CERTIFIED May. 2014 | Page 66

We asked the following research questions: and people may progress at different paces. Third, people may prioritize a certain ethical framework (for example, the Ethics of Justice or the Ethics of Care frameworks). Fourth, closeness to key people in a situation matters, and information has an impact on closeness. The more information people receive, the more likely they are to feel close — and care. At this point, we wondered, does personality matter? After all, some people are more naturally caring and attuned to others’ feelings. Some prioritize relationships at work; others are more task oriented. Reasonably, therefore, personality traits could relate both to the ability to experience empathy and to a person’s likelihood of selecting either care or justice when making ethical decisions. One personality trait — accommodation — could be particularly relevant. This trait can be described as the tendency to be compassionate and cooperative. Those who score high in accommodating (called Adapters) often value social harmony and are motivated Methodology and Findings The main purpose of our study was to explore the relationship between personality (specifically, accommodation) and the decision to report an ethical violation under three conditions of closeness. A secondary purpose was to investigate the impact of closeness and a preferred ethical framework (Justice or Care) on moral decisions. We adopted a survey designed by Tim Kozitza (2012), which includes three ethical dilemma scenarios and questions measuring a person’s preference for the Ethics of Care or the Ethics of Justice. We also included personality questions measuring accommodation and its four sub-traits from the Workplace Big Five Profile 4.0, a robust personality assessment designed for workplace applications (Howard & Howard, 2011). We were particularly interested in HR professionals for two reasons. First, HR managers often are expected to be impartial and objective. Second, HR professionals are asked to help promote organizational ethics. For instance, here is Table 1. Summary of Accommodation Sub-Traits SUB-TRAIT DEFINITION Others’ Needs How readily people inconvenience themselves for others Agreement Preference for harmony; a person’s level of comfort in disagreeing with others’ viewpoints Humility The desire for recognition and praise Reserve A person’s level of comfort in sharing thoughts and opinions by service to others. On the other hand, low scorers (called Challengers) are often more focused on their own needs and goals. Challengers may also be less likely to conform to rules or policies — unless the rules are of their own making! Interestingly, leaders in the United States are typically Challengers (Howard & Howard, 2011). For the purposes of this study, we explored accommodation and its four sub-traits: others’ needs, agreement, humility and reserve. (See Table 1 for the definition of each sub-trait.) 64 CERTIFIED 2014: Volume I an excerpt from the first paragraph of the SHRM Code of Ethics (www.shrm.org): “As HR professionals, we are responsible for adding value to the organizations we serve and contributing to the ethical success of those organizations.” 1. Does accommodation have an impact on a person’s decision to report an ethical violation? 2. Does closeness have an impact on a person’s decision to report an ethical violation? 3. Does the strength of the person’s tendency toward the Ethics