Simple is good. At least that's the message we get from countless KISS (keep it simple, stupid!) recommendations we receive over our life times.  Complexity is time consuming, ergo bad.  Give me an A+B=C solution and I'll praise your knowledge and efficiency.

I suppose. Except that when it comes to ethics things are far from simple.  First, take a look at psychologist James Rest's* "Four Component Model." All four components are necessary if one is to behave morally.  

• Moral sensitivity means our ability to recognize that we are being confronted with a moral issue.
• Moral judgment means our ability to identify the moral course of action.
• Moral motivation is our willingness to do whatever it is that we decided is the moral thing to do.
• Moral behavior means ultimately doing what we decided to do.

It's possible to get stuck in one of the components.  First, we may be blind to the ethical dimensions of a situation (moral sensitivity). We may believe, for instance, that the issue is "just a business one" or is too simple to be considered "moral." Second, we may recognize the morality of the situation but not have the ethical tools to identify the "right answer" (moral judgment). Third, we may know what the "right answer" is but may be unwilling to follow it (moral motivation). Finally, we may be willing to do the right thing but be unable to do so at the last minute (moral behavior).

The next question, therefore, is: What makes us more or less able to go through the four components of morality? Now we turn to the work of Thomas Jones**.  Dr. Jones suggested that all four of Rest's components are related to the moral intensity of a situation. In order to estimate the intensity of a situation, we must consider:

• Consequences: How serious is the situation? Can someone get hurt? How badly?
• Social consensus: Does everyone agree that "response behavior x" is good or bad? Is the "right thing to do" something open to significant differences in interpretation?
• Probability of effect: How likely is harm to take place? Is this something so hypothetical and far fetching that we might as well forget about it?
• Temporal immediacy: When are the consequences to the problem likely to take place? Right now? Three generations from now?
• Proximity: How close are the victims to us, psychologically, physically, socially, and culturally? Are they our friends? Do they share our nationality, religion, or another common social identity?
• Concentration of effect: How many people are affected by the situation? How badly will they be affected? Is this something likely to cost a lot of people a tiny bit of discomfort or one person a significant amount of pain and suffering?

According to Jones, we are not likely to pay attention to situations of low moral intensity.  For instance, if an employee believes that something has very low consequences and those consequences are very disperse, he/she is unlikely to activate any thoughts of morality. As an example, a person who would ordinarily never steal (not even from a complete stranger) could make a long distance phone call on the company's dime, take home a block of postits from the office supply cabinet or simply fail to focus on work tasks while at work. A normally ethical CEO might ignore the likely but very far way (200 years from now?) environmental impact of current organizational policies.

Why does this matter? Let me offer a few possible implications of ethical complexity:

• Your ethics interventions may not work. You put together this fantastic leadership ethics training program, full of bells and whistles.  Your organization has spent considerable effort developing a set of values, a Code of Ethics, and all sorts of ethical rules.  Your employees, however, may get stuck in one of the four morality components (sensitivity, judgment, motivation, behavior). They may also fail to apply the lessons learned to a real situation perceived as irrelevant, ambiguous, improbable, distant, impersonal, or disperse.
• Your ethics interventions may be misdirected. Maybe you focused too much on behavior and forgot that people need to see a problem as moral to begin with.  Maybe you worried about training and failed to realize a serious systemic issue, one which prevents people from doing the right thing even when they want to do so.
• People may become desensitized to ethical issues.   Remember the postits? Well, let's face it - one pad will hardly make a dent on organizational success of failure. The problem is: We might escalate.  If the postits are ok, then maybe something else is ok too.  Ann Tenbrunsel and David Messick*** referred to this as the N+1 rule. We could become progressively immunized against seeing something as ethically problematic.

So, after reading this, tell me: Is simple really good? 

I'd love to hear your thoughts: What ethics interventions have you either experienced or implemented in your organization? How have they worked?


* Rest, J. R., & ez, D. N. (1994). Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Psychology Press.
** Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.
*** Tenbrunsel, A., & Messick, D. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223–236. doi:10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53

Lately I have dedicated considerable time and effort to a study on impartiality and ethical decision making among HR professionals.  The data for the study were collected a little while back with one of my then graduate students, Tim Kozitza.  I'm currently working on the data analysis with my brother, Professor Carlos de-Mello-e-Souza, from Seattle University. The purpose of the study is to investigate two main questions:

• Proximity: How much does proximity (how close you are to the person involved in an ethical dilemma) matter in your ultimate decision? Are you more likely to favor a friend than a stranger?
• Impartiality: What variables impact the likelihood that we will make an impartial decision? 

As I write the first question, I can already hear my readers' "duh" response.  Of course, you'll say, people are likely to favor their friends.  Next question please.  

Not so fast.  First, the sample will include HR professionals only - we plan to eliminate from the sample participants who do not work in the field of HR.  Most HR professionals will agree that "fairness" is an important value in the profession - you are expected to treat employees impartially and in accordance to organizational policy. For instance, the SHRM Code of Ethics states that HR professionals should "develop, administer, and advocate policies and procedures that foster fair, consistent, and equitable treatment for all." Second, the sample includes a large number of individuals with managerial responsibilities - and managers are also expected to be fair and equitable in the allocation of resources and application of organizational policies (we will be reviewing the data to see the impact of managerial role). Third, the dilemma proposed in the survey was a professional one. It did not involve outside friends, family, etc.  One might expect "fairness" to be a more important motivation in the world of work than in one's social interactions.

The second question, however, is undoubtedly the most interesting one.  Clearly, not everyone is likely to favor the friend.  We are exploring variables such as personality traits, gender, and managerial status as we review the data. 

Before I see the final results, though, I'm spending some time reflecting on the limits of impartiality.  Yes, we advocate for it.  We insist that we are capable of it.  When push comes to shove, however, how impartial are we really? For instance:

• You are a professor.  The rules say that students have to submit papers by day x. You know, however, that you could change those rules, and that no one will fault you for doing so as long as you do it for everyone (in other words, if you push a date, you will push it for the entire class).  Question is: Who would be most likely to convince you to push down a date? 
• You are a manager.  All employees must deliver project x by deadline y.  The day before deadline, you see one of the employees in trouble.  She asks you for help just as you're headed home.  Let's assume that you would help any employee under those circumstances.  However, for whom would you stay behind the longest? To whom would you demonstrate the best attitude? 
• You are a student. The course is over and you're asked to fill out an evaluation. You know the course had some flaws. For the sake of future classes, you want to be honest. How tactful, however, are you likely to be if you like the professor a lot? Might you be harsher under certain circumstances?

In other words: When we think of "impartiality" we often think of big and clear decisions. The true test of impartiality, however, could lie in the little ones.  These little decisions, however, might matter.  They might make a difference between someone's success or failure. 

What do you think? Can you bring examples of moments in which you favor those you love in the little things? What is the impact of your own partiality? What solutions might you offer?