toby groves [email protected] @tobylgroves linkedin: tobygroves beyond the code: ethics in the...

Toby [email protected]

@tobylgrovesLinkedIn: TobyGroves

Beyond the Code: Ethics in the Real World

4:09:55 p.m.Thompson: Center, Alaska two-sixty-one. We are, uh, in a dive here, and I've lost control, vertical pitch.

4:10:33 Thompson: Yea, we got it back under control here.

4:11:43 Tansky: Whatever we did is no good. Don't do that again...

4:11:44 Thompson: Yea, no, it went down. It went full nose down.

4:11:48 Tansky: Uh, it's a lot worse than it was?

4:11:50Thompson: Yea. Yea. We're in much worse shape now.

4:14:12 Public address: Folks, we have had a flight-control problem up front here, we're working on it.

4:15:19 Flight 261 to LAX-CTR: L.A., Alaska two-sixty-one. We're with you, we're at twenty-two-five [22,500 feet]. We have a jammed stabilizer and we're maintaining altitude with difficulty...

4:15:36LAX-CTR: Alaska two-sixty-one, L.A center. Roger, um, you're cleared to Los Angeles Airport via present position...

4:17:09Flight attendant: Okay, we had like a big bang back there.

4:17:15 Thompson: I think the [stabilizer] trim is broke.

4:19:36 Extremely loud noise

4:19:43 Tansky: Mayday

4:19:54Thompson: Okay, we are inverted, and now we gotta get it.

4:20:04 Thompson: Push, push, push...push the blue side

4:20:14 Tansky: I'm pushing.

4:20:16 Thompson: Okay, now let's kick rudder. Left rudder, left rudder.

4:20:18 Tansky: I can't reach it.

4:20:20 Thompson: Okay. Right rudder, right rudder.

4:20:25 Thompson: Are we flying? We're flying, we're flying. Tell 'em what we're doing.

4:20:33 Tansky: Oh, yeah. Let me get...

4:20:38 Thompson: Gotta get it over again. At least upside down we're flying.

4:20:54 Thompson: Speedbrakes

4:20:55 Tansky: Got it.

4:20:56 Thompson: Ah, here we go.

4:20:57 End of recording

Ethics: Beyond the Code

(Beaman et al. 1979; Diener et al., 1976)

Common definitions• Gut feelings of right and wrong• Following the law• What society accepts• I don’t know



What is ethics?

What it is not…

• Whatever society accepts- If this were true, you could take a poll and you would believe whatever the result is

• Not science- Science deals with how people “ought to act”, not considering biases, psychology, or emotions

• Not the law- Laws can deviate from what is ethical, and rules have a counterintuitive effect on ethical thought processes.

• Intuition- We may have formed habits in thinking that bias us and that are not ethical. Familiar habits trigger oxytocin.



What is ethics?

What it is…

• Well founded standards of fairness and of right and wrong• Understanding our own ethical reasoning processes, thinking critically about these

processes, and seeking to understand our unique biases• A type of critical thinking-a continuous effort to understand and develop one’s own

reasoning and standards• Understanding the important role empathy plays in critical thinking

NeurocriminologyThe Biological Link to Crime

Twin and adoption studies-General support for hereditary basis for crime• Landmark Study-Mednick (1984)

• 14,427 Non-familial adoptions analyzed

• Results: • Biological and adoptive parents with no convictions= 13.5% of children had

convictions• Adoptive have convictions/Biological do not=14.7% of children had convictions• Biological have convictions/Adoptive do not=20% of children had convictions• Both Biological and Adoptive have convictions=24.5% of children had

convictions

Mednick, S. (1984), Raine, A. (2013)

NeurocriminologyThe Biological Link to Crime

Significant findings• Amygdala 18% smaller in group considered psychopaths

• Believed to be genetic susceptibility coupled with environmental triggers

• Monoamine Oxidase A (Enzyme) combined with early child abuse associated with smaller amygdala volume (emotional center of brain)

• Brain plasticity• Early development can have profound influences on brain activity

Caspi, A. & Moffitt, T. (2002); Yang, Y., Schug, R. & Raine, A. (2009)

Psychopathy• Antisocial Personality Disorder

• Psychopathology-Science of disease of the human mind• A Psychopathic Personality is known by the following traits:

• Amoral and anti-social behavior• Inability to develop meaningful/lasting relationships• Extreme egocentricity• Absence of empathy “Emotionally Deaf”

• Moral decision making elicits different neural responses in psychopathic individuals

• Most accepted test for Psychopathy is the Psychopathy Checklist (Dr. Robert Hare)

Psychopathy test- Score 0 if it does not apply to you, score 1 if it somewhat applies, score 2 if it fully applies to you. Please total your score at the end of the test.

1. Glibness and superficial charm 0 1 2– smooth-talking, engaging and slick.

2. Grandiose self-worth 0 1 2– greatly inflated idea of one’s abilities and self-esteem, arrogance and a sense of superiority.

3. Pathological lying 0 1 2– shrewd, crafty, sly and clever when moderate; deceptive, deceitful, underhanded and unscrupulous when high.

4. Cunning/manipulative 0 1 2– uses deceit and deception to cheat others for personal gain.

5. Lack of remorse or guilt 0 1 2- no feelings or concern for losses, pain and suffering of others, coldhearted and unempathic.

6. Shallow affect / emotional poverty 0 1 2– limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness.

7. Callous/lack of empathy 0 1 2– a lack of feelings toward others; cold, contemptuous and inconsiderate.

8. Fails to accept responsibility for own actions 0 1 2– denial of responsibility and an attempt to manipulate others through this.

9. Needs stimulation/prone to boredom 0 1 2– an excessive need for new, exciting stimulation and risk-taking.

10. Parasitic lifestyle 0 1 2– Intentional, manipulative, selfish and exploitative financial dependence on others.

11. Poor behavioral controls 0 1 2– expressions of negative feelings, verbal abuse and inappropriate expressions of anger.

12. No realistic long-term goals 0 1 2– inability or constant failure to develop and accomplish long-term plans.

13. Impulsiveness 0 1 2– behaviors lacking reflection or planning and done without considering consequences.

14. Irresponsible 0 1 2– repeated failure to fulfill or honor commitments and obligations.

15. Juvenile delinquency 0 1 2– criminal behavioral problems between the ages of 13-18.

16. Early behavior problems 0 1 2– a variety of dysfunctional and unacceptable behaviors before age thirteen.

17. Revocation of Conditional Release 0 1 2– Violating probation or other conditional release because of technicalities.

18. Promiscuity 0 1 2– brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs and an indiscriminate choice of sexual partners.

19. Many short-term relationships 0 1 2– lack of commitment to a long-term relationship.

20. Criminal versatility 0 1 2– diversity of criminal offenses, whether or not the individual has been arrested or convicted.

(Dan Ariely, Duke University)

• Search for level of certainty that doesn’t exist• We subconsciously assign tremendous weight to our

assumed outcomes and automatic character assessments• This assessment causes profound biases our

perceptions • Colors our judgment• Results in automatic assumptions and predictions• Causes subliminal susceptibility to seek subliminal

information

Emotional Need for Certainty

Study: Auditor Prioritization

Apostelou (2001) ; Wilks and Zimbelman (2004)

Industry Red Flags Financia l S tatement Red Flags

Character Assessment 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Fundamental Attribution Error- A cognitive bias of over emphasizing personality characteristics and under-emphasizing situational awareness.

Ekman & O’Sullivan (1991)

Sticky First Impressions

Trait being judged .10 sec 1 sec

Trustworthy .73 .74

Competent .52 .59

Aggressive .52 .59

Likable .59 .63

Unlimited exposure times were highly correlated with briefest exposure times

Ekman & O’Sullivan (1991)

Distinguishing Truth from DeceptionGroup Accuracy Rate (%)

College students 52.82

CIA, FBI, and military 55.67

Police investigators 55.79

Trial judges 56.73

Psychiatrists 57.61

U.S. Secret Service agents 64.12*

Cheating Research

(Dan Ariely, Duke University)

Test Takers

Cheat a little No cheating Cheat a lot

30,000 test takers18,000 cheat a little12 cheat a lot

Amount Stolen

$36,000 $150

The 18,000 “little” cheaters stole $36,000

The 12 “BIG” cheaters stole $150

Neuroscience and Decision Making

• Instead of a conscious reasoning process to arrive at a judgment

• Usually have immediate and sub-conscious intuition• Followed by conscious reasoning to support that

intuition

• Logic versus emotion in decision making (J. Greene research)

Haidt (2001)

Stability of Moral Position

Hall, L. Lund University

Study: “Large scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and internet traffic ought to be forbidden as a means to combat international crime and terrorism”

Stability of Moral Position

Hall, L. Lund University

Study: “Large scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and internet traffic ought to be permitted as a means to combat international crime and terrorism”

69% of people gave well constructed arguments for one of two altered statements after taking a moral position.

Economic TheoryAssumption-Theory of Expected Utility:Assumes we will follow a logical process, weighing the expected gain from a crime against the likelihood of getting caught and severity of punishment.

Does cheating increase/decrease relative to:The amount that can be stolen?The likelihood of getting away with it?The severity of the punishment?

The research says…

The Precipice of FraudSituational factors:

Research shows when factors like these…• Meeting debt covenants• Meeting sales projections• A surprise loss, legal problem, or business challenge• A severe personal challenge• Pressure for aggressive accounting treatment of any kind (starts

a cycle)

Are mixed with factors like these…

The Precipice of FraudOver-optimism- A bias that causes a person to believe that they are less at risk of experiencing a negative event compared to others.

Overconfidence- An over-estimation of one’s abilities or exhibiting greater certainty than warranted by existing circumstances.

Loss Aversion- The motivation to avoid losing what you already have is even stronger than the motivation for additional gains.

Framing errors-(Exercises)

The Precipice of FraudFramingImagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual foreign disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the program are as follows:


• If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. • If program B is adopted, there is a 1/3rd probability that 600 people will be saved,

and a 2/3rds probability that no people will be saved.


• If program C is adopted, 400 people will die. • If program D is adopted, there is a 1/3rd probability that nobody will die, and a

2/3rds probability that 600 people will die.

The Precipice of FraudFramingImagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the program are as follows:

• If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. • If program B is adopted, there is a 1/3rd probability that 600 people will be saved,

and a 2/3rds probability that no people will be saved. • If program C is adopted, 400 people will die. • If program D is adopted, there is a 1/3rd probability that nobody will die, and a

2/3rds probability that 600 people will die.

Group PsychologyChallenging our Assumptions


• Do we cheat more when we are alone, or more when we are with other people?

• Will a majority of people be willing to break written codes to follow unwritten norms?

• Do people in a group tend to settle on a decision that is an “average” view of the group?

• Will group members support a whistleblower for blowing the whistle on a group norm that is immoral and not personally supported by the individual members of the group?

• What percentage of people would agree with the obviously wrong choice of a fellow group member, with no known motivation to do so?

• Should ethical leaders to take a strong stand early in discussions?

• Is the search for concurrence in groups a sign of a good team?

Group PsychologyLike Taking Candy…..

Do we Cheat More in Groups than as Individuals?

Study observed 1,300 children visiting 27 homes around Seattle

Some alone-some in groups

Some asked names/where they lived-Some were not

Children were asked to take one piece of candy then left alone as hidden

observers watched

• Children in groups took the most candy

• In groups and not asked identity took even more

• Individuals asked identity were least likely to cheat/mirror/Dissonance(Beaman et al. 1979; Diener et al., 1976)

Group PsychologyThe Science Behind Collusion

The overwhelming power of belonging

• “Need to belong”-Affiliation with similar others is a fundamental human motive.

• Pervasive drive to form and maintain relationships (Baumeister & Levy, 1995)

• Social connection is crucial for mental and physical well being

• Once in a group, these motives shape our perceptions and interpretations

• Threat of breaking a relationship causes great stress

• External threats trigger fear and strong motivation to affiliate (Schacter, 1959)

• Especially with others who face a similar threat


Research studies and real life repeatedly show the desire to affiliate with those facing similar threats

• Provides emotional support and cognitive clarity• Hospital patients waiting for open heart surgery prefer to wait with those

who have been through the surgery or those also waiting (Kulik & Mahler, 1989).

• Strangers band together after natural disasters or terrorist attacks.• Study participants expecting painful shocks chose to wait with other nervous

participants (Schacter, 1959)


Group Assimilation• Norms-Unspoken rules of conduct

• Informal rules (culture) more powerful than formal rules• A sense of what it means to be a good group member• Figuring out the rules takes time and causes anxiety (investment)

• Once learned- breaking group norms is difficult and even traumatic from fear of social consequences

• Studies show that co-workers are very reluctant to report unethical behavior of others on their work teams (Benoit Monin, 2008).• Individuals that go against group norms are strongly disliked by fellow

participants-even when the norm was immoral and not personally accepted by other participants (rejection)

• People fear being divisive (Whistleblowers) (2008 financial collapse)


Group Cohesiveness-Forces that push members closer together

• More group related pride

• Engage in frequent and sometimes intense interactions

• Strong similarity features-similar backgrounds-homogenous

Breaking group norms is especially difficult in highly cohesive groups

Conformity bias-The power that pushes us to conform to our reference group.


Ingroups and Outgroups• Strongly favor our ingroup -During conflict or unstable situations, opposing

groups are feared

• Outgroups perceived as foreign

• Dehumanize outgroups-lack normal human qualities• Dehumanization and “Us” versus “Them” =easier to attack outgroup

members (used in military conflict, politics)• Use behavior from ingroup as a cue (Ariely)


GroupThink-The tendency to seek concurrence among group members creating a dangerous bias in decision making like a social disease (Janis, 1984)-more likely in:

• Highly cohesive groups that reject deviant opinions and outgroup views (“US”

verus “THEM”)

• Groups with strong leader that lacks procedures to review decisions

• Groups with similar backgrounds• Stressful situations

• Under stress/ambiguity, urgency overrides accuracy and the reassuring support of other group members becomes highly desirable


Groupthink leads to Biased Sampling

• Tendency to spend more time discussing shared information-information

already known by most of the group rather than information only known by a

few

• People tend to share knowledge most likely to be known/accepted

• Failing to consider important information that is not common knowledge

• Leads to decisions based on flawed or incomplete information

(Stasser, G., 1992; Stasser & Titus, 2003)


Research into NASA 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster• VP of engineering objected to launch due to cold weather• Cause “O”-rings in rocket boosters to fail

• Needing unanimous vote to launch, manager told VP to “take off your engineer hat and put on your management hat”. (Framing)

• The pressure worked and the VP changed his vote-sealing the tragic fate of the Challenger and her crew

• Biased Sampling-those who ultimately made decision to launch we not aware of all relevant information about risk of low temperatures


Reducing Groupthink

• Unspoken norms are more powerful than written codes

• Reduce group pressure to conform by encouraging criticism

• Leaders should NOT take a strong stand early in discussions

• Establish a norm of critical review-”second chance” meetings to reconsider

• Discourage the search for concurrence

• Consult with outsiders


Do members of groups “average” their views or tend to the extremes?

Group Polarization-Presence of others triggers Dominant Response• The presence of others creates physiological arousal-energizes behavior.

Happens in all animals, especially similar species-more similar=greater effect (Zajonc, R. 1965, 1980)

• Increased arousal enhances tendency to perform “Dominant Response”-that which is automatic.

• Performance and judgment quality depends on task• Easy task=dominant response usually successful• Unfamiliar or complex task=dominant response is often incorrect (Lambert et

al., 2003;Perk & Catrambone, 2007)


Do members of groups “average” their views or tend to the extremes?

Group Polarization

• Groups exaggerate their initial tendencies (more than individuals)

• More cautious on “Gain” related decisions

• More risky on “Loss” related decisions

• Through discussion, group norms, support of group members

(Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969; Myers & Lamm, 1976)


The tangible the close and the near term- Vivid factors and people “now” have a larger impact on decision making than abstract and distant factors.

Diffusion of Responsibilty-Deindividuation-In a group, we feel that responsibility is shared by all, lessening our role. Also, if something were wrong, someone else would say something

Small Steps Phenomenon-Redefine normality-subconsciously lower the bar over time. German doctors during holocaust-IPO accounting fraud-Enron traders

Obedience to authority-The “draw” of following orders (diminishes self-responsibility)-Milgram experiments-60% continued to 450 volts-High status increases obedience

Group PsychologyWhy Does Fraud Continue to irrational lengths?

Escalation Effects

• Escalation of commitment• Commitment to a failing course of action is increased to justify

investments already made (Haslam et al., 2006; Keil et al., 2007; Staw, 1997)

• Groups are more likely than individuals to escalate commitment to a failing project and to do so in more extreme ways.

• Numerous groups, businesses, governments have incurred huge costs on projects that should have terminated long before they did (Ross & Staw, 1986)

Group PsychologyWhy Does Fraud Continue to irrational lengths?

Escalation Effects

• Cases of Escalation of commitment• Nick Leeson-Barings Bank• Concorde Fallacy-French-British consortium

• “Too much invested to quit”• Boston’s “Big Dig”-High speed underground tunnel

• Started in 1983 to be completed by 1995 at budget of $2.6B• Finished in 2008 for $22B

• Numerous labor strikes, lawsuits that continued beyond all economic viability for either side

A K 8 5

How did we miss it?Confirmation Bias- The tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. Studies show we tend to seek information that confirms rather than properly tests the validity of what we are told

Selective Perception-A cognitive bias wherein individuals are subconsciously attracted to stimuli that falls in their range of reasonable expectation and are oblivious to other stimuli.

Belief Perseverance- Our tendency to seek information that is consistent with our pre-existing beliefs.

Biased Processing of Disconfirming Information- The subconscious bias towards being more critical of evidence that disconfirms our initial beliefs than evidence that confirms it.

Situational AwarenessAttractors and Distractors

• We must be able to filter relevant information from a sea of irrelevant stimuli• Requires balancing task and stimulus related factors

• Balance is governed by working memory and selective attention

• Research shows that the more extraneous contextual stimuli that exists, the harder our brains work to tune that stimulus out and focus on the original subject (U.S.)• Sometimes that extraneous stimuli has significant implications on the

context of the subject

• Time Limitations (seminary students)• Ability to attend to limited number of stimuli


• Distinction between Puzzle…or Mystery? • Puzzles • Source dependent (data)• Clear conclusion• Every piece of new information makes answer clearer

• Mysteries• Receiver dependent (interpretation skills)• Answer does not become clearer with additional piece of information• Making sense of the information we already have makes answer clearer• Making judgments about situations that are uncertain

Gregory Treverton-National Security Expert


• Screening for drug smugglers• Raymond Kelly- Head of U.S. Customs

• Border Control Officers used 43 suspicious traits including behaviors and personal characteristics to ID and search suspected smugglers –most criteria were “unstable” indicators• Made phone call before/after boarding • Protective of bag/aloof • Baggy clothing/tight clothing (race, seemed nervous, etc)

• Reduced to 6 stable criteria such as• Is there specific intelligence?• Was contraband found?

• Number of searches decreased 75% while successful seizures increased 25%

Malcom Gladwell-”What the Dog Saw”


• 16 behavioral red flags displayed by perpetrators (81% has at least one of these)• Living beyond means• Financial difficulties• Unusually close association with vendor/customer• Control issues• Divorce/family related problems• Wheeler dealer attitude• Irritability, Suspiciousness or defensiveness• Addiction problems• Past employment related problems• Complained about inadequate pay• Refusal to take vacations• Excessive pressure from within organization• Past legal problems• Complained about lack of authority• Excessive family/peer pressure for success or lastly- Instability in life circumstances

ACFE 2012 Report to the Nations

How Could we have Caught That?

Pattern seeking

Y ou a e not r ading th s.

W at ar ou rea in ?

Pattern Seeking and Professional Skepticism

Two types of errors in pattern seeking• Type I-False Positive- Finding a pattern that doesn’t exist• Type II-False Negative- Failing to detect a pattern that exists

Signal to noise ratio (Attractors)• Too low- Miss obvious patterns • Too high- See false patterns everywhere

What causes pattern detection errors?

Negotiation Research in Auditing

• The more ambiguous the accounting issue, auditor likely to accept clients preferred treatment.

• The more important/increased pressure surrounding the accounting issue, auditor more likely to concede

• The greater number of possible alternative treatments, the less likely the auditor was to insist on their judgment

• Clients perceive they are more likely to persuade auditors if firm has short tenure

• Auditors are much more likely to waive smaller adjustments that aggregate to a material amount than those that are individually material (Small Steps Phenomenon)

Brown & Wright (2008)

Choice Complexity and Professional Judgment

Study on bias in professional decision-making using Doctors

• Decision to send patient-a 67 year old farmer for hip replacement surgery

• First group of doctors told they forgot to try one drug-Ibuprofen. Would

they call patient back from surgery to try the drug? 50% said pull then back

• Second group of doctors told they forgot two drugs-Ibuprofen & Piroxicam.

Would they call patient back from surgery? 72% let patient go on to surgery

Why? Choice complexity increases chance of going with default option

Redelmeier & Shafir (1995)

• Critical thinking skills allow us to:• Understand connections between ideas and concepts• Construct and evaluate arguments• See inconsistencies and gaps in reasoning• Assess the relevance of ideas• Examine the justification of your own beliefs

• Critical thinking should not be confused with:• Being critical or argumentative

(Indeed, critical thinking plays an important role in cooperative reasoning)

What is Critical Thinking?

• Logic- Normative theory of how one should reason. Formal logic.• Mathematics/computer science• Hard answers-precisely defined operations• Not descriptive theory of how humans actually reason• Does not generally consider psychology

• Critical Thinking- Everyday, real life reasoning.• Using creativity• Deals with psychology. Beliefs and recognizing biases• Gray areas, complex, unclear and changing situations• Reflective and independent thinking

• Judgment- decisions made after interpretation, and conclusions reached that drive actions and behaviors

What is Critical Thinking?

• Attitude• Openness• Willingness to be wrong• Exploring biases and assumptions• Accepting, even seeking criticism• Preferring to figure out problems on your own so you

really understand them-not handed the answer• Analyzing your errors in judgment

• Instead of excuses, curiosity about what biases or other errors may have resulted in the incorrect judgment

Critical Thinking- A meta-thinking skill that requires:

Critical Thinking-Case Studies• Automatically decide what information is important

• Does not teach us prioritization/sampling• Lacks distracting information that occurs in real life situations• Does not include social pressures • Primed to look for a problem, unlike in real life• Actual cases in progress are an alternative to standard academic case studies

• Research into case studies used for ethics training resulted in less ethical decisions from students-reason suggested was they were jaded by the many stories of ethical wrongdoing

Critical Thinking“Rules based thinking” type

• Spurs automatic responses to “recognized” patterns• Narrows our thinking to specific and narrowly applicable rules and patterns• Entails simple recognition of the situation and retrieving a typical response

Does not address:• How situational assessment is accomplished in new or changing circumstances• How to deal with conflicting or unreliable data• How to change your mind

In unusual circumstances, our recognitional process needs to be supplemented by using “Attentional Control” We do this by shifting our attention from simply reading the cues in a situationto recognizing our automatic assumptions about the conclusion…

• Use “As-If” reasoning by developing hypothetical or counter-factual ideas• Imagine that the possibility is true and pose queries about what would happen

Critical Thinking“Real Time” Critical Thinking

CURIOSITY is KING!-Situational Awareness

• Question underlying assumptions• Reveal new connections in data• Lead to new questions

• Think critically about the results of recognition on an ongoing basis

• Pose questions about those results• Look at information from different perspectives• “Assume” your assumptions are correct but conclusion is not

Principles or Rules?Does the inherent nature of rules make it more difficult to decide to do the right thing? • Control the tendency to act only in our self interest (Self protection-Good

Samaritan laws)• The tendency to focus on the letter of the rule rather than the spirit.

• Is tendency to interpret rules narrowly due to the characteristics of the rules themselves?

• Principles versus Rules based accounting standards• CFO’s less likely to make aggressive accounting choices under

“Principles” based system (Agoglia, 2009)• CFO’s came to more similar conclusions under principles than rules

based system• U.S. accounting standards have become so precise as to invite

opportunistic interpretation by corporate executives (Agoglia, 2009)

Principles or Rules?

“Research-NASA’s culture of bureaucratic accountability emphasized chain of command, procedures, following the rules, and going by the book. While rules and procedures were essential for coordination, they had an unintended but negative effect. Allegiance to hierarchy and procedure had replaced deference to NASA engineers’ technical expertise”

National Aeronautics & Space Administration REPORT OF THE COLUMBIA ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD (2003)

Toby GrovesEmail: [email protected]

Twitter @tobylgrovesLinkedIn: TobyGroves

Beyond the Code: Ethics in the Real World

Hear the story at NPR.ORG search Toby GrovesRead the research article in the CPA Journal-Google “CPA Journal Toby Groves”

Links and further information available through tobygroves.com

toby groves [email protected] @tobylgroves linkedin: tobygroves beyond the code: ethics in the...

Documents

critical thinking slide

real world slide

end of recording slide

right rudder

code beaman

left rudder

ethical reasoning processes

ethical thought processes