“A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world” - ALBERT CAMUS

Leaders believes they are ethical, but it’s worth asking yourself the question just how ethical are you?

The answer may not be what you believe.

A survey by the Institute of Business Ethics looked at 6019 employees across eight countries and asked about their attitudes and perceptions of ethics in the workplace. It was found that one in three employees had witnessed misconduct in the workplace within the last year.

People being treated badly/inappropriately was the most common misconduct followed by misreporting of hours and safety violations. A survey shows there is a significant amount of unethical conduct happening in workplaces.

It also showed that nearly half the number of people, 46 per cent didn’t report or address the unethical conduct they witnessed.

Having poor ethics in a workplace presents many problems.

Poor work cultures are created, bad habits are formed, poor productivity rises, which reduces profits. It is a significant challenge facing leaders – are all leaders ethical? Everyone wants their leaders to be ethical, to know the difference between right and wrong; to have the courage to make the right decision when necessary.

Something else that people usually agree on is that they consider themselves ethical. But is this really the case?

Let me present you nario.

There’s a thought experiment invented by Philippa Foot in 1967 called the Trolly Experiment.

In this hypothetical scenario you are onboard a trolley and it’s speeding on a track.

As it moves forward it’s heading towards five people who will die if the trolley hits them.

But coming up is a fork on the track and at the fork you can pull a leaver which will divert the trolley into another direction.

But in the second direction there is one person on the track.

The ethical dilemma you face is, do you allow five people to die or do you sacrifice one person to save five? with

asce

When people are faced with this hypothetical scenario, the majority, around 90 per cent, decide to pull the lever and sacrifice one in order to save five.

It’s generally considered an easy decision to save the lives of five people compared to the life of one.

If the scenario was a little bit different, and you knew the single person who is someone close to you and the five people on the other track where strangers, how would this influence your decision?

When an emotional element is brought into the scenario the decision is not easy.

As a result people are less likely to decide to sacrifice the life of one in order to save five.

Let me explain the last scenario, the “footbridge scenario.”

In this scenario you are not on the trolley, but are watching from a footbridge above. You see the trolley heading towards the five people, but on the footbridge you are standing next to a person, that if you push this person off the bridge their weight will stop the trolley, killing the person but saving five people. What do you do?

Even though the situation with the “footbridge scenario” is the same as the “Trolly Experiment” do you chose to sacrifice one in order to save five?

This scenario produced dramatically different results because with the footbridge scenario the majority of people, around 90 per cent decided not to push the person of the bridge resulting in, sacrificing five