In their 2013 article in the Journal of Management – Moral Intuition: Connecting Current Knowledge to Future Organizational Research and Practice – Gary R. Weaver of the University of Delaware, Scott J. Reynolds of the University of Washington and Michael E. Brown of the Pennsylvania State University review “a rapidly growing body of social science research [that] has framed ethical thought and behavior as driven by intuition,” literature which they describe as “incredibly rich, fruitful, and meaningful to a wide range of audiences.” Among the process components of “moral intuitionism” are non-inferential judgments, meaning that “moral judgment and behavior can take place without prior deliberative reasoning”; “the automaticity of moral action,” meaning that ethical judgments can be essentially instantaneous; dual process thinking, made famous by Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow; and “intuitive primacy [meaning that] although sometimes the rational deliberation model accurately characterizes moral behavior, in the large majority of cases moral intuition rules.” The content of moral intuition – made famous by Jon Haidt’s The Righteous Mind – is often said to include five areas: “a) care (vs. harm), (b) fairness, or justice (vs. cheating), (c) in-group loyalty (vs. betrayal), (d) authority (vs. subversion), (e) sanctity, or purity,” and perhaps a sixth — “liberty (vs. oppression).” As the authors note: “Although the value of the moral intuition perspective has been demonstrated in multiple fields (e.g., psychology, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, behavioral economics), its application in organizational contexts is limited,” and in this article they explore the significance of this body of knowledge from four perspectives: “leadership, organizational corruption, compliance training and education, and divestiture socialization,” looking at process and content for each. I review parts of what the authors discuss with respect to one of these – compliance & ethics training. Not surprisingly, the authors express considerable skepticism about the value of computer-based training, which, as they note, is the most prevalent form of compliance ethics training in businesses today: “moral intuition often involves a strong emotional component. Can computer exercises engage intuition by creating truly emotional experiences for participants? Can they trigger processes that make cognitive reappraisal of intuitions more likely? Similarly, moral intuitions are theorized to be multidimensional, involving many different types of information beyond just sights and sounds … The limited dimensionality of computer-based training likely is a substantial constraint on this format. Moreover, reappraisal and change of moral intuition often involve interaction within trusting relationships (in this case, trainer and trainee), which impersonal technology might be hard-pressed to simulate. Computer-based training might be incredibly efficient and serves purposes of external legitimation, but whether it engages moral intuition is open to question.” They note further regarding moral intuitionism and training process: “At a deeper, developmental level, an intuitionist understanding of moral judgments and their origins looks more akin to long-term habit development than to immediate learning of information. In this, the ‘training’ of moral intuitions is closer to considerations of character education than to analytical exercises of reason. Finally, they suggest: “Education and training might also focus on teaching about the process of moral intuition as well as the factors that influence it, so that students can learn to recognize when intuition or deliberation are likely and/or appropriate in a given context. If moral judgments typically are intuitive, and largely automatic, perhaps one key element of ethics training is developing an ability to exert some degree of cognitive control over intuition, so that trained individuals are better prepared to manage their immediate intuitive reactions to situations.” Turning from process to content, they state: “Business ethics training and education has not typically treated concepts like authority and loyalty as moral ideals or ends in themselves (vs. pragmatic matters), and considerations of purity are highly uncommon. But some business practices and issues could be framed in those terms.” However, this would be a major and uncertain step for many business organizations, and they further note that research is needed to determine: “are some foundational intuitions, and efforts to link business practice to them, more conducive than others for ethically successful and productive employees, or is success a matter of context, such that some foundational categories are better suited for some industries, markets, or organizational contexts?” All of the authors’ suggestions do seem to me to be useful but – having been involved in corporate compliance & ethics training for more than three decades – also incredibly daunting. However, at a minimum their thoughts should provide the basis for a dialogue – perhaps even a “rich, fruitful and meaningful” one – between researchers and C&E professionals on how to apply the results of recent moral intuitionism studies to the task of making business organizations more ethical. Twelve years after the publication of this article the promise of moral intuitionist ethics training has – to my knowledge – not been met. But it is still worth pursuing, and a recent article in Psychology Today provides a nudge in this direction.. In How Our Morals Might Get in the Way of Behavior Change,https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/success-by-design/202509/how-our-morals-might-get-in-the-way-of-behavior-change Ariella Kristal, Ph.D.– a postdoctoral scholar at UCLA Anderson School of Management – argues that “People resist behavior tools that clash with beliefs about willpower and personal responsibility. We value internal willpower over external strategies — even when the latter are more effective. Designing effective interventions requires understanding the values people feel are being violated. Kristal further notes: “We don’t just have theories about behavior — we have moral intuitions about what should shape behavior. And those intuitions can get in the way of doing what works. In my research, I find that many people, whether they realize it or not, believe that: behavior should come from the person, not from the environment. Attitude change should precede behavior change — that changing people’s beliefs first is necessary to lead to meaningful long-term behavior change… She writes: ”We see this in how people evaluate interventions designed to help others behave differently — even when those interventions are effective. For example, precommitment tools (like apps that block distracting websites) are often judged as crutches, despite their proven ability to help people focus and stay productive. In my own research, I’ve found that people see others who use these tools as having less integrity — as if shaping your environment to support your goals is somehow morally inferior to resisting temptation with pure willpower. Finally, there is much more to both of these two articles to warrant review by Compliance & Ethics practitioners.
As the compliance and ethics (C&E) field develops so does the need to acquire/maintain relevant subject matter expertise for key areas such as corruption, competition law, privacy, anti-harassment/discrimination, trade or government business, among many others.
Should companies have subject matter experts (SMEs) for conflict of interest (COIs)?
In my view, not all programs need to have this sort of position. But those with relatively high COI risks – both in terms of the likelihood and impact of a violation, as well as challenges in deploying effective compliance measures – – should consider establishing one.
The role is not likely to require the full-time attention of the appointed employee, i.e., it can be an additional responsibility for an individual already in the C&E (or law) department. Note too that the role should be documented and reinforced by inclusion in the individual’s job description and performance criteria, among other things.
The role should also be addressed in governance documentation, such as the C&E program charter. Among other things, such documentation can help create clout for the position. This is particularly important given that COIs, more than many other risk areas, tend to involve high-level employees.
The SME approach can help keep track of pertinent COI laws, regulations. rules and other bodies of knowledge – e.g., behavioral ethics insights regarding the limits of disclosure as a mitigation device or the use of moral hazard analysis to identify incentives for non-compliance.
The SME can also help ensure that the:
Risk assessments adequately address COI risks. Among other things, procedures (e.g., certifications), disclosure, training, communications, and other C&E measures must be fit for purpose.
Audit function understands the need to include COI-related risks when setting audit priorities.
The subject matter expert can also help resolve individual COI issues – e.g., when to permit COIs, what type of management measures should accompany approved COIs) when they arise.
COI SMEs can also serve as a repository of internal or external COI precedents and maintain a database of relevant third-party COI policy information, e.g., gift, entertainment, travel, and charitable contributions policies of major customers)
Finally, COI SMEs can be tasked with focusing on culture: Are COI standards truly followed or are there double standards? And what is the sense at the company of “organizational justice?”
Movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn famously said: I’ll take fifty percent efficiency to get one hundred percent loyalty.” Many would agree with this, but the ethical pitfalls of loyalty have received considerable attention due to various matters involving Donald Trump. Initially there was his firing of FBI chef Jim Comey for refusing to pledge Trump loyalty More recently there have been a host of other matters concerning loyalty tests. See, e.g., As he fills his new administration, Trump values loyalty above all else | AP News
In a piece in Forbes several years ago Rob Asgar made the following important points (among others) about loyalty.
The “loyalty bind,” as some psychologists call it, keeps the members of an organization from being able to see tumors metastasizing in their midst. It’s what leads to scandals and cover-ups in churches, city halls, companies and ideological movements.
The challenge is to move organizations away from the notion of loyalty to persons and toward the notion of loyalty toward first principles. These principles include transparency, integrity, accountability and a constant readiness to reform in whatever way necessary—no matter whose personal interests may be affected.
This isn’t easy, because humans are tribal—we evolved to be in the society of other humans and to instinctively sacrifice our own safety in order to defend them against outside threats. The notion of defending shared principles came later, and it still hasn’t taken root fully.
The point about humans being tribal is, of course, key. When behavior is truly instinctive it is hard (and sometimes impossible) to prevent/modify.
C&E practitioners have, of course, long looked for ways to do just that. Sometimes this involves appealing to shared values, as noted above. But it can also entail drawing on loyalty to other people.
For instance, years ago I helped to develop a short C&E training video that sought to evoke feelings of a “larger loyalty” by showing the faces of colleagues laid off in the wake of an accounting scandal that could have been, but wasn’t, stopped in the early stages by a potential whistleblower. Another video focused on the harm to the wrongdoers family members when he went to jail for his crime against the company.
In addition to training, other forms of communication should be used to address the downsides of misdirected loyalty. Among other things, senior officials at the company, particularly the CEO, should speak to it in town halls and/or emails to all employees.
Risk assessment also has a role to play in addressing loyalty-related risks. In Ethics for Adversaries, Arthur Isak Applbaum describes how many of the adversary systems with which we live – law, politics, and others – seem to license wrongdoing that would not be countenanced if done in other settings. As he notes, “[A]dversaries act for by acting against,” and this leads to a purported “division of moral labor” – with the expectation that some sort of equilibrium will arise therefrom. But, he says, acts that ordinarily would be morally forbidden – such as deception – should not be considered permissible merely because they are performed in a political or professional role. In some companies risk assessment should involve risks of this nature.
Finally, Audit may have a role to play too. Among other things, it can focus audits on a company’s facility that has been managed for a long time by a particular executive.
Has DOJ been sending us the wrong message about compliance programs?
Why is DOJ so secret about pre-existing compliance programs? Do those programs really count, or is DOJ inadvertently signaling that companies should hold back and wait until something goes wrong? It’s time for DOJ to fix a long-term policy mistake.
Employee surveys have long been part of the compliance and ethics (C&E) landscape. This post is offered as a brief introduction to practices and views relating to such surveys.
Why survey
Employee surveys can provide a broad array of information about many key C&E issues at a company.
Most prominently they can assist companies in understanding and addressing challenges relating to C&E culture. This can help in various aspects of program self-assessments – and thus be useful to boards and top managers, among others.
They can also help in program design and implementation in many other ways. Among other things, survey data can play a significant role in a risk assessment. Note, too, that surveys can be used to obtain C&E information on a granular basis. For large global companies this can be invaluable.
In addition, the Department of Justice increasingly expects companies to provide data in enforcement matters. They have pushed us to engage in data analytics. Survey results can be helpful in that regard, providing the type of empirical data that can be a key input for such analysis.
Finally, the very act of seeking information about C&E matters itself can send an important message about management’s support for the program. It is, in effect, a C&E “communication.”
Whom to survey
Many surveys are already distributed to the entire workforce. Others are addressed to randomly selected segments of the population. Still others are selected on a risk basis (meaning the risk of the position, not the individual).
Finally, less common but potentially quite helpful are surveys of vendors, customers and other third parties.
What to survey
Some surveys are part of a larger, general employee awareness survey. Others are focused solely on C&E.
In the case of the former it is fairly common to ask a question about the respondent’s amount of comfort in reporting suspected violations. Another somewhat popular question concerns respondent’s perception of her supervisor’s compliance and ethicality at work.
However, there are many others that could be used.
When should surveys be deployed
If a C&E survey is part of a larger general survey, then the schedule for the latter will presumably govern that of the former. In cases of a standalone C&E survey there is more flexibility, and so practices tend to vary,
However, one should not schedule these too close together, meaning one should have enough time to implement recommendations coming from the prior survey before deploying the second.
A cautionary note
As noted above survey data can be invaluable for C&E purposes. But not always.
C&E history shows that criminal violations are often well concealed. One should bear this in mind when setting priorities based on C&E survey results. Even an overwhelmingly positive response to a survey is not an assurance regarding actual risks and the potential for serious misconduct.
Other practice pointers
One should have the survey professionally designed. There is certainly concern today about so-called “survey fatigue.” There may be an “oh, no, not another survey” response by employees. But this is very likely caused by poorly designed surveys, as well as a sense that the survey input is ignored and that employee voices are not heard. A well-designed survey that produces visible results can counter this sense of fatigue.
Regarding the survey design, as one commentator has noted, questions should be readily answerable, and if the survey is done online the format should work well on mobile phone screens. The survey should use “skip logic” where a survey answer indicates other questions are not relevant (e.g., asking about contacts with customers when the survey taker has already indicated there are none). See Samuel, Nine Survey Questions for People Who Create Survey Questions, Wall Street Journal p. R 2 (May 17, 2017).
Avoid bar codes and asking for personally identifiable information, as that may raise questions about promised anonymity.
Also consider in the survey process if local bosses will be able to control or interfere in how employees respond. For example, could business unit bosses have all subordinates check with her first or provide the answers in a group setting, to be sure they give answers that will make the boss look good.
Surveys are an important tool, and can provide the type of data that “data analytics” is all about. But give this the attention it deserves. Poor work in designing and implementing the survey can mean you are wasting employees’ time and end up getting poor data that can undermine your objective.
