While reading “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations” I saw that there was a large shift from the person to the exact issue at hand. Jones says that people do not act the same way when approaching situations. The response depends on the moral intensity of what is happening. This makes sense when assessing how you feel when doing a policy workaround compared to releasing a risky product. This is true across all people too.

Jones analyzes moral intensity and breaks it down into simple parts, size of consequences, amount of people that agree it is right or wrong, likelihood of harm, how soon effects arrive, closeness of the affected people, and whether the harm is focused on a few or spread across many. When any of these signals are high, you are likely to notice the moral stakes and think deeper upon the decision. 

What helped the most is action focus. If noticing and following through is more likely with intensity, leaders can account for that. Make the stakes real with stories of users or people that have been affected. Another approach is to reduce the distance between people by listening and following up with them. Add simple early alerts to everyone on the same page. Have clear standards so people are aware of the rules. Have communication be covered frequently on topics such as who to call, when to stop, and how to fix something so they can’t get “stuck”.

I see direct links to real world examples such as recalls, data breaches, and medicine shortages. The main lesson is to not rely on good intentions, have systems that detect problems early and so the response can be quick and help those in need.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/258867

‌