HR WK6

COGNITIVE MORAL DEVELOPMENT AND ITS PROBLEMS

Many people believe individuals advance through stages of moral development as their knowledge and socialization progress. In this section, we examine a model that describes this cognitive moral development process. Cognitive moral processing is based on a body of liter- ature in psychology that focuses on the study of children and their cognitive development.41 However, cognitive moral processing is also an element in ethical decision making, and many models attempt to explain, predict, and control individuals’ ethical behavior. Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg developed a six-stage model of cognitive develop- ment. Although not specifically designed for business contexts, this model provides an interesting perspective on the issue of moral philosophy in business. According to Kohlberg’s model of cognitive moral development (CMD), people make different decisions in similar ethical situations because they are in different moral development stages. The six stages identified by Kohlberg are as follows:

1. The stage of punishment and obedience. An individual in Kohlberg’s first stage defines right as literal obedience to rules and authority. A person in this stage responds to rules and labels of “good” and “bad” in terms of the physical power of those who determine such rules. Right and wrong are not connected with any higher order or philosophy but rather with a person who has power. Stage 1 is usually associated with small chil- dren, but signs of stage 1 development are also evident in adult behavior. For example, some companies forbid their buyers to accept gifts from salespeople. A buyer in stage 1 might justify a refusal to accept gifts from salespeople by referring to the company’s rule, or the buyer may accept the gift if he or she believes there is no chance of being caught and punished.

2. The stage of individual instrumental purpose and exchange. An individual in stage 2 defines right as what serves his or her own needs. In this stage, individuals no longer make moral decisions solely on the basis of specific rules or authority figures; they evaluate behavior on the basis of its fairness to them. For example, a sales representa- tive in stage 2 doing business for the first time in a foreign country may be expected by custom to give customers gifts. Although gift giving may be against company policy in the United States, the salesperson may decide certain company rules designed for operating in the United States do not apply overseas. In the cultures of some foreign countries, gifts may be considered part of a person’s pay. So, in this instance, not giving a gift might put the salesperson at a disadvantage. Some refer to stage 2 as the stage of reciprocity because from a practical standpoint, ethical decisions are based on an agreement of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” instead of on principles of loyalty, gratitude, or justice.

3. The stage of mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and conformity. Individu- als in stage 3 emphasize the interests of others rather than simply those of themselves, although ethical motivation is still derived from obedience to rules. A production manager in this stage might obey upper management’s order to speed up an assembly line if he or she believed doing so would generate more profit for the company and thus save employee jobs. These managers not only consider their own well-being in deciding to follow the order but also put themselves in upper management’s and fellow employees’ shoes. Thus, stage 3 differs from stage 2 in that fairness to others is one of the individual’s ethical motives.

4. The stage of social system and conscience maintenance. Individuals in stage 4 deter- mine what is right by considering their duty to society, not just to certain other people. Duty, respect for authority, and the maintenance of the social order become the focal points at this stage. For example, some managers consider it a duty to society to pro- tect privacy and therefore refrain from monitoring employee conversations.

5. The stage of prior rights, social contract, or utility. In stage 5, individuals are concerned with upholding the basic rights, values, and legal contracts of society. Individuals in this stage feel a sense of obligation or commitment to other groups—they feel, in other words, that they are part of a social contract—and recognize that in some cases legal and moral points of view may conflict. To reduce such conflict, stage 5 individuals base their decisions on a rational calculation of overall utility. For example, the president of a firm may decide to establish an ethics program because it provides a buffer against legal problems and the firm will be perceived as a responsible contributor to society.

6. The stage of universal ethical principles. A person in this stage believes right is deter- mined by universal ethical principles everyone should follow. Stage 6 individuals believe certain inalienable rights exist that are universal in nature and consequence. These rights, laws, or social agreements are valid not because of a particular society’s laws or customs, but because they rest on the premise of universality. Justice and equality are examples of principles some individuals and societies deem universal in nature. A per- son in this stage may be more concerned with social ethical issues and therefore not rely on the business organization for ethical direction. For example, a businessperson at this stage might argue for discontinuing a product that has caused death and injury because the inalienable right to life makes killing wrong, regardless of the reason. Therefore, company profits are not a justification for the continued sale of the product.42

Kohlberg’s six stages can be reduced to three levels of ethical concern. At the first level, a person is concerned with his or her own immediate interests and with external rewards and punishments. At the second level, an individual equates right with conformity to the expectations of good behavior of the larger society or some other significant refer- ence group. Finally, at the third or “principled,” level, an individual sees beyond the norms, laws, and authority of groups or individuals. Employees at this level make ethical decisions regardless of negative external pressures. However, research shows most workers’ abilities to identify and resolve moral dilemmas do not reside at this third level and their motives are often a mixture of selflessness, self-interest, and selfishness.

Kohlberg suggests people continue to change their decision-making priorities after their formative years, and as a result of time, education, and experience, they may change their values and ethical behavior. In the context of business, an individual’s moral development can be influenced by corporate culture, especially ethics training. Ethics training and education have been shown to improve managers’ cognitive development scores.43 Because of corporate reform, most employees in Fortune 1000 companies today receive some type of ethics train- ing. Training is also a requirement of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations.

Some experts believe experience in resolving moral conflicts accelerates an individ- ual’s progress in moral development. A manager who relies on a specific set of values or rules may eventually come across a situation when these rules do not apply. Suppose Sarah is a manager whose policy is to fire any employee whose productivity declines for four con- secutive months. Sarah has an employee, George, whose productivity suffered because of depression, but George’s coworkers tell Sarah George will recover and soon become a top performer again. Because of the circumstances and the perceived value of the employee, Sarah may bend the rule and keep George. Managers in the highest stages of the moral development process seem to be more democratic than autocratic, and they are more likely than those at lower stages to consider the ethical views of the other people involved in an ethical decision-making situation. Several problems with CMD relate back to its origins. These problems have been termed the three strikes theory. For example, Kohlberg’s original work of CMD came from psychologist and philosopher Jean Piaget’s research with children about the nature and development of intelligence. When Kohlberg transferred Piaget’s theory to adults he did not take into account the full functioning and development of the adult brain (Strike One). From a philosophical perspective CMD argues for a hierarchical or step-like progression of moral philosophies starting from the lowest and going to the highest. This contradicts basic moral philosophy because there is no hierarchy. Each moral philosophy should be equal to the others (Strike Two). Finally, research suggests that CMD has a high reliability but not validity. For example, if a person shoots at a target and the shots are all close together, you can state there is high reliability. However, if the shots are all down and to the right, and the goal was to hit the center, then you have low validity (Strike Three). As a result, it is impor- tant to be cautious when using CMD to explain why good people make bad decisions.