Business, Ethics, and Carol Gilligan's "Two Voices"

Author(s): Thomas I. White

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 51-61
Published by: Philosophy Documentation Center
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857223 .
Accessed: 28/08/2012 10:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Philosophy Documentation Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Business Ethics Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
BUSINESS, ETHICS,
AND
CAROL GILLIGAN'S "TWO VOICES'
Thomas I. White
Abstract: This article
argues
that Carol
Gilligan's
research in moral de?
velopment psychology,
work which claims that women
speak
about
ethics in a "different voice" than men
do,
is
applicable
to business
ethics. This
essay
claims that
Gilligan's
"ethic of care"
provides
a
plau-
sible
explanation
for the results of two studies that found men and
women
handling
ethical dilemmas in business
differently.
This
paper
also
speculates briefly
about the
management implications
of
Gilligan's
ideas.
IN
1982 Carol
Gilligan published
her landmark
work,
In a
Different Voice,
a book which contains the seminal claim that women
speak
about ethics
in a "different voice" than men do. The nature and
legitimacy
of
Gilligan's
claims remain
hotly debated,
but various researchers have used her model
to
explore
differences between men and women in a
variety
of
areas?per?
sonal
relationships, law,
and medicine.1
Gilligan's suggestion
of a "female
ethic" has even
spawned speculation
about a "female
epistemology."2
Surprisingly, despite
the
growing
number of discussions of differences
between men and women in
business,
Gilligan's
ideas have been
largely
ignored
in this context.3 It is the aim of this
paper, then,
to make a
prelimi-
nary
case for the value of
Gilligan's theory
in the
study
of business ethics
by arguing
that it
provides
a
plausible explanation
for some of the
gender
differences in
handling
ethical dilemmas that researchers have
already
noted
but have not
explained satisfactorily.
This
paper
also
briefly speculates
that
Gilligan's
outlook
may additionally
have
important implications
for busi?
ness
practice.
The overall aim of this
essay, then,
is
simply
to
suggest
that
Gilligan's
ideas are worth further
investigation
and that
they
can
likely
contribute to a better
understanding
of certain
aspects
of business.4
Ethics: Justice Versus Care
The claim that there are two ethical
styles
related to
gender
arose as the
unintended result of research on the nature and
stages
of moral
development
performed by
the late
psychologist
Lawrence
Kohlberg. Kohlberg's
research
convinced him that as our
thinking
about ethics
matures,
we
acquire
an
increasingly
rational and
objective
outlook rooted in abstract moral
princi?
ples.
This ethical
perspective prizes rules, laws,
or
principles applied impar-
tially
and without
regard
to circumstances. It
emphasizes competing rights
?1992. Business Ethics
Quarterly,
Volume
2,
Issue 1. ISSN 1052-150X. 0051-0061.
52 BUSINESS ETHICS
QUARTERLY
and resolves ethical
problems by appealing
to
principles
of
justice
and
fairness.
Kohlberg's
account is called an ethic of
justice
because he believes
that this is the most advanced ethical notion.5
Kohlberg's
account of moral
development
was
initially accepted by
other
researchers,
but Carol
Gilligan
discovered that all of
Kohlberg's subjects
were male and that women
generally
did not advance into the
higher stages
of
Kohlberg's hierarchy. Accordingly,
based on research on a female sam-
ple, Gilligan
constructed an alternate model of the nature and
stages
of
morality which,
she
claims,
better describes women's
experience. Gilligan's
conception
of moral
development
adds
feeling
to
reason,
speaks
about
right
and
wrong
in terms of what is
appropriate
to
particular circumstances,
and
focuses on our
responsibilities
to others. It is
generally
called an ethic of
care. She writes that in the view of most
women,
"the moral
person
is one
who
helps others; goodness
is
service, meeting
one's
obligations
and re?
sponsibilities
to others."6
Gilligan
links these different ethical "voices" with
gender,
but she also
explains
them in terms of
contrasting
modes of self-definition. That
is,
she
suggests
that our moral values and ethical outlook derive from and
express
the
way
we define our self.
Paralleling Gilligan's
two
"voices," then,
are two
"selves"?one autonomous and the other connected. One is
separated
from
others in a hierarchical
world,
and the other is
joined
to others in a "web"
of
relationships.
The
former,
argues Gilligan, predominates among men,
the
latter
among
women.
Particularly important,
however,
is that these two selves have
dramatically
different
conceptions
of
safety
and
danger.
For the
"separated"
self, safety
comes from the ordered movement of
people
on the
hierarchy
and from
having
a
protected
zone that
keeps
us
separated
from one another. This
argues
for an
impartial, objective,
rule-based ethical outlook that denies the
importance
of the emotional content of
relationships
between individuals
unless
they
are codified
according
to this rule-based
morality. Principles
of
equality
and
justice
are favored because
they
wash out differences
among
people. "Rights"
become central because
they impartially
establish the same
boundaries of
everyone's protected
area.
Danger
arises when a
"separate"
self feels that his
protected
zone is violated
by
another or when a kind of
emotional distance that the
"separate"
self feels should
separate
us from
others is
jeopardized.
Thus,
behavior is
usually
labeled unethical
by
this
outlook when it violates some law or someone's
rights (no
matter what the
circumstances).
It is
compounded
when such a
transgression proceeds
from
emotional
partiality, e.g., favoring
another because of
anything
from racial
bias to
personal
affection. Ethics
adopts
an almost
"game-like" quality;
the
moves that are
acceptable
and
unacceptable
are
clearly
defined before the
game, disputes
are refereed
impartially according
to an abstract
principle
of
fairness,
and
setting
a
precedent
becomes worrisome.
For the "connected"
self, by contrast, safety
comes from our connections
in a network of
caring, protecting, nourishing relationships.
This
argues
for
an outlook
steeped
in the emotional
dynamics
of
personal relationships
and
BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 53
in a realistic assessment of harm.
Rights
are less
important
than the
respon?
sibilities
people
have to assist each other and to
preserve
the "web" because
safety
comes from connection with
others,
not from distance.
Similarly,
rules and
precedent
are less
important
than the actual circumstances individ?
uals face because
impartiality
is no
longer
a value.
Danger
arises when the
strands of the web are threatened
through
lack of
care, insensitivity
to
suffering, isolation,
or
menacing
behavior from someone who is
part
of our
web.
Thus,
someone's behavior becomes unethical when it fails short of
responsibilities, betrays
someone's
trust,
or in some other
way implies
that
he or she is a weak strand in the web. The ethical outlook derived from a
"connected"
self, then,
is more situational and contextual than that which a
"separate"
self
produces.
Instead of "rules of the
game,"
the
dynamics
and
expectations
involved in
relationships
are central.7
The
Applicability of Gilligan
*s Ideas to Business Ethics
As mentioned at the outset of this
paper, despite
the
widespread
discussion
Gilligan's
ideas have
stimulated,
their
applicability
to business ethics has
been
largely ignored.
Yet
Gilligan's theory
can
explain
differences that
researchers have observed in how men and women
respond
to ethical issues
in
business,
and this
suggests
that her ideas merit further
investigation.
Gender
Differences Among Marketing Professionals
One
study (Akaah, 1989)
finds that "female
marketing professionals
'overall' evince
higher
research ethics
judgments
than their male counter-
parts."8
Akaah remarks that his
findings
are consistent with those of other
researchers, but,
he
concludes, "they defy easy explanation" (p. 378).
He
sides with the
opinion
of an earlier
study
that these differences
probably
derive from "the
larger
culture and the socialization
process" (p. 378).
But
such an
explanation
is so
vague
as to tell next to
nothing
about the nature of
the dissimilarities claimed to have been uncovered. A more
satisfactory
account of the differences is
provided by examining
the data of this
study
through Gilligan's perspective.
Akaah found the most
pronounced
differences between the
responses
of
male and female
subjects
to the
following
three
hypothetical
scenarios:
1. A
project
director went to the
Marketing
Research Director*s office and
requested permission
to use an ultra-violet ink to
precode
a
question-
naire for a mail
survey.
The
project
director
pointed
out that
although
the cover letter
promised confidentiality, respondent
identification was
needed to
permit adequate
cross tabulations of the data. The
Marketing
Research Director
gave approval.
2. A recent
study
showed that several customers of X
company
were
misusing
Product B.
Although
this
posed
no
danger,
customers were
wasting
their
money by using
too much of the
product
at a time.
But,
yesterday,
the
Marketing
Research Director saw final
comps/sketches
on Product B's new ad
campaign
which not
only ignored
the
problem
of misuse but
actually
seemed to
encourage
it. The
Marketing
Research
54 BUSINESS ETHICS
QUARTERLY
Director
quietly
referred the
advertising manager
to the research re?
sults,
well known to all of the
people
involved with
product
B's adver?
tising,
but did
nothing beyond
that.
3. The National
Marketing Advisory
Council
(formed
of
top marketing
executives and
marketing
educators to advise the Commerce
Depart?
ment)
has a task force
studying
inner
city prices.
The head of this
study
group recently
called to ask if
they
could have a
copy
of a recent X
company study
which showed that inner
city appliance prices
are
sig?
nificantly higher
than in suburban areas. Since X
Company
sells
appli-
ances to these inner
city merchants,
the
Marketing
Research Director
felt
compelled
to refuse the
request.
In each
case,
female
subjects disapproved
of the
Marketing
Research
Director's actions more
strongly
than did male
subjects.9
As mentioned
above,
Akaah remarks that these differences are difficult to
explain.
A
pos?
sible
explanation
of the
gender differences, however,
is
apparent
if we view
these scenarios in terms of the main ideas related to the "ethic of care"?the
moral
imperative
to care for someone in need
by reducing tangible
harm or
the risk
thereof,
the view of the world as
consisting
of a "web" of relation?
ships,
the
premium
this
places
on
trust,
and the idea that
danger
arises
primarily
from
anything
that
disrupts dependable, predictable,
and nourish-
ing relationships.
The women in this
study may
have found the actions
described in these scenarios as more offensive than the men did because the
actions measure
up poorly against
a
principle
of care and because
they
harm
a safe and
dependable
"web."
In the first
case,
the
Marketing
Research Director allows
questionnaires
to be
invisibly
coded
despite
the cover letter's
explicit promise
of confiden?
tiality.
This action
may
not
produce tangible harm,
but it is a serious
betrayal
of trust. And trust is a
major component
in what makes
positive relationships
between
people possible.
Without
trust,
the "web"
disintegrates.
In the sec?
ond
scenario,
the Director tolerates
advertising
which
encourages
customers
to waste their
money by misusing
a
product. Here, too,
we have a
betrayal
of
trust,
as well as
irresponsible
behavior. The consumer assumes that the
ad is
honest,
while the Director knows that it is
actually misleading
and
manipulative.
One
might argue
that with this
knowledge
comes a
responsi?
bility
to those
people
affected
by
the situation?a
responsibility
that the
Director fails to meet. The third scenario
explicitly
violates
principles
of
care and
equity.10
The
Marketing
Research Director refuses to
provide
in?
formation that could reduce the
price
of
appliances paid by
inner
city
resi?
dents. Since these
people
are
generally
those in our
society
least able to
pay
for the means of
life,
the Director allows a harmful situation to
persist.
Furthermore,
since
prices
are lower for suburban residents who are in better
shape financially,
we
clearly
have an
inequitable
situation?indeed,
one that
is
exactly
the
opposite
of what the financial circumstances of each
group
should call for. In all three
cases, then,
the Director's actions fail short on
his or her
responsibility
to those
people
affected
by
them.
Why
are the women more sensitive than the men in this case?
Perhaps
BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 55
because the risk of harm looks
greater
from their "connected"
perspectives
than from the men's
"separate"
outlook. In a business
setting, places
on a
hierarchy
are determined
by
financial and
legal
issues. In each
scenario,
the
Marketing
Research Director chooses a course of action that
may
be
morally
questionable,
but it is
legal
and can enhance the
company's
financial
perfor?
mance: more effective
marketing, greater
sales,
protecting
outlets where its
products
are sold.
Furthermore,
each action can be rationalized
by
the idea
that
according
to the "rules of the
game"
in the
marketplace, every
one is
responsible
for
looking
after his or her own interest. There is no
responsi?
bility
to advance someone else's welfare. The outlook ofthe
"separate"
self
more
easily accepts
the
concept
that
relationships
in business are
competi?
tive and adversarial. To trust is to err. What counts is whether a
"legal
referee" will
cry
"Foul!" Actions which take
advantage
ofa consumer's trust
may
even be laudable if
they produce
a
competitive edge. They
do not count
as "vice" as
strongly
as
they
do when looked at from a "connected"
perspec?
tive.11
Damage
to the "web"
registers
as less of a threat to someone who
feels safer as an autonomous
agent.
Gender
Differences Among Managers
A second
study (Barnett
and
Karson, 1989)
also uncovers
significant
dif?
ferences in how male and female
managers say they
would handle ethical
dilemmas.12 In this
case,
the authors conclude that the females in their
study
"are more ethical than males" in the
way they
handled six out of seven
scenarios
(p. 759).
This
study
also fails to offer an
adequate explanation
of
this fact.
Again, however,
if we
apply Gilligan's
ideas to the
data,
a distinct
pattern emerges.
Barnett and Karson found that three
vignettes produced
the
greatest
dif?
ferences in how the men and women
responded:
1. You are a
newly-appointed marketing
director
attending
a trade associ?
ation
meeting.
The
marketing
director of
your
chief
competitor
is car-
rying
a stack of
copies
of the
competitor's marketing plan
for next
year.
After the
competitor
has
gone you
discover that he has
dropped
one of
the
copies.
Would
you:
A. Contact
your competitor
and return the
plan
unread.
B. Read the
plan.
2. You are the new director and
major
shareholder of a
large corporation.
The
corporation
is
currently being
sued
by
a customer
claiming
the
customer has received a
personal injury.
While
going through your
predecessor's personal files,
which
only you
will
see,
you
find some
information
supporting
the customer's
personal injury
claim. There is a
large
sum of
money
at
stake,
and
you
are
presently
in
good shape
to win
the case. Would
you:
A. Reveal the information.
B. Not reveal the information.
56 BUSINESS ETHICS
QUARTERLY
3. You have
recently resigned
from
your position
as a sales consultant for
a
photocopier firm,
and
you
will be
leaving
in several weeks. A custo?
mer is interested in
purchasing
a used
copy machine,
and
you
have a
recent model which the customer feels would meet
company
needs. You
stand to make a
good
commission on the deal.
However, you
know that
the customer could
purchase
a brand new
copier
from
your
firm for the
same amount of
money during
a
special
rebate
period.
The commission
on the new
product,
however,
is
substantially
less than that on the used
machine. You would:
A. Inform the customer about the
special
rebate.
B. Not inform the customer about the
special
rebate.
In each of these three
scenarios,
a
significantly greater
number of women
chose the first
option: returning
the
competitor's plan unread, revealing
the
information that will aid the customer in a suit
against
the
company,
inform-
ing
the customer about the rebate.13 If we view these
responses
in
light
of
the ethical values
implied by Gilligan's
idea that the female "connected"
self sees the world as a
"web,"
the women's
responses
make sense. As in the
previous study examined,
these women are more sensitive than the men to
issues of trust and
responsibility
to others.
The
"personal injury"
scenario reveals a clear
allegiance
on the
part
of the
women in the
study
to
Gilligan's
"ethic of care."
They
are confronted with
a case in which the
company
is
responsible
for a customer's
injury,
and in
which
they
have the
opportunity
either to
mitigate
or to increase the harm.
Revealing
the information is
clearly
consistent with "the moral
imperative
.
. . to discern and alleviate the 'real and
recognizable
trouble' of this world."
In
addition,
in both the
"marketing plan"
and
"photocopier"
scenarios,
the
women in the
study
show a
greater ability
to be trusted with information
they
could use to their own
advantage
at someone else's
expense. They
return the
competitor's marketing plan
unread.
They
inform the customer
about the rebate and
accept
a smaller commission.
And,
as we have
seen,
trust is a
primary
virtue when
reality
is
experienced
as a "web" of human
interconnection and when the risk of harm comes from
dishonest,
manipu-
lative,
or
exploitative relationships.
In all three
cases,
the differences in the
responses
of the men and women
in this
study
are consistent with
Gilligan's
outlook. The women are harsher
than the men on actions that
ignore responsibilities
to assist others and that
weaken a sense of trust
among people.
Discussion
An
argument
can be
made, then,
for
suggesting
that Carol
Gilligan's
ideas
can account for the differences described
by
researchers in how some men
and women have
responded
to a series of
hypothetical
ethical dilemmas in
business. But what is the
significance
of this?
Unfortunately,
it is difficult
to draw
indisputable
conclusions.
For
example,
it is
important
to note that the reasons for the
subjects'
BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 57
responses
were not solicited in either of the studies discussed above. Ac-
cordingly,
the female
subjects may
have reached their conclusions
by using
an ethic of
justice.
After
all,
the issues involved
(violating confidentiality,
misleading people, concealing
data that could
help
someone,
invading pri?
vacy,
and so
on)
could be as offensive to an ethic of
justice
as
they
are to an
ethic of care.
Moreover,
there is no
guarantee
that
subjects
did not reach
their conclusions
through
some nonethical
thought process
or even
through
a
distinctly unethical, purely
self-interested line of
reasoning.
Nonetheless,
these studies did uncover differences associated with
gender,
and,
in
light
of
Gilligan's work,
there is reason to think that
many
women
do
approach
and resolve ethical dilemmas as
Gilligan
claims that
they
do.
While this
essay
cannot claim that
Gilligan's
ideas are the
only possible
explanation
for the
gender
differences that researchers like
Akaah,
Barnett
and Karson have
described,
it can claim that
Gilligan's theory
accommo-
dates these studies' data and
provides
a
satisfactory explanation
for them.
This offers added
support
for the
legitimacy
of
Gilligan's
ideas and for a
central claim of this
essay,
that
Gilligan's
ideas can be
helpful
in
discussing
differences in the
way
that men and women think about ethics in business.14
In this
vein, Gilligan's
ideas can be seen as a useful
springboard
for
speculation.
For
example,
the studies cited above
report
not
only
that men
and women differ in the
way they respond
to ethical
dilemmas,
but also that
the women's
responses suggest higher
ethical standards. The female sub?
jects
tended to
disapprove
of
ethically questionable
behavior more
strongly
than the male
subjects
did and
they
also claimed more
frequently
than the
men did that
they
would take the more ethical course of action.
Nothing
in
Gilligan's theory suggests
that an ethic of care is
superior
to an ethic of
justice
or that women are
morally superior
to men. But are
Gilligan's
ideas
also
suggestive
on this front?
Perhaps Gilligan's
ideas
imply
that there is a closer
relationship
between
the nature of business and an ethic of care than has been realized. On this
matter it is crucial to note
Kohlberg's
claim that
only
one in four
people
advances to the
highest stages
of moral
reasoning.
The vast
majority
of
men,
then, probably employ
"conventional" moral
thinking?an
outlook that
puts
a
premium
on
laws, rules,
norms or conventions. The
apparent
ethical
supe?
riority
of the women in the studies
may
thus
suggest
that ethical dilemmas
in business
register
more
strongly
with the
average possessor
of an ethic of
care than
they
do with someone at the conventional
stage
of an ethic of
justice. Business,
after
all,
is a "web" of
relationships,
where
trust,
reputa?
tion,
dependability, honesty,
and
respect
for human
dignity
are critical. Per?
haps
a
"connected/care" perspective
is more
discerning
of the ethical
dilemmas that are
likely
to arise in
business,
issues that
may
be more
easily
washed over or overlooked
by
a
"separate/justice"
outlook
which, particu?
larly
at a conventional
level,
may give primary
attention to
legal
or financial
considerations. The women in these
studies, then,
were not
morally superior.
But
they may
have been
operating
with a
perspective
that is more
perceptive
of the
severity
of certain
problems
and more attuned to the
likely damage
58 BUSINESS ETHICS
QUARTERLY
that could follow from unethical behavior than the outlook
employed by
their male
counterparts.15
Yet another
piece
of
speculation generated by Gilligan's
work is the mat?
ter of the
practical, management implications
of her ideas. For if it is true
that business is
essentially
a "connected" rather than
"separate" enterprise,
the model of business that has
evolved,
while it is has been dominated
by
men,
could be
seriously questioned. Gilligan points only
to the ethical con?
sequences
that come from a
"separate" self,
but a wide
array
of
organiza?
tional values also flows from this mode of self
definition,
and these are the
features that have defined
corporations
for
years:
a
hierarchical, quasi-mil-
itary
model of
authority
and decision
making;
a
highly competitive,
ad-
versarial model of
dealing
with
colleagues, employees
and
competitors;
a
narrow
emphasis
on the "bottom
line;"
a
legalistic approach
to
personnel
policies;
an
approach
to decision
making
that eschews
emotions;
a "team"
concept analogous
to
competitive
athletic teams.
If these
mainstays
of American business in fact
go against
the
grain
of the
essentially
"connected" nature of
business,
it is
likely
that
they produce
significant
inefficiencies. If a human
dynamic
calls for trust and
coopera?
tion,
these
qualities
will not
only provide
a sense of
safety
and
security, they
will also build an environment conducive to
long
term
productivity, loyalty,
and
creativity.
A true
team, then,
would be a "web" in which
everyone's
interest is
genuinely
intertwined. Distrust and adversarial
relationships, by
contrast,
would be hindrances to maximum
success,
as would a model of a
team fashioned after the
amalgam
of individuals found in
competitive
ath-
letics.
Thus,
it is
possible
that
companies
which have succeeded with a
traditional model of
doing
business
may
have
prospered
in
spite of,
not
because of it.
The
implications
of
Gilligan's
ideas are
thus,
in some
ways, very
much in
line with recent discussions of differences in the
ways
that men and women
manage,
discussions which hold that the traditional
management style
in
business is neither the
only
nor
necessarily
the best
way
to lead.16
Judy
Rosener,
for
example,
claims that
many
women executives use a
leadership
style
that differs from their male
counterparts by encouraging participation,
sharing power
and
information, enhancing
other
people's
self-worth,
and
getting
others excited about their work.17 Such a
style
of
leadership
has an
obvious
affinity
with
Gilligan's image
of social
reality
as a "web" of rela?
tionships
which
requires trust, openness
and the
explicit
aid and
support
of
others.
Thus, Gilligan's
ideas serve to validate the
legitimacy
of such a
management style.
Finally,
we can infer from
Gilligan's
research that because business has
been dominated
by
men for so
long, everything
from the traditional
way
that
ethical dilemmas are assessed and resolved in business to the conventional
model for how executives should
manage, may very
well be based on
only
one of two
different,
but
complementary ways
of
viewing
the world. A more
prudent
and
farsighted approach
to business would be to
try
to
identify
the
value of both outlooks and to find
ways
to nourish and utilize the benefits
BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 59
of both within the same
organization.
Detailed discussion of how
corpora?
tions
might
do this is
beyond
the
scope
of this
paper,
but I
hope
that it is
apparent
that the ultimate contribution to business of Carol
Gilligan's
ideas
about different ethical voices
may
be that it
encourages
the consideration of
fundamental
changes
in how we think about and do business. And such
far-reaching implications certainly suggest
that her theories and their
impli?
cations merit additional discussion.
Notes
^ee,
for
example,
Julia T.
Wood,
"Different Voices in
Relationship
Crises: An Extension
of
Gilligan's Theory,"
American Behavior al
Scientist,
Vol.
29,
No. 3
(January/February
1986), pp. 273-301;
Daniel O.
Dugan,
"Masculine and Feminine Voices:
Making
Ethical
Decisions in the Care of the
Dying,"
Journal
of
Medical Humanities and
Bioethics,
8
(Fall/Winter 1987), pp. 129-40;
Carol
Gilligan
and Susan
Pollak,
"The Vulnerable and
Invulnerable
Physician"
in
Mapping
the Moral
Domain,
edited
by
Carol
Gilligan,
Fanie
Victoria Ward and Jill McLean
Taylor (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press, 1988),
pp. 245-62;
Dana Jack and Rand
Jack,
"Women
Lawyers: Archetype
and Alternatives" in
Mapping
the Moral
Domain, pp. 263-88;
and Lizbeth
Hasse, "Legalizing Gender-Specific
Values" in Women and Moral
Theory,
edited
by
Eva Feder
Kittay
and Diana T.
Meyers
(Totowa,
NJ: Rowman and
Littlefield, 1987), pp.
282-95.
2Mary
Field
Belenky, Blythe
McVicker
Clinchy, Nancy
Rule
Goldberger,
Jill Mattuck
Tarule,
Women's
Ways of Knowing:
The
Development ofSelf, Voice,
and Mind
(New
York:
Basic
Books, 1986).
3One of the few discussions of
Gilligan's
ideas is Robbin
Derry,
"Moral
Reasoning
in
Work-Related
Conflicts,"
Research in
Corporate
Social
Performance
and
Policy,
Volume
9,
pp.
25-49.
Derry's findings
do not
support Gilligan's
thesis that the two ethical orientations
are
gender
related.
However,
I have three reservations about
Derry's study. First,
one-third
of
Derry's subjects reported
that
they
had never faced a moral conflict at work.
Considering
how
pervasive
moral dilemmas are in all
phases
of
life,
the fact that such a
large percentage
of
Derry's subjects
did not
recognize any
raises the
possibility
that there were
problems
with
Derry's methodology
or her
subjects. Second,
excluding
this
percentage
of
Derry's subjects
left
only
27
subjects,
a small number from which to draw
any meaningful
conclusions.
Third,
all
subjects
were selected from the same
manufacturing facility.
This calls into
question
how
representative Derry's sample
was.
4A critical issue related to
Gilligan's
ideas is
obviously
the matter of the cause of the
differences she has noted. Part of the debate over
Gilligan's
ideas centers on whether these
contrasting
ethical outlooks are rooted in
gender, socialization,
deep psychological structure,
or some other factor.
(For
an account of these outlooks that
appeals
to modes of self-defini-
tion,
for
example,
see Nona Plessner
Lyons,
"Two
Perspectives:
On
Self, Relationships,
and
Morality,"
Harvard Educational
Review,
Vol.
53,
No.
2, 1983, pp. 125-45.)
This broader
aspect
of the
controversy, however,
is
beyond
the
scope
of this
paper.
Thus,
this
essay
is
based on
Gilligan's
model of
gender-relatedness
and
speaks
of "male" and "female" outlooks.
Nonetheless,
this should be taken as
saying only
that:
1)
two ethical
perspectives
have been
identified, 2)
one
explanation argues
for
linking
them to
gender, 3)
this
account, however,
includes
concepts
of self-definition as
part
of its
account,
and
4)
it does not exclude the
possibility
that members of the
opposite gender can,
do and should use the ethical orientation
that
Gilligan
claims is more characteristic of the other
gender.
60 BUSINESS ETHICS
QUARTERLY
5For a full account of
Kohlberg's
ideas see Lawrence
Kohlberg,
The
Philosophy of
Moral
Development:
Moral
Stages
and the Idea
of
Justice:
Essays
on Moral
Development,
1
(San
Francisco:
Harper
and
Row, 1981)
and The
Psychology of
Moral
Development: Essays of
Moral
Development,
2
(San
Francisco:
Harper
and
Row, 1984).
6Carol
Gilligan,
In a
Different
Voice:
Psychological Theory
and Women s
Development
(Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University Press, 1982), p.
66.
'The idea that a
"separate"
self leads to an ethic of
justice
and a "connected" self to an
ethic of care is confirmed
by
a
study by
Nona
Lyons.
She
writes,
"individuals who charac-
terized themselves
predominantly
in connected terms more
frequently
used considerations
of
response
in
constructing
and
resolving
real-life moral
conflicts;
and individuals who
characterized themselves
predominantly
in
separate/objective
terms more
frequently
used
considerations of
rights." Lyons,
"Two
Perspectives:
On
Self, Relationships,
and
Morality,"
p.
141.
For a discussion of the
implications
of these
competing
definitions of the self in terms of
differences in how men and women
speak,
see the work of Deborah
Tannen, e.g.,
You Just
Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation
(New
York: William
Morrow, 1990).
Tannen claims that this line of discussion in
sociolinguistics predates Gilligan's
work and
can be found in the
scholarly
literature as
early
as 1960. See You Just Don't
Understand, p.
300,
n. 25.
Ishmael P.
Akaah,
"Differences in Research Ethics
Judgments
Between Male and Female
Marketing Professionals,"
Journal
of
Business
Ethics,
Volume 8
(1989), p.
378.
9See
Akaah,
pp.
379-80.
Subjects
were asked to
approve
or
disapprove
of the action of
the
Marketing
Director
by
means of a
5-point
scale:
"disapprove" (1), "disapprove
some-
what"
(2),
"neither
approve
nor
disapprove" (3),"approve
somewhat"
(4)
and
"approve" (5).
On
example 1,
the male mean
rating
was
2.6,
the female mean was
2.2,
and the F-value was
9.71. On
example 2,
the male mean was
2.9,
the female mean was
2.5,
and the F-value was
7.59. On
example
3,
the male mean was
3.7,
the female mean
3.3,
and the F-value 5.22.
Akaah
writes,
"the mean evaluations
suggest
female
respondents
as
evincing higher
research
ethics
judgments
than their male
counterparts" (p. 378-79).
10Gilligan
claims that "the
morality
of
rights
is
predicated
on
equality
and centered on the
understanding
of
fairness,
while the ethic of
responsibility
relies on the
concept
of
equity,
the
recognition
of differences in need"
(Different Voice, p. 164.).
Kohlberg
claims that
only
one in four
subjects
advances to the most advanced
stages
of
moral
thinking?"post-conventional" morality.
As a
result,
we can
expect
to see most men
in Akaah's
study employing
an ethic that evidences
something
less
sophisticated
than a
philosophical allegiance
to
justice.
That
is,
we should find a "conventional" outlook?a
legalistic
orientation which sees life as not unlike a
game.
12John H. Barnett and Marvin J.
Karson, "Managers, Values,
and Executive Decisions:
An
Exploration
of the Role of
Gender,
Career
Stage, Organizational
Level, Function,
and
the
Importance
of
Ethics, Relationships
and Results in
Managerial Decision-Making,"
Jour?
nal
of
Business
Ethics,
Volume 8
(1989), pp.
747-71.
13The relevant
percentages
on the three scenarios are
roughly:
92%
(female)
to 82%
(male),
81%
(female)
to 65%
(male),
and 54%
(female)
to 30%
(male).
14For
example, Gilligan's theory
will
probably
reveal some hidden dimensions of ethical
issues in business
traditionally championed by women, specifically,
sexual harassment and
comparable
worth.
15This is consistent with the fact that different
philosophical
traditions in ethics
respond
differently
to various issues.
Note,
for
example,
some of the classic tensions between
BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 61
deontological
and
teleological approaches
to ethics. Inasmuch as it can be
argued
that an
ethic of
justice
and an ethic of care
roughly parallel
these two
traditions,
it would not be
surprising
to find these differences.
Although
it did not
happen
in the studies
considered,
it
is reasonable to
expect
that an ethic of
justice
would be more sensitive than an ethic of care
would be to certain moral dilemmas.
16See,
in
particular, Judy
B.
Rosener, "Ways
Women
Lead,"
Harvard Business
Review,
(November-December, 1990), pp.
119-25 and
Marilyn Loden,
Feminine
Leadership (New
York: Times
Books, 1985).
Rosener makes no reference to
Gilligan;
Loden makes
only
passing
mention of her.
17Rosener writes:
"[M]en
and women
[differ
when
they]
describe their
leadership perfor?
mance and how
they usually
influence those with whom
they
work. The men are more
likely
than the women to describe themselves in
ways
that characterize what some
management
experts
call
*
transactional'
leadership.
That
is, they
view
job performance
as a series of
transactions with
subordinates?exchanging
rewards for services rendered or
punishment
for
inadequate performance.
The men are also more
likely
to use
power
that comes from their
organizational position
and formal
authority.
The women
respondents,
on the other
hand,
described themselves in
ways
that characterize
'transformational'
leadership?getting
subordinates to transform their own self-interest into
the interest of the
group through
concern for a broader
goal. Moreover,
they
ascribe their
power
to
personal
characteristics like
charisma, interpersonal skills,
hard
work,
or
personal
contacts rather than to
organizational
stature"
(p. 120).
Rosener's overall assessment ofthe women's "interactive"
leadership style
hints that it is
not
merely
different from but better than a more traditional "command-and-control"
style:
"Interactive
leadership
has
proved
to be
effective, perhaps
even
advantageous,
in
organiza?
tions in which the women I interviewed have succeeded. As the work force
increasingly
demands
participation
and the economic environment
increasingly requires rapid change,
interactive
leadership may emerge
as the
management style
of choice for
many organizations.
For interactive
leadership
to take root more
broadly, however, organizations
must be
willing
to
question
the notion that the traditional command-and-control
leadership style
that has
brought
success in earlier decades is the
only way
to
get
results. This
may
be hard in some
organizations, especially
those with
long
histories of
male-oriented,
command-and-control
leadership. Changing
these
organizations
will not be
easy.
The fact that women are more
likely
than men to be interactive leaders raises the risk that these
companies
will
perceive
interactive
leadership
as 'feminine' and
automatically
resist it."
(p. 125)
?1992. Business Ethics
Quarterly,
Volume
2,
Issue 1. ISSN 1052-150X. 0051-0061.