A New Methodological Approach for Studying Moral Reasoning Among Managers in Business Settings

Abstract

The introduction and validation of a new instrument, The Moral Reasoning Inventory, designed to measure an individuals’ moral reasoning (MR) in response to two moral dilemmas within a business setting is the subject of this article. The instrument consists of two moral dilemma scenarios with eight MR statements. Two measurement scales were used for analyzing patterns of individual responses: the strength of belief in the reasons and the importance of those reasons for resolving the dilemma. Managers enrolled in a part-time MBA program were administered the new instrument. Data analysis clearly supported the effectiveness of the instrument to differentiate patterns of consistency in MR within decision groups.

Appendices

Appendix A: The Moral Reasoning Inventory

The Moral Reasoning Inventory dilemmas

Evelyn

Evelyn worked for an automotive steel casting company. She was part of a small group asked to investigate the cause of an operating problem that had developed in the wheel castings of a new luxury automobile and to make recommendations for its improvement. The problem did not directly create an unsafe condition, but it did lead to irritating sounds. The Vice President of Engineering told the group that he was certain that the problem was due to tensile stress in the castings. Evelyn and a lab technician conducted tests and found conclusive evidence that the problem was not tensile stress. As Evelyn began work on other possible explanations of the problem, she was told that the problem had been solved. A report prepared by Evelyn’s boss strongly supported the tensile stress hypothesis. All the data points from Evelyn’s experiments have been changed to fit the curves, and some of the points, which were far from where the theory would predict, have been omitted. The report “proved” that tensile stress was responsible for the problem.

Roger

Roger worked for a small auditing firm and conducted an annual audit of a machinery manufacturer. During the audit, he discovered that the firm had received a large loan from the local savings and loan association. It is illegal for a savings and loan association to make a loan to a manufacturing firm; they are restricted by law to mortgages based upon residential real estate. Roger took his working papers and a copy of the ledger showing the loan to his boss, the partner in charge of the auditing office. His boss listened to Roger, and then told Roger: “I will take care of this privately. We simply cannot afford to lose a client of this status. You put the papers you have through the shredder.”

The Moral Reasoning Inventory moral statements

Evelyn

• Stage 1|2: The risk of being reprimanded by her boss means that Evelyn should not contradict her boss.

  Not contradicting her boss this time may mean a more rapid advancement for Evelyn in the company.

• Stage 3: By contradicting her boss Evelyn might make her family and friends proud of her.

  Evelyn’s first duty is to obey the rules established for her workgroup, regardless of her own personal feelings.

• Stage 4: Companies must show a respect for authority and obey the rules.

  Evelyn must respect and protect the company’s customers, in spite of any risk to her or her company.

• Stage 5|6: Always telling the truth is more important than any punishment for contradicting one’s boss.

  Although awkward and painful for Evelyn, contradicting her boss is best for all involved in the long run.

Roger

• Stage 1|2: To avoid being punished for disobeying his boss, Roger should shred the papers.

  Doing his boss this favor will result in a return favor for Roger in the future.

• Stage 3: Roger informed his boss, so now it is the boss’s responsibility. Roger can follow the order and look good in his boss’s eyes.

  Being loyal and obedient to his boss are Roger’s most important duties as an employee.

• Stage 4: Obeying the law is more important than obeying the boss.

  Violating the law and professional auditing standards are more important than being loyal to his company.

• Stage 5|6: Preserving the truth is far more important than cooperating with the boss or even complying with the law.

  Having the truth come out is more important than trusting the boss and helping the firm in this situation.

Appendix B. The moral reasoning statements used in the Discriminant Analysis with instructions to respondents

The Evelyn scenario: should Evelyn contradict her boss’s report?

The four predictor variable statements read as follows:

• Stage 5|6: Although awkward for Evelyn, contradicting her boss is best in the long run.

• Stage 4: Evelyn must protect her company’s customers, in spite of any risk to her company.

• Stage 3: Evelyn’s first duty is to obey the rules established for her work group, regardless of her own personal feelings.

• Stage 1|2: The risk of being reprimanded by her boss means that Evelyn should not contradict her boss.

The Roger scenario: should Roger shred his papers?

The four predictor variable statements read as follows:

• Stage 5|6: Preserving the truth is more important than cooperating with the boss.

• Stage 4: Obeying the law is more important than obeying the boss.

• Stage 3: Being loyal and obedient to his boss is what matters most as an employee.

• Stage 1|2: To avoid being punished for disobeying his boss, Roger should shred the papers.

Respondents rated the statements based on the following instructions. Below is a list of reasons why Roger should or should not shred his papers. Please rate how strongly you believe the reason applies to your thinking in deciding about what Roger should do. Please circle a number [0] through [10] for each reason. (The scale was: no feeling [0] to most strong feeling [10].) The instructions continued: Please rate how important each reason is in your decision about what Roger should do. (Circle the degree of importance for each reason.) (The value labels were: none (1), little (2), some (3), much (4), great (5).)