Leadership and Moral Reasoning Set the Standards for Others

Moral reasoning is as important today as it was in the past. It could be argued that with the growth in society and the increase in the size of structures that moral reasoning is even more important today. Business and civic leaders that have obtained and support moral reasoning are at a higher level of development than others. It is these highly developed people that should be leading organizations to new levels of performance. A paper in the Journal Business Ethics: A European Review helps highlights how moral reasoning impacts intra-firm networks and the values others maintain (Kulkari & Sobodh, 2014).

Human development and moral reasoning move together hand-in-hand. People who are less developed have a harder time thinking beyond what is of benefit to themselves. The authors have used 6 stages or moral reasoning where the stages 1-4 are primarily concerned with fear, self-interest, and following the rules for personal gain. Only in stages 5 and 6 can one claim moral leadership that thinks beyond oneself and into the greater purpose of action.

Law helps us define what societal expectations are and provide guidelines for citizens to follow. Organizations are bound to follow these laws in employment practices, pollution, operations, etc.. to ensure that their practices do not damage society.  Most business leaders follow these rules based upon self-interest and the fear of punishment. This is necessary to keep everyone in good order and society moving forward.

Beyond self-interest are higher stages of development where moral-reasoning includes doing the right thing in difficult situations. Moral leaders have freed themselves from the constraints of fear to a place where they seek to exceed the standards of law. They understand a greater purpose of keeping society free from unfair actions and immoral decisions that infringe on others.

For example, at the lower levels of human development a CEO may put in place the minimum legal requirements to curb pollution while seeking to skirt as many rules as possible. In the mid levels of development the same CEO may wish to follow the rules strictly and proclaim their business is "Green" as a marketing tool. A highly developed CEO would seek to ensure their business is not damaging the environment based upon moral values while not ignoring the benefits that come from being a good corporate citizen.

Position doesn't necessarily determine morality of the person. A person could be in a position of authority and still stuck at lower levels of development. For example, a CEO may create predatory practices and justify that position as a benefit to stakeholders, a DA could raise their arrest numbers but violate more rights in an effort to "clean up" a city, or a politician could take a bribe and vote on a new project saying it is the best interest of everyone.  Authority and moral development are not tightly associated and often contradict each other.

The journal article highlights the importance of ensuring that those with solid moral reasoning rise to the top of the societal structure. Moral reasoning of the leader impacts the moral value systems of everyone else.  Their behavior and decisions prompt others to act in similar manners creating intra-firm transfers of moral expectations. Those expectations become embedded into the culture of the company (or organization) and become a method of approaching future problems.

Moral reasoning is one part of the assessment of leadership qualities. Those with higher levels of moral reasoning are also more developed as people. They create expectations on those around them who are likely to mirror their behavior and perception. Encouraging high quality people with leadership potential to make their way to the top of organizations helps to ensure that the right expectations of moral reasoning and ethical performance are standardized.

Kulkari, S. & Subodh, R. (2014). Intra-firm transfer of best practices in moral reasoning: a conceptual framework. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23 (1).

Ethics as a Sign of Intelligence

What does intelligence have to do with ethics and moral reasoning? Ethics can be seen as a value system that governs the actions of both an individual and a group. Through the use of such ethical systems a level of commonality and trust is formed that encourages stronger business associations and efficient economic interactivity. However, why some are more ethically driven than others depends in part on their cognitive and social intelligence abilities. Such abilities start very young in a person’s life and are influenced by the environment. Ethical development is a concept of nature and nurture as superior to situations where nature versus nurture takes precedence. 

Moral reasoning is closely associated with the development of intelligence and emotional sensibilities. It is believed that …”individuals with extraordinary developed intelligence and creativity are the most valuable gift that humankind has…” Kholodnaya, 2007). The more capable a person is to reflect on their behavior and its consequences the more likely they will be able to choose alternative courses of actions. 

These intelligences are seen early in life based upon a person’s sensitivity, motivation, and character (Tirri, 2011). In order for such moral reasoning to work in an optimal manner the environment must reward and encourage such behaviors. Thus, environment and reasoning are two different sides of the same coin. It is not enough to reason and understand the solutions to moral problems if the environment is hostile to the concept of greater responsibility. 

It is often this environment that either strengthens or diminishes such behavior. This is why it is important for education, colleges, legislation and leadership figures to encourage ethical behavior from the very beginning. There are differences in the ability to understand and act upon such issues. When the environment is hostile to basic ethical values the social structure and expectations discourage appropriate behaviors making them less common in the population. 

Social problems are not easy to define and can be quite difficult for some to understand. Developed people have more ability to use social intelligence, find definitions to problems, planning social strategies, and anticipating social consequences (Lopez, 2007). This is often based in their cognitive and emotional advancements from childhood that encourages the ability to analyze the subtle nature of many of these events and factors.

An ethical model as proposed by Steinberg (2009) helps to formulate how ethics works both within an organization and society at large. It is through these ethics that people contribute to the general functioning and efficiency of society by ensuring that rules apply the same across different spectrums of social structure. 

(1) recognize that there is an event to which to react;

(2) define the event as having an ethical dimension;

(3) decide that the ethical dimension is of sufficient significance to merit an

ethics-guided response;

 (4) take responsibility for generating an ethical solution to the problem;

(5) figure out what abstract ethical rule(s) might apply to the problem;

(6) decide how these abstract ethical rules actually apply to the problem to suggest

a concrete solution;

(7) enact the ethical solution, meanwhile possibly counteracting contextual forces

that might lead one not to act in an ethical manner;

(8) acting upon the situation.

Before one can act they must perceive that there is an event occurring. This can be difficult if one’s perceptions are focused narrowly and tightly on one’s current happenings and needs. The more open-minded a person is the more likely they are able to notice, contemplate, and take actions on such events. A narrow-minded filter is going to leave one so heavily focused on their own needs that a wider responsibility doesn't come into one’s conscious.

This blocking of moral thinking is a result of an arrogance in oneself that does not allow a person to empathize or understand the impact of their behavior on others. Ethical disengagement is a result of removing oneself from ethical responsibilities that are the result of a number of fallacies. These fallacies come from unrealistic optimism, egocentrism, false omniscience (never learning from one’s mistakes), false omnipotence, false invulnerability (Sternberg, 2008). 

Cultures that encourage winning at all costs may also encourage their collective loss. It is important to put this competitive need into the framework of personal and collective advancement. Ethics helps one see how choices impact people beyond themselves and create expectations within the environment. When the damage and stakes become large enough ethical choices should kick in as the most logical (i.e. moral reasoning). When moral reasoning is ignored events such as Enron, the saving and loan scandals that led to the Great Depression, and the athletic doping incident become too commonplace.

Therefore, an ethical event must also be of significance to encourage a person to respond to it appropriately. A small or insignificant event is unlikely to create much of an ethical or moral dilemma. It must be worth someone taking on the effort to find a solution to the problem by analyzing possibilities. In other words, it must be big enough to grab your attention. The more complex the problem, the more avenues of analysis are needed before conclusions can be drawn. It takes a level of motivation to pull all of this off.

To have a solution doesn't necessary do any good without some action. These abstract solutions are often narrowed to concrete solutions which are then viewed in terms of the counteracting contextual forces to determine the risks involved. Once the risks, solution, and nature of the problem are solidified an act can be forthcoming that puts the solution into motion. The success of that solution depends on the ability to move through the communication patterns and cognitive processes of stakeholders. 

Intelligence, sensibilities, and the environment all work together to encourage ethical actions. Even though each person has the ability to morally reason it is those with the highest intellectual abilities that can reflect on the possible outcomes and impact of their behaviors.  Those who cannot reason beyond themselves, have little motivation beyond their own needs, and are incapable of considering the consequences of their behavior are likely to be either indifferent to ethical violations within the workplace or the perpetrators and promoters of such behaviors.

Kholodnaya, M. (2007). The psychology of intelligence. Moscow: IPRAN Press.

Lopez, V. (2007). La inteligencia social: aportes desde su studio en ninos y adolescents con atlas capacidades congnitivas. Psykhe, 16 (2). 

Sternberg, R.J. (2008). The WICS approach to leadership: Stories of leadership and the structures and processes that support them. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 360–371.

Sternberg, R. (2009).Ethics and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 20 (2). 

Tirri, K. (2009). Combining excellence and ethics: implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 33 (1).

Book Review: Critique of Pure Reason

If you are looking for a book that stretches your mind and makes for interesting argumentation you might want to read Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason originally printed in 1781. He seeks to determine what we understand about reality without the use of the senses. He uses metaphysics which tries to explain our existence in the world. In the purest sense of the word Immanuel Kant was a Metaphysician. He attempted to see how far reason alone could discover truths around the world beyond sensory input.

Kant makes a large distinction between priori and a posteriori knowledge. Priori knowledge comes from our senses while posterior knowledge is a higher form of theoretical knowledge seen as independent from our senses. Posterior knowledge is a hierarchical advancement of our basic experiences of the data we collect from our environment. It is possible to call this abstract or theoretical knowledge that allows for projections about the nature of our world. 

Knowledge in its priori form is more synthetic in the sense that it relates directly to our experiences. When the knowledge is posterior in form it takes on a more analytic approach. For example, we experience that rain hits the ground and makes a splat. However, through reflection we can review multiple experiences over time to learn that rain can make plants grow. We may have seen greener grass a day after the rain but without an analytical reflection we wouldn’t have been able to make the connection between rain and green grass.

Each person sees the world in slightly different ways. All prior experiences come into our existing filters and understandings. Without these filters and understands the information would not make a whole lot of sense. It would be as though someone would have a sensory integration disorder where the information is only information without previous context. It would be relatively useless to our needs because it is not processed properly. Therefore, our mind has a perception and this perception makes the world of difference in how we view information and make meaning from it to create behavioral responses. 

Even though Immanuel Kant was not an outright empiricist his book helped in defining and developing the scientific method. Posterior knowledge should be tested to ensure that the data from our environment fit within these explanations. Where there are outliers to these theoretical constructs there would be a need to develop a stronger theoretical model. Hence the process is to develop the model based upon our experiences and then test those models to see if they adequately explain what is happening in our environment. When they don’t explain and predict consistently then there are other factors to consider.

Most importantly Immanuel Kant discussed the concept of morality as reason. In essence, all morality is based on the deduction of natural laws and principles. He certainly makes sense in terms of explaining that moral laws are often associated with societal structure and our concepts of right versus wrong. For example, it is wrong to steal because when one does this they destroy economic trust and this lack of trust can cause societal chaos. If we are not relatively sure that we can keep what we earn why would we put forward the effort? Perhaps it is better to become part of the stealing class or not put forward any effort at all? Since no society can exist without rules of interaction and engagement it would make more sense to enforce/reinforce the elemental beliefs of a society without necessarily forcing society to take any predefined vantage point of these root beliefs. Are there many justifications for not stealing? You only need to pick one regardless of your reasoning as it all ends at the same conclusion.

The book is heavy in terms of its knowledge and discussion. The concepts are theoretical by nature but have transformed the way people think. As you read through this book you will likely need to reread a few paragraphs as Immanuel Kant likes to have long winded rhetorical discussions. You can get temporarily lost in his train of thought. It is his way of connecting the information to create conclusions that others can agree with. Any student who wants to understand the underpinnings of scientific thought, psychological principles, or societal morality should pick up a book. As with all great works they are generally ignored upon their completion but end up transforming the world later.

All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the soul, and freedom].- Immanuel Kant

Kant, I. (2007) Critique of Pure Reason. Penguin Books: UK (Originally published in 1781) ISBN978-0-140-44747-7

Pages 686

Price: $14