How is unethical behavior punished

How is unethical behavior punished DEFAULT

(Un)ethical Behavior in Business: A Reward-Punishment Probability Framework

Competition, Trust, and Cooperation pp 210-226 | Cite as

Part of the Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy book series (SEEP)

Abstract

The recent inquiry of business ethics can be traced to the early 1960s, following the recovery of capitalism after World War II. Ethical issues related to business in the realm of fair wages, labor practices, consumers’ rights, and morality of capitalism were mainly focused at that time. Consumerism movement in America during the 1960s ushered a new dialogue in business ethics. It asked the business to look at the consumer and the society and be ethical in their conducts. Environment also became an issue. Various laws were passed in America to protect the rights of the consumers and to protect the environment. Business became more concerned about its image in the society and corporate social responsibility was emphasized. About this time, business ethics gained recognition in the academia and professors entered the arena, applying ethical theory and philosophical analysis to structure the discipline of business ethics. By the end of 1970s, issues like bribery, deceptive advertising, price collusion, product safety, environmental damage were debated both in business and in the academia. Limited efforts were also made to describe how ethical decision making worked and what factors influenced such decision making. In the 1980s, business ethics was acknowledged as a field of study in many business schools and Business Ethics was taught as a course in different business programs. Prominent companies established separate departments to handle the ethical conduct of business and corporate social responsibility issues. Self-regulation rather than regulation by the government was emphasized.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility Business Ethic Ethical Behavior Ethical Decision Unethical Behavior 

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldag, R. J., Jackson, D. W.: “Assessment of attitudes toward social responsibilities”, Journal of Business Administration, 8 (1977), pp. 65–80.Google Scholar

  2. Armstrong, R. W., Sweeny, J.: “Industry Type, Culture, Mode of Entry and Perceptions of International Marketing Ethics Problems: A Cross-Cultural Comparison”, Journal of Business Ethics, 13, October (1994), pp. 775–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  3. Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., Hatfield, J. D.: “An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitablity”, Academy of Management journal, 28 (1985), pp. 446–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  4. Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T.: “The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Sociology”, Journal of Economic Literature, XXXII, 3 (1994).Google Scholar

  5. Baumhart, R. C.: “How Ethical Are Businessmen?”, Harvard Business Review, 39 (4) (1961), pp. 6–9, 156-157.Google Scholar

  6. Beversluis, E. H.: “Is There ‘No Such Thing as Business Ethics’?”, Journal of Business Ethics, 6, February (1987), pp. 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  7. Bowman, J. S.: “ Managerial Ethics in Business and Government”, Business Horizons, 19, October (1976), pp. 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  8. Burton, B. K., Near, J. P.: “Estimating the Incidence of Wrong Doing”, Journal of Business Ethics, 14 (1995).Google Scholar

  9. Cadbury, A.: “Ethical Managers Make their Own Rules”, Harvard Business Review, January-February (1983).Google Scholar

  10. Cadbury, A.: “Ethical Managers Make their Own Rules”, Havard Business Review, 65(5) (1987), pp. 69–73.Google Scholar

  11. Carroll, A. B.: “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders,” Business Horizons, 42, July-August (1991).Google Scholar

  12. Cavanaugh, G. F., Moberg, D. J., Velasquez, M.: “The Ethics of Organizational Politics”, Academy of Management Review, 6, July (1981), pp. 363–371.Google Scholar

  13. Chakraborty, S. K. (1995a): “Ethics in Management: Verdict Perspectives”, New Delhi (Oxford University Press) 1995.Google Scholar

  14. Chonko, L. B.: Ethical Decision Making in Marketing, New Delhi (Sage) 1995.Google Scholar

  15. Cochran, P., Wood, R.: “Corporate social responsibility and financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 27 (1984), pp. 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  16. Degeorge, R. T.: “The Status of Business Ethics: Past and Future”, Journal of Business Ethics, 6, April (1987), pp. 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  17. Derry, R.: “An Empirical Study of Moral Reasoning Among Managers”, Journal of Business Ethics, 8 (1989), pp. 855–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  18. Evan, W. M., Freeman, R. E.: “A Stake Holder Theory of Modern Corporation”’, in: T. Beuchap, N. Bowie (Eds.): Ethical Theory in Business Ethics, New Jersey (Englewood Cliff-Prentice Hall) 1988.Google Scholar

  19. Ferrell, M. Z., Ferrell, O. C.: “Role-Set Configuration and Opportunity as Predictors of Unethical Behavior in Organizations”, Human Relations, 35, no. 7 (1982), pp. 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  20. Ferrell, O. C, Gresham, L. G.: “A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 49, Summer (1985), p. 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  21. Ferrell, O. C, Gresham, L. G., Fraedrich, J.: “ A Synthesis of Ethical Decision Making Models for Marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, Fall (1989), pp. 58–59.Google Scholar

  22. Ferrell, O. C, Larry, G. G., Fraedrich, J.: “A Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for Marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, 9, Fall (1989), pp. 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  23. Fraedrich, J.: “D. M. Thorne and O. C. Ferrell, Assessing the Application of Cognitive Moral Development Theory to Business Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 13 (1994), pp. 829–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  24. Fraedrich J., Ferrell, O. C.: “Cognitive Consistency of Marketing Managers in Ethical Situations”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, Summer (1992), pp. 254–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  25. Fritzsche, D. J., Becker, H.: “Linking Management Behavior to Ethical Philosophy-an Empirical Inversion”, Academy of Management Journal, 27 (1984), pp. 166–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  26. Gergen, K.: “Global Organization, Imperialism and Ethics”, Organization, 2(3/4) (1995).Google Scholar

  27. Goodell, R.: “National Business Ethics Survey Findings”, Ethics Journal, 1-3, Fall/Winter (1994).Google Scholar

  28. Goodpaster, K.: “Toward an Integrated Approach to Business Ethics”, Thought, 40 (1985), pp. 161–180.Google Scholar

  29. Hager, B.: “’ What’s Behind Business’ Sudden Fervor for Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Business week, September 23 (1991), p. 65.Google Scholar

  30. Jansen, E., Von Glinow, M. A.: “Ethical Ambivalence and Organizational Reward Systems”, Academy of Management Journal, 10 (1985), pp. 814–822.Google Scholar

  31. Jones, T. M.: “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model”, Academy of Management Review, 16, February (1991), pp. 366–395.Google Scholar

  32. Kahn, A. W.: “Toward and Agenda for Business Ethics Research”, Academy of Management Review, 15, April (1990), pp. 311–328.Google Scholar

  33. Krugman, D. M., Ferrell, O. C.: “ The Organizational Ethics of Advertising: Corporate and Agency Views”, Journal of Advertising, 10, No 1 (1981), pp. 21–30.Google Scholar

  34. Laczniak, G. R., Berkowitz, M. W., Brooker, R. G., Hale, J. P.: “The Ethics of Business: Improving or Deteriorating?”, Business Horizons, 38, January-February (1995), pp. 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  35. Lunati, T.: “Markets and Morality”, in: Alan Kitson, Robert Campbell (Eds.): The Ethical Organization, London (Macmillan) 1996.Google Scholar

  36. Mcguire, J. B., Sundgren, A., Schweeweis, T.: “Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1988), pp. 854–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  37. Messick, D. M., Bazerman, M. H.: “Ethical Leadership and Psychology of Decision Making”, Sloane Management Review, Winter Issue (1996).Google Scholar

  38. Murphy, P. E.: “Implementing Business Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 7 (1988), pp. 909.Google Scholar

  39. Murthy, K. S. R. “Corporate Governance”, Management Review, 8(3/4) (1996).Google Scholar

  40. Noe, T. H., Rebello, M. J.: “The Dynamics of Business Ethics and Economic Activity”, The American Economic Review, June (1994).Google Scholar

  41. Nyaw, M., Ignace, N.: “A Comparative Analysis of Ethical Beliefs: A Four Country Study”, Journal of Business Ethics, 13, October (1994), pp. 543–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  42. Ostas, D. T.: “Religion and Business Enterprises”, Journal of Human Values, 1(1) (1995).Google Scholar

  43. Posner, B. Z., Schmidt, W. H.: “Values and the American Manager: An update”, California Management Review, 26(3) (1984), pp. 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  44. Robertson, D., Anderson, E.: “Does Opportunity Make us a Thief”, in: Smith N. Craig, John A. Quelch (Eds.): Ethics in Marketing, Boston (Irwin) 1993.Google Scholar

  45. Robin, P. D., Reidenbach, R. E., Forrest, P. J.: “The Perceived Importance of an Ethical Issue as an Influence on the Ethical Decision-Making of Ad Managers”, Journal of Business Research, 35, January (1996), p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  46. Sinclair, A.: “Approaches to Organizational Culture and Ethics”, Journal of Business Education, 12 (1993).Google Scholar

  47. Shelby, D. H., Vitell, S.: “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics”, Journal of Macromarketing, 6, Spring, (1986), pp. 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  48. Taylor, P. W.: Principles of Ethics: An Introduction to Ethics, Encino, Calif. (Dickenson) 2nd ed., 1975, p. 1.Google Scholar

  49. Trevino, L. K.: “Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model”, Academy of Management Review, 11 (1986), pp. 601–617.Google Scholar

  50. Trevino, L. K., Youngblood, S.: “Bad Apples in Bad Barrels: A Causal Analysis of Ethical Decision Making Behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, August (1990), pp. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  51. Weber, J.: “Influence of Organization on Ethics”, Organization Science, 6(5) (1995).Google Scholar

  52. Werner, S. B.: “New Direction in the Study of Administrative Corruption”, Public Administration Review, March-April (1983).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Sours: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-56836-7_11

Punishment for unethical behavior in the conduct of research

Purpose: To investigate the perceptions of scientists and institutional representatives (IRs) to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Research Integrity concerning appropriate punishment for unethical research behavior.

Method: In 1994-95, 606 scientists and 91 IRs rated the ethical behaviors of and suggested appropriate punishments for protagonists in randomly generated scenarios describing scientific research behaviors. The authors evaluated the relationships of the suggested punishments to the protagonists' behaviors and characteristics, and compared recommendations of the scientists and IRs.

Results: The respondents suggested punishments for 80% of the scenarios that were rated unethical. Punishments were more often prescribed for behaviors rated more unethical and for repeat offenders. The type of punishment was related to the protagonist's academic status and the nature of the unethical behavior. IRs proposed more and different punishments than did scientists.

Conclusion: Scientists and IRs proposed that most unethical research behaviors be punished. The decision to punish depended on the unethical level of the behavior. The type of punishment depended on the aims: correcting the wrong, rehabilitation, or sanction. Variation in the respondents' selections of punishments and the IRs' greater propensity to punish suggest that scientists committing similar ethical violations may receive different punishments. Explicit consideration of which punishment is merited under what circumstances should be undertaken by the scientific community.

Sours: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9834703/
  1. 2020 subaru crosstrek gas type
  2. 2017 dodge journey tail light
  3. 2019 f150 door handle covers

Three Tactics for Tackling Unethical Behavior

website builder

From the boardroom to the breakroom, unscrupulous behavior in the business world costs the global economy billions of dollars each year. For instance, economists estimate annual losses in the US of $1 trillion paid in bribes, $270 billion lost due to unreported income, and $42 billion lost in retail due to shoplifting and employee theft.

But such unethical behavior isn’t necessarily the price of doing business. An international team of researchers — Shahar Ayal (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya), Francesca Gino (Harvard University), Rachel Barkan (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev), and Dan Ariely (Duke University) — have identified three concrete steps that organizations can take to combat unethical behavior on the job.

“The immediate financial costs are worrying, but the threat to society is even more serious because seemingly isolated violations chip away trust, encourage negative social norms, and increase the prevalence and spread of other unethical behaviors,” the authors write in a new article published in a special section of Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Efforts to police and punish unethical behavior are both costly and inefficient. For example, auditing taxes certainly catches cheaters, but carefully investigating the paperwork for each and every individual is incredibly expensive and labor intensive.

“Furthermore, instead of encouraging people to be honest, enforcement teaches them to avoid punishment or to become better cheaters,” the authors argue.

Rather than relying entirely on punishment as a deterrent, Ayal and colleagues argue that organizations and policymakers can turn to psychological science for ways to prevent people from behaving badly in the first place. Utilizing findings from research in behavioral ethics and moral psychology, the research team developed a three-principle framework, which they call REVISE.

“According to the psychological model of dishonesty, people are caught between a rock and a hard place—that is, between the temptation to profit from unethical behavior and the desire to maintain a positive moral image of themselves,” the researchers explain.

People want to see themselves as moral, but research shows that when people engage in immoral acts they use a variety of self-serving justifications to reduce the dissonance that emerges between doing wrong and feeling moral. The REVISE framework identifies three classes of intervention — reminding, visibility, and self-engagement — that policymakers and organizations can use to reduce immoral behavior:

  • Reminding emphasizes the effectiveness of subtle cues that increase people’s awareness of moral behavior, decreasing the ability to justify dishonesty.
  • Visibility refers to social cues and aims to restrict anonymity, prompt peer monitoring, and elicit responsible norms.
  • Self-engagement increases the motivation to maintain a positive self-image and generates personal commitment to act morally.

“Reminding mitigates grey areas that blur the ethical code, visibility mitigates anonymity and the slippery slope of social norms, and the gap between moral values and actual behavior can be reconciled by encouraging self-engagement,” Ayal and colleagues explain.

Lab experiments have shown that simply reminding people of their own moral standards can reduce the temptation to cheat. When people are allowed to anonymously self-report their own performance on simple tasks, they’re more likely to cheat. However, providing people with subtle reminders of morality, like recalling the Ten Commandments, before the task can help eliminate cheating.

People are also much less likely to cheat when their behavior is visible to others. One study showed that even a picture of eyes posted above an honesty-based payment jar—invoking visibility—significantly increased the number of people who paid in full.

Connecting people’s concrete behaviors to their general perceptions of themselves as moral people through self-engagement is another tactic shown to decrease immoral behavior. For example, several field studies have shown that having people sign an honesty pledge at the top of a page—instead of the typical spot on the bottom of the page—can lead to much more honest self-reporting.

“Dishonesty has never been compulsory and it should not be accepted as an inevitable fact of life,” the authors conclude. “We can revise behavior and encourage ethicality by designing supportive environments that minimize temptations and define clear boundaries between right and wrong.”

Reference

Ayal, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ariely, D. (2015). Three principles to REVISE people’s unethical behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 738-741. doi: 10.1177/1745691615598512

Sours: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/three-tactics-for-tackling-unethical-behavior.html
Is Punishment Unethical?

And you had problems because of me. He guessed. - No, what are you. what a problem.

Unethical how behavior punished is

It is a pity, after the incident with a friend, he did not trust her and she sincerely regretted this act. Still took pity on her. This dragon turned out to be much more experienced or spells helped him, but it doesn't matter, the main thing.

Unethical Behavior In The Workplace

And he again began kissing her on the lips, while caressing her breasts with his hands, now the luva, now the right, slowly going. Down. Having reached the bottom of her abdomen, Vadim decided not to speed things up and began to lightly touch her inner thighs.

You will also like:

Kelly herself was what she needed, but something really. incomprehensible came from this sleeping beast. Guys, they just turned into dogs.



3205 3206 3207 3208 3209