El desarrollo de las competencias lingüísticas

The second stage of ethical decision making process is ethical judgment. Treviño (1986, p. 604) defined ethical judgment as “cognitive process in which an individual determines which courses of action are morally right or wrong”. The main element of this definition is that cognitive skills will be used by the decision maker when faces an ethical issue to distinguish between the right and wrong. Deciding between the right and wrong is a vital element in ethical judgment stage that if the individual does not have an actual choice of right or wrong then the individual’s judgment cannot actually be explained as ethical (Murphy, 2007). Once an individual realize that there is an ethical issue in a given situation, the ethical judgment ought to be more likely to be triggered (Rest, Narvaez, Thoma, & Bebeau, 1999). Can et al. (2005) suggest that the process of ethical judgment is theorized to depend on internalized moral standards. These standards can be affected by individual variables, organizational variables and the characterisers of the issue itself.

39

Schminke et al. (2007) add that individuals use these standards to weigh alternatives and determine the correct actions. In their model of ethical decision making, Hunt and Vitell (1986) claim that deontological and teleological evaluations play key role in making ethical judgments about the ethical issue and in turn may influence individual’s intentions to behave in particular way. Ethical judgment is basically an approach of perceiving and finding resolutions for ethical conflicts in given situation (Ponemon, 1990).

This stage is primarily based on the cognitive stages of moral development (CMD) developed by Kohlberg (1969, 1981), which is originally based on the early work of Piaget (1932/1965). Kohlberg’s theory of CMD has been the theoretical base for various versions of ethical decision making theories (Haines & Leonard, 2007a; Rest, Bebeau, & Volker, 1986). It addresses how the cognitive processes of ethical decision making become more sophisticated as individuals develop (Haines & Leonard, 2007a).Treviño (1986) used Kohlberg’s model to build up a theory of ethical decision making that centres on the characteristics of the individual making the decision. Her model connects ethical judgement to ethical behaviour and proposes that individual factors influence links throughout the process of decision making rather than only judgments of whether the behaviour was acceptable and ethical (Haines & Leonard, 2007a). In this respect, Rest developed the Defining Issues Test (DIT), to determine the level of individual’s moral development and the reasons behind ethical decisions (Forte, 2004). Much research has indicated that CMD directly influences ethical decision making process (e.g., Ashkanasy, Windsor, & Treviño, 2006; Reynolds, 2006; Thorne, 1999; Treviño, 1986).

Although the purpose of the present study is not to elaborate extensively upon the theoretical aspects of CMD, some explanations of Kohlberg’s theory are beneficial in order to understand the theoretical background of the study.

The theory of CMD is concerned with how judgments are made and why individual formulates judgment. This theory, which was based on interview data and direct observation, consists of three levels and within each level there are two different stages (see Figure 2.2). Level one (stages one and two), which is known as pre-conventional

40

level, individuals base moral reasoning on their personal interests. Level two (stages three and four), which is known as conventional level, individuals develop their moral judgments from the perspective that they are part of a group whose members share common interests. Level three (stages five and six), which is known as post-conventional level, individuals function rationally and ethically in an effort to maintain the ethical standards upon which a just society is built (Steven et al., 2006). Ponemon (1990) states that one way to understand these three levels is to think about them differently in terms of the relationships between the self and society's rules and expectations.

In stage one, obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment. Individuals at stage two base their ethical judgments on a type of cost-benefit analysis, primarily reflecting their personal interests. At stage three individuals behave ethically in order to satisfy the interests of significant others. At stage four, the focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority. Individuals at stage five begin to account for the differences in values, opinions, and beliefs of others. At stage six, ethical behaviour is based on maintaining universal principles of justice and ethics (Carlson & Kacmar, 1997; Kohlberg, 1969; Steven et al., 2006). Generally higher levels of moral reasoning are indicative of higher ethical standards (Jackling et al., 2007)

Figure 2.2 Kohlberg’s theory

Level One:

Pre-conventional Morality

Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Orientation Stage 2: Instrumental Exchange Orientation Level Two:

Conventional Morality

Stage 3: Good Boy- Good Girl Orientation Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation Level Three:

Post-Conventional Morality

Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle

Although the theory of Kohlberg has dominated the area of ethical research in psychology as well as business, it is not without criticisms (Jones, 1991; Rest, Narvaez, Thoma et al., 1999). In their review, Rest et al. (1999) summarized some limitations of CMD theory. They criticise that theory of CMD focused only on ethical judgment as the

41

main determent of ethical behaviour ignoring other parts of the ethical process such ethical intention that can affect individual’s behaviour. Another criticism is that CMD theory is based upon western philosophy and culture. Some Eastern countries, for example China or India, have different cultures and philosophies that may have different ethical views from “the western” that were not accounted for by Kohlberg’s theory; however, Kohlberg’s theory is quite general and abstract and therefore can be applied to those societies too. The final criticism to be mentioned here is that Kohlberg's theory was primarily developed based on empirical research using only male participants. Gilligan (1982) argued that Kohlberg's theory did not adequately describe the concerns of women. Although this research is not interested to study gender differences in individuals’ cognitive moral development, one of its aims is to investigate empirically the role of gender in ethical judgment.

Previous studies demonstrate that judgments that related to ethical issue are influenced by multiple forces such as individual variables, organizational variables and the characteristics of ethical problem itself (Eleonora & Niki, 2006; Leitsch, 2006). Ethical recognition and ethical judgment are generally considered to be cognitive processes that serve as precursors to ethical intentions and behaviours (Treviño et al., 2006).