Ethical Breakdowns
The article at hand provides readers with a powerful insight into causes of unethical behavior that people barely consider as significant. It observes different situations and their consequences in terms of application and adherence to ethical principles. Bazerman & Tenbrunsel are concerned with ‘hidden’ breakdowns of ethics in the organization and their implication on the company’s workforce, overall performance and its financial outcomes. They agree with Nyberg’s (587-598) position and point at the fact that ethics and its principles are crucially important in day-to-day activities. Unethical behavior can be avoided only if both top-management and the staff are aware of ethical implications that arise from their day-to-day decisions. The authors believe that the thorough analysis of the decision-making process can eliminate the possibility of unethical behavior and pitiful consequences.
It is also good that the authors encourage leaders to undertake more responsibility for the decisions they make. As the article writes, “leaders setting goals should take the perspective of those whose behavior they are trying to influence and think through their potential responses” (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel). Goal-setting is not that easy as it may seem. With the wrong aims set, employees may be forced to do their work in a wrong way or to lessen the degree of quality of their work. They unconsciously may become self-serving instead of productive. The authors also provided analysis of the similar situations that led to awful consequences at a larger scale. The goal of increased homeownership set in a wrong way by the president led to significant problems in the economy and even financial crisis. This is one of the strongest claims of the article that relates ethics to the processes in the economy and politics that can influence the entire world.
Another issue that was also raised in the article refers to ‘indirect blindness’ of the top-management (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel). Some decisions that are made are well-thought and have a sufficient unethical background. Companies may use intermediaries in order to make their decisions and operation more appropriate in terms of ethics (Sezer, Gino & Bazerman 77). In this case, the authors use an absolutely different approach to studying the issue of breaching ethics. They also rely on their own experiments and studies in order to prove the validity of their views. As a result, they fairly come to the conclusion that “managers routinely delegate unethical behaviors to others, and not always consciously” (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel).
The article represents a solid evidence to any assumption that has been made. The authors’ aim is to persuade the reader that unethical behavior is the issue that may lead to serious consequences. Bazerman & Tenbrunsel demonstrate that the ignorance of small ethical issues have as serious consequences as large ethical scandals. The article emphasizes that managers are responsible for avoiding unethical situations and their attention should be on possibilities of them and their prevention. Also, it should be noted that the article encourages further studies of the problem. The authors did not cover all behaviors then imply unethical decision-making. Besides, they are honest that their analysis is deep, but not comprehensive, as new forms of unethical behavior appear. Their advice is to keep tracking unethical situations and continue analyzing different approaches to ethics.
Works Cited
Bazerman, Max & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. “Ethical Breakdowns.” Harvard Business Review: Organizational Culture. Harvard Business Review, Apr 2011.
McKhiber, Russel. “Motivated Blindness.” The Huffington Post: The Blog. The Huffington Post, 22 Sep 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-mokhiber/motivated-blindness_b_3639593.html
Nyberg, Daniel. “The Morality of Everyday Activities: Not the Right, But the Good Thing to Do.” Journal of Business Ethics 81.3 (2008): 587-598.
Sezer, Ovul, Gino, Francesca & Bazerman, Max. “Ethical Blind Spots: Explaining Unintentional Unethical Behavior.” Current Opinion in Psychology 6 (2015): 77-81.
