Week 3: Develop a Framework and Implement Strategic Planning

ANSWER TRUE OR FALSE: "I am an ethical manager."

If you answered "true," here's an uncomfortable fact: You're probably not. Most of us believe that we are ethical and unbiased. We imagine we're good decision makers, able to objectively size up a job candidate or a venture deal and reach a fair and rational conclusion that's in our, and our organization's, best interests. But more than two decades of research confirms that, in reality, most of us fall woefully short of our inflated self-perception. We're deluded by what Yale psychologist David Armor calls the illusion of objectivity, the notion that we're free of the very biases we're so quick to recognize in others. What's more, these unconscious, or implicit, biases can be con- trary to our consciously held, explicit beliefs. We may be- lieve with confidence and conviction that a job candi- date's race has no bearing on our hiring decisions or that we're immune to conflicts of interest But psychological research routinely exposes counterintentional, uncon-

scious biases. The prevalence of these biases suggests that even the most well-meaning person unwittingly allows unconscious thoughts and feelings to influence seemingly objective decisions. These flawed judgments are ethically problematic and undermine managers' fundamental work - t o recruit and retain superior talent, boost the per- formance of individuals and teams, and collaborate effec- tively with partners.

This article explores four related sources of uninten- tional unethical decision making: implicit forms of prej- udice, bias that favors one's own group, conflict of interest, and a tendency to overclaim credit. Because we are not consciously aware of these sources of bias, they often can- not be addressed by penalizing people for their bad de- cisions. Nor are they likely to be corrected through con- ventional ethics training. Rather, managers must bring a new type of vigilance to bear. To begin, this requires let- ting go of the notion that our conscious attitudes always represent what we think they do. It also demands that we

56 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

DECEMBER 2003 57

How (Un)ethical Are You?

abandon our faith in our own objectivity and our ability to be fair. In the following pages, we will offer strategies that can help managers recognize these pervasive, corro- sive, unconscious biases and reduce their impact.

Implicit Prejudice:

DIUS 1 fmt [viost fair-minded people Emerges from strive to judge others accord-

Unconscious '"̂ ̂ ^ ']^Z ""^''u' ̂ "'.r' , . „ research shows how often

HeliejS people instead judge accord- ing to unconscious stereo-

types and attitudes, or "implicit prejudice." What makes implicit prejudice so common and persistent is that it is rooted in the fundamental mechanics of thought. Early on, we leam to associate things that commonly go to- gether and expect them to inevitably coexist: thunder and rain, for instance, or gray hair and old age. This skill-to perceive and leam from associations -often serves us well.

But, of course, our associations only reflect approxima- tions of the tmth; they are rarely applicable to every en- counter. Rain doesn't always accompany thunder, and the young can also go gray. Nonetheless, because we auto- matically make such associations to help us organize our world, we grow to trust them, and they can blind us to those instances in which the associations are not accu- rate-when they don't align with our expectations.

Because implicit prejudice arises from the ordinary and unconscious tendency to make associations, it is distinct from conscious forms of prejudice, such as overt racism or sexism. This distinction explains why people who are free from conscious prejudice may still harbor biases and act accordingly. Exposed to images that juxtapose black men and violence, portray women as sex objects, imply that the physically disabled are mentally weak and the poor are lazy, even the most consciously unbiased person is bound to make biased associations. These associations play out in the workplace just as they do anywhere else.

In the mid-1990s, Tony Greenwald, a professor of psy- chology atthe University of Washington,developed an ex- perimental tool called the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to study unconscious bias. A computerized version of the test requires subjects to rapidly classify words and images as "good" or "bad." Using a keyboard, test takers must make split-second "goodA>ad" distinctions between words like'Move,""joy,""pain,"and"sorrow"and atthe same time

sort images of faces that are (depending on the bias in ques- tion) black or white, young or old, fat or thin, and so on. The test exposes implicit biases by detecting subtle shifts in reaction time that can occur when test takers are re- quired to pair different sets of words and faces. Subjects who consciously believe that they have no negative feel- ings toward, say, black Americans or tbe elderly are nev- ertheless likely to be slower to associate elderly or black faces with the "good" words than they are to associate youthful or white faces witb "good" words.

Since 1998, when Greenwald, Brian Nosek, and Mah- zarin Banaji put the IAT online, people from around the world have taken over 2.5 million tests, confirming and extending the findings of more traditional laboratory ex- periments. Both show implicit biases to be strong and per- vasive. (For more information on the IAT, see the sidebar "Are You Biased?")-

Biases are also likely to be costly. In controlled experi- ments, psychologists Laurie Rudman at Rutgers and Peter Glick at Lawrence University have studied how implicit biases may work to exclude qualified people from certain roles. One set of experiments examined the relationship between participants' implicit gender stereotypes and their hiring decisions. Those holding stronger implicit biases were less likely to select a qualified woman who exhibited stereotypically"masculine"personality qualities, such as ambition or independence, for a job requiring stereotypically "feminine" qualities, such as interpersonal skills. Yet they would select a qualified man exhibiting these same qualities. The hirers' biased perception was that the woman was less likely to be socially skilled than the man, though their qualifications were in fact the same. These results suggest that implicit biases may exact costs by sub- tly excluding qualified people from the very organizations that seek their talents.

Legal cases also reveal the real costs of implicit biases, both economic and social. Consider Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Despite logging more billable hours than her peers, bringing in $25 million to the company, and eam- ing the praise of her clients, Ann Hopkins was tumed down for partner, and she sued. The details of the case reveal that her evaluators were explicitly prejudiced in their attitudes. For example, they had commented that Ann "overcompensated for being a woman" and needed a "course at charm school." But perhaps more damning from a legal standpoint was blunt testimony from exper- imental research. Testifying as an expert witness for the defense, psychology professor Susan Fiske, now at Prince- ton University, argued that the potential for biased deci-

Mahzarin R. Banaji is the Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics in the department of psychology at Harvard Uni- versity and the Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at Harvard's Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in Cambridge. Massachu- setts. Max H. Bazerman is the Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School in Boston. Dolly Chugh, a Harvard Business School MBA, is now a doctoral candidate in Harvard University's joint program in orga- nizational behavior and social psychology.

58 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

How (Un)ethical Are You?

sion making is inherent in a system in which a person has "solo" status-that is, a system in which the person is the only one of a kind (the only woman, the only African- American, the only person with a disability, and the like). Judge Gerhard Gesell concluded that "a far more subtle process [than the usual discriminatory intent] is involved" in the assessments made of Ann Hopkins, and she won both in a lower court and in the Supreme Court in what is now a landmark case in discrimination law.

Likewise, the 1999 case of Thomas v. Kodak demon- strates that implicit biases can be the basis for rulings. Here, the court posed the question of "whether the em- ployer consciously intended to base the evaluations on race or simply did so because of unthinking stereotypes or bias." The court concluded that plaintiffs can indeed challenge "subjective evaluations which could easily mask covert or unconscious race discrimination." Although courts are careful not to assign responsibility easily for

Are You Biased?

Are you willing to bet that you feel. the same way toward European- Americans as you do toward African-

Americans? How about women versus

men? Or older people versus younger

ones? Think twice before you take that

bet. Visit implicit.harvard.edu or www.

tolerance.org/hidden_bias to examine

your unconscious attitudes.

The Implicit Association Tests available

on these sites reveal unconscious beliefs

by asking takers to make split-second

associations between words with positive

or negative connotations and images rep-

resenting different types of people. The

various tests on these sites expose the

differences-or the alignment-between

test takers' conscious and unconscious

attitudes toward people of different races,

sexual orientation, or physical character-

istics. Data gathered from over 2.5 million

online tests and further research tells

us that unconscious biases are;

• widely prevalent At least 75% of test takers shovy an implicit bias favoring

the young, the rich, and whites.

• robust. The mere conscious desire not to be biased does not eliminate

implicit bias.

• contrary to conscious intention. Although people tend to report little

or noconscious bias against African-

Americans, Arabs, Arab-Americans,

Jews, gay men, lesbians, or the poor,

they show substantial biases on

implicit measures.

- different in degree depending on group status. Minority group members tend to show less implicit preference

for their own group than majority

group members show for theirs.

For example, African-Americans report

strong preference for their group on

explicit measures but show relatively

less implicit preference in the tests.

Conversely, white Americans report a low

explicit bias for their group but a higher

implicit bias.

• consequential. Those who show higher ievelsof biason the lAT are also likely

to behave in ways that are more biased

in face-to-face interactions with mem-

bers ofthe group they are biased

against and in the choices they make,

such as hiring decisions.

• costly. Research currently underway in our lab suggests that implicit bias

generates a "stereotype tax" - negotia-

tors leave money on the table because

biases cause them to miss opportunities

to learn about their opponent and

thus create additional value through

mutually beneficial trade-offs.

DECEMBER 2003 59

How (Un)ethicai Are You?

unintentional biases, these cases demonstrate the poten- tial for corporate liability that such patterns of behavior could unwittingly create.

In-Group Favoritism:

Bias That Favors Your Group

Think about some of the favors you have done in recent years, whether for a friend, a relative, or a colleague. Have you helped someone get a useful in- troduction, admission to a school, or a job? Most of us are glad to help out with such favors. Not surprisingly, we tend to do more favors for those we

know, and those we know tend to be like ourselves: peo- ple who share our nationality, social class, and perhaps religion, race, employer, or alma mater. This all sounds rather innocent. What's wrong with asking your neighbor, the university dean, to meet with a coworker's son? Isn't it just being helpful to recommend a former sorority sis- ter for a job or to talk to your banker cousin when a friend from church gets turned down for a home loan?

Few people set out to exclude anyone through such acts of kindness. But when those in the majority or those in power allocate scarce resources (such as jobs, promotions, and mortgages) to people just like them, they effectively discriminate against those who are different from them. Such "in-group favoritism" amounts to giving extra credit for group membership. Yet while discriminating against those who are different is considered unethical, helping people close to us is often viewed favorably. Think about the number of companies that explicitly encourage this by offering hiring bonuses to employees who refer their friends for job opportunities.

But consider the finding that banks in the United States are more likely to deny a mortgage application from a black person than from a white person, even when the ap- plicants are equally qualified. The common view has been that hanks are hostile to African-Americans. While this may be true of some banks and some loan officers, social psychologist David Messick has argued that in-group fa- voritism is more likely to be at the root of such discrimi- natory lending. A white loan officer may feel hopeful or lenient toward an unqualified white applicant while fol- lowing the bank's lending standards strictly with an un-

qualified black applicant. In denying the black applicant's mortgage, the loan officer may not be expressing hostility toward blacks so much as favoritism toward whites. It's a subtle but crucial distinction.

The ethical cost is clear and should be reason enough to address the problem. But such inadvertent bias pro- duces an additional effect: It erodes the bottom line. Lenders who discriminate in this way, for example, incur bad-debt costs they could have avoided if their lending decisions were more objective. They also may find them- selves exposed to damaging publicity or discrimination lawsuits ifthe skewed lending pattern is publicly revealed. In a different context, companies may pay a real cost for marginal hires who wouldn't have made the grade but for the sympathetic hiring manager swayed by in-group favoritism.

In-group favoritism is tenacious when membership confers clear advantages, as it does, for instance, among whites and other dominant social groups. (It may be weaker or absent among people whose group member- ship offers little societal advantage.) Thus for a wide array of managerial tasks-from hiring, firing, and promoting to contracting services and forming partnerships-qualified minority candidates are subtly and unconsciously dis- criminated against, sometimes simply because they are in the minority: There are not enough of them to counter the propensity for in-group favoritism in the majority.

Overclaiming Credit:

Bias That Favors You

It's only natural for successful people to hold positive views about themselves. But many studies show that the major- ity of people consider themselves above average on a host of measures, from in- telligence to driving ability. Business

executives are no exception. We tend to overrate our in- dividual contribution to groups, which, bluntly put, tends to lead to an overblown sense of entitlement. We become the unabashed, repeated beneficiaries of this unconscious bias, and the more we think only of our own contribu- tions, the less fairly we judge others with whom we work.

Lab research demonstrates this most personal of biases. At Harvard, Eugene Caruso, Nick Epley, and Max Bazer- man recently asked MBA students in study groups to

Would you be willing to risk being in the group disadvantaged by your own decision?

60 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

How (Un)ethical Are You?

estimate what portion of their group's work each had done. The sum of the contribution by all members, of course, must add up to uxm. But the researchers found that the totals for each study group averaged 139%. In a related study, Caruso and his colleagues uncovered ram- pant overestimates by academic authors of their contri- bution to shared research projects. Sadly, but not surpris- ingly, the more the sum of the total estimated group effort exceeded 100% (in other words, the more credit each person claimed), the less the parties wanted to col- laborate in the future.

Likewise in business, claiming too much credit can destabilize alliances. When each party in a strategic part- nership claims too much credit for its own contribution and becomes skeptical about whether the other is doing its fair share, they both tend to reduce their contributions to compensate. This has obvious repercussions for the joint venture's performance.

Unconscious overclaiming can be expected to reduce the performance and longevity of groups within organi- zations, just as it diminished the academic authors' will- ingness to collaborate. It can also take a toll on employee commitment. Think about how employees perceive raises. Most are not so different from the children at Lake Wobe- gon, believing that they, too, rank in the upper half of their peer group. But many necessarily get pay increases that are below the average. If an employee learns of a colleague's greater compensation - while honestly believ- ing that he himself is more deserving-resentment may be natural. At best, his resentment might translate into reduced commitment and performance. At worst, he may leave the organization that, it seems, doesn't appreciate his contribution.

Conflict of Interest:

1 ncit Everyone knows that conflict Favors Those "^ interest can lead to inten-

p tionally corrupt behavior. L.an

But numerous psychological Benefit You experiments show how pow-

erfully such conflicts can un- intentionally skew decision

making. (For an examination ofthe evidence in one busi- ness arena, see Max Bazerman, George Loewenstein, and Don Moore's November 2002 HBR article, "Why Good Accountants Do Bad Audits") These experiments suggest that the work world is rife with situations in which such conflicts lead honest, ethical professionals to uncon- sciously make unsound and unethical recommendations.

Physicians, for instance, face conflicts of interest when they accept payment for referring patients into clinical tri- als. While, surely, most physicians consciously believe that

their referrals are the patient's best clinical option, how do they know that the promise of payment did not skew their decisions? Similarly, many lawyers earn fees based on their clients' awards or settlements. Since going to trial is expensive and uncertain, settling out of court is often an attractive option for the lawyer. Attorneys may consciously believe that settling is in their clients' best interests. But how can they be objective, unbiased judges under these circumstances?

Research done with brokerage house analysts demon- strates how conflict of interest can unconsciously distort decision making. A survey of analysts conducted by the financial research service First Call showed that during a period in 2(xx> when the Nasdaq dropped 60%, fully 99% of brokerage analysts'client recommendations remained "strong buy," "buy," or "hold." What accounts for this dis- crepancy between what was happening and what was rec- ommended? The answer may lie in a system that fosters conflicts of interest. A portion of analysts' pay is based on brokerage firm revenues. Some firms even tie analysts'com- pensation to the amount of business the analysts bring in from clients, giving analysts an obvious incentive to pro- long and extend their relationships with clients. But to as- sume that during this Nasdaq free fall all brokerage house analysts were consciously corrupt, milking their clients to exploit this incentive system, defies common sense. Surely there were some bad apples. But how much more likely it is that most of these analysts believed their recommen- dations were sound and in their clients' best interests. What many didn't appreciate was that the built-in conflict of interest in their compensation incentives made it impos- sible for them to see the implicit bias in their own flawed recommendations.

Trying Harder Isn't Enough As companies keep collapsing into financial scandal and ruin, corporations are responding with ethics-training programs for managers, and many of the world's leading business schools have created new courses and chaired professorships in ethics. Many of these efforts focus on teaching broad principles of moral philosophy to help managers understand the ethical challenges they face.

We applaud these efforts, but we doubt that a well- intentioned, just-try-harder approach will fundamentally improve the quality of executives'decision making. To do that, ethics training must be broadened to include what is now known about how our minds work and must ex- pose managers directly to the unconscious mechanisms that underlie biased decision making. And it must provide managers with exercises and interventions that can root out the biases that lead to bad decisions.

Managers can make wiser, more ethical decisions if they become mindful of their unconscious biases. But how can we get at something outside our conscious awareness? By

DECEMBER 2003 61

How (Un)ethical Are You?

bringing the conscious mind to bear. Just as the driver of a misaligned car deliberately counteracts its pull, so can managers develop conscious strategies to counteract the pull of their unconscious biases. What's required is vigi- lance-continual awareness of the forces that can cause decision making to veer from its intended course and con- tinual adjustments to counteract them. Those adjust- ments fall into three general categories: collecting data, shaping the environment, and broadening tbe decision- making process.

Collect data. The first step to reducing unconscious bias is to collect data to reveal its presence. Often, the data will be counterintuitive. Consider many people's sur- prise to leam of their own gender and racial biases on tbe IAT. Why the surprise? Because most of us trust the "sta- tistics" our intuition provides. Better data are easily, but rarely, collected. One way to get those data is to examine our decisions in a systematic way.

Remember the MBA study groups wbose participants overestimated tbeir individual contributions to the group effort so tbat the totals averaged 139%? Wben the re- searchers asked group members to estimate what eacb of the other members' contributions were before claiming tbeir own, the total fell to i2i%. The tendency to claim too much credit still persisted, but this strategy of "unpack- ing" tbe work reduced the magnitude of the bias. In envi- ronments characterized by "I deserve more tban you're giving me" claims, merely asking team members to un- pack tbe contributions of others before claiming tbeir own sbare of tbe pot usually aligns claims more closely witb wbat's actually deserved. As this example demon- strates, sucb systematic audits of botb individual and

group decision-making processes can occur even as tbe decisions are being made.

Unpacking is a simple strategy tbat managers should routinely use to evaluate tbe fairness of tbeir own claims within tbe organization. But tbey can also apply it in any situation wbere team members or subordinates may be overclaiming. For example, in explaining a raise that an employee feels is inadequate, a manager sbould ask tbe subordinate not what he thinks be alone deserves but wbat be considers an appropriate raise after taking into account each coworker's contribution and tbe pool avail- able for pay increases. Similarly, when an individual feels she's doing more tban ber fair sbare of a team's work, ask- ing ber to consider other people's efforts before esti- mating her own can help align ber perception with real- ity, restore ber commitment, and reduce a skewed sense of entitlement.

Taking the IAT is anotber valuable strategy for collect- ing data. We recommend tbat you and otbers in your or- ganization use tbe test to expose your own implicit biases. But one word of warning: Because tbe test is an educa- tional and research tool, not a selection or evaluation tool, it is critical tbat you consider your results and otbers' to be private information. Simply knowing tbe magni- tude and pervasiveness of your own biases can help direct your attention to areas of decision making tbat are in need of careful examination and reconsideration. For ex- ample, a manager whose testing reveals a bias toward cer- tain groups ought to examine ber hiring practices to see if she bas indeed been disproportionately favoring those groups. But because so many people barbor sucb biases, tbey can also be generally acknowledged, and tbat knowl-

62 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

How (Un)ethical Are You?

What list ol names do you start with when considering whom to send to a training program, recommend for a neŵ assignment, or nominate for a fast-track position?

edge can be used as the basis for changing the way deci- sions are made. It is important to guard against using pervasiveness to justify complacency and inaction: Perva- siveness of bias is not a mark of its appropriateness any more than poor eyesight is considered so ordinary a con- dition that it does not require corrective lenses.

Shape your environment. Research shows that im- plicit attitudes can be shaped by external cues in the en- vironment. For example, Curtis Hardin and colleagues at UCLA used the IAT to study whether subjects' implicit race bias would be affected if the test was administered by a black investigator. One group of students took the test under the guidance of a white experimenter; another group took the test with a black experimenter. The mere presence of a black experimenter, Hardin found, reduced the level of subjects' implicit antiblack bias on the [AT. Numerous similar studies have shown similar effects with other social groups. What accounts for such shifts? We can speculate that experimenters in classrooms are assumed to be competent, in charge, and authoritative. Subjects guided by a black experimenter attribute these positive characteristics to that person, and then perhaps to the group as a whole. These findings suggest that one remedy for implicit bias is to expose oneself to images and social environments that challenge stereotypes.

We know of a judge whose court is located in a pre- dominantly African-American neighborhood. Because of the crime and arrest patterns in the community, most peo- ple the judge sentences are black. The judge confronted a paradox. On the one hand, she took a judicial oath to be objective and egalitarian, and indeed she consciously believed that her decisions were unbiased. On the other hand, every day she was exposed to an environment that reinforced the association between black men and crime. Although she consciously rejected racial stereotypes, she suspected that she harbored unconscious prejudices merely from working in a segregated world. Immersed in this environment each day, she wondered if it was possi- ble to give the defendants a fair hearing.

Rather than allow her environment to reinforce a bias, the judge created an alternative environment. She spent a vacation week sitting in a fellow judge's court in a neigh- borhood where the criminals being tried were predomi-

nantly white. Case after case challenged the stereotype of blacks as criminal and whites as law abiding and so challenged any bias against blacks that she might have harbored.

Think about the possibly biased associations your workplace fosters. Is there, perhaps, a "wall of fame" with pictures of high achievers all cast from the same mold? Are certain types of managers invariably promoted? Do people overuse certain analogies drawn from stereotyp- ical or narrow domains of knowledge (sports metaphors, for instance, or cooking terms)? Managers can audit their organization to uncover such patterns or cues that un- wittingly lead to stereotypical associations.

!f an audit reveals that the environment may be pro- moting unconscious biased or unethical behavior, con- sider creating countervailing experiences, as the judge did. For example, if your department reinforces the stereotype of men as naturally dominant in a hierarchy (most managers are male, and most assistants are female), find a department with women in leadership positions and set up a shadow program. Both groups will benefit from the exchange of best practices, and your group will be quietly exposed to counterstereotypical cues. Manag- ers sending people out to spend time in clients'organiza- tions as a way to improve service should take care to se- lect organizations likely to counter stereotypes reinforced in your own company.

Broaden your decision making. Imagine that you are making a decision in a meeting about an important com- pany policy that will benefit some groups of employees more than others. A policy might, for example, provide extra vacation time for all employees but eliminate the flex time that has allowed many new parents to balance work with their family responsibilities. Another policy might lower the mandatory retirement age, eliminating some older workers but creating advancement opportu- nities for younger ones. Now pretend that, as you make your decisions, you don't know which group you belong to. That is, you don't know whether you are senior or ju- nior, married or single, gay or straight, a parent or child- less, male or female, healthy or unhealthy. You will even- tually find out, but not until after the decision has been made. In this hypothetical scenario, what decision would

DECEMBER 2003 63

How {Un)ethical Are You?

Just considering a counterstereotypical choice at the conscious level can reduce implicit bias.

you make? Would you be willing to risk being in the group disadvantaged by your own decision? How would your decisions differ if you could make them wearing var- ious identities not your own?

This thought experiment is a version of philosopher John Rawls's concept of the "veil of ignorance," which posits that only a person ignorant of his own identity is capable of a truly ethical decision. Few of us can assume the veil completely, which is precisely why hidden biases, even when identified, are so difficult to correct. Still, ap- plying the veil of ignorance to your next important man- agerial decision may offer some insight into how strongly implicit biases influence you.

Just as managers can expose bias by collecting data be- fore acting on intuition, they can take other preemptive steps. What list of names do you start with when consid- ering whom to send to a training program, recommend for a new assignment, or nominate for a fast-track posi- tion? Most of us can quickly and with little concentration come up with such a list. But keep in mind that your in- tuition is prone to implicit prejudice (which will strongly favor dominant and well-liked groups), in-group favor- itism (which will favor people in your own group), over- claiming (which will favor you), and conflict of interest (which will favor people whose interests affect your own).

Instead of relying on a mental short list when making personnel decisions, start with a full list of names of em- ployees who have relevant qualifications.

Using a broad list of names has several advantages. The most obvious is that talent may surface that might otherwise be overlooked. Less obvious but equally impor- tant, the very act of considering a counterstereotypical choice at the conscious level can reduce implicit bias. In fact, merely thinking about hypothetical,counterstereo- typical scenarios-such as what it would be like to trust a complex presentation to a female colleague or to receive a promotion from an Afr-ican-American boss - can prompt less-biased and more ethical decision making. Similarly, consciously considering counterintuitive options in the face of conflicts of interest, or when there's an opportu- nity to overclaim, can promote more objective and ethi- cal decisions.

The Vigilant Manager If you answered "true" to the question at the start of this article, you felt with some confidence that you are an eth- ical decision maker. How would you answer it now? It's clear that neither simple conviction nor sincere intention is enough to ensure that you are the ethical practitioner

you imagine yourself to be. Managers who as- pire to be ethical must challenge the assump- tion that they're always unbiased and ac- knowledge that vigilance, even more than good intention, is a defining characteristic of an ethical manager. They must actively collect data, shape their environments, and broaden their decision making. What's more, an obvi- ous redress is available. Managers should seek every opportunity to implement affirmative action policies-not because of past wrongs done to one group or another but because of the everyday wrongs that we can now docu- ment are inherent in the ordinary, everyday behavior of good, well-intentioned people. Ironically, only those who understand their own potential for unethical behavior can be- come the ethical decision makers that they aspire to be. ^

Reprint R0312D; HBR OnPoint 5526 To order, see page 127.

64 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009

Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for

the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material

in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may

not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any

other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on

learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning

management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content

available through such means. For rates and permission, contact [email protected].