When we experience other-blame emotions, we tend to act in a less rational manner, and can end up acting unethically as a result. If a manager is observed unnecessarily disparaging an employee, a feeling of anger or disgust might arise among the employee's co-workers. These feelings might then cause the employee's co-workers to act improperly by no longer returning the “evil” manager's emails or no longer fully informing the manager about relevant matters. Feelings of anger towards other employees or the firm itself might even lead to unethical acts of revenge or sabotage. If I have just been fired for what I believe are unjust reasons, I might be tempted due to anger to speak badly about the company to others, take some clients with me, or fail to properly train my successor. If I feel the emotions of envy or resentment towards work colleagues who are paid more than me for the same performance, then I might tend to believe that I am entitled to pad my expense account.63

In other cases, our other-blame emotions might simply trigger our initial moral awareness. For example, I may feel anger and disgust when I discover that a colleague is watching pornography while at work, or that my firm is selling defective and dangerous goods to unknowing consumers, or that my manager has stolen confidential information from our competitors. This initial moral awareness may then lead to a moral judgment driven by the emotions of anger and disgust that such behavior is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Finally, some individuals can be considered to be psychopathic. Psychopaths are able to engage repeatedly in criminal and unethical behavior without any feeling of remorse, sympathy, or empathy for those who have been victimized. For these psychopathic employees or managers, emotions would not play a role in their decision making, and while they may be capable of rational thinking and knowing the rules of social behavior, they do not care about the consequences of their actions.64 While only representing approximately 1% of the population, corporate psychopaths with their lack of emotion can potentially cause great damage within firms and have even been blamed for contributing to the global financial crisis.65

Returning to our initial example, it's not clear whether we would have any sort of emotional response to being given an expensive bottle of wine from a current supplier, other than feelings of pleasure and gratitude. But these feelings would not be moral emotions per se, and would therefore not likely play a role in our ethical decision-making process other than relating to our self-interest. If, however, we anticipate experiencing feelings of guilt or embarrassment at the thought of having our actions discovered by others, then we might decide it would be best not to accept the gift.

Reason The Integrated-EDM model considers the moral reasoning process to be just as important as intuition and emotion66 and not limited to merely after-the-fact rationalization as some theorists suggest.67 Moral reasoning is defined as follows:

Moral reasoning: the conscious and deliberate application of moral standards to a situation in order to reach a moral judgment.

The moral reasoning process is considered to have several features. It is effortful, non- automatic, slow, inferential, methodological, and involves the application of moral standards to a situation. There are multiple steps in the process, and the person engaged in moral reasoning is potentially aware of and in control of the thought process. For example, in deciding whether to dismiss a colleague who is also considered a close friend, a more deliberative moral reasoning process may take place, leading to a particular moral judgment.

In the case of receiving an expensive bottle of wine from a current supplier, several moral standards would potentially be considered. Initially, self-interest would likely push us to accept the gift, which would necessarily come into conflict with other moral standards. If we are morally aware, we might ask or reflect upon additional issues such as: “By accepting the wine, am I creating a conflict of interest so that I would no longer be acting in a trustworthy and loyal manner towards my firm?” “Would accepting the gift be unfair to the other potential suppliers?” “Are the net benefits of accepting the gift positive for everyone involved?”

If there is a conflict among the moral standards (e.g., consequences versus duties) or competing stakeholder claims, then this conflict would need to be worked out leading to an overall moral

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

judgment on the ethical acceptability of receiving the gift. More complex ethical dilemmas would presumably lead to a more challenging moral reasoning process, the proper resolution of which may require stronger moral competence.

Integration As can be seen in Figure 2.1, the Integrated-EDM model suggests that all three mental processes (intuition, emotion, and reason), are each involved in the moral judgment process. This is in line with a growing number of researchers who are indicating the importance of including what has been referred to as the dual process of both reason and emotion/intuition in any ethical decision-making model.68 Despite this development, very few studies provide a clear visual depiction of the influence of reason, intuition, and emotion on ethical decision making.69

While the actual degree of influence of reason, intuition, and emotion and the sequencing or nature of the interaction remain open for debate and further research,70 virtually everyone now agrees that both approaches play a role in ethical decision making.71 The relationships between emotion and intuition upon each other, as well as on moral judgment and intention, should therefore be indicated in any comprehensive ethical decision-making model. As indicated by a proponent of the intuitionist approach:

The debate between rationalism and intuitionism is an old one, but the divide between the two approaches may not be unbridgeable. Both sides agree that people have emotions and intuitions, engage in reasoning, and are influenced by each other. The challenge, then, is to specify how these processes fit together. Rationalist models do this by focusing on reasoning and then discussing the other processes in terms of their effects on reasoning. Emotions matter because they can be inputs to reasoning … The social intuitionist model proposes a very different arrangement, one that fully integrates reasoning, emotion, intuition, and social influence.72

Yet despite the claim of “fully” integrating reason, emotion, and intuition, intuitionists clearly make reason play a secondary role to intuition in a potential two-stage process, highlighting its lack of importance to ethical decision making.73 As opposed to other ethical decision-making models, the Integrated-EDM model equally incorporates intuition, emotion, and reason along with their potential interrelationships as part of a neuro-cognitive-affective process as depicted in Figure 2.1.

To relate this to popular culture, each of the two approaches to ethical decision making would be aligned with a different character in the popular science fiction television and movie series Star Trek. First Officer Mister Spock with his use of reason and logic to guide decision making would be considered a rationalist, while Doctor Leonard “Bones” McCoy with his reliance on emotion would be considered a sentimentalist or non-rationalist. Captain James T. Kirk with his gut instincts or intuitions would also be considered a non-rationalist. One might note that together Spock, McCoy, and Kirk make a (hypothetical) formidable decision-making team, and it may be that depending on the issue, a proper combination of intuition, emotion, and

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

reason can ultimately lead to the most appropriate ethical decisions in the workplace supported by a sufficient motivation to act.74 Reflecting a common divide in philosophy, one other way of perceiving the different approaches to decision making is that rationality can be associated with the “head”, while intuition or emotion can be associated with the “heart.”75

Table 2.1 provides a summary of some of the key features that have been suggested to distinguish between the non-rationalist approach (i.e., intuition/emotion) and the rationalist approach (i.e., reason) to ethical decision making.76

Table 2.1 Non-rationalist vs rationalist approaches to ethical decision making. Source: Haidt, J. 2001. Reproduced with the permission of the American Psychological Association.

Non-Rationalist Approach/System(Intuition/Emotion)

Rationalist Approach/System (Reason)

System 1 System 2 System X (reflexive) System C (higher order conscious) “Hot” system (emotions) “Cold” system (reason) Effortless Effortful Automatic, Rapidity, Fast, Immediate Non-automatic, Slow Non-inferential Inferential Moral sense, Gut reactions, Moral sentiments/emotions

Application of moral rules to a situation

Mental habits, Flashes of insight, Seems/seemings

Methodical

One step mental process Multiple step mental process, Sequential Self-evident truths, Engrained or innate moral judgments

Rules govern cognitive process

Evaluative instincts (not behavioral) Potentially aware of and in control of the process

Emotionally-valenced intuition, Feels/feelings Emotions influence but do not cause moral judgments

Process is unintentional and not controllable Process is intentional and controllable Process is inaccessible; only results enter awareness

Process is consciously accessible and viewable

Does not demand attentional resources Demands attentional resources, which are limited

Common to all mammals Unique to humans over age 2 Context dependent Context independent

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Moral consultation One additional potential process that can impact our judgment, intention, or behavior is that of moral consultation. Moral consultation is defined as follows:

Moral consultation: the active process of reviewing ethics-related documentation (e.g., codes of ethics) or discussing to any extent our situation with others in order to receive guidance or feedback in relation to the ethical dilemma we are facing.

While it is clear that not all individuals will engage with others in helping to determine the appropriate course of action when facing an ethical dilemma, any degree of discussion with colleagues, managers, family members, friends, or an ethics officer, or the review of ethics documentation, would constitute moral consultation.

Moral consultation as a procedural step of ethical decision making, while not incorporated into the dominant ethical decision-making models, is referred to by some ethical decision-making theorists.77 For example, in the intuitionist model individuals are referred to as being influenced or persuaded through their social interactions with others and that most moral change happens as a result of social interaction.78 Moral consultation should be considered particularly important in an organizational setting given that firms often encourage and provide opportunities to their employees to discuss and seek ethical guidance from others or from ethics documentation.79 While moral consultation is generally expected to improve ethical decision making, the opposite might also occur. We may discover through discussion that “unethical” behavior is considered acceptable to others potentially increasing the likelihood of acting in an unethical manner.

In the case of our example of receiving the gift of the expensive bottle of wine, moral consultation can take place when we discuss the matter with our work colleagues, managers, or friends, and then listen to their opinion. We could also simply refer to the industry or firm's code of ethics or other policies. For example, the firm's code of ethics may indicate that employees should not place themselves in a conflict of interest situation which would imply the gift should not be accepted. Even though we might consult others or a code of ethics, however, this does not guarantee that the guidance received will necessarily be followed.

Intention Stage Our moral judgment (evaluation) whether based on emotion (feel), intuition (sense), moral reasoning (reflect), and/or moral consultation (confirm), may then lead to moral intention (commitment), which is defined as follows:

Moral intention: the commitment or motivation to act according to our moral judgment.80

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Once a moral intention to act is formed, the likelihood increases that ethical behavior (action) will follow (see Figure 2.1). Whether we reach a proper moral judgment and moral intention to act is often determined by the extent to which various impediments or barriers interfere with our rational thought process. These impediments will be discussed further in Chapter 3, which can also be observed in Figure 2.1. Once moral intention is reached, we have essentially prioritized ethical values over other concerns such as our self-interest.

We want, however, to be very careful to distinguish between intention and behavior. The following well-known riddle might help illustrate the difference: if there are three birds sitting on a wire, and two birds decide to fly away, how many birds are left on the wire? We might want to answer that only one bird is left sitting on the wire, but the actual correct response is that all three birds are left sitting on the wire. The two birds did not actually leave yet, although they did “decide” or intend to leave. There are many people who have good intentions to act a certain way, but are unable to follow through with the intended behavior due to weak moral character in terms of having a weak moral identity, a low level of moral willpower, or insufficient moral courage. We may intend to let the supplier know they should not have sent us the bottle of expensive wine and return it to them, but we simply never get around to it and bring the bottle of wine home to enjoy instead.

Moral Behavior Stage Each of the above processes (i.e., emotion, intuition, reason, and consultation) can impact moral judgment either directly or following interaction with eachother, leading to forming an intention to act, and then potentially to behavior. Ethical behavior is defined as follows:

Ethical behavior: action that is supported by one or more moral standards.

The behavior can either relate to “proscriptive” acts such as avoiding harming others or “prescriptive” actions which involve doing good for others.81 While we often think of behavior as being either ethical or unethical, we also need to realize that behavior can be of different degrees of “rightness” or “wrongness” or “goodness” or “badness.” In other words, rather than behavior either being only good or bad or right or wrong, instead there is a spectrum or continuum of what has been referred to as “ethicality.”82 In other words, some actions can be judged as being extremely unethical, while others might be seen as highly ethical.83 Most actions or behavior fall somewhere in between these extremes.84

Here are the various categories of ethicality with examples from least ethical to most ethical: “ethically reprehensible” or “evil” such as knowingly selling a defective and dangerous consumer product; “ethically unacceptable” such as engaging in insider trading or padding expense accounts; “ethically questionable” such as receiving a gift from a current supplier; “ethically tolerable” such as occasionally surfing on the internet for personal matters while at work; “ethically permissible” such as bluffing during negotiations; “ethically acceptable” such as infrequently leaving work a bit early to take care of one's children; “ethically

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

commendable” or desirable such as disclosing a minor mistake to a client that would not have been discovered; or “ethically praiseworthy” or even heroic, such as blowing the whistle on misconduct despite the risk of personal repercussions.85

Accepting an expensive bottle of wine from a current supplier would likely be considered at the very least ethically “questionable.” If there is a company policy against employees placing themselves in a conflict of interest situation or the employee is a decision maker regarding the supplier, then accepting the wine would more clearly be ethically unacceptable. The fact that no one is directly harmed means that the act is not ethically reprehensible in nature.86 Figure 2.3 depicts what might be considered an “ethicality continuum.”

Figure 2.3 Ethicality continuum.

Feedback loops Potential feedback loops represent the final procedural step in the Integrated-EDM model. Behavior may be followed by perceived positive or negative consequences to others or to ourselves through rewards or punishments/sanctions for the decision made or actions taken. When the consequences are observed by the decision maker, learning involving internal retrospection over our actions can take place. Learning is defined as follows:

Learning: the process of understanding and internalizing the impacts of our decisions.

Learning may affect our individual moral character and thereby the decision-making process the next time an ethical dilemma arises. We have all stayed awake at night reflecting on our decisions and experiences of the previous day.87 The learning might be either positive or negative, for example we might determine that acting in an unethical manner was worth the risks taken, or that acting ethically was not worth the personal costs suffered. In either case, such realizations might impact future decision making. When learning does not take place, this can be referred to as moral amnesia, or the habitual inability to remember or learn from one's own and others' past mistakes and the failure to transfer that knowledge when new ethical challenges arise.88 Similar feedback loops including consequences and learning are included in several (but not all) ethical decision-making models. For example, one model refers to “evaluation of behavior”,89 while another model refers to “actual consequences” which is the “major learning construct in the model” which feeds back to our “personal experiences.”90

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Another model refers to the feedback loop as our “ethical decision history.”91

One additional feedback loop of the Integrated-EDM model (see Figure 2.1) flows from behavior to awareness, in that only after we act (e.g., telling a white lie, fudging an account) we may realize that there were ethical implications that ought to have been considered (i.e., if there was originally a lack of awareness) or that the matter ought to have been considered differently. The original issue or dilemma may then potentially be judged again based on any of the processes (i.e., emotion, intuition, reason, and/or consultation) leading to a different judgment and new behavior (e.g., admission of fault, apology, steps to fix the mistake, etc.).

In terms of receiving a gift of a bottle of expensive wine from a supplier, we might learn from the experience of accepting the wine that it was a mistake, in that the supplier now has an expectation of having the supply relationship continue. At the very least, we may realize after the fact that we have created a perceived conflict of interest by our colleagues if they discover that we have received an expensive bottle of wine and then believe we might be influenced in our future decision making regarding this supplier. Based on this learning, we might rethink the entire decision-making process, or our moral character might adjust so that in the future we are better able to self-sanction ourselves from receiving expensive gifts from suppliers.

Basic propositions In general, according to the Integrated-EDM model, ethical behavior is assumed to be more likely to take place when there is strong individual moral character, strong issue characteristics (high level of moral intensity and importance with a lack of complexity), strong ethical corporate culture (including weak perceived opportunity with strong sanctions for unethical behavior), along with weak personal constraints (weak perceived need for personal gain, sufficient time and financial resources). Unethical behavior tends to take place when there is weak individual moral character (weak capability and weak commitment leading to a high degree of ethical vulnerability to situational pressures), weak issue characteristics (weak issue intensity and importance along with a high level of issue complexity), weak ethical corporate culture (including strong perceived opportunities, weak sanctions, along with strong authority pressures and peer influence to engage in unethical behavior), and strong personal constraints (strong perceived need for personal gain and time pressures).92

Going back to our case of gift giving or receiving, the employee who refuses the expensive bottle of wine from a supplier likely has strong moral character along with a weak personal “need for gain” at the time (or simply doesn't like wine). The firm more likely has a strong ethical corporate culture with clear guidelines on gift giving and receiving that has been well communicated to employees through proper training or communication of the policy, with strong sanctions for acting improperly. Figure 2.4 summarizes the basic propositions of the Integrated-EDM model. The arrows between the various individual factors (moral character) and situational factors (ethical corporate culture, issue characteristics, and personal constraints) suggests that there is a continuum of strength (“weak” to “strong”) for each set of factors.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Figure 2.4 Factors leading to ethical/unethical behavior.

In Table 2.2 the definitions of the various process stages and their relationships with other Integrated-EDM model constructs and stages are summarized.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Table 2.2 Integrated ethical decision-making process stages and constructs. Source: Schwartz, M.S. 2016. Reproduced with the permission of Springer.

Process Stages

Definition and Relationship with Other Integrated-EDM Concepts and Stages

Moral awareness

The point in time when an individual realizes that they are facing a situation requiring a decision or action that could the affect the interests, welfare, or expectations of oneself or others in a manner that may conflict with one or more moral standards.93

Lack of moral awareness

The state of not realizing that a dilemma has moral implications. Leads to unintentional ethical or unethical behavior.94

Moral judgment

Determination of the ethically appropriate course of action among alternatives. Activates the moral intention stage.95

Intuition A cognitive process involving an automatic and reflexive reaction leading to an initial moral judgment. Can lead to moral judgment directly.96 Can also impact emotion97 or moral reasoning when there are unclear or conflicting intuitions.98

Emotion A feeling state. Can impact judgment directly.99 Can also impact the moral reasoning process100 or trigger intuitions.101

Reason The conscious and deliberate application of moral standards to a situation in order to reach a moral judgment. Can impact moral judgment directly.102 Reason (“cool system”) can also control emotions (“hot system”).103 Reason through “private reflection” can lead to a new intuition.104

Moral consultation

Discussing to any extent an ethical dilemma with others or the review of ethical documentation (e.g., codes). Takes place after initial awareness, but could also take place after behavior.

Moral intention

The commitment or motivation to act according to our moral values. Affects moral behavior and can lead to moral consultation.105

Ethical behavior

Action that is supported by one or more moral standards. Can be intentional (moral awareness) or unintentional (lack of moral awareness). Typically follows moral judgment and/or moral intention.106

Learning The process of understanding and internalizing the impacts of our decisions. Can impact our moral character for future decisions.107

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Chapter Summary This chapter outlines an Integrated Ethical Decision-Making model by building on previous theoretical models, and attempts to illustrate the anatomy or basic structure of ethical decision making. It does so by merging together the key processes, factors, and theories, including intuition, emotion, and moral reasoning along with the key individual and situational variables. The proposed integrated model might be considered to take a person–situation interactionist approach108 reflected in Chapter 1 along with an intuition/sentimentalist– rationalist approach109 to moral judgment as described in this chapter. As research suggests: “Most all of us may commit unethical behaviors, given the right circumstances.”110 The possibility of lacking moral awareness is taken into account, as are key precursors (i.e., moral norms) and subsequent processes (i.e., learning) to ethical decision making.

Obviously, the proposed ethical decision-making model remains subject to further criticism, leading to the need to be further modified as new ethical decision-making research is generated.111 However, despite its limitations, what has been proposed in this chapter hopefully represents a more robust and comprehensive model that captures the ethical decision-making process undertaken by most people in most situations.112 Now that we have reviewed the ethical decision-making process in terms of the stages we tend to go through, we turn in Chapter 3 to a discussion of the impediments or barriers that hinder or prevent proper ethical decision making.

Notes 1. O'Fallon and Butterfield (2005, p. 399).

2. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008, p. 593).

3. See: Liedka (1989, p. 805); Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008, p. 584). The challenges and complexity of ethical decision making have led some researchers to suggest a “punch bowl” or “garbage can” approach, which assumes that researchers will never know exactly what takes place leading to ethical judgments in that only what goes into or out of the process is capable of being analyzed (see: Schminke, 1998, p. 207).

4. The model presented in this chapter attempts to illustrate how ethical decision making takes place, and is therefore essentially descriptive in nature. Of course, no decision-making model can be completely descriptive, as the model likely reflects my own norms and values to some extent. Later on, Chapter 4 provides a normative ethical decision-making model (or “how to” make ethical decisions), by incorporating several key moral standards and ethical decision-making tests into the moral judgment stage of the ethical decision-making process.

5. The essential process framework is Rest's (1986) “Four-Component” model of ethical decision making which is described in more detail in Appendix B.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

6. Treviño (1986).

7. Ferrell and Gresham (1985); Hunt and Vitell (1986); Treviño (1986); Randall (1989); Jones (1991); Brass et al. (1998).

8. The firm's informal ethical culture should be considered distinct from organizational-level norms although there would clearly be a relationship between them.

9. For example, the market system within which business operates (e.g., capitalistic versus a command economy) certainly has an important influence on environmental norms. Social media can also significantly impact environmental norms. The way in which environmental norms are established, despite the importance of this process is, however, beyond the scope of this book.

10. Haidt (2001).

11. See: Rest (1986). Rest's model was heavily influenced by Kohlberg (1973).

12. Butterfield et al. (2000).

13. Hannah et al. (2011).

14. Tenbrunsel et al. (2003); Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008).

15. There is, however, a risk of moral awareness being confounded with moral judgment, especially when the definition of moral awareness includes consideration of one or more ethical standards (see: Reynolds, 2006a, p. 233).

16. Rest (1986).

17. Jones (1991, p. 383).

18. Sonenshein (2007, p. 1026).

19. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008).

20. Carroll (1987) refers to “amoral managers”, who can either act intentionally or unintentionally. Unintentional amoral managers “… do not think about business activity in ethical terms. These managers are simply casual about, careless about, or inattentive to the fact that their decisions and actions may have negative or deleterious effects on others. These managers lack ethical perception and moral awareness; that is, they blithely go through their organizational lives not thinking that what they are doing has an ethical dimension to it. They may be well intentioned but are either too insensitive or egocentric to consider the impacts on others of their behavior” (Carrroll, 1987, p. 11).

21. Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004, p. 224).

22. Palazzo et al. (2012, p. 324).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

23. Palazzo et al. (2012, p. 325).

24. Gioia (1992, p. 383).

25. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008); Dedeke (2015).

26. Sonenshein (2007). Given its importance to unethical decision making, the process of non- moral framing will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

27. Drumwright and Murphy (2004, p. 7).

28. This can also take place due to moral muting, which involves managers who “… avoid moral expressions in their communications …” (Bird and Waters, 1989, p. 75). In other words, managers tend to frame morally defined objectives in terms of “organizational interests” and “economic good sense” (Bird and Waters, 1989, p. 73).

29. See: Sims and Brinkmann (2003).

30. Reynolds (2008, p. 1027).

31. Ruedy and Schweitzer (2010, p. 73).

32. For example, mindful individuals may feel less compelled to explain away, ignore, or rationalize ideas that might be potentially threatening to self-interest, such as a potential bias or a conflict of interest. See: Ruedy and Schweitzer (2010, p. 76).

33. Werhane (1998).

34. See: Werhane (1998; 1999). Werhane (1999, p. 5) defines moral imagination as follows: “Moral imagination entails the ability to understand [a particular] context or set of activities from a number of different perspectives, the actualizing of new possibilities that are not context-dependent, and the instigation of the process of evaluating those possibilities from a moral point of view.” Moral imagination as a process of reframing or disengaging from one's context or situation can also assist in avoiding the roles, mental models, moral boundaries, or biases that impede ethical decision making which are discussed next in Chapter 3.

35. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008); Jackson et al. (2013).

36. Haidt (2001) is the key proponent of the non-rationalist approach to ethical decision making, while Rest (1986) is the primary proponent of the rationalist approach.

37. Haidt (2001); Reynolds (2006b); Dedeke (2015).

38. Haidt (2001, p. 816).

39. See: Reynolds (2006b).

40. See: Haidt et al. (1993, p. 617).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

41. See: Haidt et al. (1993, p. 617).

42. Haidt (2001, p. 814) presents the following situation, which is designed to avoid any ethical issues: “Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are travelling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it OK for them to make love?” Most respondents find the activity to be “wrong”, but are unable to present reasons for this.

43. See: Haidt et al. (1993, p. 617).

44. See: Haidt (2001).

45. Haidt (2001).

46. Saltzstein and Kasachkoff (2004, p. 276).

47. Haidt (2001, p. 814).

48. Haidt (2001); Greene et al. (2001); Sonenshein (2007).

49. See: Gaudine and Thorne (2001, p. 176). There appears to be some disagreement over the relationship and differences between emotions, moods, and affective personality traits.

50. See: Haidt (2001, pp. 824–825); Agnihotri et al. (2012). For a review of the research on guilt, shame, empathy, and moods in relation to morality, see: Eisenberg (2000). Damasio (1994) has also provided support linking emotion and its biological underpinnings to decision making. See: Agnihotri et al. (2012, p. 246) for a summary of the ethical decision- making theoretical and empirical studies on emotion.

51. See: Prinz and Nichols (2010).

52. Haidt et al. (1993).

53. See: Foot (1978, pp. 19–32); Thomson (1985).

54. See: Thomson (1985).

55. Greene (2007).

56. Haidt (2001). Most appear to agree that intuitions are typically based upon or triggered by emotions. One view suggests that “The difference between intuitions and emotions … seems to be that intuitions are behavioral guides or evaluations that directly follow from an emotional experience” (Monin et al., 2007, p. 101). Others refer to intuitive judgments as “… affectively charged, given that such judgments often involve emotions”

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

and are “… detached from rationality” (Dane and Pratt, 2007, pp. 38–39). Another view is that: “The operations of [intuition] are typically fast, automatic, effortless, associative, implicit (not available to introspection), and often emotionally charged” (Kahneman, 2003, p. 698).

57. See: Damasio (1994); Elfenbein (2007, p. 348). One way to explain the relationship between emotion and reason is by describing emotions as the “hot system” (“go”), which can undermine efforts to self-control one's behavior. In contrast, the “cool system” (“know”) which is cognitive, contemplative, and emotionally neutral can potentially control the “hot system” through what is referred to as “moral willpower” (Metcalfe and Mischel, 1999).

58. See: Rest (1986); Eisenberg (2000); Gaudine and Thorne (2001); Huebner et al. (2009).

59. Toffler (1986).

60. See: Ruedy et al. (2013).

61. See: Esther Addley, “Nick Leeson on Banking: Extremely Competitive … and Improperly Policed”, The Guardian, February 23, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/23/nick-leeson-banking-industry- extremely-competitive-improperly-policed (accessed 29 August 2016).

62. See: Sinclair Stewart, “Madoff Jailed 150 Years for ‘Massive’ Fraud”, The Globe and Mail, June 29, 2009, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/madoff-jailed- 150-years-for-massive-fraud/article4296656/(accessed 29 August 2016).

63. This is part of the moral rationalization process that will be discussed further in Chapter 3.

64. See: Haidt (2001, p. 824). For a full account regarding psychopaths, see: Babiak and Hare (2006) who suggest that psychopaths are the result of both nature (genetic) and nurture (environment).

65. See: Boddy (2011).

66. Saltzstein and Kasachkoff (2004).

67. Haidt (2001).

68. See: Marquardt and Hoeger (2009); Elm and Radin (2012). For example, Woiceshyn (2011, p. 313, emphasis added) states: “Following the developments in cognitive neuroscience and neuroethics (Salvador and Folger, 2009) and paralleling the general decision-making literature (Dane and Pratt, 2007), most researchers have since come to hold a so-called dual processing model of ethical decision making.” One ethical decision- making study was identified that shows the links between reason, intuition, and emotion, referred to as a “cognitive-intuitionist” model of moral decision making (Dedeke, 2015). In the model, intuitions are referred to as reflexive “automatic cognitions”, which may or may

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

not interact with “automatic emotions”. This interaction is considered part of the “pre- processing” process which often takes place and is then “… subject to review and update by the moral reflection/reasoning process” (Dedeke, 2015, p. 446). Emotion can also “sabotage” the moral reflection stage for some people and thus an “emotional control variable” is proposed “… that enables an individual to … modify … their feelings stages” (Dedeke, 2015, p. 448). The “cognitive-intuitionist” integrative model recognizes and captures the importance of moving future ethical decision-making theory in a more integrative manner, in other words, one that incorporates reason, intuition, and emotion into the ethical decision-making process.

69. One model includes reason (or reasoning) as well as intuition in the schematic social intuitionist model, although as indicated above, reason serves primarily a post hoc rationalization function and emotion (or affect) appears to be comingled with intuition (Haidt, 2001). Another approach proposes a two-system model which also includes both intuition (the reflexive X-system) and reason (the higher order conscious reasoning C- system) but appears to have left out the impact of emotion (Reynolds, 2006b). Another researcher also attempts to integrate reason and intuition but does not explicitly include emotion (Woiceshyn, 2011). Others focus more on emotion and ignore intuition by visually depicting the influence of emotion on the four ethical decision-making stages (Gaudine and Thorne, 2001). Other fields, such as social psychology, have attempted to merge intuition and reason together schematically (Strack and Deutsch, 2004).

70. See: Dane and Pratt (2007).

71. Some have argued that the debate over reason versus intuition/emotion is actually based on whether one is experiencing a moral dilemma requiring a reasoning process, versus an affective or emotion-laden process based on reacting to a shocking situation such as considering the prospect of eating one's own dog (Monin et al., 2007, p. 99).

72. Haidt (2001, p. 828).

73. See: Saltzstein and Kasachkoff (2004).

74. See: Shaw (2004).

75. See: Dane and Pratt (2007, p. 39).

76. Table 2.1 is partly based on Haidt (2001, p. 818) and Wright (2005) who discuss the contrasts between the two approaches/systems. See also: Kahneman (2011), who distinguishes between “System 1” thinking (fast/intuitive/emotional) and “System 2” thinking (slow/deliberative/logical).

77. See: Sonenshein (2007); Hamilton and Knouse (2011). Even Aristotle held that in making ethically good decisions “we should respectively consider the opinions of people widely regarded as wise.” See: Hartman (2008, p. 318).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

78. Haidt (2007, p. 999).

79. Weaver and Treviño (1999); Stevens (2008).

80. Ethical intention is sometimes linked with ethical behavior as being part of the “same phenomenon” (Reynolds, 2006b, p. 741) or they can be combined together as representing one's “ethical choice” (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010, p. 2). It may be, therefore, that “intention” should be eliminated from Rest's (1986) four stage model, but might continue to act as a proxy for measuring judgment or behavior in ethical decision-making empirical research (see: Mencl and May, 2009, p. 205). For the purposes of the Integrated-EDM model, intention remains theoretically distinct from behavior.

81. See: Janoff-Bulman et al. (2009).

82. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008, pp. 553–554) refer to “the ethicality of a decision” in terms of the decision outcome being either ethical or unethical. Their proposed typology distinguishes between the process of decision making (“moral” or intended decision making versus “amoral” or unintended decision making) and decision outcome (ethical or unethical). Their typology can be used to evaluate decisions that are “intended unethical” as being worse than “unintended” or amoral decisions that have an unethical outcome.

83. See: Henderson (1984) for his version of a spectrum of ethicality in relation to minimum, maximum, and innovative legal and ethical compliance. Green (1994) also provides a type of spectrum of ethicality in terms of norms of acceptability, while Kaler (2000, p. 163) distinguishes between self-interest and morality as follows: egoism, quasi-egoism, quasi- moral, ordinarily moral, extraordinarily moral, and ultra-moral. One could also rate activity on its ethicality based on a simple scale of 1–10 from very unethical to very ethical (see: Prentice, 2014, p. 335).

84. Of course, the classification of a particular act in terms of where it then falls on the ethicality spectrum becomes much more complicated when the act involves ethical tradeoffs (e.g., duties versus consequences such as lying, cheating, stealing, or bribing in order to save a life or avoid physical injury) or different impacts on multiple stakeholders (e.g., harming someone to benefit others).

85. Kant (a philosopher whose duty-based ethics are discussed further in Chapter 4) makes a distinction between “perfect duties”, which must be performed all the time without exception such as telling the truth or keeping our promises, and “imperfect duties”, which can be fulfilled in different ways or at different times, such as the duty to help others. The failure to fulfill these two types of duties might also be situated on different ends of the ethicality spectrum. In addition to “forbidden”, “permissible”, and “required”, actions, “supererogatory” actions are those acts that “go beyond the call of duty” (e.g., actions that are morally heroic such as putting one's life at risk by saving a stranger who falls onto the subway tracks) which would be located on the extreme right hand side of the ethicality spectrum.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

86. Of course, other potential suppliers or the owners of the firm would be indirectly harmed if the best supplier is not being utilized as a result of the gift being received.

87. According to Reynolds (2006b, p. 742, emphasis added): “… anyone who has lain awake at night contemplating the experiences of the previous day knows that retrospection is a key component of the ethical experience ….”

88. See: Patricia H. Werhane and Brian Moriarty, “Moral Imagination and Management Decision Making”, Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics, 2009, p. 3, http://www.corporate-ethics.org/pdf/moral_imagination.pdf (accessed 29 August 2016).

89. Ferrell and Gresham (1985).

90. Hunt and Vitell (1986, p. 10).

91. Stead et al. (1990).

92. One way to combine several of the key factors discussed in this chapter is through the concept of “Personal Ethical Threshold” (or PET), which represents how ethically vulnerable an individual is to the situational factors in his or her organization. PET accounts for the interaction between an individual's moral character and various situational factors (e.g., organizational pressures, issue moral intensity, and personal financial pressures or opportunities for gain) leading to unethical behavior. See: Comer and Vega (2008).

93. Butterfield et al. (2000).

94. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008).

95. Rest (1996).

96. Haidt (2001).

97. Dedeke (2015).

98. Haidt (2001).

99. Greene et al. (2001).

100. Damasio (1994); Greene et al. (2001); Huebner et al. (2009).

101. Haidt (2001).

102. Kohlberg (1973).

103. Metcalfe and Mischel (1999).

104. Haidt (2001).

105. Rest (1986).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

106. Rest (1986).

107. Reynolds (2006b).

108. Treviño (1986).

109. Haidt (2001).

110. De Cremer et al. (2010, p. 2).

111. The proposed Integrated-EDM model contains a number of important limitations. In terms of scope, the Integrated-EDM model is focused on individual decision making and behavior, rather than organizational decision making, and is designed to apply mainly to the business context. One could argue that the model is overly rationalist in nature by continuing to rely on the four-component model (Rest, 1986) as the dominant framework to explain the ethical decision-making process. The manner and extent to which the variables and processes are depicted by the Integrated-EDM model as portrayed in Figure 2.1 can be criticized as being too all encompassing and thus lacking sufficient focus. It might on the other hand be criticized as failing to take into account other key variables or processes involved in ethical decision making that have been suggested in the literature. For example, the role of interpersonal processes (rather than intrapersonal processes) may not be sufficiently accounted for in the Integrated-EDM model despite recognizing the influence of peers/referent others, authority pressures, and the moral consultation process (see: Moore and Gino, 2013). Finally, each element of the Integrated-EDM model, including the individual and situational context variables as well as the relationship between and overlap among the variables and each of the process stages of ethical decision making, requires further detailed exploration and explication which hopefully further research will address.

112. Given the extent of theoretical and empirical research that has now taken place, ethical decision making in organizations might be considered to be moving towards developing into a “stand-alone” academic field. Whether this eventually takes place is primarily dependent on the strength of the theoretical ethical decision-making models being developed and tested by empirical ethical decision-making researchers. See: Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008, p. 545).

References Agnihotri, R., Rapp, J., Kothandaraman, P., and Singh, R.K. 2012. An emotion-based model of salesperson ethical behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109: 243–257.

Babiak, P. and Hare, R.D. 2006. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. New York: HarperCollins.

Bird, F.B. and Waters, G.A. 1989. The moral muteness of managers. California Management Review, 32: 73–78.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Boddy, C.R. 2011. The corporate psychopaths theory of the global financial crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 102: 255–259.

Brass, D.J., Butterfield, K.D., and Skaggs, B.C. 1998. Relationships and unethical behavior: a social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 14–31.

Butterfield, K.D., Treviño, L.K. and Weaver, G.R. 2000. Moral awareness in business organizations: influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53(7): 981–1018.

Carroll, A.B. 1987. In search of the moral manager. Business Horizons, 30(2): 7–15.

Comer, D.R. and Vega, G. 2008. Using the PET assessment instrument to help students identify factors that could impede moral behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 77: 129–145.

Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.

Dane, E. and Pratt, M.G. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 33–54.

De Cremer, D., Mayer, D.M., and Schminke, M. 2010. Guest Editors' introduction on understanding ethical behavior and decision making: a behavioral ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 1–6.

Dedeke, A. 2015. A cognitive-intuitionist model of moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126: 437–457.

Drumwright, M.E. and Murphy, P.E. 2004. How advertising practitioners view ethics: moral muteness, moral myopia, and moral imagination. Journal of Advertising, 33: 7–24.

Eisenberg, N. 2000. Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 665–697.

Elfenbein, H.A. 2007. Emotion in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1: 315–386.

Elm, D.R. and Radin, T.J. 2012. Ethical decision making: special or no different? Journal of Business Ethics, 107: 313–329.

Ferrell, O.C. and Gresham, L. 1985. A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49: 87–96.

Foot, P. 1978. Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Gaudine, A. and Thorne, L. 2001. Emotion and ethical decision-making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31: 175–187.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Gioia, D. 1992. Pinto fires and personal ethics: a script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 379–389.

Green, R.M. 1994. The Ethical Manager: A New Method for Business Ethics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Greene, J. 2007. Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11: 322–323.

Greene, J.D., Sommerville, R.B., Nystrom, L.E., Darley, J.M., and Cohen, J. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgement. Science, 293: 2105–2108.

Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 4: 814–834.

Haidt, J. 2007. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316: 998–1002.

Haidt, J., Koller, S., and Dias, M. 1993. Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 613–628.

Hamilton, J.B. III and Knouse, S.B. 2011. The experience-focused model of ethical action. In Emerging Perspectives on Organizational Justice and Ethics (S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner, and D.P. Skarlicki, eds). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 223–257.

Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B.J., and May, D.R. 2011. Moral maturation and moral conation: a capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management Review, 36: 663–685.

Hartman, E.M. 2008. Socratic questions and Aristotelian answers: a virtue-based approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 78: 313–328.

Henderson, V.E. 1984. The spectrum of ethicality. Journal of Business Ethics, 3: 163–171.

Huebner, B., Dwyer, S., and Hauser, M. 2009. The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13: 1–6.

Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S. 1986. A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6: 5–16.

Jackson, R.W., Wood, C.M., and Zboja, J.J. 2013. The dissolution of ethical decision-making in organizations: a comprehensive review and model. Journal of Business Ethics, 116: 233– 250.

Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., and Hepp, S. 2009. Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 521–537.

Jones, T.M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, 16: 366–395.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Kahneman, D. 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice. American Psychologist, 58: 697– 720.

Kahneman, D. 2011. Think Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kaler, J. 2000. Reasons to be ethical: self-interest and ethical business. Journal of Business Ethics, 27: 161–173.

Kish-Gephart, J.J., Detert, J., Treviño, L.K., Baker, V., and Martin, S. 2014. Situational moral disengagement: can the effects of self-interest be mitigated? Journal of Business Ethics, 125: 267–285.

Kohlberg, L. 1973. The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. The Journal of Philosophy, 70: 630–646.

Liedka, J.M. 1989. Value congruence: the interplay of individual and organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 8: 805–815.

Marquardt, N. and Hoeger, R. 2009. The effect of implicit moral attitudes on managerial decision-making: an implicit social cognition approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 85: 157– 171.

Mencl, J. and May, D.R. 2009. The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision- making: an exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85: 201–226.

Metcalfe, J. and Mischel, W. 1999. A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106: 3–19.

Monin, B., Pizarro, D.A., and Beer, J.S. 2007. Deciding versus reacting: conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect debate. Review of General Psychology, 11: 99–111.

Moore, G. and Gino, F. 2013. Ethically adrift: how others pull our moral compass from true north, and how we can fix it. Research in Organizational Behavior, 33: 53–77.

O'Fallon, M.J. and Butterfield, K.D. 2005. A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59: 375–413.

Palazzo, G., Krings, F., and Hoffrage, U. 2012. Ethical blindness. Journal of Business Ethics, 109: 323–338.

Prentice, R.A. 2014. Teaching behavioral ethics. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 31: 325–365.

Prinz, J. and Nichols, S. 2010. Moral emotions. In The Moral Psychology Handbook (J. M. Doris and The Moral Psychology Research Group, eds). Oxford Scholarship Online. www.oxfordsholarship.com.

Randall, D.M. 1989. Taking stock: can the theory of reasoned action explain unethical

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.oxfordsholarship.com

conduct? Journal of Business Ethics, 8: 873–882.

Rest, J.R. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Praeger.

Reynolds, S.J. 2006a. Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 233–243.

Reynolds, S.J. 2006b. A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: implications for study and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 737– 748.

Reynolds, S.J. 2008. Moral attentiveness: who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1027–1041.

Ruedy, N.E. and Schweitzer, M.E. 2011. In the moment: the effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95: 73–87.

Ruedy, N.E., Moore, C., Gino, F., and Schweitzer, M.E. 2013. The cheater's high: the unexpected affective benefits of unethical behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105: 531–548.

Saltzstein, H.D. and Kasachkoff, T. 2004. Haidt's Moral Intuitionist Theory: a psychological and philosophical critique. Review of General Psychology, 8: 273–282.

Salvador, R. and Folger, R.G. 2009. Business ethics and the brain. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 1–31.

Schminke, M. 1998. The magic punchbowl: a nonrational model of ethical management. In Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes (M. Schminke, ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 197–214.

Schwartz, M.S. 2016. Ethical decision-making theory: an integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139: 755–776.

Shaw, B. 2004. Hollywood ethics: developing ethics … Hollywood style. Journal of Business Ethics, 49: 167–177.

Sims, R.R. and Brinkmann, J. 2003. Enron ethics (or culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45: 243–256.

Sonenshein, S. 2007. The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: the Sensemaking-Intuition Model. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1022–1040.

Stead, W.E., Worrell, D.L., and Stead, J.G. 1990. An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9: 233–242.

Stevens, B. 2008. Corporate ethical codes: effective instruments for influencing behavior.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Journal of Business Ethics, 78: 601–609.

Strack, F. and Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 8: 220–247.

Tenbrunsel, A.E. and Messick, D.M. 2004. Ethical fading: the role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17: 223–236.

Tenbrunsel, A.E. and Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. Ethical decision making: where we've been and where we're going. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 545–607.

Tenbrunsel, A.E., Smith-Crowe, K., and Umphress, E. 2003. Building houses on rocks: the role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16: 285–307.

Thomson, J.J. 1985. The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94: 1395–1415.

Toffler, B.L. 1986. Tough Choices: Managers Talk Ethics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Treviño, L.K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: a person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11: 601–617.

Weaver, G.R. and Treviño, L.K. 1999. Compliance and values oriented ethics programs: influences on employees' attitudes and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9: 315–336.

Werhane, P.H. 1998. Moral imagination and the search for ethical decision-making in management. Business Ethics Quarterly, Ruffin Series (1): 75–98.

Werhane, P.H. 1999. Moral Imagination and Management Decision-Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

Woiceshyn, J. 2011. A model for ethical decision making in business: reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 104: 311–323.

Wright, J.C. 2005. The role of reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: a review. PhD Comprehensive Exam, University of Wyoming.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .