Table 2. Cross-tabulation of Results for Question 1 —
Accommodation and Decision to Report
ACCOMODATION
TOTAL
LOW (CHALLENGES)
Would report
Would not report
HIGH (ADAPTERS)
105 (66%)
144 (80%)
249
116.4
132.6
249
52 (34%)
37 (20%)
91
42.6
48.4
91
159
181
340
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
Total
Count
Note: x2(1, N = 340) = 7.894, p < .01.
Table 3. Results for Question 2 — Closeness and Decision to Report
PROXIMITY LEVEL
HIGH
Decision
Would report Count
Expected
Count
Would not
report
171
199
196
58%
199.3
54%
144
LOW
248
73%
198.7
42%
91
153.1
140.7
370
340
27%
140.3
339
Total
Count
Note: x2(2, N = 1049) = 53.134, p < .01.
Question 3. Does the strength of a person’s
tendency toward the Ethics of Care have an
impact on his or her decision to report an
ethical violation?
The results indicated that the answer was
yes for all three scenarios. (See Table 4
on the next page for the compiled results
for low, medium and high closeness.) All
identified differences were statistically
significant.
• When the person affected by the
decision is a stranger, 79 percent
of the least-caring participants
and 66 percent of the most-caring
participants would report the
violation. Thirty-four percent would
not.
• When the person affected by the
decision is a stranger, but the
participant has some information
on the affected person’s situation,
68 percent of the least-caring
www.HRCI.org
46%
216.9
Count
Expected
Count
MEDIUM
suggest that the Justice framework
has limits. Consistent application of
policies might require a certain amount
of detachment and, curiously, a limited
amount of information on the particulars
of the situation.
Arguably, however, ethical
management requires more than the blind
application of existing policies. Instead,
managers may need to consider both
Justice and Care as they solve difficult
moral dilemmas. These two paradigms
complement one another, leading to
holistic and well-developed ethical
decisions (Starratt, 1991). Further,
complete impartiality may be an elusive
goal. Instead, managers may want to ask,
“What else should I know about this case?”
and, most importantly, “What would I do if
this person were close to me?”
participants and 45 percent of the
most-caring participants would
report the violation.
• When the person affected by
the decision is a close friend,
53 percent of the least-caring
participants and 42 percent of the
most-caring participants would
report the violation.
What Do the Results Tell Us?
HR professionals are often encouraged
to be impartial, objective, consistent and
impeccably fair. These recommendations
seem congruent with the rational and
logical Ethics of Justice framework. The
results of this preliminary study, however,
Ethics is a journey,
not a policy book.
The impact of personality on ethical
decision-making is intriguing. We had
predicted that highly accommodating
individuals would be less likely to report
the violation. Our rationale was that highaccommodation individuals are naturally
caring and empathetic. Reasonably, these
individuals would be reluctant to inflict
pain, especially in serious extenuating
circumstances.
Contrary to our predictions,
however, Adapters were more likely
than Challengers to report a friend. A
possible explanation: Low-accommodation
individuals are often impatient with rules.
High-accommodation individuals, on the
other hand, tend to follow existing policies
more closely. Thus, a strong tendency to
follow rules might trump friendship.
Managers may need to consider both Justice and Care as they
solve difficult moral dilemmas.
2014: Volume I
CERTIFIED 65