-
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. Watersany 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
definedstandards codified in law, professional conventions, and
social mores. Theycharacteristically defend morally defined
objectives such as service to cus-tomers, effective cooperation
among personnel, and utilization of their ownskills and resources
in terms of the long-run economic objectives of theirorganizations.
Ostensibly moral standads 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 touse moral expressions publicly to identify and guide
their decision makingeven when they are acting moral}y. A century
and a half ago, de Tocquevillenoted the disinclination of American
business people to admit they actedaltruistically even when they
did.'More recently, McCoy has observed thatmanagers are constantly
making value choices, privately invoking moralstandards, which they
in trrn defend in terms of business interests. Silkand Vogel note
that many managers simply take for granted that businessand ethics
have little relation except negatively with respect to obviouscases
of illegal activities, like bribery or price-fixing. Solomon and
Hansonobserve that, although managers are often aware of moral
issues, the publicdiscussion 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 gant f rom theSocial Sclence and Humanities Flesearch
Council ol Canada. The Center tor Ethics andSocial Policy in
Berkeley, California, aided this research by helping to arrange for
inlerv ewswith executives, The authors wish to thank William R.
Torbert and Richard P Nrelsen fortheir 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 Ina 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
suggestsways 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 communicativeexchanges, and relevant normative
expectations. Normative expectatlonsare standards for behavior that
are sufficiently compelling and authoritativethat 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 certaintypes of activities are considered to be morally
neutral. Choices of how toact 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
businessactivities are morally neutral, their interactions in
contemporary industrialsocieties 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.'Considerableconsensus
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 worthwhileservices and products.'
Through verbal exchanges people identify, evoke, and establish
norrna-tive expectations as compelling cultural realities. Moral
expressions arearticulated to persuade others, to reinforce
personal convictions, to criti-cize, and to justify decisions.
Moral expressions are also invoked to praiseand to blame, to
evaluate and to rationalize. Moral discourse plays a livelyrole
communicating normative expectations, seeking cooperation of
others,and rendering judgments.
For those decisions and actions for which moral expectations ae
clearlyrelevant, it is possible to conceive of four different kinds
of relationshipbetween managers' actions and their verbal
exchanges. These are depictedin Figure 1. One pattern (Quadrant I)
identifies those situations in whichspeaking and acting correspond
with each other in keeping with moral ex-pictations. A second
congruent pattern (Quadrant III) is the mirror imageofthe first: no
discrepancy exists between speech and action, but neither isguided
by moral exPectations.
v-
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission'
-
The Moral Muteness of Manaqrs
Figure 1. Relations Between Moral Action and Speech
MoralTerms Usedin Snoo h
MoralTerms Not Usedin Speech
Hypocrisy,. ' '
horalWbknees
Cngru-ent lmrnoralorAmg,ral ConQycl.
Actions FollowNormative 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. Verbalexchanges 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 mayalso 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 threepattems 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 avoidmoral expressions in their communicative exchanges
but would be expectedto use them either because their actual
conduct reveals deference to moralstandards, because they expect
others to honor such standards, or becausethey privately
acknowledge that those standards influence their decisionsand
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 guidedby moral expectations, why do they avoid moral
references in their work-related communications?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
CALIFoRNTA Mxcrunxr Rvrw 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 ascommon 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 MutenessInterviews 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 specically, managers are concernedthat moral
talk will theaten organizational harmony, organizational
effi-ciency, and their own reputation for power and
effectiveness.
Threat to Harmony-Moral talk may, on occasion, require some
degreeof 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
suchconfrontation, 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 anunethical 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 awae of thesmall and not-so-small deceits
which are pervasive in organizations, e.g.,
v
V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
v-
-
The Moral Muteness of Managers
juggling budget lines to cover expenditures, minor abuses of
organizationalperks, favoritism, nepotism, and fear that if they
"cast the first stone" anavalanche may ensue.rs
Many managers conclude that it is disruptive to bring up moral
issues atwork because their organizations do not want public
discussion of suchissues. We interviewed or examined the interviews
of sixty managers whoin tum talked about nearly 300 cases in which
they had faced moral issuesin their work. In only twelve percent of
these cases had public discussionof moral issues taken place and
more than half of these special cases werecited 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 theseinstances, moral talk is viewed as being
self-serving and obfuscating. Thus,for example, while moral talk
may be legitimately used to praise and blamepeople 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 todefend stnctures of authority and to
rally support for political goals, itdoes not facilitate problem
solving among people with varied ideologicalcommitments.t'
Because of the prevalence of such usages, many managers are
loathe touse moral talk in their work. Blaming, praising, and
ideological posturingdo not help to clarify issues. Moreover, such
moral talk frequently seemsto be narrowly self-serving. Those who
praise, blame, or express ideolog-ical convictions usually do so in
order to protect and advance their owninterests.
In addition, managers shun moral talk because such talk often
seems toresult 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
totheoretical formulas for distributing rewards and
responsibilities withoutfirst considering how resources as a whole
might be expanded and howexisting contractual relations might
already have builrin standards of fairtransactions 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 changesin 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 Mrrcrrxt Rr,uw Fall 1989
amended easily. They assume that if the stipulations are
formally articulatedin terms of explicit promises, obligations, and
rights, then flexibility islikely 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
seekto present themselves as powerful and effective. They avoid
moral talk attimes 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 unsuccessfullyto 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
seminarson ethics. Within these workshops managers are encouraged
to discusshypothetical cases and to explore potential action
alternatives. Many findthese workshops instructive and stimulating.
However, when managersbegin to csnsider problems that they actually
face in their organizations,then the character of these discussions
often changes. Moral expressionsrecede and ae replaced by
discussions of organizational politics, technicalqualifications,
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 ae 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
ethicalilliteracy. 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 conceptsto analyze issues.
They may more readily and less self-consciously usesome ethical
terms to identify and condemn obvious wrongdoings, but donot know
how to use ethical terms and theories with intellectual rigor
andsophistication to identify and resolve moral issues.
:/
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission
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
Mutenesstrlorallatkle,vlOrcdascrygtlng,,.becaugaoflbessasgumsdfligeI!9gavp"qf
,cti.., l ,-
. ThrealtoHarmony:.':
.': : :: : ,: .
. Threatlo,Efficlenoy',, ' ,
. Threatto lmage ol Powerand Effecvefess
. ilioral 1lk is, intrusive,and Conf
ronlationalandnvltes,cycJesoJmutual I,fecnmtnatton.
. Moral talk assumes distracting moralisticforms {praisir,rg,
blaming, ideological) ands simplistc, 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
acaricature of management as an amoral activity, a condition we
describe asmoral amnesia. Many business people and critics of
business seem to beunable 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
v
guided 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 nonormative expectations whatsoever. Actually, specific
business practiceswhich are not, for example, guided primarily by
particular standards suchas social welfare and justice may in fact
be determined in a large part byother moral expectations such as
respect for fair contractual relations, theefficient and not
wasteful use of human and natural resources, and respon-siveness to
consumer choices and satisfactions. Often, when businesses actin
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 assumethat conduct judged to be unethical
because it is counter to particular stan-dards necessarily springs
solely from amoral consideration is to fail to graspthe extent to
which such conduct may well be guided and legitimated byother,
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 toconclude that business people had no moral
responsibility other than to useany 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 harmboth 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 standardsrelevant for business practices:
namely, businesses should operate withoutfraud, without deception
in interpersonal communications, in keeping withconventions
regarding fair competition, in line with existing laws, withrespect
to existing contractual agreements, recognizing the given rights
ofemployees and investors, seeking to maximize consumer
satisfactions, andalways in ways that allow for the free choices of
the individual involved. Itcan be argued that Friedman invited
misunderstanding by polarizing issuesof profit and social
responsibility. It cannot be argued that according to hisposition
profits can be pursued without any other moral criteria than
legality.
It is chaacteristic of this moral amnesia that business people
often feelthemselves moved by moral obligations and ideals and find
no way to referexplicitly to these pushes and pulls except
indirectly by invoking personalpreferences, 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
boggeddown in moral talk which threatens efficiency, managers who
are convinced
v
I!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission'
-
IThe Moral Muteness of Managers
y
they are acting morally may argue that tbeir actions are a
morally neutralmatter. 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 appropriatelymade by relevant
managers and directors without public discussion.
We interviewed a number of managers who made these kinds of
claimswith 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 issueswere relevant to the decisions
regarding the domestic use of nuclear power.A pharmaceutical
company manager criticized those who attempted tomake 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
treatissues that had been questioned as if they were not publicly
debatable.
Insofa as it is thought that moral issues are posed only by
deviance fromacceptable standards of behavior, then managers have a
legitimate case toshun moral discussions of their actions which are
neither illegal nor deviant.However, while appropriately claiming
that their actions are not morallyimproper, managers stonewall
whenever they insist, in addition, that theiractions are
constituted not only by deviance, but also by dilemmas (whentwo or
more nornative standards conflict) and by shortfalls (from the
pur-suit of high ideals). In the examples cited above, the managers
were correctin 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
narrowconception of morality, i .e. , aS only concerned with
blatant deviance frommoral standards. Most importantly, moral
muteness in this case preventscreative exploration of action
alternatives that might enable the organizationto balance better
conflicting demands or to approximate better the highestideals.
Moral Stress-Managers experience moral stress as a result of
role conflictand role ambiguity in connection with moral
expectations.20 They treat theirresponsibility to their
organizations as a moral standard and, when con-fronted with an
ethical question, they frequently have difficulty decidingwhat
kinds of costs will be acceptable in dealing witb the question (e.
g' , itcosts 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 decisionon what is morally appropriate behavior in a
specific instance. He or shemay have to decide, for example, when
legitimate entertainment becomesbribery 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.
'/Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
Cr-rRon M ncrlrtxt 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 unesolved. 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.
-
LThe 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 hasbecome 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 justificationsfor
decisions.'o
,r lf h impos_sble to, foster ,greater moral responsibl/{r
bybusiness peopte and organzations 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 symbolsof attachment and guidelines for interactions
within communities." In theabsence of such images and norms,
individuals are prone to defend theirown interests more
aggressively and with fewer compromises. Longer rangeand 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 ratherthan regimented cooperation.'?6
l/
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
r'
CLlronm M.crurxr RvIEw 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
vaious 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 exercisesare 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
!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
\1
-
The Moral Muteness of Managers
IY,
\
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 aspossible. 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
amatter 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 sohtions 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 techical 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
-.-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission
-
CeLtronxt M ncsvrxr REVIEw Fall 1989
articulate champions. Moral ideas are likely to gain widespread
followingby business people as smaller groups of managers and
workers so closelyidentify with these ideas-which in turn express
their own attachments,obligations, and desires-that they champion
them. This identification ismost 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
inthese sorts of subgroups of people who have to work with each
other ascolleagues that managers will be willing to risk speaking
candidly and seethe benefits of such candor in fuller
cooperation'
The role of senior managers in fostering such "good
conversation" amongmanagers in an organization cannot be
overemphasized.'o If they seek toprovide moral leadership to an
organization, senior mana8ers must not onlysignal the importance
they place on such conversations, but also demandtht they take
place. They need also to build such conversations into thefabric of
organizational life through management mechanisms such as
re-quiring that managers include in their annual plans a statement
of the stepsthey will take to ensure that questionable practices ae
reviewed, or thatnew business proposals include all assessment of
the ethical climate of anynew business area into which entry is
proposed."
Finally, interventions require patience. open conversations of
the kindwe have been describing will, in the short-run, be slow and
time-consumingand thus reduce organizational efficiency. They will,
in the short-run, beawkward 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 problemsare overcome, until new
norms emerge which encourage debate withoutcarping and acrimony,
until managers develop the skills necessary foreffrcient and
reflective problem solving with respect to moral issues, untilmoral
voices and commitments are heard clearly and strongly
throughouttheir organizations.
ReferencesI . chester Barnad, The Function of the Executive
(Cambridge, MA: Harvad university
Pess, 1938), p. 154; George E. Breen, ..Middle Management Morale
in the 80's''' AnAMA Sumey Report (New York, NY: The American
Management Association, 1983);Mak 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'ChalesMcCoy,Managemen|ofValues:TheEthicatDifferencesinCorporatePolicyandPerformanc
(Bosion, MA: Pitman, 1985), pp' 8,9' 16' 98;Leonad Silk andDavid
vogel, Ethcs and Profits: The crisis of confdence in American
Business
(NewYork,NY:SimonandSchuster,lg76),chapterS;RobenC'solomonandKristineR'Hanson,
It's Good Businss (New York, NY: Atheneum' 1985)' p' xiv; see also'
MarkPastin, ?h Hard Problems of Managemenr..Gainng the Ethcs Edge
(San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986), Introduction, Part One'
v
-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permisson'
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 LeyTofer, 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 Busness Ethics, 6ll (1987):
18.
6- Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicatve Action, Vol. I,
translated by ThomasMccarthy (Boston, MA: The Beacon Press, 1984),
Part I, chapter 3.
7. Mak L. Taylor, A Study of Corporate Ethical Polcy Statements
(Dallas, TX: The Foun-dation of the Southwestern Graduate School of
Banking, 1980).
8. Frederick Bid and James A. Waters, "The Nature of Managerial
Moral Standads,"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: Routledgeand 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 Tlk Ethics," Journal of BusinessElics 11989).
1 2. Ralph Nader, Peter Petkas, and Kate Blackwell, eds., W h
stle BI owng (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 ContactualRelations," 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: Havard 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 ad 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 (NewYork, 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," CalforniaManagement 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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
C-ronrl Mucrugrr 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 CharlesMcCoy, "How to Manage
Values in Organizations," unpublished manuscript, 198?;Pasn, 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., Executve Integrty
(San Francisco, cA:Jossey-Bass, l98E).
31. James A. Watcrs and Peter D. Chant, "Intemal Control of
Management Integity:Beyond Accounting sysrems," caldorna Managemenr
Review,2413 (Spring l9E2): 60-66.
UReproduced with permission of the copyright owner' Further
reproduction prohibited without permission'