By Francesca Gino
Harvard Business Review
Originally posted January 06, 2016
Here are two excerpts:
Most of us feel loyalty, whether to our clan, our comrades, an organization, or a cause. These loyalties are often important aspects of our social identity. Once a necessity for survival and propagation of the species, loyalty to one’s in-group is deeply rooted in human evolution.
But the incidents of wrongdoing that capture the headlines make it seem like loyalty is all too often a bad thing, corrupting many aspects of our personal and professional lives. My recent research, conducted in collaboration with Angus Hildreth of the University of California, Berkeley and Max Bazerman of Harvard Business School, suggests that this concern about loyalty is largely misplaced. In fact, we found loyalty to a group can increase, rather than decrease, honest behavior.
(cut)
As our research shows, loyalty can be a driver of good behavior, but when competition among groups is high, it can lead us to behave unethically. When we are part of a group of loyal members, traits associated with loyalty — such as honor, honesty, and integrity — are very salient in our minds. But when loyalty seems to demand a different type of goal, such as competing with other groups and winning at any cost, behaving ethically becomes a less important goal.
The article is here.
Showing posts with label Loyalty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loyalty. Show all posts
Monday, February 15, 2016
Thursday, August 27, 2015
The Psychology of Whistleblowing
James Dungan, Adam Waytz, Liane Young
Current Opinion in Psychology
doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.005
Abstract
Whistleblowing—reporting another person's unethical behavior to a third party—represents an ethical quandary. In some cases whistleblowing appears heroic whereas in other cases it appears reprehensible. This article describes how the decision to blow the whistle rests on the tradeoff that people make between fairness and loyalty. When fairness increases in value, whistleblowing is more likely whereas when loyalty increases in value, whistleblowing is less likely. Furthermore, we describe systematic personal, situational, and cultural factors stemming from the fairness-loyalty tradeoff that drive whistleblowing. Finally, we describe how minimizing this tradeoff and prioritizing constructive dissent can encourage whistleblowing and strengthen collectives.
The entire article is here.
Current Opinion in Psychology
doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.005
Abstract
Whistleblowing—reporting another person's unethical behavior to a third party—represents an ethical quandary. In some cases whistleblowing appears heroic whereas in other cases it appears reprehensible. This article describes how the decision to blow the whistle rests on the tradeoff that people make between fairness and loyalty. When fairness increases in value, whistleblowing is more likely whereas when loyalty increases in value, whistleblowing is less likely. Furthermore, we describe systematic personal, situational, and cultural factors stemming from the fairness-loyalty tradeoff that drive whistleblowing. Finally, we describe how minimizing this tradeoff and prioritizing constructive dissent can encourage whistleblowing and strengthen collectives.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Does Morality Matter in Managing Businesses?
By Victor Want
Forbes
Originally published October 23, 2013
Here are two excerpts:
There is another way of looking at morality. Instead of thinking of companies as entities, which is what the questions above do, let’s think of companies as collections of individuals. When we do that, we see morality in a different way: because individuals are motivated by moral purpose.
(cut)
His central idea is that the primary responsibility of any executive is to define the organization’s purpose and instill loyalty, so that managers work for the organization’s good rather than for their own advancement. You can only achieve this kind of loyalty if you keep your employees satisfied, rather than viewing them simply as economic production inputs. In Barnard’s own words, “The morality that underlies enduring cooperation is multidimensional.” He discusses how satisfying multiple moral codes, like responsibilities to customers and shareholders, is the key for employees to gain more senior roles. This often means reconciling competing obligations.
The entire article is here.
Forbes
Originally published October 23, 2013
Here are two excerpts:
There is another way of looking at morality. Instead of thinking of companies as entities, which is what the questions above do, let’s think of companies as collections of individuals. When we do that, we see morality in a different way: because individuals are motivated by moral purpose.
(cut)
His central idea is that the primary responsibility of any executive is to define the organization’s purpose and instill loyalty, so that managers work for the organization’s good rather than for their own advancement. You can only achieve this kind of loyalty if you keep your employees satisfied, rather than viewing them simply as economic production inputs. In Barnard’s own words, “The morality that underlies enduring cooperation is multidimensional.” He discusses how satisfying multiple moral codes, like responsibilities to customers and shareholders, is the key for employees to gain more senior roles. This often means reconciling competing obligations.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Do The Right Thing: Making Ethical Decisions in Everyday Life
By Tom Marshall
The New York Times
Originally published April 1, 2014
Overview
Something happens — a moment of injustice, a threat to the nation, a potentially criminal act. Why do some people speak out or take action, while others remain silent? And how can we encourage more people to recognize the moment when bravery is required?
In this lesson, we explore ethical dilemmas that face normal people around the world, in all walks of life. Some of their cases are familiar, while others are obscure. But they hold one thing in common: They feature individuals who followed the guidance of their own moral code, often risking personal injury or community censure to do so. We’ll ask students to examine the underlying characteristics of such episodes, and consider whether some acts are more deserving of support than others.
The entire article is here.
The New York Times
Originally published April 1, 2014
Overview
Something happens — a moment of injustice, a threat to the nation, a potentially criminal act. Why do some people speak out or take action, while others remain silent? And how can we encourage more people to recognize the moment when bravery is required?
In this lesson, we explore ethical dilemmas that face normal people around the world, in all walks of life. Some of their cases are familiar, while others are obscure. But they hold one thing in common: They feature individuals who followed the guidance of their own moral code, often risking personal injury or community censure to do so. We’ll ask students to examine the underlying characteristics of such episodes, and consider whether some acts are more deserving of support than others.
The entire article is here.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Moral Mind-Sets: Abstract Thinking Increases a Preference for “Individualizing” Over “Binding” Moral Foundations
By Jaime L. Napier and Jamie B. Luguri
Social Psychological and Personality Science
November 2013 vol. 4 no. 6 754-759
Abstract
Moral foundations theory contends that people’s morality goes beyond concerns about justice and welfare, and asserts that humans have five innate foundations of morality: harm and fairness (individualizing foundations) and in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity (binding foundations). The current research investigates whether people’s moral judgments are consistently informed by these five values, or whether individualizing and binding foundations might be differentially endorsed depending on individuals’ mind-sets. Results from our study demonstrated that when participants were experimentally manipulated to think abstractly (vs. concretely), which presumably makes their higher level core values salient, they increased in their valuations of the individualizing foundations and decreased in their valuations of the binding foundations. This effect was not moderated by political ideology. Implications and areas for future directions are discussed.
The entire article is here.
Social Psychological and Personality Science
November 2013 vol. 4 no. 6 754-759
Abstract
Moral foundations theory contends that people’s morality goes beyond concerns about justice and welfare, and asserts that humans have five innate foundations of morality: harm and fairness (individualizing foundations) and in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity (binding foundations). The current research investigates whether people’s moral judgments are consistently informed by these five values, or whether individualizing and binding foundations might be differentially endorsed depending on individuals’ mind-sets. Results from our study demonstrated that when participants were experimentally manipulated to think abstractly (vs. concretely), which presumably makes their higher level core values salient, they increased in their valuations of the individualizing foundations and decreased in their valuations of the binding foundations. This effect was not moderated by political ideology. Implications and areas for future directions are discussed.
The entire article is here.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Research shines light on the dark side of ethics
By Judy Ashton
Phys.org
Originally published March 25, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
"Fundamentally, the research shows that we are programmed to treat in-group members differently than out-group members, possibly as an evolutionary legacy of survival in the ancestral environment," says UC marketing professor James Kellaris, the James S. Womack/Gemini Professor of Signage in the Carl H. Lindner College of Business. "We tend to go easy on fellow in-group members and harder on strangers, due to complications of loyalty."
The entire story is here.
Here is the abstract to the research.
ABSTRACT
Once a matter of safety and survival, loyalty is a moral principle deeply rooted in human evolution—one that may wield a profound influence on ethical judgment and conceptions of just punishment. Consumers live in a complex Web of loyalty obligations woven through affiliations with marketers, fellow consumers, and other groups. This article examines how such affiliations shape consumers’ judgments of ethically controversial marketing conduct and preferences for punishment. In general, the more unethical an act is judged to be, the more severe the preferred punishment. However, the findings show that although consumers judge a controversial marketing act as more unethical when an in-group member targets the consumer's in-group (vs. out-group), a more lenient punishment is preferred (Study 1). Additionally, the extent to which one embraces loyalty as a moral value appears to mediate the relationship between group affiliations and preferred punishment (Study 2). This is a bias participants deny having, but believe others exhibit. This research finds evidence of loyalty to the principle of loyalty itself. A person will view an out-group member transgressing a member from that same out-group with disdain similar to that accorded an in-group member who transgresses the in-group, because the innate badness of the act is compounded by the stigma of disloyalty.
That article is here, behind a paywall, and hopefully accessible through your university library.
Phys.org
Originally published March 25, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
"Fundamentally, the research shows that we are programmed to treat in-group members differently than out-group members, possibly as an evolutionary legacy of survival in the ancestral environment," says UC marketing professor James Kellaris, the James S. Womack/Gemini Professor of Signage in the Carl H. Lindner College of Business. "We tend to go easy on fellow in-group members and harder on strangers, due to complications of loyalty."
The entire story is here.
Here is the abstract to the research.
ABSTRACT
Once a matter of safety and survival, loyalty is a moral principle deeply rooted in human evolution—one that may wield a profound influence on ethical judgment and conceptions of just punishment. Consumers live in a complex Web of loyalty obligations woven through affiliations with marketers, fellow consumers, and other groups. This article examines how such affiliations shape consumers’ judgments of ethically controversial marketing conduct and preferences for punishment. In general, the more unethical an act is judged to be, the more severe the preferred punishment. However, the findings show that although consumers judge a controversial marketing act as more unethical when an in-group member targets the consumer's in-group (vs. out-group), a more lenient punishment is preferred (Study 1). Additionally, the extent to which one embraces loyalty as a moral value appears to mediate the relationship between group affiliations and preferred punishment (Study 2). This is a bias participants deny having, but believe others exhibit. This research finds evidence of loyalty to the principle of loyalty itself. A person will view an out-group member transgressing a member from that same out-group with disdain similar to that accorded an in-group member who transgresses the in-group, because the innate badness of the act is compounded by the stigma of disloyalty.
That article is here, behind a paywall, and hopefully accessible through your university library.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary
By ADAM WAYTZ, JAMES DUNGAN and LIANE YOUNG
The New York Times
Published: August 2, 2013
IMAGINE you’re thinking about blowing the whistle on your employer. As the impassioned responses to the actions of whistle-blowers like Edward J. Snowden have reminded us, you face a moral quandary: Is reporting misdeeds an act of heroism or betrayal?
(cut)
It makes sense that whistle-blowing brings these two moral values, fairness and loyalty, into conflict. Doing what is fair or just (e.g., promoting an employee based on talent alone) often conflicts with showing loyalty (e.g., promoting a longstanding but unskilled employee).
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Published: August 2, 2013
IMAGINE you’re thinking about blowing the whistle on your employer. As the impassioned responses to the actions of whistle-blowers like Edward J. Snowden have reminded us, you face a moral quandary: Is reporting misdeeds an act of heroism or betrayal?
(cut)
It makes sense that whistle-blowing brings these two moral values, fairness and loyalty, into conflict. Doing what is fair or just (e.g., promoting an employee based on talent alone) often conflicts with showing loyalty (e.g., promoting a longstanding but unskilled employee).
The entire story is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)