Kathleen Edmond, Best Buy's Chief Ethics Officer

On many occasions in my career I have observed a distinct “slippery slope” in the ethical judgments of an employee or team. I have seen firsthand how an otherwise honest and upstanding person can gradually slide into a pattern of declining standards of professional integrity. The first time someone goes against his or her conscience, it may be quite difficult to rationalize. Chances are, however, that person’s “little voice” will become ever more faint the second, third and fourth times. This is not to say that every employee who fudges an expense report by a few dollars is on a path to become a prolific white collar criminal, but sometimes it really does happen that way.

 An article in the June 24 issue of The Economist caught my eye as it appears to back up a variation of this theme with scientific proof. Researchers at the University of North Carolina wanted to test the effect that dishonesty has on the human psyche and whether even small ethical inconsistencies could alter subsequent behaviors. To do this, they gathered a group of volunteers under the guise of a market research study and gave each participant an identical pair of expensive designer sunglasses. Some participants were told that the sunglasses were genuine and others were told they were cheap knock-offs.

 At the end of the mock focus group, participants were given a simple quiz and told they could receive a small monetary reward, depending on how many quiz questions were answered correctly. Participants graded their own quizzes on the honor system before turning them in. Afterward, researchers discovered that roughly 30% of focus group participants who were told their sunglasses were genuine had cheated on the quizzes. By comparison, 70% who thought they were wearing knock-off sunglasses had cheated. In another phase of the study, researchers asked participants about the honesty and ethics of other people. Those who thought they were wearing fake sunglasses were more likely to feel that people are dishonest and unethical in general. Likewise, the supposed knock-off wearers were more likely to express feelings of self-alienation (e.g., “right now, I feel as if I don’t know myself very well”).

 There are a number of interesting things to take away from this study. As stated in The Economist article, it appeared that “wearing fakes made people feel like fakes,” which then lowered their ethical standards in other ways. Furthermore, the fact that the sunglasses were a gift (and not purchased by) the study participants suggests that “even when it is someone else who has made [you] behave badly, it can affect [your] subsequent behavior.”

 1)    Do you think feeling dishonest can make someone act in a dishonest way? Explain.

 2)    Have you ever witnessed a “slippery slope” situation where someone’s ethical standards gradually declined over time? How did the pattern begin? How did it end?

 3)    Have you ever felt your own ethical standards erode because of negative influences in your environment? Please describe.

 4)    Have you ever resisted negative influences in your environment to maintain your ethical standards, contrary to peer pressure? How did you do it? How did it turn out?