[MUSIC] Welcome, to this fourth video of the second week of our course on, unethical decision making. In this video, we introduce the idea of ethical blindness, which builds the backbone of our course. In this session you will understand the concept of ethical blindness, and you will be familiarized, with the key theoretical elements of the concept. >> Almost every day we hear about a new scandal of corporate misbehaviour in the news and we see the photos of arrested managers. We are wondering, why do people and organizations break the legal and moral rules of the game time and again? Normally, we attribute what people do to their character. Our basic assumption is, that bad things are done by bad people. Crooks, criminals, so called bad apples. This is based on the idea that decisions are made, by rational actors. People who brag moral and legal rules, thus make a calculation. We assume, they compare advantages and risks of rule breaking. We assume, that rule breaking thus is intentional. This assumption however contrasts with one observation. People who break the rules are often shocked and surprised, by themselves. How could I ever do this? We will talk about some experiments done, by social psychologists between the 1950s and 1970s, later on in our course. These experiments demonstrate, how easily normal people, can be manipulated into highly questionable behaviour such as giving electric shocks, to others. One of those experiments, was done by the psychologist, Philip Zimbardo, who took young male students, put them in the roles of prisoners and prison guards. He gave them uniforms. And his idea was to observer them for two weeks to see what they would do. How would they behave? The experiment was stopped, after six days. Prisoners, mentally collapsed and prison guards became ever more sadistic from day to day. One of these prison guards in the debriefing, of the experiment right afterword said the following, while I was doing it, I didn't feel any regret, I didn't feel any guilt, I was, it was only afterwards, when I began to reflect on what I had done, that this behaviour, began to dawn on me. This is a phenomenon, that returns time and time again in situations where people, break the rules, get corrupted, arrest their colleagues, manipulate information or steal from their employers. When confronted with their own behaviour, they are often shocked. But while they are doing it, they do not see it, they do not see that what they do, is wrong. They do not see that they do harm, to others. They do not see that they act against their own values. In some situations, people seem to behave unethically without being aware of it. So, the ethical dimension of, their decision, seems to be removed from their radar screen. We call the decision maker's temporary inability, to see the ethical dimension of a decision at stake, ethical blindness. >> Ethical blindness, has three key aspects. When ethically blind, actors deviate from their own values and principles. When making a decision, they cannot access those values. Ethical blindness is context-bound and thus a temporary state. When the situation changes, actors will likely return to practicing their original values and principles. Ethical blindness is unconscious. Actors are not aware of deviating from the rules of the game when making a decision. >> It is important, to understand that ethical blindness is not the same as unethical behaviour. It is just the increasing inability to see the ethical dimension of what, on deciding. But ethical blindness increases the probability, of unethical behaviour. So, in many cases, unethical decision making is less rational and less deliberate, than we think. But more intuitive and automatic. And a specific circumstances, the ethical aspect of a decision, might fade away. How is that possible? Our main assumption is that, many ethi, unethical decisions in organizations have less to do, with a person, making the decision and more with the context, in which they make their decision. Contexts, can be stronger than reason, stronger than values and good intentions. >> How can ethical blindness be explained? Together with our colleague, Professor Franciska Krings, also here at the University of Lausanne, we have developed a model, that explains how, and when, context might overpower reason. Our first question is, how do we make decision over ethics? From our discussion in the first week you have learnt that in the ideal world of moral philosophers, we make decisions, based on reason. For instance, think of Kant. With this categorical imperative, well the utilitarian calculation. We process data almost like a computer. In reality however, decisions are less rational. We decide within a reduced perception of reality. Indeed, reality is not just out there and we perceive it as it is. Consider this picture here. What do you see? Many people see a woman. In fact, many of you might have seen the face Marilyn Monroe, or Che Guevara in a similar style. But there is something else, that you might see. A saxophone player. We interpret what we see and, you just turn it around. What we see is our interpretation. This picture is in fact a very powerful demonstration, that we construct reality, our reality. Social scientists, have established the term, cognitive frames, to refer to this process. Frames, are mental structures, that we use to construct reality. They are like, cognitive maps of our environment. We use these maps, to navigate the complexity of our world. They focus our attention on one thing, obscuring other things. To again, use an example from vision, I have my office in the sixth floor, of our building, with a wonderful view on the Alps. On the other side of Lake Geneva. When I look at the mountains, I do not see the window. I do not see whether it's dirty or clean. I could also do this, I could look at the window. But then the Alps would disappear, for me. So frames, are mental structures, they focus our intention. They limit our perspective. They filter what we see, and what we do not see. Frames have blind spots. Some information, does not pass through our frame. >> And if this is the case, you might imagine that there's a risk of a too narrow framing of reality. And you, just think about the, discussion we had on the emperor's new clothes, the fairy tale. You remember the very rigid frame of the emperor, the way he perceived the world. He was only interested, in clothes. And the two criminals, they played, with his frame. But, the story also shows that, rigid framing only develops its destructive power in a particular context. This context was characterized by fear, by an escalation of commitment, the pressure of the group, and an authoritarian, leadership style. In the fairy tale what developed was, a kind of collective interpretation, of the world. It was completely irrational, from outside, but they, those inside the context, they couldn't see it. So these actors, created their own special rationality. Their own, little microcosms. Disconnected, from a broader asset to reality. So a decision that might look irrational, unethical, pathological, from outside context, might be perceived as rational, ethical and completely normal, from inside the context. As we said, context can be stronger than reason. >> Coming to conclusions. Good people, can do bad things, without being aware of it. We call this state, ethical blindness. [SOUND] Ethical blindness is context bound. It is created, by contextual pressures, that impose a two narrow frame, of word perception, on a decision maker. [MUSIC]