A Model of Ethical Decision Making: The Integration of

Process and Content

by

Roselie McDevitt, Catherine Giapponi and Cheryl Tromley

Presented by

Syed Rashedul Hossen, ID: 6320131003

September 29, 2021

 Abstract
• The authors developed a model of ethical decision making that
integrates the decision-making process and the content variables
considered by individuals facing ethical dilemmas.
• The process described in the model is drawn from Janis and Mann’s,
“Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict Choice and
Commitment” work describing the decision process in an environment
of conflict, choice and commitment.
• The model is enhanced by the inclusion of content variables derived
from the ethics literature.
• The resulting integrated model aids in understanding the complexity of
the decision process used by individuals facing ethical dilemmas and
suggests variable interactions that could be field-tested.
• A better understanding of the process will help managers develop
policies that enhance the likelihood of ethical behavior in their
organizations.
 Introduction Cont’d

• While it is important to understand what influences the decisions of

individuals, it is equally important to understand how they derive solutions to
their dilemmas.
• A great deal of research focuses on the content variables and moderators that
impact ethical decision making, but there is less that explores that process
itself.
• There are models that discuss general decision influences or variables that are
important in making ethical choices (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Ferrell et al.,
1989; Trevino, 1986),
• None provide a complete understanding of how the variables might be used in
a step by step process.
• There are models that identify steps leading to moral behavior, from the
recognition of the moral issue to engaging in moral behavior (Jones, 1991;
• but they do not wrestle with the process of resolving ethical conflict.
 Introduction Cont’d

• This paper looks outside the ethics literature and suggests that a general
decision-making model can be used to help explain ethical/unethical decision
processes.
• Janis and Mann (1977) developed a comprehensive ‘‘Conflict Theory Model
of Decision Making’’ that is applicable to all types of consequential decisions.
• They identified the antecedent conditions of conflict situations, the mediating
processes used to make decisions, and the consequences that result.
• This conflict model has much to offer the researcher who is seeking to
understand decision making and conflict resolution.
• Although Janis and Mann address general conflict issues, not specifically
ethical conflicts, their model can be adapted to and integrated with the
variables identified in the ethics literature to develop an integrated model of
ethical decision making.
 Introduction Cont’d

• This paper extends the ethics literature by creating an

integrated model that describes the decision-making
process used and the decision variables considered by
managers.
• The result is a model that describes the process and the
content of the information search that a manager might
complete when faced with an ethical dilemma.
• This understanding is the first step in forming a basis
upon which organizations can develop policies and
procedures to enhance the likelihood of ethical behavior by
their managers.
 The content variables
• Researchers have described numerous content variables in
an attempt to understand ethical decisions.
• For this study, the authors selected those variables for
which there is the most consistent and widespread support.
• They have divided the selected variables into two major
categories, individual and situational.
• As shown in Figure 1, the situational variables are further
subdivided into the job context, organizational context,
and external environment.
• Each of these is described in detail below.
 Individual variables
• There are many individual variables that can influence the
ethical decision-making process.
• Among those identified by researchers are age, religious
beliefs, and gender (Hegarty and Simms, 1978).
• The level of an individual’s moral maturity has also been
identified as an important variable in the ethical decision
process (Kohlberg, 1969; Rest, 1986).
• Some variables are related to the confidence and personal
beliefs of the individual decision maker.
• When individual action is required, strong decision makers
will be confident in following their judgment.
 Situational Variables
• In addition to individual characteristics that
influence the decision-making process, the
situation the individual is facing is also important
to the decision.

• Individuals operate within a job context, an

organizational context, and an environment
external to the organization.
 Job Context
• Job context is important because such things as
peer pressure and management expectations can
influence an individual’s judgment (Jones, 1985;
Sheidahl, 1986; Stead et al., 1990).
• In addition, operating practibilities, such as the
competition for scarce resources among
employees, must also be considered as a potential
influence (Trevino, 1986).
 Organizational Context
• The organizational context in which an individual operates, has many facets.
• For instance the organizational culture is a system of shared norms, values, and
expectations that exist throughout the organization (Deal and Kennedy, 1999;
Schein, 2004).
• So, organizational culture includes both formal codes of ethics and non-codified
expectations of behaviors that may influence ethical choices (McCabe et al., 1996).
• Other variables include obedience to authority and the responsibility for
consequences.
• For in stance, executive leadership is important in setting the tone at the top, and is
integral to organizational culture (Trevino et al., 2003;
• In addition, the reward systems and sanctions are created in the organization to
motivate employee behavior.
• Unfortunately these incentives can sometimes motivate unethical actions by
managers who are under pressure to meet deadlines or financial goals (Carson,
2003; Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga, 1993; Trevino et al., 2003).
 External Environment
• Some situational variables exist outside the organization. For
instance, societal norms create a group of external
environmental factors.
• Cross-cultural studies have revealed how differences in societal
norms can lead to different ethical practices and decisions
(Donaldson and Dumfee, 1999; Sims and Gegez, 2004).
• Further, the legal system and political institutions in the
environment influence individuals facing difficult decisions.
• Another important set of external forces facing corporate
managers are industry norms and competitive economic factors.
• Such factors can create environmental uncertainty that may lead
to unethical business decisions (Morris et al., 1995).
 External Environment cont’d

• Finally, other environmental variables include professional

codes of conduct and personal and family obligations.
• In some professions, codes of conduct are created to give
guidance to decision makers facing ethical problems.
• They are meant to act as a deterrent to unethical decisions
(Bommer et al., 1987; Patterson, 2001).
• Personal and family obligations also exist outside the
organization and are idiosyncratic to each individual.
• Their impact on an individual’s behavior within an
organizational setting can be a powerful motivator
(McDevitt and Van Hise, 2002).
 The decision making process
• The Janis and Mann (1977) model, is not an ethical decision-making
model, is broad enough to provide a sound basis for understanding the
process of resolving ethical conflicts.
• The decisions required of business managers and leaders facing ethical
dilemmas fit into Janis and Mann’s characterization of consequential
decisions (1977).
• Janis and Mann present a clear definition of consequential decisions as
decisions that include those that evoke some degree of concern or anxiety
in a decision maker about the possibility, that he may not gain the
objectives he is seeking, or that he may become saddled with costs, that
are higher, than he can afford, either for himself personally or for a group
or organization with which he is affiliated ....
• It also included are uncertain risks as well as known costs with regard to
money, time, effort, emotional involvement, reputation, morale, or any
other resource at the disposal of the decision maker or his organization.
• These risks or potential losses are perceived as threats to important
utilitarian, social, or ethical goals within the decision makers’ value
system.’
 The decision making process
• In order to apply this model specifically to ethical decision
making, it is necessary to understand Janis and Mann’s (1977)
‘‘ideal’’ procedural criteria.
• The authors use anecdotal information to describe criteria that
give decision makers a better chance of attaining their
objectives.
• Decision makers who follow all of these procedural criteria are
judged to have made a vigilant information search and will
reach the best decision under the circumstances.
• Janis and Mann (1977) do not present the decision result as
good or bad. Rather the omission of one of the criteria leaves
the decision process open to defect.
 Criteria for vigilant information search
1. thoroughly canvases a wide range of alter- native courses of action;
2. surveys the full range of objectives to be fulfilled and the values implicated by the choice;
3. carefully weighs whatever he knows about the costs and risks of negative consequences,
as well as the positive consequences, that could flow from each alternative;
4. intensively searches for new information relevant to further evaluation of the alternatives;
5. correctly assimilates and takes account of any new information or expert judgment to
which he is exposed, even when the information or judgment does not support the course of
action he initially prefers;
6. reexamines the positive and negative conse- quences of all known alternatives, including
those originally regarded as unacceptable, before making a final choice;
7.makes detailed provisions for implementing or executing the chosen course of action, with
special attention to contingency plans that might be required if various known risks were to
materialize.’’ (Janis and Mann 1977, p. 11)
 The proposed integrated Model
• The proposed model integrates an adaptation of the Janis and Mann (1977)
model with ethical decision- making variables presented in Figure 1.
• This integrated model describes the process of ethical decision making and
defines the content variables influencing decision makers during the process.
• A flowchart of the model showing its progressive steps and variables is shown
in Figure 2.
• The process consists of three main categories, antecedent conditions,
mediating processes, and decision outcomes.
• While the steps are similar to those in the Janis and Mann (1977) model,
additional information is included in this integrated process model.
• Specifically, the content variables are integrated under antecedent conditions
and specify the categories of information that influence the decision.
• This model moves beyond the individual variables addressed in the Janis and
Mann model to include organizational and external environmental variables.
Phase 1 processes of antecedent
conditions
• Antecedent conditions begin with the ethical
dilemma that initiates the process.
• It should be noted that the model assumes that the
decision maker recognizes which action is ethical
or unethical.
• As the decision maker progresses through the
model, consideration of additional variables
becomes more and more important for a good
decision outcome.
 Mediating processes and decision outcomes

• The mediating processes of Phase I begin with an assessment of the

risk of choosing either the ethical or unethical action.
• Decision behavior may begin with the question,
• ‘‘How serious are the risks if I insist on ethical action?’’
• or ‘‘How serious are the risks if I accept unethical action?’’
• Using the first question of ethical action as a starting point, consider
the classic dilemma of division managers when their divisions’
operating results are less than the budget projections.
• If, as a result of Phase I, decision makers choose to face the conflict,
they will move to Phase II.
• When making this choice, they must consider the cost/ benefit issues,
and be prepared to pay the emotional costs of solving the problem.
 Phase 2 processes
• Phase II decisions are more difficult to face and complex
to think about.
• Sufficient time is required to consider all relevant variables
and affected parties.
• Janis and Mann’s (1977) notion of creative thinking enters
the picture here.
• There is the possibility that the problem has not been fully
defined.
• It may be a ‘‘below budget performance’’ problem,
because other considerations may have expanded it.
 Operationalizing the model
• As a preliminary step, the model is applied to an
ethical dilemma involving accounting issues that reflect
current financial reporting problems.
• Although this is not an empirical test of the model, this
examination will accomplish two things.
• First, applying the model to a realistic case should point
out its strengths and weaknesses.
• Second, it should increase our understanding of how
ethical conflicts interact with other variables during the
decision- making process.
 Discussion
• 1. “How far this model help to avoid ethical dilemma now
a days in any public corporation?
• 2. How this model can help ethical conflicts in the private
sector?