Crane & Matten, Business ethics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 4

Suggested answers to the Think Theory exercises associated with the Ethics in Action boxes

THINK THEORY 1 Think about the prevalence of consequentialist approaches to decision-making such as cost-benefit analysis in organizations that youve worked in. Is such reasoning as inevitable as Bakan and MacIntyre suggest or is it possible to invoke ethics of rights, duties, or justice, for example? Does it make any difference what type of organization you are considering large or small, public or private, for-profit or not-for-profit?

Such thinking is not inevitable. Consider Johnson & Johnsons 1982 recall of Tylenol, where the company is considered to have put customer safety before profit: this looks like evidence of a non-consequentialist ethic in a large multinational. Different types of organization should affect the approach to decision-making: for example, a not-for-profit organization has different goals from a corporation and its decision-making may start from different assumptions. Moreover, even cost-benefit analyses differ. For example, the GM decision that Bakan describes had been taken in the 1970s, and failed to take into account the potential risk to the companys reputation. It is narrow by todays standards, and GM would probably conduct a more thorough analysis now.

THINK THEORY 2 Think about Hofstedes mental programming theory of culture in terms of its relevance for ethical decision-making. In the text, we have explained how the dimensions individualism/collectivism and power distance might influence decision-making. What are the likely influences of masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation? Is this a helpful way of exploring the cultural influences on ethical decisionmaking?

Students answering this question need to decide (and justify) for themselves whether Hofstedes theory is helpful. Examples of likely influences: Uncertainty avoidance. o A clear, unambiguous company code of conduct would likely be of value in promoting ethical decisions from someone from a culture with a high preference for uncertainty avoidance. Masculinity/femininity. o Someone from a culture closer to the masculinity end of the spectrum may be more likely to choose to engage in unethical behaviour when large bonuses are at stake. Someone closer to the femininity end of the spectrum may by contrast be more likely to engage in unethical behaviour if encouraged to do so by peers. Long-term/short-term orientation.

OXFORD H i g h e r
Oxford University Press, 2010. All rights reserved.

Education

Crane & Matten, Business ethics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 4

o An individual with a short-term orientation may be more likely to seek quickfix solutions to problems even if they are ethically questionable, while someone with a long-term preference may be in danger of acting unethically now in an attempt to generate long-term benefits.

THINK THEORY 3 Think about the notion of moral imagination from the perspective of our three different approaches to normative ethical theory: absolutism, relativism, and pluralism. Would you say that moral imagination would be of help or hindrance to applying ethical theory in each of these approaches?

Absolutism: hindrance, because the position that right and wrong are universal and objective is in conflict with the sense of a wide range of possible issues, consequences and solutions. Creativity is not needed, as the issues are already clear. Relativism: helpful. Relativism holds that right and wrong cannot be rationally determined, nor can a moral judgement about behaviour in other cultures be made from the outside. Moral imagination helps here, as the individual senses the consequences of decisions, and develops a range of solutions. Pluralism: helpful, because the creativity to reflect on ethical dilemmas and their various and consequences is valuable in both accepting different moral positions and helping to generate solutions.

THINK THEORY 4 Think about the Kerviel case in terms of the individual factors set out in models of ethical decision-making. How important do you think these are for explaining his actions, and which other factors might also be at play here?

Individual influences Age and gender are likely to have little to do with why Kerviel acted the way he did, although some might argue that his aggressive and isolated approach to working may exhibit typical masculine traits. National and cultural characteristics may have been significant. For instance, France can be thought of as an individualistic culture, so Kerviel may have been more likely to rely on himself to attempt to remake the money he had lost, instead of asking for help. Education and employment may also have had a significant impact on his actions as those who become brokers tend to have been educated somewhere in the business field such as accounting, economics, and finance, which have been shown in some studies to be less concerned than others about ethics.

OXFORD H i g h e r
Oxford University Press, 2010. All rights reserved.

Education

Crane & Matten, Business ethics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 4

Also, because he was working as a broker, where the clear message is that your job relies on you making money for the client, this key employment goal may have caused him to ignore his own personal values while working. Psychological factors o Cognitive moral development clearly in this case, Kerviel was operating at a relatively low level of CMD. It seems from the details of the case that Kerviel had no intention of telling Socit Gnrale about his mismanagement and therefore we must presume that punishment was a strong motivator for him (level 1). However, he also probably rationalized that it was at least to some extent acceptable given the lack of controls in place (level 3); something he was at pains to point out. Therefore, CMD could be a significant factor in explaining his actions. o Locus of control it is difficult to determine whether Kerviel tended towards high internal locus of control or high external locus of control. Did he think he could earn back the money and was therefore in control of the market, or did he feel like a victim of the market? Probably the former given the efforts he went to in order to keep on trading. Personal values Kerviel was perceived to be a competent, if non-stellar, employee who appears to have sacrificed integrity to the goal of proving himself, and particularly of showing he was better than others. It seems relatively clear that he did not go to great lengths to hide his actions, despite his unauthorized actions. Personal integrity again this relates back to personal values. If Kerviel had personal integrity, he would have been consistent in applying his own personal values, including honesty regardless of where he was and what situation he found himself in. Clearly, he did not operate with honesty when working as a trader for Socit Gnrale and therefore personal integrity (or the lack of it) could be a significant factor in explaining his actions. Moral imagination it is possible that Kerviel has sufficient moral imagination to foresee the consequences of his actions, but not enough moral imagination to see beyond the rules of the game and/ or the realities of everyday organizational life. Judging by his actions, it appears he was unable or unwilling to see outside the confines of the organizational reality of which he was a part, judging his actions only in relation to those of his more successful colleagues. Therefore, a lack of moral imagination is likely to be a significant factor in explaining his behaviour.

Additional factors at play: Family and home life pressures/expectations Kerviel was said to have been suffering from family problems, so it is possible that this played a role. It seems more likely, however, that his desire to get one over his colleagues was more significant.

OXFORD H i g h e r
Oxford University Press, 2010. All rights reserved.

Education

Crane & Matten, Business ethics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 4

THINK THEORY 5 Think about the theory of rationalizing tactics in the context of your own experience can you recognize these having been used? Can you provide specific examples of the types of language that people have used to rationalize potentially unethical behaviour?

The 2009 UK parliamentary expenses scandal is an example from public life where rationalising tactics were used. Widespread reports of misuse of parliamentary allowances and expenses caused great public anger. Many MPs initial reaction was that they had done nothing wrong, that the system was the problem, and that MPs expenses had for years been explicitly treated as an augmentation of inadequate basic salaries (which had not been raised because of fear of public outrage). The following tactics were in evidence: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, use of the metaphor of the ledger, and to some extent social weighting.

THINK THEORY 6 Think about the theory proposed here that bureaucracy suppresses morality. Consider a bureaucratic organization that you have had personal experience of and try to relate the four effects highlighted here to that organization. Does the theory seem to have much validity in this instance?

Here is a hypothetical example. Warm Front is a privately-run, government-funded initiative designed to help people on certain social benefits in England heat and insulate their homes: it involves carrying out work of up to a certain value, with the household paying any excess cost in advance. Mrs M spent one entire winter without central heating after moving house early that autumn and applying for a Warm Front grant. There had been very quick initial service (evaluation plus invoice for the excess), but nothing happened after she paid. There were many phone calls and letters, but it was only when her local MP became involved that she got her heating. Suppression of moral autonomy was evident: whenever Mrs M called to ask about progress, the person answering would say that all they could do was pass the query along. Instrumental morality was present: at least one organizational goal receive payment was achieved very efficiently and Mrs M was told several times that the correct procedures were being followed. Distancing was evident, as nearly all communication was by telephone or letter and nobody from the company visited the house during winter. Denial of moral status can also be identified: the steps in the company process leading to installation of the central heating had been divided into several tasks, each carried out by a separate office, each being concerned to complete its own task efficiently.

OXFORD H i g h e r
Oxford University Press, 2010. All rights reserved.

Education

Crane & Matten, Business ethics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 4

THINK THEORY 7 Think about what this experiment says about roles and moral relativism. Is it reasonable to justify any kind of behaviour on the grounds that ethical evaluations may differ according to different contexts?

Obviously, the average workplace is not equivalent to a prison, but the general principle suggested by the experiment is that our morality may vary according to the role we are expected to adopt in a particular context. Chapter 3 said that ethical relativists argue that morality is context dependent and depends on the person making the decision and the culture in which they are located. Roles appear to be a significant force that shapes this relativism quite simply, people may make different moral decisions depending on the role that they are adopting. This still leaves open the question of whether we are talking about simply descriptive relativism (i.e. that peoples morality will vary) or ethical relativism (that the different moralities are equally right). Given that most peoples reaction to the Stanford Prison Experiment is often one of surprise, or disappointment, or even disgust, it may be difficult to argue for the latter. This would suggest that although role-related behaviour is understandable, it is not necessarily acceptable from an ethical point of view.

OXFORD H i g h e r
Oxford University Press, 2010. All rights reserved.

Education