This component measures whether managers have the courage and implementation skills to carry out a line of action even under pressure. This involves self-regulation skills.
74
Rest (1983) described the four inner thought processes behind an individual‟s action when facing moral dilemmas. These are: (1) interpretation of situations and identification of moral problems. This will involve various thought processes and the results of actions brought upon people involved in the situation; (2) thoughts of the best way to proceed which will involve a plan of action incorporating thoughts of fairness and justice; (3) evaluation of various plans of action and making a decision on which course of action to take regarding moral values; (4) the execution of the plan of action which they perceive to be the best course of action. This involves a self- regulation process and requires the strength to carry out the decision.
Each of these components is discussed in more detail below with the purpose of fully understanding each stage of the moral behavioural process for this particular research. Special attention is paid to components one, two and three (moral sensitivity, moral judgement and moral motivation) as these three components have received most attention from academic researchers (especially moral judgement). Kohlberg‟s moral development stages and Rest‟s defining issue test have been the dominant theories and research instruments for empirical studies related to moral judgement. Empirical research on any of these components is investigated and the important factors which could possibly influence different processes of individual‟s behaviour are also discussed. This research focused on managers from two countries and cultural groups (China and Britain), research findings from cross-cultural empirical studies using Rest‟s moral behaviour model can provide significant knowledge to the researcher. Therefore, the discussion on such studies are presented in the following sections.
Component One: Moral Sensitivity
Rest (1986) defined moral sensitivity as an awareness which an individual has of how his/her action can affect other people. It includes being aware of the people involved in the situation, possible actions, and the consequences of different actions which might have an impact on the different parties involved. Rest (ibid) stressed that moral sensitivity is an interpretive process in which an individual may or may not recognise that there is a moral problem in the situation. However, people‟s sensitivity to the needs and welfare of others are different (Rest, 1979), this can lead to various social issues such as insensitivity. „Moral sensitivity‟ has also been called „ethical
75
sensitivity‟, „ethical perception‟, „ethical awareness‟, „moral awareness‟ and „moral recognition‟ by other researchers (see, for example, Shaub, Finn and Munter, 1993; Armstrong, 1996; Butterfield, Treviño and Weaver, 2000; Patterson, 2001; Moores and Chang, 2006).
In a business situation where managers deal with ethical problems on a regular basis, ethical awareness is the first step for making an ethical decision according to academics (see, for example, Shaub et al., 1993; Butterfield et al., 2000). For example, if a manager is not even aware that giving a bribe is unethical, then there is minimal chance for him/her to make an ethical decision. However, in the case of moral dilemmas, ethical decision-making is not often simply a matter of right or wrong. In situations where managers are asked to give a bribe or commission in order to get contracts to secure business development, managers who are aware that bribes are ethically or legally problematic have to think how their decision is going to affect not only their personal ethical standards or the law, but also for the company‟s benefit and other parties involved. In the process of interpreting and understanding the situation, they might also be concerned with the consequence of different decisions for solving ethical problems. However, for some managers whose ethical approach is non-consequential, bribery is wrong regardless of the consequences. It is those managers who take a consequential ethical approach who might face difficult moral dilemmas in the process of balancing the cost and benefits of different parties involved and trying to work out the best decision. It is clear that moral awareness and the sensitivity managers have toward the moral issues they face is an important element for understanding managerial decision-making.
Empirical Studies on Mora Sensitivity
Empirical research on moral sensitivity was originally started and conducted by a group of psychologists (see, for example, Rest, 1979; Bebeau, Rest and Yamoor, 1985). Moral sensitivity has also been studied using scenarios in the business and management field (see, for example, Sparks and Hunt, 1998; Yetmar and Eastman, 2000; Moores and Chang, 2006). McNeel found that students had varying degrees of sensitivity to ethical issues (in Rest and Narváez, 1994). This interesting finding is supported by a theory developed by Jones in 1991. Jones developed the theory of
76
moral intensity, which emphasised that a moral issue itself could influence an individual‟s ethical decisions when faced with moral dilemmas. This theory emphasised the importance of moral issues themselves in the matter of raising individuals‟ awareness and sensitivity (Leitsch, 2006). For example, if managers are in a situation where they are presented with an issue involving a fatality, they might be highly sensitive to such an issue rather than if someone is going to be made redundant.
Moral issues seem to be able to raise the awareness and sensitivity of the individual decision-maker (Jones, 1991). Again, this can be conditioned by whether the decision- makers take a consequential or non-consequential ethical approach. For someone who believes killing is wrong, he/she will not kill regardless of the consequence. However, for someone, whose belief is that killing is wrong, but the consequence of not to kill will bring harm to their own family, he/she might have to kill – these „pros and cons‟ are all weighed up mentally.
Interestingly, academic researchers have argued that not all individuals have the same moral sensitivity toward similar moral issues, individuals from different countries and cultural backgrounds have been found to have different levels of moral sensitivity even if they face the same moral issues (see, for example, Shaub et al., 1993; Schlegelmilch and Robertson, 1995; Sparks and Hunt, 1998). Some moral issues are culturally conditioned because of what is accepted as right or wrong in different societies, cultures and countries. For example, the giving of gifts is an important custom which has been practiced at every level in Chinese society as a way of building human relationships. Hence, Chinese managers would be less likely to be aware that it is a moral issue when they give expensive gifts to business clients in order to smooth progress. Similarly, child labour is not accepted in British society, so it is more likely to be an unethical issue for British managers than managers from some developing countries where children often work to support their families.
All these examples support the notion that the society in which we live could also teach us to recognise the moral significance of the issues which we face everyday. Individuals‟ moral awareness could be conditioned by moral issues which are culturally and socially related. This is supported by empirical evidence (see, for
77
example, Vitell et al., 1993; Ralston, Giacalone and Terpstra, 1994). It appears that individual‟s moral behaviour is not only influenced by their character/personalities, but other influences, such as socialisation can also play an important part. People are socialised to behave according to what is accepted in their own societies and cultures. Social and cultural influences on individuals‟ moral awareness have also been emphasised in the literature of ethical decision-making (see, for example, Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986). These issues will be attempted to be understood as an aim of this thesis.
Possible differences between managers‟ moral sensitivity across different cultures and countries are scrutinised in this research between Chinese and British managers. It is important to understand the cultural differences between China and Britain and the possible links to differences in their sensitivity towards different moral issues because it is argued that their moral sensitivity influences their moral behaviour and final decision. Researchers have found the link between Hofstede‟s cultural differences and why individuals from different cultures have different moral sensitivity, especially notable between respondents from East Asian countries with collective cultures compared to Western countries with individualistic cultures (see, for example, Armstrong, 1996; Blodgett et al., 2001; Thorne and Saunders, 2002). According to these research findings, Chinese managers should be more morally sensitive to issues which would affect the interests of their in-groups. For example, their family members, people from their own country and culture or social group, who they are loyal to and pay respect to (Taylor and Moghaddam, 1994)
In short, the reviewed literature on moral awareness has acknowledged that an individual‟s level of moral sensitivity is influenced by the content of a moral issue itself. A person‟s ethical approach of consequentiality or non-consequentiality towards issues with moral concerns also plays a part at this stage. Individuals from different societies, cultures and countries have different levels of sensitivity towards moral issues which are culturally defined or defined as right or wrong by their societies. It is possible, with the contribution of existing literature to develop a good understanding of individual moral awareness, however, we need to recognise that empirical studies in this field have mainly utilised students as respondents and not managers.
78
It should be noted that managers often play dual roles, one in their personal life and the other in their professional life as mentioned in chapter two (on p.43). Some managers may not relate ethics to business and therefore would not have any sensitivity towards the parties involved, let alone the consequences of their actions. Others might make decisions according to whether the issue is morally right or wrong. However, for some managers, although they might be aware of the correctness of the issue involved, they have to be more concerned with the consequences of actions which can affect their company‟s interests, and therefore they might find it difficult to make decisions according to their personal moral sensitivity. Could we say it is those managers who might face moral dilemmas?
For a cross-cultural research project like this, it is very important to not only understand a manager‟s moral awareness and sensitivity, but also to consider the kind of moral issues which managers are sensitive to in China and Britain, as they operate in quite different business environments and are influenced by different ethical standards, culture and social norms. In the next section, the second stage of the moral behavioural process – moral judgment is discussed, where the researcher examines Kohlberg‟s moral development stages, Rest‟s DIT and how individuals from different countries might reason differently when considering what is a right or wrong action.
Component Two: Moral Judgement
According to Rest (1986), individuals can have very different moral judgements on what is right or wrong even on the same issue due to the influence of their social experiences. The important question for Rest was, „how people make these judgements?‟. Moral judgement is also named as „moral reasoning‟ by researchers in this field (see, for example, Weber, 1990; Ponemon, 1992; Treviño, 1992; Weber and Wasieleski, 2001; Forle, 2004; Wimalasiri, 2004).
The major research tradition within moral judgement is CMD research by Lawrence Kohlberg (Kohlberg, 1981, 1984). In Kohlberg‟s book „The Measurement of Moral Judgement‟, he pointed out that moral judgement is a crucial component of human morality. He concluded that there are six stages of moral development. Individuals
79
who are at different stages have a different definition of what is right or wrong and therefore their moral judgements are varied. According to Kohlberg, individuals who are at a higher level of moral development stage can be expected to behave more ethically than those at a lower level. Rest and other researchers also proved the reliability of the developmental hierarchy of moral judgement stages (Rest and Narváez, 1994). The six moral stages were clustered into three levels: pre- conventional, conventional and post-conventional levels with each level containing two stages (Colby and Kohlberg, 1987). The six stages of moral development are viewed in figure 4.2 below. A detailed explanation of Kohlberg‟s six stages of moral development is presented in Appendix 13.
Figure 4.2 Stages of Kohlberg’s Cognitive Moral Development
Source: Kohlberg (1976)
Level 3: Post -