Wednesday, April 14, 2008

Values-centered leadership: A review of the relevant research: Ethics is a challenging educational topic, especially in our complex world—where value systems are diverse (Tatto, 1996) and many of the problems we encounter pit good against good or evil against evil. It can be an especially difficult topic for members of the military and security agencies, where much of the work one does involves making choices between goods (or evils) and it is difficult to know how to feel about many of the choices one must make. This can cause some individuals to avoid thinking about the ethical ramifications of their choices. Unfortunately, avoidance can interfere with development, leading to a situation in which managers’ ethical skills and dispositions fail to keep pace with the increasingly complex problems they encounter as they move up the leadership hierarchy.

Fortunately, ethics education does not have to be about inculcating specific values—there is considerable room for a diversity of values—and, at least in adulthood, it is not about learning how to make simple choices between good and evil. Instead, it’s about learning (1) how to recognize and understand the ethical ramifications of a wide range of situations, (2) to take ethical considerations into account when making decisions, and (3) to behave in ways that make one a trustworthy human being.

Note: Although their philosophical meanings are different, the terms ethics and morality are used interchangeably in this review.

Ethical education There is an emerging consensus that ethical education is most effective when it is a thread that winds throughout curricula. This is because, like any other “general” capability, ethical decision-making takes place within a wide range of real life contexts. Ethical issues are everywhere. Although the skills and dispositions required for good ethical decision-making are (as a review of the literature makes clear) general skills or dispositions, people do not automatically generalize them. Instead, we must learn them again and again. The good news is, that each time a skill or disposition is exercised in a new context, it becomes more generalized. Given this, curriculum developers would be wise to consider addressing ethical skills and dispositions in all educational contexts rather than (or in addition to) offering the occasional ethics course (Dunfee & Robertson, 1988; Gandz & Hayes, 1988; MacGrath, Hatum, & Rivarola, 2004; McDonald, 2004; Orton, Avery, & Lawrenz, 1989).

Several scholars have argued that ethics instructors should have expertise in normative philosophy, ethical theory, and the contexts in which students will be making ethical decisions (Klein, 1998; McDonald, 2004; Morse, 1999). There is an obvious tension between this requirement and the suggestion to spread ethics instruction throughout the leadership curriculum. A number of partial solutions suggest themselves: (1) require all instructors to complete coursework in ethics; (2) have a “roving” ethics specialist appear at relevant points in the delivery of each course; or (3) hire ethical education specialists to identify points in the delivery of a course where ethical content can be included and develop materials that can be used by instructors who have little special training in ethics.

2

Research traditions The topic of ethical decision making in business has stimulated a large body of research (for reviews, see (Ariely, Kahneman, & Loewenstein, 2000; Ford & Richardson, 1994; Loe, Ferrell, & Mansfield, 2000; O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005), and there are a number of philosophical and research traditions, all of which have something to offer curriculum developers. In an attempt to do justice to at least some of this diversity, this section has been divided into subsections focusing on the values, character, and moral reasoning traditions. Keep in mind, however, that although this section is divided into subsections representing different research traditions, there is no need to choose among these traditions. Indeed, as research in ethical development matures, the convergence of findings increasingly points to a unified psycho-sociological model of ethical development (Diessner, 1989). And as individuals develop (or take up different levels or kinds of responsibility), they may find different ways of thinking about ethics more or less helpful.

Throughout this review, the developmental implications of various learning objectives and curricular materials are discussed. To ground the discussion of levels, Fischer’s skill scale is employed as a developmental metric (Dawson, 2008; Fischer & Bidell, 2006). The top three levels of this scale—10 through 12—are commonly identified in adulthood. The figure on the left shows how the levels of this scale line up with the task demands of different management levels.

3

Values The values approach—originally brought to us by Arisotle and the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions—focuses on the inculcation of appropriate values. These are usually either seen as being (1) transmitted from the culture to its members (Dawkins, 1976; Shweder, 1986) or (2) self-chosen by mature individuals (Aristotle, 1947; Armon, 1989), but some literature focuses on the (3) co-creation of values by individuals functioning within social contexts (Durkheim, 1965; Higgins, 1991). Values perspectives often coexist with ethical reasoning and character perspectives.

Because adults confront a plethora of choices, many of which involve ethical concerns, many (especially younger) adults appreciate opportunities to confront and clarify their own values. This is especially true for adults performing at levels 10:2-11:3 on assessments of ethical reasoning (Armon, 1989). Because of this, values clarification approaches may be particularly useful in groups of pre-supervisors, supervisors, and new mid-level managers.

Table 1: Relevant research findings in values education

Finding or claim Citation Implication Values are related to behavioral outcomes.

(Eisenberg, Reykowski, & Staub, 1989; Ravlin & Meglino, 1987)

We can change behavior by helping leaders cultivate increasingly adequate value systems.

Values have affective, cognitive, and behavioral components and can be conscious or unconscious.

(Epstein, 1989) Individuals may not always be aware of the values that motivate their behavior. In fact, in a crisis requiring rapid response, we don’t want leaders to spend valuable time examining their values. But it is important that the values a leader acts upon in these situations have undergone examination and meet the requirements of leadership. Therefore, it is desirable for leaders to take time to explore the emotions and reasoning that underlie their values and review the impact of their values on behavior and outcomes.

People distinguish readily between values related to justice and fairness and conventional values (which relate to particular cultural perspectives).

(Nucci, 1982; Nucci & Weber, 1991)

Many educators regard values related to justice and fairness as the legitimate subject matter of ethical education. The ability to distinguish between issues of justice and fairness and convention is helpful to educators, although there are several areas in which judgments of justice and fairness are influenced by conventional values (Turiel, 1996). Workplaces have their own culture. In workplace education there is a clear place for values education that emphasizes workplace values, even though many of these are likely to be conventional values (Devos, Spini, & Schwartz, 2002).

Inducing students’ dissatisfaction with their own values by helping them see internal inconsistencies in their value hiearachy can cause behavioral change.

(Rokeach, 1971; Rokeach & McLellan, 1972)

Individuals performing in the 10:4-11:1 range are particularly well-suited to interventions of this kind, since they are likely to be able both to recognize contradictions and inconsistencies between values and to use this knowledge to construct more adequate values.

Trees of human values (Page, 1974; Ravlin & Meglino, 1989)

Some researchers (and people in general) think of values in hierarchical terms, prioritizing some values over others. Managers who are reasoning in phases 10:2-10:4 (many pre-supervisors & first line supervisors) can benefit from developing their own value hierarchies, then working collaboratively with classmates to build a common value hierarchy.

4

Table 2: Personal values to explore in adult education

Model Source Description Basic human values

(Schachter, Marquis, Ganger, & McCaffery, 1977; Schwartz, 2008; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990)

Self-Direction. Independent thought and action; choosing, creating, exploring. Stimulation. Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. Hedonism. Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. Achievement. Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Power. Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. Security. Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. Conformity. Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. Tradition. Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self. Benevolence. Preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘in-group’).

Moral reasoning Often, curriculum developers underemphasize the ethical dimension of leader education because they are concerned about imposing values. Values clarification approaches allow educators to raise the issue of values without stepping on cultural toes. The moral reasoning tradition takes things a step further, removing the focus from values per se and shifting it to reasoning. There are two robust research traditions in the development of moral reasoning, one started by Kohlberg (1984), and the other, which is derived from Kohlberg’s work, started by Rest (1997). Both focus on fundamental moral issues and ways of thinking that have been shown to be culturally universal (Moon, 1985; Snarey, 1994).

Both traditions focus on the development of moral thinking, proposing that, as people develop, they think about moral issues in fundamentally different ways. For example, note how people think about the golden rule at 6 developmental levels (figure on the right). Over the course of development, constructions of the golden rule increase in their breadth, inclusivity, and generalizability from one level to the next.

Rest (1986), whose developmental framework is widely employed in research on adults’ ethical development, described four basic components of moral decision making and behavior:

• Identifying the moral nature of an issue, • Making a moral judgment, • Establishing moral intent, and • Engaging in moral action.

5

Table 3 presents these four dimensions of ethical competence, along with learnable skills and institutional qualities that are related to high levels of each dimension. If there is no citation beside a correlate, the information was taken from O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005) who frequently cited earlier reviews by Ford and Richardson, (1994) and Loe (2000).

Table 3: Dimensions of ethical competence, learnable skills, and institutional correlates

Dimension of ethical competence Positive learnable correlate Positive institutional correlate

Ethical sensitivity: Identifying moral issues

• Good perspective taking • High professional standards • High professional commitment • Interpreting events (Smetana, 1994)

• Value and compliance ethics program • Positive ethical climate/moral atmosphere

(VanSandt, 2001)

Prescriptive reasoning: Making moral judgments

• Ability to recognize a moral problem • Critical thinking/reflective judgment skills

(Fasko, 1994; King, Kitchener, Wood, & Davison, 1989)

• Decision making skills • Metacognition (Swanson & Hill, 1993) • More developed moral reasoning • Knowledge of the fundamental attribution error

(Samuels & Casebeer, 2005) and other cognitive errors that affect ethical decision making

• Emotional awareness (Gaudine & Thorne, 2001; Maxwell & Reichenbach, 2007)

• Knowledge about the effects of social environments on ethical decision making (Higgins, Power, & Kohlberg, 1994; L. Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard, 1975; Lee Ross & Nisbett, 1991; L. Ross & Shestowsky, 2003; Schrader, 2004)

• Positive ethical climate/moral atmosphere (Armon, 1993; Bebbeau, 1993; Helwig, 1999; Higgins et al., 1994; Howard, 1984; Sama & Shoaf, 2008; Schrader, 2004)

• Ethical education/training • Exposure to reasoning about 1/2 level higher

than one’s own (Berkowitz, Gibbs, & Broughton, 1980; Colby & Kohlberg, 1987; Garrod, 1989)

• Role-play in which students argue positions other than their own (Arbuthnot, 1975)

• Discussion of ethical dilemmas in which students elaborate a range of perspectives (Berkowitz et al., 1980; Rhodes, Bailey, & McMillan, 1982)

• Collaboration (Higgins, 1991; Walker, 1986)

Ethical motivation (including emotion): Forming moral intent

• Having made an ethical/moral judgment • Understanding of contractual obligations • Self-awareness (Rechner & Baucus, 1997) • Affective commitment to reason (Blasi, 1990;

Rechner & Baucus, 1997)

• Positive ethical climate/moral atmosphere (Higgins, 1991; Walker, 1986)

• Positive social outcome • Positive peer influence/social consensus

(Higgins, 1991; Jones & Ryan, 1998) • Reflection (Sprinthall, Steward, Siiemienska, &

Jasinska-Kania, 1993) • Role-play (Nielson, 1998)

Ethical character: Behavior

• Ability to identify moral issues • More developed moral reasoning (Blasi, 1980;

Fraenkel, 1980; Goolsby & Hunt, 1992; Lickona, 1976; Ward & Wilson, 1980)

• Having established moral intent • Justice orientation (West, Pickard Ravenscroft,

& Shrader, 2004) • Empathy (Eisenberg et al., 2002)

• Ethical climate/moral atmosphere (Armon, 1993; Higgins, 1991)

• Code of ethics • Perception of institutional fairness • Properly structured environments (Samuels &

Casebeer, 2005) • Reflection (Sprinthall et al., 1993)

6

Character “…most would agree that character is a window into personality, a constellation of attitudes, values, ethical considerations, and behavioral patterns that represent what people believe and value, how they think, and what they do. When we say someone has “character,” we mean that [he or she] exhibits admirable traits in both intellectual and behavioral dimensions of public and private life and acts with integrity in that behavior is congruent with values and beliefs. People of “good” character, then, work toward the public good, with integrity and personal responsibility that reflect their examined understanding of their ethical responsibility to self and the larger community” (Kuh & Umbach, 2004).

Character is recognized through behavior, and as Kuh and Umbach point out, the concept of character is multifaceted, involving dimensions related to reasoning, values, and behavior. Consequently, character approaches to ethical education tend to focus on developing the values and reasoning skills that make it possible for individuals to live up to high expectations for ethical behavior (Leonard, 1997). The Cadet Leadership Development System at West Point is a good example. Clearly focused on character development, it progressively expands the scope of cadets’ responsibilities (Offstein & Dufresne, 2007), using many of the same tools and approaches advocated by proponents of values and moral reasoning frameworks.

Character research generally focuses on understanding the components of good character and how they develop (Lewis, Kuhnert, & Maginnis, 1987; Lickona, 1987; Malerstein & Ahern, 1982). Table 4 shows some of the correlates of good character that have been reported in the literature.

Table 4: Correlates of good character

Trait/observation Source Description/comment Trustworthiness (Clark & Payne, 2006) Tested perceived trustworthiness with rating scales and found 4

conditions of trust-–openness, loyalty & fairness, integrity, and ability Perception of personal character development

(Kuh & Umbach, 2004) Exposure to diversity of perspectives contributes to character development.

Moral knowledge, socialization, empathy, autonomy, and moral judgment

(Hogan, 1973) Hogan asserts that this cluster of qualities contributes to moral character. Note that moral knowledge and moral judgment are learnable.

7

Social perspective taking Perspective taking plays a central role in all social reasoning and discourse. Table 5 illustrates how task demands for perspective taking increase from one level of management to the next.

Table 5: Perspective-taking demands of five management levels

10:3 (pre-supervisor) 11:1 (supervisor)

11:3 (mid-level manager 12:1 (senior 1) 12:3 (senior 2)

Social and cognitive constraints on ethical behavior Scholars have documented a number of social environmental effects that impact ethical decision-making and behavior (Higgins et al., 1994; L. Ross et al., 1975; Lee Ross & Nisbett, 1991; L. Ross & Shestowsky, 2003; Schrader, 2004). Leaders should be aware these effects and how they can influence their own and others’ decision making processes.

8

Universality and relativism People from different cultures may focus on different aspects of moral situations and/or make different moral decisions (Ford & Richardson, 1994; O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005; J. R. Snarey, 1985), but categories of value (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990) and the sequence through which individuals learn to reason about increasingly complex moral problems (Dawson, 2002; Dawson-Tunik, Commons, Wilson, & Fischer, 2005; J. Snarey, 1985) appears to be universal.

Psycho-social model of ethical decision making1 The research suggests that an appropriate goal of individual ethical development is the ability to employ a model of ethical decision-making that is sensitive to cognitive and non-cognitive social and psychological aspects of the ethical decision-making process.

9

Approaches to decision making Table 6 portrays a range of formal ethical decision-making processes along with the developmental levels at which they would be most meaningful to learners.

Table 6: Approaches to ethical decision-making

Method Source Process Level Ethics 101 Markkula Center’s Framework for Ethical Decision-Making

http://commerce.depaul.edu/ethics/html/resources/resources.shtml

Recognize an ethical issue Is there something wrong personally, interpersonally, or socially? Could the conflict, the situation, or the decision be damaging to people or to the community? Does the issue go beyond legal or institutional concerns? What does it do to people, who have dignity, rights, and hopes for a better life together? Get the facts What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are unknown? What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Do some have a greater stake because they have a special need or because we have special obligations to them? What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? If you showed your list of options to someone you respect, what would that person say? Evaluate alternative actions from various ethical perspectives Utilitarian approach Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? Even if not everyone gets all they want, will everyone’s rights and dignity still be respected? Rights approach The ethical action is the one that most dutifully respects the rights of all affected. Which option is fair to all those who affect and are affected by the action? Fairness or justice approach The ethical action is the one that treats people equally, or if unequally, that treats people proportionately and fairly. Which option would help all participate more fully in the life we share as a family, community, and society? Common good approach The ethical action is the one that contributes most to the achievement of a quality common life together. Would you want to become the sort of person who acts this way (e.g., a person of courage or compassion)? Virtue approach The ethical action is the one that embodies the habits and values of humans at their best. Make a decision and test it Considering all these perspectives, which of the options is the right or best thing to do? If you told someone you respect why you chose this option, what would that person say? If you had to explain your decision on television, would you be comfortable doing so? Act, then reflect on the decision later Implement your decision. How did it turn out for all concerned? If you had it to do over again, what would you do differently?

11:3+

Ethical decision-making method

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/ethical_d-m.htm

• Clearly define the ethical problem. • Employ applicable laws and regulations. • Reflect on the ethical values and their ramifications. • Consider other applicable moral principles. • Reflect upon appropriate ethical theories. • Commit to and implement the best ethical solution. • Assess results and modify plan as required.

10:3-11:4

10

Table 6: Approaches to ethical decision-making

Method Source Process Level Three rules of thumb for Westpoint Cadets

(Offstein & Dufresne, 2007)

Rule 1: Does this action attempt to deceive anyone or allow anyone to be deceived? Rule 2: Does this action gain or allow the gain of privilege or advantage to which I or someone else would not otherwise be entitled? Rule 3: Would I be satisfied by the outcome if I were on the receiving end of this action?

10:2-10:4

Nine checkpoints for ethical decision making

(Lear Jr, 2004) • Recognize that there is a moral or ethical issue. • Determine the actor. Do you have a moral obligation? • Gather the relevant facts. • Test for right-versus-wrong issues (legal, stench, front page and mom tests). • Test for right-versus-right paradigms (understand how they apply). • Apply the resolution principles. • Investigate the "tri-lemma" options. (This is an effort to explore a third option that

might previously have been difficult to see. There may be a compromise that reveals itself in the process of investigation.)

• Make the decision. • Revisit and reflect on the decision. (This is critical to developing ethical fitness.)

11:1-11:4

11

Pedagogy There are several interrelated goals of ethical instruction, most of which have to do with increasing awareness, shaping attitudes, or improving reasoning skills (Callaghan et al., 2005; McDonald, 2004; Powers & Vogel, 1980), including: (1) stimulating moral imagination, (2) recognizing ethical issues, (3) eliciting a sense of moral obligation, (4) developing analytical skills, (5) tolerating and reducing disagreement and ambiguity, and (6) integrating managerial competence with moral competence.

Table 7 provides suggestions for activities that can contribute to meeting one or more of these objectives, and Table 8 lists effective instructional techniques.

Table 7: Suggestions for instruction

Concern Discussion Who should teach ethics to leaders?

Ideally, instructors should have expertise in normative philosophy, ethical theory, and the contexts in which students will be making ethical decisions.

Should ethics be taught in a stand-alone course?

Ethics instruction is most effective when it is integrated into all aspects of the leadership curriculum.

Can everyone benefit from the same ethics instruction?

Students benefit most from an instructional approach that asks them to stretch 1 to 2 phases (1/4 to ½ of a level) beyond their current level of ethical reasoning.

What instructional practices will work for everyone?

• Drawing students’ attention to the ethical dimensions of problems or situations discussed in the classroom;

• Focusing on the kind of real-world problems leaders are likely to confront in the workplace and at their level of management;

• Teaching skills and practices that increase leaders’ ability to recognize the ethical dimensions of issues in the workplace;

• Encouraging leaders to develop reflective practices with which they regularly review the effects of ethical decisions; and

• Fostering awareness of emotional reactions to ethical situations and their effects on behavior. What instructional practices are likely to work best for leaders performing at level 10?

• Providing managers with opportunities to apply their organization’s rules for ethical conduct to real-world scenarios;

• Considering the relation between one’s ethical behavior and gaining the trust of one’s subordinates, peers, and superiors;

• Learning to recognize the ethical implications of a range of workplace situations; • Examining the relative importance of different values (creating value hierarchies); • Learning skills for encouraging honest feedback; • Being exposed to the value systems of other cultures; • Identifying values that are common from culture to culture or context to context (10:3-10:4); • Comparing and contrasting value hierarchies.

What instructional practices are likely to work best for leaders performing at level 11?

• Exploring complex relations among their own values by examining the way in which relations among these values can change from context to context;

• Examining differences between personal values, cultural values, and universal values; • Exploring the role of emotion in ethical decision making; • Exploring the effects of cognitive biases and social atmosphere on ethical decision making; • Learning about the systems of values common in other cultures and using them to address a

range of real-world ethical dilemmas of the kind likely to be confronted in their work; • Considering the effects of their institution’s ethical atmosphere on behavior, and their role in

maintaining an appropriate ethical atmosphere; and • Creating a model of ethical character, including component values, dispositions, and behaviors,

and their relations to one another. What instructional practices are likely to work best for leaders performing at level 12?

• Identifying basic, high level principles that can guide ethical reasoning in highly complex and ambiguous ethical situations;

• Exploring ways to institutionalize an ethical atmosphere that enhances ethical awareness and decision-making.

12

Table 8: Effective instructional techniques

Technique Best practices References Dilemma discussion Guided discussions of realistic ethical dilemmas of the kind

students are likely to face in the workplace, dilemmas in which students elaborate a range of perspectives

(Berkowitz et al., 1980; Colby & Kohlberg, 1987; Rhodes et al., 1982; Zych, 1999)

Role-plays Taking on the perspectives of different stakeholders involved in a realistic ethical dilemma of the kind likely to be confronted in the workplace

(Arbuthnot, 1975; Brown, 1994; Chap, 1986)

Reflective practice Working with students to establish habitual reflective practices like journaling, informal discussion groups, institutionalized peer review.

(Bushnell & Henry, 2003; Fleenor, 2000; Lasley, 1992; Seibert & Daudelin, 1999)

Readings Table 9: Suggested classroom readings and the developmental levels of their content

Reading URL/comment Level Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Basic human values: An overview http://www.fmag.unict.it/ 11:4+ Ethics 101 http://commerce.depaul.edu/ethics/html/resour

ces/resources.shtml 10:3+

Ethical decision-making: The link between ambiguity and accountability

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/scott.html

12:2

Sama, L., & Shoaf, V. (2008). Ethical leadership for the professions: Fostering a moral community. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1/2), 39-46.

11:4

Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). The dark side of moral conviction. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 35-41.

11:4

Johnson, P. (2005). Five marks of a great leader. Forbes, 175(10), 31. 10:3

Making Ethical Decisions: The Six Pillars of Character, The Josephson Institute

http://josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-2sixpillars.html

10:2-10:4

A framework for thinking ethically http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html

10:4+

Maloney, Samuel D. Ethics theory for the military professional http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/mar-apr/maloney.htm

11:2

Mets, David R. (2001, Spring). Service before self or self-service? Air and Space Power Journal.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/spr07/metsspr07.html

11:2+

Nadler, Julie, Schulman, Miriam. Whistle blowing in the public sector. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/introduction/whistleblowing.html

11:2+

Pittman, Jennifer. Speaking truth to power: Great leaders listen to messengers and encourage candor.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/speaking-truth.html

11:2+

O’Toole, James. Ethical challenges in human resources. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/ethics-human-resources.html

11:3+

Kaufman, W. (2008). Torture and the "distributive justice" Theory of self-defense: An assessment. Ethics & International Affairs, 22(1), 93–115.

12:2+

The Leadership Dilemma in a Democratic Society: Re-energizing the practice of leadership for the public good

http://www.govleaders.org/leadership_dilemma.htm

12:2+

Blunt, Ray. The failures of leaders http://www.govleaders.org/failures_print.htm 11:3

Klann, G. (2007). Building character: Strengthening the heart of good leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

11:4

Kussrow, P. G., & Purland, J. (2001). In search of the congruent leader. (eric.ed.gov)

Borrows from multiple cultures and research traditions to argue for a model of congruent

11:4+

13

Table 9: Suggested classroom readings and the developmental levels of their content leadership. Good discussion piece.

Lear Jr, G. (2004). Are you ethically fit? Nuclear Plant Journal, 22(2), 45-46.

10:4

Lunstroth, J. (2007). A proposed analyst's code of ethics. Defense Intelligence Journal, 16(1), 157-163.

Good for discussion 11:2+

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99-115.

12:1+

Moberg, D. J. (2008). Mentoring for protege character development. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(1), 91-103.

10:3

Pfaff, C. A. Virtue ethics and leadership, U S Airforce Academy. Examines three ethical approaches and shows how they affect ethical decision making.

11:4+

Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2005). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance & leadership success: Wharton School Publishing.

Good starting place for pre-managers. 10:3

Online ethics resources Table 10: Selected online resources

Resource URL Level Carnegie council for ethics in international affairs (challenging reading for senior leaders)

http://www.cceia.org/index.html 12:2+

Teaching ethics and international affairs http://www.cceia.org/resources/for_educators_and_students/eia_supplement_2008/001.html

12:2+

World Ethics News http://www.worldethics.com/ 10:3+ Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/ 11:2+

GovLeaders.org (lots of articles and reviews on ethical topics)

http://www.govleaders.org/growing_leaders.htm 11:3+

Dilemmas Table 11: Dilemma sources

Name URL Level Workplace dilemmas (DePaul) commerce.depaul.edu/ethics/contents/resources/Case_Studies.

doc 10:2+

Business ethics scenarios (Santa Clara University) http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/cases.cfm?fam=BUSI

10:3+

Jim Balassone. Business ethics scenarios. Markkula center

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/business-scenarios.html

10:2+

Institute for Global Ethics http://www.globalethics.org/resources/dilemmas.htm 10:3+

Search terms These were used singly and in combinations in Google and Google Scholar, and to search DTS records. DTS has electronic copies of almost everything that is cited here.

moral judgment, moral development, ethics, leadership, behavior, action, social influences, morality, workplace, character, values, values clarification, ethical decision making, moral decision making, moral education, ethical education, moral cognition, reflection, reflective practice, role-playing, moral discussion, ethical discussion, moral theory, ethical theory, manager, military, intelligence service, education, affect, emotion, cognition, DIT, MJI, Kohlberg, Rest, business ethics, moral dilemmas, ethical dilemmas

14

References

Arbuthnot, J. (1975). Modification of moral judgment through role playing. Developmental Psychology, 11, 319-324. Ariely, D., Kahneman, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Joint comment on 'When does duration matter in judgment and

decision making?' (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(4), 524-529. Aristotle. (1947). Nichomachean ethics. In R. McKeon (Ed.), Introduction to Aristotle. New York: Random House. Armon, C. (1989). Individuality and autonomy in adult ethical reasoning. In D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards & C. Armon

(Eds.), Adult development, Vol. 1: Comparisons and applications of developmental models. (pp. 179-196). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Armon, C. (1993). Moral complexity of the workplace. Bebbeau, M. (1993). From judgment to action: Visions for moral education. Paper presented at the The meeting of

the Association for Moral Education. Berkowitz, M. W., Gibbs, J. C., & Broughton, J. M. (1980). The relation of moral judgment stage disparity to

developmental effects of peer dialogues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 341-357. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin,

88(1), 1-45. Blasi, A. (1990). Kohlberg’s theory and moral motivation. In D. Schrader (Ed.), The legacy of Lawrence Kohlberg (pp.

51-57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, K. M. (1994). Using role play to integrate ethics into the business curriculum: A financial management

example. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 105-110. Bushnell, M., & Henry, S. E. (2003). The role of reflection in epistemological change: Autobiography in teacher

education. Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 34(1), 38. Callaghan, T., Rochat, P., Lillard, A., Claux, M. L., Odden, H., Itakura, S., et al. (2005). Synchrony in the onset of

mental-state reasoning: Evidence from five cultures. Psychological Science, 378-384. Chap, J. (1986). Moral judgment in middle and late adulthood: The effects of age-appropriate moral dilemmas and

spontaneous role-taking. Journal of Aging and Human Development, 22, 161-172. Clark, M. C., & Payne, R. L. (2006). Character-based determinants of trust in leaders. Risk Analysis: An International

Journal, 26(5), 1161-1173. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Theoretical foundations and research

validation (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. London: Oxford University Press. Dawson, T. L. (2002). New tools, new insights: Kohlberg’s moral reasoning stages revisited. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 26, 154-166. Dawson, T. L. (2008). The Lectical™ Assessment System. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://lectica.info Dawson-Tunik, T. L., Commons, M. L., Wilson, M., & Fischer, K. W. (2005). The shape of development. The

European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2(2), 163-196. Devos, T., Spini, D., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Conflicts among human values and trust in institutions. British Journal

of Social Psychology, 41(4), 481. Diessner, R. (1989). Ethical development during the college years: Theory and normative implications for practice.

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Moral Education: Democratic Culture: Ethics, Education, and Community.

Dunfee, T. W., & Robertson, D. C. (1988). Integrating ethics into the business school curriculum. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 847-859.

Durkheim, E. (1965). The elementary forms of the religious life. New York: The Free Press (Originally published, 1912).

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., et al. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 993-1006.

Eisenberg, N., Reykowski, J., & Staub, E. (Eds.). (1989). Social and moral values: Individual and societal perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Epstein, S. (1989). Values from the perspective of congnitive-experiential self-theory. In N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski & E. Staub (Eds.), Social and moral values. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fasko, D. (1994). Critical thinking and moral reasoning: Can you have one without the other? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.

15

Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action, thought, and emotion. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313-399). New York: Wiley.

Fleenor, J. W. (2000). The role of reflection in managerial learning: Theory, research, and practice. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 773-775.

Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 205-221.

Fraenkel, J. R. (1980). The relationship between moral thought and moral action: Implications for social studies education. Boston, MA.

Gandz, J., & Hayes, N. (1988). Teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 657-669. Garrod, A. (1989). Promoting moral development through a high school English curriculum. Alberta Journal of

Educational Research, 35, 61-79. Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics,

31(2), 175-187. Goolsby, J. R., & Hunt, S. D. (1992). Cognitive moral development and marketing Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 55-68. Helwig, C. C. (1999). Social context in social cognition: Psychological harm and civil liberties. In Morality in everyday

life: Developmental perspectives. (pp. 166-200). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Higgins, A. (1991). The Just Community approach to moral education: Evolution of the idea and recent findings. In W.

M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development, Vol. 1 (pp. 111-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Higgins, A., Power, C., & Kohlberg, L. (1994). The relationship of moral atmosphere to judgments of responsibility. In B. Puka (Ed.), New research in moral development. Moral development: A compendium, Vol. 5. (pp. 190-222). New York: Garland Publishing.

Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and moral character: A psychological perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 79(4), 217-232.

Howard, R. (1984). Adult development in educators: Moral stage and the sociomoral complexity of schools. Unpublished qualifying paper, Harvard, Cambridge, MA.

Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. (1998). The effect of organizational forces on individual morality: Judgment, moral approbation, and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 431- 446.

King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., Wood, P. K., & Davison, M. L. (1989). Relationships across developmental domains: A longitudinal study of intellectual, moral, and ego development. In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnot, F. A. Richards & C. Armon (Eds.), Adult development. Volume 1: Comparisons and applications of developmental models (pp. 57-71). New York: Praeger.

Klein, E. R. (1998). The one necessary condition for a successful business ethics course: The Teacher must be a philosopher. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 561-574.

Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1984). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (pp. 7-169). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kuh, G. D., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). College and character: Insights from the National Survey of Student Engagement. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(122), 37.

Lasley, T. J. (1992). Promoting teacher reflection. Journal of Staff Development, 13, 24-29. Lear Jr, G. (2004). Are you ethically fit? Nuclear Plant Journal, 22(2), 45-46. Leonard, H. S. (1997). The many faces of character. Consulting Psychology Journal, 49(4), 235-245. Lewis, P., Kuhnert, K. W., & Maginnis, R. (1987). Defining military character. Military Policy Research, 17. Lickona, T. (1976). Moral development and behavior. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Critical issues in the study of moral

development and behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Lickona, T. (1987). Character development in the family. In K. Ryan & G. F. McLean (Eds.), Character development

in schools and beyond. (pp. 253-273). New York: Praeger Publishers. Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in

business. Joumal of Business Ethics 25(185-204). MacGrath, D., Hatum, A., & Rivarola, R. (2004). The MBA program as a chance to build managerial character...in

addition to knowledge o. Document Number) Malerstein, A. J., & Ahern, M. (1982). A Piagetian model of character structure. New York: Human Sciences Press. Maxwell, B., & Reichenbach, R. (2007). Educating moral emotions: a praxiological analysis. Studies in Philosophy &

Education, 26(2), 147-163.

16

McDonald, G. M. (2004). A case example: Integrating ethics into the academic business curriculum. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), 371-384.

Moon, Y. L. (1985). A review of cross cultural studies on moral judgment development using the Defining Issues Test. Chicago, IL.

Morse, J. (1999). Who is the ethics expert? The original footnote to Plato. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(4), 693-697. Nielson, R. P. (1998). Can ethical character be stimulated and enabled? An action-learing approach to teaching and

learning organization ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 581-604. Nucci, L. (1982). Conceptual development in the moral and conventional domains: Implications for values education.

Review of Educational Research, 52, 93-122. Nucci, L., & Weber, E. K. (1991). The domain approach to values education: From theory to practice. In W. M.

Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development, Vol. 3: Application. (pp. 251-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

O'Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375-413.

Offstein, E. H., & Dufresne, R. L. (2007). Building strong ethics and promoting positive character development: The influence of HRM at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Human Resource Management, 4(Spring), 95-11.

Orton, R. E., Avery, P., & Lawrenz, F. (1989). Values education: Cutting across the disciplines. High School Journal, 72, 124-129.

Page, E. B. (1974). “Top-down” trees of educational values. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 34, 573-584. Powers, C., & Vogel, D. (1980). Ethics in the education of business managers. Hastings on Hudson: : Institute of

Society Ethics and the Life Sciences. Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative

work values measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 666-673. Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1989). The transitivity of work values: Hierarchical preference ordering.

Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 44, 494-508. Rechner, P. L., & Baucus, M. S. (1997). Business ethics as a lifelong journey: Developing reflective judgment, self-

awareness and empathy. Research in corporate social performance and policy., Supplement 2, 243-271. Rest, J., Thoma, S., & Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: Stage preference

and stage consistency approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 1. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger. Rhodes, W. S., Bailey, S., & McMillan, L. (1982). Experiences that motivate moral development: The role of cognitive

dissonance. The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 524-536. Rokeach, M. (1971). Long-range experimental modification of values, attitudes, and behavior. American Psychologist,

26, 453-459. Rokeach, M., & McLellan, D. D. (1972). Feedback of information about the values and attitudes of self and others as

determinants of long-term cognitive and behavioral change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 236-251. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased

attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 880-892. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. (1991). The power of the situation. In The person and the situation: Perspectives on social

psychology (pp. 27-58). Ross, L., & Shestowsky, D. (2003). Contemporary psychology's challenges to legal theory and practice. Northwestern

University Law Review, 97(3), 1081-1114. Sama, L., & Shoaf, V. (2008). Ethical leadership for the professions: Fostering a moral community. Journal of

Business Ethics, 78(1/2), 39-46. Samuels, S. M., & Casebeer, W. D. (2005). A social psychological view of morality: Why knowledge of situational

influences on behaviour can improve character development practices. Journal of Moral Education, 34(1), 73. Schachter, F. F., Marquis, R. E., Ganger, S. A., & McCaffery, R. M. (1977). Socialized speech: a proposed resolution

of the controversy. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 130, 305-321. Schrader, D. E. (2004). Intellectual safety, moral atmosphere, and epistemology in college classrooms. Journal of

Adult Development, 11(2), 87. Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Basic human values: An overview. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562.

17

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891.

Seibert, K. W., & Daudelin, M. W. (1999). The role of reflection in managerial learning: Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Shweder, R. A. (1986). Divergent rationalities. In D. W. Fiske & A. S. Richard (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralism and subjectivities (pp. 163-196). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smetana, J. G. (1994). “The relation between moral judgment and behavior: A social-cognitive and decision-making analysis”: Commentary. Human Development, 37, 313-318.

Snarey, J. (1985). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 202-232.

Snarey, J. R. (1985). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 202-232.

Snarey, J. R. (1994). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian research. In B. Puka (Ed.), New research in moral development. (pp. 268-298). New York, NY, US: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Sprinthall, N., Steward, D., Siiemienska, R., & Jasinska-Kania, A. (1993). Public administration and the public trust: Assessing entical reasoning in the United States and Poland (a progress report). Raleigh,NC: North Carolina State Universityo. Document Number)

Swanson, L., & Hill, G. (1993). Metacognitive aspects of moral reasoning and behavior. Adolescence, 28, 711-735. Tatto, M. T. (1996). Examining values and beliefs about teaching diverse students: Understanding the challenges for

teacher education. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 18, 155-180. Turiel, E. (1996). Equality and hierarchy: Conflict in values. In E. Reed, E. Turiel & T. Brown (Eds.), Values and

knowledge (pp. 75-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. VanSandt, C. V. (2001). An examination of the relationship between ethical work climate and moral awareness.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Walker, L. J. (1986). Experiential and cognitive sources of moral development in adulthood. Human Development, 29,

113-124. Ward, L., & Wilson, J. (1980). Motivation and moral development as determinants of behavioral acquiescence and

moral action. The Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 271-286. West, T., Pickard Ravenscroft, S., & Shrader, C. B. (2004). Cheating and moral judgment in the college classroom: A

natural experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 173-183. Zych, J. M. (1999). Integrating ethical issues with managerial decision making in the classroom: Product support

programme decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 255-266. 1 This model borrows from a graphic found at http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/scott.html.