How Great a Violation: The second way to assess the size of any cheat is turn to the second criterion and ask: to How much violation has taken place? To what extent is the purpose of our lying alienating any sense of personal or civic responsibility? Some cheating is more egregious than other cheating. This assessment of violation is often culture dependent. Adultery (Intimate relationships with someone outside a formal, committed relationship such as marriage) is often common and readily accepted in some societies. Men from the middle and upper class, in particular, might be expected to have a sexual partner on the side, or to have frequent sexual engagements outside their committed relationship. By contrast, in other societies adultery is punishable by even death (often by stoning) – especially if a woman is the perpetrator. Gender does play a major role in determining the nature and extent of violation in many societies.
The matter of violation in the filing of tax reports and in other financial engagements is determined not so much by cultural norms as by political perspectives. Political parties in some countries tend to look the other way or even open the door for underreporting of revenues and for bribery of public officials. Doing “business” in many countries requires the movement of money “under the table” and the exchange of other favors (such as appointment to public office).
Cheating might be punishable by death in a domestic (family) setting, but not in the operation of a family-owned factory or trucking company. Thus, it is important when assessing the extent of cheating to view it withing the context of the norms and values of the setting in which the cheating occurred. Hard Cheating in some settings might be judged Soft Cheating in other settings. This might be an important point for professional coaches to keep in mind when working with a client who has cheated. Cross-cultural reflections might yield critical insights for the client.
How Much Harm: The third criterion is often the most important. It is most likely to be dissonant with regard to the purpose of our lying and attendant behavior. This dissonance can, in turn, either lead to reform in one’s behavior or to establishing a set of beliefs that justify the lying and underlying purpose. We will have much more to say about this matter of dissonance later in this essay.
Ultimately, the fundamental question is: How big is the potential or actual harm? And who is being harmed? We can set aside norms and standards of behavior and even ignore the size and scope of the cheating. The factor that we can’t ignore is the harm being done. How then do we assess the extent of harm that is produced by the cheating behavior? We can, of course, see if there is any direct physical harm. This is usually not the case. Psychological harm and indirect and delayed physical harm (caused by recurrent stress) are much more likely to result from cheating. Furthermore, this harm might be self-inflicted. The cheater is often the first and most immediate recipient of the psychological harm (as we shall explore later in this essay).
Obviously, the harm is often very close-to-home when domestic cheating occurs (such as adultery) and is often wide-spread and delayed when cheating occurs in an organizational setting. In many cases, it is easier to assess “harm” in an organizational setting if it involves finances then if it involves employee morale or working relationships between departments. Extent of physical illness (as reflected in absenteeism and use of medical services) and levels of productivity are also rather easy to measure as ways of assessing “harm.” The psychological harm, however, might be of greatest importance, especially if a professional coach is contracted to provide humane services (“reduce harm”) as well as help improve the financial bottom line of their client’s organization.
Download Article 1K Club
