Conditioned to compromise: The overriding power of moral disengagement

Words have the power to shape beliefs, actions, perceptions of the world, and influence decisions.

Words can also, intentionally or unintentionally, encourage moral disengagement through euphemistic labeling. Euphemistic language is words used to soften the emotional impact of an action, behavior, or situation and reduce feelings of personal responsibility. Some uses of euphemistic language, such as saying a person passed away versus died, occur as a matter of social grace to soften painful experiences. Euphemistic language can also be used to portray a negative situation in a more positive light, such as when we say “economically disadvantaged” instead of poor. In the business world, we are surrounded by euphemistic language, some of which emerged to describe ethical problems or moral dilemmas succinctly. For example, creative accounting originally meant financial manipulation intended to mislead stakeholders and had a negative connotation. It was not a term that accountants or organizations wanted associated with them. Likewise, facilitation payments, otherwise known as bribes, were generally taboo. However, these phrases do not carry the same negative weight they used to carry. The challenge with euphemistic language is that repetition affects people’s perceptions of blame, blunts their emotional impact, and encourages individuals to act unethically. Over time, the phrase becomes disconnected from the original ethical dilemma and makes it easier for people to compromise their values through a process of moral disengagement. In essence, reframing through euphemistic language enables distancing from personal responsibility.

I stumbled upon the concept of moral disengagement while I was conducting research for an ethical leadership project during my doctoral studies. I was surprised I had not encountered the term before, considering the amount of reading I had done post-Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco fraud cases. The more I researched the concept, the more convinced I became of its importance for business leaders. Moral disengagement helped explain the mechanics behind ethical drift, a psychological concept I had taught for years. Moral disengagement also explained how people could engage in conflicting behaviors while espousing strong moral convictions. My conviction about the power of moral disengagement is why I anchored OSCPA’s Avoiding the Slippery Slope ethics course around the concept. In this article, I unpack the reframing process that underlies moral disengagement. The reframing process occurs at the individual, team, organization, industry, and societal levels and conditions individuals, with otherwise strong moral bearings, to compromise. As we begin our discussion, it’s important to note that this reframing process is psychological in nature, which means it often happens below our conscious radar. I teach this concept to raise awareness of it, hoping that we will become far more intentional with our words and challenge the pictures we’re creating within our organizations and with our stakeholders. So, let’s dig in.

I do not remember my first “little” white lie. Do you? I’m pretty sure the lie was said to be nice and spare someone’s feelings because that was the polite thing to do. I am also pretty sure my face gave me away as it still does today. I doubt that my parents thought much about the impression that approving my telling of a little white lie would leave. But, the notion that a slight fabrication, a stretching of the truth, or a play on words is socially okay when done to benefit the other person stayed with me. I also could not pinpoint the first time I put a positive spin on my recount of events to lighten the environment and lessen my punishment. However, I can confidently state that my mother did not put me through a class on reframing or storytelling as a child. I just picked up that skill along the way by observing social interactions, such as the way that reframing works. At its heart, reframing is a dynamic phenomenon that develops through social learning (or observation). We learn how to influence our world through words by observing others do the same. Much of our reframing is well-intentioned, done to protect and preserve. However, reframing can have a significant negative impact when trying to build an ethical culture. Reframing allows us to justify unacceptable behaviors, diffuse responsibility, and distance ourselves from consequences. For example, corporate leaders could convince themselves that paying bribes was necessary to avoid outcomes detrimental to both the organizations and the communities that would lose out on economic development dollars and their multiplier effect. In poor economies, this economic justification argument can carry significant weight. Facilitation payments that help pull families out of poverty, allow children to get an education, and uplift the communities – where’s the harm?

Our ability to justify unethical behavior by reframing it using euphemistic language allows us to maintain a positive self-image. Consistent use of euphemistic language normalizes the unethical or questionable behaviors. Once normalized, rationalization is no longer needed as there is no longer a feeling of compromise. It becomes the way business is done. So, how do we tackle our tendency to reframe? First, let me mention what not to do. Do not announce to everyone that you are committed to telling the unvarnished truth to protect yourself from any possibility of ethical compromise, and that dress – not your best look. Instead, commit to noticing the language your organization uses to talk about code or policy violations. Where is softer language being used to make the message more palatable? Listen to the hero stories that are told or celebrated in your organization and think about the subtle message communicated regarding valued behaviors. Are non-compliant behaviors downplayed or ignored? Are ethical issues discussed using open and transparent language or cloaked in corporate speak? Evaluate how you train leaders. Do you teach your leaders ethical reasoning using scenario-based training to help them navigate gray areas where moral disengagement is more likely? Are leaders encouraged to consult with others in critical strategic decisions where rationalization is more likely?

Ultimately, the words we choose shape not only our perceptions but also the ethical behaviors of our teams and the ethical culture of our organizations. When we allow reframing and euphemistic language to blur ethical boundaries, we create an environment where moral disengagement thrives—where once-questionable actions become routine and rationalization replaces responsibility. The challenge, then, is to become more intentional with our language, to recognize when softening reality erodes accountability, and to encourage a culture that values transparency over comfort. Ethical leadership requires us to acknowledge our tendency to reframe situations, confront difficult truths, and commit to fostering integrity in how we speak, think, and act.

By Dr. Tiffany Crosby, PhD, CPA, CGMA, MBA, Senior Vice President, The Ohio Society of CPAs