Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethics
Ethics
Ethics
Silicon Valley has long been known for its “ask forgiveness, not permission” and “move
fast and break things” attitudes, but lately it’s had to reckon with the consequences of that
mindset. Examples from Uber to WeWork suggest that this modus operandi exposes fast-
growing firms to significant risks.
This tendency to first take action and then manage what happens is what psychologists
who study motivation call “locomotion” goal pursuit. Another approach is “assessment,”
when you pursue goals via careful evaluation. Prior research has shown that locomotion
activity like rushing to meet deadlines is associated with unethical decision-making,
whereas taking time to assess alternatives is associated with more ethical decisions. This
is probably because assessors are more likely than locomotors to spend time
contemplating ethical standards, which helps them to identify and avoid risks and
negative consequences.
But this past work has focused on individuals. We wondered whether the same idea
applies to organizations, too. Our research found that a culture of locomotion at the
expense of assessment — as indicated by corporate mission statements —is indeed linked
to more unethical decision making at the organizational level, which we observed in the
form of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) violations. And, from
experiments, we found that a mission statement promoting locomotion can cause the
individuals employed by it to make problematic decisions as well.
For each franchise, we knew whether it was an EEOC violator or non-violator and how
many unique EEOC cases were brought against it. For example, during this 10-year
period, we observed that a number of franchises had been violators with at least one case
brought against it: Dunkin’, Motel 6, and Papa John’s, among others.
To test the link between violations and locomotion and assessment, we looked at the
mission statements of each of these franchises to see what they prioritized. We used a
linguistic processing program that scored every mission statement on locomotion and
assessment based on a dictionary of 34 locomotion terms (e.g. “act,” “hurry,” “speed”)
and 34 assessment terms (e.g. “compare,” “thorough,” “question”).
For example, a high locomotion mission statement might start off saying, “Our reputation
for fast responses, unparalleled quality, and uninhibited commitment has contributed to
our growth as a company,” or “We remain experts at providing solutions quickly because
your business can’t afford to wait.” But a high assessment mission statement might
instead announce, “Our company is consultative, collaborating with you closely from
imagination through installation to attain the high quality you seek while adhering to
your timeframe and budget,” or “To back up this promise, we carefully screen and hire
only skilled [employees] who are experienced professionals.”
Our results indicated that the language in mission statements could predict EEOC
violations. Franchises whose mission statements emphasized locomotion (“just do it”)
over assessment (“do the right thing”) were significantly more likely to be charged with
discrimination. Controlling for the organization’s age, industry, CEO gender, number of
employees and locations, we discovered that the more locomotion terms and fewer
assessment terms in the mission statement, the greater the likelihood that a franchise
would be named in an EEOC discrimination settlement. These significant results held
across industries, states, and different subsets of the sample. Interestingly, there were non-
violating franchises with mission statements containing the same amount of both types of
terms, which suggests that locomotion and assessment can act as countervailing forces to
limit an organization’s discrimination exposure.
Of course, what we found based on this archival data was correlational. To determine if
locomotion can actually cause discrimination, we conducted a set of controlled
experiments. We randomly assigned 717 U.S.-based online participants to act as manager
of a franchise with a mission statement either high in locomotion or assessment (or
neither, in a third “pure control” condition). First they read the mission statement, then
they were presented with HR scenarios patterned after real EEOC cases.
For example, one scenario asked participants whether they would transition a disabled
employee out of a customer-facing role; another scenario asked participants whether they
would replace an older worker who might not be able to learn new software skills, and so
on. For each scenario, participants had to choose between one option that directly violated
EEOC regulations and another option that was a viable alternative recommended by the
EEOC.
We found that the locomotion mission statements quadrupled the odds that participants
would choose an illegal course of action. In other words, when they read a mission
statement that emphasized urgent action over thoughtful consideration, they were more
likely to opt for the choice that violated EEOC regulations, such as transferring the
disabled worker or replacing the aging one.
We also asked these “managers” what factors affected their decision making. Those who
read a locomotion mission statement reported they felt the need to make the decision with
minimal time and effort, which took their attention away from ethical standards. Results
held when accounting for participants’ familiarity with non-discrimination policies and
relevant work experience, as well as for discriminatory choices that involved inaction.
These experiments reinforced what we observed in our EEOC archival study: locomotion
language, unless tempered by nearly as much assessment language, is associated with
discrimination at work. In other words, locomotion motivates action, but locomotion
combined with assessment motivates conscientious action.
The findings have implications beyond franchises, especially for fast-growing tech firms.
The same mode of uncompromising, fast-paced goal pursuit that can propel a company’s
growth may also leave it vulnerable to unethical action like discrimination. Uber’s former
GM, CEO, and SVP of global operations Ryan Graves pondered aloud what went awry:
“We should have taken more time to reflect on our mistakes and make changes together.
There always seemed to be another goal, another target, another business or city to
launch.”
Our work points to the opportunity for organizations to not only grow but
to grow conscientiously by offsetting their strong locomotion motivation
with strong assessment motivation, too. This means that ethical standards
cannot simply live as separate documents in the form of codes of
conduct and value statements; they must be woven into the everyday
fabric of how business is conducted, guiding employees in their day-to-day
choices absent direct oversight. Start with the mission statement. Even
Uber is now embracing a simple assessment aim: “We Do the Right
Thing. Period.”
Dana Kanze is an Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour at London Business
School where she conducts research on sources of organizational inequality.