Moral Development for Authentic Leadership Effectiveness This prĂŠcis argues that leadership and ethics are inherently intertwined: for higher effectiveness, leader development needs to foster moral capacity, efficacy, courage, and resiliency. Olivier Serrat 22/03/2019
1 Quid Moral Development? Moral development—the field of study—concerns itself with the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy through adulthood. The basic tenet of moral development—evident in ancient philosophies and religions—is that human nature is innately good (or at least tends toward the good more willingly than toward the bad).1 And so, in the vein of the body and its basic mental and social capacities, human nature is self-realizing and selfperfecting in aspiration even if psychological and social factors can slow (or de-rail) the process, preferably for a short time. Nevertheless, with general abilities and sensibilities in place, the common assumption from times immemorial has been that social experience would shape desirable performance. Not surprisingly, therefore, moral development has always been a concern of parents: and, teaching a child to distinguish right from wrong and to behave in consequence has always been a goal of parenting. Even if it has for long been a topic of discussion, however, moral development was not studied scientifically until the late 1950s. Thereafter, from the cognitive-developmental approach of Piaget and his work to separate nature from nurture,2 research made rapid progress thanks to Kohlberg's (1976) theory of moral development—which isolated stages (of thinking about moral issues) in terms of preconventional (maximizing personal rewards and avoiding punishments), conventional (understanding social rules and obligations), and post-conventional (internalizing universalistic moral principles) levels of reasoning. But, Kohlberg's (1976) theory of moral development was originally postulated as a developmental theory for children (despite evidence that stage development can occur well into later life): to many, it lacks explanatory power and direction in the hurly-burly of corporate life, notably in relation to ethical behavior in work environments. Thence, to list but three chief contributions to the subsequently fast-growing body of knowledge about moral development, Blasi's (1980) review of the relation (and potential gap) between moral reasoning and ethical behavior moved critical debate beyond mere cognition; Ashforth and Anand (2003) helped understand the vital role of environmental influences on ethical behavior by shedding light on normalization, viz., the interrelated processes of institutionalization, rationalization, and socialization;3 and Rest (1986) delineated the four essential psychological processes of moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and implementation as determinants of the link between moral reasoning and ethical behavior. In consequence, ethical behavior is ever more it seems seen as a function of environmental influences, which makes the field of study of moral development quite rich with practical implications for leader development.
1
Ethics, a branch of philosophy, preoccupies itself with systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. 2 Here, the term "nature" refers to the influence of genes and hereditary factors; the term "nurture" refers to the influence of external factors after conception, viz., upbringing, learning, surrounding culture, social relationships, life experiences, etc. 3 "Institutionalization [is] the process by which corrupt practices are enacted as a matter of routine, often without conscious thought about their propriety; rationalization [is] the process by which individuals who engage in corrupt acts use socially constructed accounts to legitimate the acts in their own eyes; and socialization [is] the process by which newcomers are taught to perform and accept the corrupt practices" (Ashforth & Anand, 2003, p. 3).
2 Moral Development and Leadership "His peaceful resistance shook the foundations of an empire, exposed the emptiness of a repressive ideology, and proved that moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon," said President Obama when Václav Havel passed away (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2011). Michelle Obama would have recognized the foundation of Havel's fortitude: "I have learned that as long as I hold fast to my beliefs and values—and follow my own moral compass—then the only expectations I need to live up to are my own," she remarked on another occasion (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2015). Navigating the difficult trade-offs that inevitably arise when one has to make decisions will test any leader.4 But, there is no doubt that—especially from faster connectivity in a globalizing world—exercising leadership that is untethered from ethical considerations puts individuals, communities, organizations, industries, and even economies at risk as the Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco, and Worldcom debacles of 2001–2002, to name but four corporate accounting scandals, made clear. And, lest we forget, ethical people sometimes make unethical choices, for instance when they are cajoled or forced by a working environment (Carucci, 2016).5 Identifying ethical dilemmas, weighing courses of action and their respective implications, and acting in the most appropriate manner spring from moral reasoning. For that reason, there is certainly scope, nay, a critical need for developing self-awareness and reflection capacities in leaders (and in others too since leaders do not appear ab ovo but emerge from talent pools) (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009). Moral Development for Leader Development Treviño, Brown, and Hartman (2003) found that ethical leaders exude integrity, display valuesbased skills, and use communication and rewards systems to promote ethical behavior in others.6 Assuredly, ethical leaders have other traits and behaviors: the point is that a leader may consider himself or herself a "good" leader (and—indeed—be considered as such) but it does not follow that he or she is necessarily an ethical leader.7 And yet, almost every decision that a leader takes has ethical implications; a leader is a role model and the subject of identification
4
In this paper, the term "leadership" refers to the action of leading a group of people or an organization with emphasis on the leader (but not the characteristics of the followers or the circumstances of the situation). 5 Carucci (2016) cautioned that organizations can needlessly provoke good people to make unethical choices when "[I]t is psychologically unsafe to speak up, … there is excessive pressure to reach unrealistic performance targets, … conflicting goals provoke a sense of unfairness, [and] … a positive example is not being set." 6 The importance of empowering ethical relationships at individual, team, and organization levels cannot be understated: only by acting at these three levels of organizational life can an organization become "a community of people working together in an environment of mutual respect, where they grow personally, feel fulfilled, contribute to a common good, and share in the personal, emotional, and financial rewards of a job well done," that is, an ethical organization (Berghofer & Schwartz, n.d.). Some organizations formulate strategies for ethics management; some focus on core values of integrity that reflect basic social obligations; and, others emphasize ethically desirable aspirations (Paine, 1994). 7 For sure, there are also more leaders who intend to act authentically than actually end up doing so.
3 and emulation by followers; and, a leader shapes the climate of his or her organization (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009). From the foregoing, one may infer that the hitherto overlooked attributes of moral capacity, efficacy, courage, and resiliency are building blocks of authentic leadership development.8,9 Moral capacity is "[The] ability [of leaders] to see their role as including an ethical responsibility to their stakeholders, having the level of moral perspective to recognize and evaluate ethical issues, and having learned from past experiences how they might best deal with moral dilemmas at work" (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003, p. 247). Moral efficacy is "[T]he skills, abilities, and ultimately the motivation to justify a given moral action" (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003, p. 255). Moral courage is "[The] leader's fortitude to convert moral intentions into actions despite pressures from either inside or outside of the organization to do otherwise" (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003, p. 255).10 And, moral resiliency is the ability to positively adapt in the face of significant adversity or risk and continuingly cope with principled, authentic actions (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003, p. 256).11 Moral development centered around these attributes will boost authentic leadership effectiveness. Capacitating Authentic Decision-Making and Behavior May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio's (2003) components of authentic leadership open up avenues for developing meta-cognitive abilities and emotional regulation: for higher effectiveness, leaders might follow sundry approaches (or methodologies) meaning, for instance, to capacitate authentic decision-making (i.e., recognizing moral dilemmas, evaluating alternatives transparent, intending to act authentically) and behavior (i.e., taking authentic moral action, demonstrating sustained authentic behavior over time). Blasi's (1995) concept of the moral self, for one, bodes well for capacitating authentic decisionmaking and behavior by enhancing congruence in thought and action. Positing that identity can bridge moral cognition and moral action, Blasi (1995) suggested that "The highest degree of moral integration is achieved when one's moral understanding and concerns become part of one's sense of identity" (p. 229). Toward this, Blasi's (1995) three-component model of moral identity fused the moral self—ascertaining the centrality and salience of morality in one's life; personal responsibility for moral action—reconciling the moral judgement–action paradigm; and
8
Intuitively, May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio (2003) concluded that self-awareness and reflection engender moral capacity and moral efficacy, and that moral efficacy is the fount of moral courage and moral resiliency. 9 Per Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa (2005) authentic leadership is characterized by transparency, openness, and trust; guidance toward worthy objectives; and an emphasis on follower development (p. 345). 10 In complementary interpretation, reproduced here for purposes of comparison only, Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, & Sternberg (2007) defined moral courage as a willful, intentional act, executed after mindful deliberation, involving objective substantial risk to the bearer, and primarily motivated to bring about a noble good or worthy end despite, perhaps (emphasis in original), the presence of the emotion of fear (p. 95). 11 Notwithstanding May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio's (2003) profession to help develop the moral component of authentic leadership, we are not to assume that moral capacity, efficacy, courage, and resiliency are the exclusive preserve of leaders and their development and that the less exalted individuals who comprise the near-entirety of organizational personnel cannot be agents or, indeed, prime movers of their moral fates.
4 self-consistency (or integrity)—achieving congruence in moral action and reasoning (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009). Hannah, Lester, & Vogelsang (2005), for example, articulate a model of authentic–moral leadership that sets a framework for leaders to make moral decisions through activation cum concordance of current selves (meaning, who they perceive themselves to be), current goals (specifically, what they want to accomplish), and possible selves (that is, who they might become) (p. 46). From a richer, forward-moving definition of self-concept, according to Hannah, Lester, & Vogelsang's (2005) model, the leader's moral agency spans across leadership episodes—where leaders manifest their more authentic moral self—through to the follower outcomes of "greater trust in the leader, higher power and latitude afforded to the leader, increased social identification with the leader and emulation of his or her moral actions; and activation of the follower's moral working self-concept" (p. 67). Notwithstanding the opportunities if offers for self-development and 360° feedback, Hannah, Lester, & Vogelsang's (2005) model also seems to lend itself to authentic leadership coaching. References Ashforth, B., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. In R. Kramer & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 25, pp. 1–52). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Berghofer, D., & Schwartz, G. (n.d.). Ethical leadership: Right relationships and the emotional bottom line—The gold standard for success. Retrieved from http://www.ethicalleadership.com/BusinessArticle.htm Blasi, A. (1995). Moral understanding and the moral personality: The process of moral integration. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 229–253). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 1–45. Carucci, R. (2016). Why ethical people make unethical choices. Harvard Business Review, 12. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/12/why-ethical-people-make-unethical-choices Day, D., Harrison, M., & Halpin, S. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Gardner, W., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., May, D., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). "Can you see the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372. Hannah, S., Lester, P., & Vogelsang, G. (2005). Moral leadership: explicating the moral component of authentic leadership. In W. Gardner, B. Avolio, & F. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 43-81). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental. In Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues, ed. T. Lickona, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. May, D., Chan, A., Hodges, T., & Avolio, B. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260. Paine, L. Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–117. Rate, C., Clarke, J., Lindsay, D., & Sternberg, R. (2007). Implicit theories of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 80–98. Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger.
5 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2011). Statement of President Obama on the death of Vaclav Havel [Press release]. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/18/statement-presidentobama-death-vaclav-havel The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2015). Remarks by the First Lady at Tuskegee University Commencement Address [Press release]. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/09/remarks-first-ladytuskegee-university-commencement-address Treviùo, L., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 5–37.