In chapter one, Bazerman presents the reader to the thought that individuals overestimate their capacity to do the right thing, however in simple fact, they unintentionally respond within an unethical manner. When we are met with honest dilemmas, most people imagine they would remain true because of their moral beliefs. But as the chapter explains, we are not as ethical as we think because even though we prefer to think of ourselves as moral, or lawful, we all fall victim to bounded understanding and fail to utilize critical information that is pertinent to situations. Bazerman shows us that people are quite capable of committing unethical functions such as cheating even though we imagine we live doing the right thing. Sadly, when you incorporate bounded knowing of individuals with bounded ethicality, self-interest, the moral spaces are exponential, especially with organizations. Bazerman creates, "[people] neglect to realize that their training, incentives, and tastes prevent them from offering objective advice. " (Bazerman, Kindle location 386) However, this partiality can have serious ramifications. Bazerman uses the Challenger explosion as an example to show the extreme results that can arise from organizational honest gaps, like practical boundaries, to operate a vehicle home the idea. However, there is trust; people can triumph over bounded consciousness and ethicality by learning from their decisions manufactured in the past.
In chapter two, Bazerman continues with the notion of alerting people to the gap that exist between our decisions and activities. He demonstrates this by detailing that even though ethicists tend to act more morally than most, they remain human and therefore flunk in ethical action like everyone. Therefore, just enrolling in ethics courses will not close the difference between our decisions and activities because normative beliefs is not made to understand the unethical action "that develops without intentionality, " (Bazerman 508) it only shows us how we should respond. For Bazerman, therein sits the challenge, most people do not acknowledge an ethical problem because they do not have moral consciousness or are quick to guage before reasoning. For example, in the recent news, a journalist, who is actually gay said he is concerned about Trump's anti-gay legislation. When asked about what he thought Trump would do to harm the homosexual community, he said I have no idea. By judging without reason, this journalist could possibly use "deliberate moral reasoning to justify his first response, " (Bazerman 561) instances such as this where people are quick to guage compromises our decision-making process.
When it comes to decision making, Bazerman clarifies that two distinctive modes help people make moral decisions: system 1 and system 2. When it comes to system 1, this decision making is what people instinctually do without great deal of thought, which is way better known as "gut instinct, " whereas system 2 uses logical thought and focus on fine detail to derive rational decision-making. By firmly taking our a chance to process information, system 2 allows people to use self-control which creates self-awareness. Also, when we are skeptical, it makes it possible to identify missing information that causes unethical habit. Although system 1 pays to for thinking on our legs, it may not be the best method for ethical problems because they could contradict "what we'd have decided with an increase of deliberation. " (Bazerman 614) Therefore, because our lives can cause honest fading, to be most reliable at decision making, we should combine both systems if we want to close the distance between "how we want to behave and how exactly we actually respond. " (Bazerman 635)
In section 3, Bazerman shows the reader that unethical patterns is not an feature of bad people, even when folks have good motives and do what to help a pal or colleague, it can result in unintentional unethical patterns. This behavior is recognized as "in-group favoritism" where people make decisions that are biased towards people who they relate with or are similar in mother nature. Unfortunately, this is considered discrimination, specially when "resources are scarce, " including the case when multiple people are vying for just one job like the Ashton Briggs situation. For me personally, this shows that even though most people do not discriminate intentionally, if you look deep enough you will see discrimination in everything because of your human characteristics, or as Bazerman writes, "ordinary prejudice, " which can occur to anyone because of our implicit attitudes towards people. When specific implicit attitudes are blended, they can convert an organization into unethical practices, like the University or college of Illinois. Unfortunately, ordinary prejudice will not disappear completely unless there is a systemic change, that i don't see going on.
In order to change a system, you first must change the particular mindset of folks and since many people are egocentric in a few form, coming mutually to change implicit attitudes is a difficult challenge. For example, the study done on the band of fisherman who got to decide that which was fair proved that people will usually put themselves first over others in particular when there are limited resources. When you combine egocentrism and implicit attitudes you finish up with unethical decisions because people will "alter the importance of capabilities that affect what is fair. " (Bazerman 867) Thus, people have a tendency to overclaim resources even though they know that it has severe consequences that excessively discount the continuing future of our children and the earth.
In chapter four, Bazerman introduces the reader to the errors that happen from behavioral forecasting. This forecasting error is why is a conclusion about future scenarios inaccurate because they are predicated on erroneous information; typically, how exactly we think we will action. When we think about our future tendencies, it is easy to anticipate a predicament we will face, however, what people neglect to realize is the facts of a situation determine are activities, not the situation itself. Therefore, when you ask people how they'll act in the foreseeable future to ethical dilemmas they can be responding predicated on the problem, however, when they are actually for the reason that situation there are details that were never accounted for, like outdoor influences that cause people to act in another way. Bazerman writes "we think in a different way in regards to a situation whenever we are predicting our tendencies than when we are making an actual decision is our motivations aren't the same at these two points in time. " (Bazerman 1178) As human beings, it is not uncommon for us to systematically overestimate how exactly we will or won't action in future situations. For instance, in the armed service, you coach 99% of your career so you will be ready to respond to that 1% real life scenario. The explanation for this is easy, no one is aware how they will react in a combat situation until you are in a fight situation and bullets are coming back at you. By training 99% of that time period, the target is to strengthen your system 1 muscle storage. However, that is not always the situation, and there are times when people underestimate just how emotionally intense a situation might be, because of this, the first time the shooting starts, they freeze. Or in the case of the feminine students in the real interview, they did not learn how to handle the situation. However, behavioral ethics tells us that if the same students were ever put in a similar situation, they might more likely act like they had thought they might because they discovered from their past decisions. Therefore, this failure to accurately assess how people will action in future situations results in behavioral miss-predictions and leads people to phony illusions about their ethicality and decision-making process, that could eventually lead a lot of people justifying unethical tendencies.
In section five, Bazerman shows us how ethical fading prevents people from noticing unethical action in others. The explanation for this is when people focus on work or other important jobs, they lose look of what is happening around them and miss valuable information. For instance, counting basketball goes by causes people never to start to see the women walk by with an umbrella. When I was in the Navy going through airfare physiology, we viewed a similar training video that had a gorilla rather than a female. What this video recording is intended to instruct is how tunnel vision can develop if we aren't looking at everything available to us even though in an airplane, it could be deadly. Like the 1972 Eastern Airlines crash in the Florida Everglades. The airfare crew became completely focused on a burned-out getting products light that they lost eyesight of flying the plane. In regards to honest decisions, people become so fixated with the info before them; they neglect to see the problem and action unethically, such as the case of the Challenger explosion that resulted from Morton and NASA's stimulated blindness.
Motivated blindness inhibits people from finding a predicament for what it is because they have a biased view. For example, the Boston terrorist bombers. As contemporary society searched on with an unbiased view and said they were horrible men and deserved what they received. On the other hand, even with video of the one son tossing bombs out of the car window at the police, the mom said that there was no way her sons could have done those unethical works. Also, people also have problems with indirect blindness. In cases like this, people only see what they want to see and disregard information that's not in their finest interest. Regarding to Bazerman, "members of organizations regularly delegate unethical action to others in their organizations, " like the circumstance with Jeffrey Skilling and Enron's CFO Andrew Fastow who created fictitious companies to earn a living. Skilling authorized Fastow to make money, but claimed indirect blindness how Fastow obtained the gains that led to the Enron scandal. Furthermore, the Enron scandal was not simply in regards to a company committing scam, it also was about how people and market sectors failed to start to see the slippery slope of unethical accounting habit that was occurring nowadays.
In chapter six, Bazerman reiterates that bounded ethicality and moral fading prevents honest decisions from transpiring irrespective of ethical oaths and thousands spent by companies on ethics training because they both presume that people know the guidelines and the way to ensure compliance. Even though companies appear to have good motives, the programs neglect to identify the sources of unethical patterns, which stem from undue stresses that are placed on people from management to meet financial goals in a system that was created to maximize profits. However, if the company's goal is max revenue, then this mindset trickles down through the ranks and requires employees to execute accordingly, which means people will identify tendencies styles that are successful and most rewarding, even if the image and practice is unethical. Within the movie, "Margin Cell phone calls, " one of the young analyst acquired a one-dimensional goal, he only cared about finding out how his supervisor made over $200k so he could do the same. Alas, one-dimensional goals are unsuccessful, like the analyst discovered, because "one-dimensional goals cause individuals to be influenced by an extrinsic inspiration to comply alternatively than by an intrinsic desire to do what's right. " (Bazerman 1832)
Even though companies may actually do what is right, some would claim it is only a smoke display to appease the general public by discouraging unethical patterns, even though employees become intrigued by the discouragement, like the forbidden berry. Additionally, when businesses have informal systems that show employees how to deviate from the honest standards, it contributes to people testing the machine to see what they can and cannot escape with. However, tests the waters is not just something employees do, Bazerman points out how organizations also try to see what they can and cannot escape with by using "innocuous words. " Alas, when corporations accomplish that, they are mailing the wrong subject matter with their employees that says the company not only encourages unethical tendencies, it accepts it as well.
In chapter seven, Bazerman uses ethical fading, bounded ethicality, and self-interest showing how they resulted in the corrupt regulations of three of the most significant industries in the US: Tobacco, Auditing, and Energy. With regards to the tobacco industry, moral fading avoided the AMA from asking tough questions and further researching the effects of smoking beyond the information the tobacco industry provided. In so doing, the AMAs lack of action epitomized bounded ethicality and treated medical problem as a management or business concern rather than an ethical concern. Also, the tobacco industry put into the smoke and reflection result by "lobbying Congress and supplying misinformation to the general public, " (Bazerman 2282) and paying doctors who were smokers to present biased information and studies in favor of the companies by saying there is no conclusive proof that smoking causes cancer. By doing so, society was sold-out by the very organization that was entrusted to safeguard our health. Additionally, you can view the same styles in the industry, especially the essential oil companies like Exxon who were once the idea of the spear for debunking the consequences of weather change. When companies purposely deceive the general public to ensure their income, such as spending money on clinical research that is specifically made to counter weather change data, they intentionally undermined the public's trust. Furthermore, this undermining is also evident with the politicians who say anything to get elected and do anything to stay in office. Because of this, politicians will vote against any insurance policy that could jeopardize their chair with the constituents while assisting the high paying donors in the olive oil industry. In so doing, their entire politics career is based on Bazerman's compensation system. However, to place this corruption exclusively at the feet of companies would be unethical. Modern culture is also at fault because when it comes to electing these officers, voters must employee the same group of organizational rewards system because no prospect symbolizes every possible concern people have. Because of this, voters must also give and take based on issues exactly like politicians. Therefore, Bazerman hit the nail on the head when he said: "the inability to answer effectively to climate change may very well be a massive pattern of unethical action dedicated not only by our elected officials but by us typical individuals. " (Bazerman 2467)
As for the auditing industry, the SEC forced for a policy known as auditor self-reliance which would give buyers some peace of mind that that they could trust the financial information being reported by companies. By doing so, it would prevent unethical action from happening, such as Price Waterhouse who invested in a client's business. It is this type of enthusiastic blindness that causes corruption in any industry that the SEC was striving to prevent. Instead, the lobbyist self-interest won over Congress because capitol hill was more concerned about being reelected than the constituent's well-being.
In chapter eight, Bazerman talks about how people must make a concerted effort to change how exactly we make moral decisions and because of this to happen we must first realize how prone we are to our unconscious biases. To get this done, we should find ways to tame our "want" self so that we can make acoustics decisions. Giving ourselves the capability to examine multiple options our company is offering our "should" self a struggling with chance. Because of this to happen, we must first look at a situation before operating. When people teach for situations, you are better well prepared for the "hidden psychological pushes" (Murphy's Laws) that always appear to rear their ugly mind with moral dilemmas. To greatly help better get ready, you need to think about the various motivations that can impede decision making. The ones that prepare ahead of time for anything have a better chance of being successful than the ones that do not. For example, people study for months before the GMAT or GRE in order to score well. Also, people make (they must) for interviews by researching the company as well as preparing for the dreaded "what is your weakness" question. Regarding to Bazerman, there is absolutely no difference between finding your way through a test or interview and preparing for the decision-making process. By doing so, people increase their "accuracy in the planning level of decision making. and arm [themselves] with exact information about [their] most likely response. " (Bazerman 2641) Additionally, finding your way through and then operating this way during situations is insufficient. To make sure that we performed in fact respond how we used, we have to accurately evaluate our performance immediately so the occasions are fresh in out brain. By doing so, you will be able to "describe how [the] bias might have an effect on your recollection of your choice. " (Bazerman 2696) Only when we make a conscious effort to recognize situations that could prevent us from behaving in an moral manner will we end up being the ethical person we want to be.
After reading the booklet "Blind Spots, " I experienced there was a solid correlation with the movie "Enron, " because there were a number of people who dropped into unethical intentionality, such as Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow, as well as some who belong with unethical unintentionality, including the people like Sherron Watkins, the Enron vice leader. Additionally, there have been others that fell sufferer to bounded ethicality and allowed their tastes and biases to impact how they viewed ethical dilemmas like the traders.
In summary, I came across it to be quite educational because it brought to light how people's occupied life easily effects their honest decision-making process preventing them from realizing the sinkholes that moral fading causes in ourselves and organizations. As a result of this, it is not uncommon for us to systematically overestimate how we will or will not work in future situations because of patterns forecasting errors. Especially when you take into account how biased people's implicit behaviour are towards people, which in turn causes these to reconstruct information to make their activities appear honest. Furthermore, people's self-interest can cause them to tilt the scales of fairness in their favour because of their egocentric nature that leads to overclaiming resources which extremely discounts the continuing future of the surroundings and society. Only once people realize just how susceptible we are too unethical behavior will we be able to bridge the distance between who we have been and who we want to be.
Work Cited
Bazerman, Potential H. ; Tenbrunsel, Ann E. Blind Locations: Why We Neglect to Do What's Right and What to Do about any of it (Kindle). Princeton University or college Press. Kindle Edition.
