Applying the Identity Status Paradigm to Managers’ Moral Identity

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC-BY 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ Applying he Iden i y S a us Pa adigm o Manage s’ Mo al Iden i y © 2019 The Au ho (s) Published e sion Huh ala, Ma i; Lämsä, Anna-Maija; Feld , Ta u Huh ala, M., Lämsä, A.-M., & Feld , T. (2019). Applying he Iden i y S a us Pa adigm o Manage s’ Mo al Iden i y. Scandina ian Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, 4(1), A icle 2. h ps://doi.o g/10.16993/sjwop.50 2019 Huh ala, M., e al. (2019). Applying he Iden i y S a us Pa adigm o Manage s’ Mo al Iden i y. Scandina ian Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology , 4(1): 2, 1–14. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.16993/sjwop.50 In oduc ion Mo al iden i y includes one’s pe sonal sense o mo ali y and he deg ee o which being a mo al pe son is impo an o one’s iden i y (Aquino and Reed, 2002; Ha dy and Ca lo, 2011; Shao, Aquino and F eeman, 2008). A ecen me a-analysis (He z and K e enaue , 2016) ound ha mo al iden i y posi i ely p edic s mo al beha io , and i sugges s ha mo al iden i y is he ounda ion o mo al agency (Wea e , 2006). The e o e mo al iden i y o e s an impo an angle om which o y o unde s and and suppo manage s’ mo al beha io a wo k. Howe e , he e a e wo signi ican limi a ions in he ield. Fi s , e en hough i has been sugges ed ha mo al iden i y de elopmen ex ends in o adul yea s (Be gman, 2002), hus a only one heo e ical pape (K e enaue and He z, 2015) and one empi ical s udy (K e enaue , Mu ua and Jia, 2016) ha e add essed his issue. We he e o e ha e e y limi ed unde s anding o he di e en de elopmen al p ocesses ha ela e o mo al iden i y acquisi ion in adul hood. The second limi a ion is ha he majo i y o p e ious s udies ha e used s uden samples o scena io s udies. The ew s udies ha ha e been ca ied ou using employee samples sugges ha o ganiza ional ac o s ha e a signi ican in luence on he employee’s mo al sel (Jennings, Mi chell and Hannah, 2015), he e o e mo e esea ch needs o be conduc ed among adul s ac ually wo king in o ganiza ions in o de o be e unde s and how mo al iden i ies migh de elop in he wo k con ex . We con ibu e o mo al iden i y esea ch by in es iga ing how manage s expe ience and e lec hei pe sonal mo al alues when acing a ange o mo al ques ions a wo k. We ocused on manage s because o he pa adoxical na u e o hei wo k: manage s ha e posi ional powe o in luence hei o ganiza ion (e.g., h ough hei pe sonal mo al decisions), bu a he same ime hey ha e nume ous commi men s o o ganiza ional oles, wi h po en ially con lic ing expec a ions om uppe manage s, subo dina es, and o he in e es g oups which can limi hei abili y o ac acco ding o hei mo al iden i ies (Wea e , 2006). We add ess he de elopmen al p ocesses o mo al iden i y by es ing whe he he iden i y s a us pa adigm (Ma cia, 1966) can be applied o mo al alues. This app oach akes in o conside a ion ha iden i y issues a e nego ia ed h ough wo main p ocesses: he p esence o absence o sel - explo a ion (ques ioning and conside ing a ious iden i y al e na i es) and o commi men (choices made in a eas ORIGINAL ARTICLE Applying he Iden i y S a us Pa adigm o Manage s’ Mo al Iden i y Ma i Huh ala, Anna-Maija Lämsä and Ta u Feld We in es iga ed he applicabili y o he iden i y s a us pa adigm in iden i ying di e en s ages o mo al iden i y ma u i y among manage s, ocusing on how hey sol e mo al con lic s in he con ex o wo k. Resea che s conduc ed wo heo y-d i en s udies. S udy 1 was based on ocus g oup discussions among 16 manage s, while S udy 2 was based on open-ended ques ionnai e i ems om 180 manage s. Bo h s udies suppo ed he hypo hesized iden i y s a uses. The s a us named di usion included a lack o commi men o mo al alues and associa ed wi h a oiding mo al ques ions a wo k. In o eclosu e, ex insic (e.g., o ganiza ional) alues we e adop ed and applied o pe sonal decision-making. Manage s in mo a o ium showed an ac i e explo a ion o pe sonal alues, while hose wi h achie ed mo al iden i y showed a commi men o sel -chosen mo al alues. S udy 1 showed ha he pa icipan s applied di e en e hical p inciples when desc ibing how hey sol ed mo al con lic s. Fo eclosed manage s ended o use u ili a ianism, ha is, o p io i ize he bene i s o hei o ganiza ion, when making e hical decisions. Manage s in mo a o ium used e hics o ca e mo e o en han o he s, and achie ed manage s elied on i ue e hics mo e han manage s wi h o he s a uses. Ou s udy makes a signi ican con ibu ion o ou unde s anding o he a ia ion in mo al iden i y ma u i y in adul hood. Unde s anding how alue explo a ion and commi men ela e o mo al iden i y in he wo k domain can suppo mo e ma u e o ms o mo al iden i y among manage s. Keywo ds: mo al iden i y; iden i y s a us; iden i y p ocesses; manage s Uni e si y o Jy askyla, FI Co esponding au ho : Ma i Huh ala (ma i.huh ala@jyu. i) Huh ala e al: Manage s’ Mo al Iden i yA . 2, page 2 o 13 ele an o iden i y). Using hese wo dimensions, ou iden i y s a uses can be dis inguished (Ma cia, 1966): achie emen (commi men p esen a e a pe iod o sel -explo a ion), mo a o ium (commi men absen , sel - explo a ion ongoing), o eclosu e (commi men p esen wi h li le o no pe sonal sel -explo a ion), and di usion (nei he commi men no sel -explo a ion a e cu en ly p esen ). We used a mul iple-s udy, mixed me hod design based on ocus g oup discussions and ques ionnai es. Al hough ou wo samples we e bo h c oss-sec ional and we canno he e o e come o any conclusions abou long- e m de elopmen in mo al iden i y, we con ibu e o unde s anding how he di e en ma u i y le els in mo al iden i y a e mani es ed among wo king adul s. I we can ind ha indi iduals di e om each o he in hei mo al iden i y ma u i y, we can assume ha he e is (de elopmen al) a ia ion be ween hem. We can hen assume ha he e a e also di e ences in he unde lying mechanisms ha esul in his a ia ion in ma u i y. Value explo a ion and commi men a e cen al p ocesses in iden i y de elopmen , and he e o e ou indings will be he i s s ep o unde s anding i and how hese p ocesses ela e o he mani es a ion o mo al iden i y in wo king adul s in o ganiza ions (Jennings e al., 2015), an issue ha has been gi en su p isingly li le esea ch a en ion ecen ly. Mo al iden i y: Concep ual iewpoin s Mo al iden i y is he deg ee o which mo al ideals and ac ions, and being a mo al pe son, a e cen al o he indi idual (Ha dy and Ca lo, 2011). A pe son who eels ha mo al alues such as hones y, ai ness, compassion, and gene osi y a e a cen al pa o hei sel -concep has a s ong mo al iden i y. Indi iduals a y in how impo an hese mo al quali ies a e o hem, and he deg ee o which hese alues a e ac ualized in hei choices and beha io (Jennings, Mi chell and Hannah, 2015). When an indi idual has an iden i y ha is e y much cen e ed on mo ali y, hey a e highly mo i a ed o ac mo ally. This is due o ou endency o sel -consis ency (Blasi, 1983), which makes us eel he desi e o li e acco ding o ou sense o sel . When we u n o he con ex o wo k, he concep o mo al iden i y, and how o measu e i , he eachings o Aquino and Reed (2002; he Sel -Impo ance o Mo al Iden i y Ques ionnai e, SMI-Q) has domina ed he ield o beha io al e hics (app oxima ely 70% o he empi ical esea ch; Jennings, Mi chell and Hannah, 2015). Acco ding o his concep ualiza ion, mo al iden i y includes wo dimensions: he i s is in e naliza ion, which e e s o he cen ali y o mo al alues, and he second is symboliza ion, which e e s o he deg ee o which mo al alues a e exp essed publicly h ough indi idual ac ions. Resea ch has shown ha people wi h s ongly mo al iden i ies a e less likely o beha e une hically a wo k (May, Chang and Shao, 2015) and less likely o adop mo al disengagemen s a egies (De e , T e iño and Swei ze , 2008). Howe e , Aquino and Reed’s (2002) model does no ake in o accoun how di e ences in in e naliza ion and symboliza ion a e de eloped o whe he and how a pe son could p og ess owa d a s onge mo al iden i y. This is a signi ican sho coming, because de elopmen is a he co e o he concep o iden i y (see, e.g., Bosma and Kunnen, 2001). Ou s udy akes a s ep owa ds unde s anding he di e en le els o ma u i y in mo al iden i y by applying he iden i y s a us pa adigm o mo al alues a wo k. The iden i y s a us pa adigm We used he ego-iden i y model (Ma cia, 1966, 2007; K oge and Ma cia, 2011) o cap u e he di e en le els o mo al iden i y ma u i y among wo king adul s. The model includes ou di e en s a uses ha desc ibe how indi iduals make pe sonal choices in di e en li e domains h ough he p ocesses o explo a ion and commi men . Iden i y di usion is he s a us in which one has nei he explo ed impo an a eas o li e no made commi men s o hem. Indi iduals in his s a us may o may no ha e expe ienced an iden i y c isis, hey may ha e li le in e es in ma e s o iden i y, o hey may ha e epea edly expe ienced indecision ega ding hei pe sonal alues and oles. Fo eclosu e e e s o he s a us o commi men wi hou ha ing explo ed he al e na i es: alues and belie s a e accep ed and adop ed om he ou side (e.g., om pa en s) wi hou being ques ioned. Mo a o ium is an on-going p ocess o explo a ion in which he indi idual is in he mids o a c isis and hei commi men s a e ei he negligible o only aguely de ined as hey weigh up he di e en al e na i es; his can elici eelings o anxie y because he di e en iden i y-de ining possibili ies a e le open and unce ain. Iden i y achie emen is he s a us in which an indi idual has gone h ough an iden i y c isis (e.g., explo ed di e en alue op ions), and has made a commi men o a ce ain ole o alue ha he o she has chosen o him- o he sel (Ma cia, 1966). As Lapsley and Ha dy (2017) ha e ecen ly no ed, he de elopmen al acks o bo h mo ali y and iden i y a e ideally conjoined in an adul pe sonali y. Howe e , he iden i y s a us pa adigm has no p e iously been used o s udy he mo al dimensions o iden i y de elopmen in adul hood (Lapsley and Ha dy, 2017). Ou aim is o in es iga e he applicabili y o hese s a uses among adul s, especially in he wo k domain. Mo al iden i y s a uses in he o ganiza ional con ex Acco ding o he socio-cogni i e model (Aquino e al., 2009; Na aez e al., 2006), mo al iden i y can include some con ex speci ici y because he accessibili y o mo al schemas can a y ac oss social con ex s. Pa icula a eas o li e (e.g., wo kplace o amily) may ha e di e en demands ha ac i a e mo al schemas in di e en ways (K e enaue , Mu ua and Jia, 2016). In he mo al decision-making ha happens in o ganiza ions, se e al con ex ual ac o s migh a ec bo h beha io and he mo al iden i y p ocesses hemsel es. Fo example, Aquino and F eeman (2012) p oposed ha inancial ewa ds a he wo kplace could igge a business ame o mind, which may weaken he powe o a s ong mo al iden i y and ins ead make salien a ma e ial iden i y. Wea e (2006) p oposed ha besides indi idual sel - impo ance and he salience o mo al iden i y, he e a e se e al o he o ganiza ional in luences ha ake place a wo k, in in e ac ion wi h o he s. Fo example, he social expec a ions and beha io al models ha a e a ailable in Huh ala e al: Manage s’ Mo al Iden i y A . 2, page 3 o 13 he o ganiza ional con ex p o ide he indi idual wi h modeling and lea ning oppo uni ies. I is he e o e impo an o conside wha kind o mo al examples he o ganiza ional no ms, ules, execu i es, supe iso s, and colleagues p o ide. The o ganiza ion as a con ex may no only p omo e ce ain mo al schemas, bu also in luence he con en o indi idual mo al iden i y. A he same ime, he e a e some mo al demands ha indi iduals ace ac oss a ange o si ua ions and con ex s, such as being hones , ai , and us wo hy o bo h amily membe s and co-wo ke s (K e enaue , Mu ua and Jia, 2016), so mo al iden i ies a e also likely o include c oss- con ex s abili y. Howe e , e en hose who would like o apply he same mo al alues consis en ly, ega dless o he a ea o li e, hey migh ind addi ional challenges in applying hei mo al alues in e hical decision-making in he wo kplace, as hese dilemmas can di e signi ican ly om e e yday si ua ions (C ane and Ma en, 2007). A wo k, oo, di e en s akeholde s can ha e se e al con lic ing expec a ions, demands, and alues ha he indi idual mus y o accommoda e and econcile (Donaldson and Dun ee, 1999). Ex e nal demands such as ime p essu e can u he in ensi y he challenging na u e o hese dilemmas, and indi iduals can ind i e y di icul o choose he igh way o ac . In o de o ge hei wo k done, indi iduals migh yield o ex e nal p essu e and e en comp omise hei pe sonal alues. When applying he iden i y s a us pa adigm (Ma cia, 1966) o mo al iden i y in he wo k con ex , i is impo an o conside how alue explo a ion and commi men ake place wi hin his complex en i onmen . We p opose ha in mo al iden i y di usion (which is cha ac e ized by he absence o bo h explo a ion and commi men ) he indi idual lacks a cohe en se o commi ed mo al alues, because hey ha e no conside ed whe he hey expe ience mo al alues as a cen al pa o hei iden i y. I is possible ha hey ha e no expe ienced con lic s o o he si ua ions in which hey ha e been led o e lec on hei mo al alues in he wo k con ex . This can ela e o low mo al awa eness (no ecognizing he mo al na u e o si ua ions; Bu e ield, T e iño and Wea e , 2000; Reynolds, 2006), which has enabled hem o make decisions a wo k wi hou conside ing hei pe sonal mo al alues. As a consequence, hey migh a oid mo al ques ions by playing down he e hical aspec o he si ua ion (such as e hical ading, see Tenb unsel and Messick, 2004), by ying no o con on mo al dilemmas, o by eso ing o mo al disengagemen (Moo e e al., 2012). In mo al iden i y o eclosu e (commi men p esen wi h li le o no pe sonal explo a ion), he indi idual has commi ed o ex insic mo al alues ha hey ha e adop ed wi hou pe sonal explo a ion o c i ical e alua ion. When we ocus especially on indi iduals who a e mo al ac o s in he o ganiza ional con ex , he alues hey ha e adop ed can come om he o ganiza ion, manage s, colleagues, e c. This is in line wi h Wea e ’s (2006) no ion abou he models ha he o ganiza ional con ex p o ides o mo al iden i y cons uc ion. Because o eclosu e includes a no ma i e o ien a ion, whe e he main conce n is o con o m o he p esc ip ions and expec a ions o o he s (Be zonsky, 1989), we sugges ha when acing e hical dilemmas, indi iduals wi h his mo al iden i y s a us will make decisions based on he alues hey ha e adop ed om he wo k con ex . The e o e mo al iden i y o eclosu e can lead o adhe ing o o ganiza ional no ms and demands wi hou ques ioning hem. Because mo a o ium includes ongoing explo a ion wi hou any p esen commi men (Ma cia, 1966), we sugges ha in mo al iden i y mo a o ium he indi idual ac i ely explo es he pe sonal alues hey would like o apply when acing mo al issues a wo k. While di usion is associa ed wi h low mo al awa eness and o eclosu e wi h adhe ing unques ioningly o ex e nal alues and no ms, mo a o ium can associa e wi h heigh ened mo al awa eness, and wi h c i icizing cu en mo al no ms and ules in he o ganiza ion o he pe sonal alues one has adop ed be o e. I ep esen s a de elopmen al s ep owa ds a mo e ma u e mo al iden i y, because he indi idual begins o explo e o him- o he sel hose alues ha hey would pe sonally choose and wan o commi o, hus indica ing sel - egula o y mechanisms and a mo e ma u e mode o psychosocial unc ioning (Bosma and Kunnen, 2001). In achie emen , he indi idual made alue commi men s a e a pe iod o pe sonal explo a ion (Ma cia, 1966). Achie ed mo al iden i y he e o e ep esen s he mos ma u e s a us o mo al iden i y de elopmen : going h ough an ac i e de elopmen al p ocess o explo ing and commi ing o ce ain alues esul s in a cen al and salien mo al iden i y. This iden i y s a us would be compa able o s ong mo al iden i y in Aquino and Reed’s (2002) concep ualiza ion, whe e mo al alues a e an in eg a ed pa o he sel (high cen aliza ion) and hey a e applied in pe sonal ac ions (high symboliza ion). Finally, i is impo an o conside wha indi idual and/o social ac o s migh a ec mo al iden i y de elopmen a wo k. P e ious s udies ha e shown ha se e al pe sonal ac o s, including eligiosi y, emo ions, p io mo al o immo al beha io , and demog aphics shape he mo al sel , and ha he social con ex , such as ole models (leade s and hei cha ac e is ics), o ganiza ional cha ac e is ics, and wo kplace a i udes can ei he s eng hen o weaken he mo al sel ( o a e iew, see Jennings, Mi chell and Hannah, 2015). Howe e , no p e ious s udies ha e used iden i y s a uses o ep esen indi idual mo ali y a wo k, and so we lack empi ical e idence as o wha kinds o ac o s migh p edic belonging o di e en mo al iden i y s a uses. Ou ques ionnai e s udy was c oss-sec ional and could no es how di e en an eceden s a ec mo al iden i y de elopmen (e.g., p edic ing mo emen o s abili y be ween he s a uses). Howe e , we aimed o in es iga e whe he and how pe sonal and con ex ual ac o s di e be ween manage s in each o he ou s a uses. Resea ch aims Ou i s aim was o in es iga e how manage s exp ess hei mo al iden i y and how mo al wo k iden i y ela es o he e hical decision-making p ocess in mo ally challenging si ua ions. We explo ed he desc ip ions o mo al dilemmas gi en by 16 manage s who pa icipa ed in ocus g oup discussions (S udy 1) and 180 manage s who ook Huh ala e al: Manage s’ Mo al Iden i yA . 2, page 4 o 13 pa in a ques ionnai e s udy (S udy 2), and used he mo al iden i y s a uses (di usion, o eclosu e, mo a o ium, and achie ed) as a heo e ical amewo k when analyzing he ma e ial. Acco ding o he logic o app op ia eness (Ma ch 1994), he way indi iduals ecognize, classi y, and make decisions in a gi en si ua ion is a ec ed by hei pe sonal iden i y. Hiekka aipale and Lämsä (2017) used his amewo k o s udy he di e en s a egies ha middle manage s use o handling e hical p oblems and ound ha manage s who used di e en s a egies also di e ed in e ms o hei iden i ies. We analyzed he mo al con lic s o ies in e ms o how he manage s alk abou sol ing hese dilemmas. As a seconda y aim, in S udy 2 we examined di e ences in indi idual (age, enu e, and gende ) and con ex ual (wo k sec o , o ganiza ional ield, and manage ’s s a esponsibili y) backg ound ac o s be ween he manage s in di e en mo al iden i y s a uses. S udy 1: A S udy o Manage s’ Focus G oup Discussions Me hod Sample The pa icipan s we e 16 Finnish manage s, who we e pa icipa ing in ocus g oup discussions as a pa o hei execu i e MBA aining (an educa ional p og am designed speci ically o expe ienced business execu i es). Rec ui ing pa icipan s om he execu i e MBA cou se had wo impo an ad an ages. Fi s , using p e-exis ing g oups educes he isk o sel -selec ion: all o he cou se pa icipan s ook pa in he da a collec ion, no only hose who migh ha e been con iden abou p esen ing hei iews in a g oup discussion (see Cow on and Downs, 2015). Second, he cou se pa icipan s had al eady become acquain ed wi h each o he du ing he MBA aining, and ha ing a g oup discussion wi h amilia pa icipan s is likely o inc ease eelings o sa e y and con idence when alking abou sensi i e e hical issues. O he pa icipan s, nine we e men and se en we e women, and he mean age o he pa icipan s was 44 yea s ( ange 32–48). They we e wo king in bo h he p i a e and public sec o s, and came om se e al di e en indus ies (including insu ance, business se ices, public adminis a ion, comme ce and ade, and educa ion). They we e wo king in middle managemen , and mos o hem we e wo king as a supe iso . P ocedu e Focus g oups ha e h ee main quali ies (Denscombe, 2014): 1) ocus on a pa icula opic o which all o he pa icipan s ha e some knowledge, 2) he in e ac ion o he g oup is seen as a cen al way o acqui ing in o ma ion on ha pa icula opic, and 3) he ole o he esea che as he mode a o o he discussion is limi ed o acili a ing g oup in e ac ion. Because he pa icipan s we e in execu i e MBA aining, hey all had p e ious wo k expe ience as manage s, which made a good s a ing poin o sha ing hei au hen ic expe iences o mo al dilemmas a wo k. Du ing one execu i e MBA aining session he pa icipan s we e in o med abou he esea ch p ojec , a e which hey ga e hei w i en in o med consen and began o pa icipa e in he s udy. The manage s we e assigned o ou g oups ( he same g oups ha hey had been in ea lie in he aining, so hey could exchange hei hough s and ideas wi h people who we e al eady amilia o hem), and hey we e p esen ed wi h he ollowing ques ion: ‘Think abou you wo k and i s challenges om you own poin o iew. In wha kind o si ua ions do you ha e o hink o e he igh ness o you ac ions be o e o a e he si ua ion?’ The ques ion was delibe a ely designed o be b oad and gene al in o de o gene a e di e en kinds o discussion abou pe sonal expe iences on a ange o mo al dilemmas in he wo k con ex . The pa icipan s i s w o e down hei pe sonal iews on he gi en heme, and hen discussed i wi h each o he . This wo-phase assignmen was designed o gi e indi iduals he chance o hink abou hei pe sonal iews be o e being a ec ed by o he people’s ideas and iewpoin s, and o gene a e new ideas du ing he g oup in e ac ion. The o ma mean ha each g oup had he oppo uni y o aise any kind o mo al dilemma o discussion, wi hou he esea che s imposing any cons ain s on wha mo al issues hey should ocus on. The w i en answe s we e used only as pe sonal p omp s, o p epa e he pa icipan s o ake pa in he g oup discussions; he pa icipan s kep hem, and hey we e no used as s udy da a. Analysis The discussions (mean du a ion 51 min.) we e audio eco ded and ansc ibed e ba im (66 pages wi h 12 p . on and 1-line spacing) and he da a we e impo ed o he ATLAS. i p og am ( e sion 7.5.10; F iese, 2013) o u he analysis. We used con en analysis as ou esea ch echnique (K ippendo , 2012), educing he ex o meaning ul ca ego ies wi h a heo e ically d i en app oach in which we applied he iden i y s a us pa adigm o he da a. The i s au ho ead and coded each o he ou discussions. Du ing his p ocess, he esea che iden i ied he main hemes o he dilemmas ha a ose in each g oup’s discussion. The nex s ep was o iden i y indi idual pa icipan s’ ways o desc ibing hei e lec ions, iews, and jus i ica ions wi h ega d o he dilemmas unde discussion. A his poin , he ocus o analysis was on bo h whe he he iden i y s a us pa adigm was applicable o hei expe iences and how he manage s desc ibed sol ing he di e en dilemmas. Iden i ying he mo al iden i y s a uses was based on he manage s’ discussions, which we e aken o e lec hei hough s and alues when hey aced and had o sol e mo al dilemmas a wo k. We aimed o iden i y hose pa s o he discussion ha con ained elemen s cen al o he ou mo al iden i y s ages. Tha is, when he manage made a con ibu ion o he discussion using elemen s ha could be coded as e lec ing 1) no pe sonal mo al e lec ion, 2) adop ed ex insic alues, 3) ongoing alue conside a ion, o 4) in e nalized pe sonal alues, hese e baliza ions we e labeled using he ou ca ego ies o di usion, o eclosu e, mo a o ium and achie ed, espec i ely. Because o ou deduc i e ocus in his s udy, we did no code o o he po en ial iden i y s a emen s. Finally, he second esea che analyzed hese p elimina y codes and he wo esea che s hen discussed any di e ences and ag eed on Huh ala e al: Manage s’ Mo al Iden i y A . 2, page 5 o 13 he inal coding. Al oge he 116 ex uni s we e iden i ied and coded: 3 uni s o di usion, 46 o o eclosu e, 47 o mo a o ium, and 21 o achie ed (see Table 1). Nex , he au ho s ead he da a ocusing on how he manage s desc ibed sol ing he dilemmas. They ound ha he manage s used di e en e hical p inciples when desc ibing how hey decided be ween igh and w ong in a gi en mo al si ua ion. We iden i ied ou di e en o ien a ions in he discussions ( o a mo e ho ough discussion o hese e hical pe spec i es, see, e.g., C ane and Ma en, 2007): he e hics o du y (making choices based on de ini e p inciples), i ue e hics ( i ues a e mo al quali ies ha a e mani es ed in p ac ical ac ions), u ili a ianism (decisions a e based on hei consequences), and e hics o ca e (highligh ing kindness, empa hy, and helping o he s who a e in a ulne able posi ion). The i s au ho began by iden i ying all he passages in he discussions ha included con en ha was ele an o hese p inciples. Fo example, some manage s emphasized he possible consequences o hei decisions o hei employees (ca e e hics), while o he s emphasized he impo ance o achie ing he g ea es ad an age o he o ganiza ion (u ili a ianism). The inal coding was ag eed on wi h he second esea che , who ead he p elimina y codes and discussed hem wi h he i s au ho . Al oge he 132 uni s we e iden i ied, o which 27 we e o i ue e hics, 28 o ca e e hics, 34 o u ili a ianism, and 43 o du y e hics. Fo desc ip i e pu poses, we examined whe he he di e en p inciples o e hics co-occu ed wi h he MWI s a uses. The compa ison was done wi h he χ2 es , whe e all he e hical easoning codes we e c oss abula ed wi h all he MWI s a us codes. Resul s Di usion We we e able o iden i y only h ee places in he discussions when he pa icipan s showed no commi men o o e lec ion on any mo al alues when coming o an e hical decision. The i s o hese was a s a emen o he e ec ha he speake had no consciously e lec ed on mo al issues be o e he ocus g oup ask: ‘I was eally as onished ac ually, abou how many hings I inally w o e down when I s a ed o hink abou si ua ions whe e I had o hink abou he igh ness o my ac ions’ (G oup 1, emale 1). Table 1: An example o coding he empi ical da a (S udy 1) based on he mo al iden i y s a uses. Iden i ied dilemma Ci a ion ( ex uni ) In e p e a ion Mo al iden i y s a us G oup 2 Sala y nego ia ions be ween he manage and he employee Female 1 Am I being objec i e enough, so ha my e alua ion [o he employee] is ai in e e y way? Unce ain y abou he igh way o ac ing o achie e impa iali y be ween employees. Mo a o ium Male 2 I do no see wha is e hical abou i . Somebody is obliga ed o e alua e i [ he pe sonal sala y le el]. Does no see ha he wo k- ela ed decision in ol es any e hical dimensions. Di usion Female 2 I eel ha he e is a lo o e hical esponsibili y. I he supe iso can a ec 35% o one’s sala y bu doesn’ ollow he guidelines o his e alua ion, and makes he decision based on how much (s)he likes he pe son, hey’ e closing hei eyes o he e hics o wha hey’ e doing. Fo me, i ’s ex emely impo an o make my decisions on he basis o my e hical esponsibili ies. Emphasizes pe sonal e hical e alua ion in he si ua ion and sees mo ali y as a cen al pa o one’s wo k- ela ed decisions. Achie ed G oup 3 Deciding abou lay-o s among he s a Male 3 P e iously I used o say eally quickly o a pe son whose wo k didn’ go as i should: ‘Goodbye, you can lea e’, bu now I conside hese decisions o ages. Decision-making has s opped being quick and simple and become mo e conside ed, wi h also inc eased eelings o unce ain y. Mo a o ium Male 2 You ha e o ha e good easons o laying someone o : jus i ica ions, ac s, and e idence. Then you’ e going by he book and no s epping in o any g ay zone. Decision-making is based on o mal guidelines, which a e adhe ed o wi hou pe sonal judgmen o ques ioning. Fo eclosu e Huh ala e al: Manage s’ Mo al Iden i yA . 2, page 6 o 13 The second was in a si ua ion whe e all he o he pa icipan s alked abou how mo ally p oblema ic i would be o change an employee’s du ies a e he pe son e u ned om sick lea e due o a se ious illness, i he change was agains he employee’s wishes. One manage did no ecognize he mo al na u e o his decision: ‘I can’ unde s and why you can’ jus ell he employee ha (s) he needs o do ano he job’ (G oup 3, male 1). This shows ha he manage paid no a en ion o he e hical aspec o he si ua ion and his conside a ion o he ques ion simply in ol ed ollowing he ules and exe cising he igh s o he manage . The hi d example is shown in Table 1 (G oup 2, male 2). Fo eclosu e Fo eclosu e was used o indi idual mo al e alua ions ha we e based unques ioningly on ex e nal alues adop ed om, o example, he o ganiza ion. In hese cases, jus i ying one’s mo al decisions was o en based on wha was bes o he company: ‘In ou ield you ha e o ha e a good e hical epu a ion. You can’ do good business i people hink ha you’ e being dishones . ‘I’ e ec ui ed people and hen laid hem o a e six mon hs. I was e hical om he poin o iew o he o ganiza ion, because he employees didn’ i in.’ In hese examples he manage s saw ha hei decisions we e bene icial o he o ganiza ion, and any pe sonal alues we e se aside. Some o he manage s el ha ac ing acco ding o he company’s alues and ules was he only op ion hey had: ‘Isn’ ha mo e o a ques ion o unc ionali y han e hicali y? You ake and accep he ules… I is ac ually eally easy, wo king in an exchange-lis ed company, in he way ha hings a e jus judged acco ding o he inancial ou come’ (G oup 2, male 2). Fo some manage s, he expec a ions imposed by he o ganiza ion o senio managemen c ea ed eelings o s ain. Ne e heless, hey did no exp ess any al e na i e way o making decisions in hese mo ally challenging si ua ions: ‘In ou ield i ’s impo an o ha e su i- cien u no e o employees. Some imes he o ganiza ion p essu es me o lay o employees who a e good people bu who don’ make enough con ibu ion o he business. These a e ough si u- a ions, bu I jus ha e o ake hem unemo ionally, no pe sonally’ (G oup 3, male 1). Mo a o ium Manage s in he mo a o ium s a us we e ac i ely hinking abou e hical issues bu had no ye clea ly commi ed o any ce ain alues. They desc ibed challenging si ua ions whe e hey we e clea ly awa e o he e hical na u e o he decision ha had o be made bu we e unce ain abou wha decision o make and wha alues we e mos impo an o hem: ‘Bu hese [e hical] issues, hey come so close o you ha you can’ eally hide om hem. And i ’s eally di icul o me o manage hese hings by mysel , because I don’ ha e any simila expe ience in my p e ious wo k his o y, I can’ ind any exam- ples he e, no can I ind a model among any o my colleagues’ (G oup 1, male 1). The pa icipan s desc ibed awa eness o se e al compe ing iews o alues, bu a he same ime men ioned eeling unce ain abou he manage ’s pe sonal ole in he si ua ion: ‘I he wo k eam has di e en alues han I do… should I jus be quie o should I make clea my pe sonal p inciples? How does i a ec ou esul s, how can I be a pa o his eam, how can we succeed?’ (G oup 2, emale 2). Some manage s also desc ibed how hei hinking had p og essed om mo e s aigh o wa d decision-making owa ds weighing di e en op ions: ‘P e iously I was able o lay o a pe son who couldn’ do hei job p ope ly a e one minu e’s conside a ion. Nowadays I hink abou hese decisions o ages’ (G oup 3, male 3). Manage s o en expe ienced hese mo al dilemmas as a s ain, eeling like ‘being caugh be ween a ock and a ha d place, which is no an easy si ua ion o be in’, and expe iencing he dilemmas as ‘ex emely di icul ’ o e en as an ‘unbea able gap [be ween p o i -d i en company alues and pe sonal iews], which I don’ know how o o e come.’ Achie ed Manage s’ s a emen s ha we e classi ied as achie ed mo al iden i y included a desc ip ion o pe sonal mo al alues ha he manage had e lec ed on, commi ed o, and applied in hei mo al e alua ions: ‘Well, I’m jus he kind o pe son who emphasizes e hicali y in decision-making, i is eally impo - an o me. I can’ gi e up his way o wo king ha I ha e… wha d i es me, wha makes me wo k ha d… o be loyal and commi ed. I wan o be jus owa ds o he s, ha ’s wha I’m dedica ed o’ (G oup 2, emale 2). ‘I’m an owne and a CEO, a membe o he boa d in my own company. S a ing wi h he ounda ions o my decisions, I e alua e hem pe sonally: whe he my choices ela ed o long- e m plans a e igh acco ding o my own e hics. How I ea people, how I ac in my own job’ (G oup 4, male 1). E hical p inciples in di e en MWI s a uses Ph ases ha included e hical easoning based on ce ain p inciples and ules we e coded as du y e hics. These included si ua ions whe e he manage alked abou his o he e hical decision-making in e ms o p inciples such as equali y, ai ness, and us . Fo example: ‘Fo me, Huh ala e al: Manage s’ Mo al Iden i y A . 2, page 7 o 13 he e was no choice, I would ne e ell anyone ( he pe sonal hings an employee has said in con idence). No e en o he employee’s supe iso , who’s wonde ing why he employee’s pe o mance le el has allen’. Al e na i ely, he easoning d ew on legali y: ‘I you hink abou disc imina ion… he law s a es ha e en i you ha e a amily ela ionship wi h he po en ial u u e employee, you should hi e hem i hey’ e quali ied o he job’ (G oup 1, emale 1). Vi ue e hics (seen as indi idual mo al quali ies mani es ed in ac ual beha io ) was coded in ph ases ha emphasized pe sonal mo al quali ies and ac ing in line wi h hem when making e hical decisions a wo k: ‘I ’s you esponsibili y as a manage o in e ene i you’ e awa e o a con lic in he wo k communi y. You need o aise he issue wi h he employees. Fo me ha ’s he e hics o being a manage : you ackle issues. Con lic s don’ sol e hemsel es i you keep quie ’ (G oup 2, male 2). Manage s’ ph ases ha emphasized he consequences o hei ac ions we e coded unde he hi d e hical p inciple, u ili a ianism. These mos ly ocused on maximizing he bene i s o he o ganiza ion and sol ing e hical dilemmas e icien ly: ‘In all ou decisions we ha e o ollow one p inciple: wha is bes o he business.’ In some cases he manage s used u ili a ian easoning o cope wi h e hical decisions ha wen agains hei own mo al belie s: ‘E en hough I know we’ e acing lay-o s (a e losing a clien ), I ha e o ac posi i e o he employees. Con ince hem ha we’ll ge new clien s and make his p o i able, e en hough I’m eally skep ical abou i … bu i I would ell hem he u h, ha hey’ e going o be laid o , hei wo k inpu would all o he emaining six mon hs’ (G oup 4, male 2). Finally, ca e e hics was coded when a manage emphasized main aining ela ionships and conside ing he needs o o he s as he basis o hei mo al easoning. These si ua ions o en in ol ed making decisions ha had di ec consequences o hei subo dina es, as in he ollowing example: ‘The e a e many p ac ical decisions, such as annual lea e a angemen s: e e yone should ge ea ed he same, ge su icien ly long pe iods o lea e and a good imes. I hink ha aking he wo k- amily in e ace in o accoun is o en ha d: I ha e a lo o employees who ha e small child en a home, which makes hese decisions challenging; how o be ai ’ (G oup 3, emale 1). We compa ed he co-occu ence o he ph ases coded wi h he ou e hical p inciples and he ou MWI s a uses. Because o he small sample size, we p esen he ull dis ibu ion be ween he e hical p inciples and MWI s a uses ins ead o s a is ical es s (see Table 2). We ound ha u ili a ianism ypically coincided wi h he o eclosu e s a us, while i ue e hics was ypically associa ed wi h he achie ed s a us and less equen ly associa ed wi h he o eclosu e s a us. Finally, e hics o ca e mo e ypically co-occu ed wi h he mo a o ium s a us. Fo du y e hics no clea di e ences we e ound be ween he MWI s a uses. S udy 2: A Su ey o Manage s Me hod Sample The pa icipan s we e 180 manage s who ook pa in a pos al ques ionnai e in 2015. This is he ou h wa e in a la ge longi udinal s udy, and a mo e ho ough desc ip ion o he da a collec ion p ocedu e can be ound in [name dele ed o main ain he in eg i y o he e iew p ocess]. Manage s who had no declined o be con ac ed du ing p e ious ounds o da a collec ion we e sen a ollow-up ques ionnai e and an in i a ion le e , which included a desc ip ion o he aims o he s udy, he olun a y na u e o pa icipa ion, and in o ma ion abou con iden iali y. This means ha all o he manage s who ook pa ga e hei in o med consen o pa icipa ion. We included only he inal ound o da a as he p e ious ques ionnai es did no include i ems measu ing mo al iden i y. A small majo i y o he esponden s we e male (62%), and he a e age age o he esponden s was 51 yea s ( ange 31–72, SD = 8.07). The majo i y wo ked ull- ime (93%) wi h a p i a e employe (76%), in he ields o indus y (39%), public adminis a ion (14%), business se ices o en ing (11%), inance and insu ance (10%), elecommunica ions o da a p ocessing (9%), comme ce and ade (7%), and o he ields, e.g., heal h ca e, public ela ions, and a ic (10%). They ep esen ed bo h uppe (53%) and middle (40%) managemen and o he p o essional posi ions (7%), and 4% owned hei own companies. Mos o hem had di ec subo dina es (69%), on a e age 10 employees ( ange 1–80, SD = 13.46). They had wo ked wi h he same o ganiza ion o an a e age o 10 yea s ( ange unde 1 yea o 44 yea s, SD = 9.19). P ocedu e Mo al iden i y s a uses we e coded on he basis o manage s’ sel -gene a ed assessmen s o hei e hical decision-making. The ques ionnai e included he ollowing open-ended ques ion: ‘When you ace e hically challenging si ua ions a you wo k ( o example, si ua ions whe e you ha e o hink wha is he igh way o ac ), on Table 2: Dis ibu ion o e hical p inciples (coded om he manage s’ ph ases in S udy 1) as hey co-occu ed wi h he mo al iden i y s a uses. Mo al iden i y s a us E hical p inciples Du y Vi ue U ili a ianism Ca e Di usion 1 0 0 0 Fo eclosu e 11 212 2 Mo a o ium 9 7 7 9 Achie ed 8 10 3 4 Huh ala e al: Manage s’ Mo al Iden i yA . 2, page 8 o 13 wha g ounds do you make decisions in hese si ua ions?’ ollowed by ou emp y lines o he manage s’ answe . The ques ion was delibe a ely le a a gene al le el so ha i would p omp he pa icipan s o e lec on and summa ize hei hough s abou hei mo al decisions as hey pe sonally hough i , wi hou limi ing hem o any p e-de ined concep s. Backg ound a iables included age, gende (male/ emale), enu e wi h he cu en employe (in yea s), wo k sec o (p i a e/public/own company), o ganiza ional ield (indus y/public adminis a ion/business se ices o en ing/ inance and insu ance/ elecommunica ions o da a p ocessing/comme ce and ade/o he , e.g., heal h ca e, public ela ions, and a ic), and s a esponsibili y (yes/no). Analysis Two esea che s independen ly ead all he open-ended answe s, es ablished ha he con en s we e app op ia e o he use o he mo al iden i y amewo k, and p oceeded o classi y he answe s in one o o he o he ou mo al iden i y s a uses. A e his indi idual, p elimina y coding phase, he esea che s discussed oge he ambiguous cases and ag eed upon a se o p inciples, as ollows. (1) I he pa icipan had w i en desc ip ions ha would i se e al di e en s a uses, he esea che s would y o iden i y he mos salien iewpoin and base he inal iden i y code on ha . Fo example, ‘I y o hink wha decision would be aligned wi h he company’s alues. Some imes I migh [emphasis added] also discuss wi h my supe iso o colleagues.’ was coded o o eclosu e, because company alues we e highligh ed in he answe . (2) All answe s ha included ph ases such as ‘I base my decisions on ac s/common sense’ o ‘I y o look a he whole’ we e seen o indica e ha he pa icipan educes e hical issues o ac ual ques ions wi hou any mo al e lec ion, and we e hus coded in he di usion s a us. (3) Answe s ha emphasized discussing he si ua ion wi h o he s (e.g., in o de o ge help and suppo ) we e coded in mo a o ium, because hey included an elemen o unce ain y ega ding pe sonal decision-making. Howe e , i he answe included an associa ion be ween discussing wi h o he s and shi ing esponsibili y o he decision o hem, hose answe s we e coded in di usion (a oiding a pe sonal decision). (4) Answe s including he ph ase ‘ alues’ we e in e p e ed as e lec ing he pe son’s own alues and we e coded in achie ed, unless he answe clea ly indica ed ha he alues e e ed o we e he o ganiza ion’s alues, in which case he answe was coded in o eclosu e. (5) Answe s in which he pa icipan desc ibed balancing be ween pe sonal and o ganiza ional alues wi hou emphasizing one o e he o he we e coded in mo a o ium. Simila ly, answe s in which he manage acknowledged ha se e al di e en and/o compe ing alues and no ms a ec hei decision-making (e.g., laws, e hical codes, pe sonal alues) bu did no ake a s and on which had he g ea es in luence on hem we e coded in mo a o ium. A e ag eeing on hese coding p inciples, he wo esea che s coded all he answe s indi idually. This esul ed in 92% ag eemen be ween he wo esea che s. Finally, age and enu e be ween mo al iden i y s a uses we e es ed wi h ANOVA, and gende , wo k sec o , o ganiza ional ield, and s a esponsibili y wi h c oss- abula ion using he χ2 es . Resul s The inal classi ica ion o he manage s in o he ou mo al iden i y s a uses is p esen ed in Table 3. As desc ibed in he conduc o he analysis, no all o he answe s we e s aigh o wa dly classi iable in o he heo ized iden i y s a uses, bu a e ag eeing on he a o emen ioned coding p inciples we we e able o in e p e and iden i y one p edominan iden i y s a us o each manage . In o he wo ds, we ound no new dimensions om he da a ha did no i in o he iden i y s a us pa adigm. The e we e no signi ican di e ences be ween he s a uses in e ms o age (F(3, 176) = 0.318, p = .81), enu e (F(3, 176) = 0.826, p = .48), Table 3: Coding o mo al iden i y s a uses based on he manage s’ desc ip ions o hei mo al decision-making (S udy 2, N = 180). Mo al iden i y s a us % (n)Examples om he da a Di usion 23 (42) ‘I base my decisions on ac s.’; ‘I alk o my supe iso and mo e he esponsibili y he e.’; ‘I use common sense.’; ‘E hically challenging si ua ions a e a e. I base my decisions on he bes a ailable knowledge.’ Fo eclosu e 30 (54) ‘Acco ding o he no ms o he employe .’; ‘Thus a I’ e complied wi h he o ganiza ion’s policy, no my own poin o iew.’; ‘I make decisions based on wha I hink he managemen expec s.’; ‘I he decision se es he bes o he company’s cus ome , he decision is jus i ied.’ Mo a o ium 13 (24) ‘I ask di e en specialis s o help. P e iously I made quick decisions on my own, bu now I conside my choices longe .’; ‘I make a p elimina y decision igh away, bu usually I hink abou i la e and hink whe he i was he igh choice.’; ‘By p ocessing he si ua ion om mul iple angles. Fi s , I need o be con inced o each decision by mysel be o e I can jus i y hem o o he s.’ Achie ed 34 (60) ‘Based on my pe sonal alues. I s i e owa ds doing he igh hing.’; ‘Based on my conscience. I ha e a s ong sense o jus ice.’; ‘I always s i e o ea e e yone ai ly.’; ‘I y o make decisions ha a e always as mo ally igh as possible, e en i i would cause inancial loss.’