The Economist had a really interesting story on the psychology of power in its January 23rd issue. See Absolutely.
What was unsettling about the article wasn’t the study itself, or even its findings, but rather the author’s conclusion:
However, an intriguing characteristic emerged among participants in high-power states who felt they did not deserve their elevated positions. These people showed a similar tendency to that found in low-power individuals—”to be harsh on themselves and less harsh on others—”but the effect was considerably more dramatic. They felt that others warranted a lenient 6.0 on the morality scale when stealing a bike but assigned a highly immoral 3.9 if they took it themselves. Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky call this reversal —hypercrisy—.
They argue, therefore, that people with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it, but also because they feel at some intuitive level that they are entitled to take what they want. This sense of entitlement is crucial to understanding why people misbehave in high office. In its absence, abuses will be less likely. The word —privilege— translates as —private law—. If Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky are right, the sense which some powerful people seem to have that different rules apply to them is not just a convenient smoke screen. They genuinely believe it.
What explains hypercrisy is less obvious. It is known, though, from experiments on other species that if those at the bottom of a dominance hierarchy show signs of getting uppity, those at the top react both quickly and aggressively. Hypercrisy might thus be a signal of submissiveness—”one that is exaggerated in creatures that feel themselves to be in the wrong place in the hierarchy. By applying reverse privileges to themselves, they hope to escape punishment from the real dominants. Perhaps the lesson, then, is that corruption and hypocrisy are the price that societies pay for being led by alpha males (and, in some cases, alpha females). The alternative, though cleaner, is leadership by wimps.
Rather stark: Be led by the immoral and unethical, or be led by the weak.
The problem of course is that business is unethical at its roots because its core motivations are not based on a system of ethics. The Economist, being the creature that it is, places no stress whatsoever on ascribing to a system of comprehensive ethics. They would likely agree that the strongest motivation in business is profit. As such the alphas tend to succeed because they stay married to the goal and its achievement, regardless of cost. I would bet that if slavery were legal again, and it could be carried off economically, business would opt for the lower cost of production.
In discussion of business ethics the maxim: ‘unethical behavior invites risk’ is often cited. But what is the risk? The risk (if you are not a believer) is jail, fines, and lawsuits. Others state, ‘unethical business practices create ill-will among customers,’ usually coupled with ‘unethical businesses are bound to fail.’ I would posit that these maxims only point to the most obvious examples like ENRON, rather than the stuff that has been swept under the rug.
There’s a great History of Business Ethics by Richard T. De George that points to the religious underpinnings of ethics and the evolution of business ethics. When Good People Do Bad Things at Work by Dennis J. Moberg points to behaviors that contribute to unethical business behavior. To his point about Moral Exclusion:
A final problem that brings out the worst in good people is the very human tendency to morally exclude certain persons. This occurs when individuals or groups are perceived as outside the boundary in which moral values and considerations of fairness apply.
This applies not only in the way he envisions, but in the reverse. As the Economist article points out, business leaders and people of power ordinarily and regularly exclude themselves from moral behavior.
To the Economist article, I would say that while we may self-stratify, we should take efforts to encourage the powerful and those without power to act ethically. This may involve boundaries, and the admission that faith values play a key formative role in people’s behaviors wherever they may be in the strata (I would love to see the study data tied to the religious upbringing and current faith practices of its respondents). But would the common values found in faith and moral codes make us all wimps?