Ethics in Groups: Volume 8

Though each of the papers is unique, several common dimensions of the ethics in groups intersection were identified. These include the external influences on groups, the within-group processes, and the individual decision-making that occurs by a group member.¹ The following summary, and the volume itself, is organized around these dimensions.

Rules requiring the disclosure of conflicts of interest supposedly enhance transparency, reduce information asymmetries, and protect consumers from biased information; but these rules can have perverse effects. Disclosure regulation may fail to resolve many of the problems that occur with biased information-exchange and it may even make matters worse. This chapter explains these perverse effects and then examines them in light of the literature on group dynamics and information sharing in groups. In doing so, this chapter provides lessons on the pitfalls of information exchange (between individuals or groups), and it highlights some interesting ways that people follow the letter – but not the spirit – of ethical standards.

A large amount of empirical literature has demonstrated that people will often choose outcomes close to equality, in games or disputes, rather than unequal outcomes that favor themselves. This behavior will henceforth be referred to as “fairness.” Various formulations of social utility theories explain such behavior as reflecting a preference for fair outcomes. Decision makers are assumed to gain utility not only from their own payoffs but also from others’ payoffs. I will ultimately argue that this interpretation is incomplete because it ignores a factor that, while auxiliary to social utility, is virtually always present in its evidentiary support. Namely, the decision maker is responsible for determining the other party's payoff.

A common way to promote cooperative and collectively beneficial behavior in organizations is to sanction self-interested and collectively harmful behavior. Social science researchers recently focus more and more on the negative effects of sanctions. In particular, it is argued that sanctioning noncooperative behavior can undermine people's personal motives to behave cooperatively. In this chapter we argue that, in the decision to behave cooperatively, or in one's own self-interest, perceptions of other people's motives play an important role. In this chapter we discuss research on sanctioning systems in social dilemmas which shows that sanctioning noncooperative behavior undermines trust in others being motivated to cooperate. In a series of studies we show that the undermining of trust may lead to a general increase of noncooperation. Moreover, the newly developed “social trilemma” paradigm demonstrated that it may induce people to show self-interested behaviors they had not considered before. These negative effects of a sanctioning system are moderated by the trust people initially may have in their fellow group members’ cooperative intentions, in the sanctioning authority and by the way people regard authorities in general. Implications of these results for organizations are discussed.

Ethics initiatives are commonly used by organizations to influence members’ behavior with the expressed goal of aligning the behavior exhibited in the organization with the organization's stated rules and values (Laufer & Robertson, 1997; Schwartz, 2002; Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, & Umphress, 2003; Trevino, Weaver, Gibson, & Toffler, 1999; Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c). It is hoped that by emphasizing the organization's values and rules, organization members will be more thoughtful about their work behavior and consider these values and rules when making decisions at work.

Virtual forms of organizing are increasing in today's organizations, with virtual teams being one of the most popular ways to bring distributed individuals together to work on tasks and make decisions. However, theory suggests that the factors that drive unethical behaviors in teams – such as deindividuated communication and impeded identification – are the same factors that characterize interaction in virtual teams. This suggests that virtual interaction may make teams particularly vulnerable to unethical behaviors such as opportunism and deception. This chapter maps out a theoretical model to better understand when unethical behaviors are likely to occur in virtual teams, and what virtual team characteristics might help to mitigate the likelihood of such behaviors.

We present a conceptual model of ethical behavior in groups and the role of group cohesion in enabling unethical behavior. We make the distinction between unethical actions that benefit an individual's work group, and actions that benefit the individual to develop a typology of unethical actions. We propose that cohesion influences unethical actions of group members through three mechanisms – giving group members social support, enabling group members to diffuse responsibility for their actions throughout the group, and providing a rationale upon which group members can justify their actions to themselves. We hypothesize that group cohesion increases the likelihood of unethical actions that benefit the group, as well as the individual, while not affecting the group. In contrast, we expect cohesion to reduce the likelihood of unethical actions that harm the group. We also present boundary conditions by specifying how group norms and the status of the individual within the group affect the relationships that we propose. In a preliminary test of the hypotheses using scenarios, we found support for some parts of the model. We discuss the implications of our findings for ethical behavior in groups and organizations.

Researchers have proposed a variety of models to depict, explain, and understand ethical decision-making processes. Rest (1986) proposed a four-stage, individually oriented model, in which a person who makes a moral decision must (1) recognize the moral issue, (2) make a moral judgment, (3) establish moral intent, and (4) make moral decisions. Similarly, Ferrell, Gresham, and Fraedrich (1989) developed a five-stage model that included awareness, cognitions, evaluations, determination, and actions. Finally, Trevino (1986) proposed a slightly different model that begins with the recognition of an ethical dilemma and proceeds to a cognition stage in which individuals make moral judgments that further affect their ethical or unethical decisions (see Jones, 1991, for a review).

In this chapter, we develop a model of envy and unethical decision making. We postulate that unfavorable comparisons will induce envy in outperformed coworkers, who are subsequently motivated to engage in unethical acts to harm the envied target. In particular, we consider the differential effects of unfavorable individual-level and unfavorable group-level social comparisons on attitudes and norms for engaging in social undermining behaviors. Envy is a self-sanctioned emotion and often difficult to detect. Even so, envy is likely to be both prevalent in and harmful to organizations. Organizational culture may play an important role in moderating the prevalence and consequences of envy within organizations. For example, managerial actions designed to boost organizational identity may significantly curtail envy within their organization.

Group members often reason egocentrically, both when allocating responsibility for collective endeavors and when assessing the fairness of group outcomes. These self-centered judgments are reduced when participants consider their other group members individually or actively adopt their perspectives. However, reducing an egocentric focus through perspective taking may also invoke cynical theories about how others will behave, particularly in competitive contexts. Expecting more selfish behavior from other group members may result in more self-interested behavior from the perspective takers themselves. This suggests that one common approach to conflict resolution between and within groups can have unfortunate consequences on actual behavior.

Evaluations play an important role in an organization's efforts to increase diversity. In this chapter we discuss two common evaluation biases – out-group discrimination and in-group favoritism – that are particularly relevant for concerns of increasing diversity. We examine the ethical implications of these biases, as well as the reasons individuals attempt to avoid displaying them. Some research has considered the adjustments individuals make to avoid the appearance of out-group discrimination (Carver, Glass, & Katz, 1978; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986); however, little research has considered the adjustments individuals may make to avoid the appearance of in-group favoritism. We discuss two critical factors that may impact when the latter adjustment is more likely to occur: the relative size and status of subgroups. Paradoxically, these adjustments may negatively impact organizational efforts to increase the diversity of their work force. We discuss the implications for evaluation processes (e.g., hiring, firing, promotion) in organizations.

Acting on the behalf of future generations can require nontrivial sacrifice on the part of the present generation. Yet, people can gain important social psychological benefits from such acts, such as experiencing a connection to an entity that will presumably continue to exist in the social environment after they themselves are no longer a part of it. Consequently, intergenerational beneficence can help people to fill the basic human need for immortality striving. This is a benefit that is not as easily achieved by altruistic behaviors toward contemporary others. Based on some key insights from Terror Management Theory (TMT), I postulate that under conditions of mortality salience, people will demonstrate more altruism toward future generations than toward needy contemporaries − contrary to what might be expected based on the existing literature on intertemporal choice. Thus, the temporal aspect of intergenerational contexts may actually promote rather than hinder altruistic tendencies under certain conditions.

The chapters in this book suggest that efforts to enhance ethical behavior may backfire. An examination of this phenomenon from the perspective of the “logic of appropriateness” may shed light on this perversity.