The Moral Muteness of Managers

The Moral Muteness Of ManagersBird, Frederick B.: Waters. Jarnes A.CaIi-fornio l\4anogemen| Rettiew; Fa]I I989:op. l3

32, 1; ABI/INFORM Global

The Moral Muteness of Managers

Frederick B. Bird James A. Waters

any managers exhibit a reluctance to describe t'heir ac'tions in moral terms even when they are acting formoral reasons. They talk as if their actions were guided

excl usi vely by organizational in teres ts, practicali ty, an d econ om icgood sense even when in practice they honor morally defined

standards codified in law, professional conventions, and social mores. They

characteristically defend morally defined objectives such as service to cus-

tomers, effective cooperation among personnel, and utilization of their own

skills and resources in terms of the long-run economic objectives of their

organizations. Ostensibly moral standa¡ds regarding colleagues, customers,

and suppliers are passed off as "street smarts" and "ways to succeed."'

Many observers have called attention to this reluctance of managers to

use moral expressions publicly to identify and guide their decision making

even when they are acting moral}y. A century and a half ago, de Tocqueville

noted the disinclination of American business people to admit they acted

altruistically even when they did.'More recently, McCoy has observed that

managers are constantly making value choices, privately invoking moral

standards, which they in tr¡rn defend in terms of business interests. Silk

and Vogel note that many managers simply take for granted that business

and ethics have little relation except negatively with respect to obvious

cases of illegal activities, like bribery or price-fixing. Solomon and Hanson

observe that, although managers are often aware of moral issues, the public

discussion of these issues in ethical terms is ordinarily neglected s

The research on which this article is based was made possible in part by a gÍant f rom the

Social Sclence and Humanities Flesearch Council ol Canada. The Center tor Ethics and

Social Policy in Berkeley, California, aided this research by helping to arrange for inlerv ews

with executives, The authors wish to thank William R. Torbert and Richard P Nrelsen for

their heloful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CaLTFoRNtA MANAGEMENT RnvIrw Fall 1989

Current research based on interviews with managers about how they ex-

perience ethical questions in their work reveals that managers seldom dis-

cuss with their colleagues the ethical problems they routinely encounter.4 In

a very real sense, "Morality is a live topic for individual managers but it isclose to a non-topic among groups of managers."5

This article explores this phenomenon of moral muteness and suggests

ways that managers and organizations can deal openly with moral questions.

Actions, Speech, and Normative Expectations

To frame the exploration of moral muteness. it is useful to consider in gen-

eral terms the relationships among managers' actions, their communicative

exchanges, and relevant normative expectations. Normative expectatlons

are standards for behavior that are sufficiently compelling and authoritative

that people feel they must either comply with them, make a show of com-

plying with them, or offer good reasons why not.

While normative expectations influence conduct in many areas of lifefrom styles of dress to standards of fair treatment, in most societies certain

types of activities are considered to be morally neutral. Choices of how to

act with respect to morally neutral activities are considered to be matters ofpersonal preference, practical feasibility, or strategic interest. u

Although managers often disagree regarding the extent to which business

activities are morally neutral, their interactions in contemporary industrial

societies are influenced by a number of normative expectations. These ex-

pectations are communicated by legal rulings, regulatory agencies' decrees,

professional codes, organizational policies, and social mores.'Considerable

consensus exists with respect to a number of general ethical principles bear-

ing upon management regarding honest communication, fair treatment, faircompetition, social responsibility, and provision of safe and worthwhile

services and products.'Through verbal exchanges people identify, evoke, and establish norrna-

tive expectations as compelling cultural realities. Moral expressions are

articulated to persuade others, to reinforce personal convictions, to criti-

cize, and to justify decisions. Moral expressions are also invoked to praise

and to blame, to evaluate and to rationalize. Moral discourse plays a lively

role communicating normative expectations, seeking cooperation of others,

and rendering judgments.

For those decisions and actions for which moral expectations a¡e clearly

relevant, it is possible to conceive of four different kinds of relationship

between managers' actions and their verbal exchanges. These are depicted

in Figure 1. One pattern (Quadrant I) identifies those situations in which

speaking and acting correspond with each other in keeping with moral ex-

pictations. A second congruent pattern (Quadrant III) is the mirror image

ofthe first: no discrepancy exists between speech and action, but neither is

guided by moral exPectations.

v-

v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission'

The Moral Muteness of Manaq¿rs

Figure 1. Relations Between Moral Action and Speech

MoralTerms Usedin Snoo¡ h

MoralTerms Not Usedin Speech

Hypocrisy,. ' '

hÁoralWbáknees

Cóngru-ent lmrnoralorAmg,ral ConQycl.

Actions Follow

Normative Expectalions

Congruent ,:

Moral:9anduct

Moral Muteness

Actions Do Not FollowNormative Expectations

The other two patterns represent incongruence between speech and ac-

tion. In Quadrant II, actual conduct falls short of what is expected. Verbal

exchanges indicate a deference for moral standards that is not evident inactual conduct. Discrepancy here represents hypocrisy, when people inten-

tionally act contrary to their verbalized commitments.' Discrepancy may

also assume the form of moral backsliding or moral weakness. In this case,

the failure to comply with verbalized commitments occurs because of moralfatigue, the inability to honor conflicting standards, or excusable excep-

tions.'0 Because they are intuitively understandable, none of these three

pattems afe our concern in this article.Rather, our focus is on the more perplexing fourth pattern (Quadrant IV)

which corresponds with situations of moral muteness: managers avoid

moral expressions in their communicative exchanges but would be expected

to use them either because their actual conduct reveals deference to moralstandards, because they expect others to honor such standards, or because

they privately acknowledge that those standards influence their decisions

and actions. In other words, with respect to those instances where the man-

agers involved feel that how they and others act ought to be and is guided

by moral expectations, why do they avoid moral references in their work-

related communications?


CALIFoRNTA M¡x¡crunxr R¡vr¡w Fall 1989

For example, a given manager may argue that the only ethic of businessis making money, but then describe at length the non-remunerative waysshe fosters organizational commitment from her co-workers by seekingtheir identification with the organization as a community characterized bycommon human objectives and styles of operation. In another example,managers may enter into formal and informal agreements among them-selves. In the process they necessarily make promises and undertake obliga-tions. Implicitly, they must use moral terms to enter and confirm such un-derstandings even though explicitly no such expressions are voiced. Thisdiscrepancy occurs most pervasively in relation to countless existing nor-mative standards regarding business practices that are passed off as

common sense or good management-e.9., taking care of regular cus-

tomers in times of shortage even though there is opportunity to capture newcustomers, respecting the bidding process in purchasing even though lowerprices could be forced on dependent suppliers, and ensuring equitable pric-ing among customers even though higher prices could be charged to less-

knowledgeable or less-aggressive customers.

Causes of Moral Muteness

Interviews with managers about the ethical questions they face in their workindicate that they avoid moral talk for diverse reasons." In the particularpattem of moral muteness, we observe that in general they experiencemoral talk as dysfunctional. More speciñcally, managers are concernedthat moral talk will th¡eaten organizational harmony, organizational effi-ciency, and their own reputation for power and effectiveness.

Threat to Harmony-Moral talk may, on occasion, require some degree

of interpersonal confrontation. In extreme cases, this may take the form ofblowing the whistle on powerful persons in the organization who are in-volved in illegal or unethical practices and may involve significant personalrisk for the whistleblower.'2 Even in less-extreme cases, moral talk mayinvolve raising questions about or disagreeing with practices or decisions ofsuperiors, colleagues, or subordinates. Managers typically avoid any such

confrontation, experiencing it as difficult and costly-as witnessed, forexample, by the frequent avoidance of candid performance appraisals.Faced with a situation where a subordinate or colleague is involved in an

unethical practice, managers may "finesse" a public discussion or confron-tation by publishing a general policy statement or drawing general attentionto an existing policy.

In the case of moral questions, managers find confrontations particularlydifficult because they experience them as judgmental and likely to initiatecycles of mutual finger-pointing and recrimination. They are awa¡e of the

small and not-so-small deceits which are pervasive in organizations, e.g.,

v

V¿


v-


juggling budget lines to cover expenditures, minor abuses of organizationalperks, favoritism, nepotism, and fear that if they "cast the first stone" an

avalanche may ensue.rs

Many managers conclude that it is disruptive to bring up moral issues at

work because their organizations do not want public discussion of such

issues. We interviewed or examined the interviews of sixty managers who

in tum talked about nearly 300 cases in which they had faced moral issues

in their work. In only twelve percent of these cases had public discussion

of moral issues taken place and more than half of these special cases were

cited by a single executive. Give-and-take discussions of moral issues typi-cally took place in private conversations or not at all.

Threat to Efficiency-Many managers avoid or make little use of moralexpressions because moral talk is associated with several kinds of ex-

changes that obstruct or distract from responsible problem-solving. In these

instances, moral talk is viewed as being self-serving and obfuscating. Thus,

for example, while moral talk may be legitimately used to praise and blame

people for their conduct, praising and blaming do not facilitate the identifi-cation, analysis, and resolution of difficult moral conundrums. Similarly,while moral talk in the form of ideological exhortations may function to

defend stn¡ctures of authority and to rally support for political goals, itdoes not facilitate problem solving among people with varied ideological

commitments.t'Because of the prevalence of such usages, many managers are loathe to

use moral talk in their work. Blaming, praising, and ideological posturing

do not help to clarify issues. Moreover, such moral talk frequently seems

to be narrowly self-serving. Those who praise, blame, or express ideolog-

ical convictions usually do so in order to protect and advance their own

interests.In addition, managers shun moral talk because such talk often seems to

result in burdening business decisions with considerations that are not onlyextraneous, but at times antagonistic to responsible management. Moraltalk may distract by seeking simplistic solutions to complicated problems.

For example, discussions of justice in business often divert attention to

theoretical formulas for distributing rewards and responsibilities withoutfirst considering how resources as a whole might be expanded and how

existing contractual relations might already have builrin standards of fair

transactions and allocations.Moral talk may also be experienced as a threat to managerial flexibility'

In order to perform effectively, managers must be able to adapt to changes

in their organizations and environments. They are correspondingly wary ofcontractual relations that seem to be too binding, that too narrowly cir-cumscribe discretionary responses. They therefore seek out working agree-

ments, when they legally can, that are informal, flexible, and can be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission

CAUFoRNTA M¡¡rrcrr¡¡xt Rr,u¡w Fall 1989

amended easily. They assume that if the stipulations are formally articulatedin terms of explicit promises, obligations, and rights, then flexibility is

likely to be reduced. In order to preserve flexibility in all their relations,managers frequently seek verbal, handshake agreements that make minimaluse of explicit moral stipulations.'5

Many managers also associate moral talk with rigid rules and intrusiveregulations. Too often, public talk about moral issues in business is felt toprecede the imposition of new government regulations that are experiencedas arbitrary, inefficient, and meddlesome. Complaints about particular im-moral practices too often seem to lead to government harassment throughprocedures and rules that make little economic sense. Managers may there-fore avoid using moral expressions in their exchanges so that they do notinvite moralistic criticisms and rigid restrictions.'6

Threat to Image of Power and Effectiveness-Ambitious managers seek

to present themselves as powerful and effective. They avoid moral talk at

times because moral arguments appear to be too idealistic and utopian.Without effective power, the uses of moral expressions are like empty ges-

tures. Many managers experience futility after they attempt unsuccessfully

to change corporate policies which they feel are morally questionable. Theyprivately voice their objections but feel neither able to mount organizedprotests within their organization nor willing to quit in public outcry. De-

facto they express a loyalty they do not wholeheartedly feel.''This sense of futility may even be occasioned by management seminars

on ethics. Within these workshops managers are encouraged to discuss

hypothetical cases and to explore potential action alternatives. Many findthese workshops instructive and stimulating. However, when managers

begin to csnsider problems that they actually face in their organizations,

then the character of these discussions often changes. Moral expressions

recede and a¡e replaced by discussions of organizational politics, technical

qualifications, competitive advantages, as well as costs and benefits meas-

ured solely in economic terms. In the midst of these kinds of practical con-

siderations, moral terms a¡e abandoned because they seem to lack robust-

ness. They suggest ideals and special pleadings without too much organiza-

tional weight.Managers also shun moral talk in order to not expose their own ethical

illiteracy. Most managers neither know nor feel comfortable with the lan-

guage and logic of moral philosophy. At best they received instruction injuvenile versions of ethics as children and young adults in schools and reli-gious associations. They have little or no experience using ethical concepts

to analyze issues. They may more readily and less self-consciously use

some ethical terms to identify and condemn obvious wrongdoings, but do

not know how to use ethical terms and theories with intellectual rigor and

sophistication to identify and resolve moral issues.

:/

ú


l-

\-

The Moral Muteness oJ Managers

Finally, the "value of autonomy places great weight on lower managers:ability to solve creatively all their own problems rhey regularly face."'8 Theyobserve how this valuing of autonomy acrually decreases the likelihood thatmanagers will discuss with their superiors the ethical questions theyexperience.

Figure 2 summarizes these three causes of moral muteness.

Figure 2. Causes of Moral Muteness

tr¡lorallatkle,vlOrcdascrygtlng,,.becaugaoflbessasgumsdflig¡eI!9gaüvp"qf ,cti.., l ,-

. ThrealtoHarmony:.': .': : :: : ,: .

. Threatlo,Efficlenoy',, ' ,

. Threatto lmage ol Powerand Effecüvefess

. ilioral 1álk is, intrusive,and Conf ronlationaland¡nvltes,cycJesoJmutual I,fecnmtnatton.

. Moral talk assumes distracting moralisticforms {praisir,rg, blaming, ideological) and¡s simplist¡c, inllexible, so!and inexact

. Moraltalk is too esoteriiand idealistic, .,:and lacks rigor and force.

LConsequences of Moral Muteness

The short-term benefits of moral muteness as perceived by managers (i.e.,preservation of harmony, efficiency, and image of self-sufficiency) producesignificant long-term costs for organizations. These costly consequencesinclude:

o creation of moral amnesia;¡ inappropriate narrowness in conceptions of morality;a moral stress for individual managers,o neglect of moral abuses; ando decreased authority of moral standards.

Moral Amnesia-The avoidance of moral talk creates and reinforces a

caricature of management as an amoral activity, a condition we describe as

moral amnesia. Many business people and critics of business seem to be

unable to recognize the degree to which business activities are in fact regu-lated by moral expectations. Critics and defenders of current business prac-tices often debate about the legitimacy of bringing moral considerations tobear as if most business decisions were determined exclusively by consid-erations of profit and personal and organizationai self-interest. In the proc-ess they ignore the degree to which actual business interactions are already

\-

?ep:oduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Car-rponxl¡ MANAGEMENT REvtEw Fall 1989

vguided by moral expectations communicated by law, professional codes,

organizational conventions, and social mores.When particular business practices seem not to honor particular stan-

dards, then it may be wrongly assumed that such actions are guided by no

normative expectations whatsoever. Actually, specific business practices

which are not, for example, guided primarily by particular standards such

as social welfare and justice may in fact be determined in a large part by

other moral expectations such as respect for fair contractual relations, the

efficient and not wasteful use of human and natural resources, and respon-

siveness to consumer choices and satisfactions. Often, when businesses act

in ways that are judged to be immoral, such as the unannounced closure ofa local plant, they may well be acting in keeping with other normative stan-

dards, regarding, for example, organizational responsibility. To assume

that conduct judged to be unethical because it is counter to particular stan-

dards necessarily springs solely from amoral consideration is to fail to grasp

the extent to which such conduct may well be guided and legitimated by

other, confl icting norms.The moral amnesia regarding business practices is illustrated by the de-

bate occasioned by an article by Friedman entitled "The Social Responsibil-

ity of Business is to Increase its Profit."'o To many, Friedman seemed to

conclude that business people had no moral responsibility other than to use

any legal means to increase the returns on the investments of stockholders.

He did argue that business people were ill-equipped to become social re-

formers and that such moral crusading might well lead them to do harm

both to those they sought to help and to their own organizations. Both de-

fenders and critics assumed that Friedman was defending an amoral posi-

tion. However, ahhough cloaked in the language of economic self-interest'

Friedmanls article alluded in passing to eight different normative standards

relevant for business practices: namely, businesses should operate without

fraud, without deception in interpersonal communications, in keeping with

conventions regarding fair competition, in line with existing laws, with

respect to existing contractual agreements, recognizing the given rights ofemployees and investors, seeking to maximize consumer satisfactions, and

always in ways that allow for the free choices of the individual involved. Itcan be argued that Friedman invited misunderstanding by polarizing issues

of profit and social responsibility. It cannot be argued that according to his

position profits can be pursued without any other moral criteria than legality.

It is cha¡acteristic of this moral amnesia that business people often feel

themselves moved by moral obligations and ideals and find no way to refer

explicitly to these pushes and pulls except indirectly by invoking personal

preferences, common sense, and long-term benefits. They remain inarticu-

late and unself-conscious of their convictions-

Narrowed Conception of Morality-In order to avoid getting bogged

down in moral talk which threatens efficiency, managers who are convinced

v

I!

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission'

I


y

they are acting morally may argue that tbeir actions are a morally neutral

matter. They "stonewall" moral questions by arguing that the issues in-

volved are ones of feasibility, practicality, and the impersonal balancing ofcosts and benefits, and that decisions on these matters are appropriately

made by relevant managers and directors without public discussion.

We interviewed a number of managers who made these kinds of claims

with respect to issues that others might consider contentious. A utilitiesexecutive argued, for example, that studies had exaggerated the impact ofsteam plants on water supplies. He also contended that no moral issues

were relevant to the decisions regarding the domestic use of nuclear power.

A pharmaceutical company manager criticized those who attempted to

make a moral issue out of a leak in a rinse water pipe. An accountant criti-

cized a colleague for arguing that the procedure recently used with a cus-

tomer involved moral improprieties. These managers attempted to treat

issues that had been questioned as if they were not publicly debatable.

Insofa¡ as it is thought that moral issues are posed only by deviance from

acceptable standards of behavior, then managers have a legitimate case to

shun moral discussions of their actions which are neither illegal nor deviant.

However, while appropriately claiming that their actions are not morally

improper, managers stonewall whenever they insist, in addition, that their

actions are constituted not only by deviance, but also by dilemmas (when

two or more nornative standards conflict) and by shortfalls (from the pur-

suit of high ideals). In the examples cited above, the managers were correct

in asserting that no illegal nor blatantly deviant actions were involved. How-

ever, they were incorrect to afgue that these actions were morally neutral.

Moral muteness in the form of stonewalling thus perpetuates a narrow

conception of morality, i .e. , aS only concerned with blatant deviance from

moral standards. Most importantly, moral muteness in this case prevents

creative exploration of action alternatives that might enable the organization

to balance better conflicting demands or to approximate better the highest

ideals.

Moral Stress-Managers experience moral stress as a result of role conflict

and role ambiguity in connection with moral expectations.20 They treat their

responsibility to their organizations as a moral standard and, when con-

fronted with an ethical question, they frequently have difficulty deciding

what kinds of costs will be acceptable in dealing witb the question (e. g' , it

costs money to upgrade toilet facilities and improve working conditions).

Moreover, moral expectations (for example, honesty in communications)

are often very general and the manager is frequently faced with a decision

on what is morally appropriate behavior in a specific instance. He or she

may have to decide, for example, when legitimate entertainment becomes

bribery or when legitimate bluffing or concealment of basic positions in nego-

tiations with a customer or supplier becomes dishonesty in communication.

A certain degree of such moral stress is unavoidable in management life.

¡'/


C¡r-rRon¡¡¡ M¡ n¡crlrtxt REvtEw Fall 1989

However, it can be exacerbated beyond reasonable revels by the absence ofmoral talk. If managers are unable to discuss with others their problemsand questions, they absorb the uncertainty and stress that would more ap-propriately be shared by colleagues and superiors. In the absence of moraltalk, managers may cope with intolerabre levers of moral stress by denyingthe relevance or importance of particular normative expectations. This maytake the form of inappropriate idealism in which the legitimacy of the or-ganization's economic objectives is given inadequate attention. conversely,and perhaps more frequently, managers may cope with excessive moralstress by treating decisions as morally neutral, responding only to economicconcerns and organizational systems of reward and censure. In either case,moral muteness eliminates any opportunity that might exist for creative,collaborative problem solving that would be best for the manaser. as wellas for the organization and its stakeholders.

Neglect of Abuses-The avoidance of morar talk by managers also meansthat many moral issues are simply not organizationally recognized and ad-dressed. consequently, many moral abuses are ignored, many moral idealsare not pursued, and many moral dilemmas remain un¡esolved. Managerswe interviewed readily cited moral lapses of colleagues and competitors.r'The popular press continually cites examples of immoral managerial con-duct, often failing in the process to credit the extent to which managersactually adhere to moral standards.

Just as norrns of confrontation contribute to moral muteness. in circularfashion that muteness reinforces those norms and leads to a culture of ne-glect. organizational silence on moral issues makes it more difficult formembers to raise questions and debate issues. what could and should beordinary practice-i.e., questioning of the propriety of specific decisionsand actions-tends to require an acr of heroism and thus is less likery rooccur.

Decreased Authority of Moral Standards-Moral arguments possesscompelling authority only if the discourse in which rhese arguments arestated is socially rooted. It is an idealistic misconception to suppose thatmoral reasons by virtue of their logic alone inspire the feelings of obligationand desire that make people willingly adhere to moral standards. Blake andDavis refer to this assumption as the "fallacy of normative determinism.""The pushes and pulls which lead people to honor normative standards ariseas much, if not more, from social relationships as from verbal communica-tion of moral ideas. The articulations of moral ideas gain compelling au-thority to the degree that these expressions call to mind existing feelings ofsocial attachments and obligations, build upon tacit as well as explicitagreements and promises, seem to be related to realistic rewards andpunishments, and connect feeling of self-worth to moral compliance.23 That

v

uReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

L

The Moral Mueness of Managers

is, moral expressions become authoritative, and therefore genuinely norrna-tive, to the degree that they both arouse such feelings and reveal such agree-ments, and also connect these feelings and recollections with moral action.

Moral ideas communicated without being socially rooted simply lackcompelling authority. Such expressions are like inflated currency: becausethey possess little real authority, there is a tendency to use more and moreof them in order to create hoped-for effects. Such language, unless it has

become socially rooted, is experienced as disruptive, distracting, inflexible,and overblown. Simply attempting to talk more about moral issues in busi-ness is not likely to make these conversations more weighty and authoritative.What is needed is to find ways of realistically connecting this language withthe experiences and expectations ofpeople involved in business.

lndeed, in an even more general effect, the resolution of organizationalproblems tbrough cooperation becomes more difficult to the extent thatmanagers shun moral talk. Cooperation may be gained in several ways. Forexample, it may be inspired by charismatic leadership or achieved by force-ful commands. Charisma and command are, however, limited temporarydevices for gaining cooperation- Many managers do not have the gift forcharismatic leadership. ln any case, such leadership is best exercised inrelation to crises and not ordinary operations. Commands may achieve com-pliance, but a compliance that is half-hearted, foordragging, and resentful.Cooperation is realized more enduringly and more fully by fostering com-mitments to shared moral values. Shared values provide a common vocabu-lary for identifying and resolving problems. Shared values constitute com-mon cultures which provide the guidelines for action and the justifications

for decisions.'o

,r lf h impos_síble to, foster ,greater moral responsib¡l/{r bybusiness peopte and organ¡zations without atso facilitating

, more open' and,,dircct.conversations about.these issues bymanagers.

I

It is impossible to foster a sense of ongoing community without invokingmoral images and normative expectations. Moral terms provide the symbols

of attachment and guidelines for interactions within communities." In the

absence of such images and norms, individuals are prone to defend theirown interests more aggressively and with fewer compromises. Longer range

and wider conceptions of self-interest are likely to be abandoned. Withoutmorai appeals to industry, organizational well-being, team work, craftsman-

ship, and service, it is much more difficult to cultivate voluntary rather

than regimented cooperation.'?6

l¡/


r'

C¡Llronm¡ M¡.¡¡¡crurxr R¡vIEw Fall 1989

The Nature of Change Interventions

Several factors must be taken into account by those who wish to reduce thisavoidance of moral talk by managers. Those who wish to "institutionalizeethics" in business, "manage values in organizations," or gain "the ethicaledgs"zt must take into account the factors which give rise to this avoidance.It is impossible to foster greater moral responsibility by business peopleand organizations without also facilitating more open and direct conversa-tions about these issues by managers.

First, business people will continue to shun open discussions of actualmoral issues unless means are provided to allow for legitimate dissent bymanagers who will not be personally blamed, criticized, ostracized, orpunished for their views. From the perspective of the managers we inter-viewed, their organizations seemed to expect from them unquestioningloyalty and deference. Although many had privately spoken of their moralobjections to the practices of other managers and their own firms, few hadpublicly voiced these concerns within thei¡ own organizations. Full discus-sions of moral issues are not likely to take place unless managers and work-ers feel they can openly voice arguments regarding poiicies and practicesthat will not be held against them when alternatives are adopted.

Business organizations often do not tolerate full, open debate of moralissues because they perceive dissent as assuming the form either of carpingassaults or of factional divisiveness. Carping is a way of airing personalgrievances and frustrations, often using moral expressions in order to findfault." Ideally, managers ought to be able openly to voice dissent and then,once decisions have been made contrary to their views, either respectfullysupport such choices or formally protest. However, business organizationsthat stifle open discussions of moral concerns invite the carping they seekto avoid by limiting debate in the first place. Managers are most likely tocomplain, to express resentment, and to find personal fault in others if theyfeel they have no real opportunities to voice justifiable dissents.

Legitimate expressions of dissent may be articuiated in ways that do notaggravate and reinforce factional divisiveness. Before considering recom-mendations for organizational change (about which va¡ious managers andworkers are likely to have vested interests), it is useful to set aside time forall those involved to recognize the degree to which they both hold similarlong-run objectives and value common ethical principles.2e These exercises

are valuable because they help to make shared commitments seem basicand the factional differences temporary and relative. ln addition, factionaldifferences are less likely to become contentious if these factions are ac-

corded partial legitimacy as recognized functional sub-groups within largerorganizations. Finally, legitimate dissent is less likely to aggravate factionaldivisiveness if ground rules for debate and dissent include mutual consulta-tions with all those immediately involved. These rules can help reduce the

E4

I

!


\1


IY,

\É

chances of discussions turning into empty posturing and/or irresoluteharangues.

Second, if business people are going to overcome the avoidance of moraltalk, then they must leam how to incorporate moral express;ons and argu-ments into their exchanges. Leaming how to talk ethics is neither as simplenor as difficult as it seems to be to many managers. Initially, managers mustleam to avoid as much as possible the ordinary abuses of moral talk. Inparticular, efforts must be made to limit the degree to which moral talk isused for publicly extolling the virtues or excoriating the vices of other man-agers. Evaluations of personal moral worth ought to remain as private as

possible. Furthermore, the use of moral expressions to rationalize and toexpress personal frustrations ought to be censored. ln addition, the use ofmoral expression to take ideological postures ought to be minimized. Moraltalk ought to be used primarily to identify problems, to consider issues, toadvocate and criticize policies, and to justify and explain decisions.

Managers should recognize and learn to use several of the typical formsin which moral arguments are stated. An elementary knowledge of morallogics as applied to business matters is a useful skill not only for defendingone's own argument, but also for identifying the weaknesses and strengthsin the arguments of others. It is important, however, to recognize that verbalskill at talking ethics is primarily a rhetorical and discursive skill and not a

matter of philosophical knowledge. Like the skill of elocution, learninghow to talk ethics involves learning how to state and criticize moral argu-ments persuasively. What is critical is that managers are able to use moralreasoning to deal with issues they actually face in their lives and to influ-ence others to consider carefully their positions.

Managers must regularly and routinely engage with each other in reflec-tion and dialogue about their own experiences with moral issues. The at-tempt to overcome the avoidance of moral talk by managers by introducingthem to formal philosophical languages and logics not rooted in their socialexperiences is likely to fail. Philosophical ethics is indeed an instrucriveand critical tool that can be used to analyze moral arguments of businesspeople and to propose creative soh¡tions to perceived dilemmas. It is im-probable, however, that many managers are likely to adopt philosophicaldiscourse on a day-to-day basis to talk about moral issues. At best, thislanguage might serve as a technical instrument, much like the specializedlanguages of corporate law and advanced accounting used by specializedexperts in consultation with executives. Such tech¡ical use does not over-come the moral amnesia that infects ordinary communications among man-agers. To be compelling, moral discourse must be connected with, express,foster, and strengthen managers' feelings of attachment, obligation, prom-ises, and agreements.

Moral ideas rarely possess compelling authority unless some group orgroups of people so closely identify with these ideas as to become their

-.-


CeLtronxt¡ M¡ n¡csvrxr REVIEw Fall 1989

articulate champions. Moral ideas are likely to gain widespread following

by business people as smaller groups of managers and workers so closely

identify with these ideas-which in turn express their own attachments,

obligations, and desires-that they champion them. This identification is

most likely to occur where business people with existing feelings of com-

munity, due to professional, craft, or organizational loyalties, begin to artic-

ulate their moral convictions and to discuss moral issues. It is precisely in

these sorts of subgroups of people who have to work with each other as

colleagues that managers will be willing to risk speaking candidly and see

the benefits of such candor in fuller cooperation'

The role of senior managers in fostering such "good conversation" among

managers in an organization cannot be overemphasized.'o If they seek to

provide moral leadership to an organization, senior mana8ers must not only

signal the importance they place on such conversations, but also demand

thát they take place. They need also to build such conversations into the

fabric of organizational life through management mechanisms such as re-

quiring that managers include in their annual plans a statement of the steps

they will take to ensure that questionable practices a¡e reviewed, or that

new business proposals include all assessment of the ethical climate of any

new business area into which entry is proposed."

Finally, interventions require patience. open conversations of the kind

we have been describing will, in the short-run, be slow and time-consuming

and thus reduce organizational efficiency. They will, in the short-run, be

awkward and fumbling and appear futile, and thus they will be quite un-

comfortable for managers used to smooth control of managerial discuS-

sions. Patience will be required to persevere until these short-run problems

are overcome, until new norms emerge which encourage debate without

carping and acrimony, until managers develop the skills necessary for

effrcient and reflective problem solving with respect to moral issues, until

moral voices and commitments are heard clearly and strongly throughout

their organizations.

References

I . chester Barna¡d, The Function of the Executive (Cambridge, MA: Harva¡d university

P¡ess, 1938), p. 154; George E. Breen, ..Middle Management Morale in the 80's''' An

AMA Sumey Report (New York, NY: The American Management Association, 1983);

Ma¡k H. McCormick, what They Don't Teach You at Harvard Business school (To'

ronto: Bantam Books, 1984)' chapter 2.

2.AlexisDeTocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,Vol'2.,translatedbyHenryReeve'revised by Francis Bowen (New York, NY: Mentor Books' 1945)' pp' 129-132-

3'Cha¡lesMcCoy,Managemen|ofValues:TheEthicatDifferencesinCorporatePolicyandPerformanc¿ (Bosion, MA: Pitman, 1985), pp' 8,9' 16' 98;Leona¡d Silk and

David vogel, Ethícs and Profits: The crisis of confdence in American Business (New

York,NY:SimonandSchuster,lg76),chapterS;RobenC'solomonandKristineR'Hanson, It's Good Busin¿ss (New York, NY: Atheneum' 1985)' p' xiv; see also' Mark

Pastin, ?h¿ Hard Problems of Managemenr..Gainíng the Ethícs Edge (San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986), Introduction, Part One'

v

-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permiss¡on'

v

The ltoral Muteness ol Monagers

v

v

-1. James A. Waters, Frederick Bird, ard Peter D. Chant, "Everyday Moral Issues Experi-enced by Managers," Journal of Business Erhics (Fall 1986), pp. 3'73-384; Barbara Ley

Tofñer, Tough Choices; Managers Talk Ethics (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons,

1986): Kathy E. Kram, Peter C. Yaeger, and Gary Reed, "Ethical Dilemmas in Corpo-rate Context." paper presented at Academy of Managemenl, August 1988; Robin Derry,"Managerial Perceptions of Ethical Conflicts and Conceptions of Morality: A Qualita-dve Interview Study," paper presented at Academy of Management, August 1988.

5. James A. Waters and Frederick B. Bird, "The Moral Dimension of OrganizationalCulture," Journal of Busíness Ethics, 6ll (1987): 18.

6- Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicatíve Action, Vol. I, translated by Thomas

Mccarthy (Boston, MA: The Beacon Press, 1984), Part I, chapter 3.

7. Ma¡k L. Taylor, A Study of Corporate Ethical Polícy Statements (Dallas, TX: The Foun-

dation of the Southwestern Graduate School of Banking, 1980).

8. Frederick Bi¡d and James A. Waters, "The Nature of Managerial Moral Standa¡ds,"

Journal of Business Ethics, 6 (1987): l-13.

9. Ceorge Wilhelm Frederick Hegel, Philosophy of Right, translated by T. M. K,nox

(London: Oxford University Press, 1952,1961), pp. 93-103.

10. Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics, translated by J. A. R. Rhomson (Middle sex, U.K.:Penguin Books, 1953), Book VII; Peter Winch, Ethics and Action (London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul, l9?2), chapters 4, 8.

I l. Waters, Bird, and Chant, op. cit.;Frederick Bird, Frances Westley, and James A.Waters, "The Uses of Moral Talk: Why Do Managers Tálk Ethics," Journal of Business

E¡l¡ics 11989).

1 2. Ralph Nader, Peter Petkas, and Kate Blackwell, eds., W hí stle BI owíng (New York, NY:Grossman, 1972); Richard P. Nielsen, "What Can Managers Do About Unethical Man-

agement?" Journal of Business Ethics 6/4 (1981).

13. Steven Kerr, "Integrity in Effective Leadership," in Suresh Srivaslra and Associates,

eds., Executive lntegrity (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1988).

14. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973),

chapter 9.

15. Oliver E. Williamson, "Transactional Cost Economicsl The Governance of Cont¡actual

Relations," Journal of l-aw and Economics ( 1980), pp. 233-261.

I 6. Pastin, op. cit., chapter 3; Silk and Vogel, op. cit., chapter 2; Solomon and Hanson,

op. cit., p. 5; Kerr, op. cit., p. 138.

17. Albert Hirschman, Exit, Voice and Loyaby: Responses to Decline in Firms and States

(Cambridge, MA: Ha¡vard University Press, 1970), chapter ?.

18. Ikam, Yaeger, and Read, op. cit., p. 28.

19. Milton Friedman, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase its Profit," New

York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.

20. Waters and Bird, op. cit., pp. 16-18.

21. Waters, Bird. and Chant. op. cit.22. Judith Blake a¡d Kingsley Davis, "Norms, Values and Sanctions" in Dennis Wrong and

Harry L. Gracey, Readings in Introductory Sociology (New York, NY: Macmillan Co.,

1967).

23. Emile Durkheim, Suicide, translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson (New

York, NY: Tbe Free Press, 1974), chapter 2; Frederick Bird, "Morality and Society: AnIntroduction ro Comparative Sociological Study of Moralities," unpublished manuscript,

1988, chapter 4.

24. KzuI E. Weick, "Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability," Calífornia

Management Review, 2912 (Winter 1987): ll2-127.

25. Basil Bernstein, Class Codes, and Control (St. Albans, NY: Palladin, 1973).

26. Frances Westley and Frederick Bird, "The Social Psychology of Organizational Com-

mitment," unpublished paper, 1989.

!z


C¡¡-¡ron¡rl M¡ucrugrr RBvnw

27. Kirk Hanson, "Ethics and Business: A Progress Report," in Charles McCoy, ed , Man'

agement of Values (Boston, MA: Pitman, 1985), pp. 280-88; Fred Twining and Charles

McCoy, "How to Manage Values in Organizations," unpublished manuscript, 198?;

Pasün, op. cit.28. Bird, Westley, and Waters, op. cit.

29. Twining and McCoy, op. cit.

30. James A. Waters, "Integrity Management: t earning and lmplementing Ethical Princi-

ples in the workplace," in s. srivastva, ed., Executíve Integríty (San Francisco, cA:

Jossey-Bass, l98E).

31. James A. Watcrs and Peter D. Chant, "Intemal Control of Management Integity:Beyond Accounting sysrems," caldornía Managemenr Review,2413 (Spring l9E2): 60-66.

UReproduced with permission of the copyright owner' Further reproduction prohibited without permission'

Documents

The Moral Muteness of Managers