Why good people (pg 36-57)
Page 36
Topic: Flyers and norms; cognitive stimuli and priming in behavioral ethics and organizational contexts.
Core idea: Culture influences behavior, but people often act out of latent norms only when those norms are activated at the decisive moment. Cialdini et al. conducted a field experiment to test how explicit and concrete norms influence compliance with pro-social behavior.
Experimental setup:
Visitors to a library in Arizona were handed a flyer when leaving the car and entering the library; the flyer text varied across five conditions.
After a few moments, researchers observed whether the visitor threw the flyer on the ground or kept it.
No trash can was visible.
Flyers and results:
Non-normative control: “April Is Arizona’s Fine Art Month. Please Visit Your Local Art Museum” → 25% discarded on the ground.
Descriptive environmental cue: “April Is Arizona’s Voter Awareness Month. Please Remember That Your Vote Counts” → 22% discarded.
Environmentally framed messages (more concrete):
Conserving energy: “Please Turn Off Unnecessary Lights” → 17.5% discarded.
Recycle: “Please Recycle” → 15% discarded.
Normative message: “Keep Arizona Beautiful Month. Please Do Not Litter” → 10% discarded.
Key takeaway: The more concrete the norm, the stronger the behavioral effect. Norms linked to a behavior (environmental care) reduced littering more than abstract messages.
The study is an example of priming or cognitive activation: reading the text activates related values and behaviors via neural networks; the closer the semantic relationship, the stronger the activation.
Implications for organizations and training:
It’s not enough to declare values; activation must occur at the decisive moment to nudge behavior.
Training should avoid being a one-off flood of stimuli; activation should be tied to moments when decisions are made.
Abstract values (e.g., sustainability) require concrete actions to translate them into everyday practice (e.g., waste separation, energy awareness, recycling).
Additional notes:
The authors caution that managers often rely on broad principles like ‘customer focus’ or ‘integrity’ without translating them into actionable steps in real situations.
Cialdini’s research suggests that people get lost when asked to act on abstract ideals without concrete situational cues.
Connection to broader themes: activation of values, alignment of espoused values with actual behavior, and moment-to-moment nudges.
Page 37
Main idea: Cognitive activation continues to be powerful when norms are made more concrete and salient at the moment of decision.
Additional concepts:
Priming and semantic proximity: reading a value activates related concepts; the strength of activation depends on semantic closeness to the target behavior.
The decisive moment: norms are effective only when activated at the moment of choice (e.g., deciding whether to litter).
Practical implications for organizations:
If you establish values, you must also design environments and processes that trigger the relevant norms when decisions occur.
Training often bombards employees with broad values; the activation must be timed and contextualized to be effective.
Translation of abstract values (e.g., sustainability) into concrete actions (separation of waste, energy awareness, recycling) is essential for meaningful behavior change.
Broader context: Many organizations now use broad values like “customer focus,” “integrity,” and “sustainability,” but without concrete behavioral cues, people struggle to interpret what to do in specific situations.
Summary: Concrete, timely cues amplify the impact of norms; obtain alignment between values and momentary actions.
Page 38
Topic: The Ten Commandments and fraud: affective stimuli.
Setup: Nina Mazar and colleagues conducted a controlled experiment on honesty and cheating.
Experiment details:
Participants completed as many four-minute tasks as possible; each task listed 12 two-decimal numbers; find two numbers that sum to exactly 10. Only one solution exists.
Some participants were told they might earn $10 for each correct answer (randomly selected subset).
Experimental manipulations:
Half of participants wrote down 10 books they had read.
The other half wrote down the Ten Commandments (as best as they could).
In addition, some participants were told they would be checked later; others would self-check.
Findings:
Writing books vs listing Ten Commandments had no effect on accuracy when there was no opportunity to cheat (i.e., not self-checking). The average correct answers were similar across these conditions.
When participants were required to self-check (i.e., they would not be checked by researchers), those who had written the Ten Commandments cheated less than those who had written books, and less than those not given any prompt.
Notably, writing the Ten Commandments primed an awareness of honesty strong enough to reduce cheating to near-zero, even when participants did not actually believe in the commandments or were believers.
Interpretation:
This is affective priming: merely thinking about honesty-related norms triggers a self-image of being honest, which reduces cheating.
The effect is not about cognitive understanding of rules but about the emotional and motivational impact on self-concept in the moment of temptation.
Implications for organizations:
Subtle prompts (signs, reminders, rituals) can nudge ethical behavior by activating the self-image of honesty and responsibility.
Signs, initial signatures, checklists, and other rituals can reinforce responsibility, but they must be applied at the right moments; overdoing nudges can irritate people.
Oaths or codes of conduct should be reinforced regularly (e.g., at every meeting) rather than once a year; even if a formal code does not exist, the perception of a code can influence behavior.
Cautions:
A universal code is not a panacea; ethical behavior requires genuine commitment and context-specific guidance.
The research suggests a practical approach: periodic, visible reminders can maintain ethical standards without being coercive.
Connection to prior content: complements cognitive priming by highlighting affective priming as another route to influencing behavior.
Page 39
Topic: Continuation of affective stimuli; Ten Commandments priming and organizational practice.
Key points:
Thinking about the Ten Commandments reduces dishonesty even when not framed as a cognitive rule, highlighting the role of meaning and significance of honesty in temptation.
A reminder can shift the balance between honest and dishonest behavior by engaging affective processes and self-perception.
Practical guidance for organizations:
Use signs, rituals, and moments that emphasize personal responsibility (confirmations, initialing, and checklists) to activate ethical self-concept.
Avoid overbearing nudges that provoke irritation or reactance; balance is key.
Repetition and signaling of ethical norms should occur across multiple touchpoints to sustain the effect.
Takeaway: Ethical nudges work not only through explicit information about right and wrong, but by affecting how people see themselves in the moment of choice.
Page 40
Topic: The name of the game: euphemisms and spoilsports.
Case example: Daniel’s torture in a factory; a colleague described it as “normal in the company” and treated it as a joke.
Core idea: Euphemisms strip unethical actions of moral connotations, making them easier to accept or participate in. Making actions seem less immoral than they really are.
Examples of euphemisms:
Bribery as “oiling the wheels” or “service costs.”
Stealing as “pinching” or “freeloading.”
Sleeping at work as “recharging” or “having a quiet moment.”
Mechanism: Labelling and reframing cases norms and moral transgressions as socially acceptable or humorous.
Albert Bandura’s view: Euphemisms are a dangerous tool because they shield attention from moral issues.
Practical implications:
Be vigilant for euphemisms and challenge them when they obscure unethical behavior.
Be aware that terms like “earnings management,” “creative bookkeeping,” or “financial engineering” can mask fraud; likewise, “trimming,” “adjusting,” or “slimming down” can rationalize layoffs.
Projects or programs can be named innocently while implying shady behavior (e.g., energy market schemes: Enron’s naming like “Death Star,” “Fat Boy,” “Ricochet”).
Takeaway: Naming matters; language can either conceal or reveal ethical issues.
Related note: Spoilsports are needed to expose euphemisms and hold organizations accountable.
Page 41
Topic: Continuation of euphemisms and spoilsports; name-as-behavior effect.
Study: Varda Liberman and colleagues manipulated game names to test effects on competitiveness.
Two groups: told they would play the “Wall Street Game” vs the “Community Game.”
Both games were identical; only the name changed.
Outcomes:
In the Wall Street Game, about two-thirds chose a competitive strategy.
In the Community Game, about one-third chose competitive behavior (roughly 50% less competitive).
Interpretation:
Names send powerful messages about what behavior is accepted or expected; they influence actual behavior.
The effect is not about participants’ baseline tendencies; naming can shift behavior even among people predisposed to cooperate.
Implications for organizations:
Be cautious of naming practices that implicitly encourage competitiveness or cutthroat behavior in teams or departments.
Consider language that emphasizes collaboration, shared goals, and communal success in organizational processes and structures.
Broader context: Names influence both perception and actual behavior; small linguistic changes can have large effects on how work is conducted.
Page 42
Topic: The role of spoilsports and the need to name and challenge euphemisms.
Additional reflection:
Language shapes expectations and behaviors; organizations should cultivate a culture that names and challenges euphemistic terms.
The chapter argues for spoilsports as necessary to reveal the hidden moral dimensions of organizational discourse.
Practical takeaway: Monitor and reassess terminology used in strategy and operations to ensure it aligns with ethical practice and does not covertly encourage harm or unethical behavior.
Page 43
Title: Hypegiaphobia: the fear factor of rules.
Core idea: There is an optimal level of rules; too few rules create risk of incidents, but too many rules lead to fear, hesitation, and rule-bound behavior that undermines initiative.
Empirical finding (Katz-Navon et al.):
47 Israeli hospital departments examined; the relationship between rule density and incidents is curvilinear (U-shaped).
Early: more rules reduce incidents (from about 13 to 9 on average).
Later: beyond a tipping point, more rules increase incidents (to about 21 on average).
Concept: hypegiaphobia = fear of taking responsibility; rules create certainty but can stifle critical thinking and initiative.
Mechanisms:
When rules proliferate, people become afraid of breaking them; they hedge, hesitate, and rely on rules instead of thinking.
Managers may misinterpret this as increasing control, but it often increases risk because people abdicate responsibility.
Risks: An overly rule-bound environment reduces adaptability and creativity; it can create a cycle where more rules are added in response to incidents caused by rigidity.
Real-world examples: An organization cutting back on rules to reduce fear and increase responsibility; a bank board member’s caution against over-regulation; the paradox where attempts to prevent incidents via more rules backfire.
Key takeaway for practice:
Seek balance between clarity and autonomy; avoid creating a rule-based trap that stifles judgment.
Consider trust-based approaches, not just rule-based compliance, to reduce incidents.
Additional examples in the chapter illustrate extreme rule regimes (e.g., dress-code pages, 900-page codes) and the risk of spiraling rules.
Page 44
Continuation of hypegiaphobia discussion.
Practical recommendation:
Prune rules by identifying which are truly necessary, instead of incremental reductions.
Reducing rules should start from understanding the source of mistrust from stakeholders (employees and external partners) and working to rebuild trust.
Case insight: A company’s systematic reduction of rules led to increased responsibility and improved functioning; emphasizes trust-based governance over proliferation of rules.
Page 45
Topic: Pruning rules and restoring responsibility.
Main idea: Effective optimization of rules requires identifying the root causes of rule proliferation (mistrust) and restoring trust to empower employees.
Strategy:
Start from a perspective of trust, not mistrust.
Eliminate unnecessary rules in one go when the root cause is identified.
Expect an increased sense of responsibility post-pruning.
Outcome: Pruning can foster autonomy and innovation if paired with clear expectations and accountability.
Page 46
Title: Rules create offenders and forbidden fruits taste the best: reactance theory.
Real-world example: A prison scenario where metal detectors beeped due to highly sensitive settings; warders insisted on removing bras, illustrating rigidity of rules and social discomfort.
Mechanism: Reactance theory (Jack Brehm) explains why prohibitions provoke resistance:
Perceived threats to freedom trigger a motivational response to restore freedom, often by engaging in the prohibited behavior.
This applies to adults and adolescents; people will seek to circumvent rules or display rebellious behaviors when their freedom is constrained.
Additional examples:
Workplace restrictions: prohibitions on receiving gifts, accessing non-work sites, or taking personal calls can provoke covert or overt rule-bending.
In some cases, people adapt by finding workarounds rather than changing behavior through legitimate channels.
The waterbed effect: attempts to restrict behavior in one area may shift misbehavior to other areas instead of eliminating it.
Anecdotes: A comedy sketch illustrating that removing one rule may reveal another, simpler rule (e.g., clever dress and no rules leading to entry).
Takeaway: A purely punitive or heavily rule-based approach often backfires; instead, design rules that account for human tendencies to push boundaries and seek autonomy.
Page 47
Topic: Reactance theory continued with experiments by Pennebaker, Sanders, and Grandpre.
Experiments:
Prohibition signs in university toilets: a strong, threatening sign “Do NOT Write on the Walls!” led to more graffiti than a milder sign: “Please, do not write on the walls.”
Smoking prohibition in schools: telling students not to smoke sometimes increased smoking; telling them to smoke actually reduced it.
Core insight: The more threatening an order or prohibition, the greater the opposite behavior is likely to be performed.
Consequences: People engage in forms of resistance or “work arounds” to regain perceived freedom (e.g., anti-rule behavior, counterfeit compliance).
Waterbed effect revisited: attempts to control behavior in one domain may just relocate misbehavior to another domain.
Practical implications:
Avoid overbearing prohibitions.
When possible, offer positive, facilitative alternatives that satisfy the underlying needs without provoking reactance.
Page 48
Topic: Continuation of reactance theory; examples of creative resistance.
Examples and metaphors:
If you’re not allowed to write, you’ll use glue, nails, or find an un-signposted wall to express yourself.
In motorcycling, after routes with permanent speed checks, riders speed in unmonitored areas to regain freedom.
The waterbed effect is reiterated: focusing on prevention in one area can increase misbehavior elsewhere.
Final note on reactance: The presence of multiple prohibitions tends to erode the normative goal (behaving properly) and elevate self-interest-driven actions.
Page 49
Topic: What the normal environment communicates: descriptive and injunctive norms.
Core ideas:
Descriptive norms describe what people actually do; injunctive norms prescribe what should be done.
People are influenced both by what should be done and by what is actually done around them.
Cialdini et al. experiment re: hospital parking lot flyers:
Flyer text varied, and environment varied too (floor clutter vs. clean).
In a clean environment, 14% threw the flyer on the ground; in a dirty environment, 32% did so.
When a passer-by dropped a flyer nearby, in a dirty environment the rate jumped to 54% (compared to a clean environment without the passer-by drop).
Takeaway:
Both injunctive and descriptive norms matter; environment communicates norms implicitly and explicitly.
People imitate others; mirror neurons support this imitation and normative conformity.
Implications for practice:
A clean environment reinforces pro-social norms; mess communicates tolerance of littering.
Visible actions by others (e.g., someone littering) can normalize similar behavior among observers.
Page 50
Topic: Continuation of descriptive and injunctive norms; cognitive and social underpinnings.
Key ideas:
Mirror neurons underlie imitation; we copy behavior to gain social acceptance and reduce uncertainty (normative need).
If others behave in a certain way, we interpret it as sensible and appropriate to imitate.
Descriptive norms can overpower injunctive norms in certain situations, especially when the environment suggests that mess is tolerated or inevitable.
Example: Dirty environment increases the likelihood of littering because observers interpret that behavior as socially acceptable in that setting.
Advice: Create and reinforce a 'clean' environment to reinforce the normative goal of not littering and to support injunctive norms through social proof.
Page 51
Topic: Practical guidance on managing norms and environmental cues.
Key points:
If mess is present, avoid immediately stating that mess is prohibited; prohibition signs in a dirty environment can backfire by drawing attention to violations.
Keizer’s studies show that prohibition signs may backfire in a messy environment; the environment should be cleaned up first to align injunctive and descriptive norms.
When the environment clearly communicates a norm (e.g., a tidy space), people are more likely to act accordingly.
Strategy for organizations:
Tidy up the environment before enforcing prohibitions to prevent a misalignment of norms.
Use a combination of environmental design and normative messaging to promote desirable behavior.
Page 52
Topic: Broken panes and the broken window theory.
Historical context:
NYPD’s Quality of Life campaign linked physical disorder (graffiti, trash, loitering) to social disorder and crime.
Cleaning up visible disorder reduced crime rates, supporting the theory that minor signs of disorder invite more serious crime.
Core concept: If a window is broken and left unrepaired, more windows break; social and physical disorder signals that authority is weak and norms are loose.
Keizer et al. empirical studies:
Parking lot entrance manipulated: a gap vs a fully blocked entrance; additional experiments with bicycles attached to fence vs freestanding.
Result: In environments with freestanding bicycles near the fence, compliance to norms decreased (27% slipped through), whereas with bicycles attached to the fence, more people passed through (82%).
In another study, an addressed envelope with a visible five-euro bill outside a red letterbox showed disordered environments increased theft (13% in clean vs 27% in graffiti environment).
Three goals influencing behavior:
Normative goals: following social rules.
Hedonic goals: feeling good; gain goals: improving material situation.
The relative weight of these goals changes with environmental cues; normative goals are weakest among the three and are easily trumped by hedonic and gain goals in disorder.
Takeaway: Observing norm violations weakens normative motivation, increasing self-interest-driven behavior. Unethical behavior can spread because people infer that norms are less important when surroundings signal disorder.
Strength of the theory: It explains not only imitation of others’ behavior but also how others’ violations can prompt one to violate other norms.
Page 53
Topic: Further exploration of broken windows and environmental influence.
Additional findings:
When an environment is disordered, individuals are more likely to violate norms due to competition among goals (normative vs hedonic vs gain).
Implications for organizational ethics:
Unethical behavior is a wildfire; it spreads and is difficult to reverse by cleanup alone.
Recovery requires a normative revival: rearticulate mission from a normative perspective, reformulate business goals, rewrite codes of conduct, communicate them, and train employees extensively.
Practical action: Repair “broken windows” quickly; integrate ethical reform across relationships, processes, and stakeholder interactions.
Page 54
Topic: Continued guidance on breaking the cycle of unethical behavior.
Key takeaways:
Environmental cues influence the weight of normative, hedonic, and gain goals; disorder shifts emphasis away from normative goals.
Integrated, coherent ethical culture change is needed to reverse a widespread loss of normative guards.
Repairing the broken windows in an organization requires attention to culture, codes of conduct, and comprehensive training rather than isolated fixes.
Page 55
Topic: The office as a reflection of the inner self: interior decoration and architecture.
Research highlights:
A regulator kept a porcelain pistol on the table; it looked like a weapon but signaled authority and seriousness of purpose.
In experiments by Berkowitz and LePage:
Participants who waited in a room with a weapon before an experiment administered longer shocks than those who waited in a room with a badminton racket.
Objects in environments can prime aggression or other behaviors; even innocuous items can influence actions.
Implications for office design:
Objects in the office can cue specific behaviors; a pistol (even a porcelain one) can provoke more aggressive responses; a punch ball or fruit machine can influence risk-taking or playfulness.
Additional research:
Goslinga and colleagues showed that people’s character judgments can be inferred from offices and personal spaces.
Lohman et al. showed that the interior decoration of couples’ living rooms reflects the quality of their relationship; objects acquired together signal cohesion.
Applications to organizational culture:
The manager’s office is a symbol of values and norms; its contents, layout, and décor communicate what the organization prioritizes.
A tidy, uncluttered, and purposefully decorated office can signal control, professionalism, and clarity, whereas clutter may signal ambiguity or disorganization.
Practical tip: When evaluating or designing spaces within an organization, consider how the space communicates the intended values and norms to visitors and employees.
Page 56
Topic: Continuation on interior decoration and character inference.
Key ideas:
Beyond offices, personal spaces at home reflect relationships and personal values.
The strength of relationships is reflected in shared objects and the way couples present them to guests.
The CEO’s office and architectural choices reveal organizational priorities and norms.
Practical guidance:
Assessing a culture from the physical workspace can yield insights into values and internal dynamics, but be mindful of potential hidden depths (e.g., what goes on behind closed cabinets).
A cluttered workspace suggests potential for disorganization; a tidy, purposeful space suggests control and clarity.
Takeaway: Interior decoration and layout are meaningful signals of organizational culture and personal identity within the work environment.
Page 57
Topic: Architecture, exterior cues, and transparency.
Key ideas:
Exterior features like building height, expansiveness, and glass usage convey organizational values about transparency and openness.
Buildings with lots of glass can signal transparency, but reflective glass may hide what happens inside, potentially signaling opacity.
Some organizations that later faced integrity problems had head offices with predominantly reflective glass, which may have signaled a lack of openness.
Practical implication:
Architectural choices (height, glass, openness) influence stakeholders’ perceptions of organizational culture and governance.
When aiming for transparency and ethical culture, design considerations should align with those objectives (visible openness, accessible spaces, clear branding of ethical commitments).
Closing thought:
The physical environment mirrors and reinforces the organization’s character; leaders should ensure that architecture and decoration align with desired norms and behaviors.
Title
Chapters 9–16 Notes: Flyers and norms; cognitive and affective priming; euphemisms and moral framing; rules, Reactance theory, descriptive/injunctive norms; broken windows; and office architecture as culture.