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.’