Leadership’s Influence on Moral Development
Flipping through a compilation of essays in the book “The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages” edited by J. Thomas Wren, I have came across the crucial topic of moral development which is one important role of a leader. One might ask how does a leader instill moral thinking as well as behavior among others? The author of the essay, “Moral Development in Individuals”, Dr. Howard T. Prince II, explains that there are three possible ways to moral development, psychoanalytic, cognitive-development, and social learning.
Basically, the psychoanalytic approach is a Sigmund Freud theory where he theorizes that “moral development occurs very early in life” (Wren, 1995, p.486) between the ages of 5 and 6. In that age, a child identifies with the parent of the same-sex and acquires the same values of the parent. Freud says that this moral acquisition is possible since children of that age develop what is known as the superego, which may also be compared to conscience. Prince states that there is no clear research evidence to Freud’s theory, but if it were true, then, there is little an organizational leader can do to the development of moral and a leader’s only choice is to try select and eliminate people based on moral standards (Wren, 1995, p.485). Nonetheless, there are two more other approaches that an organizational leader may find useful in influencing the moral development of others.
Lawrence Kohlberg of Harvard explains moral development through his cognitive development theory. He explains that there are different stages of moral development that is based on individual intellectual reasoning. A person’s level of intellect and experience as well as social influences determines which stage level he or she is in the moral development.
According the Kohlberg’s theory, there are six stages of moral development that are divided into three levels. The first level (stage 1 and stage 2) include the precoventional stages which consists of mostly children and a few adults. Stage 1 moral reasoning is based on a person’s fear of punishment. A child comprehends that doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. In stage 2, one’s moral reasoning is an opportunistic one, where moral behavior is decided based on personal interest. Most adults are in the second level of the moral reasoning which consists of the conventional stages of 3 and 4. In the third stage, one seeks the approval of others while in the fourth stage one finds that it is “an obligation to live up to one’s word, to do one’s duty, and to help maintain the social system” (Wren, 1995, p.486).
The last level consists of a few highly developed adults who are in the post-conventional stages of 5 and 6. In Stage 5, one “becomes more aware that while it is well to live up to the rules of society, there are a variety of possible value systems. There is greater sensitivity to deciding what the rules should be in the first place (Wren, 1995, p.487). Finally, in the last moral stage, stage 6, one starts to follow universal ethical principles “which guide moral judgments and which even may conflict with existing societal values” (Wren, 1995, p.487).
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development conclude that it is not the actual moral behavior which indicate a person’s level of morality but rather it is the quality of a person’s moral reasoning processes (Wren, 1995, p.488). Since this reasoning process depends on one’s maturation process and individual experiences, one can attain greater reasoning levels through new challenges and experiences thus influencing moral development. Even though there is moderate research evidence, leaders may influence moral development by providing their followers with the proper training, education, or experiences.
A more social and stronger approach to moral development is the social learning approach. This developmental theory approach is supported by stronger research evidence that was conducted by a few social psychologists including Albert Bandura. Moral development is influenced by the reasoning, perception, memory and other internal psychological responses to situational factors outside the individual (Wren, 1995, p.489).
Generally speaking, individuals learn moral principles by observing role models that have the power of reward or punishment such as parents, teachers, or peers. There are two main factors to social learning conditioning and imitation. Conditioning is the actual direct experience one encounters which has an effect on the individual. For example, a parent may punish and scold a child for steeling, this makes the child feel bad and the child associates this bad feeling to steeling, thus instilling the moral act of not steeling. Imitation in social learning is usually conducted by the observation of the individual of a role model. An observed role model is usually one that has power, status, control over reward and punishment, or has similarity with the observer (Wren, 1995, p489). For instance, one may observe his or her role model who has been rewarded for his or her behavior and thus aspires to conduct the same moral behavior of the role model even when he or she is not in the presence of the role model (Hoffman, 2001, p.127).
Usually the leaders in an organization are the role models. An individual’s moral development is influenced by a leader who leads by example demonstrating to others the desired behavior, an organizational leader who communicates expectations and consequences, and a leader who has control over reward and punishment, a leader who rewards ethical behavior and punishes unethical ones.
References:
Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.
Wren, J. T. (1995). Leader's companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. New York: The Free Press.