Introduction
This reflection paper discusses a TED talk about business ethics and how they relate to individuals. It was delivered by Alexander Wagner, an economist and professor at the University of Zurich, and uploaded to YouTube on September 27, 2017. In it, he discusses the fundamental motivations that drive people to be honest or commit fraud. As with many matters of human psychology, the factors that affect a person’s decisions and their relative importance are still unknown in many regards.
However, this topic is of vital importance to humanity’s understanding of organizational behaviors and avoiding harmful and unethical practices. As such, research is continuously ongoing into both the theoretical and the practical underpinnings of people’s actions. In this reflection, its author considers some of the findings and questions presented by the speaker and their response to them.
Experience Summary
Wagner begins with the usage of some statistics, namely the number of companies with which one interacts during their day. His estimate is that, upon arriving at their workplace in the morning, the average person will likely have interacted with at least seven companies already (TED, 2017). This author would argue that, depending on the definition of interaction, the number could be much greater.
The essential objects that make up the person’s living space, such as walls, furniture, and clothes, have been collectively manufactured by dozens, if not hundreds, of companies. The speaker follows his conclusion with the statement that statistically, one in seven large public companies in the U.S. commits fraud, implying that any American is likely to interact with a fraudulent business every day. He reinforces the point by indicating that this fraud is large-scale and costs stakeholders approximately $380 billion a year.
Wagner then considers the ways in which past thinkers have tried to explain unethical behavior and its implications. He limits himself to the consideration of two prominent figures, the first of which is Adam Smith. The speaker recounts the influential economist’s theory that society will benefit if everyone acts solely in their own self-interest. He elaborates that Smith’s meaning is that people will achieve this by considering what actions will generate the most benefit for them long-term instead of seeking short-term gratification.
Wagner notes that Smith’s theory finds expressions in most modern companies, which outline codes of conduct and rewards one may expect for following them consistently. As a counterpoint to Smith’s purely rational and long-term-oriented theory, the speaker uses Emmanuel Kant and his categorical imperative. With this approach, the person would refrain from unethical behavior because it was unethical, regardless of the rewards associated with either option. With Smith’s focus on the material and Kant’s removal of it in considerations of morality as much as possible, the two are essentially directly opposed.
The speaker begins by proposing a thought experiment to the viewers to engage their conception of ethics. In it, the person would have to flip a coin four times and input the number of instances where it landed on tails into a computer without any form of supervision. The participant would receive monetary compensation directly proportional to the number entered, meaning choosing 4 would maximize their reward in the absence of risk. Wagner asks each listener to consider what number they would input as well as which ones the people to their left and right would. He proceeds to mention that he and his team also performed this experiment in practice in the past. While there were disproportionately many high results, approximately 65% of the participants did not choose 4, contradicting both Smith’s and Kant’s theories but also partially affirming each.
The speaker admits that he does not understand the meaning of this result, where people follow their self-interest but do not do so fully, entirely. However, he proposes the idea of moral values that can come into opposition with economic self-interest and force a different decision. Their source is unclear to him, as statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in responses based on gender or university major. Age may be a factor, but additional research is necessary to determine how it applies to an individual over their lifetime. Regardless, Wagner concludes that while incentives are effective at driving behaviors, they are not the sole determinant of a person’s actions. The business should consider hiring people with specific moral traits that encourage honesty in addition to self-interest-based measures to minimize the chances of employee wrongdoing.
Reflection
The author is already familiar with the decision-making theories of both Kant and Smith, so the initial exposition was not particularly informative. Instead, they focused on the questions that arose from Wagner’s presentation of them, such as that of the nature of an interaction mentioned above. It made them appreciate the interconnected nature of the world and the dependence on others every member of modern society has.
Businesses build and maintain one’s home, provide crucial utilities such as water and electricity, and supply the food they eat as well as the dishes on which it is served. As such, business misconduct also has wide-reaching implications regardless of how isolated it may seem. In passing, the speaker mentioned Volkswagen’s emissions scandal, which has led to massive fines and a recall of the affected cars. In addition to harming the company’s reputation and financial performance, it also influenced the owners of these machines, repair shops at which those people serviced their cars, Volkswagen’s suppliers, and countless others.
The second question arose when the author was listening to a description of Kantian ethics, specifically the example of the dog. It is possible to argue against the destruction of the cupboard being immoral based on whether the items in it (metaphorically representing other objects such as weapons) were being used for immoral acts. However, in general, the principle applies as long as everyone follows the categorical imperative, which would mean all items are used morally.
However, as Wagner himself demonstrates later on, the dog may be able to retrieve the sausage without harming the cupboard. If the destruction is a risk, it is always unethical to take them, or if not, what degree of risk changes the morality of the decision? The author cannot answer this question easily, but they expect that it has been explored in substantially more detail and in greater nuance.
With regard to the question posed by the speaker, the author had some difficulty making the decision. However, ultimately, they settled on the decision to report the number of tails landings honestly regardless of what it was. The decision was based on their present situation, where they do not necessarily need twenty francs, and may have changed based on their circumstances. However, not knowing the conditions in which the two strangers or their personalities, the author has to guess. Their expectation would be for those people to choose 4, as it is the rational actor’s choice and provides them with grounds on which to formulate predictions. The author expects that creating this difference in conclusions for oneself and others was intentional by Wagner and meant to show their lack of trust in others always acting ethically.
The moral values theory is consistent with the internal beliefs held by the author and their opinion regarding these principles. They made the decision based on some concept of ethics rather than pure self-interest, but they also acknowledge that this sense of right and wrong may sometimes be overridden. They also do not necessarily know whether these values are nature or nurture. The implications of the former for unethical people are concerning, and the consistency of ethics across different time periods and cultures is too high for the latter. The author also does not know how to screen people for desirable morals, though they agree that doing so would be helpful in promoting honesty.
Conclusion
Overall, most of the information in the talk was already known to the author, but the new insights it provided were useful. One significant drawback of theory, whether personal or commonly accepted, is that it is often not borne out in reality. As such, practical research results such as those mentioned by the speaker are essential for testing conceptions and confirming or rejecting them. While the author mostly found their expectations confirmed, the talk also caused them to consider several philosophical and practical questions. They will continue thinking about these matters and conducting research to improve their understanding of the principles of ethics people follow.
Reference
TED. (2017). What really motivates people to be honest in business | Alexander Wagner [Video]. YouTube. Web.