Can you afford honesty

The researchers conclude that such fears are often misguided. Honest conversations are far more enjoyable for communicators than they expect them to be, and the listeners of honest conversations react less negatively than expected, according to the paper, published in the Journal of Experiment Psychology: General. For purposes of the study, the researchers define honesty as "speaking in accordance with one's own beliefs, thoughts and feelings.

In a series of experiments, the researchers explore the actual and predicted consequences of honesty in everyday life. In one field experiment, participants were instructed to be completely honest with everyone in their lives for three days. In a laboratory experiment, participants had to be honest with a close relational partner while answering personal and potentially difficult discussion questions A third experiment instructed participants to honestly share negative feedback to a close relational partner.

Across all the experiments, individuals expect honesty to be less pleasant and less social connecting than it actually is. View 1 excerpt, cites background. Managing Politics? Good conduct and ethics regulation in English local government. In many countries, an important driver for concern about public values arises from falling trust in public institutions. One widely identified explanation has been the conduct of politicians, to … Expand. View 2 excerpts, cites background.

Concern to foster trust in public institutions has prompted many governments to invest in systems of ethics regulation, embracing various dimensions of good governance. This paper assesses the impact … Expand. Discussions on public sector ethics essentially cover three main issues.

First, how to establish a theoretical argument capable of providing answers to queries about what is considered an ethical and … Expand. Increasing transparency is not always the panacea: An overview of alternative paths to curb corruption in the public sector. Purpose — The purpose of this paper is to argue that the analysis of corruption must distinguish between corruption in organizations where this kind of behaviour is widespread and corruption in … Expand.

How do ethics and transparency practices work in Thailand's local governments. Maintaining good governance practices regarding ethics and transparency in Thailand's local governments is very challenging. The lack of ethics and transparency are due to the abuse of power and … Expand.

Highly Influenced. View 3 excerpts, cites background. This article discusses the honesty of local politicians and public administrators in 17 countries. First, it goes into deontological, consequential, virtue, and dialogic ethics. Based on a large-scale survey, this article concludes that the ethos general principles of honesty is a universal value, which conforms to deontological principles.

Regarding ethics the application of the principle in practice , however, important differences between these local elites are seen. The explanation for these differences is sought at the individual and organizational level. The answer lies firmly in the realm of social and moral behavior, not in finance.

The businesspeople we interviewed set great store on the regard of their family, friends, and the community at large. They valued their reputations, not for some nebulous financial gain but because they took pride in their good names.

Even more important, since outsiders cannot easily judge trustworthiness, businesspeople seem guided by their inner voices, by their consciences. When we cited examples to our interviewees in which treachery had apparently paid, we heard responses like:. They may be rich in dollars and very poor in their own sense of values and what life is about. I cannot judge anybody by the dollars; I judge them by their deeds and how they react.

All the other success we have had is secondary. The importance of moral and social motives in business cannot be overemphasized. A selective memory, a careful screening of the facts may help sustain the fiction of profitable virtue, but the fundamental basis of trust is moral. We keep promises because we believe it is right to do so, not because it is good business.

Cynics may dismiss the sentiments we heard as posturing, and it is true that performance often falls short of aspiration. But we can find no other way than conscience to explain why trust is the basis for so many relationships. At first, these findings distressed us. On further reflection, however, we concluded that this system was fine, both from a moral and a material point of view. The moral advantages are simple. Concepts of trust and, more broadly, of virtue would be empty if bad faith and wickedness were not financially rewarding.

If wealth naturally followed straight dealing, we would only need to speak about conflicts between the long term and the short, stupidity and wisdom, high discount rates and low. It is the very absence of predictable financial reward that makes honesty a moral quality we hold dear.

Trust based on morality rather than self-interest also provides a great economic benefit. Consider the alternative, where trust is maintained by fear. A world in which the untrustworthy face certain retribution is a small world where every one knows and keeps a close eye on! A village, really, deeply suspicious not only of commodities brokers but also of all strangers, immigrants, and innovators. No shades or ambiguities exist here.

They do not take chances on schemes that might fail through the tangled strands of bad faith, incompetence, overoptimism, or plain bad luck. A dark pessimism pervades this world. Opportunities look scarce and setbacks final.

In this world, there are no second chances either. A convicted felon like Thomas Watson, Sr. A Federal Express would never again be extended credit after an early default on its loan agreements. The rules are clear: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Kill or be killed.

Little, closed, tit-for-tat worlds do exist. Trust is self-reinforcing because punishment for broken promises is swift—in price-fixing rings, loan-sharking operations, legislative log rolling, and the mutually assured destruction of nuclear deterrence.

Exceed your quota and suffer a price war. At best such a world is stable and predictable. In outcome, if not intent, moral standards are high, since no one enters into relationships of convenience with the untrustworthy.

On the other hand, such a world resists all change, new ideas, and innovations. It is utterly inimical to entrepreneurship. Fortunately, the larger world in which we live is less rigid.

It is populated with trusting optimists who readily do business with strangers and innovators. People are allowed to move from Maine to Montana or from plastics to baked goods without a lot of whys and wherefores. Projects that require the integrity and ability of a large team and are subject to many market and technological risks can nonetheless attract enthusiastic support.

Optimists focus more on the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow than on their ability to find and punish the guilty in case a failure occurs. Our tolerance for broken promises encourages risk taking. Tolerance also allows resources to move out of enterprises that have outlived their functions. When the buggy whip manufacturer is forced out of business, we understand that some promises will have to be broken—promises that perhaps ought not to have been made.

Even unreconstructed scoundrels are tolerated in our world as long as they have something else to offer. The genius inventors, the visionary organizers, and the intrepid pioneers are not cast away merely because they cannot be trusted on all dimensions.

And this, perhaps unprincipled, tolerance facilitates a dynamic entrepreneurial economy. Fortunately, we have created something that is neither Beirut nor Bucharest. Like a kaleidoscope, we have order and change.

We make beautiful, well-fitting relationships that we break and reform at every turn. We should remember, however, that this third way works only as long as most of us live by an honorable moral compass. And, indeed, we all know of organizations, industries, and even whole societies in which trust has given way either to a destructive free-for-all or to inflexible rules and bureaucracy.

Only our individual wills, our determination to do what is right, whether or not it is profitable, save us from choosing between chaos and stagnation. Reprinted with permission.