Mary C. Kern

Bounded Ethicality: The Perils of Loss Framing

Ethical decision making is vulnerable to the forces of automaticity. People behave differently in the face of a potential loss versus a potential gain, even when the two situations are transparently identical. Across three experiments, decision makers engaged in more unethical behavior if a decision was presented in a loss frame than if the decision was presented in a gain frame. In Experiment 1, participants in the loss-frame condition were more likely to favor gathering “insider information” than were participants in the gain-frame condition. In Experiment 2, negotiators in the loss-frame condition lied more than negotiators in the gain-frame condition. In Experiment 3, the tendency to be less ethical in the loss-frame condition occurred under time pressure and was eliminated through the removal of time pressure.

Revealed or Concealed? Transparency of Procedures, Decisions, and Judgment Calls in Meta-Analyses

The authors examined the degree to which meta-analyses in the organizational sciences transparently report procedures, decisions, and judgment calls by systematically reviewing all (198) meta-analyses published between 1995 and 2008 in 11 top journals that publish meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology and organizational behavior. The authors extracted information on 54 features of each meta-analysis. On average, the meta-analyses in the sample provided 52.8% of the information needed to replicate the meta-analysis or to assess its validity and 67.6% of the information considered to be most important according to expert meta-analysts. More recently published meta-analyses exhibited somewhat more transparent reporting practices than older ones did. Overall transparency of reporting (but not reporting of the most important items) was associated with higher ranked journals; transparency was not significantly related to number of citations. The authors discuss the implications of inadequate reporting of meta-analyses for development of cumulative knowledge and effective practice and make suggestions for improving the current state of affairs.

Classroom Research: Bridging the Ivory Divide

Teaching and research are frequently described as opposing forces within academia, with trade-offs required between the two domains. A new research paradigm–classroom research–bridges the divide be...

Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams

There are two broad approaches in the literature to studying challenges faced in multicultural teams. One approach is to examine the effects of demographic differences among individual team members (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age) on group process. This literature supports the notion that compositional heterogeneity can be both positive and negative in terms of successful group process (Ely & Thomas, 2001). On one hand, heterogeneity increases the chances that a group will bring a wide range of experiences and consider multiple perspectives in solving problems (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Jehn et al., 1999). On the other, heterogeneity makes it more difficult for groups to establish effective group process. For example, it is more difficult for heterogeneous groups to communicate and to develop work norms (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). They are also more prone to conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999). So, although the theoretical benefits of diversity to pool unique perspectives and resources exist, they are more difficult to attain and sustain in practice.

The Micro-Dynamics of Coalition Formation

We present an experimental approach to study the micro-dynamics of coalition formation in an unrestricted bargaining environment. Specifically, we investigate a fundamental feature of sequential coalition bargaining models: expectations about future bargaining behavior will influence current bargaining outcomes. To do so, we test the hypothesis that coalition bargaining may lead to inefficient outcomes as agents are unable to effectively commit to preliminary agreements during the bargaining process. We conjecture that communication plays an important role in establishing such commitments. We then experimentally manipulate the communication channels and show that restrictions undermine trust and lead to decreased efficiency.

Bridging social distance in inter-cultural negotiations: "you" and the bi-cultural negotiator

In this study of Korean and U.S. negotiators, we demonstrate limits on the presumption that inter-cultural negotiations are doomed to generate low joint gains. In a laboratory study with 45 bi-cultural Korean students and 47 mono-cultural American students, we created a total of 16 U.S.-U.S., 15 Korean-Korean, and 15 U.S.-Korean dyads. We audio-recorded their negotiation conversations and analyzed the content of the negotiation transcripts. We focused on the use of pronouns and coded how they were used and the impact this use had on the outcomes of the intra- and inter-cultural negotiations. Results show that inter-cultural dyads generate higher joint gains than Korean or U.S. intra-cultural dyads. The explanation based on social awareness and social distance theorizing shows that inter-cultural negotiators, one of whom is bi-cultural, who use language, especially the pronoun “you” to close social distance, achieve higher joint gains than intra-cultural negotiators who do not. We conclude that the language people use in social interaction, especially pronouns, is an indicator of social awareness and signals attempts to close social distance. This research demonstrates that the way negotiators use language predicts their economic outcomes.

Duo status: Disentangling the complex interactions within a minority of two

Research and theory on diversity in organizations tends to examine relations between the majority and minority and to overlook relations within the minority. In this chapter we explore the dynamics within a minority that represents a token percentage (less than 15%) of the larger group (Kanter, R. M. 1977b). We argue that members of a minority sub-group are subject to inter-group and intra-group pressures and that these pressures are greatest for a minority of two. We introduce the term “duo-status” to describe this two-token situation and examine the positive, neutral, and negative dynamics that result depending on the coping strategy chosen by each member of the duo.

Ethical learning: releasing the moral unicorn

The reality of bounded ethicality is that ethical perfection is psychologically infeasible, resulting in a gap between one’s ethical self-view and one’s actual behavior. We offer a framework for addressing this gap and improving ethical behavior. Integrating research about ethical decision-making with research about the self, we argue that self-threat is a pervasive obstacle to improving ethical behavior, particularly in organizational environments. We introduce the concept of ethical learning, defined as the active engagement in efforts to close the gap between one’s self-view and one’s actual behavior. We define ethical learners as those engaged in closing this gap, who tend to possess a central moral identity (they care about being ethical), psychological literacy (an awareness that a gap exists), and a growth mindset (the belief that purposeful effort can improve ethical behavior). We also describe an important team-level condition for translating ethical learning into improvements in ethical behavior: psychological safety (the belief that the team is a safe place for learning from failure). Our framework of ethical learning provides both individuals and organizations with a new approach to addressing bounded ethicality and improving ethical behavior.

Is There Social Consensus Regarding Researcher Conflicts of Interest

Consensus around what constitutes researcher conflicts of interest (COIs) and awareness of their influence on our research are two critical steps in ensuring the integrity of our science. In this research, data were collected from individual scholars via 2 surveys 5 years apart and from journals and associations to examine the level of social consensus and moral awareness among scholars, journals, and associations regarding researcher COIs. Although we observed increases in level of social consensus and moral awareness between 2012 and 2017, results still revealed limited agreement about what relationships constitute a COI and limited awareness about the presence of and the ethical issues surrounding COIs. Although all journals and associations we examined supported COI disclosure, most did not provide researchers with detailed COI-related information, guidance, or disclosure tools. Limited social consensus and moral awareness regarding COIs is problematic because it inhibits the recognition, disclosure, and management of COIs and limits ethical decision making. We need to continue and enhance discussions about COIs and aim to create consensus and awareness where we do not have it with the goal of reducing potential scientific misconduct related to COIs.