The Nature of Values and Authority-Beyond Metrics

Authority is accompanied  with power, and this can be an irresistible aphrodisiac. It is so intoxicating that people continually seek to gain higher levels of authority through wealth, social position, and power accumulation. Positions of power should come with responsibility, and those who do not have the right kind of values should not be entrusted to direct others. People in power positions set the standards for others and can have an enormous impact on acceptable behaviors among their charges.

A study focusing on disengagement theory found that managers who pushed others to engage in misreporting had a direct impact on the moral performance of their subordinates (Mayhew & Murphy, 2014). Supervisor requests were met with willing subordinates who misreported more, rationalized their unethical behavior and didn't feel that bad about it.

Immoral bosses changed the perspective of their subordinates to the point where they no longer could have any remorse. As unethical behavior becomes embedded into the organizational culture, it creates expectations. For those who “play by the rules,” it can seem like an unfair disadvantage.

Performance metrics becomes to define the individual. Companies that do not concern themselves with how these metrics were achieved will find themselves engage in more immoral activities. Whether the metric is associated with sales or production, the result should include an expectation of ethical behavior in its achievement.

All organizations, whether public or private, should seek to recruit and develop authority figures with moral sentiments. When tough decisions need to be made it is those with an internal moral compass who can make the right choices while those who are self-seeking and need external gratification will be more likely to support unethical behavior. The values of the authority figure will soon spread to their subordinates and create a new way competing.

Mayhew, B. & Murphy, P. (2014). The impact of authority on reporting behavior, rationalization and affect. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31 (2).

Developing Deeper Morality in Graduates of Institutions

Ethical considerations are important for maintaining business trust and stakeholder interest. Research by Dufresne & Offstein (2012) delves into the building of character at West Point and makes compelling arguments why many of the values can fit within colleges and business. The study delves into the nature of ethics and how it is seeded into more fundamental character development. Developing these morality systems can service graduates beyond the halls of their education and into the real world.

Major lapses in ethics have caused a decline in trust both on a societal level as well as within business and among investors. These lapses come from fundamental foundations of values and competing choices. Those who do not have strong foundations and ethical conscience often fail when personal and social pressures rise.

Each organization has its own core values that are unique to that institution. For example, at West Point a cadet following the code won’t lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do. In some academic organizations student discipline is completed by engaging in a student judiciary process. The values and ethics of each institution may be different but often follow similar strains.

In higher education the goal is to develop moral reasoning. It is a process of developing personal standards from a perspective of specific communities and narrative understandings. According to Rest (1994), a model of morality includes behaving ethically through moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral courage. It is not enough to think without the ability to act.

Single loop learning is based upon reward and punishment. Double loop learning focuses more on the underlining assumptions of those rewards and punishments. Triple loop learning moves into an examination of culture, tradition, institutions, and systems that frame ones actions or behaviors. The fourth level requires a broader understanding of the world.

The second, third,  and fourth loops can only be found through the nurturing of character. Institutions often focus on rules and codes which can be beneficial. However, moral strength doesn’t always mean following all of the rules. Complex morality requires character in addition to the understanding of codes and rules. Institutions should consider their code of ethics as a starting point but should also try and help students deeply understand these concepts to create loops.

Dufresne, R. & Offstein, E. (2012). Holistic and international student character development process: learning from West Point. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4).

Political Moral Persuasion and Social Selection

As a human species we develop our political views with those around us who help shape our experiences, motives and attitudes through approval, information, and advice (Levitan  & Visser, 2009). Openness to persuasion depends on those who are immediately around us. The majority of people use others to evaluate and define their own beliefs and opinions.

When issues of morality come to the forefront of conscious people become more convinced of the rightness of their assumptions. Such people are less tolerant of those who disagree with them (Skitka et al, 2005) and become further beyond the influence of others outside their social networks. They double down on their convictions and begin to avoid those who disagree.

This avoidance further puts them on a particular stream of consciousness that seeks out confirming information while ignoring dis confirming information. The more alienated a person becomes from those who disagree the more they lack critical thinking skills to counter their perspectives. There is a natural push to confirm one’s morality through creating identifiable networks with similar beliefs.

Morality is open to general debate about its origin and make up. Some believe that morality arises from pure emotion that is independent of reason (Hume, 1739). Morality can also be seen as pure reason without including emotion (Kant, 1785). Evidence has supported the concept that morality is a dual process conceptualization where both emotion and cognitive assessments create moral judgments (Ben-Nun Bloom, 2009).

In all cases morality is a conclusion. It is a conclusion about how things should be and for what reason they exist. Using critical thinking and seeing multiple perspectives in any moral question brings out the ability to use both emotion and cognition to determine the “rightness” or “wrongness” of one’s conclusions. Those that are able to evaluate themselves and those within their networks can avoid the perils of group think and limited perspective.

A study conducted by Bloom and Levitan (2011) used 145 undergraduates from Stony Brook University which exposed students to two politically divisive issues. The study explored moral versus non-moral decision making as well as the heterogeneity of a person’s social network. In the study the students were first asked about their moral presumptions and their social networks. Once cued with messages they were asked to re-evaluate to see if there were any differences. 

Results: 

-Association of social network heterogeneity and morality condition.

-Three-way interaction between religiosity, network heterogeneity, and morality condition.

-Network composition and morality is valid across ideologies and different levels of moral conviction.

-When primed to think about morality issues disagreeing members were viewed less warmly when compared to when morality questions were not invoked. 

-Moral issues create a belief system that one is closer to their network. 

Analysis:

Morality is a social affair. When issues are not morally divisive people are willing to accept alternative explanations. However, when issues become more morally associated levels of alternative explanations are selected out. Those who hold varying points of view are seen as more different while those who hold the same beliefs are seen as more alike. People use their social networks to validate their beliefs and gravitate to those social networks that support their beliefs. Encampment is created as people separate themselves out into their particular social networks to validate their experiences and beliefs. 

Ben-Nun Bloom, P. (2009b). The moral public: Disgust, harm, and moral judgment. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Dublin, Ireland.

Bloom, P. & Levitan, L. (2011). We’re closer than I thought: social network heterogeneity, morality, and political persuasion. Political Psychology, 32 (4). 

Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1739).

Kant, I. (2002). The groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1785).

Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2008). The impact of the social context on resistance to persuasion: Effortful versus effortless responses to counter-attitudinal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 640–649.

Skitka, L. Bauman, C., & Sargis, E. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895–917.