In another of those seemingly endless notes and columns about Tiger Woods sexual escapades, a Wall Street Journal editor commented on an airport ad that featured Tiger on the golf course, staring down a chasm, searching for something he lost, presumably a golf ball. The caption read, "It's what you do next that counts." That, of course, is one of those ads that will be quickly disappearing, and not liable to appear again. That was the same day that Tiger had announced his break from professional golf to "work on his life game a bit and to recover from the damage caused by his 'infidelities.'"
Those of us who have long periods in the public eye have to learn to manage the "opportunities presented," or risk damage to relationships and the reputation that are important to us. As a counseling professional, I learned early on that it was important to occasionally and verbally set boundaries for the opposite sex, and on a few occasions set them for the same sex. I have a strong view of marriage as a covenanted relationship and have always intended to keep them, and have done so for more than 50 years. By a covenanted relationship, I refer to solemn promises to keep relationships that a couple have agreed to, and to avoid other relationships.
But all of us have our own emotional and hormonal urges, and many of us are in the public spotlight, at least partially because of our narcissistic orientation to relationships--a perfect setup for various escapades. Whether it's Letterman, Tiger, or even Clinton, none of this stuff ever comes as a surpise. Ethically, I believe the Catholic theology that argues that emotional attraction is one thing and taking action is another, is spot on. Still, this leaves me asking whether some people have ever had any training in managing their hormones.
I have a rich memory of a young relative, a seemingly bright high school senior who spent nearly a semester with us because of her family difficulties. After observing her for a couple weeks, I commented to my wife about the fact that I had yet to see our new resident make a decision on anything but the state of her glands. My brilliantly analytical wife, in her unsubtle fashion, commented that it had taken her well-educated husband quite a while to notice the obvious. We make decisions for a lot of reasons, many of which are not at all rational.
That, however, is a perfect segue for me to point out that we are not nearly as rational nor as ethical as we like to think. Extensive research by Max Bazerman and his colleagues at Northwestern and Harvard focus on the "whys." People typically predict that they will behave more ethically than they actually do. Recent research shows without a shadow of a doubt that all of us have an innate tendency to engage in self-deception around our own ethical behavior. That's one of the reasons that that I look down my nose pretty quickly at the self-righteous of any stripe.
In one abstract, Bazerman and colleagues summarize the research in this language: People predict that they will behave more ethically than they actually do, and when evaluating past (un)ethical behavior, they believe they behaved more ethically than they actually did.
In one especially illuminating piece of research on managerial decision making, Bazerman and colleagues show that there are four very important and related sources of unintentional unethical decision making. But one source is especially illuminating in the decision making process: the bias that emerges from unconscious beliefs. The research shows that people commonly and persistently judge according to unconscious stereotypes and attitudes, or what the research colleagues call "implicit prejudice." The research goes on to show that even those who are free from conscious prejudice may still harbor bias and act accordingly. Exposed to images that justapose black men and violence, portray women as sex objects, imply that the physically disabled are mentally weak and the poor are lazy, even the most consciously unbiased person is bound to make biased assoications. These associations play out in the workplace just as they do anywhere else.
Putting a gloss on Greenspan's comments about the stock market and irrational exuberance, and his amusing (to me, at least) and disastrous failure to understand the irrational nature of the human psyche, bias is just one implicit driver of irrational decision making. It demands that we abandon our faith in our own objectivity. You can check out a previous post on business ethics here. On other occasions, I'll add to this brief discussion of the irrational drivers of our decision making. Stay tuned.
For Max Bazerman and colleagues' research, go here. You can also pull up the full working paper at that location.