Rebuilding Organizational Character

Our society today faces one great challenge, and that is cheating. You can call it unethical behaviour, institutional misconduct or deception, it all points to the same thing. We have of late witnessed extreme instances of cheating through our mainstream media, some of which have proven costly to the victims. Nevertheless, such unethical acts recur over and over again in our society. Not only by the immoral, but also by the so-called morally upright, whenever they find an opportunity to cheat (Gino, 2015)
It is interesting how the cheating behaviour is formed in different individuals. There are those who will never take advantage of the situation, even if they know for sure they will never be caught. This virtue must have been instilled from a very young age, perhaps by that teacher who always reminded his students, “Don’t deceive yourself.” The other group of people resort to cheating once the slightest opportunity presents itself. Such are the ones who have that automatic desire to fulfill their interest, without a thought of what harm they may be causing. To them, behaving morally is an uphill task as opposed to engaging in unethical practice. Alternatively, cheating can be viewed as an act that only comes as a result of one consciously analyzing a situation and concluding that cheating is the best option (Patrzyk, 2014).
In carrying out research on cheating, one school of thought is that those who do not cheat are simply moral people, and thus they cannot engage in such heinous acts. This is however debatable since it is difficult to believe that such standards of morality do exist. The natural inclination of human beings and other living organisms is to care for self first (Alexander, 1987)
This fact leads to an even tougher question, “How possible then is it for these self-centred individuals to co-exist? Becker (1968) held the opinion that co-existence is only possible when such individuals conduct a cost-benefit analysis whenever they are faced with this opportunity to cheat. He stated that, given the opportunity to act deceptively, an individual will consider what benefit such an act will bring him, whether he risks being caught, and what punishment he is likely to suffer once he is caught. This rational model of crime is somewhat valid and we can actually relate to it.
If we perceive we can benefit a lot from cheating, then nothing can stop us from doing so. Likewise, if no one is watching, we will definitely carry on with our unethical act. This is also true if we know that the standard of punishment set for such an act is bearable. Thus cheating isn’t just involuntary - it is a result of logical reasoning within oneself. That’s the same process I would personally follow if I were presented with an opportunity to cheat. I certainly dread harsh punishments, so I would not take such risk if the profit is not worth it. (Alexander, 1987)
The idea of cost-benefit analysis is however debatable, because such careful thought would make humans avoid cheating more than they currently do. Shalvi, Handgraaf and De Dreu (2011) stated that cheating involves making tradeoffs between what one knows is ethical and what benefits his self. This is an internal mechanism that leans more towards self satisfaction outside of making a rational choice. They argue that in order for a person to ignore the psychological cost of cheating, the perceived profits must be much higher, which is rarely the case. Otherwise the norm is to cheat regardless of the perceived profit or punishment being risked.


References
Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
Gino, F. (2015). Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: why people who value morality act immorally. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 107-111.
Patrzyk, P. M. (2014). Would you cheat? Cheating behavior, human nature, and decision-making. Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/871/would-you-cheat-cheating-behavior-human-nature-and-decision-making.
Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 181-190.