Recent research reveals we are not as ethical as we would like to believe. Professor Max H. Bazerman discusses his new book, “Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do. Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It. Max H. Bazerman. Ann E. Tenbrunsel. Copyright Date: Edition: STU - Student edition. “Blind Spots is a bold argument against the decency of human beings, showing how we subvert our ethical principles time and time again. Noting a human.

Follow the Author

Bazerman and Ann E. When confronted with an ethical dilemma, most of us like to think we would stand up for our principles.

But we are not as ethical as we think we are. In Blind Spots, leading business ethicists Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel examine the ways we overestimate our ability to do what is right and how we act unethically bazermzn meaning to. From the collapse of Enron and corruption in the tobacco industry, to sales of the defective Ford Pinto and the downfall of Bernard Madoff, the authors investigate the nature of ethical failures in the business world and beyond and illustrate how we can become more ethical, bridging the gap between who we bazermna and who we want to be.

Article Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. Raiffa Transformed the Field of Negotiation—and Me. Business and Environment Business History Entrepreneurship. Finance Globalization Health Care.

Finance General Management Marketing. Technology and Operations Management.

Book Blind Spots: Print Find at Harvard Purchase. About the Author Max H. He transformed the field of negotiation, and he transformed my career.

Blind Spots: We’re Not as Ethical as We Think - HBS Working Knowledge - Harvard Business School

This brief article provides a recollection of how Howard revolutionized the field of negotiation and how those insights are now affecting broader areas of the social sciences. Innovative ideas and novel methods have been the hallmarks of Linda’s research on diverse topics: When viewed separately, most people favor action in the former and disapprove of action in the latter, despite identical consequences. The difference is often explained in terms of the intention principle—whether the consequences are intended or incidental.

Our results suggest that when the two problems are considered together, a different judgment emerges: In subsequent studies, we find that when required to choose between two harmful actions, people prefer the action that saves more lives, despite its being more aversive.

Blind Spots | Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel

Our findings shed light on the formation of moral judgment under normative conflict, the conditions for preference reversal, and the potential polarization of moral judgment under joint evaluation. Organizational implications are discussed. Find at Harvard Purchase.

Cite View Details Vlind at Harvard.