The Courses of Actions to Deal with False Consensus Bias Among Brokers

Midterm Position Paper
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Midterm Position Paper
The parties involved in the case are brokers in social networks, leaders, and individual workers in organizations (Flynn and Wiltermuth, 2010). The brokers have a right to access information from the parties involved. Since brokers act as the missing link, they are tasked with ensuring that information flows between parties. The individual members of an organization have a right to make ethical decisions based on what they believe is right (Downe, Cowell & Morgan, 2016). In doing so, individuals in an organization have the right to determine what the majority stand for in a particular ethical issue before making a decision. Organizational leaders have a right to access greater control over relevant resources by leveraging on their power (Bal, Campbell, Steed & Meddings, 2008). These powerful individuals have a responsibility to consider the perspective of the subordinates.
In the case, Flynn and Wiltermuth (2010) indicate that ethical standards are critical in guiding individuals in making decisions. Ethical standards assist in determining what a majority of the members of an organization believe is appropriate. However, recognizing what is a majority of others consider to be the “right” course of action can be problematic. The tendency of individuals to project their opinions can interfere with their judgements regarding what others consider as ethical. The result is that such individuals give individuals a false sense of being in the majority. Such a move may be problematic because people may learn about their misjudgment when it is already too late.
In order to understand the case, it is essential to examine the link between network centrality and ethical decision making. Being central in a network brings with it a form of power. For instance, an individual at the center of a network has greater access to vital resources like information. Brokers can remain between individuals because of their position in an organization. The ability of brokers to access information about others appears to give them an advantage when it comes to estimating the ethical judgement of others. However, Flynn and Wiltermuth (2010) indicate that the fact that brokers have informational advantage does not make them more accurate in estimating the ethical judgements of others. The insights that brokers can learn about casual conversations is rather superficial, given that people are more likely to discuss “safe” subjects and avoid sensitive ones. Hence, brokers are likely to assume that their views are in line with conventional standards. Brokers are hence more likely to social support for the ethical views.
There are various courses of actions to deal with the problem of false consensus bias among brokers. The first one is for the brokers need to identify their assumptions. Brokers need to realize that some of ...