1. Review of Factors Affecting an Individual’s Ethical Decision(s) in an Organization (the PICS Influences)

In Chapter 2, we introduced the PICS and the Cynefin Frameworks as helpful tools in understanding the influences on and how to make ethical decisions. In this chapter, we are going to focus on the “P” or “Personal Factors” of the  PICS model. As we review the PICS framework, it is important to note that the bullet points (sub-factors) in each category, depending on how they are present or not in the situation and people, can enhance or hinder the likelihood that someone will make an ethical decision. In other words, if we have more of these factors, it increases our empowerment, another way to look at it is likelihood, of making an ethical decision or action. If those factors are missing or working against the person, it may hinder them from choosing what is ethical. Even ethical people act unethical depending on these factors’ influences on them in a given situation.

In this chapter, we explore each of the personal factors and how they influence ethical decision-making and management. Specifically, for each factor, we will explore what can hinder and enhance a decision-maker’s likelihood of making an ethical decision. Then, we will discuss, what if anything a manager can do to facilitate enhance a individual’s ability to make ethical decisions in each area.

As managers, we do not have a direct influence on Personal Factors (P). However, if we are proactive, we can facilitate an environment in which individuals can flourish and be more prepared to make ethical decisions. How managers can influence each factor will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

Personal Factors – Moral Development

Moral Development Overview – An Overview

The concept of moral development most often utilized was developed by Lawrence Kohlberg. In this section, we will review Kohlberg’s model – it’s components, its value, and its limitations. After doing that, we will discuss how the model can be useful in understanding ethical decision-making. This next subsection, “Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development,” was written by Martha Lilly and Suzanne Valentine-French (see the heading footnote for licensing information).

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development (^[1]

Kohlberg (1963) built on the work of Piaget and was interested in finding out how our moral reasoning changes as we get older. He wanted to find out how people decide what is right and what is wrong. Just as Piaget believed that children’s cognitive development follows specific patterns, Kohlberg (1984) argued that we learn our moral values through active thinking and reasoning, and that moral development follows a series of stages. Kohlberg’s six stages are generally organized into three levels of moral reasons. To study moral development, Kohlberg posed moral dilemmas to children, teenagers, and adults, such as the following:

A man’s wife is dying of cancer and there is only one drug that can save her. The only place to get the drug is at the store of a pharmacist who is known to overcharge people for drugs. The man can only pay $1,000, but the pharmacist wants $2,000, and refuses to sell it to him for less, or to let him pay later. Desperate, the man later breaks into the pharmacy and steals the medicine. Should he have done that? Was it right or wrong? Why? (Kohlberg, 1984)

• Level One – Preconventional Morality:
  • In stage one, moral reasoning is based on concepts of punishment. For example, the child believes that if the consequence for an action is punishment, then the action was wrong.
  • In the second stage, the child bases his or her thinking on self-interest and reward. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” The youngest subjects seemed to answer based on what would happen to the man as a result of the act. For example, they might say the man should not break into the pharmacy because the pharmacist might find him and beat him. Or they might say that the man should break in and steal the drug and his wife will give him a big kiss. Right or wrong, both decisions were based on what would physically happen to the man as a result of the act. This is a self-centered approach to moral decision-making. He called this most superficial understanding of right and wrong preconventional morality. Preconventional morality focuses on self-interest. Punishment is avoided and rewards are sought. Adults can also fall into these stages, particularly when they are under pressure.
• Level Two – Conventional Morality: Those tested who based their answers on what other people would think of the man as a result of his act, were placed in Level Two. For instance, they might say he should break into the store, and then everyone would think he was a good husband, or he should not because it is against the law. In either case, right and wrong is determined by what other people think.
  • In stage three, the person wants to please others.
  • At stage four, the person acknowledges the importance of social norms or laws and wants to be a good member of the group or society. A good decision is one that gains the approval of others or one that complies with the law. This he called conventional morality, people care about the effect of their actions on others. Some older children, adolescents, and adults use this reasoning.
• Level Three – Postconventional Morality: Right and wrong are based on social contracts established for the good of everyone and that can transcend the self and social convention. For example, the man should break into the store because, even if it is against the law, the wife needs the drug and her life is more important than the consequences the man might face for breaking the law. Alternatively, the man should not violate the principle of the right of property because this rule is essential for social order. In either case, the person’s judgment goes beyond what happens to the self. It is based on a concern for others; for society as a whole, or for an ethical standard rather than a legal standard. This level is called postconventional moral development because it goes beyond convention or what other people think to a higher, universal ethical principle of conduct that may or may not be reflected in the law. Notice that such thinking is the kind Supreme Court justices do all day when deliberating whether a law is moral or ethical, which requires being able to think abstractly. Often this is not accomplished until a person reaches adolescence or adulthood.
  • In the fifth stage, laws are recognized as social contracts. The reasons for the laws, like justice, equality, and dignity, are used to evaluate decisions and interpret laws.
  • In the sixth stage, individually determined universal ethical principles are weighed to make moral decisions. Kohlberg said that few people ever reach this stage. The six stages can be reviewed in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5: Lawrence Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Reasoning.

Usual Correlation between Age and Stage	Moral Level	Description
Young children- usually prior to age 9	Pre-conventional morality	Stage 1: Focus is on self-interest, and punishment is avoided. The man shouldn’t steal the drug, as he may get caught and go to jail. Stage 2: Rewards are sought. A person at this level will argue that the man should steal the drug because he does not want to lose his wife who takes care of him.
Older children, adolescents, and most adults	Conventional morality	Stage 3: Focus is on how situational outcomes impact others and wanting to please and be accepted. The man should steal the drug because that is what good husbands do. Stage 4: People make decisions based on laws or formalized rules. The man should obey the law because stealing is a crime.
Rare with adolescents and few adults	Post-conventional morality	Stage 5: Individuals employ abstract reasoning to justify behaviors. The man should steal the drug because laws can be unjust, and you have to consider the whole situation. Stage 6: Moral behavior is based on self-chosen ethical principles. The man should steal the drug because life is more important than property.

Although research has supported Kohlberg’s idea that moral reasoning changes from an early emphasis on punishment and social rules and regulations to an emphasis on more general ethical principles, as with Piaget’s approach, Kohlberg’s stage model is probably too simple. For one, people may use higher levels of reasoning for some types of problems, but revert to lower levels in situations where doing so is more consistent with their goals or beliefs (Rest, 1979). Second, it has been argued that the stage model is particularly appropriate for Western, rather than non-Western, samples in which allegiance to social norms, such as respect for authority, may be particularly important (Haidt, 2001). In addition, there is frequently little correlation between how we score on the moral stages and how we behave in real life.

Perhaps the most important critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that it may describe the moral development of males better than it describes that of females. Gilligan (1982) has argued that, because of differences in their socialization, males tend to value principles of justice and rights, whereas females value caring for and helping others. Although there is little evidence for a gender difference in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Turiel, 1998), it is true that girls and women tend to focus more on issues of caring, helping, and connecting with others than do boys and men (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000).

References for the section, “Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development” by Lally and Valentine-French

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834

Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.

Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children’s orientations toward a moral order: Sequence in the development of moral thought. Vita Humana, 16, 11-36

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: Essays on moral development (Vol. 2, p. 200). San Francisco, CA:Harper & Row.

Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Turiel, E. (1998). The development of morality. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization (5th ed., Vol.3, pp. 863–932). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Whetton, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing Management Skills (Ninth Ed.). Pearson Canada.**Note: This source was added by the current author, Rachael Newton.

The Influence of Moral Development on Ethical Decision-Making

Because we are not able to do an experiment that assigns a certain moral development level to people in order to see how it affects ethical decision-making, we can not draw a definitive conclusion on how moral development affects ethical decision-making. However, in the world of management and understand ethical decision-making, most apply Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development to help them understand what might influence an ethical decision-maker. That is to say, we can definitively predict that if someone is at a Stage 3, they will only act out to satisfy the expectations of those nearest them. However, if an employee that we believe to be at a Stage 3, we can prepare that they are more likely to choose what meets the expectations of those around them.

Now, having made that caveat, we can explore how we use moral development within the PICS framework. In general, the higher someone’s moral development, the more likely they are to act ethically. Let’s break that down as there is some nuance with that.

• Pre-conventional – Stage 1 – Decision-makers at a Stage 1 are more likely to choose something that avoids punishment.
  • o If choosing what is ethical keeps them out of trouble, they will choose what is ethical in order to avoid the punishment. The only reason to act ethical is out of self-interest, not because they believe in the “ethical” action as a principle.
  • o If there are no rules or laws for this situation, they will likely choose what they perceive is the least trouble for them, which could be unethical or doing nothing (which can lead to “unethical” consequences).
• Pre-conventional – Stage 2 – Decision-makers at Stage 2 are more likely to choose something that has some kind of reward for them, with a reward being something that adds something that they perceive as good to their lives or that takes away something bad from their lives.
  • o If choosing what is ethical will get them a reward, they will likely choose the ethical thing in order to get the reward. Again, rewards are the reason they act ethically in this situation; their actions not about a value guiding “ethical” behaviour.
  • o If there are no rewards (i.e., nothing in their immediate interest), they will likely do what they perceive serves themselves best, which could be unethical or doing nothing (which can lead to “unethical” consequences).
• Conventional – Stage 3 – Decision-makers at Stage 3 are more likely to choose something that pleases those around them (e.g., peer pressure, family expectations, strong organizational cultures).
  • o If choosing what is ethical makes those close to them happy, then they will choose what is ethical in order to satisfy those around them. Acting ethically would happen not because they believe it is right but because they will make those around them happy.
  • o If the people around them want to act in a way that maybe society thinks is unethical but that group defines as ethical (e.g., not cooperating with law enforcement or lying to clients to get a sale), they are likely to act according to the ethics of those around them.
  • o If the people around them do not have a clear opinion on the issue at hand, the decision makers are more likely to do nothing or maybe choose what they think might make them look good to those around them.
• Conventional – Stage 4 – Decision-makers at Stage 4 are more likely to choose something that fulfills established laws, rules, professional codes, or expectations (e.g., CPA code of ethics, HR expectations for maintaining privacy).
  • o If choosing what is ethical, it is in order to fulfill the clear societal, professional, and/or legal expectation of them. They are choosing the “ethical” choose to fulfill that obligation, not because they have developed a belief in taking a particular action.
  • o If the situation is not covered by established laws, rules, professional codes, or expectations, then they are more likely to choose unethical or doing nothing (which can have “unethical” consequences).
  • o If the organization around them acts unethically in general (e.g., strong organizational cultures that promote unethical behaviour in order to be successful), then they act unethically because the established practices are unethical.
• Principled – Stage 5 – Decision-makers at Stage 5 start to make ethical decisions based on their own person values and ethics. They have developed their principles and are willing to uphold them even if others do not agree with them.
  • o If the situation involves their values, they will choose to uphold their values and act “ethically” in accordance with those values.
  • o If the situation is outside their established personal values, then they may not know what to do and may do nothing or may back down from upholding their values.
    • Doing nothing is not as common, though, because people at this stage often work to know their values on an on-going basis, even in new situations.
    • They may not uphold their own values if those values do not directly apply and they face punishment for doing the most ethical situation. For example, if upholding their values requires them to break the law, they will back down and do what what is legal in most cases.
  • Principled – Stage 6 – Decision-makers at Stage 6 make ethical decisions based on their clearly established and they will uphold those beliefs, even if it means punishment for them (including legal ramifications).
    • o If they situation involves their values, they will uphold their values in what they believe is the most ethical manner according to those values. Even in the face of punishment for their decision, they will stay committed to their values.
    • o If the situation is outside the areas in which they have identified their values, as it is new to them, they may not do anything. In most cases though, they will still try to use their current values to understand the new situation with their known values.

After reviewing these, it is evident that decision-makers with higher moral development are more likely to act ethically because they have clearer sense of ethical expectations (Stages 3 and 4) or their own principles (Stages 5 and 6).

Thus, when examining as a manager what we realize that most of our employees will be at a Stage 3 or 4, we can understand most of them will act based on what is expected of them. Most will not act out of what are their own personal beliefs. How managers can use this knowledge to help facilitate ethical decision-making in their organizations is discussed in the next section.

Making the Connection to Ethical Norms and Expectations – Moral Development

It is important to take a moment to consider the connection between the ethical expectations or norms, such as utility, rights, justice, caring, and deonotology, and moral development. The ethical norms we prefer can be influenced by our personality, our cultures, and our organizations. They pop up in a lot of different ways. When we look at how they connect with moral development, we are more examining when they are present are they present because:

• It is in our self-interest – Pre-conventional, Stages 1 and 2;
• It is an expectation of others – Conventional – Stages 3 and 4; or
• It is what we believe to be best – Principled – Stages 5 and 6.

Thus, understanding that will help us view these norms in a different light, for example:

• If individuals are pre-conventional, then their use of the rights perspective would likely be because it serves them in some way; therefore, it is safe to assume that will not likely use a rights perspectives that upholds the rights of all people (i.e., the ideal), but a compromised version.
• If individuals are conventional, then their use of rights perspective would possibly be because it is what is expected of them; therefore, they will probably focus on upholding the rights of those parties for which there is an expectation of rights, possibly ignoring other parties’ rights.
• If the individuals are principled, then their use of the rights is more like to aim for the ideal of upholding all stakeholder rights, even when faced with pushback.

All interactions of the components of ethics are complex, so they cannot be used to predict what a person would do. We can use them, though, to help us understand what might influence someone, or in looking back at a situation, what might hav influenced someone.

Summary of the Influence of Moral Development & the Implications for Managers

While a manager cannot change a person’s moral development, managers can facilitate ethical decision-making by:

• Establishing clear ethical expectations – Having codes of ethics and organizational cultures that clearly support the codes of ethics make the expectations clearer; thus, employees at a Stage 3 and 4 will act ethically because the expectations are ethical.
• Facilitating training in ethics and codes of ethics – To increase the likelihood that those expectations (discussed in the previous bullet point) will be used, providing training for employees in which they can practice the use of the codes of ethics and values through role plays and simulations builds their confidence when facing the situation in real-time. Thus, employees at Stages and 3 and 4 are even more likely to act ethically. This also allows Stages 5 and 6 to hone their understanding of their own values. This will be discussed more when talk about the Culture Factors and Structure Factors of the PICS framework.
• Reinforcing ethical behaviour – Building into the performance management system, rewards for ethical behaviour and punishment for unethical behaviour will increase employee’s likelihood of acting ethically. Under these performance management systems: (a) it is in the self-interest of people at Stages 1 and 2 to act ethically; (b) the expectations are clearer for people at Stages 3 and 4; and (c) the rewards can go to those at Stages 5 and 6, which will encourage them to stay the course.
• Facilitating employees in identifying their own values – While not always possible as it is time intensive and often costly, organizations that invest in having employees go through trainings and activities in which they define and practice their own values will facilitate them in progressing their moral development.

Personal Factors – Values Development

Values Development, while it overlaps with Moral Development, is worth exploring separately. Values Development is the extent to which a person knows and can define their values. Looking how its overlap with Moral Development, we would expect that those in Stages 5 and 6 are more likely to have more values identified and those values would be more clearly defined. However, there are those at lower stages of moral development that have clear values, but being at a lower stage of development, they are not as motivated to follow them. Nonetheless, the more someone has their values developed, the more likely they will act based on their values in general.

Values Development

What does it mean to have “high values development”? To answer this, maybe it is useful to compare three common examples of values development.

For low values development, let’s look at Gunther. If Gunther were asked about his values, he would likely list the values of those close to him or what society expects of him. If pushed further to define what those mean, he would probably start to give examples, but as he did so, some of the examples might actually be in conflict with the values that he states. Gunther, for example, might say that he believes in “free speech” and wants anyone to be able to say what he/she/they want. However, if a situation arose in which the “free speech” of someone with whom he disagreed were frustrating him, he may support limiting their free speech without realizing the contradiction to his stated values. Gunther has low values development.

Armand, on the other, is able to identify his values and define them fairly confidently most of the time. However, Armand has trouble consistently knowing how to apply them. Let’s say Armand also has the value of “free speech” in which he believes everyone should be able to say what they believe. Unlike Gunther, he would only believe in free speech it when it is convenient to him. He would want to uphold it more consistently. He, unfortunately though, would have trouble knowing what to do when his value of free speech and valuing diversity came into conflict. For example, if as a manager supports free speech and one of his employees, Esat, starts discussing topics that are insensitive given the other employee’s (Saleh’s) values, Armand may not know how to prioritize his values. Armand has moderate values development.

Elisa believes in free speech, and like Armand, also values diversity in the workplace. She seeks to create an inclusive work environment. If she was faced with the situation with Esat and Saleh’s values coming into conflict, Elisa would not only know how to define her values through practice, she would also understand which values were more important to her. For Elisa, in this example, if free speech is in conflict with valuing diversity, she would know that valuing diversity is more important to her. She would also know that she could still have means of allowing Esat to state his opinions in a manner that does not make Saleh’s values to be compromised. Her values are highly developed because she knows what they are, understands how to define them, applies them with nuance, and has a system for prioritizing her values when they come into conflict. Elisa’s value development is clearly high.

Making the Connection to Ethical Norms and Expectations – Values Development

Hopefully by now, we can see, from what we are learning about personal factors, there is both a richness and a complexity. The richness and complexity mean we need to look at multiple factors or components in tandem in order to get a more holistic picture of what is happening. When we look at values development and ethical norms, such as rights or utility, we start to see how they affect one another. Here are some examples to illustrate that.

• Dong has low moral development and tends to be influenced by the utilitarian view of ethics. He does not exactly know what all of his values are, but he generally tries to do the best for the most people. Unfortunately though, because his values are not as developed, he sometimes does not have the skill he needs to understand the complexity of defining what is “best” for the most. He often focuses mostly on the most apparent parts of the situation. So, his best for the most can often be based influenced by strong voices or opinions that he and others might have.
• Binh, while similar to Duong in having an underlying utilitarian point of view, is a little clearer on other values that he holds as well. He understands that what is “best” for the most can be hard to understand and the strong opinions often keep us from understanding the whole perspective. He has personal values of inclusivity that he uses to make sure he considers others points of views. He tries to always look at all perspectives and work to identify for himself what the minority points of view are and what are the real issues at hand.
• Long also is influenced by the utilitarian perspectives, and like Binh, he knows that the loudest voices are not the only ones to consider. He works hard to identify all of the stakeholders impacted by the issue. He has clear personal values that encourage him to engage others, recognize diversity, and be inclusive. These values have been applied throughout his years of managerial experience; thus, he knows that he does not know how to define what is “best” on his own. So, instead of just making assumptions of what is best for the parties, he works to engage the stakeholders to provide their feedback, whenever possible, on the situation, gaining their view of what the issue is, what is best, and what their suggestions are. This allows him then to utilize his personal values of engagement, diversity, and inclusivity to identify what is best for the most people.

As illustrated in these examples, the more that individuals have clearer personal values developed, the more capable they can be at applying those values within the ethical norm that most influences them. The utilitarian point of view, in particular, can often be oversimplified and said to only be how it was illustrated in the Dong example. However, after looking at these examples, we can see that the utilitarian view when couple with high values development allows for an individual to dive into complicated and complex issues more holistically.

Summary of the Influence of Values Development & the Implications for Managers

While a manager should not aim to change a person’s values development, they can facilitate ethical decision-making with values development by doing the following.

• Establishing clear ethical expectations – Having codes of ethics and organizational cultures allows individuals to see the values and identify whether or not they want them for themselves.
• Facilitating training in ethics and codes of ethics – Providing training for employees in which they can practice the use of the codes of ethics and values through role plays and simulations allows them to practice the values in a safe way. This, in turn, allows them to know whether they want to adopt them as their own personal values and even determine if there are conflicts with their personal values.
• Facilitating employees in identifying their own values – Again, while not always possible as it is time intensive and often costly, organizations can invest in having employees go through trainings and activities in which they define, practice, and prioritize their own values to aid them in their values development.

Now, it’s important for us to recognize before moving onto the next section that just because someone knows what their values are and how they would prioritize them. It does not always mean that they will prioritize them. That is where values strength comes into play.

Personal Factors – Values Strength

How is it that someone can have high values development (discussed in the section above), but not have high values strength. If we consider what we know of moral development, we know that it is rare for people to be at Stages 5 and 6 in which they are willing to stand up, even when unpopular to do so, for their ethics. While moral development, looks at the process people go through as their mature in their moral development, the factor of value strength looks only at the strength of the person’s values.

Values Strength

In values strength, we are only inquiring, “For the values that the person has, how strong are the values or how strongly do they hold these values?” For this, let’s look at three individuals who have the same eight core values, but have varying levels of values strength.

Margarita, Jose, and Gustavo are share the same core values and prioritize them the same way. Here’s a summary of their values, listed in priority order.

1. Love – The belief that all people deserve love, and that by leading with love, you can create a safe environment for others.
2. Fairness – The belief that everyone should have an equitable opportunity to participate, meaning that we sometimes have to provide more support or remove barriers to be fair.
3. Creativity – The belief that there is no impossible situation; when faced with the impossible, a new way needs to be found if at all possible.
4. Commitment – The belief that one should do what they said and follow-through on what the have committed to.
5. Family – The value that supports intentionally investing time and resources into their family and chosen family so that they all can flourish as individuals.
6. Freedom of speech – The belief that everyone has the right to say what they believe to be true or right without facing persecution.
7. Due process – The value that each person should be allowed the opportunity to prove themselves innocent of any accusation through a fair and equitable process.
8. Diversity – The belief that each person has the right to represent that person’s culture without fear of persecution; moreover, by doing so, our society is stronger and more likely to be stronger.

Margarita, Jose, and Gustavo all work on the same team in a non-profit organization. Their team leader, Anna, who is Christian and openly speaks about her faith accommodated the Christmas holiday for each team member’s deadlines. When Sarah asked for accommodations to be made around her Hanukah observance, Anna was dismissive. According to Margarita’s, Jose’s, and Gustavo’s personal values, Anna’s behaviour was inappropriate (values: love, fairness, and diversity) but they should allow her a chance to grow/change (value: due process). Because each person’s values strength is unique, they all handled the situation differently.

Margarita was surprised by Anna’s dismissive nature about Sarah’s request. She did not think it was right, but she did not think it was worth causing a fuss over.

Jose, like Margarita, did not approach to Sarah’s request, he thought that he should bring it back up at the next team meeting to see if they could accommodate Sarah’s request. He felt this upheld all of his values, including letting Anna grow. However, when he mentioned it, Anna again seemed to talk about it but not really address it. Jose did not press it any further.

Gustavo had planned, like Jose, to bring up Sarah’s request at the team meeting. So, he was grateful when Jose brought it up. However, when Anna seemed to ignore it again, he felt that something definitely had to be done. He decided in order to be fair to Anna and her growth (due process) and to give her the benefit of the doubt, he would address it with her personally. Thus, he set up a meeting to talk to Anna. At the meeting, he mentioned allowed Anna to interact with the idea again, and as relevant, he mentioned his concerns and provided solutions. Thankfully, Anna was responsive. If she had not been, he was ready to talk to their boss about it.

As illustrated in these examples, all of the individuals have the same values development, but it is clear that their values strength is quite different. Margarita had low values strength, Jose moderate, and Gustavo high. This directly impacted how they made their ethical decisions and acted (or not).

Making the Connection with Ethical Norms and Expectations – Values Strength

As discussed previous, the richness and complexity of personal factors means we need to consider factors simultaneously and recognize that they influence each other. Consequently, the influences can mean that things can shift and change, even as we analyze them. When we look at values strength and its connection to ethical norms, we see similarities to the connection between ethical norms and moral development (discussed previously). However, as illustrated in the examples of Margarita, Jose, and Gustavo, values strength is distinct from moral development.

To highlight the interaction of values strength and ethical norms, descriptions of what justice could look like at three different levels of values strength is described below for a situation in which an employee, Georgi, has made a complaint against Tatiana for bullying. In this situation, Georgi has stated that Antonia has been making fun of him and criticizing him in their team meetings, using demeaning language. This is being investigated by Abebi is the HR professional in charge of investigating this situation. Abebi has the personal values of kindness, fairness, inclusion, and family.

• In this situation, if Abebi has low values strength, then her values of kindness, fairness, inclusion, and family will likely be very generally and inconsistently used within the influence of the justice perspective. For example, Abebi might interview Georgi, and then, after hearing Georgi’s complaint, she might tell Georgi that she too thinks that something needs to be done about Antonia, but that they must follow the process for doing so. By already concluding that “something needs to be done about Antonia” before interviewing Anotonia, Abebi is compromising what a justice point of view would say is fair to Antonia and what Abebi’s personal values indicate to be important. Namely fairness and inclusion are not used, but she focused only on using kindness with Georgi.
• In this situation, if Abebi has moderate values strength, then her values of kindness, fairness, inclusion, and family will probably be mostly consistently used within the influence of the justice perspective. However, she will likely compromise one or more of her personal values and/or the influence of the justice perspective. As an example, after interviewing Georgi, Abebi lets Georgi know that they have enough information to take this complaint through their HR process, but is sure not to say that anyone is in the wrong. Abebi also uses her kindness and fairness values to explain the support Georgi has while the investigation is going on and what the steps will be to ensure an unbiased perspective. Personally though, Abebi thinks that Antonia is in the wrong and that she should be punished. She thinks the evidence is clear. Nonetheless, she follows the process, but subtly in doing so, she rushes through the steps that belong to Antonia, making Antonia feel more pressured. She also does volunteer the extra information to Antonia about support that Antonia can get. So, generally, she followed the “just” process, but along the way she did not equitably apply her values of kindness, fairness, and inclusion to Antonia as much as to Georgi.
• In this situation, if Abebi has high values strength. then her values of kindness, fairness, inclusion, and family will plausibly be integrated in how she understand the situation through a justice perspective. She will work to not compromise any of her personal values or the justice perspective. Like in the second scenario after the initial interview with Georgi, she explains the support he has available and the steps. Before initiating anything with Antonia, she comes up with a list of supports for Antonia and materials for Antonia to know her rights through this process. Furthermore, since some of the complaint had seemed to be about cultural differences, she does a little bit of research into these areas to make sure she understands them equally from Georgi’s perspective and Antonia’s perspective. Then, in her interactions with Antonia, she shows the same unbiased and kind approach to implementing the process as she does with Georgi. As she delegates components of the investigation, she ensures that those doing it are just as kind, inclusive, and fair to both parties.

Depending on Abebi’s values strength, we can see how it affects her use of her personal values and the influence of the justice perspective. While we cannot define exactly how Abebi would behave depending on her values strength, we could anticipate that the higher her values strength, the more likely she is to apply those values consistently in a situation she faces.

Summary of the Influence of Values Strength & the Implications for Managers

Again, a manager cannot force the process of someone being stronger in believing their values.

• Facilitating training in ethics and codes of ethics – Providing training for employees in which they can practice the use of the codes of ethics and values through role plays and simulations allows them to practice the values in a safe way. This, in turn, allows them to know whether they want to adopt them as their own personal values. Furthermore, it allows them to feel more confident, and sometimes, stronger in their adoption of those values.
• Facilitating employees in identifying their own values – Again, while not always possible as it is time intensive and often costly, organizations can invest in having employees go through trainings and activities in which they define, practice, and prioritize their own values to aid them in their values strength. If an employee has considered their values and how to apply them, they are more likely to grow in their commitment to those values.

As we move into the next sections, we are going to look at factors that affect whether an individual is empowered or perceives that they are empowered to take an ethical action. These factors are often outside of the control of the individual making the ethical decision.

Personal Factors – Locus of Control

Locus of Control is the extent to which an individual believes that they can influence the world around them. Its genesis within an individual is a complex combination of culture, personality, experience, and many other factors. The goal is not to understand why someone has a particular orientation in locus of control, but to understand how it affects them and their decision-making.

Locus of Control

Locus of control is on a spectrum as illustrated in the image below.

An internal locus of control essentially means that a person believes that if they succeeded, it is because they did what they needed to succeed. If they failed, it is because they did not do what they needed to succeeded. Let’s look at two basketball players who have different loci of control to see how it influences their perceptions.

If Rachael had a good game and was the high scorer, Rachael will believe it is because she worked hard in the game and did the practice needed to get her the high score honours. She will not think it is because of luck or chance.

Sally, Rachael’s friend, on the other hand who has an external locus of control got the high score honours the following game. Sally believed that the reasons she go high scorer had to do with luck, such as being the player open at the time, and chance, being next to the opponent when they dropped the ball. Sally does not attribute the honours to her hard work in the game or in the practice before the game.

Now, what does this mean for Sally and Rachael moving forward? Which one is more likely to practice harder in order to do better in the next game?

Rachael, right? Because Rachael believes the practice contributed to her success, she is more likely to practice more. Sally, on the other hand, may not see practice as relevant and may not be motivated to practice as much.

In reality, people are usually not on one extreme or another constantly. They can change in their orientation for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the people around them, the situation or culture surrounding them, and their level within an organization. Nevertheless, people do tend to have a preference that they go to more often than not.

Research (Whetten & Cameron, 2016) has consistently concluded that:

• North Americans usually have a higher locus of control when compared to their Far East and Middle Eastern counterparts.
• Folks with internal loci of control (when compared to those with external loci of control) tend to:
  • feel more connected at work,
  • experience more fulfillment with their work,
  • appraise their relationship with their managers more satisfactorily,
  • perceive that they have less stress at work, and
  • feel more adept with job changes (e.g., promotions, relocations).
• Employees with an external loci of control (when compared to those with internal) often:
  • work to clarify roles and structures within an organization,
  • comply more often with expectations from bosses, and
  • understand more accurately feedback on their performance.

When it comes to ethical decision-making, those with an internal locus of control are more like to make a decision or take action, whereas those with an external locus of control are more likely to do nothing because they do not believe that they can impact the situation. It is important for us to remember that one does not naturally choose to have a particular locus of control, but that circumstances have often influenced it. People who have lived in situations in which their choices have shown little fruit or have been rejected will more likely develop an external locus of control. For example, if I live in a society that does not give employees a voice or one that is chaotic due to war, then I may not develop an external locus of control.

Also, it is important for us to note that in ethics situations can be complex and that someone with an internal locus of control could think that they could influence the situation when, in fact, the situation is impervious to influence. If a manager with an internal locus of control does not recognize that, then they can become frustrated and even burnt out.

In conclusion, as Whetten and Cameron (2016) highlight, the important thing to realize is that locus of control can change and people can work to change their locus of control to be more flexible for the needs of their position. Thus, as managers if we create situations in which employees feel more in control, we may be able to encourage a higher sense of an internal locus of control for those that do not have it. We can also help people recognize the situation, using tools like Cynefin, to recognize when they do not have control and when the right action is to learn more before taking big steps.

Summary of the Influence of Locus of Control & the Implications for Managers

Locus of Control is something that people learn through experience and is influenced by unique factors, such as personality. As such, a manager could never directly influence what someone’s locus of control is. However, a manager can create an environment in which someone feels that they a clear understanding of what is expected, which could give them a sense of control. Here are some areas in which a manager can encourage their employees to take action/control.

• Establishing clear ethical expectations – Having codes of ethics and organizational cultures that provide employees with clear expectations about what to do and not do. Thus, the employees’ actions are less about their locus of control and more about fulfilling the expectations. The expectations is only a starting point to encourage employees to take action, especially those with more of an external locus of control.
• Facilitating training in ethics and codes of ethics – To increase the likelihood that those expectations (discussed in the previous bullet point) will embodied day-to-day by employees, providing training for employees in which they can practice the use of the codes of ethics and values through role plays and simulations builds their confidence that fulfilling their actions has an impact. This, in turn, could influence someone with a more external locus of control to take action.
• Reinforcing ethical behaviour – Building into the performance management system, rewards for ethical behaviour and punishment for unethical behaviour will increase employee’s likelihood of acting ethically. Under these performance management systems, the system that clearly indicates what is acceptable and unacceptable with either a reward or punishment. Thus, the individual knows what will happen in the situation, which is less about the individual’s influence on the world.
• Reiterating learning and training in different types of situations – Helping those, in particular with an internal locus of control, to recognize the difference between “complex” (Cynefin) and “complicated” or “simple” problems will help them realize when they can take steps to influence a situation quickly and directly, or in the case of complex situations, when the best first step is to probe (ask more questions) before taking action.

As stated at the start of the locus of control section, managers will not be able to understand why someone has an external or internal locus of control. Despite that, by building clear expectations, integrating those expectations (as relevant) into the performance management systems, and providing opportunities for employees to practice those expectations in psychologically safe trainings, managers can create environments in which employees, regardless of their control orientation, know that their actions have an impact.

Personal Factors – Access to Information

As we move into the Personal Factors – Access to Information, we move our focus to see both the context and the individual. Access to information does not have clear bullet points of things to focus on because individuals and the contexts in they find themselves are complex. Thus, as we focus on access to information, we will suggest some common considerations, but acknowledge the the considerations are incomplete for some situations and in general will be incomplete because situations and the world around us change often.

Access to Information

A person is more likely to act “ethical” (or consistent with their definition of ethical) if:

• They are in a system that provides information on ethics.
  • If the person has in a system that supports them in developing their ethical awareness, then they will have had greater access to ethics information; and consequently, feel more confident in ethical situations. For example, Artbesa came from an education system that did not promote ethics but focused mostly on math and science acumen. Thus, Artbesa will not be as comfortable making ethical decisions as Genti who attended a high school that emphasized philosophy and sociology in order to promote its students understanding ethics and ethical decision-making.
• They are in a system that provides information on decision-making.
  • If the person is in a system and that system has provided them with information on how to make better decisions, they will feel more confident in making decisions in varying situations; and therefore, more confident in making varying types of ethical decisions. For example, an young man, Fatmir, who had the support of his parents to attend training in leadership and decision-making will be confident in making decisions. Another young man, Arif, whose family needs him to care for his younger siblings in his free time might not have the same access to the that kind of training, and therefore, would likely be less confident in making decision.
• Their circumstances and experiences have promoted their knowledge in ethics.
  • Looking back at Gent (from the first bullet point), he would have even more meaningful access to knowledge about ethics if he had had access to experiences that promoted him using ethics and reflecting on how he used it. Unfortunately though, his schooling was only about the study of ethics, not the practice. Borat, on the other hand, had the educational information in his program and his school also offered students the chance to work in community projects in which they applied their values and reflected on the experience. Thus, when compare to Gent, Borat will likely be more confident in making ethical decisions.
• Their circumstances and experiences have promoted their knowledge in decision-making.

Common barriers to accessing key information, include but are limited to the following.

• Gender identity
  • In many societies in which have been historically cisgender man dominant, all other gender identities have faced discrimination and been limited access to education and/or experiences that would allow them to have the same information and knowledge as the cisgender man in their society.
• Race
  • In many societies, there are policies, processes, and sometimes even laws that disadvantage certain races ability to have equitable access to education and/or experiences that would allow them to have the same information and knowledge as their counterparts who do not face discrimination.
• Cultural background
  • If the individual does not come from the cultural background where the ethical situation exists, then that individual may not have access to the information and experiences needed to recognize the ethical issue and/or know how to address it.
  • Further, it is common in many societies that if an individual is not from the in-group’s cultural, then that individual may not have have equitable access to education and/or experiences that would allow them to have the same information and knowledge as those in the cultural the in-group
• Native language
  • If the individual does not speak the same language as what is pervasive where the ethical situation exists, then that individual may not have access to the information and experiences needed to recognize the ethical issue and/or know how to address it.
  • Many societies make language knowledge a barrier to equitable access to education and/or experiences, which keeps individuals without a command of that language from accessing the same information and knowledge as those in the cultural the in-group.
• Nationality
  • If the individual does not come from the national background where the ethical situation exists, then that individual may not have access to the information and experiences needed to recognize the ethical issue and/or know how to address it.
  • For an individual not from the in-group’s nationality (e.g., an immigrant or as a visitor), then that individual may not have have equitable access to education and/or experiences that would allow them to have the same information and knowledge as those in the national in-group.
• Socioeconomic background
  • If the individual does not come from the same socioeconomic background where the ethical situation exists, then that individual may not have access to the information and experiences needed to recognize the ethical issue and/or know how to address it.
  • For an individual not from the in-group’s socioeconomic background, then that individual may not have have equitable access to education and/or experiences that would allow them to have the same information and knowledge as those in the in-group in terms of socioeconomic ba.
• Sexuality
  • In many societies, there are policies, processes, and sometimes even laws that disadvantage individuals who are not monogamous and heterosexual from having equitable access to education and/or experiences that would allow them to have the same information and knowledge as their monogamous heterosexual counterparts.
• Differing ability(ies)
  • Many societies do not have inclusive spaces, policies, processes, and sometimes even laws to provide people with varying abilities equitable access to education and/or experience that would allow them to have the same information and knowledge.

The bullet points above are far from exhaustive. There are many other barrier societal, social, and cultural that disadvantage the access to information and experiences of individuals. For managers, it is important to keep learning what barriers exist and working to understand how to deconstruct them in their organizations.

Summary of the Influence of Access to Information & the Implications for Managers

While most managers are not to blame for the barriers described above, they can choose to responsibly dismantle these barriers to provide more equitable access to information and experiences related to ethics and decision-making. In doing so, they can promote ethical decision-making and empowerment for all of their employees.

Personal Factors – Power

As we look at personal power, we are going to discuss the sense of agency. While there is not a consensus on what agency is and what precipitates one’s sense of agency, we can still examine the situations that keep a person from practicing their agency. Another way to look at this is understanding the circumstances and factors that limit a person’s power or perception of power. When we address power, we are talking about the power that they actually possess. When we mention empowerment, we are focusing on what their perception of their ability to use the power given to them in a situation.

To untangle these words, we can look at it in a couple of ways.

• A person who has a strong sense of agency could be more likely to find the power that is available to them in a situation; and therefore, that individual would feel more empowered to take action to accomplish their goals.
• As person who does not have a strong sense of agency may have the opportunities to take the power that could be available to them; and therefore, that individual might not feel empowered to take action.

It is important to recognize though, that in the case of discrimination, a person can have agency, but the system limits their use of power and abilities in terms of empowerment. Power is a hard topic, fraught with societal, social, and cultural structures that are discriminatory and problematic. However, it’s role in ethical decision-making cannot be ignored.

Power

A person is more likely to act “ethical” (or consistent with their definition of ethical) if they are in a system that empowers them by promoting their agency and contributions. There are social, cultural, organizational, societal, and international barriers to individuals and groups holding a sense of agency. Individuals whose agency is discouraged are, in turn, less likely to contribute to that situation because:

• They do not feel empowered to do so;
• They fear retributions if they contribute and it upsets the dominant group(s); and/or
• Their experiences have taught them that their contributions will not be valued.

People in this situation are facing discrimination and have barriers to their personal power that others in the same system are not experience. Personal power, as we use it in this chapter is adapted from Whetten and Cameron’s (2016) definitions. Specifically, personal power in this chapter refers to the power someone can have through:

• Using their knowledge/expertise
• Demonstrating effort,
• Being likable,
• Having credibility,
• Being entrusted for positions that:
  • allow them to manage networks,
  • exercise discretion in decision-making,
  • be visible and seen for what they do, and
  • align their work with the larger purpose.

The factors below are common reasons that people face discrimination, have limits on their personal power, and do not feel empowered or are not empowered in the organizations in which they work.

• Gender identity
  • In many societies in which have been historically cisgender man dominant, all other gender identities have faced discrimination that has led to their not feeling empowered, being able to contribute (i.e., laws restricting their rights), and experiences that show that their voices have not been valued.
• Race
  • In many societies, there are policies, processes, and sometimes even laws that disadvantage certain races ability to make equitable contributions. Furthermore, many of these systems have further limited or even prevented people from different racial backgrounds from having the right to express their opinions or make contributions. Consequently, these individuals may not feel empowered or be empowered in these settings.
• Cultural background
  • If the individual comes from the non-dominant cultural group (i.e., the cultural group with the most power in the system), then that individual will like not have access to as much personal power and not feel as empowered to take action as someone in the dominant cultural group.
  • In many societies if an individual is not from the in-group’s cultural, then that individual may not have have equitable access to opportunities to increase his/her/their personal power through promotions, recognition, and other professional development opportunities.
• Native language
  • If the individual does not speak the language of the dominant group (i.e., group with the most power), then that individual may not have as much power available to them and will likely not be as empowered to take action.
  • Many societies make language knowledge a barrier to equitable access to professional and personal development opportunities, which in turn limits a person’s access to power and empowerment.
    
• Nationality
  • If the individual does not come from the national background that has the most power in a context, then that individual may not have access to as much personal power and feel empowered to take action.
  • For an individual not from the in-group’s nationality (e.g., an immigrant or as a visitor), then that individual may not have have equitable access to professional and personal development opportunities, which in turn limits a person’s access to power and empowerment.
• Socioeconomic background
  • If the individual does not come from the same socioeconomic background as the power-dominant group, then that individual may face discrimination that limits their access to personal power and a sense of empowerment to take action.
  • For an individual not from the in-group’s socioeconomic background, then that individual may not have have equitable access to professional development opportunities that could increase his/her/their power and empowerment.
    
• Sexuality
  • In many societies, there are policies, processes, and sometimes even laws that disadvantage individuals who are not monogamous and heterosexual from having equitable access to personal power, and consequently, a feeling of empowerment.
• Differing ability(ies)
  • Many societies do not have inclusive spaces, policies, processes, and sometimes even laws to provide people with varying abilities equitable access to personal and professional development opportunities that would increase their personal power and empowerment.
    

These areas (above) in which people face discrimination are just part of the discrimination facing many employees today. Societal, social, and cultural disadvantages are persistent in today’s organizations. To dismantle these discriminatory cultures and systems, managers need to commit to learning what barriers exist and working to deconstruct them in their organizations.

Summary of the Influence of Power & the Implications for Managers

Again, most managers are not the reason that these barrier exist; however, they have the responsibility and opportunity to make changes that remove these barriers. By doing so, they can provide their employees from all backgrounds equitable access to power and aid in growing their employees’ empowerment to take action. By doing so, their employees can feel capable and confident that making ethical decisions can be done so freely and without fear of discrimination.

Summary of the Influence of Personal Factors and the Implications for Managers

Managers do not have much control over the Personal Factors’ of their individual employees. However, they can help facilitate their employees in developing a self-awareness around their own values through leading professional development opportunities for ethics. For example, if training was offered that support employees in identifying and defining their values and then determining how they would apply them in the workplace, that:

• Could catalyze the employees’ moral development,
• Would allow them to have grown in the values development,
• Might enhance their values strength, and
• Would allow them to have access to greater information on values and ethics that they may not have had access to previously.

So, while it is neither the goal or the role of manager to force values upon the employees, facilitating the employees’ development and application of their own values can be quite useful in promoting ethical decision-making.

Key Takeaways

References

Whetton, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing Management Skills (Ninth Ed.). Pearson Canada.

---