RESUMEN: Ethical Fading: The Role of Self-Deception in Unethical Behavior

This paper examines the root of unethical dicisions by identifying the psycho- logical forces that promote self-deception.While the intention is good, we wonder whether it will achieve the desired end product, namely a reduction in unethical behavior.Could scandals such as Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia have been avoided if their executives had received more ethics training? We argue that the answer to this question is no.Ethics training has been argued to be short-lived (Richards, 1999) and codes of conduct, usually part of the educational process, have in some cases produced no discernible difference in behavior (Badaracco andWebb, 1995).

According to a recent survey, more than half of the MBA graduates did not feel that the ethics training they received in business schools was very useful in addressing the ethical issues they face in the workplace (BusinessWeek Online, 2003).Typical instruction includes an overview of ethical theory, discussion of ethical principles, and applications of such principles using a case-based method.Such instruction assumes that by highlighting and emphasizing the moral components of decisions, executives will be more likely to choose the moral path. Missing from this paradigm, however, is the failure to acknowledge the innate psychological tendency for individuals to engage in self-deception. Individuals do not “see” the moral components of an ethical decision, not so much because they are morally uneducated, but because psychological processes fade the “ethics” from an ethical dilemma.

“ethical fading” to define the process by which the moral colors of an ethical decision fade into bleached hues that are void of moral implications.Our argument echoes Messick and Bazerman (1996) who argue that the assumption that executive ethics is based on explicit tradeoffs between ethics and profits is misplaced; rather, they argue, unethical behavior is due to the “psychological tendencies that create unethical behavior.” Efforts to improve ethical decision making, then, may be better directed toward understanding these psychological tendencies.

(...) self-deception, which we argue to be at the root of ethical fading.(...) the role of language euphemisms, the slippery slope of decision making, errors in perceptual causation, and constraints induced by representations of the self.We argue that self-deception and decision frames are part of the sequence linking environmental cues to unethical behavior, with environmental cues acting as prompts for self- deception, which in turn decreases the likelihood that an ethical frame is adopted, thus increasing unethical behavior.

THE ART OF SELF-DECEPTIONSelf-deception is defined as being unaware of the processes that lead us to form our opinions and judgments (Messick and Bazerman, 1996).Such deception involves avoidance of the truth, the lies that we tell to, and the secrets we keep from, ourselves (Bok, 1989). This practice is common, normal, and accepted as constant and pervasive in individuals’ lives. We are creative narrators of stories that tend to allow us to do what we want and that justify what we have done.We believe our stories and thus believe that we are objective about ourselves.We argue that self-deception is instrumental in the process of ethical fading. An ethical decision often involves a tradeoff between self-interest and moral principles. By avoiding or disguising the moral implications of a decision, indi- viduals can behave in a self-interested manner and still hold the conviction that they are ethical persons. Ignorance and false beliefs about oneself can create errors in judgments concerning moral responsibility and in estimates of the amount of harm that is caused, as well as obscure means to reverse an immoral decision (Bok, 1989).Self-deceit is thus seen as standing in the way of morality (autoengaño como obstáculo de la moralidad). Indeed, it has been asserted that if individuals could rid themselves of such self-deceit, then they would be more capable of making moral decisions and leading nobler lives (Bok, 1989).(...) despite the fact that it is unclear whether such deception is the result of a conscious act or an unconscious process.

Self-deception is paradoxical in this sense, for to deceive oneself somehow implies that one must know that something needs to be hidden or kept secret (Bok, 1989, p. 61).Psychoanalysis has offered the concept of the split-selves as one mechanism that may help explain this paradox (Demos, 1960; Fingarette, 1969; Freud, 1957; Haight, 1980).The question of whether it is a process of which we are aware or one which exists below the surface, however, remains a debated point.

What is evident is that we need to acknowledge the pervasiveness of self-deception and its role in unethical decision making. As Messick and Bazerman (1996) state, “if we can accept the fact that the human mind has an infinite, creative capacity to trick itself,wecan guard against irrational, unethical decisions.” Understanding the mechanisms by which self-deception is exacerbated, the “enablers” if you will, becomes the necessary next step

Euphemisms LanguageLanguage euphemisms are the “disguised” stories we tell ourselves about our unethical actions.Through renaming actions we take and relabeling decisions we make, we turn what may be unacceptable into socially approved behaviors.We engage in “aggressive” accounting practices, not illegal ones. There may be some “externalities” associated with a strategy, not harmful to others or the environment.We have “collateral damage” in military campaigns, not civilian deaths.Some of these illustrate the tendency to replace morally repugnant language with more abstract and neutral terms. In other cases the goal is to connote something more or less benign, depending on what is in our best self-interest.

The fact is that it is very easy to find the words to color a story in such a way that it becomes appealing to the narrator and consistent with the narrator’s morality. Messick (1999a) provides a vivid illustration of language euphemisms in the tobacco industry. To fight the growing body of research that indicated that tobacco was addictive, the industry fought to redefine the concept of addiction.Business schools have likewise been blamed for the creation of euphemisms that help to disguise unethical actions.

Terms such as “transaction costs, profit maximization, and rationalization” are argued to be devoid of the human and potential ethical dimensions of decisions. A case in point is the term “right sizing”—the favored terms for layoffs—which focuses attention toward the economic benefits and away from the human costs of putting people out of work.

Social scientists have also uncovered the powerful role of language in the decision-making process. In a study of cooperation rates in ultimatum versus pris- oner dilemma games, Larrick and Blount (1997) demonstrated that the differences in cooperation rates between social dilemmas and ultimatum bargaining games could be explained by the words used to describe these games.

Language euphemisms themselves are not dangerous.We need metaphors to help us simplify the complexity of our world. What is dangerous is when these metaphors hide the moral or ethical implications of our decisions.Perhaps worse, the metaphors can be dangerously transformed from descriptions to explanations. In doing so, unethical behavior becomes justifiable through a process of deception, in which we transform morally wrong behavior into socially acceptable actions.

The Slippery Slope of Decision MakingThe so-called “slippery slope” of decision making, the second enabler of self-deception, consists of at least two separate psychological mechanisms.1º a psychological numbing that comes from repetition.In this sense, repeated exposures to ethical dilemmas may produce a form of ethical numbing in which self-reproof is diminished through repeated exposures (Bandura, 1999).

The second component of the slippery slope problem is what we call the “induction” mechanism. If each step away from ethical and acceptable practices is sufficiently small, small enough not to appear qualitatively different, then a series of these small steps can lead to a journey of unethical and illegal activities.Routinization means thatwhena practice has become routine, it is ordinary, mundane, and acceptable. Any ethical coloration is lost.“one lie perpetuates many more.” Part of this is due to our inability to see the incremental steps we take down the road of unethical behavior, due to the self-deception that occurs along the way.

Errors in Perceptual Causation WhatThere are three reasons why individual perceptions of causes can go awry—afocus on individuals rather than systems, self-interested motives in the assignment of blame, and a blurred moral responsibility involving acts of omission (Mes- sick and Bazerman, 1996). First, individuals tend to focus on a person rather than a system in assessing and remedying problematic situations.Because of our assumption that systems are “error proof,” we overlook environmental causes of unethical behavior, in turn reducing the probability that the system will be improved.Our proclivity to fo- cus only on the person may thus lead us to overlook other, more likely causes, which reduces the likelihood that the frequency of unethical behavior will be diminished.

In an investigation of perceived causation of events when two factors—the “target” and the “contributing factor”—conjoin to produce an event, McGill and Tenbrunsel (2000) found that causal ratings of the target factor were influenced in part by the mutability of the contributing factor, defined as the degree to which the contributing factor could be imagined to be different.if systems are seen as immutable in comparison to humans, then humans will be focused on as targets of blame.Since causal explanations are influenced by mutability, the assignment of blame is thus dependent on which factors are perceived to be mutable or immutable. Such judgments of mutability may reflect not only objective assess- ments of which factors can change but may also be influenced by the motivation of the perceiver.

self-interest may mean that I see other factors as more variable than they really are, and hence erroneously deflect blame from myself that should rightfully be assigned to me.Acts of omission are a third reason as to why perceptions of causes are in error. Whereas lies of commission are direct misstatements of the truth, lies of omission are acts of deception that occur because someone withholds information that deceives the target.

moral responsibility shifts from the agent to the target under situations characterized by acts of omissions. Ritov and Baron’s (1990) work provides empirical support for this intuitive motion, demonstrating that acts of omission are viewedas more acceptable than acts of commission. Acts of omission, then, because they blur the assignment of responsibility, can create self-biased perceptions of causes, shifting blame from self to others.In such circumstances, it is highly likely that individuals’ propensity to engage in unethical behavior increases, because shifting responsibility to others allows one to divorce oneself from the moral implications of their actions. Errors in perceptual causation allow us to distance ourselves from the ethical issues at hand.

We also falsely believe that it is someone else’s problem, either because they are to blame or because the responsibility is someone else’s, not ours.

The Constrained Representation of Our SelfThe final point that we want to make about enablers of self-deception is the obviousbut oftenoverlooked fact thatwedonot get to choosehowwesee the world.Even when we try to put ourselves into the place of others, the best we can do is to try to imagine what the other would experience from our own perspective. So from this perspective, it is an act of self-deception to believe that one knows something about an “objective” truth.Any thoughts that we have an objective comprehension are a form of self-deception. The inability to have a truly objective perception of the world means that we cannot accurately evaluate the effect our behavior has on others, the ability of which is central to many prominent ethical theories.

SELF-DECEPTION AND DECISION FRAMESSelf- deception helps to disguise violations of our ethical principles. If we do not see that our actions are unethical, then we can behave in a self-interested but ultimately unethical manner.The decision is categorized in other terms, perhaps as a business, economic, personal, or legal decision. Such categorization in turn allows behavior that others would judge as unethical.Recent theorizing suggests that individuals’ construal of the situation doesinfluence unethical behavior. Extending March’s (1995) ideas, Messick (1999b) focused on the stages of decision making.In this stage, individuals decide what type of situation it is with which they are faced.

individuals may perceive that the situation is an ethical dilemma, with the objective to consider the ethical principles at stake, or that the situation is a business problem, one in which organizational goals are of the utmost importance.In an investigation of cooperative behavior in social dilemmas, Tenbrunsel and Messick (1999) examined the effects of a surveillance system that monitored whether individuals cooperated or defected.Finding support for this hypothesis, they investigated the impact that decision frames would play in explaining this pattern of results.When there was no surveillance system in place, the majority of individuals perceived that the situation was best character- ized as an ethical decision but when a surveillance systemwas present, the majority of individuals perceived that the situation could be best described as a business de- cision. On

The model offered two effects: a signaling effect and a processing effect. External cues, such as a surveillance system, serve as a signal that impacts the construal of the situation (i.e., an ethical frame versus a business frame).Their results demonstrated the connection between decision frame and behavior, with cooperation significantly higher when an ethical frame had been adopted.we believe that self-deception is one of the underlying mechanisms that helps explains the relationship between environmental cues (such as a surveillance system) and the construal of the situ- ation. Self-deception.biases in perceived causation that erroneously reduce moral responsibility, or constraints that are induced by our mental representations of our self, such deception influences the type of decision with which we believe we are faced.The less salient the ethical dimensions, the less likely it is that an ethical decision frame will be adopted and hence the more likely it is that individuals will behave unethically.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONSWe have proposed that self-deception is at the core of ethical fading and, through influencing the decision frame that is adopted, is a dominant perpetrator in unethical behavior.en- vironmental prompts (or cues) trigger self-deception mechanisms which influence the decision frame that is adopted which in turn impacts behavior.The dominant influence of self-interest triggers self-deception, which decreases the likelihood that an ethical frame will be adopted, leading to unethical behavior.environmental or contextual cues, self-deception, and decision frames. To date, ethics training has focused on normative education, which could reasonably be argued to promote an ethical frame.

Self-deception processes, in competition with such training, may override the ethics frame induced by ethics education and promote an economic or business frame.Organizations should thus identify the structural, institutional, and systematic factors that promote unethical behavior.We must condition ourselves to be aware of the enablers of self-deception; furthermore, we must be more critical of our judgments and our motives driving both our actions and our judgments of others’ behaviors (Messick and Bazerman, 1996). Given the connection between justification and unethical behavior (Bok, 1978; Lewicki and Litterer, 1985; Tenbrunsel, 1995), we must also question the justifications that we concoct to rationalize our actions

Focusing on decision frames represents another avenue for increasing ethical behavior in organizations.to directly investigate decision frames both within as well as between organizations.

CONCLUSIONThe layers of self-deception are thick and the processes are ingrained. To accept this fact, but do nothing about it, will leave us color blind in our vision of the ethical landscape.As with most embedded problems, the first step—recognizing and accepting the problem—is often the most difficult. The next step is to more clearly understand the processes that cause ethical fading.