Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Unethical Decision-Making in Organizations and Proposals for Its Avoidance: The Contribution of Neuroscience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Organizational Neuroethics

Part of the book series: Advances in Neuroethics ((AIN))

  • 804 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to propose strategies for improving ethical decision-making in organizations by taking into consideration the contributions of neuroethics research. Our hypothesis is that results from research in neuroscience and cognitive science offer new insight and perspectives on ethical decision-making in organizations.

This chapter has three main parts. The first part is descriptive, and we present the main factors affecting unethical decision-making in organizations. Understanding why good people make or contribute to unethical decisions in organizations is a first step. In the second part, we discuss the contribution of neuroscience research to ethical decision-making. Finally, we propose strategies and actions that managers should take into account to develop a more consistent ethical decision-making model for individuals and organizations.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Highlighted in the original

  2. 2.

    Highlighted in the original

References

  • Adams JS, Tashchian A, Shore TH. Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2001;29(3):199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apel KO. Transformation der Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Surhkamp; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H. Eichman in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil. New York: Viking; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D. Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper-Collins; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D. The honest truth about dishonesty: how we lie to everyone-specially ourselves. New York: Harper-Collins; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation. Baumrin, Bernard H. Metaphilosophy. 1986;17:350–1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy NM, Becker WJ, Waldman DA. Neuroscience and organizational behavior: avoiding both neuro-euphoria and neuro-phobia. J Organ Behav. 2014;35:909–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71(2):364–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A, Caprara GV, Zsolnai L. Corporate transgressions through moral disengagement. J Hum Values. 2000;6(1):57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH, Tenbrunsel AE. Blind spot. Why we fail to do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS. Crime and punishment: an economic approach. In: Becker G, Landes W, editors. Essays in the economics of crime and punishment. New York: Columbia University Press; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker WJ, Cropanzano R. Organizational neuroscience: the promise and prospects of an emerging discipline. J Organ Behav. 2010;31:1055–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker WJ, Cropanzano R, Sanfey AG. Organizational neuroscience: taking organizational theory inside the neural black box. J Manage. 2011;37(4):933–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browing CR. Ordinary men. Reserve police battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland. New York: Harper Perennial; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler MJR, Senior C. Toward an organizational cognitive neuroscience. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2007;1118(0):1–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butler MJR, O’Broin HLR, Lee N, Senior C. How organizational cognitive neuroscience can deepen understanding of managerial decision-making: a review of the recent literature and future directions. Int J Manag Rev. 2016;18(4):542–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso EM, Gino F. Blind ethics: closing one’s eyes polarizes moral judgments and discourages dishonest behavior. Cognition [Internet]. Elsevier; 2011 Feb 1 (cited 2018 May 13);118(2):280–5. Available from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027710002672?via%3Dihub

  • Conill J. Horizontes de economía ética. Madrid: Tecnos; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina A. Neuroética y Neuropolítica. Sugerencias para la educación moral. Madrid: Tecnos; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina A. Guía Comares de Neurofilosofía Práctica. Granada: Comares; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crockett MJ. Models of morality. Trends Cogn Sci [Internet]. 2013;17(8):363–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crockett MJ. How formal models can illuminate mechanisms of moral judgment and decision making. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016;25(2):85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crockett MJ, et al. Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(4):E381. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424572112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Damasio A. Descartes’ error. Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Penguin Books; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubljević V. Is it time to abandon the strong interpretation of the dual-process model in neuroethics? In: Racine E, Aspler J, editors. Debates about neuroethics. Advanced in neuroethics. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 129–40.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dubljević V, Racine E. The ADC of moral judgment: opening the black box of moral intuitions with heuristics about agents, deeds, and consequences. AJOB Neurosci. 2014;5(4):3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmons D. Would you kill the fat man? The trolley problem and what your answer tell about right and wrong. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin PM. Corporate codes of conduct: the effects of code content and quality on ethical performance. J Bus Ethics. 2011;99(4):535–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett JAC, Pizarro D, Crockett MJ. Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. J Exp Psychol Gen Everett 2016;145(6):772–87. Available from file:///C:/Users/mbesw/Downloads/SSRN-id2726330.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers K, Sales A, Farisco M. Theoretical framing of neuroethics: the need for a conceptual approach. In: Racine E, Aspler J, editors. Debates about neuroethics. New York: Springer International; 2017. p. 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54651-3.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández JL, Camacho J. Effective elements to establish an ethical infrastructure: an exploratory study of SMEs in the Madrid region. J Bus Ethics. 2016;138(1):113–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith JK. The economics of innocent fraud. Truth for our time. New York: Penguin Books; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galnnon W. Free will and the brain. Neuroscientific, philosophical and legal perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • García-Marzá D. Kant’s principle of publicity: the intrinsic relationship between the two formulations. Kant-Studien. Philos. Zeitschrift der Kant-Gesellschaft. 2012;103(1):96–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal S. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2005;4(1):75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino F. Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: why people who value morality act immorally. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2015;3:107–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino F, Schweitzer M, Mead N, Ariely D. Unable to resist temptation: how self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011;115(2):191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold JI, Shadlen MN. The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30(1):535–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene J. Moral tribes. Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them. New York: Penguin Books; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haase M, Raufflet E. Ideologies in markets, organizations, and business ethics: drafting a map: introduction to the special issue. J Bus Ethics. 2017;142(4):629–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. Erkenntnis Und Interesse. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd. 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung; Bd. 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Surhkamp; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psychol Rev. 2001;108(4):814834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallsson BG, Siebner HR, Hulme OJ. Fairness, fast and slow: a review of dual process models of fairness. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;89:49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.02.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones TM. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Acad Manag Rev. 1991;16(2):366–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality: economics psychology for behavioral. Am Econ Rev. 2003;93(5):1449–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D. Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Twersky A. Choices, values, and frames: APA Award Address; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalis A, Mojzsch A, Schweizer TS, Kaiser S. Weakness of will, akrasia, and the neuropsychiatry of decision making: an interdisciplinary perspective. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008;8(4):402–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kant I. Beantwortung der Frage: was ist Aufklärung. (1994). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht; 1784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am main: Surhkamp; 1787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein M, Schwartz MS. The effectiveness of business codes: a critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. J Bus Ethics. 2008;77(2):111–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster BL. Spirituality and cognitive neuroscience: a partnership for refining maps of the mind. Bern: Springer International; 2016. p. 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy N. Introducing neuroethics. Neuroethics. 2008;1:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libet B. Do we have free will? J Conscious Stud. 1999;6(8):47–57. Available from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/1999/00000006/F0020008/966

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindebaum D, Zundel M. Not quite a revolution: scrutinizing organizational neuroscience in leadership studies. Hum Relat. 2013;66(6):857–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano JF. Educating responsible managers. The role of university ethos. J Acad Ethics. 2012;10:213–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano JF, Escrich T. Cultural diversity in business: a critical reflection on the ideology of tolerance. J Bus Ethics. 2017;142(4):679–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martineau JT, Johnson KJ, Pauchant TC. The pluralist theory of ethics programs orientations and ideologies: an empirical study anchored in requisite variety. J Bus Ethics. 2017;142(4):791–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDevitt R, Giapponi C, Tromley C. A model of ethical decision making: the integration of process and content. J Bus Ethics. 2007;73(2):219–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead NL, Baumeister RF, Gino F. Too tired to tell the truth self control resource depletion and dishonesty. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009;45(3):594–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mecacci G, Haselager P. A reason to be free: operationalizing free action. Neuroethics. 2015;8:327–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram S. Obedience to authority: an experimental view. New York: Harper and Row; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H. The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H. Managers, not MBA. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H. Managing. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore C, Detert JR, Treviño LK, Baker VL, Mayer DM. Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Pers Psychol. 2012;65:1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nida-Rümelin J. Economic rationality and practical reason. Dordrecht: Springer; 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo G, Krings F, Hoffrage U. Ethical blindness. J Bus Ethics. 2012;109(3):323–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potemkowski A. Neurobiology of decision making: methodology in decision-making research. Neuroanatomical and neurobiochemical fundamentals. In: Nermend, K. and Latuszynska M, editors. Neuroeconomic and behavioral aspects of decision making. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; 2017. p. 3–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson DC, Voegtlin C, Maak T. Business ethics: the promise of neuroscience. J Bus Ethics. 2017;144(4):679–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saigle V, Dubljević V, Racine E. The impact of a landmark neuroscience study on free will: a qualitative analysis of articles using libet and colleagues’ methods. AJOB Neurosci. 2018;9(1):29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvador R, Folger RG. Business ethics and the brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanfey AG. Expectations and social decision-making: biasing effects of prior knowledge on Ultimatum responses. Mind Soc. 2009;8:93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. The neural basis of economic decision making in the Ultimatum Game. Science. 2003;300(5626):1755–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MS. Ethical decision-making theory: an integrated approach. J Bus Ethics. 2016;139(4):755–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A. Rational fools: a critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philos Public Aff. 1977;6(4):317–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A. Consequential evaluation and practical reason. J Philos. 1997;9(2000):477–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein S. The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: the sensemaking-intuition model. Acad Manag Rev. 2007;32(4):1022–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmann H, Löhr A. Grundlagen der unternehmensethik. Stuttgart: Schaffer-Poeschel; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Story GW, Vlaev I, Metcalfe RD, Crockett MJ, Kurth-Nelson Z, Darzi A, Donan RJ. Social redistribution of pain and money. Sci Rep. 2015;5:1–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel AE, Messick DE. Ethical fading: the role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Soc Justice Res. 2004;17(2):223–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel AE, Smith-Crowe K, Umphress EE. Building houses on rocks: the role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Soc Justice Res. 2003;16(3):285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiel CE, Bagdasarov Z, Harkrider L, Johnson JF, Mumford MD. Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: strategies for sensemaking. J Bus Ethics. 2012;107(1):49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello M. Why we cooperate. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino LK. Ethical decision making in organizations: a person-situation interactionist model. Acad Manag Rev. 1986;11(3):601–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Util Probab Hum Decis Mak. 1975;185(4157):141–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walach H, Schmidt S, Jonas BW. Neuroscience, consciousness and spirituality [Internet]. New York: Springer Science and Business; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2079-4.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane PH, Hartman LP, Archer C, Englehardt EE, Pritchard MS. Obstacles to ethical decision-making: mental models, Milgram and the problem of obedience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woiceshyn J. A model for ethical decision making in business: reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. J Bus Ethics. 2011;104(3):311–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J. Emotion versus cognition in moral decision-making: a dubious dichotomy. In: Liao SM, editor. Moral brains. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo P. The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the Project FFI2016-76753-C2-1-P, financed by the Spanish Ministry for Science, Innovation and Universities; and is part of the Excelence Research Group PROMETEO/2018/121 by Generalitat Valenciana.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

    J. Félix Lozano

Authors
  1. J. Félix Lozano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Félix Lozano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, HEC Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Joé T. Martineau

  2. IRCM, Université de Montréal, and McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Eric Racine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lozano, J.F. (2020). Understanding Unethical Decision-Making in Organizations and Proposals for Its Avoidance: The Contribution of Neuroscience. In: Martineau, J., Racine, E. (eds) Organizational Neuroethics. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27177-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27177-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27176-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27177-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation