BE Workshops Samengevoegd PDF

Workshop 1 Ethics: Moral philosophy – what is good and wrong? Integrity: The practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles. Compliance: The practice of adhering the rules and regulations. Research on children: At already 6 mo...

Workshop 1 Ethics: Moral philosophy – what is good and wrong? Integrity: The practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles. Compliance: The practice of adhering the rules and regulations. Research on children: At already 6 months, kids can differentiate between good and evil. ➔ Social evaluation by preverbal infants, Hamlin, Wynn & Bloom in Nature (2007) There is a “moral radar” in the brain that gives people the reflex to act good. Examples of bad people: Tom Hayes: Former UBS trader that was manipulating the LIBOR interest rate. Jerome Kerviel: French trader that was responsible for $4,9 billion in losses for Société Général. Bradley Birkenfeld: Private banker supporting tax fraud. Bad behaviours can come from different motivating factors: for oneself, for another person, for ones company, etc. Most people have a preference for good but behaviors can somehow deviate from good and stumble towards bad behavior. Coin flip experiment: People and bankers were invited to flip a coin 10 times in complete anonymity. Tails would earn them $20 and heads $0. They would have to wirte down how many times out of the 10 flips they landed on tails. Conclusion: Normal distribution with fat tail to the right (x-axis: money earned). But no evidence that bankers are less ethical. However, when asked to talk about work, bankers would mainly talk about money while other people didn’t. The profession does not indicate higher or lower honesty in people. However, people having to guess which profession is most dishonest, bankers were most chosen (medical doctors < general population < prison inmates < bankers). There are two reasons why people remain ethical: - Their own moral standards, - The social pressure of being watched. Different items have higher or lower barriers for ethical behavior. A pen with your company logo worth $1 might not bother you to take it. However, an open cash register with no supervision would invite you to take $1 from it. Peer pressure: A factor for unethical behaviour. People are driven by conformity. They like to be part of a group. Solomon Asch experiment (1955): Gathered people in a room that were asked questions. Then they were instructed to answer the wrong answer when asked again with someone unaware of the question. That person tended to conform to the majority. 75% of the respondents agreed for at least one assignment with the majority. Authority as a factor for unethical behavior: If a superior tells you to do something unethical, most people would do it. Milgram experiment: Milgram would invite two participants (teacher and student) in seperate rooms. They were randomly assigned as the “student” and the “teacher”. The student was connected to a electrical shock machine and had to memorise words. The teacher would ask him about the words. Incorrect answers would be punished by an electrical shock. Consecutive mistakes would increase shock strength. The student was an actor and the shock was not real. The “teacher” did not know that and would think that he could have been the “student”. Conculsion: 2/3 of the participants as “teachers” went all the way (“killing the student”). Both for women and men. The public was in disbelief of the results. ➔ People tend to follow authority much more than they think they would. Summary: - All people have a “moral radar” - Money can influence your ethical behaviour - People tend to conform to groups - People tend to follow orders from authority  Workshop 2 Milgram experiment in 2024 Very similar results than in the original experiment (above 50% of people went all the way following the orders of authority). Strong relationship between financial incentive and following oders. There is an increase in performance when faced with a reward. But it is capped by speed of execution for simple tasks and a clock shaped curve of motivation when facing a hard task. The higher the stress, the lower the performance. Aviation Case Study Case: Experienced pilot but inexperienced co-pilot. They have to land the plane in the middle of the night in a storm. The brakes fail and they slide off the runway and crash into lighting installations. 100 survivers (among which the co-pilot) and 10 death (among which the pilot). Reason for crash: The pilots forgot the raise the landing flaps on top of the wings. So there was a human mistake and a weather factor. However, the pilot broke the safety code and landed in an unauthorised weather situation. MIT found that pilots break weather rules when: 1. Pilots were following other aircraft (conformity bias). 2. Pilots were delayed by 15 minutes or more. Reasons: a. For the company: i.e. to avoid fuel costs. b. For themselves: i.e. want to see their family, etc. c. For the customers: i.e. want to make them land quicker. 3. Pilots were flying after dark (visibilty of weather situation less apparent). All are derived from the Integrity triangle: Opportunity: people tend to break rules when opportunities araise for themselves or others. Pressure: factor for breaking rules. Ex: when a decision has to be taken quiuckly. Rationalisation: People reassure themselves that they are not doing something against the rules. They rationalise their actions turning them into appropriate bahviours. Problem of dilemma: When there is a situation that compromises an ethic value either way. Which value should be broken? A dilemma can arise between different parts of one’s life: personal, professional, public. Dilemma Case Study: You are hired as a young trader out of university as general manager in future markets. You hire a team of traders but you are inexpereinced in leadership. One of your trader makes a trading mistakes that leads to a large loss. You tell your boss and he tells you to fire the trader. You tell him that it’s a bit arsch and he tells you to deal with it as you wish. What would you do? Structure to assess the situation: 1. What are the relevant facts? A mistake has been made that led to a $20,000 loss for the firm. 2. Who are the primary stakeholders? The top manager, the team manager, the trader, the company, the client, team members. 3. What are the ethical issues? Emotional vs rational 4. What are the conflicting values at stake? Dilemma on personal and professional level. 5. What are the possible alternatives? Fire her/downgrade her/train her/etc. 6. What are the pros and cons of these alternatives? Real story of Nick Leeson.  Workshop 3 Dilemma: You are driving back from work in a rush because you have to go to the theater with your GF and you don’t want to be late because it would compromise you standard of punctuality. You arrive home ready to leave and see that your GF is wearing a new dress you find hideous. She asks you if you like it? Dilemma 1: Tell her she is beautifull so she is happy and you can quickly go to the theater (100% Puntuality, 0% Honesty). Dilemma 2: Tell her you don’t like it making her mad (0% Puntuality, 100% Honesty). Dillemma 3: Tell her that you like it but that you don’t care because you are later, making her mad (0% Puntuality, 100% Honesty). Dilemma 4: Be half honest to satisfy her but leaving her slightly furstrated (50% Puntuality, 50% Honesty). Honesty Punctuality Rules and implementation Sometimes rules are wrongly implemmented, leading people to break them. Example: Parking spot with a entry barrier that is easily surrounded by driving over the adjascent field.  ➔ If there are tire marks in the field indicating that the rule has been already broken, people will likely also break it (Conformity). So rules have to be properly implementent and also enforced. Compliance Management Code of Conduct Example: Google allows dogs visiting the company but not cats. This is because Google has officially stated that they are a dog-loving firm and that cats would create a stressful environment. Contra-example: Enron had a convincing code of conduct regarding honesty, fairness, respect and integrity. It turned out to be just a front for fraud. The fact of letting people sign official papers stating their alignment with codes of conduct, leads them to follow the code more seriously. ➔ Calles primary mark on honesty. Priming Example: Bateson A coffee machine was added in an office where added milk had to be paid without supervision. This was done to see how honest people are when no one is watching. To test priming (influencing people behaviour without them noticing), pictures of human eyes and flowers were alternatively stuck on the milk machine every week. The results show that when eyes where stuck on the milk machine, payment for milk was high. Whereas when flowers where stuck on the milk machine, payment for milk was low. Example: Wallet drop A nice wallet was left on the ground without cash but with bank cards and other private information. If there was no picture, only 15% of people returned the wallet. If a charity card was found, 20%. A picture of an elderly couple, 28%. A family picture, 48%. A picture of a puppy, 53%. A picture of a baby , 88%. It looks like the more the content of the picture is someone that needs help, the more likely the wallet is returned. The influence of Money When reminded of money, people become more motivated and less socially atune (less helpful, less socially active). Experiment: Money as motivator A study invited two groups of people. One group had to count pieces of paper and the other had to count bills of money. They were then given M&Ms to eat while counting the money. The group counting the bills ate 50% more M6Ms than the group counting pieces of paper. This indicated how money makes you more hungry. Later, they were asked to walk across an office to another room. On the way, an actor dropped a pile of papers they were holding. The members of the money group did not stop to help, whereas the other groups’ members did. Showing that money makes you believe to be more self reliant and expect others to be too. Last, members of both groups were asked to keep their hand in an ice bath for as long as possible. Money-group members kept their hands in long than member of the group without money. Indicating how money enhances physical strnetgh and pushing limits. Checks to mitigate incidents An eye hospital noticed a large number of incidents during operating procedures. They implemented control checks to decrease the number of incidents. First they asked the patient to confirm which part had to be operated, the left or right eye. The incident level went down a bit. Then they noticed that it was not always clear from which perspective left or right was asked from. So they asked doctors to touch the cheek under which eye they were asking the patient where to operate. Incidents further decreased. Then they noticed that on the way to the operating room, the patients bed was turned around and that also led to incidents. So they asked doctors to mark the confirmed operating area before moving the patient. The incidents decreased again. However, while adding more checks, the incidents started increasing again. This showed how too many control checks can overcomplicate a situation where people make mistakes. Conformity: Solomon Asch It was proven that when a confederation does not unanemously agree on something and even one member is showing resistance, only 5-10% of members keep to their original position. Organisational Silence Positive news is reported quickly top higher management. Negative news is reported less quick because the fact of the news is second-guessed and negative feedback wants to be avoided. Wistleblower Mechanism When an internal anonymous wistleblowing tool is available, a larger number of infractions are reported than if the news had to be reported in person. Results on Survey about sharing notes The folowing ranking shows who would most likely receive notes:  - A diligent friend - A student that helped you before - A diligent student - A lazy friend - A lazy student Suprisingly, a diligent student would receive notes more likely than a lazy friend. This indicates that, in this case, diligency is valued more than friendship. Results on Survung about gender priming No significant difference if the subject in question was male or female.