Studying the forces that erode—and uphold—the human experience of work
The Relational Ethics Lab advances workplace research on ethical leadership, transgressions, mistreatment, moral character, equanimity, trauma, and the full spectrum of workplace behavior—from the dark to the prosocial. Our core philosophy is that ethics at work is a relational act. It isn't just what we do; its how we treat one another. We use evidence-based science to understand what harms people at work, what helps them heal, and what allows them to thrive with integrity. Our research explores both the shadows and the strengths of workplace life, asking how organizations can protect people's humanity.
Psychological trauma has been studied in medicine and psychology for about 40 years, but the business and management world has largely ignored it. This is a problem, because workplaces are actually a significant source of traumatic experiences — think emergency responders, healthcare workers, victims of workplace violence or harassment, or people who witness serious accidents on the job. This paper tries to fix that gap. The researchers did something ambitious: they read and synthesized over 1,500 articles from across medicine, psychology, social science, and business to build a clearer, more unified picture of what workplace trauma actually is and how it works.
First, they defined the thing: "Work-related psychological trauma" sounds obvious, but it gets blurry fast: How is it different from stress, burnout, or just a really bad day at work? The paper draws clearer lines between trauma and these related-but-distinct concepts.
Then, they built a model: Essentially a map of how trauma unfolds for a person over time. Rather than treating trauma as a simple cause-and-effect ("bad thing happens → person is traumatized"), their model recognizes it as a deeply personal, evolving process. It moves through five stages, from the moment a person perceives a potentially traumatic event, through their immediate emotional reaction, their body's physiological response, longer-term recovery, and finally how they react if something similar happens again in the future.
Perhaps the most useful insight is the model's explanation for why the same terrible event can affect two people so differently. Some people come out of trauma more resilient — almost "inoculated" against future distress. Others find themselves protected but not transformed. Still others find that trauma amplifies their sensitivity, or leaves them increasingly reactive to future stressors. The model treats all of these as legitimate, predictable outcomes shaped by each person's unique background, biology, and circumstances, rather than labeling some responses as normal and others as weakness. The practical takeaway is that organizations can't adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to trauma. A policy that works for one employee may be useless or even harmful for another. Understanding trauma as a dynamic, individual process, rather than a checkbox on an HR form, is essential for genuinely supporting workers who've been through something serious. Take a look.
Some people are naturally more honest and humble than others. This is a measurable personality trait that psychologists call "Honesty-Humility." People who score high on it tend to avoid cheating, manipulation, and taking advantage of others. People who score low are more prone to what researchers call "workplace deviance" , things like stealing, cutting corners, or behaving unethically at work. The interesting question this study asks is: does having an ethical boss change how much someone's personality actually influences their behavior?
The short answer is yes. The researchers found that when a leader models ethical behavior i.e., being fair, transparent, and principled, it essentially "activates" the honest tendencies already sitting dormant in employees who have that honest, humble personality. In other words, ethical leadership helps good people act on their good values, rather than just having those values sit unused.
Why does this happen? Mainly because ethical leadership seems to boost employees' moral knowledge — their awareness of what's right and wrong in workplace situations. When people understand ethical expectations more clearly, the naturally honest ones are better equipped to act accordingly and avoid problematic behavior. The practical takeaway is that ethical leadership isn't just about setting rules and consequences. Its bigger impact comes from creating an environment where employees with good values are inspired and informed enough to actually live by them. If you want to reduce misconduct at work, hiring ethical managers may matter just as much as hiring honest employees.
Imagine a coworker wrongs you — maybe they take credit for your work, betray your trust, or treat you unfairly. You're angry and haven't forgiven them. Most of us understand the urge to get back at that person directly. But this research asks a more interesting question: what if you can't easily get back at them, or what if your anger starts bleeding outward?
The researchers found that when someone holds onto unforgiveness toward a specific person at work, that bitterness doesn't always stay neatly contained. It can spill over into bad behavior directed at the organization as a whole — things like slacking off, sabotaging work, or other harmful actions that hurt the company rather than the individual offender. Psychologists call this "displaced revenge."
The key link between the two is a feeling of group betrayal — the sense that if this person did this to me, the whole organization must be complicit, indifferent, or rotten in some way. The wronged person essentially transfers their grievance from the individual to the institution.
But here's where it gets more specific: this effect is much stronger when the offender is closely tied to the organization — for example, if they're a manager, a representative figure, or someone who clearly embodies the company's culture and values. When the wrongdoer seems like "the face of the company," it's much easier for the victim's mind to make the leap from "this person wronged me" to "this company wronged me."
The study also found that this displaced anger toward the organization comes on top of any desire for revenge against the original offender — it doesn't replace it. So the wronged person may want to get back at both the individual and the organization simultaneously. The practical takeaway for managers and organizations is sobering: how leaders and senior employees behave toward individuals isn't just a personal matter. When someone in a position of authority mistreats an employee and goes unaddressed, they risk not just that employee's relationship with them — but with the entire organization.
Our mission is to create workplaces where dignity, humanity, and psychological well-being are foundational.