F AMILIA HEPE

Cognitive Moral Reasoning (CMR) and Moral Identities

As previously established, the morality of the studied employees in this study is evaluated from two theoretical lenses: their cognitive moral development levels and moral identities. From preliminary findings, the moral identity (MI) scores and assigned cognitive moral reasoning (CMR) level of each employee are presented in table 6.1 below.

Participa nt

CMR Path Moral Identity Strength

A1a Conventional Level (stage 4) 6.47 (strong)

A1b Conventional Level (Stage 3) 5.18 (strong)

A1c Post-conventional Level (stage 5) 6.06 (strong)

A1d Conventional Level (Stage 4) 5.00 (strong)

A1e Conventional Level (Stage 3) 4.71 (strong)

A1f Conventional Level (Stage 4) 6.76 (strong)

A1g Conventional Level (Stage 3) -

A2a Conventional Level (Stage 3) 5.47 (strong)

A2b Post-conventional Level (Stage 6)

4.29 (strong)

A2c Conventional Level (Stage 4) -

A2d Conventional Level (Stage 4) 5.11 (Strong)

Source: Field Work

The table above shows that the CMR levels of participants vary significantly (from pre conventional stage 1 to post conventional stage 6). However it must be noted that these CMR levels were allocated based on the researcher’s subjective evaluation following a few yet carefully observed patterns of thinking in interview data for each participant and not with the appropriate tool. Hence, it could have some errors prone to researcher bias. On the other hand however, MI scores show all participants have predominantly strong moral identities, which is unexpected and immediately raises some concerns. First, the Aquino and Reed, (2002) measure was used in getting the MI scores of each participant. This measure has been documented to have very high reliability and validity (Aquino and Reed, 2002, Aquino, McFerran and Laven, 2011). Also, studies (Reed and Aquino, 2003, Aquino et al 2007, Shao et al 2008, Aquino et al, 2009) that have adopted this measuring tool have found significant variations in the moral identity scores of all tested samples. The results in this case group however reveal an anomaly that could imply there is inflation in the moral perception of participants. Whilst this indicates some weakness in the MI measure as a self-scoring measure, it also points to the likely effect a rule-based bureaucracy could have on employee understanding of their own

morality. In this next section, this possibility will be explored along three key propositions:

Proposition 1: Bureaucratic context – as evidenced by the dominant features of the organisation in each particular bureaucracy- enhances a subjective sense of stronger moral identity in employees as well as in managers (equally in all cases of moral identity i.e. in both stronger and weaker MI actual scores)

This simply means that the subjectively perceived moral identity strength in the oral interviews seemed to be “inflated” compared to the “actual” scores of MI found when using the relevant measure (Aquino and Reed, 2002).

A justification for this proposition is: Moral identity theory presumes all individuals have moral traits they hold as central to their self-definition. Thus, people with a strong sense of moral identity are those who prioritise moral commitments above other commitments, obligating themselves to live consistently in integrity to their deeply held moral beliefs. In principle, such persons have their moral traits easily and readily accessible by situations and contexts, which in turn affects how decisions are made in those circumstances. Individuals with weak moral identity on the other hand do not prioritise moral commitments and have their commitments in other ideals such as having wealth and so on. It also therefore follows that their moral traits would not be readily accessible in situations making such traits less likely to affect their decision-making.

Thus, within a bureaucracy driven by compliance to rules and managerial control, it is likely that employees with strong moral identities would more readily obey set rules for the sake of acting consistently in accordance to their moral values. Those with weak moral identities could also follow the rules but for benefits such as self, public praise and rewards where they feel they follow the bureaucracy’s rules without questioning them at all.

Proposition 2: Acting in alignment with Bureaucratic context is facilitated by and rewards conventional level thinking in (middle/lower) management role holders

behaviours to social norms. This implies that employees reasoning at this level are less inclined to critical moral inquiry and are more likely to embrace set rules, norms and standards without questioning them. Within bureaucracies, such employees see issues only through the lens of the SOPs and are often unable to bring other perspectives to bear in their decision-making. Post-conventional level thinkers on the other hand are expected to employ universal moral principled concern expressed in reasoning and their reporting of action in their organisations, while it is also expected to find a more nuanced and sensitive moral inquiry relevant to the post conventional moral reasoners. Within bureaucracies, they are able to see issues not only from the firm’s perspective but also through the lens of higher moral principles. Since it is typical of bureaucracies to be characterised by formalised rules and other qualities often requiring strict compliance from its employees, it would therefore follow that bureaucracies would more likely reward conventional level thinkers hence this proposition.

Proposition 3: Bureaucracy influences towards abiding strictly with loyalty towards management (as opposed to respecting broader professional codes, practice and values) and this pattern will be manifested in employees with both strong and weak moral identity

The justification for proposition 3 is that there are potential conflicts between how professional bodies define the nature and role of their members versus how firms want such professionals to behave within their contexts. A profession is an independent body (outside of any organisational interests) which advises people who undertake a particular strand of work and which provides some core ethical criteria and norms about the essential purpose of this profession for society, independently of the context/employer where the professional exercises this (Hall, 1968, Freidson, 1973, Forrester, 1988). A profession is beyond and above an institution within which professionals work, while professional bodies are the guardians of very long lasting ethical traditions about practicing a particular profession (McCloskey and McCain, 1987). There is therefore a clear difference between looking good (doing what the bureaucracy wants) and being ethical (following professional code of ethics). Outside, acting ‘ethically’ in accordance with the professional guidelines of the Pharmacists Council of Nigeria or personal integrity guides a sense that one pursues “the good”

and is a person who seeks to act in ethically good ways on the basis of their personal professional integrity. However, inside this bureaucracy that combines rule compliance and close personalised managerial control mechanisms, most employees - with strong and weaker moral identity- have no other option than to comply with firm’s policies and rules. This could be rewarded as “good” behaviour insofar as it is successful and this may inflate a false sense of stronger moral identity even for employees with weak moral identity, once they adopt a moral relativistic way of valuing such as “when in Rome act as the Romans”. Similar mechanisms may also influence employees with strong MI towards more compliance behaviours.