The Moral Muteness of Managers

Bird, Frederick; Waters, James A.

doi:10.2307/41166735

Cited by 275 publications

(177 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

165

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…He claims that organizations need to develop "an environment in which the standard techniques of neutralization used to excuse criminal and unethical behavior are not accepted" (p. 611). In a similar vein, Bird (1996) and Bird and Waters (1989) have identified moral muteness as a pervasive phenomenon in business, one which needs to be taken seriously if companies are to identify and reduce instances of moral wrongdoing. If business leaders and employees keep silent about morally challenging aspects of their own work, key issues will not be identified and addressed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honesty in projects

Kvalnes

2014

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honesty in Projects PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore how the concept of honesty can shed light on misreporting issues in projects. Research on honesty can be useful for practitioners and researchers in project management, in order to understand and counter the withholding and distortion of relevant information from projects. In moral psychology, dishonesty is often explained as a result of moral neutralization. The paper provides an account of how neutralization can lead to dishonesty in projects. Design/methodology/approachThe current study is based on a literature review of research on misreporting and dishonesty in projects, and of relevant generic studies of honesty. FindingsThe author concludes that the phenomenon of moral neutralization can explain dishonesty and misreporting in projects. Honesty can be encouraged by identifying attempts at moral neutralization, and rendering them unacceptable. At the core of this position is the view that the level of honesty amongst project members is most adequately understood and explained from a circumstance rather than a character approach. Research limitations/implicationsThe paper is based on a literature review, and needs to be supported by further empirical studies within project management. Practical implicationsThe suggested primacy of a circumstance approach to honesty implies that project practitioners should be aware of the phenomenon of moral neutralization. Even people of good moral character can become involved in neutralization, in order to render misreporting acceptable. The central practical challenge can thus be to recognize tendencies of neutralization in one's own and other people's moral reasoning. Originality/valueThe main contribution of this paper is to introduce the concept of honesty in general, and the concept of moral neutralization in particular, to project management research and practice. The paper also suggests concrete ways to redirect attention from character to circumstances, based on more general research findings in social and moral psychology. Recent developments in social psychology point to a different understanding of the phenomenon of honesty, giving priority to the circumstances of decision making, rather than on character traits. In this paper I will argue that this empirically oriented circumstance approach, as outlined by Ariely (2010;, Mazar et al. (2008), Heath (2008, and Doris (2002) is where project management practice and research can find the most relevant input with regard to understanding and countering dishonesty. These contributions take into account a wide range of experiments and studies demonstrating how human decisions and behavior are crucially affected by aspects of the situation, rather than on individual character traits.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honesty in projects

Kvalnes

2014

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seventh, discussability, the opportunity to raise and discuss ethical issues, can support employees when they face ethical dilemmas. A lack of criticism and limited readiness to discuss ethical issues can lead to unethical behavior (Kaptein, 1998), and persistently avoiding talking about ethical matters can result in higher levels of moral stress (Bird & Waters, 1989). Finally, the virtue of sanctionability refers to the likelihood of employees and managers being rewarded for ethical behavior and punished for behaving unethically (Kaptein, 2008).…”

Section: Ethical Culture and The Corporate Ethical Virtues Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The final CEV model includes eight virtues which should be embodied in the organizational culture (Kaptein, 2008). First, clarity of ethical standards refers to concrete and understandable expectations, which support ethical decision-making; vague or ambiguous norms can be a major cause of unethical behavior (Bird & Waters, 1989;Tyler & Blader, 2005).…”

Section: Ethical Culture and The Corporate Ethical Virtues Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Associations between Ethical Organizational Culture, Burnout, and Engagement: A Multilevel Study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Concerns about the potential for acrimony can lead to "moral muteness" (Bird and Waters, 1989). Yet moral convictions are often at the core of religious, spiritual, and nonreligious commitments.…”

Section: Religious Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Framework for Interfaith Leadership

McGraw¹

2017

Engaging Pedagogies in Catholic Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Moral Muteness of Managers

Cited by 275 publications

References 3 publications

Honesty in projects

Honesty in projects

The Associations between Ethical Organizational Culture, Burnout, and Engagement: A Multilevel Study

Toward a Framework for Interfaith Leadership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About