Resources for Learning More about Behavioral Ethics (May 29, 2019)

Behavioral insights into ethical decision-making begin with some primary assumptions: people make decisions instinctively rather than rationally, they tend to believe they are more ethical than they actually are, and they tend to create “shortcuts” to decision-making that introduce biases leading to less than optimal ethical outcomes.[1]  In prior posts, we discussed salience, framing, and anchoring biases. These are only a few of many cognitive biases that have been identified and can affect ethical decision-making.

For those who are interested in learning more about behavioral ethics, The McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin hosts a website called, Ethics Unwrapped, which houses over one hundred free videos addressing behavioral ethics and ethics concepts, along with case studies.  Another resource, Ethical Systems, housed in NYU’s Stern School of Business provides a “Research” tab where you can freely access reviews of existing research and best practices using insights from the behavioral and management sciences.

Internationally, the Institute of Business Ethics also offers various publications that provide useful and practical guidance on behavioral ethics and ethical culture.

For practical lessons in public sector integrity policy, the OECD’s website and its report on Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity offer concrete recommendations for incorporating behavioral insights into anti-corruption policies. The United Kingdom’s  Behavioural Insights Team website is another source for publications and blog posts discussing the specific application of behavioral interventions to discrete government programs to improve public policy outcomes.

Finally, for those seeking peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary research on behavioral insights and its relevance to public policy, the Journal of Behavioral Public Administration  is self-described as an “open access journal that focuses on behavioral and experimental research in public administration, broadly defined.”  Similarly, Behavioural Public Policy offers free access to articles on a variety of behavioral research.

As ethics officials, understanding the patterns in human behavior can help us anticipate problems and take steps to prevent them.  There is a wealth of research available to help us do just that.  The IEG is pleased to be able to share these resources with you. 

Anchoring for Ethics (December 17, 2018)

What is anchoring?

Anchoring is a term used in psychology to describe the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one aspect or piece of information when making decisions. Very often the information you anchor upon is the first or most emphasized piece of information you receive on a subject. In situations where information involves a numerical value, a bias is set toward that value and that value becomes the basis for subsequent decision-making.

Why should ethics practitioners care about anchoring?

When we introduce ethics concepts early, especially ones involving “numerical values,” and emphasize them repeatedly, that component displaces broader considerations in ethical decision-making. For example:

• How often as ethics officials have we heard employees make reference to “the $20 rule,” or worse still “the $25 rule,” when talking about the gifts from outside sources restrictions? 
• What are the dangers of having employees believe, as they often do, that they don’t have to worry about any financial holdings under $15,000?

In the case of both the gifts from outside sources provisions and the part 2640 de minimis exemptions, the exception/exemption dollar value displaces the actual prohibition in the employee’s mind and it becomes the “rule.”  If that number is taken out of context, the exception/exemption is likely to be interpreted and applied incorrectly, and the mental shortcut could very well lead to violations of law and regulation.

Likewise for us as ethics officials, by anchoring on regulatory “numbers” we may be compromising actual efficiency and effectiveness in our financial disclosure reviews and in our ethics education programs. For example:

• How often do we grant financial disclosure filing extensions in anything other than 30, 45 and 90-day increments?
• In planning our ethics education for employees, how strongly do we rely on a single, one-hour event as the mechanism for achieving compliance?

A filing extension of 6, 10 or 22 days may be all the employee needs to complete and submit a report beyond the initial filing deadline.  Similarly, a brief discussion about ethics at monthly staff meetings may not only be more relevant and effective in preventing actual ethics violations, but in the aggregate may exceed any minimal compliance requirements.

So how do we deal with “anchoring” by both employees and ourselves when administering the ethics program?

As human beings we all employ shortcuts in our thinking and decision-making. So, anchoring is somewhat unavoidable. What we can do is control which pieces of information become the anchors.

For example, in our new employee orientation, we should introduce and emphasize the duties and obligations of public service—loyalty to law, selfless service and responsible stewardship. Under this broad cultural umbrella of public service expectations we can introduce the principles and standards, and explicitly tie them back to the broader public service obligations. By anchoring employees on three broad concepts, we make it more likely they will be incorporated into future decision-making.

Likewise, subsequent ethics education should focus on ethical decision-making through a public service lens. If we are inclined to anchor, we should consider anchoring on effectiveness. What is my ethics education program trying to achieve and for whom? How can I use my limited resources to greatest effect?

We should also rethink any “default” policies we have in place. For example, if you have established a standard 45-day initial filing extension, consider re-examining whether a default is prudent or necessary, or whether the number of days is appropriate.  

The key to avoiding, or in appropriate circumstances, effectively using anchoring in our ethics programs is to be aware of our human proclivity to anchor.  We can use our knowledge of anchoring to carefully decide which pieces of information to highlight so that we are using anchors that encourage rather than undermine ethical outcomes. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Framing: How We Communicate About "Ethics" Matters  (October 9, 2018)

What is framing?

Generally speaking, framing refers to the frames of reference that inform and guide our decision-making—that is the “set of ideas, conditions, or assumptions that determine how something will be approached, perceived, or understood.”[1] (Merriam Webster on-line)

For example, when our communications about “ethics” begin and end exclusively with the application of the law and regulations, we are framing “ethics” as a “legal question.” If we never introduce any other frame of reference, employees may believe that any action is ethical merely because it is not expressly prohibited by law or regulation.

Why should ethics practitioners care about framing?

The way we communicate with employees matters. Our choice of words, the information we emphasize, and how we encourage employees to frame the question of “what should I do?” all affect what they believe ethics is and how they incorporate it into their decision-making.  Is ethics only a question of, “is it legal?” If not, then our communications about ethics must consistently include a more expansive “frame of reference.” 

Ethics training that focuses exclusively on explaining the rules and the penalties to individuals for violations may be framing ethical decision-making as a personal cost-benefit analysis affecting only the employee—e.g., what are the personal risks and rewards to me of taking a certain action?  Similarly, ethics advice that limits itself only to questions of “legality” may be communicating that everything that is not expressly prohibited by law or regulation is permitted.

For these reasons, a more expansive frame of reference for ethical decision-making should include considerations beyond “legality” and the costs and benefits to the individual employee. For example, it should include questions like: What are the risks to the agency and the effects on its mission of the employee’s proposed action? How will the action appear to an outside observer? And how will this action affect citizens’ trust in government?