Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6 Moral Foundations PDF
6 Moral Foundations PDF
1. Care/Harm
- Ability
to
feel
and
dislike
the
pain
of
others
(suffering
and
need:
care
for
those
in
need
or
suffering,
despise
cruelty)
- Liberals
care
more
about
care
than
do
conservatives
- Conservatives
care
more
about
in-group
(local,
blended
with
loyalty);
liberals
care
more
in
a
universalist
sense
(all
innocent
victims)
2. Fairness/Cheating
- Based
on
evolutionary
process
of
reciprocal
altruism
- In
nature,
humans
are
selfish
(tit-for-tat).
Nice
to
people
when
we
first
meet
them,
but
after
that
selective;
corporate
with
those
who
have
been
nice
to
us/repay
and
give
favours)
and
shun
those
who
take
advantage
of
us.
- Conservatives
concerned
about
proportionality
(rewarded
to
what
they
contribute),
liberals
concerned
about
equality
(social
justice
for
all)
3. Liberty/Oppression
- Resentment
and
reactance
towards
those
who
dominate
and
restrict
peoples
liberty
(bullies
and
dominators)
- Motivates
people
to
come
together
to
oppose
the
oppressor
4. Loyalty/Betrayal:
- Originated
from
tribal
creatures
who
formed
cohesive
coalitions
- Love
for
loyal
team
mates
and
hatred
for
traitors
- Includes
patriotism
and
self-sacrifice
for
the
group
- Conservatives
towards
nationalism,
liberals
towards
universalism
5. Authority/Subversion:
- History
of
hierarchical
social
interactions
- Based
on
responsibility
for
maintaining
order
and
justice
more
than
raw
power
backed
by
force
- Two
directions:
up
towards
superiors
and
down
towards
subordinates
(forge
beneficial
relationships
within
hierarchies;
cultivate
protection
of
superiors
and
allegiance
of
subordinates)
- Includes
deference
to
legitimate
authority
and
respect
for
traditions
(support
existing
order/
do
not
negate
the
order)
6. Sanctity/Degradation
- Sanctity:
the
state
of
being
holy,
sacred
or
saintly
- Shaped
by
the
psychology
of
disgust
and
contamination
(disgust
and
sacred
2
extreme
ends)
- Belief
that
the
body
is
a
temple,
it
can
be
desecrated
by
immoral
activities
- Conservatives
care
more
about
sanctity
of
life
and
sanctity
of
marriage
(i.e.
modesty),
liberals
care
more
about
degradation
of
nature
and
environment
Possible
qns:
Give
2
quotes,
link
which
moral
foundation
relates
to
it,
how
does
It
differ
for
the
two
diff
people.
Ethical
Philosophies
Utilitarianism
Deontology/Kantian
Virtue
Make
decisions
based
Ethical
Ethical
principles
or
Integrity
and
on
consequences
duties
character
Core
Idea
The
greatest
good
Every
human
being
A
virtuous
person
for
the
greatest
has
a
human
right
to
is
one
who
has
number
be
treated
with
character
traits
The
ends
justify
the
respect
(e.g.
cheerful,
means
The
ends
do
not
truthful,
honest,
justify
the
means
friendly)
that
would
constitute
a
Humans
should
be
good
and
treated
as
their
own
meaningful
life
ends
Focuses
on
who
a
person
is
W.r.t.
business
1.Free
and
1.
Legal
rules,
role- 1.
actual
practices
context
competitive
markets
based/professional
found
in
business
2.Public
policy
duties
and
the
type
of
2.
Fundamental
people
that
are
duties:
human
right
created
by
these
to
be
treated
with
practices
(shows
respect,
to
that
powerful
autonomy
social
institutions
businesses
and
our
role
within
them
have
a
profound
influence
on
shaping
our
character)
Challenges/Limitations
1.How
to
1.
What
rights
are
1.
Different
people
measure/determine
genuinely
human
have
different
the
consequences
of
rights?
(no
perceptions
of
the
action
(benefits
agreement
on
the
virtue/are
brought
and
harm)
scope
or
range
of
up
differently
2.
Ignores
actions
rights
+
who
has
the
2.
Hard
to
find
a
that
maybe
duty
to
provide
for
virtuous
person
inherently
wrong.
such
an
exhaustive
E.g.
Duties
list
of
rights
e.g.
principles
and
healthcare/right
to
personal
integrity
employment
etc)
2.
Practical
problems
due
to
multiple
rights
(esp
when
different
rights
come
into
conflict)
Implications
for
ECR:
The
same
individual
may
use
different
perspectives
to
make
decisions
EMOTIONS
Implications
for
ECR:
Emotions
may
precede
judgments
about
what
is
right
Some
emotions
are
likely
to
affect
ethical
and
responsible
behaviors
Strategies
to
address
these
issues:
1.Follow
the
law!
(benchmark)
2.Be
aware
that
...
Yours
and
others
definition
of
what
is
fair
and
right
maybe
different
And
may
be
based
on
emotions
And
may
differ
at
different
times
helps
you
make
better
decisions
(aware
of
biases)
3.Be
aware
of
advocacy
effects
and
use
alternatives
Advocacy
Effects
(Self-influence)
Advocacy
effect
the
tendency
to
have
more
positive
attitudes
toward
whatever
and
whomever
one
advocates
than
to
whatever
or
whomever
other
advocates.
We
dont
always
say
what
we
believe
but
we
often
come
to
believe
what
we
say
Why?
Identify
with
victim
Cognitive
dissonance
Criterion
most
favorable
to
candidate
becomes
the
criterion
(use
the
same
criteria
for
the
one
you
advocate
for
against
all
candidates)
Therefore,
advocacy
may
not
be
the
solution
(definition
of
fair
is
different
for
different
people)
Alternatives:
Perspective-taking:
the
active
contemplation
of
others
psychological
experiences
Ask
parties
to
think
about
the
extreme
viewpoints
for
the
position
(think
about
the
other
extreme,
more
likely
to
consider/change
to
moderate)
Talk
about
values/criteria
for
selection
(agree
on
the
same
or
common
criteria,
e.g.
for
recruitment),
get
emotional
commitment,
and
propose
candidate
Get
someone,
of
the
opposing
party
with
similar
values,
to
propose
the
idea.
4.Be
high
on
distributive
and
procedural
justice
(and
be
seen
as
such)
Distributive
justice:
Its
about
the
outcome
(whether
the
outcomes
are
fair)
Procedural
justice:
its
about
the
process
(whether
processes
are
fair)
Was
the
distribution
determined
with
consistency
and
transparency
(was
this
communicated?)
Was
it
presented
with
dignity
and
respect?
Was
it
communicated?
Note:
Distributive
v
procedural
justice:
when
processes
are
seen
as
fair,
people
see
outcomes
as
fair
even
if
they
are
not
favourable
(procedural
justice
leads
to
distributive)
Moral
mandates:
when
people
have
strong
moral
convictions
about
the
outcome,
they
care
more
about
outcomes
than
about
processes
(e.g.
Abortion
resort
to
extreme
processes
to
achieve
ends)
Importance
of
voice:
In
the
SR,
giving
employees
the
opportunity
to
voice
reduces
beliefs
of
injustice,
but
less
likely
to
work
in
the
LR
Difference
between
being
fair
and
being
seen
as
fair
5.Think
about
creative
(yet,
ethical)
solutions,
especially
for
right
versus
right
dilemmas.
Right
v
Right
Dilemmas
Truth
v
Loyalty
Maintain
confidentiality
or
be
loyal
to
a
friend?
Individual
v
Skills
development
or
inclusive
growth?
Community
ST
v
LT
After
10
years
of
work
experience,
Spend
more
time
with
family
v
rigorous
course
to
get
an
advanced
degree?
Justice
v
Mercy
Penalize
a
surbodinate
or
forgive
due
to
circumstances?
Solutions:
Utilitarian
v
deontological:
go
with
utilitarian
if
not
deontogically
violating
Stick
with
a
side:
remove
a
right
that
is
less
favourable
and
choose
one
you
can
identify
with
Find
a
balance
between
a
right
and
right
8
Individual
Biases:
1.
Want/should
conflict:
want
self
fights
for
whatever
will
bring
more
immediate
pleasure;
what
we
want
(self-interested
self)
should
self
fights
for
long-term
interests:
what
we
should
have
2.Escalation
of
commitment,
moral
licensing
and
moral
compensating
Consistent:
Morality
is
central
Escalation
of
commitment:
Rationalise
the
unethical
choice
for
the
first
time,
use
the
same
reason
the
2nd
time,
even
with
higher
intensity
Licensing:
Moral
credit:
First
time
you
were
moral;
second-time
you
have
the
credit
to
be
unethical
Conceptual
abstraction:
o If
morality
in
time
1
was
abstract
(distant
past),
in
time
2,
you
will
be
more
moral/consistent
o However,
in
licensing,
morality
is
concrete
(near
past)
Compensating:
Vice
versa
of
licensing
3.Implicit
bias/prejudice
Bias
that
emerges
from
unconscious
beliefs/unconscious
stereotypes
and
attitudes
Implicit
bias
arises
from
the
ordinary
and
unconscious
tendency
to
make
associations
->
distinct
from
conscious
forms
of
prejudice
People
who
are
free
from
conscious
prejudice
may
still
harbor
biases
and
act
accordingly
E.g.
Sexism
(females
implicitly
associated
to
family
and
males
to
career)
4.In-group
favouritism
Empathies
only
with
people
in
your
in-group
(e.g.
office
woman
falling
down
v
beggar
falling
down;
people
only
stopped
to
help
the
office
woman)
Discriminate
against
those
different
from
you
by
giving
extra
credit
for
in-
group/membership
Not
so
much
of
hostility
towards
those
different
from
you,
but
more
of
favoritism
towards
those
in-group
Affected
by
appearance:
situational
influences
such
as
object
and
clothing
When
it
comes
to
extending
help;
people
more
willing
to
extend
help
to
those
in
out-group
(tattered
clothing
asking
for
money)
than
someone
in
your
in-group.
More
tenacious
when
membership
confers
clear
advantages
(when
in-group
is
socially
dominant)
5.Over-claiming
credit:
(bias
that
favours
you)
Majority
of
the
people
consider
themselves
above
average
on
a
host
of
measures
Tendency
to
overrate
our
individual
contribution
to
groups
->
leads
to
an
overblown
sense
of
entitlement
In
thinking
only
of
our
own
contributions
->
in
fairly
judging
others
whom
we
work
with
Destabilises
alliances
(claim
too
much
credit
for
own
contribution,
skeptical
about
whether
the
other
is
doing
its
fair
share
->
both
tend
to
reduce
contributions
to
compensate)
->
affects
performance
and
longevity
of
groups
Reduced
employee
commitment
(feel
that
he/she
is
more
deserving
than
other
employees->
when
this
is
not
the
case,
will
resent
and
reduce
commitment
to
organization
which
does
not
seem
to
appreciate
his
contribution)
6.Conflict
of
interest/Motivated
Blindness:
(bias
that
favours
those
who
can
benefit
you)
Look
away
from
unethical
behavior
because
it
is
more
beneficial
to
do
so
Not
only
leads
to
intentionally
corrupt
behavior,
can
unintentionally
skew
decision
making
People
see
what
they
want
to
see
and
easily
miss
contradictory
information
when
its
in
their
interest
to
remain
ignorant
Due
to
powerful
conflicts
of
interests,
makes
them
blind
to
their
own
unethical
behavior
(other
interests
supersede
ethical
concerns)
Executives
should
work
to
remove
conflicts
of
interest
from
the
organization
->
look
at
existing
incentive
systems
7.Indirect
Blindness:
We
are
instinctively
more
lenient
in
our
judgment
of
a
person
or
organization
when
an
unethical
action
has
been
delegated
to
a
third
party.
Esp.
when
there
is
incomplete
information
However,
if
presented
with
complete
information
and
reflect
on
it,
indirect
blindness
can
be
overcome
Managers:
routinely
delegate
unethical
behaviors
to
others,
and
not
always
consciously
(ends
justify
the
means
attitudes)
->
must
be
alert
to
indirect
blindness
8.Overvaluing
outcomes:
Managers
may
reward
unethical
decisions
that
produces
good
outcomes
Many
rewards
outcomes
rather
than
decisions
(do
not
consider
the
intention)
When
employees
behave
in
undesirable
ways,
it
is
most
probably
due
to
what
you
are
encouraging
them
to
do/incentive
system
Need
to
consider
the
effects
of
the
goals
and
reward
system
(sometimes
it
unintentionally
creates
unethical
behavior)
Solutions
to
reduce
biases:
1.Be
aware!
(do
not
let
biases
affect
decision-making)
2.Label
irresponsible
behaviors
as
irresponsible:
Know
that
such
behaviors
are
irresponsible,
less
motivated/likely
to
do
so.
3.Question
even
the
little
transgressions
The
Slippery
Slope
When
there
are
minor
infractions/gradual
ethical
decline,
more
likely
to
accept
increasing
violations
Managers
should
be
on
heightened
alert
for
trivial
infractions
and
address
them
immediately.
4.Activate
the
should
self
Rehearse
how
you
are
going
to
react
when
faced
with
a
dilemma
(e.g.
job
negotiations)
Pre-commitment
devices
(cash
to
help
undertake
things
you
do
not
want
to
do
but
you
should)
5.Think
of
(or
create)
counter
stereotypes
for
implicit
biases
6.Consciously
consider
counter
intuitive
options,
especially
in
the
face
of
conflict
of
interest
and
over-claiming
Ethical
Culture
Formal
Systems
Informal
Systems
Executive
Leadership
Role
Models
and
Heroes:
Demonstrate
moral
traits:
1.Role
models
(mentors)
need
to
exhibit
Being
moral
ethical
behavior
Behaving
morally
Senior
who
mentors
a
junior
Can
be
a
formal/informal
process
Conveying
the
importance
of
ethical
2.Heroes
(symbolic
figures)
need
to
exhibit
conduct:
ethical
behaviors
Role
models
of
ethical
conduct
Set
standards
of
performance
by
Communicate
regularly
and
openly
modelling
behaviors
about
ethics
and
values
May
be
founders
who
are
no
longer
Use
of
reward
systems
to
hold
around,
need
not
be
formal
leaders
everyone
accountable
to
the
set
standards
Selection
Systems
Norms
Recruiting
and
hiring
new
employees:
Standards
of
daily
behavior
that
are
Background
checks
accepted
as
appropriate
by
References
members
Integrity
tests
the
way
we
do
things
around
here
Ethics-related
questions
during
interviews
Non-ethics,
but
related
questions
(such
as
influence
of
environmental
pressures)
during
interviews
Explicitly
state
ethics
and
integrity
as
important
(in
advertisement
and
interview/hiring
process)
Policies
and
Codes:
Rituals
More
detailed
than
vision/mission
Provide
guidance
about
behavior
in
Symbolically
informs
employees
multiple
areas
what
an
organization
wants
from
Needs
to
be
distributed
widely
to
them
employees
+
vendors
+
clients
+
Can
be
company-wide
or/and
other
stakeholders
department
wide
May
be
window-dressing
o Needs
to
be
enforced
to
have
any
effect
for
an
organization
Can
reduce
unethical
behavior
but
does
not
promote
ethical
behavior
Orientation
and
Training
Programs
Myths
and
Stories
Orientation
acts
as
an
introduction
and
training
programs
as
follow
up
exercises
to
Anecdotes/sequence
of
events
offer
more
specific
guidelines
drawn
from
the
organisations
Effective
training
programs:
difficult
to
history
administer
Occur
naturally
or
created
through
Training
programs
have
to
be
story
telling
sessions
developed
to
show
dilemmas
Simple
stories
work
best
employees
may
face
and
how
to
resolve
them
Performance
Management
Systems:
Language
Articulating
goals,
identifying
performance
metrics
and
providing
compensation
that
matches
effort
Talk
about
ethics
openly
and
in
relation
to
goals
consistently
Includes
formal
disciplinary
systems
Expected
that
employees
talk
about
o Figuring
out
what
drives
the
ethics
results
organisations
strive
for
Ethical
Talk:
requiring
discussion
of
(financial
e.g.
bottom-line
and
ethical
issues
in
all
important
non-financial
e.g.
reputation)
decisions
Reflects
what
is
valued
in
the
Avoid
euphemisms:
sugarcoating
organization
actions
that
may
be
wrong
and
Sanctions:
unethical
Sanction
systems
need
to
be
extremely
strong
Weak
sanctions
are
more
useless
than
no
sanctions
(remind
people
that
they
can
cheat
and
get
away
with
it)
Organisational
Authority
Structure
Individuals
who
are
independently
making
decisions
(i.e.
think
for
themselves),
with
less
direct
supervision
(i.e.
empower
employees)
need
a
strongly
aligned
ethical
culture
to
guide
them
Whistle-blowing
helplines
o Intranets
and
phone
lines
->
Encourage
whistle
blowing
o Reward
whistle
blowing
(not
good,
change
the
ethical
foundation,
once
you
start
rewarding
voluntary
action,
people
will
only
do
it
(for
the
reward)
or
if
there
is
a
reward
Ombudsperson
(independent
and
impartial
individual
to
assist
in
fair
resolution
of
complains)
Training
programs
Decision
Making
Processes
Ethical
concerns
as
a
formal
part
of
ALL
decision
making
Reinforced
by:
Regularly
addressing
ethical
concerns
in
meetings
Making
them
an
expected
part
of
managers
reports
Less
reliance
on
quantitative
analysis
(focus
on
right
thing
to
do
Appropriate
burden
of
proof
(depends
on
product
&
phenomenon)
Obligation
of
party
to
prove
its
allegations:
Challenger
Example
Symbols
1.Physical
symbols:
Value
statement
posters,
architecture
2.Behavioral
sybols
(rituals):
rites,
norms
and
rituals
3.Verbal
symbols:
language,
legends,
myths
and
stories
Strategies
to
reduce
the
role
of
the
context:
1.Pause
and
think
about
consequences
(ethical
or
not)
about
actions
Delay
signing
contract
while
thinking
about
it
away
from
the
situation
2.Get
second
opinion
For
others
(as
an
organizational
leader),
3.Reminding
actor
about
established
moral
codes
10
commandments;
teddy
bears;
honor
code
Teddy
bears:
think
about
innocence
and
purity
->
more
ethical
Honor
code:
think
about
morality
->
more
aware
of
ethical
behavior
->
engage
in
more
ethical
behavior
Enablers
to
Speak
Up
1.Allies
Easier
to
come
up
with
decisions
with
allies
who
are
similar
(same
values)
Know
you
better,
go
up
to
them,
get
recommendations
and
help
Within
organization
o Friends,
family
members,
or
people
who
work
in
similar
positions
at
other
organizations
o Attorney
or
external
expert
in
extreme
circumstances
Know
yourself:
Lone
ranger
vs.
comfortable
with
network
of
allies
(depends
on
which
one
you
prefer)
Create
network
in
advance
(especially
if
value
conflicts
are
common
in
the
industry)
or
at
the
time
of
choice
(especially
if
they
are
sudden)
Most
important
allies
need
to
be
cultivated
2.Selection
and
sequencing
of
audience
Critical
to
decide
whom
to
speak
to
first
(must
have
similar
values
to
the
boss)
Boss
vs.
persons
who
have
the
bosss
confidence
(advocacy
effects
when
boss
confidence
informs
the
boss,
he
is
advocating
your
viewpoint
for
you)
May
have
to
choreograph
a
series
of
conversations
in
order
to
build
support
and
buy-in
for
position
(who
to
speak
to
first
and
who
to
speak
to
later)
Offline,
one-on-one
(vs.
group)
conversations
o Easier
and
less
embarrassing
for
individuals
to
change
their
minds
in
private
(more
easy
to
convince/change
their
opposing
mindsets)
o Build
scripts
based
on
the
audience
(friends
vs
professional
-
need
facts
and
figures)
o Group
is
best
when
you
believe
it
will
be
easy
to
garner
support
3.Importance
of
information
Knowledge
is
power!
Test
and
retest
our
initial
values
position
(may
realize
we
were
wrong)
Gather
data
on
what
kinds
of
arguments
had
moved
the
audience
in
the
past
Emotional
v
rational
appeal
(Well-framed
and
compelling
story?
v
Data-based
analysis
with
spreadsheets?)
Helps
identify
allies
Provides
us
with
information
to
counter
the
reasons
and
rationalizations
we
are
likely
to
hear
Confidence:
with
knowledge,
more
assertive
and
influence
other
people
to
listen
to
you
more.
4.Questions,
not
answers
Open
discussion
with
questions
o Positions
oneself
as
genuinely
concerned
(not
just
raising
the
issue
to
create
trouble)
o Pose
sincere
and
real
questions
At
best,
other
person
reconsiders
some
viewpoints
At
worst,
you
will
uncover
the
most
critical
arguments
you
will
need
to
counter
o Ask
for
what
you
want
to
hear:
Have
you
ever
encountered
such
a
(hypothetical)
situation?
How
did
you
or
someone
else
handle
this
situation?
Specially
with
allies
5.Framing
When
you
wish
to
speak
up
against
a
colleague
for
wrongdoing
->
Right
versus
right
dilemma:
loyalty
vs
integrity
frame
as
loyalty
to
one
friend
vs
loyalty
to
other
friends
A
risk
we
all
want
to
avoid
for
everyone,
not
to
blame
others
learning
dialogue
(rather
than
confrontation)
wherein
we
want
to
uncover
the
true
parameters
of
a
decision
win-win
situation
all
negotiations
are
win-win
situations
Truisms
as
debatable
or
even
patently
false
6.Understanding
the
interests
of
others
Try
to
understand
what
is
truly
at
stake
for
the
person
or
persons
we
need
to
persuade
and
why
the
person
or
persons
is
doing
that
Therefore,
Avoid
building
irrelevant
arguments
Reveal
the
need
to
identify
alternate
audiences
Influence/Six
Persuasion
Principles
1.Reciprocity
By
doing
a
favor,
we
can
enhance
the
chance
that
others
will
comply
with
one
of
our
requests
(obligation/indebtedness)
This
works
even
if
its
an
unwanted
request.
o Coke
for
money
experiment
(given
coke,
which
he
did
not
want,
he
reciprocated
by
donating
money)
Reciprocity
can
trigger
unfair
exchanges
(some
people
may
go
above
and
beyond
to
repay
debt
Be
the
first
to
offer
something
(if
even
just
a
token
gesture)
the
other
party
feels
indebted
more
receptive
to
what
you
have
to
say.
Isnt
always
about
giving
something.
Making
concessions
and
intangible
offerings
makes
other
people
feel
as
if
youve
done
them
a
favor.
Make
sure
your
favor
is
noticed;
people
must
be
able
to
attribute
it
to
you.
Reciptocity
helps
with
forming
allies
2.Authority
We
are
more
willing
to
follow
the
suggestions
of
someone
who
is
a
legitimate
authority
figure
Authorities
can
be
of
two
general
varieties
o Authorities
in
general
o Authorities
with
respect
to
a
specific
topic
or
area
Mere
symbols
of
authority
are
enough
to
influence:
o Titles
(degrees,
status,
etc.)
o Physical
appearance:
Clothing.
Well
dressed
individuals
are
seen
as
more
competent
(Lab
Coats,
Guard
Uniform,
Well-tailored
Business
Suit)
Physical
Stature
(body
size)
Bodily
posture
(standing
up
straight)
and
gestures
(firm
handshakes)
3.Likeability
We
should
be
more
willing
to
comply
with
the
requests
of
people
we
know
and
like.
People
like
those
who
like
them
and
are
like
them
How
to
others
to
like
you
(at
least
temporarily)?
Compliments
Cooperation:
Those
who
cooperate
toward
a
common
goal
are
more
likely
to
be
helpful
to
each
other.
Physical
attractiveness
o Physically
attractive
individuals
are
more
persuasive
o Halo
Effect:
Its
a
tendency
of
people
to
rate
attractive
individuals
(environments,
products
etc.)
more
favorably
along
personality
traits
and
characteristics
Similarity
o People
respond
well
to
mimicry
when
its
subtle
(other
parties
must
not
detect
that
you
are
using
mimicry
and
must
be
what
the
person
likes)
o Even
meaningless
similarities
(thumbprint
shape,
same
birthday)
enhance
liking
4.Social
Proof
More
willing
to
comply
with
a
request
for
behavior
if
it
is
consistent
with
what
others
around
us
think
or
do
->
tend
to
follow
societal
norms/
cultural
norms
of
an
organization
(impactful
form
of
persuasion
to
alter
behavior
to
norm)
Society
operates
because
people
are
supposed
to
abide
by
norms:
- when
they
dont,
they
face
social
punishment
(negative
sanctions)
- when
they
do,
they
are
rewarded
(positive
sanctions)
Social
Proof
is
effective
when...
There
is
uncertainty
when
people
are
unsure,
when
the
situation
is
ambiguous
->
more
likely
to
attend
to
the
actions
of
others
and
accept
those
actions
as
correct
There
is
similarity
people
are
more
inclined
to
follow
the
lead
of
similar
others
However...
The
wrong
kind
of
social
proof
can
backfire.
Dont
provide
social
proof
if
its
not
the
behavior
you
want
to
encourage.
For
example,
if
you
want
to
discourage
a
detrimental
behavior
(like
shoplifting),
you
dont
want
to
make
the
mistake
of
characterizing
it
as
regrettably
prevalent
It
gives
people
social
proof-
I
know
I
shouldnt
do
it,
but
most
other
people
do
it.
Data,
such
as
measures
of
central
tendency
(e.g.
average
credit
card
debt)
can
potentially
lead
to
constructive
influence
for
some
and
destructive
for
others.
People
->
tend
to
measure
the
appropriateness
of
their
behavior
from
how
far
away
they
are
from
the
norm
or
average.
Being
deviant
is
being
above
or
below
the
mean.
This
means
that
the
average
info
may
serve
as
a
magnetic
middle
that
draws
people
toward
the
norm
regardless
of
whether
they
are
above
or
below
the
norm.
What
to
do?
When
the
odds
are
stacked
against
you,
communicate
that
the
detrimental
behavior
is
strongly
disapproved.
Focus
on
what
people
should
do,
not
what
people
actually
do.
5.Consistency
(Commitment)
After
committing
to
a
position
->
more
willing
to
comply
with
requests
for
behaviors
that
are
consistent
with
that
position.
After
taking
a
stand
on
a
position
->
natural
tendency
to
behave
in
ways
that
are
stubbornly
consistent
with
the
stand.
Public,
active,
effortful
commitments
tend
to
be
lasting
commitments.
Advocacy
effects:
when
you
advocate
->
you
commit
to
that
viewpoint
publicly,
less
likely
to
change
mindset/be
convinced
Foot-in-the-door
technique:
(only
works
if
it
is
in
the
same
domain)
Initial
request
(small)
By
phone,
asked
women
to
complete
short
survey
on
household
products
Intrusive
request
(big):
3
days
later,
asked
women
to
allow
a
few
men
into
the
house
for
2
hours
to
rummage
through
drawers
o Use
small
request
to
get
people
to
commit
first
and
after
that
they
will
be
more
willing
to
comply
with
requests
6.Scarcity
People
inclined
to
secure
scarce
or
dwindling
opportunities
People
assign
more
value
to
opportunities
(less
available
and
difficult
to
attain)
Generally,
an
adaptive
trait
because:
o Scarce
opportunities/things
are
generally
more
valuable,
lack
of
availability
can
offer
a
shortcut
cue
to
its
quality.
o As
things
become
less
accessible,
we
lose
freedoms.
Techniques
that
employ
the
scarcity
principle:
o Limited
Number/
Deadline/
Only
chance
Building
Trust:
Has
to
come
across
as
genuine
1.Reciprocity
(same
as
Persuasion
Principle
1)
2.Mere
exposure
(subconscious)
3.Similarity
Build
commonality
Hobbies
->
e.g.
golf
Education
->
SMU
Alumnus
(similar
to
Persuasion
Princple
3
likeability)
4.Physical
Presence
Same
floor,
same
area
(similar
to
meaningless
similarities
in
Persuasion
Principle
3
Likeability)
5.Flattery
Similar
to
Persuasion
principle
3
6.Schmoozing
Small
talk:
ask
about
family/friends
7.Self-disclosure/disclaimer
Team
Formation
We
tend
to
select
team
members
based
on
similarity
and
proximity
(rather
than
including
individuals
with
diverse
expertise,
opinions,
and
viewpoints
to
harness
the
benefits
of
diverse
teams)
Benefits
and
cost
of
social
diversity:
Homogenous
team
Diverse
team
Type
of
tasks
Higher
performance
for
simple,
High
performance
and
innovation
routine
tasks
(good
for
creative
tasks)
People
prefer
to
work
with
similar
others,
faster
and
easier
to
set
up
a
homogenous
team
Group
Higher
group
cohesion
Conflict
and
coordination
Effectiveness
Lower
turnover
problem
Psychological
barriers
However,
diversity
is
normatively
appropriate
and
potentially
useful
for
team
performance
even
if
problematic
Psychological
Barriers:
Social
categorization
Allows
us
to
process
social
information
quickly
and
also
to
understand
who
in-group
members
are
Stereotype
content
model:
perceived
competence
and
warmth
predicts
emotional
and
behavioral
reactions
(Fiske,
Cuddy,
&
Glick,
2007)
warmth
Competence
Warmth:
o Warmth:
judged
before
competence
and
carries
more
weight
o Warm
(competence)
facilitates/hinders
other
people
(self)
o Individuals:
warmth
and
competence
are
positively
correlated
o Groups:
opposite
(groups
that
are
warm
are
not
competent)
o Warm
(Competence)
results
in
active
(passive)
behaviors
Social
categorization
sows
the
seeds
for
interpersonal
conflict
Stereotypes:
commonly
held
beliefs
about
social
groups
o Overgeneralised
and
resistant
to
new
information
(continue
to
believe
in
stereotypes)
o Can
affect
judgments
and
behaviors
o Create
self-fulfilling
prophecies
(because
of
stereotype,
stereotyped
groups
behave
in
this
manner)
o E.g.
Are
Emily
and
Greg
more
employable
than
Lakisha
and
Jamal?
A
field
experiment
on
Labor
Market
Discrimination:
looked
at
numerous
advertisements
and
sent
in
CVs.
White-sounding
names
(1/10
chances)
receive
50%
more
call
backs
than
black-sounding
names
(1/15
chances)
Stereotype
threat:
how
we
judge
ourselves
wrt
stereotype
for
our
group
o Fear
that
your
behavior
will
confirm
a
stereotype
about
a
grouo
that
you
belong
to
or
identify
with
o Can
enhance/impair
performance
(e.g.
Stereotype
that
woman
are
poor
negotiators,
if
a
woman
possess
stereotype
threat,
can
impair
their
negotiation
outcomes
/
Women
scored
more
badly
in
math
tests
when
they
wore
swimsuits
compared
to
sweaters->
conform
to
stereotypes
and
tend
to
objectify
themselves)
Implicit
vs.
explicit
prejudice
(Implicit
Association
Tests)
Information
Exchange
Common
Knowledge
Effect:
Group
members
spend
more
time
discussing
information
they
have
in
common.
Why?
Unshared
information:
less
compelling,
common
knowledge:
builds
relationship
and
trust
Conformity
pressures
and
fear
of
social
exclusion
Group
members
are
anchored
by
initial
preferences
Group
members
seek
confirmatory
evidence
Common
knowledge
leads
to
Group
Polarization:
tendency
to
make
more
extreme
(either
risky
or
cautious)
decisions
when
in
a
group
than
when
alone
Why?
Common
knowledge
effect
Conformity
pressures,
desire
to
fit
in
Confirmation
bias
(e.g.
when
an
argument
is
raised,
similar
arguments
are
brought
up)
Dependence
on
one
expert
Maximising
the
benefits
of
Informational
Diversity/Effective
Strategies
1.Determine
team
members
knowledge
and
expertise
2.Suspend
initial
judgement,
wait
for
evidence
3.Dont
rely
solely
on
the
majority
principle
(may
lose
out
unique
information)
4.Includes
someone
who
explicitly
signals
differences
(any
form
of
dissenter
is
a
good
form
of
dissenter)
5.Create
psychological
safety
(e.g.
familiarity)
and
norms
for
disagreements
Implications
To
maximize
the
benefits
of
diverse
teams,
leaders
need
to
consider
both
individual-level
and
organizational-level
interventions:
Individual
Organisational
Realize
that
superordinate
goals
and
Realize
that
contexts
may
be
values
allow
people
to
see
past
creating
stereotype
threat
(asking
differences
someone
to
fill
in
their
race
or
Take
the
perspective
of
diverse
gender
can
create
stereotype
others
to
decrease
stereotyping
and
threat)
prejudice
(this
works
better
than
Encourage
openness,
personal
stereotype
suppression)
development,
and
high
expectations
Ensure
that
processes,
structures,
training,
and
groups
are
available
to
mentor
minority
members
Create
a
culture
and
incentive
system
that
values
diversity
Corporate
Governance:
Board
of
Directors
Boards
Responsibilities
Legal
Framework
Governance
Framework
To
make
Set
a
corporations
policy
and
Take
charge
of
its
own
focus,
decisions
direction
agenda,
and
information
flow
Elect
and
appoint
officers
and
agents
to
act
on
behalf
of
the
corporation
Act
on
major
matters
that
affect
the
corporation
To
monitor
Ensure
that
management
not
only
corporate
performs
but
performs
with
activity
integrity
Set
expectations
about
the
tone
and
culture
of
the
company
Ensure
that
corporate
culture,
agreed
strategy,
management
incentive
compensation,
and
the
companys
approach
to
audit
and
accounting,
internal
controls,
and
disclosure
are
consistent
and
aligned
To
advise
Work
with
management
to
management
formulate
corporate
strategy
Help
the
management
understand
the
expectations
of
shareholders
and
regulators
Board
Characteristics
Board
Size
Should
be
governed
by
the
skills
needed
to
do
the
job
smaller
boards
are
generally
better
Board
Absence
of
any
conflicts
of
interest
through
personal
or
professional
ties
Independence
with
the
corporation
or
its
management
Board
Ability
to
comprehend
the
issues
at
hand
Expertise
Board
Eagerness
to
exert
oneself
on
behalf
of
shareholders
Motivation
Meaningful
ownership
Identify
as
director
Identify
with
shareholders
Board
Separation
of
the
Chairman
and
the
CEO
positions
Leadership
Reduction
of
conflict
of
interest
Nonexecutive
chairman
can
serve
as
a
valuable
sounding
board
Time
and
effort
needed
to
do
both
jobs
is
high
Board
Committees
The
Audit
Committee
The
Nominating
(and
The
Compensation
Governance)
Committee
Committee
-Integrity
of
the
companys
financial
-Determining
the
eligibility
-Human
resources
statements
and
internal
controls
of
proposed
candidates
policies
and
-Compliance
with
legal
and
regulatory
-Reviewing
the
companys
procedures,
requirements
as
well
as
the
governance
principles
and
employee
benefit
companys
ethical
standards
and
practices
plans,
and
policies
-Establishing
and
compensation
-The
qualifications
and
independence
overseeing
self-assessment
-A
report
on
of
the
companys
independent
by
the
board
executive
auditor
and
the
performance
of
the
-Recommending
director
compensation
for
companys
internal
audit
function
and
compensation
inclusion
in
the
its
independent
auditors
-Implementing
succession
companys
annual
-Preparing
the
audit
committee
planning
for
the
CEO
proxy
statement
report
for
inclusion
in
the
companys
annual
proxy
statement.
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
Using
IKEAs
Global
Sourcing
Challenge
Thinking
through
second- Banning/disengaging
child
labour
->
unintended
order
consequences
consequences
(dismissals
in
Bangladesh)
Children
move
to
more
hazardous
jobs
(e.g.
mining,
sex
slaves)
and
worse
Understanding
the
cultural
Complexity
of
child
labor
+
why
does
it
exist:
context
Norms
in
less-developed
countries:
children
could
be
bonded
to
pay
off
debts
incurred
by
their
parents.
With
astronomically
high
interest
rates
and
very
low
wages,
take
years
to
pay
off
such
loans
In
India,
government
allows
child
labor
in
craft
industry
as
parents
pass
on
specialized
handicraft
skills/expertise
to
their
children
Laws
against
exploitive
child
labor
were
rarely
enforced
and
prosecution
rarely
severe.
Underlying
it,
is
the
social
issues
and
poverty
in
India.
Lack
of
access
to
education
->
children
work
instead
as
parents
have
poor
health
and
family
is
large
Responsibility
that
In
India,
government
allows
child
labor
in
craft
industry
as
companies
(and
parents
pass
on
specialized
handicraft
skills/expertise
to
particularly
MNCs)
face
in
their
children
countries
where
the
local
norms
and
practices
do
Laws
against
exploitive
child
labor
were
rarely
enforced
and
not
meet
the
companys
prosecution
rarely
severe.
own
internal
standards
in
the
area
of
human
rights
IKEA:
appointed
Barner
as
Childrens
Ombudson,
reporting
to
the
CEO.
Advocates
for
IKEAs
responses
to
be
in
the
best
interests
of
the
child
Whether
to
walk
away
Actively
engaged:
from
such
issues
or
to
IKEA
funds
partnered
with
UNICEF,
covering
200
villages,
become
actively
engaged
built
103
Alternative
Learning
Centers
to
bring
24,000
with
the
problem
and
take
children
back
to
school
on
the
role
as
an
agent
of
429
Womans
Self-help
thrift
groups
to
help
6000
woman
change
pay
back
loans
or
start
businesses
IKEAs
partnership
with
WHO
to
inoculate
150,000
mothers
to
be
and
140,000
infants
over
a
five-year
program
Viewing
the
problem
from
Systemic
in
dealing
with
the
problem:
a
systemic
perspective
ST
solutions
(attending
the
show,
making
decision
whether
to
partner
with
Rugmark,
decision
on
whether
to
terminate
the
supply
contract)
LT
solutions
(address
underlying
problems
in
India
and
directly
devise
strategies
to
reduce
child
labor
in
India)
Managing
Crisis
Trust
Radar
Transparency
1. What
you
do
know,
what
you
do
not
know,
and
when
you
will
follow
(what
you
tell
up;
the
public)
Speed:
respond
within
8-24
hours
(longer
the
decision
maker
takes
to
decide,
public
will
view
as
less
moral/having
smth
to
hide/guilty)
2. Not
the
same
as
full
disclosure
(i.e.
contracts/trade
agreements):
But
keep
an
open
mind
about
sharing
as
much
as
possible
Do
not
make
no
comment
(give
the
impression
that
the
organisation
is
hiding
something)
3. Is
considered
violated
when
the
audience
believes
that
relevant
information
was
wilfully
withheld
(e.g.,
no
comment);
4. Information
needs
to
be
understood.
Do
not
use
technical
jargon
(public
assume
you
are
hiding
behind
incomprehensible
jargon),
speak
in
a
straightforward
manner
Expertise
1. Is
the
organization
competent
to
do
the
needful?
(capability
to
Need
to
convince
the
public
of
the
organisations
competence
and
its
resolve
the
motivations
(we
rarely
doubt
that
the
company
can
do
the
right
thing,
crisis
+
but
we
believe
that
it
chooses
not
to
do,
due
to
costs
etc.)
whether
you
2. For-profits
>
not-for-profits
and
government
institutions;
want
to)
(Non-profits:
perceived
to
be
caring,
but
not
competent;
for-profit:
vice
versa)
3. Bringing
in
third-party
experts
with
credibility
may
help
If
customer
perceive
a
lack
of
expertise;
BODs
can
nudge
management
Commitment
1. Communicating
that
a
problem
is
being
addressed
or
that
a
process
(who
you
use
for
improvement
is
moving
forward;
+
show
Signaled
by
top
management
being
present
&
involved
in
the
crisis,
dedication)
shows
the
organisations
accountability
and
care.
(may
not
be
true
in
all
cases-
depends
on
magnitude
of
crisis)
Using
PR
professionals
as
spokespeople
may
not
be
effective
as
they
lack
operational
responsibilities,
people
want
to
hear
from
leaders
with
power
to
resolve
the
issue
2. Signalled
most
effectively
by
senior
management
(in
most
cases)
taking
care
of
the
crisis
is
the
companys
top
priority;
3. When
in
doubt,
use
someone
a
little
higher
in
the
management
hierarchy
than
necessary
Empathy
Most
important,
easiest
to
be
done
(reach
out
to
1. Needs
to
be
warm,
authentic,
and
sincere;
victims)
2. Not
an
apology;
A
formulaic
and
insincere
apology
may
appear
cynical
and
calculated
(does
more
harm
than
good)
An
apology
does
not
need
to
be
an
admission
of
fault
and
guilt
3. Easiest
to
overlook
Others:
During
reputational
crises,
companies
must
act
to
protect
their
reputational
equity.
Do
not
conceptualise
it
as
threats
and
danger
and
see
it
as
an
opportunity
to
improve
your
companys
reputation
Because
reputational
crises
are
decisive
moments/turning
points
(how
a
company
handles
have
a
lasting
impact
on
its
reputation)
->
companies
are
on
stage
during
crises;
people
pay
attention
and
remember
what
they
do
Global
news
cycle
has
shrunk
dramatically.
Companies
must
act
before
they
know
all
the
facts
(do
not
let
media
reveal
its
wrongdoings,
reassure
customers
to
maintain
and
enhance
trust
in
an
environment
of
fear
and
skepticism)
Building
and
maintaining
trust
is
most
important
task
during
a
reputational
crisis,
questions
of
guilt
are
secondary.
Since
CEOs
and
corporations
are
not
trusted,
must
be
earned
through
decisive
action.
Managing
a
crisis
is
the
responsibility
of
business
leaders
and
not
legal/public
relations
experts.
They
play
a
critical
role
but
the
focus
needs
to
be
on
the
business
issue
at
stake,
not
just
legal
or
technical
dimensions
Needs
to
Consider
1.Reputational
Terrain
Does
the
company
have
a
valuable
brand
name
that
can
be
damaged?
Is
the
company
a
multinational
firm
with
global
operations?
Is
the
companys
value
chain
vulnerable
on
any
of
the
preceding
(top
and
bottom)
six
dimensions?
2.Effectiveness
of
potential
boycotts
Do
the
companys
products
have
credence
good
qualities?
o A
credence
good
is
one
whose
value
depends
principally
upon
what
people
believe
about
it
than
some
verifiable
performance
characteristic
Are
there
activists
that
care
a
lot
about
the
credence
good
aspects
of
the
product?
Does
the
company
sells
consumer
products?
Are
there
close
substitute
products
available
that
are
easy
and
inexpensive
to
switch
to?