Studying Moral Ethos Using an Adapted Kohlbergian Model

Abstract

Alasdair MacIntyre's (1988) analysis of moral philosophy shows that liberal individualism, the dominant contemporary tradition, has failed to secure consensus on ethical principles. It follows that Kohlberg's stages model of socio-moral development, which proposes universal morality, lacks universal foundations. There are further pitfalls when applying the model to organizational moral ethos (OME). I argue that these problems can be circumvented, and I reformulate the Kohlberg model, building it into a framework for analyzing five interrelated sub-systems of organizational moral ethos. These are: approach to formal moral governance; basis of moral authority; deep implicit socialization; morality behind normative structure; and corporate outlook towards social responsibility. I present 19 propositions based on the core idea that in liberal individualist societies, postconventionally orientated OME would lead to a reduction in ethical dysfunctions such as bribery, discrimination, employee exploitation, dangerou s products, and environmental damage. I conclude with six further questions to consider in OME research.

Descriptors: ethics, morality, moral atmosphere, climate, Kohlberg

Introduction

Moral ethos is a set of force-fields within organizations, comprising everyday norms, rules-in-use, social pressures, and quality of relationships, all of which impinge on members' understandings, judgements and decisions concerning good and bad, right and wrong (Jackall 1984; Snell 1993). As a 'hidden' curriculum (Jackson 1990) of morality in the workplace, moral ethos is synonymous with moral or ethical climate, i.e. shared member perceptions about how ethical dilemmas are to be viewed and resolved (Cohen 1993, 1995; Wimbush and Shepard 1994) -- atmosphere (Lovell 1995), culture (Brigley 1995), and milieu.

By way of introduction, I argue that moral ethos is an important area in organization studies. I then go on to note that if we accept Alasdair MacIntyre's (1988) analysis of the state of contemporary moral philosophy, no model or perspective on moral ethos is in a position to gain universal acceptance.

Why Study Moral Ethos?

I will mention four contemporary phenomena suggesting that moral ethos is an important area in organization studies.

Reason 1: Disturbing Images of Organizations

The popular media deliver regular reports of corruption, lack of integrity and private gain at public expense (Despande 1996; Sims 1992), and of corporate actions which have harmed or endangered the general public (Darley 1996). Morgan's (1997) metaphor of organizations as 'instruments of domination', and the 'greed is good' credos advanced by some prominent business people and business schools (Jones and Gautschi 1988; MacLellan and Dobson 1997; Walker 1992), represent ways of life that are morally disturbing to some people, but not to others. This divergence of strong opinion suggests a need for a deeper understanding of moral ethos as a controversial phenomenon, and of the various criteria that may be used to judge it.

Reason 2: 'Bad Barrel' Theory

Trevi[tilde{n}]o and Youngblood (1990) identify two basic theories of the origin of unethical behaviour in organizations. The 'bad apples' theory blames corporate evil-doing on a minority of morally defective individuals; the 'bad barrel' theory attributes unethical behaviour to poor moral ethos. Darley (1996) subscribes to the bad barrel theory, citing cases when otherwise conscientious employees allowed dangerous practices to continue, refraining from whistle blowing for fear of retribution. Typical characteristics of organizations, he argues, such as the diffusion and fragmentation of responsibility, sunk costs, the stereotyping and depersonalization of outgroups, and chronic job insecurity, render all organizations prone to inflict harm and to cover up evil-doing rather than rectify it. Structural solutions, he notes, such as setting up special ombudsman-type roles and channels are no guarantee against corruption in its many forms (Darley 1996: 41). Accordingly, Trevi[tilde{n}]o and Nelson (1995) recommen d that 'organizations that are serious about ethics must proactively develop an ethical culture' (p. 196), beginning with an audit of ethical culture, drawing on questions such as 'are employees encouraged to challenge authority when asked to do something that they consider to be wrong?' (p. 216). If our wish is to improve moral ethos, we may thus need to study it first.

Reason 3: Controversial Ethnographies

But might all barrels be irredeemably bad, owing to wider institutional forces? We may entertain a version of 'rotten shed' theory, and consider power hierarchy (Lippke 1995) and narrow, heartless, instrumental bureaucracy (MacIntyre 1984), both of which de-humanize and de-moralize, as coping mechanisms forced upon organizations under advanced industrial capitalism. Under this theory, there are no 'good barrels', for those set up to he so would immediately rot or otherwise be destroyed by inexorable legal and economic forces. To be reasonably sure that this is indeed the case, we would need to study moral ethos in a variety of organizations, as well as the wider workings of capitalism and its associated ideologies.