UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Why do individuals and organizations sometimes rationalize decisions that conflict with their stated values?
According to Leah P. Hollis, professor of education policy studies in the Penn State College of Education and SSRI affiliate, the answer may lie in “moral disengagement” — a psychological process through which people justify actions that might otherwise conflict with ethical or institutional standards.
In a recent study published in the International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, Hollis and co-author Gala Campos Oaxaca, a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell University — who received her doctorate in educational psychology from Penn State in 2025 — examined how NCAA Division I athletic programs navigated COVID-19 safety protocols during the pandemic. Using collegiate athletics as a case study, the researchers explored how performance culture, leadership dynamics and competitive pressure can influence decision-making in high-stakes environments.
In the following Q&A, Hollis discussed the concept of moral disengagement, what it can reveal about leadership culture and how these dynamics can emerge across organizations and institutions.
Q: What is moral disengagement, and why is it important to understand in leadership and organizational settings?
Hollis: Moral disengagement occurs when people justify unethical behavior by convincing themselves that the outcome makes the behavior acceptable. In other words, it reflects an “ends justify the means” mindset. For example, if a leader is willing to bend rules, withhold information or sidestep established policies to achieve a goal, that leader may be engaging in moral disengagement. The person may minimize the harm, shift blame or claim that the larger mission makes those choices necessary.
Sustained ethical commitment is important in leadership and organizational settings because leaders shape the ethical climate of an organization. When leaders cut corners or overlook policies, others may begin to see that behavior as acceptable or even expected.
Moral disengagement can normalize misconduct, damage trust, silence employees, and create a culture where results matter more than integrity. Understanding it helps organizations recognize when success is being pursued at the cost of ethics.
Q: Why do high-pressure or performance-driven environments sometimes create conditions for ethical blind spots?
Hollis: High-pressure or performance-driven environments can create ethical blind spots because people may become more focused on relieving pressure or achieving a visible goal than on staying aligned with ethical principles. In many organizational settings, pressure can come from public expectations, leadership demands, performance benchmarks, rankings or reputational concerns. Under that pressure, people may make decisions that reduce immediate tension but are not necessarily the best decisions for the organization or its broader mission.
This is why ethical leadership matters. Leaders must be able to stay grounded in principles, even when external pressure is intense. Research suggests that when organizations tolerate small ethical compromises, larger ones can become normalized over time. This can create a culture where pressure becomes an excuse for poor judgment and where ethical boundaries gradually erode.
Q: Why did you use NCAA Division I athletics as a case study for examining these dynamics? What did the study reveal?
Hollis: NCAA Division I athletics was used as a case study because it is one of the clearest examples of a high-pressure, performance-driven environment in higher education. This pressure exists across public universities, private universities, Ivy League institutions, and historically Black colleges and universities. Regardless of institutional type, athletic programs face intense expectations to field winning teams and generate public visibility. Coaches are often evaluated based on team performance, which creates an unusually intense leadership context.
The pressure is also reinforced by boosters, donors, media coverage, television contracts, conference rivalries and endorsements. Athletic programs operate under constant public scrutiny, with extensive media attention and public investment. That level of visibility can make winning feel urgent and all-consuming.
The study suggests that in some high-performing athletic programs, maintaining performance may at times take precedence over strict adherence to public health protocols. To compete at the highest levels, teams must focus on training, competition, nutrition, travel and injury rehabilitation. During the pandemic, COVID-19 protocols may have been viewed by some as barriers to performance rather than essential public health protections. This highlights how, in high-pressure environments, leaders may experience ethical blind spots when compliance, safety or institutional responsibility seem to conflict with winning or external expectations.
Q: How can organizations maintain accountability and ethical decision-making during periods of intense pressure or uncertainty?
Hollis: Organizations can maintain accountability and ethical decision-making during periods of intense pressure or uncertainty by committing to ethical standards before a crisis occurs. This commitment must be reflected in practice, not just in policy. Whether an organization is dealing with misconduct, external pressure or public scrutiny, its ethical principles must be consistent and enforceable.
Leaders need to establish clear policies, transparent decision-making processes, and accountability structures before they are tested. During a crisis, organizations should rely on those established principles rather than making decisions based on convenience, fear, favoritism or reputational pressure. Ethical decision-making also requires documentation, open communication, and a willingness to apply standards consistently across all levels of an organization.
If an organization wavers in its commitment to ethics through inconsistency, apathy, or selective enforcement, members quickly learn that the stated commitment is hollow. People lose faith in leadership when ethics are only applied when convenient. In contrast, organizations build trust when they uphold ethical standards consistently, especially when doing so is difficult, unpopular or costly.