Coherent Narratives
Kemi Ogunyemi
Lagos Business School
Teaching Ethics to Grown-Ups?
It is a fact that people attending business schools and other higher educational institutions to acquire management knowledge and skills are adults. Yet, there are scholars who have argued that ethics and character building are best done while the subject of learning is very young and that it is not possible to teach ethics to an adult.1 Reasons given for this position include that the adult student can no longer learn new values and that if the adult student is not already ethical in life in general, there is no point attempting to teach him or her ethics in business (or in any other aspect of life for that matter). This implies that all people who strive to be morally upright in their personal lives would also tend to be upright in their work spaces and business practices. This is not always the case. It assumes that moral values cannot be taught in a classroom setting since, by that age, people either have them or do not. McDonald discusses a variety of arguments against ethics education at length and supports those who take the position that the teacher’s primary aim is not changing the learners’ values but rather fostering ethical reasoning and imparting the tools for recognizing and analyzing ethical dilemmas.2 While an individual may have already learnt the moral standards of behavior and use them in their personal lives, they could find systematized ethics education and the development of ethical reasoning and analytical skills useful. For example, ethics education could enable them to apply those general moral standards to specific professional circumstances where the burden of managerial decision making falls on them.3 Thus, grown-up participants in an ethics classroom are not there to learn values as such, but rather to strengthen their capacity to apply values to their professions whether in medicine, law, engineering, or business.4
There is evidence that teaching ethics to business students does make a difference.5 How could this happen in practice? Supposing that there were three categories of students in the classroom, category A being the enthusiasts, who would be those who already believe in practicing ethics and try their best not to contravene its tenets. Category B would be the skeptics, who do not believe that ethical behavior makes sense, and category C the ditherers, in between. How could one describe what benefits the business ethics course could bring to these three groups of people? Enthusiasts are few (and the number tends to be lower on more senior executive programs than among younger audiences) and tend to be idealistic. They need guidance to become more practical—in seeing clearly where their actions may not align with their ideals, in rehearsing how to overcome actual ethical problems; in avoiding assumptions that everyone should see things from the same perspective as they do; in recognizing grey issues. They experience a broadening of their minds and become able to explain why what they intuit is right is indeed right. At the same time, they experience some support from the teacher for their predominant position with regard to ethical behavior. Before that classroom interaction, a number of them may have already begun reconsidering their “high” moral standing and perhaps have even engaged in some unethical behavior and managed to rationalize this. From the classes, they get reaf-firmation that their values are right and that they are not alone. This sense of solidarity strengthens them in the ethical decisions they have made that have cost them profitability to an extent.
Category B students (also a relative minority) do not believe that ethics and business should be discussed in the same breath. Some of them might have made a lot of money and acquired power through unethical practices. They are in an ethics classroom often because they have no choice (the company requires them to attend, or the ethics is embedded in something else that they need to learn) or because it is politically correct to be there (some window dressing). Their attitude could be to humor the lecturer, affect a cynical boredom, or take up an aggressive stance. They do accept that some things should not be done, but they think it is impossible to avoid doing them in practice. At times, under the bluster, they think they have already done so many negative actions in the past that it is rather late to begin to consider changing. These people benefit from listening to balanced views on specific ethical issues, on being shown alternative views even when they do not accept them.
Through conversational and other interactive learning, they could come to appreciate what it means to have double standards. For example, many of them do strive to maintain ethical standards in some spheres of their lives other than work6 or expect ethical behavior from their children. At times, they are able to admit that they would feel badly dealt with if others did to them what they do to others. With further dialogue, they might own up that they would not want an organization owned by themselves to have the unethical culture that they condone in the one they work for, or that they would not want their employees to put their personal interests above that of the organization even if they themselves do this, and so on. On occasion, they come to accept what they already realized: the only way forward for them if they want a change could be to leave their current organization, industry, or market. This does not necessarily mean that they take that step. But they are closer to it.
Category C students are usually the largest in number. They usually feel partially “compromised” by their past unethical decisions, both active and passive. They would like to act ethically, but are doubtful about its actual feasibility or its worthwhileness, and so perhaps they meander in and out of the ethical space. They are a bit uncomfortable; they play devil’s advocate; they challenge the facilitator; they join the skeptics in bringing up unrealistic extreme scenarios; and so on. Underneath, they would like to be reassured and to be shown how to proceed. They want to have others concede that being ethical is challenging and difficult; that ethical profitability is often a long-term reality; and that, in the short term, one may suffer losses. They reflect furthest and longest on the content and on the logic of behaving ethically, even when they are arguing fiercely in the classroom that this is impossible. They are reminded, through both overt and unspoken class dynamics, of their values and challenged to be true to them. It is to this “crowd” that the logos, ethos, and pathos of the facilitator should be majorly directed. They want the grey areas clarified as much as possible. And, often, these are the people who make some changes after attending ethics education sessions.
Thus, for example, a bank executive resigned from her job and got a new one in another bank where she told them already, during the recruitment process, her stand on ethics. The ethical culture of the new bank was only slightly better than that of the old one, but in her new unit, she was not being asked to do unethical things and was happier, even though she also acquired a nickname, “madam ethics.” In another example, the protagonist lost his two partners because he reneged on an agreement to get a contract through unethical means. It was a big blow to his business (it meant a loss of money, expertise, and friendship), but he rallied and rebuilt it. The incidence also gained him renewed credibility, trust, and potential patronage among his peers who watched this happen.
This discussion of enthusiasts, skeptics, and ditherers is perhaps an oversimplified representation of what ethics teaching to grown-up audiences could achieve. Yet, at times, and not only with regard to ethics, all that an educator can do is to help people to look and to help people to see. Educators try to achieve this in a variety of ways when teaching grown-ups, as is shown in the different chapters in the two volumes of Teaching Ethics Across the Management Curriculum. The choices of what to do with the education and skills acquired remains with the learner. Teaching approaches, techniques, and skill does help, however. In teaching business ethics to adult learners, the personal narrative and identity approach7 can be a powerful lens for helping learners to see. There are also numerous techniques suggested by adult learning theory that make for effective learning; some are described and applied to various disciplines in the other chapters that deal with various management disciplines.
Teaching Ethics to Adult Learners
Among the benefits of ethics education are that the learners improve in identifying and analyzing ethical issues,8 in dealing with value-conflicts, in noticing ambiguities, and in looking beyond the surface. They are also more sensitive to the positive and negative effects of their decisions. In short, by the end of the sessions, they should have developed a greater and more informed sense of responsibility. If they did not realize that they have a responsibility toward others, this would not make sense. The narrative technique is a helpful tool to conceptualize and contextualize responsibility when teaching ethics.
Mixed Narratives—The Problem of the Broken Verse
When a person, as often happens, subscribes to multiple loci of control, their lives lack coherence, wholeness or singleness, integrity. It becomes easier to engage in the double standards described earlier. Thus for example, an entrepreneur could have an internal locus with regard to growing his business and could take responsibility for his decisions in this regard, while at the same time he exhibits an external locus whereby he blames all his unethical decisions within the same activity on the difficult business environment, his competition, his stockholders, lax societal mores, and so on. Such disengagement within what should be a single self-narrative could be due to a lack of ownership of a single identity. According to an African businessman, well known for his intrepid stance when it comes to matters of integrity, he is so sure of his own identity that he would, at whatever necessary sacrifice, resist a gatekeeper who in the process of asking for a bribe is in essence asking him to change his identity to that of a bribe-giver.
Crossed Narratives—The Problem of the Lone Verse
Human life is interdependent and so, our personal narratives, our stories, crisscross constantly.9 One of the ways to rationalize unethical behavior is to disengage from others whose narratives cross our lives. For example, a business person could adopt a degree of blindness to connections or to humanity that is harmed by one’s actions. Teaching techniques that help to reveal the interconnectedness of lives and the beneficial or harmful repercussions of business decisions on third persons affected as well as first and second10 can help in business ethics education to enhance learners’ moral sensitivity. They can be helped to see that not only do their unethical actions mar the wholesomeness and future potential for integrity of their own life narratives, but they also affect others in a variety of ways. They could harm second persons because they frustrate them, cheat them, influence their own character negatively, and give them reason to rationalize their own negative behavior, and so on. They could harm third persons who are the actual sufferers from a paid bribe or from pollution usually because they bear the transferred cost of the transaction. Such costs could include, for example, increased costs of medical care, dangerous roads, unwarranted repair or replacement of equipment, exposure to life-threatening health hazards, and so on. Indeed, the popular saying that “there is no free lunch” resonates strongly in practical discussions of business ethics.
Recovering One’s Self-Narrative—Internally Consistent Verses of the Same Poem
Adult learning theory is already used extensively in ethics education.11 Much of what the educator seeks to achieve is to enhance the student’s knowledge and possession of his or her own narrative and to show how our crossed narratives interconnect. This is a good way to grow in a sense of responsibility and to prepare to be and do as an ethical person. It can be done in multiple ways, among which those said to be more suited for adult learning are reference to experience, interactive sessions, practical classroom activities, and, increasingly, digital media.
Experience in particular is a great source of learning, especially for adults. It is a way of acknowledging, respecting, and harnessing the wisdom they bring into the classroom.12 Relying on adult learners’ experiences often means using group discussions where participants state and defend their positions and are pushed to listen to others’ opinions. Their work experience becomes a great contribution to knowledge creation and knowledge sharing in the classroom. Experience is easily brought into play when discussing simulations and case studies13 and it is up to the faculty to moderate and harness the discussion in a way that enriches the whole class.
According to Illingworth,14 there is a need to be practice- and action-oriented in adult classrooms, using role-play, narratives, and action learning methods rather than focusing primarily on theory. It is because adult learners are self-reliant multitaskers and independent problem-solvers who expect immediate answers15 that they prefer learning methods that are action-oriented, self-directed, and have a quick feedback system. Part of such practicality can come from the classroom exercises and activities or from take-home projects that can then be presented in class to generate peer learning. It can also come from engaging them with case studies or bringing industry practitioners into the classroom as guests to share their experiences and stimulate discussion.
Finally, using digital media is also an effective way to engage adult learners. Their level of comfort with technology may differ depending on whether they are younger executives (millennials) or older (generation X), and this should be taken into consideration.16 Nevertheless, they are all denizens of the world of new media and technologies and are ordinarily eager to learn and to use digital concepts and tools especially insofar as they affect their business. A bonus is that reflection on the ethical issues related to new technology can easily be brought into the classroom together with these learning tools.
In addition to all that has been said earlier, a flexible curriculum and relevance and immediate applicability to life and work scenarios can be great learning motivators for grown-ups.17 This is because they possess more maturity and are able to self-direct their learning, in contrast to children who could be more dependent on their instructors for instructions. They need to apply learned topics to work or life immediately, in the short run rather than in the long run. They are less worried about grades, or peer competition, or fear of failure, than about such applicability.
You Can Lead a Human to Knowledge but You Cannot Make Him Think?
This popular saying rings true in the context of this book on teaching ethics as well. The ethics educator is not the final determinant factor of the learner’s assimilation and possible behavioral change. While what goes on in the classroom has instrumental value, the adult learner retains the freedom to allow it to make formal and material impact.18 She or he is only being instructed so that the knowledge and skills imparted can enhance that freedom.
However, the fact that one student could refuse (consciously or unconsciously) to open his or her hand to receive the gift being given by the teacher should not be an excuse not to generously give to another who is able and willing to receive it. And, as with all management disciplines and indeed perhaps all spheres of education, there is greater likelihood of being able to enhance ethical thinking capabilities and moral development if teaching techniques appropriate for the learner audience are adopted.
__________________
1 McDonald (2004); Sims and Felton (2005).
2 McDonald (2004); Oddo (1997); Yi-Hui and Chieh-Yu (2006); Falkenberg and Woiceshyn (2008).
4 Cagle and Baucus (2006); Falkenberg and Woiceshyn (2008); Sims (2004).
5 James and Cohen (2004); Jones (1989); Lau (2010); Neesham and Gu (2015).
6 Forsyth (2013); Jones (1991); Sims (1992).
8 Nastase and Gligor-Cimpoieru (2013); Lau (2010).
10 Where the first person is the subject (agent), the second person(s) the direct object(s) of the unethical action, and the third person(s) the indirect object(s) of the unethical action.
13 Bale and Dudney (2000); Cagle and Baucus (2006).
18 Falkenberg and Woiceshyn (2008).
References
Bale, J., and D. Dudney. 2000. “Teaching Generation X: Do Andragogical Learning Principles Apply to Undergraduate Finance Education?” Financial Practice & Education 10, no. 1, pp. 216–27.
Cagle, J.A.B., and M.S. Baucus. 2006. “Case Studies of Ethics Scandals: Effects on Ethical Perceptions of Finance Students.” Journal of Business Ethics 64, no. 3, pp. 213–29.
Falkenberg, L., and J. Woiceshyn. 2008. “Enhancing Business Ethics: Using Cases to Teach Moral Reasoning.” Journal of Business Ethics 79, no. 3, pp. 213–17.
Forsyth, D.R. 2013. “Judging the Morality of Business Practices: The Influence of Personal Moral Philosophies.” In Citation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics, 265–77. Netherlands: Springer.
Hoivik, H. 2009. “Developing Students’ Competence for Ethical Reflection While Attending Business School.” Journal of Business Ethics 88, pp. 5–9.
Illingworth, S. 2004. “Approaches to Ethics in Higher Education. School of Theology and Religious Studies.” University of Leeds. www.heacademy.ac.uk/
James, H.S., Jr., and J.P. Cohen. 2004. “Does Ethics Training Neutralize the Incentives of the Prisoner’s Dilemma? Evidence from a Classroom Experiment.” Journal of Business Ethics 50, no. 1, pp. 53–61.
Jones, T.M. 1989. “Can Business Ethics Be Taught? Empirical Evidence.” Business and Professional Ethics Journal 8, no. 2, pp. 73–94.
Jones, T.M. 1991. “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model.” Academy of Management Review 16, no. 2, pp. 366–95.
Lau, C.L.L. 2010. “A Step Forward: Ethics Education Matters!” Journal of Business Ethics 92, no. 4, pp. 565–84.
McDonald, G.M. 2004. “A Case Example: Integrating Ethics Into the Academic Business Curriculum.” Journal of Business Ethics 54, no. 4, pp. 371–84.
McDonald, R. 2015. “Leveraging Change by Learning to Work With the Wisdom in the Room: Educating for Responsibility as a Collaborative Learning Model.” Journal of Business Ethics 131, pp. 511–18.
Nastase, M., and D.C. Gligor-Cimpoieru. 2013. “A Plea for the Importance of Business Ethics Education for Future Managers in an International Competitive Environment.” Review of International Comparative Management 14, no. 2, pp. 191–201.
Neesham, C., and J. Gu. 2015. “Strengthening Moral Judgment: A Moral Identity-Based Leverage Strategy in Business Ethics Education.” Journal of Business Ethics 131, pp. 527–34.
Oddo, A.R. 1997. “A Framework for Teaching Business Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 16, no. 3, pp. 293–97.
Sims, R.R. 1992. “The Challenge of Ethical Behavior in Organizations.” Journal of Business Ethics 11, no. 7, pp. 505–13.
Sims, R.R. 2004. “Business Ethics Teaching: Using Conversational Learning to Build an Effective Classroom Learning Environment.” Journal of Business Ethics 49, no. 2, pp. 201–11.
Sims, R.R., and E.L. Felton. 2005. “Successfully Teaching Ethics for Effective Learning.” College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal 1, no. 3, pp. 31–48.
Yi-Hui, H., and L. Chieh-Yu. 2006. “Can Business Ethics be Taught?” The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, pp. 33–38.