paper

    1  

Dr.  O’Brien  

Case  Study  #3  

26  February  2009  

Kohlberg  and  “What  Price  Safety?”  

How  should  we  deal  with  this  problem?  This  is  the  question  that  every  

company  must  answer  at  one  point  or  another,  and  it  is  the  question  Motorola  was  

faced  with  in  the  case  “What  Price  Safety?”.  Tommy,  an  employee,  was  refusing  to  

wear  his  protective  goggles  in  accordance  with  safety  regulations  and  so  his  

supervisor,  Victor,  eventually  “lost  control  of  his  temper…and  slapped  him  several  

times,”  (“What  Price  Safety?”).  Tommy  now  suffers  from  hearing  impairment.  

However,  while  it  is  never  okay  for  a  supervisor  to  hit  another  employee,  we  will  see  

that  he  may  not  have  had  a  choice  because  Tommy  was  behaving  at  such  a  low  

moral  level.  This  paper  will  focus  mainly  on  classifying  the  actions  of  the  two  

employees  based  on  Lawrence  Kohlberg’s  stages  of  judgment,  and  determining  the  

best  decision  for  Motorola  to  make.  

  Lawrence  Kohlberg  was  not  the  first  person  to  classify  individuals  into  stages  

based  on  their  moral  judgment.  In  fact,  Kohlberg  actually  modeled  his  taxonomy  off  

of  that  of  Jean  Piaget,  a  Swiss  philosopher  who  was  well  known  for  his  theory  of  

cognitive  development.  (Huitt)  “Piaget  studied  many  aspects  of  moral  judgment,  but  

most  of  his  findings  fit  into  a  two  stage  theory,”  (Crain).  The  first  stage  included  

children  who  were  younger  than  10  or  11  who  see  rules  or  authority  as  fixed;  rules,  

they  believe,  are  absolute  and  “are  handed  down  by  adults  or  by  God,”  (Crain).  The  

    2  

second  group,  including  all  children  older  than  11  years  of  age,  believes  that  rules  

are  negotiable,  if  all  parties  are  willing  and  the  circumstances  allow.  

  Kohlberg  decided  to  take  this  type  of  thinking  even  further.  Doing  so,  “he  

uncovered  six  stages,  only  the  first  three  of  which  share  many  features  with  Piaget’s  

stages,”  (Crain).  These  six  stages  (seven  if  you  count  stage  zero,  which  was  

developed  at  a  later  date)  are  phases  that  people  go  through  to  become  further  

morally  developed  and  can  be  analogized  to  the  stages  that  children  progress  

through  in  order  to  learn  intellectually.  The  first  stages  (stages  0  through  2)  are  pre-­‐

conventional;  that  is,  people  exhibiting  moral  behavior  in  these  phases  are  classified  

as  ethically  immature  or  underdeveloped.  Subsequently,  stages  3  and  4  exhibit  

conventional  morality,  or  what  is  morally  expected  of  a  person  or  group;  stages  5  

and  6  are,  understandably  then,  post-­‐conventional,  with  people  who  are  classified  as  

unusually  developed  morally.    

  In  the  case  “What  Price  Safety?”,  Tommy,  the  worker  who  refused  to  wear  his  

protective  goggles,  was  operating  at  a  stage  one,  if  he  were  to  be  classified  by  

Kohlberg’s  taxonomy.  His  sheer  refusal  to  comply  with  safety  regulations  simply  

because  he  was  not  being  punished  exhibits  his  pre-­‐conventional  morality.  In  a  

stage  one,  or  the  Obedience/Punishment  stage,  individuals  behave  in  a  manner  

where  “the  concern  is  with  what  authorities  permit  and  punish,”  (Crain).  This  means  

that  an  individual  acts  based  only  on  what  the  potential  consequences  could  be.  So,  

because  he  had  not  been  punished  before  the  incident  with  his  supervisor,  he  felt  

that  he  could  keep  on  disregarding  the  rules.    

    3  

  Victor,  Tommy’s  supervisor  in  the  case,  conversely,  is  acting  at  a  higher  level.  

Although  it  may  appear  that  Victor’s  morality  would  be  classified  as  pre-­‐

conventional  (because  it  is  normally  seen  as  ‘wrong’  to  hit  another  person),  it  can  be  

said  that  Victor  was  actually  acting  at  a  stage  four.  At  stage  four,  or  the  Law  and  

Order  stage,  “the  respondent  becomes  more  broadly  concerned  with  society  as  a  

whole,”  (Crain).  Thus,  as  a  supervisor,  it  is  understandable  that  Victor  was  acting  as  

a  leader,  and  was  concerned  with  the  public  order  that  comes  with  his  authority.  It  

was  his  duty  to  be  a  positive  authority  figure  by  reprimanding  Tommy  for  not  

complying  with  Motorola’s  policy.    

  The  company  now  must  decide  how  to,  if  at  all,  reprimand  both  parties  

involved  in  this  case.  As  was  taught  in  class,  a  business  cannot  usually  perform  

above  a  stage  two  or  three,  simply  because  it  has  a  responsibility  to  consider  

multiple  parties  in  making  a  decision.  For  example,  if  Motorola  were  to  make  a  

decision  in  line  with  stage  five,  the  Social  Contract  stage,  they  would  have  to  decide  

to  keep  both  men  on  as  employees.  This  stage  may  even  require  the  company  to  give  

the  men  raises,  as  this  would  be  in  their  best  interest.  Obviously,  this  is  not  a  

potential  decision  for  Motorola,  simply  because  it  has  a  responsibility  to  show  the  

other  employees  that  neither  Victor’s  nor  Tommy’s  actions  will  be  acceptable.    

  Thus,  Motorola  has  to  be  restrained  in  it’s  moral  judgment  and  is  forced  to  

perform  at  a  stage  three,  or  the  Good  Boy/Good  Girl  level.  Here,  the  company  can  

sow  good  will  by  suspending  Victor  and  possibly  moving  him  to  another  

department.  Likewise,  the  company  must  also  sow  good  will  in  the  company  

    4  

through  also  suspending  Tommy  for  his  actions  and  failure  to  comply  with  company  

policy.  In  making  these  decisions,  Motorola  is  allowing  the  men  to  keep  their  jobs,  

which  shows  genuine  interest  for  their  wellbeing,  but  it  is  also  acting  in  an  egoistic  

mindset  in  that  it  must  consider  it’s  own  security  and  the  welfare  of  other  

employees.  Stage  three  actions  are  often  said  to  be  “evaluated  in  terms  of  

intentions”  (www.haverford.edu).  Since  Motorola  would  have  good  intentions  in  

attempting  to  resolve  the  issue  in  this  proposed  way,  the  company’s  actions  would  

be  in  line  with  stage  three  morality,  which  is  the  best  it  can  do.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works  Cited  

“Case  Study,  What  Price  Safety?”  433-­‐435.  

    5  

Crain,  W.C.  “Kohlberg’s  Stages  of  Moral  Development”.  Theories  of  Development.  

Prentice-­‐Hall,  1985.  pp.  118-­‐136.  <http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence

/html/kohlberg.htm>  

 Huitt,  W.,  &  Hummel,  J.  Piaget's  theory  of  cognitive  development.  Educational  

Psychology  Interactive.  Valdosta,  GA:  Valdosta  State  University  2003.  

<http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html>  

“Kohlberg’s  Moral  Stages”  http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/  

kohlberg.stages.html