Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was a developmental psychologist, moral philosopher, and student of child development. As director of Harvards Center for Moral Education, Kohlbergs research interest focused upon the moral development of children and, in particular, how they develop a sense of right, wrong, and justice. Kohlberg observed that children advance through what he believed to be definite stages of moral development in a manner similar to their progression through Piagets (1977) two-stage theory of cognitive development which Kohlberg studied as a graduate student at the University of Chicago. In addition to Piaget, Kohlbergs speculations concerning the moral development of children was influenced by the American philosopher, John Dewey (1956) as well as by James Mark Baldwin (1906), both of whom argued that human beings develop in a developmentally progressive fashion.
imply qualitatively different modes of thinking and of problem solving at each stage.
LEVEL
PRECONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL POSTCONVENTIONAL
STAGE
SOCIAL ORIENTATION
1............ Punishment and obedience 2............ Instrumental exchange 3............ Interpersonal conformity 4............ Law and order 5............ Prior rights and social contract 6............ Universal moral principles
Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. This view contrasted with Maslows (1943, 1968, 1972) hierarchy of prepotent needs because human beings, according to Kohlberg, could neither skip stages nor return to any previous stage. Human beings could not, for example, move from an orientation of punishment and obedience to an orientation toward law and order without first passing through the stages of instrumental exchange and interpersonal conformity. Neither would human beings return to an orientation of punishment and obedience from an orientation toward law and order. Hence, human beings come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage superior to their own. But, once human beings achieved a superior stage, they also no longer will be motivated to utilize an inferior stage of moral reasoning. For Kohlberg, then, human beings develop in response to cognitive conflicts at the current stage of their moral development. But, someone (e.g., parents, educators, friends, religious figures, lovers, business or political leaders) must present human beings with moral dilemmas for discussion which not only help these individuals to recognize the reasonableness of a superior stage of moral thought but also encourage moral development in that direction. Kohlberg believed it was primarily social interaction and moral discourse that foster and promote the moral development of human beings. In this way, for example, parents, friends, and teachersand for the purposes of this course, leaderspromote moral growth in others as they recognize the stage from which others operate and appropriately challenge them to consider reasoning about the moral dilemma by using the arguments and principles associated with the next stage of moral development. During his tenure at Harvards Graduate School of Education, Kohlberg inspired a generation of academics to become moral activists. He sought to put theories of human development into practice by encouraging the formation of democracies or just communities inside of schools and prisons as well. His believed moral education would flourish in any environment in which every individual possessed decision-making power. Kohlberg became physically and mentally ill in the late-1960s and, as his health declined and his world fell apart, some assert, so did much of his work. Toward the end of his life, Kohlberg appeared increasing disheveled and even distraught. While on a day pass from a local hospital on January 19, 1987, Kohlberg drove to Winthrop, Massachusetts, parked his car on a dead-end street, and plunged himself into the frigid waters of the Atlantic Ocean where he died. He was only 59 years old with potentially many productive years of scholarship ahead of him.
After his death, some of Kohlbergs colleagues questioned whether his agenda had died with him. Had his pursuit of practical applications of his theoretical construct undermined his research? Others insistedand continue to insistthat Kohlbergs legacy lives on at the Harvard Graduate School of Education in programs such as its Risk and Prevention program. And, although Kohlbergs conclusions have been replicated in cross-cultural studies completed in Turkey, Taiwan, Yucatan, Honduras, India, United States, Canada, Britain, and Israel, whether Kohlbergs theory has any basis in fact continues to be a much disputed topic.
B. CONVENTIONAL MORALITY: [Orientation: Behavior motivated by the acceptance of the rules and standards of ones group] STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY ORIENTATION A moral agent acts not from any personal moral sensibility but in order to gain approval from valued others because what is good and right is defined as conformity with the behavioral expectations of ones society or peer group. The moral worth of conduct is irrelevant. What counts, morally speaking, is that one's conduct gratify or help others or simply that Everybody is doing it because the moral agent's goal is to earn approval from these others. A sin or "bad" conduct is a breach of the conventional expectations of the social order. Retribution at this stage is collective
for example, the group will shun an individualand punishment is intended to deter other members of the group from engaging in similar conduct. A failure to punish is believed to be unfair, the rationale being, If she can get away with it, why cant I? STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER ORIENTATION Morality involves respecting rules, laws, and duly-constituted authority as well as defending the given social and institutional order for its own sake. A moral agent's responsibility is directed toward the welfare of others by upholding the status quo. Right behavior consists of maintaining the social order for its own sake as, for example, one receives a good days pay for a good days work. Authority figures are seldom questioned because, the moral agent asserts, He must be right. After all, hes the Pope (or the President, or the Judge, or God). Consistency and precedent must be maintained because, at this level of moral reasoning, the failure to uphold law and order is viewed a threat to fabric of society if not society itself. At stage four, justice normally refers to criminal or forensic justice, with the demand that wrongdoers be punished by paying a debt to society, what is called "retributive justice." Furthermore, law abiders must be rewarded because of the strict requirements of justice. Injustice, then, is the failure for ones merits to be rewarded or for others demerits to be punished. STAGE 4: Between the conventional stages and the post-conventional stages, Kohlberg posited a transitional stage evident, for example, in college-age students who have come to see conventional morality as relative and arbitrary, but have not yet discovered universal moral principles. Rather than moving in the direction of using universal moral principals to make moral decisions, however, moral decision making can become a hedonistic ethic of do your own thing, as Kohlberg believed the hippie counter-culture of the l960s evidenced. Disrespect for conventional morality is especially infuriating to the stage four mentality, and is calculated to be so. Countercultural behavior is itself a conventional form of moral self-expression as counterculturalists form social groupings of like-minded individuals.
C. POSTCONVENTIONAL OR PRINCIPLED MORALITY [Orientation: Universal moral principles] STAGE 5: PRIOR RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT ORIENTATION Moral agents act out of a sense of mutual obligation and the public good and right conduct tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and in terms of standards critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society (e.g., the U.S. Constitution). While the moral agent's freedom can be limited by society, it can only be limited when one individual's freedom infringes upon anothers. Moral conduct in a specific situation is not defined by referencing a checklist of rules, policies, or contractual obligations but is dependent upon logical application of universal, abstract, moral principles to the concrete exigencies of the situation at hand. At the same time, moral agents possess natural or inalienable rights and liberties a priori to society and must be protected by society. Because retributive justice does not promote the rights and welfare of the individual, retributive justice is repudiated because it is neither rational nor just. The statement, Justice demands punishment, a self-evident truism to the stage four moral agent, is self-evident nonsense to the
stage five moral agent. Thus, justice must be distributed proportionate to circumstances and need. Only legal sanctions which fulfill that specific purpose can be imposed, for example, the protection of future victims, deterrence, and rehabilitation. STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL MORAL PRINCIPLES ORIENTATION An individual who reaches this stage acts out of universal principles based upon the equality and intrinsic worth of all human beings who are never means to an end, but are ends in themselves. Possessing inalienable rights means more than individual liberty; it means that every individual is due consideration of his interests in every situation, those interests being of equal importance with ones own. This is the Golden Rule model of moral decision making. A list of rules inscribed in stone is no longer necessary because the individual is motivated by universal moral principles.
none at all. At the same time, the little brother introduces cognitive dissonance into his brothers reasoning process, challenging him to examine the dilemma from a higher level of moral reasoning. 4. IN STAGE DEVELOPMENT, MOVEMENT THROUGH THE STAGES IS EFFECTED WHEN COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS CREATED, THAT IS, WHEN A PERSONS COGNITIVE OUTLOOK IS NOT ADEQUATE TO COPE WITH A GIVEN MORAL DILEMMA. The human being who is growing will look for more and more adequate ways to solve problems. If this person has no problems or no dilemmas, it is not likely that this person will look for solutions and, hence, will not grow morally. Again, in Rawls (1999) example, the big brotherwho can just take the cake and get away with itis less likely to look for a better solution than the younger brother who will get none and probably suffer a beating in the struggle. 5. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN BEING TO BE PHYSICALLY MATURE BUT NOT MORALLY MATURE. If a child is spoiled and never has to accommodate for others needs, or if is raised in an environment where level two thinking by others (for example, parents, teachers, siblings, friends) predominates and gets the job done adequately enough, the child may never generate enough questions to propel him to a higher level of moral reasoning. 6. ONLY ABOUT 25% OF PERSONS EVER GROW TO LEVEL SIX, THE MAJORITY REMAINING AT LEVEL FOUR. Examples include Jesus, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Operating from a universal principles orientation, each promoted higher-order moral development not only in others but also in their societies and cultures and, in particular, as each advocated nonviolent resistance to immoral regimes. The universal principles for which each died continue to stimulate moral development in those who study their lives.
This broader perspective would take into account not only the issues but also the value conflicts evidencing themselves in organizational problems (McWhinney, Webber, Smith, & Novokowsky, 1997). More importantly, this perspective would also take into account how the members of the organization would envision their organization as an ethical community and how they might contribute their human resources toward the more substantive goal of building that ethical community. Thus, the concept advocated by adapting Kohlbergs theory of moral development to organizational functioning is not an either/or proposition asserting that leaders forget about organizational functioning and focus exclusively upon building an ethical community. Rather, the concept being advocated by adapting Kohlbergs theory to organizational functioning is a both/and proposition where leaders would remain focused upon organizational functioning while, at the same time, they would also direct their attention to a larger, more substantive purpose, namely, building an ethical community within their organization through its functioning.
What actually transpires in this dialogueand is crucially important to the process of constructing an ethical communityis that leaders move their followers gingerly in the direction of overcoming their moral muteness (Bird & Waters, 1989) so that all parties might learn to make collective judgments about how they might proceed, given the differences in and conflicts between the values exposed by this dialogue. Thus, by fostering this particular type of dialogue, leaders are actually overcoming what otherwise would lead to conflict as they broker and forge a more broadly-held consensus about how people will move forward, aware that the consensus being brokered will oftentimes be an imperfect consensus. But, at the same time, this imperfect consensus is superior to achieving no consensus at all because it provides a foundation for building a shared moral purpose (Barnard, 1938) and values among leaders and followers which, in turn, solidifies this foundation and makes it possible to build an ethical community. Absent a shared purpose and values, fissures will continue to expand and broaden the gaps among leaders and their followers as well as among followers themselves. Ultimately, the foundation will collapse and the people in the organization will resort to tactics that resemble a streetfight more than an arena (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 326). Maclagan also notes that dialogue makes it possible for leaders to demonstrate their interest in and willingness to listen to and to appreciate the diversity of viewpoints present within the organization. Sharing a purpose and values enables leaders and followers to develop ethical rationality as people listen to and to appreciate a variety of processes, approaches, or methodologies which not only assist in managing conflict but also in overcoming the pressure to respond to other views by constructing counter-arguments (1998, p. 47). In turn, followers can recognize that the leader possesses and is motivated by a higher level of moral reasoning and, thus, followers are capable of reframing problems as issues and examining the value conflicts embedded in these organizational issues from a higher level of moral reasoning. This is the linchpin of Kohlbergs theory, as he argues that moral development can only occur as one person challenges another to consider matters from a higher level of moral reasoning. To achieve this outcome, then, there must first be a relationship between the leader and followers, one characterized by trust, that enables the latter to be challenged by the former to consider the issue from a superior level of moral reasoning. Leaders who are not interested in listening to, do not listen to, or fail to appreciate the diversity of viewpoints and, hence, to examine the value conflicts embedded in organizational issues, demonstrate lower levels of moral reasoning than those followers who are capable of considering alternative points of view. And, because of this, these leaders are incapable of challenging the followers moral reasoning beyond that level. Oftentimes, this becomes evident as leaders busy themselves constructing counterarguments in response to arguments asserted by their followers rather than listening to the arguments being asserted and responding to them from a higher level of moral reasoning. Thus, dialogue enables leaders to initiate the third step in Maclagans paradigm, namely, to promote ethical development within followers (1998, pp. 175-176). That is, dialogue provides leaders multiple opportunities to raise for the consideration of all parties involved in the ethical dilemmasthose fundamental value conflicts at the heart of argumentsembedded in organizational dysfunction. In turn, dialogue assists followers to be challenged by the reasonableness of a superior level of moral reasoning. In this way, leaders encourage their followers development in the direction of a higher level of moral decision making. As Kohlberg argued, social interaction and moral discourse not only foster but also promote moral development.
As noted earlier, the fact should not be overlooked that followers may operate at a higher level of moral reasoning than their leaders do. In this scenario, followers must exercise discretion by inviting or, depending upon the circumstances, challenging their leaders to consider the value conflicts embedded in organizational issueswhat the leaders believe are problems evidencing organizational dysfunctionfrom the next higher level of moral reasoning. Balancing ones insight into the more substantive aspects of organizational dysfunction with ones role in the organizational hierarchy is not easy, however, and can be fraught with frustration. Followers should remember, however, that in order for their leaders to be successful, followers must not only stand up to but also stand up for their leaders (Chaleff, 1995). The ability to engage leaders in this form of dialogue gives evidences that ethical principles are not only being introduced into discussion about organizational issues but also that, by overcoming moral muteness (Bird & Waters, 1989), leaders and their followers are building an ethical community within the organization. Judgment, dialogue, and ethical development solidify and broaden the consensus about a shared purpose and values upon which leaders and their followers can make collective judgments about how they will proceed individually and collectively. Rather than focusing exclusively upon solving conflicts in the false belief that this is what makes organizational problems disappear, the ethical consensus being forgeda judgment made not by leaders or by their followers as individuals but by leaders and their followers as a collectivity (what might be called a J2 judgment)represents the recognition on the part of leaders and their followers that every member of the organization bears personal responsibility for promoting the organizations well-being. As an ethical community, leaders and their followers identify a pathway to resolve not only the value conflicts embedded in organizational problems but also to translate the organizations shared purpose into their own projects (McWhinney et al., 1997). In this sense, then, the organizations purpose and the shared values implied in it through this ethical consensus now transcend partisan interests as leaders embark upon this pathway with their followers as fellow travelers. Work in the organization, then, is viewed less as a job and more so as service in support of a shared purpose. Envisioning work as service rather than compensation for services provided is the fourth step of Maclagans paradigm (1998, p. 157). More importantly, however, the collective judgments forged at the fourth stage specify the responsibility leaders and their followers now bear to promote good organizational functioning (pp. 72-80). Objectively, responsibility results from a formal process of dialogue within which leaders and followers collectively identify goals, tactics, and projects need to be accomplished and, as such, the definitions are not governed by legalisms and contracts but, instead, are shaped and given form through a process of dialogue that involves others than those who are specifically responsible for accomplishing all of these activities. At the same time, however, responsibility requires individuals to exercise discretion about how they will complete the particular projects assigned to them. Subjectively, then, responsibility involves an informal process of reflection within which an individual specifies how to complete ones projects, given ones understanding of how one will contribute to the larger organizational effort, that is, its goals. As an organization and its members learn to function more as an ethical community than a functional bureaucracy, these formal and informal processes specify the two sides of the coin of responsibility. Responsibility, then, is not an either/or proposition in an ethical community, but rather a both/and proposition.
At this fifth stage of Maclagans paradigm, a covenant of shared valuesevidenced in trust and discretion in decision making authority rather than suspicion and "snoopervisory" inspection of a subordinate's decisionsas well as collective responsibility for the common good rather than contractual obligations characterize the organizational decision-making process. This covenant provides evidence indicating that leaders and their followers have come to understand themselves and their responsibilities for the organizations transcendent purpose as well as their roles of service within the organization. According to Kohlbergs theory, responsibility for promoting the common good on the part of leaders and followers gives evidence, in ethical communities, of the deeper trust that leaders and followers have developed through dialogue and, moving forward, as they define and carry out their projects as service in furthering a transcendent moral purpose. In addition, responsibility gives evidence of the ethical development of leaders and their followers as well as the formation of an organization which now functions more capably as an ethical community than as a functional organization. Whereas Barnard (1938) identifies this as the "moral factor" of executive leadership, it guides both leaders and followers as they share and uphold a transcendent moral purpose in the organizational decision-making process. Leaders will oftentimes find themselves acting upon their antecedent core assumptions, beliefs, and values in organizations where the culture requires leaders to justify decisions which either support or dismiss partisan interests and demands asserted and justified solely by lower-level moral reasoning (e.g., pre-conventional and conventional moral reasoning). The snare leaders must avoid as situations like these ariseif leaders are to direct their efforts toward constructing an organization which operates as an ethical communityis becoming mute and acceding to the organizations cultural norms which inhibit the inculcation of responsibility through discourse. Instead, as McWhinney (1992) argues, leaders must exhibit the virtue of courage and defend their position by challenging followers to consider positions that have derived from higher-level moral reasoning (e.g., post-conventional moral reasoning). As numerous philosophers, ethicists, and organizational theorists have asserted, the virtue of courage is what makes it possible for leaders and their followers to consider and to dialogue about the value conflicts embedded in organizational dilemmas from a higherlevel of moral reasoning. Then, gradually and as a consequence of the trust that builds up through dialogue, leaders and followers will let go of those personal and organizational teddy bears that have provided so much comfort and security (Winnicott, 1971) yet have also served to inhibit both personal ethical development and the development of an organization into an ethical community whose members all accept and bear responsibility for the choices they make.
At the same time, an ethical organization characterized by a post-conventional or principled decision-making process presents leaders and followers several ethical challenges. For leaders, the temptation to manipulate followers in order to impose ones will upon them presents perhaps the most serious temptation, one Machiavelli (1985) so astutely noted in his book, The Prince. To deal adequately with this temptation, Maclagan identifies three rules leaders be aware of. First, leaders must be sufficiently mature enough to place their espoused values into question and to engage in dialogue with followers. This is the behavior Argyris and Schn (1974) have called Model II behavior. As Maclagan notes about this first rule, managers should seek to increase the awareness of possible manipulation by making explicit their own values and encouraging reaction from employees (1998, p. 83). Not only does making ones own values more explicit provide ones followers the opportunity to offer feedback about the congruence (or lack of congruence) between ones espoused values and actual values in practice episodes (Sergiovanni, 1986). In addition, the ability to make explicit ones values enables leaders to model the type of dialogue that they are attempting to foster among the followers and throughout the organization. Second, Maclagan notes that if leaders are to overcome the temptation to manipulate others, the values held by followers should receive at least an equal of a hearing as those espoused by leaders (p. 83). To this end, leaders might envision their organization more as a web of inclusion (Helgesen, 1995) than as a structurally configured hierarchy (Mintzberg, 1979). Through this airing of differences leaders give their followers tangible evidence of a willingness to listen and to respond to a diversity of viewpoints. And, as already noted, this dialogue enables leaders to challenge their followers to examine these differences from higher levels of moral reasoning (and vice-versa) as well as to forge a more broadly held consensus. This consensuswhich, however, may not be a perfect consensusis grounded in ethical principles not extrinsic coercion (for example, rewards and punishments) or intrinsic organizational norms (for example, conformity). Third, to overcome the temptation to manipulate followers, leaders must complicate their followers understanding by engaging them in developing alternative scenarios based upon their values (Maclagan, 1998, p. 83). While each scenario possesses its idiosyncratic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and discussing these makes it possible for leaders and their followers to consider a panoply of alternatives that might not otherwise be considered, Maclagan notes that encouraging the followers freedom of choice also makes it possible for leaders to overcome the temptation to manipulate their followers. How? As leaders and followers consider the full range of options or policies that should be brought forward and explored and, then, engage in dialogue about each, leaders allow a collective chain of consent to emerge rather than re-assert a hierarchical chain of command (Srivasta & Cooperrider, 1986, p. 707). Conflict will always be present in organizations if only because leaders and their followers possess a diversity of interests and needed resources are oftentimes scarce (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 163). In addition, genuine concern for these interests may require subordinating functional requirements to personal and/or collective needs. However, in transforming an organization into an ethical community, leaders need to manage these differences in a way that encourages every member of the organization to bear personal responsibility for the collective judgments made as well as to ensure the good functioning of the organization. It may well be that leaders must do this by attending to the presence of bias and prejudice in the decision-making process. However, by doing so, leaders are seeking to ensure that these forces do not become institutionalized in the organizations culture, procedures, or practices.