Kobe Steel, Middle Managers, and Unethical Behavior

The Wall Street Journal reports today about the results of an interim investigation into the product quality scandal at Japan's Kobe Steel. According to the newspaper, "Kobe Steel Ltd. released a report Friday that blamed lax management and overworked employees for a product-quality scandal, saying the company has to restore trust to survive." The report reminded me of research by Linda Treviño of Penn State University.  She and her colleagues have conducted research on unethical behavior that emerges from middle manager's attempts to cope with unrealistic targets set by top executives at firms.  She has found that middle managers sometimes react to highly ambitious and difficult-to-achieve goals by finding ways to deceive top executives as to the actual performance of the organization.  She describes the results from a study of a large telecommunications company: 

"What we found in this particular case — but I think it happens a lot — is that there were obstacles in the way of achieving these goals set by top management," said Treviño. "For a variety of reasons, the goals were unrealistic and unachievable. The workers didn't have enough training. They didn't feel competent. They didn't know the products well enough. There weren't enough customers and there wasn't even enough time to get all the work done."

Facing these obstacles, middle management enacted a series of moves designed to deceive top management into believing that teams were actually meeting their goals, according to Treviño, who worked with Niki A. den Nieuwenboer, assistant professor of organizational behavior and business ethics, University of Kansas; and Joa᷃o Viera da Cunha, associate professor, IESEG School of Management.

The researchers also discovered that middle managers took concerted actions to coerce individuals to comply with the deceit campaign.  They pressured people to go along with the efforts to fool top executives into believing that the organization was reaching its targets.  The most interesting finding, though, pertains to what the researchers did NOT find in their study.  They did not see managers trying to argue for a revision of unrealistic goals.  They were afraid to challenge top management.  Treviño explains: 

"Interestingly, what we didn't see is managers speaking up, we didn't see them pushing back against the unrealistic goals," said Treviño. "We know a lot about what we refer to as 'voice' in an organization and people are fearful and they tend to keep quiet for the most part."

More CEOs Fired for Ethical Lapses

The Wall Street Journal reported this week on new research from Strategy&, the consulting practice of PWC, about CEO dismissals. The researchers found that more CEOs are being fired these days due to ethical transgressions. According to the newspaper, "CEO ousters due to ethical lapses—either their own improper conduct, or their employees’—are climbing. Such forced exits rose to 5.3% of CEO departures in the 2012-to-2016 period, up from 3.9% during the previous five years." 

 The article goes on to quote Per-Ola Karlsson, a Strategy& partner, about the reasons for this uptick in such firings. Karlsson argues that the trend is not the result of an increase in unethical behavior. Instead, Karlsson cites the rise of social media, the loss of trust in institutions as a result of the scandals from the 2007-2009 period, and the enhanced attention from regulators as reasons for the increase in dismissals. The bottom line - for whatever the reason, CEOs are being held accountable for ethical lapses.  That's a good thing.  It shows that they can't escape from responsibility for flawed decisions that due harm to consumers and other stakeholders.   The data suggest that CEOs should have all the more reason to be highly vigilant about uncovering hidden risks in their organizations, welcoming those who wish to share bad news, and demonstrating transparency when problems do surface.  

Does Thinking Quantitatively Cause Us to be More Selfish, More Unethical?

Scholars Long Wang, Chen-Bo Zhong and Keith Murnighan have conducted new research examining the link between a "calculative mindset" and selfish/unethical behavior.  They used the ultimatum game and the dictator game to conduct their studies.  These two exercises often used in business schools to teach basic principles of game theory.   They split study participants into two groups.    In the control condition, participants were primed by reading a historical account of the industrial evolution.  In the experimental condition, participants were primed by reading a tutorial about net present value analysis.   What did the scholars find?   The participants who examined the net present value tutorial acted more selfishly, and they lied more often during these games than those who read about the history of the industrial revolution.  In other words, those primed to think quantitatively tended to act more selfishly and unethically.   The scholars argue that the calculative mindset is not problematic in and of itself, but it becomes dangerous when it comes to dominate people's thinking.  They also point out that business schools often emphasize the calculative mindset a great deal.  They should question the impact of asking students to think quantitatively so often.