The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty

Although the Broken Windows Theory has been difficult to prove or refute, its logic is compelling. It suggests that we should not excuse, overlook, or forgive small crimes, because doing so can make matters worse. This is especially important for those in the spotlight: politicians, public servants, celebrities, and CEOs. It might seem unfair to hold them to higher standards, but if we take seriously the idea that publicly observed behavior has a broader impact on those viewing the behavior, this means that their misbehavior can have greater downstream consequences for society at large. In contrast to this view, it seems that celebrities are too often rewarded with lighter punishments for their crimes than the rest of the population, which might suggest to the public that these crimes and misdemeanors are not all that bad.

THE GOOD NEWS is that we can also take advantage of the positive side of moral contagion by publicizing the individuals who stand up to corruption. For example, Sherron Watkins of Enron, Coleen Rowley of the FBI, and Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom are great examples of individuals who stood up to internal misconduct in their own organizations, and in 2002 Time magazine selected them as People of the Year.

Acts of honesty are incredibly important for our sense of social morality. And although they are unlikely to make the same sensational news, if we understand social contagion, we must also recognize the importance of publicly promoting outstanding moral acts. With more salient and vivid examples of commendable behavior, we might be able to improve what society views as acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, and ultimately improve our actions.

CHAPTER 9

Collaborative Cheating

Why Two Heads Aren’t Necessarily Better than One

If you’ve ever worked in just about any organization, you know that working in teams accounts for a lot of your time. A great deal of economic activity and decision making takes place through collaboration. In fact, the majority of U.S. companies depend on group-based work, and more than half of all U.S. employees currently spend at least part of their day working in a group setting.¹ Try to count the number of meetings, project teams, and collaborative experiences you’ve had over the last six months, and you will quickly realize how many working hours these group activities consume. Group work also plays a prominent role in education. For example, the majority of MBA students’ assignments consist of group-based tasks, and many undergraduate classes also require group-based projects.

In general, people tend to believe that working in groups has a positive influence on outcomes and that it increases the overall quality of decisions.² (In fact, much research has shown that collaboration can decrease the quality of decisions. But that’s a topic for another time.) In general, the belief is that there is little to lose and everything to gain from collaboration—including encouraging a sense of camaraderie, increasing the level of fun at work, and benefitting from sharing and developing new ideas—all of which add up to more motivated and effective employees. What’s not to love?

A FEW YEARS ago, in one of my graduate classes, I lectured about some of my research related to conflicts of interest (see chapter 3, “Blinded by Our Own Motivations”). After class, a student (I’ll call her Jennifer) told me that the discussion had struck a chord with her. It reminded her of an incident that had taken place a few years earlier, when she was working as a certified public accountant (CPA) for a large accounting firm.

Jennifer told me that her job had been to produce the annual reports, proxy statements, and other documents that would inform shareholders about the state of their companies’ affairs. One day her boss asked her to have her team prepare a report for the annual shareholders’ meeting of one of their larger clients. The task involved going over all of the client’s financial statements and determining the company’s financial standing. It was a large responsibility, and Jennifer and her team worked hard to put together a comprehensive and detailed report that was honest and realistic. She did her best to prepare the report as accurately as possible, without, for example, overclaiming the company’s profits or delaying reporting any losses to the next accounting year. She then left the draft of the report on her boss’s desk, looking forward (somewhat anxiously) to his feedback.