Immoral behavior becomes more common in groups that have been accustomed to accepting and allowing such behaviors as long as they are conducted by fellow in-group members. When racial, religious, or social, political or power considerations come into play in the judging of these behaviors we may find that poor behavior increases as in and out groups become more defined. Likewise, as officials (in public, business, or social circles) support such behaviors they become legitimized and more likely to be repeated in a way that creates risks for the long term financial viability of the whole organization.
Hypothetical Example 1 (Social and Institutional): Someone seeks to exploit racial and religious differences for self gain and uses a network of official and unofficial members to target, bully, and exploit out group members. Behaviors become repeated and grow among a large group of members based on a lack of controls or correction. Voicing disagreement could lead to increases in intimidation and mistreatment. The location had experience economic decline over the past few decades.
Hypothetical Example 2 (Business and Organizational): Executives have used their positions to enrich themselves and have created cultures of corruption that lead to behaviors among many employees, expectations of different rules, and eventual loss of revenue that led to organizational insolvency. Policies and procedures against such behaviors were weak and those who attempted to uphold the missions of the organization were constructively discharged. Stakeholders were aware too late to correct.
A Study on Immorality with In Groups and Out Groups:
Consider a study observed (im)moral in/out group membership and how that changed decisions related to justice in punitive, selfish, or dishonest choices. Research on In-Group Out-Group Immoral Behaviors. Some of the key points and findings are below (Vives, Cikara, & Feldman, 2022)
-N=1358
-Immoral in groups lead to immoral behaviors.
-Immoral out groups didn't have a significant impact.
-Compassionate and generous people didn't make people more moral.
-When there were loop holes (free pass) it didn't curb immoral behaviors.
-Out group honest members improved in group moral behaviors (i.e. moral conscious through modeling and reflecting.)
-In group immorality licenses poor behaviors while out group members buffered against it (a possible additional benefit of diversity)
Discussion:
Consider that in both hypothetical situations the behaviors went down a line of thinking and did so because lack of checks n balances that were not strong enough to correct. The end result was a total net loss to the organization, institutional trust, and performance outcomes. Those that sought to change such poor organizational performances are often sidelined or removed in an effort to maintain a status quo in a way that enriched and helped a few at the expense of the organization, society and its stakeholders.
The problem organizations face is that there is a lack of checks and balances as those within the system have difficulty seeing how their thought processes and moral lapses were costing many others and ran counter to missions. Correcting that is difficult in power over situations where in and out group behavior is common and hyped. Sometimes people within such systems are aware of illegal, immoral or unethical behaviors but have no way of having grievances addressed without serious consequences and backlash.
What executives and leaders should learn from this is that even though illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior could have helped some succeed in the short run it comes with a cost to the long term value of the organization and/or society. Thus, it is important to build in checks and balances in policies and procedures to hold to account poor actors who were aware of their behaviors at they time they were engage in such activities least they spread through social learning. Strong ethical leadership is a must for long term success.
Questions: A few questions to ponder
-Why do some organizations act more moral and ethical than others?
-How might leadership quality of the organization determine its performance financially and ethically?
-Do organizations have a vested interested in ensuring the best and brightest come forward versus those within their social circles?
-What are the risks to organizations, institutions, or nations that have higher corruption rates?
-Why does power over dynamics often exist in organizations where immoral and unethical behaviors are encouraged?
-How might the policies, procedures, unwritten values, and written artifacts influence an organization's long term performance?
-Is it possible that toxic leaders (or good leaders) socialize others to certain values through norming?
-Why are their poor environmental and internal performance in organizations where immorality exists?
Vives, M.-L., Cikara, M., & Feldman Hall, O. (2022). Following Your Group or Your Morals? The In-Group Promotes Immoral Behavior While the Out-Group Buffers Against It.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 139-149.
https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211001217
