Moral intuitionism and compliance & ethics training by Jeff Kaplan
| In their 2013 article in the Journal of Management – Moral Intuition: Connecting Current Knowledge to Future Organizational Research and Practice – Gary R. Weaver of the University of Delaware, Scott J. Reynolds of the University of Washington and Michael E. Brown of the Pennsylvania State University review “a rapidly growing body of social science research [that] has framed ethical thought and behavior as driven by intuition,” literature which they describe as “incredibly rich, fruitful, and meaningful to a wide range of audiences.” Among the process components of “moral intuitionism” are non-inferential judgments, meaning that “moral judgment and behavior can take place without prior deliberative reasoning”; “the automaticity of moral action,” meaning that ethical judgments can be essentially instantaneous; dual process thinking, made famous by Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow; and “intuitive primacy [meaning that] although sometimes the rational deliberation model accurately characterizes moral behavior, in the large majority of cases moral intuition rules.” The content of moral intuition – made famous by Jon Haidt’s The Righteous Mind – is often said to include five areas: “a) care (vs. harm), (b) fairness, or justice (vs. cheating), (c) in-group loyalty (vs. betrayal), (d) authority (vs. subversion), (e) sanctity, or purity,” and perhaps a sixth — “liberty (vs. oppression).” As the authors note: “Although the value of the moral intuition perspective has been demonstrated in multiple fields (e.g., psychology, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, behavioral economics), its application in organizational contexts is limited,” and in this article they explore the significance of this body of knowledge from four perspectives: “leadership, organizational corruption, compliance training and education, and divestiture socialization,” looking at process and content for each. I review parts of what the authors discuss with respect to one of these – compliance & ethics training. Not surprisingly, the authors express considerable skepticism about the value of computer-based training, which, as they note, is the most prevalent form of compliance ethics training in businesses today: “moral intuition often involves a strong emotional component. Can computer exercises engage intuition by creating truly emotional experiences for participants? Can they trigger processes that make cognitive reappraisal of intuitions more likely? Similarly, moral intuitions are theorized to be multidimensional, involving many different types of information beyond just sights and sounds … The limited dimensionality of computer-based training likely is a substantial constraint on this format. Moreover, reappraisal and change of moral intuition often involve interaction within trusting relationships (in this case, trainer and trainee), which impersonal technology might be hard-pressed to simulate. Computer-based training might be incredibly efficient and serves purposes of external legitimation, but whether it engages moral intuition is open to question.” They note further regarding moral intuitionism and training process: “At a deeper, developmental level, an intuitionist understanding of moral judgments and their origins looks more akin to long-term habit development than to immediate learning of information. In this, the ‘training’ of moral intuitions is closer to considerations of character education than to analytical exercises of reason. Finally, they suggest: “Education and training might also focus on teaching about the process of moral intuition as well as the factors that influence it, so that students can learn to recognize when intuition or deliberation are likely and/or appropriate in a given context. If moral judgments typically are intuitive, and largely automatic, perhaps one key element of ethics training is developing an ability to exert some degree of cognitive control over intuition, so that trained individuals are better prepared to manage their immediate intuitive reactions to situations.” Turning from process to content, they state: “Business ethics training and education has not typically treated concepts like authority and loyalty as moral ideals or ends in themselves (vs. pragmatic matters), and considerations of purity are highly uncommon. But some business practices and issues could be framed in those terms.” However, this would be a major and uncertain step for many business organizations, and they further note that research is needed to determine: “are some foundational intuitions, and efforts to link business practice to them, more conducive than others for ethically successful and productive employees, or is success a matter of context, such that some foundational categories are better suited for some industries, markets, or organizational contexts?” All of the authors’ suggestions do seem to me to be useful but – having been involved in corporate compliance & ethics training for more than three decades – also incredibly daunting. However, at a minimum their thoughts should provide the basis for a dialogue – perhaps even a “rich, fruitful and meaningful” one – between researchers and C&E professionals on how to apply the results of recent moral intuitionism studies to the task of making business organizations more ethical. Twelve years after the publication of this article the promise of moral intuitionist ethics training has – to my knowledge – not been met. But it is still worth pursuing, and a recent article in Psychology Today provides a nudge in this direction.. In How Our Morals Might Get in the Way of Behavior Change, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/success-by-design/202509/how-our-morals-might-get-in-the-way-of-behavior-change Ariella Kristal, Ph.D. – a postdoctoral scholar at UCLA Anderson School of Management – argues that “People resist behavior tools that clash with beliefs about willpower and personal responsibility. We value internal willpower over external strategies — even when the latter are more effective. Designing effective interventions requires understanding the values people feel are being violated. Kristal further notes: “We don’t just have theories about behavior — we have moral intuitions about what should shape behavior. And those intuitions can get in the way of doing what works. In my research, I find that many people, whether they realize it or not, believe that: behavior should come from the person, not from the environment. Attitude change should precede behavior change — that changing people’s beliefs first is necessary to lead to meaningful long-term behavior change… She writes: ”We see this in how people evaluate interventions designed to help others behave differently — even when those interventions are effective. For example, precommitment tools (like apps that block distracting websites) are often judged as crutches, despite their proven ability to help people focus and stay productive. In my own research, I’ve found that people see others who use these tools as having less integrity — as if shaping your environment to support your goals is somehow morally inferior to resisting temptation with pure willpower. Finally, there is much more to both of these two articles to warrant review by Compliance & Ethics practitioners. |
Get connected
