Moral Muteness of Managers
It’s a perennial problem in ethics classes of all kinds. Students seem reluctant to share their moral opinions. One of the benefits of an online class is that there is less reluctance perhaps because of the anonymity factor. But still, many people are reticent when it comes to discussing morality in public venues. This is all the odder since there are so many more forums now for such discussions: TV talk shows, news shows with commentary, online blogs. And of course, there seems to be no shortage of issues to discuss with a moral component. So, for many reasons, it seems useful to consider the reasons for this reluctance to discuss morality. As Bird and Walters point out in their article, there are particularly important reasons to address this issue in the business world since the ability to discuss morality is important and relevant to many business decisions.
What exactly is moral muteness? As explained in the article this occurs when people behave according to moral principles yet do not talk about morality when discussing these decisions. That is, people are using moral principles to make the decisions they make but they don’t say they’re doing this. This is a unique situation since it is much less common than other cases outlined in figure one: Relations Between Moral Action and Speech. Of course, there is nothing particularly odd about a person who uses moral principles and talks about them. There’s even nothing too unusual about a person who talks about moral principles but doesn’t follow them. We usually refer to them as hypocrites. But, moral muteness is unusual because this is a case where moral principles are used. So, why not talk about them?
Bird and Walters identify three specific causes for this phenomenon: a threat to harmony, a threat to efficiency, and a threat to the image of power and effectiveness. In all three cases, the perception is that something bad will happen if we interject moral language into the business discourse. To avoid these problems moral speech is not often used. Let’s consider each of these causes in turn.
1. Threat to harmony. Let’s face it sometimes talking about morality leads to conflicts. People disagree about moral principles and how they should be applied and sometimes these disagreements can become personal. The business world is no place for such personal disagreements or tensions and so to avoid them managers refrain from casting their decisions and actions in moral terms. In private corporations, the moral discourse of this kind may seem self-serving or arrogant. In the public sphere, it can be perceived as crossing the line between the separation of church and state which often makes people nervous.
2. Threat to efficiency. In business, world decisions must be made and often on very tight timetables. Moral discourse often has a way of slowing things down. We have to investigate moral principles, make sure they’re justified and consistent, figure out how to apply them in a particular case, and reach a consensus about all of this. Needless to say, this can be quite time-consuming. Add to this the breakdown of harmony alluded to above and efficiency goes out the door. So, to prevent this, often moral discourse is not used even when it might be relevant and helpful to the issue at hand. As Bird and Walters point out, “many managers associate moral talk with rigid rules and intrusive regulations.” Both of which are to be avoided. Also, many people seem to associate moral discourse with endless debate which leads nowhere and generates no solutions. But, business decisions cannot be made this way. We need to make a decision and we need to make it yesterday!
3. Threat to the image of power and effectiveness. Lastly, moral discourse can be difficult to engage in well and many managers feel ill-equipped to deal with subtle moral concepts. It’s not that they don’t have the mental acuity it’s mainly that they haven’t been trained in ethics and cannot so engage in ethical debate or discussion. But this lack of ability does nothing to encourage people to think that you’re an effective capable leader. It might only serve to heighten the perception that you’re powerless and ineffective. No manager wants to convey this image and so to avoid the problem, managers avoid moral discourse.
At this point, it might seem that this is much ado about nothing since these are perceived threats but perhaps not real threats. However, put yourself in the place of a manager in a company charged with leading and making decisions. Are the risks worth the costs? The benefits of moral discourse (there are many) are not immediately obvious but the risks are all too clear. Whether they are probable or not they are not worth the potential benefits of moral discourse. So, the easiest option is to become “morally mute.”
But, there are costs to moral muteness. These may be greater than the risks to harmony, efficiency, power, and effectiveness. But, because they’re not as obvious they are often ignored. The text specifies five consequences to moral muteness:
Creation of moral amnesia
Inappropriate narrowness in conceptions of morality
Moral stress
Neglect of moral abuses
Decreased authority of moral standards
In a way, each of these leads to the next in the series in a slippery slope which can spell serious trouble to corporations. Who would be surprised to learn that moral muteness was prevalent at Enron? You would be hard-pressed to find a case where an abundance of moral discourse leads to ethical lapses. Yes, it may slow down efficiency but this may have positive consequences in the long run. Let’s consider the consequences of moral muteness:
Creation of moral amnesia: This is a fancy way of saying that by neglecting moral discourse the impression is created that morality is not a part of the business world. That is business is an amoral (not immoral) activity. Business decisions are made purely based on profit and loss and shareholder concerns. But, these are moral values and moral discourse is relevant to each of them.
Inappropriate narrowness in conceptions of morality: This is closely connected to the first consequence. Look at the terms often used to describe business decisions. Terms such as feasibility, profitability, practicality. They seem morally neutral; as if there are no moral issues here at all. Moral concepts are relevant to other decisions but not to business decisions. But, this is not the case. What criteria do we use to determine whether something is feasible, profitable, and practical end up containing some moral component?
Moral stress: Think about how stressful it might be to be making decisions using one set of factors but feel unable to express these factors to your colleagues or subordinates. Worse, what if you’re having difficulty making a moral decision? Who can you discuss this within an environment where moral muteness reigns supreme? Not surprising, then, a consequence of moral muteness is stress. Of course, making decisions is stressful in any case but the stress can usually be lightened by discussing the issues. If such discussion is not possible the stress level can only go up. Potentially leading to…
Neglect of moral abuses: In a climate where morality is not discussed it usually doesn’t take long for morality not to be applied. If moral muteness is the phenomenon of using moral criteria to make decisions but not discussing them, it seems that this can potentially lead to a much worse situation where moral criteria are ignored completely. Which will quite naturally lead to…
Decreased authority of moral standard: In a famous essay titled On Liberty John Stuart Mill argues that when we cease to discuss our liberties we cease to believe we have them or understand the reasons why we do have them. A similar thing can happen with morality. When we cease to have vigorous conversations which include moral concepts we cease to take moral concepts seriously and cease to recognize their authority. This also can lead to a sense of fatalism. Sure, things are bad but nothing can be done to improve them. This line of thinking is all too common in many corporate environments and often prevents much-needed improvements.
The irony of these consequences is that many leads to the very threats moral muteness sought to avoid. While moral muteness is practiced to avoid inefficiency and disharmony, moral muteness itself may in fact cause, or worsen these. So, what can be done?
The general remedy suggested in the article is to encourage moral discourse in the workplace. But, what about the threats to harmony, efficiency, and power and effectiveness? Perhaps the risk of these arising is worth it. But, it can be difficult to encourage moral discourse because of what this demands. In particular, we must be willing to allow for dissent concerning moral issues. One must recognize that there will be disagreements when discussing moral issues. There are ways to deal with these disagreements. In particular, if you’re interested in this please read my posting on offense and harm. A second thing that must be done is to willfully interject moral expressions into the discussion of business issues. At first, this will seem awkward but with practice, it becomes easier and more natural. And, after a while, it also becomes wanted and expected. To further this many companies now bring in philosophers to run workshops on ethics. Some companies go one step further and hire philosophers full time for this. Finally, companies must be willing to sacrifice short-term efficiency for the long-term benefits of moral discourse. For companies that do this, it often turns out that long-term efficiency is improved once the initial phase of learning to use moral discourse is overcome.
What exactly is moral muteness? As explained in the article this occurs when people behave according to moral principles yet do not talk about morality when discussing these decisions. That is, people are using moral principles to make the decisions they make but they don’t say they’re doing this. This is a unique situation since it is much less common than other cases outlined in figure one: Relations Between Moral Action and Speech. Of course, there is nothing particularly odd about a person who uses moral principles and talks about them. There’s even nothing too unusual about a person who talks about moral principles but doesn’t follow them. We usually refer to them as hypocrites. But, moral muteness is unusual because this is a case where moral principles are used. So, why not talk about them?
Bird and Walters identify three specific causes for this phenomenon: a threat to harmony, a threat to efficiency, and a threat to the image of power and effectiveness. In all three cases, the perception is that something bad will happen if we interject moral language into the business discourse. To avoid these problems moral speech is not often used. Let’s consider each of these causes in turn.
1. Threat to harmony. Let’s face it sometimes talking about morality leads to conflicts. People disagree about moral principles and how they should be applied and sometimes these disagreements can become personal. The business world is no place for such personal disagreements or tensions and so to avoid them managers refrain from casting their decisions and actions in moral terms. In private corporations, the moral discourse of this kind may seem self-serving or arrogant. In the public sphere, it can be perceived as crossing the line between the separation of church and state which often makes people nervous.
2. Threat to efficiency. In business, world decisions must be made and often on very tight timetables. Moral discourse often has a way of slowing things down. We have to investigate moral principles, make sure they’re justified and consistent, figure out how to apply them in a particular case, and reach a consensus about all of this. Needless to say, this can be quite time-consuming. Add to this the breakdown of harmony alluded to above and efficiency goes out the door. So, to prevent this, often moral discourse is not used even when it might be relevant and helpful to the issue at hand. As Bird and Walters point out, “many managers associate moral talk with rigid rules and intrusive regulations.” Both of which are to be avoided. Also, many people seem to associate moral discourse with endless debate which leads nowhere and generates no solutions. But, business decisions cannot be made this way. We need to make a decision and we need to make it yesterday!
3. Threat to the image of power and effectiveness. Lastly, moral discourse can be difficult to engage in well and many managers feel ill-equipped to deal with subtle moral concepts. It’s not that they don’t have the mental acuity it’s mainly that they haven’t been trained in ethics and cannot so engage in ethical debate or discussion. But this lack of ability does nothing to encourage people to think that you’re an effective capable leader. It might only serve to heighten the perception that you’re powerless and ineffective. No manager wants to convey this image and so to avoid the problem, managers avoid moral discourse.
At this point, it might seem that this is much ado about nothing since these are perceived threats but perhaps not real threats. However, put yourself in the place of a manager in a company charged with leading and making decisions. Are the risks worth the costs? The benefits of moral discourse (there are many) are not immediately obvious but the risks are all too clear. Whether they are probable or not they are not worth the potential benefits of moral discourse. So, the easiest option is to become “morally mute.”
But, there are costs to moral muteness. These may be greater than the risks to harmony, efficiency, power, and effectiveness. But, because they’re not as obvious they are often ignored. The text specifies five consequences to moral muteness:
Creation of moral amnesia
Inappropriate narrowness in conceptions of morality
Moral stress
Neglect of moral abuses
Decreased authority of moral standards
In a way, each of these leads to the next in the series in a slippery slope which can spell serious trouble to corporations. Who would be surprised to learn that moral muteness was prevalent at Enron? You would be hard-pressed to find a case where an abundance of moral discourse leads to ethical lapses. Yes, it may slow down efficiency but this may have positive consequences in the long run. Let’s consider the consequences of moral muteness:
Creation of moral amnesia: This is a fancy way of saying that by neglecting moral discourse the impression is created that morality is not a part of the business world. That is business is an amoral (not immoral) activity. Business decisions are made purely based on profit and loss and shareholder concerns. But, these are moral values and moral discourse is relevant to each of them.
Inappropriate narrowness in conceptions of morality: This is closely connected to the first consequence. Look at the terms often used to describe business decisions. Terms such as feasibility, profitability, practicality. They seem morally neutral; as if there are no moral issues here at all. Moral concepts are relevant to other decisions but not to business decisions. But, this is not the case. What criteria do we use to determine whether something is feasible, profitable, and practical end up containing some moral component?
Moral stress: Think about how stressful it might be to be making decisions using one set of factors but feel unable to express these factors to your colleagues or subordinates. Worse, what if you’re having difficulty making a moral decision? Who can you discuss this within an environment where moral muteness reigns supreme? Not surprising, then, a consequence of moral muteness is stress. Of course, making decisions is stressful in any case but the stress can usually be lightened by discussing the issues. If such discussion is not possible the stress level can only go up. Potentially leading to…
Neglect of moral abuses: In a climate where morality is not discussed it usually doesn’t take long for morality not to be applied. If moral muteness is the phenomenon of using moral criteria to make decisions but not discussing them, it seems that this can potentially lead to a much worse situation where moral criteria are ignored completely. Which will quite naturally lead to…
Decreased authority of moral standard: In a famous essay titled On Liberty John Stuart Mill argues that when we cease to discuss our liberties we cease to believe we have them or understand the reasons why we do have them. A similar thing can happen with morality. When we cease to have vigorous conversations which include moral concepts we cease to take moral concepts seriously and cease to recognize their authority. This also can lead to a sense of fatalism. Sure, things are bad but nothing can be done to improve them. This line of thinking is all too common in many corporate environments and often prevents much-needed improvements.
The irony of these consequences is that many leads to the very threats moral muteness sought to avoid. While moral muteness is practiced to avoid inefficiency and disharmony, moral muteness itself may in fact cause, or worsen these. So, what can be done?
The general remedy suggested in the article is to encourage moral discourse in the workplace. But, what about the threats to harmony, efficiency, and power and effectiveness? Perhaps the risk of these arising is worth it. But, it can be difficult to encourage moral discourse because of what this demands. In particular, we must be willing to allow for dissent concerning moral issues. One must recognize that there will be disagreements when discussing moral issues. There are ways to deal with these disagreements. In particular, if you’re interested in this please read my posting on offense and harm. A second thing that must be done is to willfully interject moral expressions into the discussion of business issues. At first, this will seem awkward but with practice, it becomes easier and more natural. And, after a while, it also becomes wanted and expected. To further this many companies now bring in philosophers to run workshops on ethics. Some companies go one step further and hire philosophers full time for this. Finally, companies must be willing to sacrifice short-term efficiency for the long-term benefits of moral discourse. For companies that do this, it often turns out that long-term efficiency is improved once the initial phase of learning to use moral discourse is overcome.