Which of the following is a commonly encountered variety of unethical behavior?
|
Nearly two thirds of workers have experienced behaviour at work that would “probably result in widespread condemnation” if the public found out, a recent survey has found. Contributor Nick Chater, Professor of Behavioural Science – Warwick Business School. Show
Yet 77 per cent said their company made no changes as a result of unethical behaviour being reported and 42 per cent said that had negatively changed their perception of their workplace. Harassment, sexism, theft and verbal abuse were the most common unethical behaviours. The survey by researchers at Warwick Business School also picked up reports of physical abuse, conflicts of interest, misuse of company resources, racism and discrimination. Nick Chater, Professor of Behavioural Science at Warwick Business School, said: “We see reports of a wide variety of unethical behaviours in the workplace. These have clear negative impacts on the well-being of UK workers and businesses, from disengagement and disillusion to increased stress and sickness. “The scale of the problem suggests that workers often feel unable to speak out against unethical behaviour, allowing it to continue unchallenged and potentially leading to further unethical actions.” The survey of nearly 1,000 workers provides a snapshot of unethical behaviour in the workplace as part of a new report, Leading Integrity: Towards an organisational ethics. More than 40 per cent of those interviewed said they sometimes experienced unethical behaviour at work, while nine per cent said it happened more than half of the time. Eight per cent encountered unethical behaviour most of the time and three per cent said it happened all the time. Mid-level employees were the most likely offenders, followed by junior employees. While senior staff were least likely to behave in an unethical manner, those who did so tended to be the most regular offenders. The report by Warwick Business School aims to better understand how and why unethical behaviour occurs in the workplace to help firms respond better and prevent future incidents. The report claims corporate integrity was once considered an “additional benefit” companies could aspire to if they wished, but customers and stakeholders now expect integrity from any business. For example, Amazon has faced a series of scandals over alleged poor treatment of warehouse workers and delivery drivers working illegal hours for less than the minimum wage. The report also examines how different companies responded following ethical scandals. For example, when United Airlines forcibly removed a bloodied passenger from an over-booked flight in 2017, it tried to deny responsibility by blaming the passenger, a strategy which failed. In contrast, when Volkswagen was accused of manipulating emissions tests, the CEO and the company launched an advertising campaign apologising and offering customers compensation. By admitting error and rebuilding, the company minimised the inevitable reputational damage. Edward Gardiner, Behavioural Design Lead at Warwick Business School, said: “The fact that these scandals keep occurring means businesses are not good at dealing with them or preventing them. “Unethical behaviour cannot simply be blamed on one or two bad apples. Often there are problems with the culture, leadership, and structure of the business that allow it to continue.” “By better understanding human behaviour, we hope businesses will be able to adopt practices to prevent many cases of unethical behaviour and better respond to the incidents which do occur.” Employees’ ethics at work are driven by individual, issue-specific, and environmental factors. Building an ethical company requires addressing them all.What causes employees to steal, lie, or behave aggressively? Unethical behaviours like these can be driven by individual, issue-specific, and environmental factors. Researchers Jennifer Kish-Gephart, David Harrison, and Linda Treviño analyzed 136 academic studies of ethical and unethical choices. They examined what leads to unethical intentions and behavior and how employers can reduce it. 3 Reasons for Unethical BehaviourThe researchers describe the different factors as “bad apples” (individual factors), “bad cases” (issue-specific factors) and “bad barrels” (environmental factors). Here’s how they play out.
Two things that don’t influence ethical choices: Research doesn’t support two common ideas about what drives ethical behaviour. Demographic qualities —employee age, gender, and educational level — have little effect on unethical action. And, the existence of a code of conduct does not curb unethical actions, although enforcement of such a code does. The researchers suggest that stated codes of conduct have become so common that they have lost their power. How to Keep Employees EthicalStrategies exist for addressing bad apples, cases and barrels. The researchers recommend these actions for companies.
Make Ethical Choices AutomaticOften ethical choices are impulsive, rather than calculated, the researchers report. People first do things, and later rationalize them, or first feel things, and later think about them. This tendency means that ethical choices need to become almost automatic. David Harrison told NBS: “Repeated, regular engagement with ethical matters and routine processing in moral ways is going to reap the most dividends. Ethical habits, organizational cultures, and consistent norms, along with the personality features and individual differences, shape outcomes.” After all, we all tend to follow our self-interested impulses. “The key to solutions for all of the causes is to find some way to check that impulse,” said Harrison. Making good decisions automatic is the best way to do that, and businesses can do a lot to create a context that supports that effort. This article was originally published in 2010 and updated in 2020 and 2022 through exchange with the researchers. Linda Treviño, David Harrison, and Jennifer Kish-Gephart reviewed the article and contributed new insights. Read the researchKish-Gephart, J., David A. Harrison, and Linda Klebe Treviño. 2010. Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1): 1-31. Join the ConversationLeave a Comment Share this post:submit an article →
Author
PrevPreviousCarbon Reporting Can Help Your Business NextHow to Respond to a Global CrisisNext Related Articles
Use the Arts to Advance Business SustainabilityArt and music can spark imagination, drive emotion, and create meaning. Businesses can use this power to advance sustainability. Read MoreAugust 22, 2022 No Comments  When Do Consumers Say “No” to Green?Can a product’s sustainability—or lack thereof—influence how consumers view its other attributes? In which contexts can sustainability hurt sales? Read MoreJune 24, 2011 No Comments ResponsesYou must be logged in to post a comment.
|
