What has been found to decrease unethical practices and increase positive work behavior?

A Worker Reflection on an Ethical Lapse in an Organization: Dire Consequences for the Worker

When organizations are functioning well, decisions are usually made with consideration of their ethical and moral results, but when organizations are in crisis, as many currently are today, unethical decision-making often takes place. Christensen and Kohls (2003) point out that when organizations are in crisis, they experience continuous turmoil causing crisis after crisis that creates “constant stresses for management and employees” that ultimately increase unethical decisions, worker dissatisfaction, and burnout. The following example shows how even academics are faced with ethical decisions that may affect their careers.

Dr Margo Kingston, a PhD level historian taught at a private church-sponsored college in the mid-west. Several students in one of her classes alerted her to the fact that two students were bragging that they had cheated on her essay test. She found a way to document the students’ cheating on the mid-term and final exams and decided to fail them. She reported their cheating to the Dean of the College but, instead of supporting her, he wanted her to give the students a “D” for the semester. Other students in her class were indignant because they had worked very hard for their grades. She told the Dean that she would not change the grade. The Dean then confided in her that the father of one of the students was currently serving on the state Supreme Court and was a major donor to her university. The message was clear: change the grade or the father would stop contributing to the college.

She told the senior author, “I was changed by the experience. I saw myself as a person of integrity and honor. As a result of the conflict I experienced between my standards and the standards of administration I was denied tenure and never again found a position in an American university. I underwent years of therapy for depression. Several marriages failed. I learned that my experiences were far from unique, which led to much greater understanding of power politics at all levels of society. I have not given up my ideals, but I am now more cautious and strategic in my thinking. I am no longer naïve but the experience has made me feel more empathy for the ethical conflicts I see other people increasingly experiencing in our society.”

In their review of the literature on crisis and unethical behavior, Christensen and Kohls (2003) found that organizational crises limit cognitive abilities, reduce consultation with others in a good position to give advice, and limit sources of information because of time constraints. All of this, the researchers found, increases levels of stress and the potential for unethical decision-making which may have very negative future consequences for everyone involved in the decision.

Bodtker, Jameson, and Katz (2001) argue that managers often demonstrate limited ability to handle the type of conflict in the workplace that often leads to more serious problems including ethical issues. Rather than using it to create new ways of providing services and developing practice theory, managers tend to stifle conflict or use short-term remedies to keep emerging conflict from developing. The authors write (p. 259):

We contend [there is] a western bias that views emotions as counterproductive and a normative belief that conflict is dysfunctional. While academic research has debunked this myth by demonstrating the utility of conflict for achieving productive outcomes such as more vigilant problem solving, the fact remains that many people prefer to avoid or hide conflict. In this paper we offer the argument that to be in conflict is to be emotionally charged. This is especially true in the workplace, where organizational norms explicitly or implicitly tell us what we are supposed to feel (and the emotional expression that is appropriate). To manage conflict more effectively, managers must attend to the role of emotions in conflict and conflict management. By doing so, opportunities for using generative conflict management strategies which serve to stimulate conflict for long-term gain rather than suppressing conflict or leaving it to simmer will develop.

Activity 9.7 Ethics and critical thinking responses

Review the following comments from students. Respond with a rebuttal or counterpoint as to why you agree or disagree with the statements regarding ethics and critical thinking:

Students must make ethical decisions in an online classroom because unethical behaviour there is harder to monitor than on campus. Trusting students makes online classes possible.

Critical thinking can define ethics. In the workforce, there are many unethical decisions made every day. Unethical decisions often hurt the minority parties involved.

Personally, I do not think ethics can exist without critical thinking. To act in an ethical manner or make an ethical decision, it takes a thought process especially for the person to know his or her truth, evaluate the situation, and make a decision.

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing information to come to a decision. It weighs the possible outcomes and consequences of one’s actions. This is where ethics plays a part in critical thinking. If a person is morally responsible, his or her decisions usually reflect personal ethics.

Critical thinking can be used in one form or another when making ethical decisions. As a general rule, critical thinking requires developing some emotional and intellectual distance between you and your ideas. It is not an emotional decision.

Our pursuit of having more and doing better can cloud our judgment, allowing us to set aside our ethics and values. Critical thinking has no place in ethics.

In my opinion, ethics play a major role in critical thinking. For every situation you may be faced with, you should apply critical thinking to ensure the most positive outcome.

Ethics are related to critical thinking because moral principles should guide our problem solving and decision making. The results of our critical thinking should be logical and moral. Unethical ideas that seem logical fail to recognize the full impact of immoral choices.

Let us connect the aspects discussed about critical thinking in the decision-making process throughout this course. Review Smith’s critical thinking circle™ in Figure 9.1. Reflect on the decision to return to school that a student follows in the critical thinking process.

External and internal factors have a significant role in critical thinking and making informed decisions.

In the middle of the critical thinking circle is the issue that needs critical thinking applied to it. In this scenario, the issue to be addressed is the student returning to school and enrolling in online classes. The thinking process penetrates throughout the circle based on the issue.

Japan

Economic environment – The industrialised, free market economy in Japan is the world’s second largest economy. Japan’s industrial leadership, advanced techniques, well-educated and industrious labour force, high saving rates and intensive foreign trade all contribute to its mature industrial economy. Before the 1990s, Japan had achieved one of the highest economic growth rates in the world, but in the early 1990s, when the ‘bubble economy’ collapsed, Japan’s economy slowed dramatically. Japan has eventually recovered from the post-bubble period and gone through sustained economic growth. However, the economic downturn in 2008, the lack of consumer confidence and increased competition from other countries forced Japanese managers to reconsider their business system and management practices (Warner, 2013).

Organisational characteristic – Japan has a unique organisational form known as Keiretsu, referring to business groups of diverse companies that have close relationships with one another (McGuire & Dow, 2008). Keiretsu is deeply embedded in Japanese industrial business systems. Toyota is, for example, part of such Mitsui Keiretsu. The key benefits for Keiretsu members are access to stable bank financing, insulation from marketing competition, reduction of risk, monitoring of benefits, reduction of information asymmetries and mutual assistance (ibid.). As a result, product or service quality is ensured by companies building trusted relationships with each other.

Management culture – Japanese managers consider unethical practices relating to marketing activities as most unacceptable. Choi and Nakano’s (2008) research found that the top three unethical practices that Japanese managers would most like to eliminate are price collusion, price discrimination and giving of gifts, gratuities and bribes. Furthermore, several empirical studies suggest that company policy is the primary factor influencing managers’ ethical decisions in Japan. For example, Nakano (1997) found that among the factors influencing Japanese managers’ ethical or unethical decisions, company policy is the one of the most important one. Nakano’s study also revealed that Japanese managers tend to choose the interests of the company over their own ethical beliefs when these conflict with each other. Among 45 managers, 42.2 per cent responded that they chose company interests, only 15.6 per cent replied that they chose personal ethics, and the other 42.2 per cent answered, ‘It depends on the situation’ (Nakano, 1997, p. 7). These findings imply that, for Japanese managers, the company provides their primary framework for their ethical decision-making. It follows that Japanese corporations can help managers to make ethical decisions and can reduce their unethical decisions by incorporating ethical values into their organisation.

Consumer perspective – The Japanese consumer marketing is undergoing a significant change, which has a strong impact on the ethical product and consumption process in Japan. The economic boom or the bubble economy in the 1980s led to a movement from ‘active’ consumption (i.e. materialism) towards ‘steady’ consumption (Erffmeyer, Keillor, & LeClair, 1999). ‘Steady’ modern Japanese consumers see themselves as constructive members of society and as having an improved quality of life, rather than focusing on materialistic things. The Japanese culture – including Confucianism, Shintoism and Buddhism – is transcendental in nature. This transcendentalism affects Japanese working ethics, with an emphasis on groups. In the group environment, a group is regarded as superior to its individuals. Kyosei, which is related to Confucianism, emerged as a significant impact on organisational conduct in Japan (Boardman & Kato, 2003). Kyosei supports the right of businesses to make a profit as long as this is obtained by just and fair means. Japanese consumers, unlike those of other developed nations, are almost exclusively identified with one single ethnic group. This Shinto-based culture emphasises the individual’s responsibility to the group, including family, employer and society at large. This culture movement in Japan suggests that the Japanese are moving back to a more traditional role of individual responsibility within society, tending to possess a set of relatively rigid ethical standards. The second impact of the economic recession in the early 1990s was that Japanese consumers are also becoming more price sensitive. Thus, consumers tend to be more reluctant to accept unfair prices.

Fair trade issue in Japan – The fair trade market in Japan is at a turning point for growth and development. According to the Institute for International Trade and Investment’s (ITI) survey on Japan, the Japanese fair trade market size grew steadily from 7.3 billion yen in 2007 to 8.1 billion yen in 2008. Licence fees paid to Fairtrade Labeled (FLJ) have kept increasing by more than 40 per cent annually since 2004 (ITI, 2009). These positive trends indicate the potential spreading of fair trade in Japan. However, compared to other developed nations, the market size for Japan is still too small. Organisations also show limited interest in fair trade compared to the worldwide attention it receives. Only around 40 companies in Japan have entered the fair trade market with the licensees of FLJ. Moreover, in the USA and other most European countries, more than 80 per cent of consumers are aware of fair trade (GMO Japan Market Intelligence, 2011), while in Japan only a limited number of consumers are aware of it. A report by GMO Research, an online market research firm, shows that compared with Korea and Taiwan, Japan’s awareness level remained lowest. Specifically, over 50 per cent of respondents said, ‘I have not heard of fair trade.’ Regarding to the question of ‘What fair trade products in the lists do you know?’, nearly 60 per cent of the respondents said, ‘No idea about specific fair trade products’ (GMO Japan Market Intelligence, 2011). This low awareness among consumers is mainly due to poor media coverage and the lack of support from central authorities.

Procrastination: temporal self as other

As we have seen, people who procrastinate rarely project themselves to the future (Sirois, 2014a) and feel less connected to their future self (Blouin-Hudon & Pychyl, 2015; Sirois, Shucard, & Hirsch, 2014). The question then remains: why do people who procrastinate experience such present-future self-discrepancies? Our investigation can be guided by the idea that people do not naturally feel similar to a self that extends too far into the past or future. Since people experience multiple selves throughout their lives, how connected one feels to these selves may depend upon the time that has passed between each self (Parfit, 1971, 1987). However, people who procrastinate seem to feel more disconnected than the average person to future selves that are fairly close in time, such as tomorrow’s, next week’s, or next month’s self (Sirois et al., 2014). This suggests that connecting with any future self may be difficult for procrastinators, no matter the temporal horizon of that self.

Two potential and related views on why this may be hinge on research noting that procrastination is related to negative self-evaluations, as well as a tendency toward cognitive escape. Several studies have demonstrated that procrastination as a behavior and a more enduring tendency is associated with negative self-evaluations in general (Flett, Stainton, Hewitt, Sherry, & Lay, 2012; McCown, Blake, & Keiser, 2012), self-blame (Sirois & Kitner, 2015), low self-esteem (Effert & Ferrari, 1989; Ferrari, 2000), low levels of self-compassion (Sirois, 2014b), and a tendency to be unkind and harshly self-critical toward oneself in instances of failure (Neff, 2003). This and other evidence indicating that procrastination is linked to negative automatic and ruminative thoughts about past procrastination (Flett et al., 2012; Stainton, Lay, & Flett, 2000) suggests that these types of negative evaluations may engender future self-discontinuity insomuch that self-derogating thoughts foster disconnection from the self and all its temporal extensions, including the future self.

The seeds of disconnection from the future self may be further cultivated by procrastinators’ tendency to engage in unrealistic and wishful thinking about their capabilities in the future. Rationalizing that it is acceptable to put off necessary tasks, because the future self will somehow be more capable, less tired, and in a better mood than the present self, can provide a temporary sense of relief that nonetheless creates more distance to the future self. Building up the future self to superhero status may be a kind of wishful thinking that is born out of low present self-regard, and reflects a tendency to dissociate from the self and become absorbed in pleasurable alternatives to unpleasant realities (Sirois, 2014c). This wishful thinking comes at a cost though by creating an even greater sense of discrepancy and psychological distance to this mythical future self. Because we tend to associate discrepancy and psychological difference with temporal distance (Peetz & Wilson, 2008), viewing the future self this way will contribute to feeling even more disconnected to various future selves, regardless of the temporal horizon with which they are associated.

The irregular self-discontinuities experienced by procrastinators may also be explained in part by present self-biases. In fact, research has found that certain people exhibit present self-biases that can make it difficult to perceive their future self as an extension of who they are today (Pronin & Ross, 2006; Wakslak, Nussbaum, Liberman, & Trope, 2008). In a study by Pronin and Ross (2006), participants were given a list of opposing adjectives such as “serious–carefree,” “cooperative–competitive,” and “introverted–extraverted,” and asked to circle the adjective that more accurately represented themselves today, themselves in 5 years, a friend today, and a friend from 5 years ago. Participants also had the option to circle “variable/depends on the situation” for traits that did not always feel stable across situations. Results indicated that participants ascribed stable personality traits to their future self and past friend, while they perceived their present self as more flexible across circumstances. This demonstrates that some people may be naturally inclined to perceive their future self as someone that does not behave like them, and who in turn will react to challenges and unpleasant situations differently than they do.

Neuroscience research parallels these findings by illustrating that for some people, certain areas of the brain activate differently for their future self than for their present self. In a study by Ersner-Hershfield, Wimmer, and Knutson (2009a), participants low on future self-continuity showed similar neural activations when they thought about their future self as when they imagined a stranger. Specifically, the cortical midline structures of the brain responsible for self-evaluation, communicating socioemotional significance, and weighing information according to motivational importance were activated when low future self-continuity participants thought about themselves, but not when they thought of others or of their own future self (Ersner-Hershfield, Wimmer, & Knutson, 2009a; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004).

Interestingly, an important entity of the cortical midline structure, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), is connected to brain structures related to cognition, emotion, and reward processing (Ongur, An, & Price, 1998; Vogt & Pandya, 1987). One role of the ACC is to detect discrepancies between a habitual response tendency and a competing goal—such as resisting present temptations or unpleasant emotions to favor long-term gains—and signal the need for increased cognitive control regarding these competing states (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001; McClure, Botvinick, Yeung, Greene, & Cohen, 2007).

The fact that the ACC is not activated when thinking of the future self for people experiencing low future self-continuity indicates that competing emotional and goal states experienced in the present may not be perceived as relevant for the future self. In other words, people might nonconsciously suppose that the future self will adaptively cope with aversive tasks; that a similar situation will not once again provoke negative emotions culminating in short-term mood repair and inevitably perpetuate the cycle of procrastination.

Broad bracket

Whenever the cost of a single unethical decision is negligible (i.e., a one time occurrence), grouping multiple decisions that involve a temptation together in a broad frame can help people to better identify a self-control conflict [10,21,22]. In the ethical domain, we would expect, for example, that an environmentalist who is tempted to take long hot showers, would be more likely to resist this temptation when she thinks about the multiple showers she will take in her lifetime compared with the one shower she plans to take today. By using a wider frame for this decision, this individual will consider a larger and more significant impact on the environment, which can help her identify the conflict. Some evidence comes from research showing that people may cheat ‘a little bit’ [19•], as the cost of that one instance of cheating is seen as negligible. However, if they look at all the opportunities they have to cheat, the costs add up and they will be more likely to identify cheating as posing an ethical dilemma.

In other research, Sheldon and Fishbach [12] had participants report their behavior across six different work-related ethical dilemmas (adopted from [23]), each describing an ethically questionable behavior (e.g., downloading copyrighted materials without paying on company time, intentionally pacing work slowly to avoid additional tasks, calling in sick when actually just tired, and taking office supplies home for personal use). Participants who made decisions about these ethical dilemmas in isolation from each other, on separate screens (narrow bracket) reported greater intention to behave unethically than those who first read the entire set of dilemmas before making decisions about each (broad bracket).

Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities

Global demand for commodities from tropical agroecosystems is high and even increasing, but there is also growing concern that social and ecological standards are low [1]. Buying such products often means an unethical decision, as their production may neglect farmer needs, involve child labor, or cause severe damage to the environment. Hence, consumers and producers increasingly take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and demand commodities meeting the UN sustainability goals [e.g., sustainable development goal (SDG) 12 and interconnected goals such as SDG 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 15)] [2], envisioning a world where human land use is resilient and sustainable. Promoting agricultural sustainability thus requires land use strategies that balance human and ecological needs, including increased understanding and management of ecosystem services that are often not acknowledged by the market. Here, we examine current socio-ecological challenges and opportunities in the transformation from low-standard mass commercialization of bulk crops to quality oriented strategies in line with global sustainability goals.

Tropical agroforestry systems (crops grown together with trees) form a complex vegetation structure that resembles natural forests more than any other farming system. This is both in individual fields (when crops and shade trees are grown together) and on farms (where trees provide shelter, marketable resources, and additional income), as well as at broader landscape scales. At these broader landscape scales, both agriculture and forest contribute to the provision of ecosystem services. Coffee (mainly Coffea canephora and Coffea arabica) and cacao (Theobroma cacao) are among the largest legally traded international commodities and provide income for over 30 million smallholders worldwide, predominantly in developing countries. These countries differ greatly in terms of cultivation history and conditions [3]. Native to the understory of African and South American forests, respectively, these crops require shade, especially in early stages of cultivation. Non-crop shade trees and other companion trees promote biodiversity in agroforestry systems, while creating opportunities for sustainable food production and income that enhance rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation [3].

Optimizing the ecological and economic potential of tropical agroforestry systems is challenging. For example, although intermediate shade tree diversity has no negative effect on cacao or coffee yield, there is still a tendency to remove shade trees within plantations, with harmful effects on biodiversity [3]. Paradoxically, in times of global environmental change, agricultural intensification at local and landscape scales tends to promote land-use systems with a narrow genetic basis. Such genetically simplified systems are less resilient and more vulnerable to diseases, disturbances, extreme weather events, and climate change [4] and, accordingly, can lead to major yield and income losses.

Coffee and cacao agroforestry systems form the basis of a multibillion-dollar industry, commercialization of which is largely oriented towards mass production, often at the expense of quality and sustainability. Despite increased availability of certification incentives, agricultural policies and development programs worldwide push farmers towards intensification, with a focus on crop expansion and increased productivity. This is done irrespective of smallholder needs for farming systems that are economically viable over the long term [5,6]. This often involves elimination of complex vegetation structure in the farms, increased use of pesticides and other agrochemicals, and reduced benefits from ecosystem services [3].

However, increasing global awareness that tropical agroforestry systems need to become more sustainable is changing the demand from international markets [7]. For example, Nelson and Phillips [7] provide a list of 36 ‘key cocoa sustainability initiatives in West Africa’, including programs of renowned traders and manufacturers such as Mars, Hershey, and Ferrero. Their list also includes five different cacao standards and certifications, as well as multi-stakeholder projects. However, such programs by far do not yet exist for all growing regions and varieties of tropical cash crops. Existing initiatives also appear to be expandable in terms of the integration of ecosystem services [8], the consideration of genetic diversity [9], and the working conditions of farmers [10].

New economic demands include enhanced socio-ecological standards, such as increased income to address farmer concerns and support prohibition of child labor, in combination with environmentally friendly production practices [5,6]. Increased interest in socio-ecological sustainability by consumers creates opportunities to sell high-quality products at higher prices that are better aligned with global sustainability goals [5,6]. This trend generates prospects for agroforestry systems that utilize native crop varieties, traditional cultivation methods, and forms of production that account for local cultivation opportunities and producer needs. This could also promote sustainable social and ecological development, including the conservation of healthy and resilient ecosystems and services.

5.2.4 Practicing self-control

Our arguments in this chapter suggest that the presence of others who behave dishonestly or to whom we compare unfavorably increases unethical behavior. Thus, a fourth strategy for regaining control of one's moral compass is to better understand why unethical decisions are often tempting and to shore up our resources to resist those temptations. More specifically, when individuals have the opportunity to profit from a dishonest act, whether they behave dishonestly or not depends on how they resolve a motivational conflict between short- and long-term benefits. In the short term, benefits commonly consist of gains that advance one's self-interest. In contrast, acting honestly brings long-term rewards, such as social acceptance and consistency with one's desire to be ethical and viewed positively by others.

Scholars who distinguish between a “want” self (dominated by intuitive, affective, and automatic processes) and a “should” self (dominated by rational, cognitive, and controlled processes) and describe the ethical consequences of these two selves pose a similar argument (Tenbrunsel et al., 2010). Even the simple act of identifying why the “want” self is at odds with the “should” self may lead us to understandings that do not cave so quickly to the visceral desires of the “want” self (Bazerman, Tenbrunsel, & Wade-Benzoni, 1998; Loewenstein, 1996; Wilson & Schooler, 1991).

Perhaps more importantly, the resolution of motivational conflicts requires self-control (Mead, Baumeister, Gino, Schweitzer, & Ariely, 2009). Though the literature on self-regulation has dominantly studied what depletes our self-control rather than what builds it up (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Vohs, 2006), recent research provides evidence that we can build up our reservoir of self-control through practice (Muraven, 2010; Oaten & Cheng, 2007) and by finding ways to affirm personally important values (Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009). Other work is also exploring how self-control can be bolstered through organizational interventions such as task design (Derfler-Rozin, Moore, & Staats, 2013). Self-control is such an important component of moral behavior that finding additional ways to enhance it demands further exploration.

Design ethical infrastructures

Beyond reframing and redesigning tasks, structural interventions also entail redesigning the ethical infrastructure within organizations (Smith-Crowe et al., 2014; Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, & Umphress, 2003). Formal systems such as hotlines where employees can easily and anonymously report unethical behavior are values-centered structural interventions that provide individuals access to resources when they are facing ethical challenges or observing others making unethical decisions (Smith-Crowe et al., 2014; Tenbrunsel et al., 2003; Trevino, 1990; Weaver, Treviño, & Cochran, 1999). These infrastructures may be particularly helpful in transforming organizations that have strong norms of dishonesty. More recently, research has found that these formal systems that integrate values and structures are particularly effective when informal systems—which signal to employees appropriate organizational conduct—actually push individuals to behave unethically (Smith-Crowe et al., 2014). In contexts with strong norms to act dishonestly, introducing interventions using a single approach, as noted in prior sections, may send mixed messages that generate adverse effects. In contrast, introducing organizational infrastructures that integrate both values and structural considerations may be critical to creating new norms of ethical behavior in these organizations while reducing the risk of adverse effects.

Optimal moral humility: ethical learning

We expect people with high moral humility to have a motivation to refine their moral character (being aware of personal moral short-comings) and to recognize opportunities to learn from other people (as they appreciate others’ moral strengths and capabilities). This combination of awareness, motivation, and opportunity recognition will lead the humble to be morally teachable—that is, open to people and experiences that can help them grow and develop, from a moral perspective.

Furthermore, in the aftermath of an unethical decision, we expect those with moral humility to be self-reflective. They will be more likely to acknowledge that their choice was a mistake, rather than seeking to justify it. And after non-defensively accepting that there is a discrepancy between their behavior and the person they want to become, we expect them to seek ways to learn from their past mistakes. This ethical learning (see Chugh & Kern, 2016) will then positively influence the way they approach future situations (i.e., with an ethical learning orientation) and lead them to develop further moral safeguards to help bridge the gap between their moral values and their behavior.

Even in the aftermath of a morally virtuous behavior—such as a random act of kindness, or a courageous display of integrity—we assert that having moral humility will enable people to learn more from their experience, as they are more inclined to realize that their exemplary behavior is only one small part of a larger whole. Considering the positive potential outcomes of behaving virtuously (Haidt & Kesebir, 2010)—e.g., praise from others, feelings of social worth, positive emotions—those with optimal moral humility may be more likely to realize that future self-interest might inhibit such virtuous behavior in the future (and the attendant positive outcomes), resulting in a motivation to learn how to institutionalize moral goodness in one’s life. In sum, we argue that following a morally virtuous behavior, instead of feeling licensed to subsequently behave unethically (Monin & Miller, 2001; Kouchaki & Jami, 2018), those with high moral humility might be more self-reflective and morally teachable, which can enhance their ethical learning and moral development.

1 Introduction

In the context of the backlash against globalization, and the negative publicity and scandals that have marred the private and public sectors (Milanovic, 2016), there has, perhaps, never been a more important time to renew our focus on social and emotional learning (SEL). Newspaper columns are bursting with demonstrations of ethical misconduct by those in the highest echelons of society including top executives being prosecuted for displaying discriminatory attitudes toward minorities or the opposite sex, banking bailouts, abuse of power, tax evasion, fraud, environmental degradation, waste disposal, physical abuse, government officials accepting gifts/donations and oppression in academia (Putnam, 2000; Taleb, 2007). Professionals across public and private industry are increasingly subjected to higher levels of scrutiny and accountability by media and interest groups. The penalties for unethical decision-making can include a reduction in employees' morale and public trust, damage to one's reputation, humiliation, interruption to daily business routines, considerable fines and diminished interest from potential employees (Nash, 1993). In higher education, the role of the academy is to encourage scholarly debate and challenge ideas in pursuit of truth. However, faculty and students are calling for protection from ideas and words they dislike, thereby propagating a fragility of the university psyche that can ultimately prove dangerous to the scholarship and quality of the academy (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015, 2018). At the same time, academic freedom carries responsibilities. It is critical to address the disregard for responsible decision-making in a society that has been evidenced by the global economic crisis (van Hoorn, 2015).

SEL is important not only for individual behavior but also in terms of shaping society as defined by its institutions, rules and laws that facilitate societal-level cooperation. However, little consensus has emerged on conceptualizing and measuring SEL. Furthermore, high-quality research is needed to better understand SEL and its sub-domains (Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley & Weissberg, 2017). Therefore, this study aims to examine responsible decision-making, one of the social emotional competence sub-domains, and explore the magnitude of the relationship between decision-making and a number of personal and psychological characteristics. Responsible decision-making is measured using the Defining Issues Test (DIT, Rest, 1979a; Rest, Narvaez, Thoma & Bebeau, 1999). In the next section, the conceptual frameworks of SEL are examined, namely the association between moral reasoning (MR) and each of the following: academic achievement, religiosity, political orientation and personality. To help problematize these relationships, a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was completed. The methodology is described and findings are presented. Finally, possible ways of interpreting the findings are examined.