Ethical Decision-Making and Cognitive Dissonance

Business ethics are guidelines for appropriate conduct in corporate environments and situations provided through principles and standards (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2016). The conventions are subject to change over time and are structured by organizational stakeholders. There are various sources of the policies and standards encoded in business ethics. The distinct set of values encoded by organizations differs, which also posits potential differences with individuals in and out of the firm. Some influencers of difference in ethical decision-making are individual and societal differences.

Personal Factors Influencing Ethical Decision-Making

The most influential individual factors influencing my ethical decision-making are my moral philosophy, ethical intention, and personal goals. Moral philosophy codifies my perception of right and wrong, controlled by nature and nurture (Pohling et al., 2015). My definition of virtue and morality complies with Christian virtues and culturally appropriate conduct. I am ideally driven to support morally applicable terms. I acknowledge the ethical problem at hand in every cause and evaluate its end-objective. The insight from such an analysis informs my decision whether or not to support it. I also assess whether my support for ethical decision-making promotes or inhibits achieving my ambitions. I may comply with actions that do not align with these goals, but I have higher motivation for those that do.

Social Factors Influencing Ethical Decision-Making

Social differences are not as significant influencers in comparison to individual factors. Some social influencers that dictate my support or lack of achievement, affiliation, and opportunity in an ethical dilemma. My affiliation with various groups in the community is a determinant of my support for specific causes. The assessment in light of affiliations includes the cause’s stance on developing and sensitivity to my affiliations. I also consider how my support in ethical decision-making contributes to community achievement. Such a perception supports initiatives that promote social welfare and improve the community. However, I do not support causes with large opportunities. The term identifies initiatives that have a large lee-way which either promotes or does not correct ethical misconduct.

Strategy to Decrease Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance defines the experience of mental discomfort brought about by conflicting ethical scenarios from opposing attitudes or beliefs. In practice, decision-making, effort, and forced compliance are the major contributors to cognitive dissonance. One strategy I use to realign my ideal with the appropriate actions to decrease cognitive dissonance is changing my beliefs to realign with the current situation. I opt for the strategy because it involves researching both sides of the conflicting ethical scenario (McGrath, 2017). The study also includes the merits of the opposing arguments and the feasibility of applying the research findings to my current situation. Though the strategy proves time-consuming, the insight is relevant in assuring a consonant relationship between my ideals and the case.

Strategy to Increase Cognitive Dissonance

Other situations require an increase in cognitive dissonance to align the preferred cause of action with my ideals. The strategy that proves more dependable in such an approach increases the significance of the cognitions (McGrath, 2017). The dissonance and consonance of beliefs and actions is a subjective relationship. Such a foundation informs me that any approach to improve or reduce either of the two is plausible through an altered perception. For me, increasing the significance of the cognitions involves engaging with similar-minded individuals and engaging them in the context. The insight influences my re-alignment of my perception with the necessary actions.