Ethical Fitness Through Moral Dilemmas

Share

Relativistic, postmodern thinking has taught us the partial truth that every human being has a unique perspective on what they consider to be good, right and fair.  What we have lost in the process is access to teaching that exercises the moral muscle. We appear to have lost sight of the insights, principles and counsel of highly developed moral leaders, which would allow for growth and conversation about morals and ethics. The consequences are becoming deeply problematic.

Consider the following headlines:

“House Committee Questions Role of French Bank in U.N.-Saddam Scandal”
“Fannie Mae Warns of Possible $9 Billion Loss”
“Audit: Newsday Overstated Its Circulation”
“CBS ‘Apprehensive’ Over Rathergate Probe”
“Boston’s $15 Billion Big Dig Is Full of Leaks”
“Bernie Goldberg: CNN Democrat Judy Woodruff on ‘Suicide Watch’”
“Five Execs Convicted in Enron Barge Case”
“AP: DOD Warned About Halliburton Contracts”
“FBI Investigating Halliburton Contracts”

These all ran in the single month of November 2004.  From 2001 through 2003, the rise of corporate scandals helped cause a significant drop in stock prices, which cost New York State’s economy alone $2.9 billion, cut state tax revenues by $1 billion and decreased the state pension fund value by $9 billion. In his 2003 report on the financial condition of the state, New York State’s Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi said corporate scandals cost New York City approximately $260 million in tax revenues, and its pension fund almost $7 billion in value.

The combination of bad news and bad behavior has created a crisis of confidence in America’s business community; the recovery must start in the same executive suites. Executives must lead the way with words and actions, of course, but before they can model increasingly high moral standards and ethical behavior, they will need a way to think about post-relativistic moral development. They will need an integral practice for moral fitness.

Ethical behavior in organizations:

Unquestionably, there are some bad actors running some of our organizations as headlines continue to indicate. Despite the drama and notoriety that these poor choices make, it is not evidence that moral reprobates run the majority of business and other organizations. Far more frequently, good people under tremendous pressure are being influenced by the slow, steady processes of ethical “fading.” In organizations where there are no articulated guiding principles and no “flight simulator” experiences to practice with, good intentions are eroded. Three of the more pernicious forms of fading are:

• Euphemistic language – “Downsizing” sounds far more benign than “firing” and “reduction in force” can even become a verb (“RIFfing”) that takes still more blood and tears out of the phrase. Referring to cutting jobs as “enrollment reduction” reduces the act to the point of indecipherability. When stock prices fall, we will take the sting away by referring to a “correction.” These examples are easy to notice, but there are other more subtle forms: the words “pro forma,” for instance, are used daily in some organizations to describe an earnings report.  They translate from Latin into English to mean “as if.” A pro forma, in other words, is a business document predicated on pretense – admittedly fairly harmless, of course, but that’s the nature of euphemistic language. It blurs where clarity is often wanted.

• Ethical numbing – Repeated exposure to sets of circumstances can cause busy or overworked leaders to settle into a rationalized form of pragmatism.  Similarly, faulty decisions that “worked out” in the past can influence what one sees as similar in the present and can influence a “practical” decision that does not really take one’s higher principles into account.

• Shifting blame – When decisions about what’s right, good and fair are cloudy, it can be quite soothing to simply turn either responsibility or shame onto someone else. 

While the influence is certainly felt, even ethical fading has not overcome the majority of our institutions. Harvard’s Lawrence Kohlberg researched and published findings into the development of moral character arriving at six basic stages of moral development.  In short, they can be characterized from earliest to latest as: 1) fear of punishment, 2) a sense of fairness, 3) motivation to “good” behavior, 4) a sense of duty to others, 5) abilities for social contracting, and 6) pursuit of universal principles.

All employees, let alone leaders, need to be capable of adhering to the letter of the law, which may include in-house or discipline-specific regulation. But basic ethical behavior in leadership also means sincere efforts to live up to agreements made with others, which at the very least includes a sense of duty. Being able to supervise others effectively entails the ability to consider multiple interpretations of “fairness” while continuing to build trust, maintain loyalty, and to convey respect and appreciation.

Mid-range moral development shows up as a developed a sense of the influence of decisions on the social fabric of the marketplace as well and they should evidence a more fully developed sense of conscience and be able to differentiate a societal point of view from interpersonal agreements or motives.

Higher moral development shows up in a person’s ability to discriminate between the relativity of opinion and the dictates of a democratic approach that mandates formal agreement, objectivity, and adherence to procedure.  At this level, individuals should be capable of observing due process and binding themselves to existing rules of engagement while simultaneously understanding that in-house “laws” can be amended in response to the needs of the governed.  In other words, they must be capable of privileging the spirit of “black-and-white” rules in gray situations or those not covered by the rules.

Most of our institutions are capable of obeying the law. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act sees that they tell the truth about their finances at the very least. And the majority of our institutions can field good mid-range, conventional moral decision-makers. But there are few people with the moral capacity to make post-conventional moral decisions and these are the very skills that are required in a post-modern society. More problematic still: too many of our schools, churches and temples have either stopped teaching “good” vs “bad” behavior entirely or they have become rigidly fixed on early conventional “black-and-white” rules.

If we want to upgrade the current business environment and be prepared for the complexities of the future, we are desperately in need of leaders who can struggle with the difficulties of genuine moral dilemmas – where there are situations of “right vs. right” – and to live with the consequences of their decisions, even in situations that may continue to feel uncomfortable or ambiguous.  These leaders need access to abstract, ethical principles that are consistent, logically comprehensive, and universal (such as the equality of humanity, the right to self- determination, the value of liberty and so forth). Rather than rationalizing away their shortcomings or mistakes or lapsing into unhealthy guilt or self-loathing, they must be capable of allowing themselves to be shaped by the moment, in recognition that as leaders, their responses shape the character of the organization.

The bad news is that these people are in increasingly short supply. The good news is that there avenues for enhancing these abilities in people who have the latent capacity. An integral approach to moral development can help leaders to cope with ethical decision-making that shifts in complexity from issues of “right vs. wrong” to issues of “right vs. right,” and can evolve in scope from considerations of “what is good for me?” to “what is good for the planet?”

Overlaying an integral framework:

Each person’s personal moral framework (Upper Left) helps guide them in thinking about what would be a good choice.  Whenever a group of people are making decisions that interact with other decisions, they create an “ethos”; an atmosphere of decision-making (Lower Left).  When they capture these decisions into institutional processes and codes of conduct (Lower Right), they have guidelines that govern their individual actions (Upper Right) on behalf of the organization and its stakeholders. The ability to notice and think about increasingly complex morals and ethics first requires increasingly inclusive cognitive development. Secondly, the necessity for group interactions ties organizational ethics and individual moral development closely to the interpersonal line of development.  

An integral approach, of course, provides a quick but thorough scanning for noticing the facts and interpretations in oneself and potential interpretations in others, as well as a way to situate moral dilemmas. First, a leader must be able to notice the objective “facts” of a situation – the right quadrants.  That means they must have the time and attention available and these are the two most overstressed resources in most organizations, whether political, business, non-profit, education or any other.

Second, they must be aware that they interpret what they see and have the time and awareness to stop and look for insights by asking themselves: “Would another reasonable person interpret these facts differently?”  They must also be aware of potential influences from their personal shadow or what Bob Kegan and Lisa Lahey refer to as “competing commitments”¹ on their decisions and actions. These are primarily “left quadrant” aspects.

Finally, they must exercise their “moral musculature” through the contemplation of moral dilemmas. Organizational leadership has two choices: either hire supervisors with the appropriate level of moral complexity (the simpler path) or encourage its development in those who have the capacity and desire to pursue their moral complexity.

The second path is far more difficult. While Kohlberg’s stages of development continue to prove viable, what has been less clear to researchers is how to help people develop moral complexity.  Post-modern, relativistic experiments with “values clarification” or “values neutral” education – classrooms where teachers excluded their own values and respecting any and all values that students brought into the room – were ineffective and produced mainly a great deal of concern about education devoid of moral direction.

What does seem to work, however, are versions of “moral dilemma” exercises that posit a hypothetical dilemma in a facilitated environment that allows people to work out the various facets of the situation and come to some conclusion.
 

A “dilemma” is a situation involving a clash of values – each of which is right and that appear to be mutually exclusive. A genuine dilemma is distinct from a “right-or-wrong” situation.  It is never “right” to say that Jack Welch, as clever as he is, painted the Mona Lisa.  It is never “correct” to say that you “coincidently” sold a stock the morning before major bad news hit the market about the company if, in fact, you sold it because someone tipped you off.  A dilemma is also distinct from differences of opinion or manners, where there may be multiple understandings available.  In fact, the more complex our perspective, the more capable we become of sustaining an ability to make moral decisions in the face of ambiguity: for example, we might be reasonably certain without excluding all other opinion that it was most probably Shakespeare and not Christopher who wrote Henry IV.  This ability to act based on one’s own tolerance for sufficient clarity increases as moral development matures.  And, of course, regardless of some gray areas or the occasional exception, there are numerous choices that are widely understood to be wrong most of the time. Lying under oath. Promising a client a product or service you can’t deliver.  Running multiple sets of accounting books.

Dilemmas are exactly what people from senior management to front-line operations face with regularity and what make leadership a lonely role: they are about choosing between “right and right.”   Harvard’s Joseph Badaracco calls these “defining moments.” Do you launch a product that you know will help some people but that will be extremely controversial?  Do fire a long-term, loyal employee who is not able to take on new roles but whose current job could be done by computer more cost-effectively?  Do you take a job offer or promotion that you believe is based solely on your race or gender?

Put another way: It is “right” to protect the spotted owl and it is “right” to protect the jobs of loggers in the Pacific Northwest.  It is “right” to respect the sovereignty of other nations and “right” to help the unprotected from relentless slaughter.  It is “right” to lower the boom on employees who make decisions that put the company at avoidable risk and “right” to mercifully take the edge off punishments for first offenses.

A moral fitness program:

Rushworth Kidder² , founder of the Institute for Global Ethics, has done extensive research into moral dilemmas and has come to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of them fall into one of four categories:

• Individual vs community
• Truth vs loyalty
• Justice vs mercy
• Short-term vs long-term

These can be mapped from an integral perspective as shown on the next page. Mapping dilemmas in this way also indicates the interweaving of influences and factors on a particular situation.  In other words, it is rare for a dilemma to evoke only two of these dimensions, but it is likely that there are two primary candidates worth considering.  If a situation does not map in this way, Kidder suggests that the problem may be less a moral dilemma and more a temptation disguising itself as a dilemma.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide for each of these four sets of dilemmas with specific checks and balances, and sufficient ambiguity to allow a healthy discourse on unforeseeable issues related to these.

Any organization can draft it’s own version of a document that captures the essence of its unique understanding of its highest moral principles. 

Practicing navigating through hypothetical these is how adult learners can enhance their moral fitness so that they are prepared to decide when they encounter an actual moral dilemma.  Of course, even with practice, people must first learn to see moral issues. Frequently, we notice these dilemmas (as well as some more complex “right vs wrong” situations), and notice also our inability to act on the circumstances. Jesuit theologian, Bernard Lonergan, observed that people tend to either rationalize their inaction away in some form or another (“I’m only human after all”) or to lapse into some form of self-recrimination (“I’m such a hypocrite! I can’t walk my talk!”) The third option that Lonergan pointed to is to consider these moments as gifts…as evidence of our growth edge.  Practicing at this growth edge before we need to make an actual decision appears to be the most effective path to moral development.

With our individual growth edges in mind, we can explore the set of generalizing principles that Kidder supplies for seeking resolution of actual moral dilemmas.  He points to three main categories – exceptions to the rules notwithstanding – as follows:

• Utilitarian principles – those measures that seek the greatest good for the greatest number.  These principles are interested in the consequences of our actions.  Because they cause us to anticipate outcomes, we can usefully refer to these as being “ends-based.”
  
  
• Deontological principles (or versions of the “categorical imperative”) – guiding moral beacons that have value unto themselves. What is the highest “rule” that should be invoked here? Hence, these principles can be called “rules-based.”
  
  
• Reciprocal principles – These include the Golden Rule, the Golden Mean and the Middle Path among others. Because these considerations ask us to take the place of the other person and imagine what they might desire or prefer, we can call these “care-based.”

One way to braid these all together is to consider the encompassing statement that philosopher Ken Wilber calls the Basic Moral Intuition: “Protect and promote the greatest depth [levels of being] for the greatest span [variety of organization]” or its corollary, “Protect and promote the entire health of the spectrum of being, without privileging one level over another.”

Wilber’s Basic Moral Intuition stands as a useful and practical guiding rule that if everyone adopted it – as Kant suggested with his categorical imperative – the results would be quite welcome and life affirming. The neo-Utilitarian, ends-based aspects are most immediately obvious, but the subtleties of “the greatest depth for the greatest span” and the “spectrum of being” almost by definition require the third, care-based element of seeking to understand what might be arising in the other mind as well as in all four quadrants as layers of detail illuminated by a guiding light that transcends the limitations of a purely Utilitarian approach.

We offer the following moral dilemma exercises to begin exploring the utility of this imperative.  As you go through a few of these, walk through the following checkpoints:

• Is it actually a moral issue? Distinguish it from matters of taste, manners or genuine cultural differences.

• Who are the actors?  For what part are you responsible (recognizing that you are almost never 100 percent responsible) and are you obligated and able to respond?

• What are the facts? Remember the distinction between observable, measurable facts and experienced, interior interpretations.

• Does it pass the “evening news” test? Make sure it is actually a moral dilemma. If this is actually a “right vs wrong” situation, you may be looking at a moral temptation that you wouldn’t necessarily want to see broadcast on television. Imagining your mom watching the show may also be telling.

• Which “right vs right” is holding sway? Recognizing that all four forms may have some influence, take the scenario through an analysis to see what may be most prominent.

• What does the BMI tell you? Use Wilber’s imperative as a way to view the various angles of a potential resolution, not as a “two out of three” vote. In this way, you’ll be more likely to consider potential consequences (both long-term and short-term), the setting of precedents and the affect of your decision on others.

• Is there a third path? Every once in a while, you can find a solution that transcends the limitations of the two “horns” of the dilemma while including the better attributes of each.

• Can you make a decision? Once you have thoroughly framed the question and gathered the information (both objective and subjective) that you need, can you come to some conclusion?

What did you learn? Reflect on the exercise and look at your assumptions, your strategies, the resources that you went to and the psychospiritual, emotional and even physical processes that you went through. This is the kind of practice that will develop your moral muscle over time so that you are better prepared when the real thing comes…and it will.

Moral dilemma³
 

Gender lab: You are the manager of a laboratory specializing in the analysis of hazardous waste.  You have been charged with setting up an investigation into a particularly nasty substance.  All the literature suggests that women exposed to the chemical experience higher rates of premature birth and miscarriages, and their babies experience higher rates of neurological disorders and birth defects. The studies also indicate that men exposed to this same substance do not experience difficulties.  You do not consider yourself to be a sexist and have hired woman scientists and technicians for other roles, but you have chosen in this instance to hire only men or women past childbearing years with a full disclosure of the risks that you are aware of.

One day, a woman from another lab asks you for a transfer so that she can round out her resume before leaving on an educational sabbatical in about six months. She is a married woman in her early twenties. She has been transparent about her desire to have children.  She has also been quite clear about her willingness to press a lawsuit for discrimination against the company if you do not hire her.  On the other hand, you are also quite sure she will press charges against the company if her children suffer from deformities caused by the substance you have warned her about. There isn’t a contract in the world that will protect you.  What will you do?

Foreign policy: You are a United States citizen living in South America as the manager of a manufacturing multinational’s Latin Division. The country you work in is trying to develop its electronics industry. In-country product quality has been spotty, and although the local government has slapped a staggering tariff on imports of computer technology, they do not seem all that interested in policing the policy.  You also know that it is culturally acceptable to bribe customs officials who are otherwise quite underpaid.  As you are getting ready for a trip back stateside, your boss asks you to pick up a high-quality color printer that will help him produce the sales materials he uses for his presentations. He believes that higher sales will lead to more local jobs. He asks you to bribe the customs officials and promises to reimburse you for all your expenses.  What do you do?