Public Integrity

ISSN: 1099-9922 (Print) 1558-0989 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mpin20

Individual Moral Development: An Empirical

Exploration of Public- and Private-Sector
Differences

Dennis Wittmer

To cite this article: Dennis Wittmer (2000) Individual Moral Development: An Empirical
Exploration of Public- and Private-Sector Differences, Public Integrity, 2:3, 181-194, DOI:
10.1080/15580989.2000.11770832

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15580989.2000.11770832

Published online: 27 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mpin20

Download by: [Pepperdine University] Date: 14 August 2017, At: 01:03

 Individual Moral
Development
An Empirical Exploration of
Public- and Private- Sector
Differences
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

~ DENNIS WITTMER

Abstract

Cognitive moral development is recognized in the management literature as one of

the critical individual attributes in understanding ethical decisionmaking. There is
also a growing body of research that examines sector (Public/private) differences in
personal attitudes and values. Yet there has been virtually no comparative research
in ethical decisionmaking and in particular moral development. This research ex-
amines sector differences in terms of cognitive moral development by studying a
sample of students with work experience in business, public administration, and en-
gineering. Findings indicate that sector is related to a stage analysis of moral devel-
opment, with business and engineering students scoring higher on principled rea-
soning and public administration students scoring higher on conventional or
group-focused moral reasoning. The analysis concludes with a discussion of the im-
plications of the data for managers.

There is a long and venerable tradition of concern for the ethical dimensions of pub-
lic administration (e.g., Herring, 1936; Leys, 1944; Appleby, 1952; Bailey, 1965).
The scope of this interest and concern broadened in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1989
the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) sponsored a national con-
ference in Washington, D.c., "Ethics in Government: An Intricate Web" (Bowman,
1991). In 1991 the Conference on the Study of Government Ethics was held in Park
City, Utah. One of its distinguishing features was the mix of field studies and em-
pirically based research with conceptual- and normative-based papers (Frederick-
son, 1993), and it may have been a motivation for the publication of an ethics hand-
book (Cooper, 1994). In 1995 another conference (the National Symposium on
Ethics and Values in Public Administration) in Tampa, Florida, continued the tradi-

PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000 I 81

 Dellnis Wittmer

tion of exchanging normative and empirical work in public administration ethics

(Bowman and Menzel , 1998). This study is in part a product of a decade of in-
creasing appreciation for empirical studies related to public administration ethics.
Cognitive moral development, or moral reasoning, has been proposed as an im-
portant element in behavioral models of the ethical decisionmaking of managers
(e.g., Trevino, 1986; Ferrell, Gresham, and Fraedrich, 1989; Jones, 1991). Public ad-
ministration researchers have developed an instru-
ment to assess the stages of moral reasoning of pub-
Expanding our knowledge about
lic administrators (Stewart and Sprinthall, 1991,
sector differences in terms of 1993, 1994). Moreover, empirical studies have
cognitive moral development may shown a relationship between the level of moral de-
be useful for developing a more velopment and ethical (or unethical) decisionmak-
complete understanding of ethical ing behavior (e.g., Stratton, Flynn, and Johnson,
1981; Trevino and Youngblood, 1990). In addition, a
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

decisionmaking among managers. growing body of empirically grounded, comparative

(Public/private) research supports sector differences
in employee attitudes and values (e.g., Rainey, 1983; Nalbandian and Edwards,
1983; Wittmer, 1991). Recent comparative research has examined the level of moral
development in relation to entrepreneurs (Teal and Carroll, 1999).
Expanding our knowledge about sector differences in terms of cognitive moral
development may be useful for developing a more complete understanding of ethi-
cal decisionmaking among managers. If differences are found, we may gain insights
into the kinds of reasons that are most persuasive to managers when they are con-
fronted with ethical situations or dilemmas. Such knowledge also has implications
for training as well as the design of organizational controls. As a recent article in this
journal (White, 1999) pointed out, virtually no empirical research has examined
possible sector differences in terms of moral development. This study is a modest,
preliminary effort to fill that gap. The purpose of this article is to report the results
of a comparative study of cognitive moral development among public- and private-
sector management students in public administration, business administration, and
engineering programs.
A summary of Kohlberg's theory of cognitive moral development, including a
brief outline of the stages of moral development and the major characteristics that
differentiate them, appears in the next section. The next section also reviews some
of the relevant theoretical and empirical studies that have investigated possible pub-
lic-private differences in personal attitudes and values. The discussion then turns to
the findings of an empirical test of moral development. The article concludes with
a brief discussion of the results, including possible explanations and implications.

Cognitive Moral Development

An individual's level of cognitive moral development has been the single, most im-
portant individual characteristic studied in research related to moral psychology.
Kohlberg (1969, 1984), the best-known researcher of cognitive moral development,
proposed a six-stage theory of the kinds of moral reasoning individuals employ
when confronted with ethical choices or moral dilemmas. The theory is develop-
mental in that as individuals age they progress through different stages of ethical

182 PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000

 Individual Moral Development

reasoning. The focus is not on the content or outcome of one's decision but rather
the reasoning used to arrive at a solution to a dilemma.
According to Kohlberg, the moral thinking of individuals progresses from more
self-centered kinds of justifications, to group-determined standards, to more princi-
pled and universal kinds of reasoning. The theory is structured to include three gen-
erallevels of cognitive moral development, with two stages in each level. Although
individuals pass sequentially through these stages, not all persons reach the highest
stages of moral reasoning. In fact, Kohlberg has estimated that only 20 percent of
adults ever display the highest stages of moral reasoning (Kohlberg and Delfenbein,
1985). It is important to emphasize that cognitive moral development, moral judg-
ment, or moral reasoning is only one part of the psychology of morality. Rest (1986)
argues that there are four components in morality: moral sensitivity, moral judg-
ment, moral motivation, and moral character. Moreover, moral judgment is not a
measure of altruism, moral worth, niceness, caring, or the like (Rest, 1987).
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

The first level (stages I and 2) is preconventional reasoning. Stage 1 reasoning is

characterized by an emphasis on avoiding punishment or obeying authority as guid-
ing decisionrnaking. Stage 2 thinking is based on instrumental exchange or quid pro
quo thinking. The reasoning of both stages is highly egocentric and lacking a sense
of group norms or principles in guiding behavior. Consider, for example, an em-
ployee who is deciding whether to use information from a competitor's project pro-
posal that has been provided by an ex-employee of the competitor. Preconventional
reasoning might include the following kind of responses: "We should take it because
we will be rewarded" (stage I) or "We should take it because they have taken ad-
vantage of our company in the past" (stage 2).
The second level (stages 3 and 4) of Kohlberg's moral reasoning scheme is con-
ventional reasoning. The fundamental concept in conventional reasoning is group
loyalty. Stage 3 reasoning emphasizes the importance of living up to the expecta-
tions of family and peer groups. An individual wants to be accepted by the group
and sees right and wrong defined by the group. Con-
sidering the same situation involving a competitor's An individual's level of
proposal, stage 3 individuals might reason that it is
right or wrong because of how others in the work group
cognitive moral development
or firm or even professional community will regard the has been the single, most
behavior. important individual
Stage 4 reasoning is also focused on conformity with characteristic studied in
group norms but expands the perspective to the larger
research related to moral
social system or society. Moral reasoning focuses on
fulfilling one's obligations and duties as defined by the psychology.
system. This stage has been referred to as the "law and
order" orientation. The competitor proposal situation might elicit such reasoning as,
"It is against the law" or "If everyone were to do this kind of stuff, the whole social
order might collapse ."
The third level of moral development (stages 5 and 6) is characterized by princi-
pled or postconventional reasoning. Individuals in these stages tend to reason as
morally autonomous agents, appealing to principles that have universal application.
Both self-interest and group standards give way to justifications that are grounded
in human rights and fundamental rules of a social contract. Stage 5 reasoning em-

PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000 183

 Dennis Wittmer

phasizes individual rights and achieving the common good, whereas stage 6 think-
ing appeals to principles that are universalizable and reversible, that is, principles
that any rational agent would adopt. Again, considering whether to take a competi-
tor's proposal, a postconventional person might reason that taking the proposal ulti-
mately results in more harm that good for everyone affected by the action or that the
competitor has a moral right to be treated fairly and honestly, just as everyone does.'
Two primary instruments have been created and extensively tested to measure
stages of moral development. Kohlberg's moral judgment interview (MJI) uses
open-ended questions and follow-up questions to elicit responses to several ethical
dilemmas. A major shortcoming of the MJI is the significant time required to learn
and administer the protocol, which is performed individually with subjects. The
most widely used instrument for measuring moral development is a paper-and-pen-
cil test that can be administered to groups of subjects. This instrument is the defin-
ing issues test (DIT), which was developed by James Rest (1979, 1984). More re-
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

cently, a similar testing instrument has been developed for public administrators
(Stewart and Sprinthall, 1991, 1993, 1994). Since this was a comparative study, the
DIT was thought to be the most appropriate testing instrument; it is further dis-
cussed in the methods section.

Differences Between the Public and Private Sectors

Although there is a growing body of theoretical and empirical research related to or-
ganizational ethics and managerial decisionmaking, there has been virtually no re-
search examining the role of sector in management ethics. Whether such differences
do in fact exist, there are at least two reasons to make the inquiry. First, if differ-
ences are found, there are implications for organizational design, managerial control
mechanisms, and relevant kinds of education and training to promote ethical be-
havior. Second, there is a growing body of research supporting sector differences in
other individual and organizational variables. Differences have been found, for in-
stance, in employees attitudes and values (e.g., Buchanan, 1974, 1975; Rainey,
1979, 1983; Guyot, 1962; Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka, 1976; Kilpatrick, Cum-
mings, and Jennings, 1964).
In terms of research in managerial ethics, Bowman (1976) provides us with one of
the only comparative studies. In an attitudinal survey comparing business managers
and public administrators, Bowman found that both groups were similar in terms of
perceived pressure to compromise personal standards but different in terms of what
constitutes ethical issues (e.g., illegal business campaign contributions, racial dis-
crimination, and producing military weapons). In addition, ethical climate has been
studied, providing evidence that top-level public managers have less favorable per-
ceptions than their private-sector counterparts (Wittmer and Coursey, 1996).
Without any well-developed theory as to why and how public managers are dif-
ferent from private-sector managers, it might be more appropriate to suggest a set
of research questions rather than formal hypotheses. There is a long history among
public administration theorists suggesting that government officials are different
from private managers at least in part because of a distinct "public service ethic"
(e.g., Appleby, 1945). Although concern for the public and social interest is not
equivalent to ethical concern, the two are similar at least in terms of taking into ac-

184 PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000

 Illdividual Moral Developmellt

count and being more sensitive to interests other than those of oneself or one's or-
ganization. Perry (1996) has empirically tested a measure of public service motiva-
tion that includes dimensions of compassion, self-sacrifice, public interest, and
public-policy making.
Thus, it may be reasonable to expect that sector differences may exist in terms
of cognitive moral development. Whether due to variations in training and problem
orientation or to self-selection and individual differences, one might expect that
public-sector managers would function at a higher cognitive level of moral devel-
opment in part because of the broader sociomoral perspective they take. Those
managers and administrators selecting to work for government or nonprofit orga-
nizations might be assumed to be more oriented toward achieving social justice and
more universal principles of equity and fairness and so function more at the prin-
cipled or postconventional level of moral development. In addition, the training of
public-sector managers would seem to require that they address problems by tak-
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

ing into account more interests and a larger number of perspectives in order to ar-
rive at appropriate and ethically justifiable solutions. I would therefore suggest the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 Sector will be related to level of moral development, such that stu-
dents in public-sector management will score higher in terms of stages of principled
reasoning.

An Empirical Test
Experimental Context and Procedures
For this study, moral development was measured in the context of a larger decision-
making experiment. The purposes of that study were: (1) to develop and test a mea-
sure of ethical sensitivity in a managerial decisionmaking context, (2) to test
whether differential levels of "personalized information" had an impact on ethical
sensitivity, and (3) to explore the relationships of other variables, such as moral de-
velopment, to ethical sensitivity and decision outcomes (Wittmer, 1992).
Since the level of moral development was predicted to be related to both ethical
sensitivity and decision outcome, a measure of moral development was included as
part of the study. After demographic information and other personality characteris-
tics were collected, subjects engaged in a decisionmaking experiment that employed
an in-basket, role-playing approach. Upon completion of the decisionmaking phase,
subjects were given the defining issues test.

Subjects and Sample

Subjects were students from a private university and a public university in upstate
New York. Since the study was in part comparative in nature, subjects were drawn
from several colleges and programs of study, with the main focus on management
students. A total of 156 participants were included-seventy-one in business ad-
ministration (BA), fifty-two in public administration (PA), and thirty-three in engi-
neering (ENG). The subjects were generally full-time, matriculated students, al-
though no data were collected about current employment. About 70 percent of them
were in graduate programs. One of the attractive features of the samples was that

PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000 185

 Dennis Wittmer

TABLE I Demographic Information by Educational Group

PA (n = 52) BA (n = 71) ENG (n = 33)

Age 30.9 28.7 26.2

Experience
total years 7.2 6.3 5.3
years in government 4.7 0.7 0.2
years in business 1.7 5.0 4.5
Female (%) 40.4 33 .8 15.2
Graduate (%) 100 50.0 51.3
Undergraduate (%) 0 50.0 48.7

most students had work experience, as the graduate programs involved generally
prefer such individuals. This on-the-job experience perhaps provides reason to think
that the results are more generalizable to working managers. The mean age of the
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

subjects was 28.5 years, and the mean number of years of work experience was 6.4.
In terms of job background, the engineering and business students were more simi-
lar, with less than one year of government experience but with 4.5 and 5.0 years of
business experience, respectively. The public administration students had an average
of 1.7 years of business experience and 4.7 years of government work experience.
The sample consisted of 32.5 percent females, and 13.4 percent were foreign stu-
dents. A summary of the demographic characteristics by group is seen in Table 1.
The choice of business and public administration students provided a sample for
sector comparison. Engineering students were added in order to provide a compari-
son with another professional group, most of whom were in a management program.
All the public administration individuals were graduates, since the university does
not offer an undergraduate degree in the field. Approximately half of the business
and engineering participants were undergraduates, although all were seniors and
many were in combined undergraduate-graduate programs. Indeed, although the PA
students were all graduate students, their average age was only two years more than
the BA students and four years more than the ENG students. Moreover, the average
work experience of the PA students was only one year more than the BA students
and about two years more than the engineering students.

Moral Development Measure

As discussed above, the defining issues test was used to measure cognitive moral
development or preferences for styles of moral reasoning. The DIT has generated
the "most exhaustive data base .. . on any single measure of moral judgnlent, and
no other judgment has demonstrated such repeatedly high reliability and validity"
(Rest, 1986, p. 1). The DIT is a recognition test in which subjects are asked to read
six brief ethical dilemmas (the first of these appears as Appendix 1 to this article)
and then (1) make a decision about what to do, (2) rate the importance of twelve dif-
ferent items in terms of relevance to solving the dilemma, and (3) rank the top four
items among the twelve presented.
A variety of scores can be calculated using the DIT, including one for each stage
of development and a P-score for the degree of principled reasoning (stages 5 and
6). Other scores are those for an "antiestablishment" (A) attitude and for "meaning-

186 PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000

 Individual Moral Development

less responses" (M). The DIT analysis further distinguishes between stage 5A, rep-
resenting items that safeguard minimal human rights, ensure due process, and ap-
peal to consensus-producing procedures, and stage 5B, representing reasons that
emphasize ideals for organizing social arrangements but without a rationale for
gaining general support (Rest, 1987).
Standardized forms and answer sheets were used, and answer sheets were sent to
the Center for the Study of Ethical Development in Minneapolis to be scanned and
scored by computer.

Results
Public-private differences were observed in moral reasoning or moral development.
Contrary to the hypothesis that public administration students would exhibit more
principled reasoning, however, they
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

scored significantly lower than either the Public-private differences were observed in
business administration students or engi-
moral reasoning or moral development.
neering students on the DIT general mea-
sure of principled reasoning (P-score). Contrary to the hypothesis that public
The DIT allows the construction of a administration students would exhibit
"group stage profile" regarding the kind more principled reasoning, however, they
of reasoning employed to resolve ethical
scored significantly lower than either the
dilemmas (Rest, 1986). Table 2 presents
the results of analyzing group differences
business administration students or
by educational programs. The numbers in engineering students on the DIT general
Table 2 should be interpreted as the "rela- measure ofprincipled reasoning (P-score).
tive importance" subjects give to the
kinds of reasons from each stage. For example, stage 4 reasoning is weighted most
heavily by all groups, whereas stage 3 is weighted second for PA students. Stage 5A
is weighted second for BA and ENG students. An ANOYA procedure and a Tukey

TABLE 2 Moral Development Profiles by Educational Group

Educational Group
College
Moral Development PA (n = 52) ENG (n = 32) BA (n = 68) Graduate
Stage 2 3.18 4.51 4.64 3.05
Stage 3 17.27 12.43 9.46 8.6
Stage 4 19.75 19.20 19.35 17.0 1
Stage SA 8.40 12.86 14.01 15.81
Stage 5B 3.22 3.46 4.63 5.2
Stage 6 3.48 3.22 3.34 4.89
P-score 25.17 31.56 36.62 43.19

NOTE: Stage scores derived from the defining issues test. ANOYA analyis using general
linear modeling (p < .01). Tukey's Studentized Range Test (HSD) for group differences.

PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000 187

 Dennis Wittmer

test for multiple group comparisons brought to light differences (p < .0 I) for stage
3, stages 5A and 5B, and the P-score (a construct from stages 5 and 6, indicating
preference for principled reasoning). The far right column provides the scores of a
standardized sample of college students as a reference point in making comparisons.
Underlining in the table indicates no statis-
PA students scored higher on stage 3 tically significant difference among groups.
For example, for stage 3 the PA sample is
reasoning, which is characterized by an
different from both the ENG sample as well
emphasis on "group loyalty," as the BA sample, but the ENG and BA
interpersonal accord, conformity and samples are not statistically distinct. For
living up to expectations of one's peer or stage 5B, the PA and BA samples differ, but
referent groups, and caring for others in the ENG sample is not (statistically) differ-
ent from either of the other groups.
the group. What is "right" is what is
PA students scored higher on stage 3 rea-
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

expected from one's close group or what soning, which (as mentioned earlier) is
one perceives to be one's role (e.g., as characterized by an emphasis on "group
father or son). loyalty," interpersonal accord, conformity
and living up to expectations of one's peer
or referent groups, and caring for others in the group . What is "right" is what is ex-
pected from one's close group or what one perceives to be one's role (e.g., as father
or son).
BA students scored significantly higher than PA students on stages 5A and 5B.
As discussed above, stage 5 reasoning emphasizes that rules are to be upheld be-
cause of the social contract and that certain nonrelative values and individual rights
pertain regardless of majority opinion. According to Kohlberg and Rest, stages 5
and 6 constitute principled reasoning. Thus, in this sample BA students showed a
greater preference for principled reasoning, as further seen in a higher P-score, a lin-
ear combination of stage 5 and stage 6 scores.
As indicated in Table I, the groups were not entirely comparable, suggesting the
need for further analysis to control for other explanatory variables. One small group
of business students was completing a business ethics course, and approximately
half of the business students were undergraduates, albeit last-semester seniors. The
ANOYA analysis was run eliminating these groups, but the sector differences were
not affected.
A more accessible presentation of these differences is seen in Table 3, showing
group comparisons by the three major levels of moral reasoning (preconventional,
conventional, principled) and two other categories included in Rest's DIT. This pre-
sents the relative percentage of preferred reasoning for each group. Thus, for exam-
ple, BA students chose conventional reasons 48.5 percent of the time, compared to
62.0 percent for PA students. Yet BA students chose principled reasoning 37.4 per-
cent of the time, compared to 24.7 percent for PA students. Although sector differ-
ences were found in principled versus conventional reasoning, one should note that
conventional reasoning was the most commonly used category for all three groups.
In order to control for competing explanations of these observed differences, re-
gression analyses were run on the stage scores reflecting group differences. Re-
search reported by Rest (1986) shows that differences in moral development are re-
lated to education and age. Since subjects were of comparable education, age was

188 PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000

 Individual Moral Development

TABLE 3 Moral Reasoning: Kohlberg Levels by Educational Group

Educational Group
Moral Development
Level PA ENG BA

Preconventional 5.2% 7.2% 7.5%

Conventional 62.0 51.1 48.5
Principled 24.7 34.0 37.4
Antiestablishment 4.5 4.3 3.3
Meaningless 3.6 3.4 3.3

Total 100 100 100

TABLE 4 Regression Models for Moral Development Stage Scores

Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

Stage Scores
Independent Variables P-score Stage 3 Stage 5A Stage 5B
Educational group 12.14' 27.45' 13.20' 4.20b
Age 4.27' 1O.66 b 1.83 4.31 '
Gender 0.06 1.07 1.07 0.34

Model f 7.15' 14.29' 7.33' 3.26b

R square .16 .28 .17 .08

' p < .0001

b P < .01
'p < .05

added to the model as well as gender. Age was significant (p < .05) for all but stage
5A, whereas educational group or sector continued to be highly significant in all
models. This analysis, then, continued to support the importance of sector or edu-
cational program in explaining observed differences in moral development. These
results are presented in Table 4.
A final note in terms of limitations and caveats to the results reported here: First,
these are very preliminary findings. Other student samples should be tested, using
comparable groups in terms of age, education, and work experience. It would be
valuable as well to test working managers, identifying comparable groups and con-
trolling for these same factors-age, education, and work experience.

Discussion and Conclusions

An unexpected relationship was observed between sector and level of moral devel-
opment. As predicted, sector was related to stage of development, but contrary to the
hypothesized relationship, business management students and engineering students
scored higher on principled reasoning (P-score and stage 5). In contrast, public ad-
ministration students scored significantly higher on stage 3.
This observed difference in moral reasoning is intriguing, suggesting the need for
further research and study. Caveats and cautions are required. The sample is limited,
and there may be questions of group comparability. Moreover, the subjects were stu-

PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000 189

 Dennis Wittmer

dents, and thus one must be careful about making generalizations about any popu-
lations of practicing managers.
Assuming the observed differences are representative of the groups, however,
one is presented with the task of offering possible explanations for these finding s.
In general, PA students exhibited greater use of conventional reasoning, whereas
BA students chose more principled reasons. If one thinks of public managers
as more committed to universal ethical principles (equity, justice, fairness), adopt-
ing a broader sociomoral perspective, this finding may be surprising, if not di s-
concerting. But if government managers (and students) are oriented to a "public
service ethic" of serving society, doing their part as a loyal member of the social
and political group , then a higher stage 3 score may make sense. Just as "good"
family members are focused on the
In general, PA students exhibited greater use welfare and norms of the family, pub-
lic managers may be focused on fu l-
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

of conventional reasoning, whereas BA

filling perceived obligations as
students chose more principled reasons. If "good" citizens. In Plato's terminol-
one thinks ofpublic managers as more ogy, they are the "guardians" of soci-
committed to universal ethical principles ety and its conventions .
It may be instructive to look at a few
(equity, justice, fairness), adopting a broader
specific responses that the OIT catego-
sociomoral perspective, this finding may be rizes as stage 3. One story in the test,
surprising, if not disconcerting. concerning a student takeover, allows
as a matter of consideration that the
protest will "anger the public and give all students a bad name." Another ethical
dilemma involves a character who mayor may not be "loyal to his school and pa-
triotic to his country." Assigning these items high priority in resolving the problems
presented in the OIT clearly reveals the participant's orientation of protecting the
group and its standards.
The notion that business students are committed to more principled reasoning
may also be counterintuitive, if one conceives business managers (and students) as
more self-interested in the context of "law and order." Again, a closer look at some
of the actual stage 5 items in the OIT may be useful in understanding the result. A
number of the items are appeals to utilitarian reasoning. In a scenario about stealing
a life-saving drug (see Appendix I), stage 5A is represented by the consideration
about whether doing so would "bring about more total good for the whole society
or not." In another, about an escaped prisoner, a stage 5A consideration is, "How
would the will of the people and the public good best be served?" It is perhaps not
surprising that business students would have a preference for weighing costs and
benefits and employing utilitarian criteria in resolving dilemmas. But why would
business students be more utilitarian? Certainly public management students are
taught that one of the best public policy approaches to solving problems is cost-
benefit and maximizing benefits for the entire society.
Not all the stage 5 reasons can be categorized as utilitarian. Several are appeals
to basic rights and claims, such as "whether the law . .. is getting in the way of the
most basic claim of any member of society" and whether a certain character "was
in any way violating the rights of others in publishing his own opinions." That busi-
ness students employ this kind of reasoning more than public management students

190 PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000

 Individual Moral Development

is surprising and perhaps even a bit troubling for those in public management. To
those who see a major responsibility of public administrators as protecting individ-
ual citizen rights and upholding some nonrelative and fundamental values and
rights, this finding may be reason
to look more closely at the values Managers can be more effective communicators
and ethical decisionmaking frame-
by listening to employees, coworkers, and
works of those engaged in public
management. constituents in terms of the Kohlberg typology
What might be the implications and then using arguments that seem most
of such differences? What might appropriate to the level of moral development.
be the possible utility of these re-
To the extent that public administrators are
sults to practicing managers and
citizens? One important element
oriented to stage 3 reasoning, they will be more
relates to communication. Mea- likely to use and be persuaded by arguments
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

surements of moral development that focus on loyalty and commitment to group.

help us understand the kinds of
reasons that are most meaningful and persuasive to individuals. Individuals vary in
terms of these moral reasoning frameworks. Managers can be more effective com-
municators by listening to employees, coworkers, and constituents in terms of the
Kohlberg typology and then using arguments that seem most appropriate to the level
of moral development. To the extent that public administrators are oriented to stage
3 reasoning, they will be more likely to use and be persuaded by arguments that
focus on loyalty and commitment to group. For citizens, citizen groups, and elected
officials, this can be useful in terms of knowing how to communicate effectively
with public officials. More generally, the moral development typology provides a
lens through which to see arguments and discussion of policy or administration,
whether among administrators or citizens.
Public managers are well served by recognizing that most adults tend to follow
conventional moral reasoning. Although this study found a difference between pub-
lic and private sectors for stage 3 reasoning, stage 4 (law and order) was still the
strongest preference. Convincing other administrators, their staff, or citizens of the
moral correctness of a particular policy position may require the use of multiple
lines of reasoning. Besides appealing to principled lines of argument (e.g., pro-
tecting basic rights or ensuring social justice), public managers may need to in-
clude more "conventional" arguments, especially those that concentrate on group
norms and values, as well as how group solidarity and group relationships will be
preserved.2 ""'-

APPENDIX 1:
HEINZ AND THE DRUG
In Europe a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that
doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had
recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times
what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose
of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the
money, but he could only get together about $1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the

PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000 191

 Dennis Wittmer

druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the
druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz
got desperate and began to think about breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his
wife. Should Heinz steal the drug?

NOTES
I. For a more detailed discussion of Kohlberg's typology and its implications for public ad-
ministration, see White (1999) or Stewart and Sprinthall (1994).
2. Implications of this research for educators and public administration curriculum devel-
opment might also be explored. Classroom examination of moral dilemmas might be useful,
since moral development can be stimulated by engaging in discussions that challenge one's
moral reasoning. Kohlberg's moral development theory might also be introduced into ethics
or organizational behavior classes.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

REFERENCES
Appleby, P. (1952). Morality and Administration in Democratic Government. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press.
___ (1945). Big Democracy. New York: Knopf.
Bailey, S. K. (1965). "The Relationship Between Ethics and Public Service." In R. C. Martin,
ed., Public Administration and Democracy: Essays in Honor of Paul Appleby. Syracuse,
N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
Bowman, 1. S., ed. (1991). Ethical Frontiers in Public Management. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
___ (1976). "Managerial Ethics in Business and Government." Business Horizons 19:
48-54.
Bowman, 1. S., and Menzel, D., eds. (1998). Teaching Ethics and Values in Public Adminis-
tration Programs: Innovations, Strategies, and Issues. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Buchanan, B. (1975). "Red-Tape and the Service Ethic: Some Unexpected Differences Be-
tween Public and Private Managers." Administration and Society 6: 423--438.
___ (1974). "Government Managers, Business Executives and Organizational Commit-
ment." Public Administration Review 34: 339- 347.
Cooper, T. L., ed. (1994). Handbook ofAdministrative Ethics. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Ferrell, O. C.; Gresham, L. G.; and Fraedrich, 1. (1989). "A Synthesis of Ethical Decision
Models for Marketing." Journal of Macromarketing 9: 5-16.
Frederickson, H. G., ed. (1993). Ethics and Public Administration. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E.
Sharpe.
Guyot, 1. F. (1962). "Government Bureaucrats Are Different." Public Administration Review
20: 195-202.
Herring, E. P. (1936). Public Administration and the Public Interest. New York: McGraw-Hili.
Jones, T. M. (1991). "Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-
Contingent Model." Academy of Management Review 16 (2): 366-395.
Kilpatrick, F. P.; Cummings, M. c.; and Jennings, M. K. (1964). The Image of the Federal
Service. Washington, D.c.: Brookings Institution.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays in Moral Development, vol. 2: The Psychology of Moral Devel-
opment. New York: Harper & Row.

192 PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000

 Individual Moral Development

___ (1969). "Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socializa-

tion." In D. A. Goslin, ed., Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Kohlberg, L. , and Delfenbein, P. (1985). "The Development of Moral Judgments Concerning
Capital Punishment." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45: 619.
Leys, W A. (1944). Ethics and Social Policy. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Nalbandian, J., and Edwards, J. T. (1983). "The Values of Public Administration: A Compar-
ison with Lawyers, Social Workers, and Business Administrators." Review of Public Per-
sonnel Administrators 4: 114-127.
Newstrom, J. ; Reif, W ; and Monczka, R. (1976). "Motivating the Public Employee: Fact or
Fiction?" Public Personnel Management 5: 67- 72.
Perry, 1. L. (1996). "Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Re-
liability and Validity." Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory 6 (I): 5-22.
Rainey, H. G. (1983). "Public Agencies and Private Firms: Incentives, Goals, and Individual
Roles." Administration and Society 15: 207-242.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

___ (J 979). "Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Government: Implications for

Civil Service Reform. Public Administration Review 39: 44Q-.448.
Rest, 1. R. (1987). Guide for the Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: Center for the Study of
Ethical Development.
___ (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Westport, Conn.:
Praeger.
_ _ _ (1984). "The Major Components of Morality." In W Kurtniss and 1. Gerwitz, eds.,
Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development. New York: Wiley.
_ _ _ (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Stewart, D. W, and Sprinthall, N. A. (1994). "Moral Development in Public Administration.
In T. L. Cooper, ed., Handbook ofAdministrative Ethics. New York: Marcel Dekker.
___ (1993). "The Impact of Demographic, Professional, and Organizational Variables and
Domain on the Moral Reasoning of Public Administrators." In H. G. Frederickson, ed.,
Ethics and Public Administration. Armonk, N.Y. : M. E. Sharpe.
___ (1991). "Strengthening Ethical Judgment in Public Administration." In J. S. Bowman,
ed., Ethical Frontiers in Public Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stratton, W E.; Flynn, W R.; and Johnson, G. A. (1981). "Moral Development and Decision-
making: A Study of Student Ethics." Journal of Enterprise Management 3: 35-41.
Teal, E. 1., and Carroll, A. B. (1999). "Moral Reasoning Skill: Are Entrepreneurs Different?"
Journal of Business Ethics 19: 229- 240.
Trevino, L. K. (1986) . "Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Inter-
actionist Model." Academy of Management Review 11: 601-617.
Trevino, L. K., and Youngblood, S. (1990). "Bad Apples in Bad Barrels: A Causal Analysis
of Ethical Decision Making Behavior." Journal ofApplied Psychology 75.
White, R. D. (1999). "Public Ethics, Moral Development, and the Enduring Legacy of
Lawrence Kohlberg: Implications for Public Officials." Public Integrity 1 (3): 121- 134.
Wittmer, D. P. (1992). "Ethical Sensitivity and Managerial Decisionmaking: An Experiment."
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2 (4) : 443-462.
_ _ _ (J 991). "Serving the People or Serving for Pay: Reward Preferences Among Gov-
ernment, Hybrid Sector, and Business Managers." Public Productivity and Management
Review 14: 369-383.
Wittmer, D. P., and Coursey, D. (1996). "Ethical Work Climates: Comparing Top Managers in
Public and Private Organizations." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
6 (4): 559-572.

PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000 193

 Dennis Wittmer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dennis Wittmer is associate professor of management in the Daniels College of Business at
the University of Denver. He received a Ph.D. in public administration from the Maxwell
School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in 1992. His articles on eth-
ical sensitivity and managerial decisionmaking, public-private differences in ethical work cli-
mates and reward preferences, and state and local economic development strategies have ap-
peared in the Journal for Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration
Quarterly, Public Productivity and Management Review, and the Journal ofManagement Ed-
ucation.
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 01:03 14 August 2017

194 PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUMMER 2000