CHAPTER 6

Learner Autonomy, Moral Agency, and Ancient Virtues: A Curative Constellation for the Treatment of Corruption in Modern Workplaces

Sharon E. Norris

Abstract

Over the years, ethical and unethical behaviors have been “delineated in terms of vices and virtues.”¹ The ancient virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance have been connected with ethical leadership, and vices such as deceiving, lying, selfishness, narcissism, arrogance, hubris, abusiveness, document falsification, malevolence, and masked intentions have been linked with unethical conduct and destructive and corrupt leadership.² Virtue-based leaders create socially responsible organizations whereas vice-driven leaders sow seeds of discord and organizational corruption. Vice-driven misconduct has poisoned organizations around the globe with “devastating consequences for the entire social fabric.”³ Finding a remedy for the deficit of ethical leadership and organizational corruption is a paramount consideration.⁴ In this chapter, learner autonomy, moral agency, and the ancient virtues are presented as a curative constellation for the treatment of corruption in modern workplaces.

Introduction

Over the years, ethical and unethical behaviors have been “delineated in terms of vices and virtues.”⁵ The ancient virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance have been connected with ethical leadership, and vices such as deceiving, lying, selfishness, narcissism, arrogance, hubris, abusiveness, document falsification, malevolence, and masked intentions have been linked with unethical conduct, destructive, and corrupt leadership.⁶ Virtue-based leaders create socially responsible organizations whereas vice-driven leaders sow seeds of discord and organizational corruption.

Vice-driven misconduct has poisoned organizations around the globe with “devastating consequences for the entire social fabric.”⁷ Waples and Antes posited, “whether organizational leaders perpetrate misbehavior or foster an environment permitting unethical conduct, scholars are left asking how to remedy what appears to be a deficit of ethical leadership in organizations.”⁸

It was once believed that corporate leaders were the social elite who looked after the success of the organization with a commitment to the common good. Today, corporate leaders are viewed as narcissistic impression managers, who con their way to the top through self-promotion and care little about others. The image of the CEO with pop star, superhero, and celebrity status has given way to anger, frustration, and feelings of betrayal as reports of corporate scandals now dominate the business news.⁹ In the 21st century, many people view corporate leaders as suspicious, dishonest, unethical, and corrupt.

Vice-driven and unethical leaders, especially when coupled with susceptible followers, create corrupt organizational environments. Organizational corruption has been described as the abuse and misuse of authority within organizations for private gain.¹⁰ Where the abuse and misuse of authority occurs, unethical conduct spreads like wildfire. Corrupt leaders create conformers and colluders who either “go along to get along” or “go along to get ahead.” In their research on acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations, Anand, Ashforth, and Joshi¹¹ observed a notable and disturbing feature of corrupt organizations: employees knowingly go along with the unethical conduct of destructive leaders. This confluence of leader, follower, and environmental factors has been described as the toxic triangle.¹²

Recovering from the refractory disease of organizational corruption is more difficult than preventing its onset. Organizational disease disrupts normal functioning, and it is difficult to restore the system to functionality after such breaches have occurred. For this reason, it is paramount for corporate executives to establish and maintain ethical environments. Because the formal economy in the world’s most advanced countries have become the breeding grounds for corruption, the time has come for business educators around the globe to respond to this crisis of leadership by promoting responsible management through business education and development. In this chapter, it is proposed that ethical conduct and ethical leadership requires the development of learner autonomy, moral agency, and the virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance as a curative constellation for the treatment of corruption in modern workplaces.

Learner Autonomy

Leaders are expected to do what is right, promote good, and act justly.¹³ Leaders are also expected to possess the capacity to learn and assess outcomes in terms of rightness, goodness, and justice. Personal evaluation and moral appraisals of options, action choices, and subsequent behavioral consequences are based upon feedback, which play an important function in the adult learning process. Effective leaders are efficacious learners.

Adult educators have long recognized the linkages between effective learning and self-evaluation skills, and adult learning is most powerful when individuals possess learner autonomy.

Learner autonomy refers to the self-regulatory capacity to draw upon both internal and external resources, as one chooses to adapt, change, and learn. The self-directed capacity to learn, or the notion of efficacious learner autonomy, shares characteristics with what Carl Rogers described as the educated man: “the man who has learned how to learn; the man who has learned how to adapt and change.”¹⁴

Effective adult learners draw upon a wide range of information to formulate internalized standards, monitor their behavior, and evaluate the consistency between their personal standards and conduct. Using this information, they either decide to continue on the present course of action or make course corrections. Evers posited the “principle of learner autonomy seems to be required to balance error feedback.”¹⁵ The capacity for self-examination, self-evaluation, and self-directedness are characteristics of efficacious autonomous learners. Efficacious people believe they possess the capacity to perform tasks, can utilize performance feedback to make improvements, and have the ingenuity to surmount obstacles.

Efficacious learner autonomy represents a behavioral construct that can be enhanced with interventions such as through education and training.¹⁶ In other words, people can learn how to learn. Personal responsibility, autonomy, flexibility, and adaptability are key characteristics of self-directedness among adult learners.¹⁷ These same qualities are necessary for people who are facing unique challenges and making important decisions in the workplace. The capacity to learn may be one of the most vital ingredients for organizational success in today’s knowledge era.

The salient characteristics of the capacity to learn, or behavioral intention to learn, include initiative, resourcefulness, and persistence.¹⁸ A person who takes initiative is goal-oriented and self-starting. Once moving toward a goal, the person may encounter new situations or problems. Resourcefulness is needed in handling difficulties that arise. The autonomous learner is also persistent. As roadblocks or obstacles are encountered, there can be a temptation to give in or give up. Autonomous learners are not easily deterred from their course of action and will be persistent in the pursuit of goals. The efficacious autonomous learner takes initiative, is resourceful, and persistent in pursuit of goals.

Ongoing, continual lifelong learning is needed for business people to survive in the permanent white water conditions of the 21st century.¹⁹ Without the capacity to muster the requisite cognitive inducements of learner self-directedness, people are ill equipped to withstand pressures of the modern workplace.

Tapping into the conative factors of efficacious autonomous learning (i.e., initiative, resourcefulness, persistence) is necessary for achieving goals, yet people with selfish ambitions and inhumane intentions can be persistent, resourceful self-starters who doggedly pursue self-interest at others’ expense. Without the exercise of moral agency, individuals may stray from the path of ethical behavior. For this reason, it is important for effective autonomous learners to put goal-oriented, learner autonomy to work toward noble intentions and pursue them ethically.

Moral Agency

Moral agency is the “regulation of humane conduct.”²⁰ People develop a set of internalized standards of what constitutes right and wrong behavior, and those standards serve as guides and deterrents of behavior.²¹ When a workplace dilemma occurs, these self-sanctions regulate conduct.

Internalized standards and self-monitoring processes provide useful information for making self-evaluations that individuals respond to with either self-approval or disapproval and then these factors serve as incentives for further action.²² When people engage in behaviors that violate their internalized standards, they experience cognitive dissonance. The theory of cognitive dissonance explains that people experience distress when there is a lack of consistency between what they believe and what they do.²³ People then attempt to reduce the dissonance by changing their behaviors so there is alignment between internalized standards of conduct and actual behaviors. Therefore, there are dual aspects of moral agency: inhibitive moral agency deters inhumane conduct and proactive moral agency guides benevolent behaviors.²⁴

Moral disengagement refers to the process of deactivating moral self-regulation through cognitive mechanisms that remove the self-sanctions that would deter people from violating internalized standards and behaving unethically.²⁵ In toxic environments, both leaders and followers are susceptible to moral disengagement. When business people are morally disengaged, they are more likely to commit corporate transgressions and act reprehensibly without experiencing personal distress.²⁶

Moral disengagement occurs through eight psychosocial maneuvers that include moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, distortion of consequences, dehumanization, and attribution of blame.²⁷ Research has shown that the propensity to disengage morally is malleable to external influences;²⁸ therefore, training employees to be on the lookout for modes of thinking that deactivate moral self-regulation may help individuals avoid the type of thinking that initiates, facilitates, and perpetuates unethical behavior and organizational corruption.²⁹

It has been argued that people who morally disengage are also likely to quickly climb the corporate ladder. If individuals with the propensity to morally disengage rise through the corporate ranks faster than others, then it stands to reason that the individuals at the highest ranks of an organization may have the greatest propensity to commit corporate crimes and corrupt their organizations without experiencing duress over their misdeeds. These morally disengaged executives perpetuate organizational corruption by rewarding underlings who have a similar capacity to cognitively reframe issues, leave moral considerations out of their deliberations, and downplay ethical impact of actions.³⁰

When unethical leaders use deceptive behaviors to push their personal agendas, they mask their true intentions by feigning concern for the organization. When they succeed in making short-term improvements, these destructive leaders create conditions where employees may be tempted to replace personal responsibility with conformance. Displacement of responsibility has been linked to unethical work behavior.³¹ Anand, Ashforth, and Joshi described denial of responsibility as “a rationalization tactic where individuals convince themselves that they are participating in corrupt acts because of circumstances—they have no real choice.”³²

Employees at all levels need to become aware of the human capacity to morally disengage, and they need to be cognizant of how corrupt corporate executives are highly skilled at manipulating others into either colluding with or conforming to their unethical standards. Unethical and destructive leader tactics include emphasizing the importance of advancing the organization as the highest good, instilling fear over the failure to advance organizational goals, and rewarding those who place the advancement of the organization over every other priority in life including personal, professional, and spiritual well-being.

One way to cleanse the organization of corruption is to create an environment where moral agents thrive and moral disengagement cannot take hold as a dominant paradigm. Moral agents measure their actual behavior against internalized standards. When presented with a challenging situation, their internalized values and beliefs serve as behavioral guides and deterrents.³³ When the consequences of their behavior fail to achieve anticipated outcomes, moral agents reassess the situation, take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and modify their future conduct.

As individuals resourcefully take initiative and persist in their pursuits, they also take stock in what they are achieving and evaluate the congruity of their actual behavior with internalized values. People who established noble intentions and pursue their goals ethically are strengthened by their virtues. They are sensitive to the temptation of their vices.

Ancient Virtues

Great thinkers across the centuries have discussed the positive influence of virtues on human behavior. In medieval times, the ancient virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance were believed to elevate individuals toward good while vices contributed to human demise.³⁴ The virtues have been characterized metaphorically as a road that ascends to heaven and vices a road that descends to the depths of hell.³⁵

Prudence

The exercise of prudence represents a distinct mode of intelligence that individuals draw upon as they deliberate and choose their actions.³⁶ Exercising prudence draws upon the cognitive power of the mind to deliberate.³⁷ Individuals bring their deliberations to bear on contingent matters through the exercise of human agency, or the capacity to choose, which represents an action of the will. The mind and will, deliberation and choice, operate together to exercise prudence.³⁸ Mensing explained, “prudence perfects the intellect and inclines man to act in all things according to right reason.”³⁹

The process of thoughtful consideration and choice of action represents the exercise of prudence, and this exercise is not a one-time deliberation that ensures ethical behavior. Prudent individuals continually develop their cognitive power of reasoning by deliberating over universal considerations and applying them to specific things.⁴⁰ Prudent leaders understand the importance of helping organizational members develop their capacity to deliberate well and make appropriate choices because no rule, policy, or procedure will answer all of the complexities involved in carrying out the daily work in organizations. According to Aquinas, “Prudence involves three acts of reason: deliberate will, judging rightly, and commanding what one should do or not do.”⁴¹

When the essential function of top management is viewed as controlling the organization, their primary work activities revolve around organizational decision-making. Mintzberg⁴² defined the organizational decision-making process as the work of defining problems, developing courses of action, and deciding on outcomes. Once decisions are made, policies and procedures are established to ensure the work is carried out according to plan. Unfortunately, policies and procedures alone fail to address every possible contingency and cannot solely guarantee right action. New circumstances arise that continually require thoughtful consideration and prudence in choice of action. Hariman stated, “Prudence is the mode of reasoning about contingent matters in order to select the best course of action.”⁴³

In contrast to top-down control, when the essential function of top management is viewed as nurturing the capacities of organizational members to collaboratively control the organization, the leader’s primary work activities involve developing employees’ problem-solving and decision-making skills. Such leaders know that prudent people conscientiously seek counsel from wise individuals with diversified perspectives as they search for the truth; they possess genuineness, openness, farsightedness, and a teachable spirit.⁴⁴ Effective leaders model the exercise of prudence and encourage organizational learning. Bass and Bass stated, “prudence is recognizing and making the right choices in specific contexts.”⁴⁵

Imprudent leaders feign deliberation in pursuit of disordered self-interests; they possess exaggerated egoism and exhaust human systems as they socially undermine the workforce.⁴⁶ Imprudent leaders fear looking like failures and endlessly deliberate over appropriate courses of action because they are more concerned with appearances than with truth. Their inordinate focus on their own interest creates distrust among their underlings. When leaders are imprudent, their behaviors are motivated by their vices. Without prudence, they also lack the self-control (temperance) and fortitude to do what is right and just. Imprudent leaders justify their vice-driven decisions by claiming that the situation demanded such maneuvering because the issue was political or their decisions were forced by economic conditions. It is evident when working with unethical, vicedriven leaders that their bottom line is not the financial statement but rather protecting themselves, and they will do so at the expense of others. Unethical leaders lack prudence and they contribute to organizational corruption.

Justice

“Justice is fairness.”⁴⁷ The perfect act of justice requires doing what is good, rendering to another what is due, avoiding evil, and inflicting no injury upon another.⁴⁸ When vice-driven, unethical leaders take actions that satisfy self-interests at the expense of others, their deeds are unjust. In contrast, virtue-based ethical leaders who take thoughtful actions that give others their due and inflict no harm are just. Duska explained, “justice demands a person go beyond self-interest.”⁴⁹

In their book titled, Ethical Leadership, Mendonca and Kanungo contended that giving others their due goes beyond a legalistic concept of contractual rights and “includes whatever others might need in order to fulfill their duties and exercise their rights as persons.”⁵⁰ The unethical, vice-driven leader deals unfairly with people and withholds needed help and support.⁵¹ Baron stated, “injustice destroys people and deconstructs organizations.”⁵²

In an organizational context, justice “means to exercise a sense of responsibility and balance, in a fair manner, the rights of all the stake-holders.”⁵³ Where there are organizational injustices, people are treated disrespectfully. Mensing reported that where distributive justice is lacking, there is also improper respect for certain persons.⁵⁴ For example, some unethical leaders treat employees at the lowest levels of the organization as though they are dispensable objects, and they show favoritism to lackeys.

Most corporate executives will proclaim a commitment to doing what is right and just, but the extent to which they actually exercise justice is evidenced by their actions. Havard stated, “justice emphasizes the need for good will, which is reflected not in mere desires or intensions but in the constant determination to give everyone his due.”⁵⁵ Each person has the right to just treatment because justice is a natural right. Pope stated, “what is right constitutes the deepest intelligibility of human laws, and it is the task of human law to render specific formulations of what is right in particular contexts.”⁵⁶

Fortitude

Fortitude is “the courage to take great risks for an ideal which is worthwhile. A courageous person faces difficult situations and strives to act positively to overcome obstacles in order to do what is good and noble.”⁵⁷ In the contemporary marketplace, leaders experience strong situational pressures that can make it difficult to maintain their commitment to do the right thing.⁵⁸ The person who possesses fortitude perseveres and exhibits “endurance against odds.”⁵⁹ Bass and Bass stated, “fortitude is the courage to pursue the right path despite the risks.”⁶⁰ When pursuing a difficult good, a person with fortitude has a confident tendency to continue forward rather than succumb to fear and despair.⁶¹

Lack of fortitude has been characterized as the “disruptive nature of the extreme emotions.”⁶² Titus identified these extreme emotions as (1) fear, anxiety, fright, terror, cowardice, timidity, and the pathologies of hypochondria, panic, and phobia; and (2) fearlessness, aggression, audacity, rashness, recklessness, and indifference.⁶³

In situations where people are vulnerable, people sometimes experience emotions such as fear or anxiety.⁶⁴ Tillich argued, “anxiety and fear have the same ontological root but they are not the same in actuality.”⁶⁵ According to Tillich, fear can be faced and acted upon whereas anxiety represents “fear of the unknown.”⁶⁶ Whether the source of fear is known or unknown, fortitude is the capacity to continue toward the pursuit of some good in the face of difficulties.⁶⁷ When a person possesses fortitude, he has a greater capacity to persist toward goals.

People lacking fortitude are driven by vices, which have been discussed as cowardice and foolhardiness. The vices opposed to fortitude are fear and fearlessness.⁶⁸ Cowardice and foolhardiness are distortions of fortitude. The opposite of fortitude is cowardice, according to Newman.⁷⁰ Mattison stated, “the coward cuts and runs in the face of difficulty.”⁶⁹ Another distortion of fortitude is foolhardiness. Mattison further explained that foolhardiness looks like fortitude because one continues to pursue an end in the face of difficulty but does so in a manner that disregards real dangers.⁷¹

Temperance

Temperance has been described as self-control⁷² and moderation.⁷³ Mensing stated, “the vice of intemperance is directly opposed to the virtue of temperance by way of excess.”⁷⁴ In other words, intemperance weakens the inner order of man whereas temperance strengthens him.⁷⁵ The person who possesses the virtue of temperance closely monitors both extremes of rigid restriction and indulgence because the manifestation of both indicates some dysfunction is present.

In the 21st century, some of the most egregious corporate crimes have been associated with a failure to live contently with enough and instead irrationally pursuing more and more. According to Mendonca and Kanungo, the practice of temperance “involves distinguishing between what is reasonable and necessary, and what is self-indulgent.”⁷⁶ Baron posited, “immoderate appetites lead to greed, the modern day crisis for corporations and individuals.”⁷⁷ Bass and Bass stated, “temperance is self-discipline and moderation of emotions and indulgences.”⁷⁸

Cooper noted, “temperance in the true sense of the word means moderation and keeping to the virtuous middle path, while avoiding both extremes.”⁷⁹ In the organizational context, the moderation of ambition may be a difficult middle path to walk. On the one hand, an overly ambitious executive may push his or her agenda to get what he or she wants; at other times, the same person may refuse to lift a finger when others need help. These extreme swings between over ambition and refusal to act indicate a lack of temperance. Peterson and Seligman explained that in psychological terms, temperance has been described as self-efficacy⁸⁰ and self-regulation⁸¹—the ability to monitor and manage one’s emotions, motivations, and behavior.⁸²

Conclusion

Given the challenges that people face today, a foundation of virtues is necessary in order for individuals to act as moral agents and autonomous learners. Vice-driven conduct has crippled individuals, poisoned communities, and contributed to widespread organizational corruption. The development of learner autonomy, moral agency, and the ancient virtues, is a curative constellation for the treatment of corruption in modern workplaces.

The way many business schools have attempted to develop the ethical behavior of future leaders is through the addition of business ethics courses in their curriculum. Unfortunately, assigning readings and administering examinations on philosophical perspective have not been sufficient for immunizing individuals from succumbing to unethical behavior. Similarly, many businesses have created corporate codes of conduct to articulate organizational values and expectations but have proven ineffective in safeguarding against organizational corruption.

In order to remedy the deficit of ethical behavior and organizational corruptions, both business schools and business organizations will benefit by helping individuals develop learner autonomy, moral agency, and the virtues through reflective experiential learning. Experiential learning activities place individuals in learning contexts that mirror the real-world environment with all of its contradictions and conflicting priorities. When individuals experience the pressure to both follow their internalized standards and meet imposed performance targets, these experiences afford the opportunity for applied ethical training.

Reflective exercises embedded within these programs can also be designed to encourage individuals to openly share experiences of cognitive dissonance. Participants can personally assess their exhibition of learner autonomy (i.e., initiative, resourcefulness, persistence) as well as the extent to which their goal-directed behaviors are driven by vices and virtues. When they experience temptations to morally disengage, they can ponder what occurred, how they responded, and develop action plans to strengthen their capacity to work toward noble ends.

Learner autonomy, moral agency, and the ancient virtues are a curative constellation for the treatment of corruption in modern workplaces. Developing these psychosocial dimensions of human functioning and social interacting are vital ingredients for remedying unethical behavior and organizational corruption.

Key Terms and Definitions

Efficacious: Belief in personal capability to perform

Fortitude: Inner strength to face and overcome obstacles; endurance.

Justice: Rendering to others what is due.

Learner autonomy: The capacity to learn.

Moral agency: Self-regulating processes that guide or deter conduct

Moral disengagement: The process of deactivating moral self-regulation

Prudence: Deliberate reasoning to select appropriate actions

Temperance: The virtuous middle path; moderation

Virtue: Inner strength or power

Study Questions

Additional Reading

Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001). Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at rork: Theory and research (pp. 471–499). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2000). Moral awareness in business organizations: Influence of issue-related and social context factors. Human relations, 53, 981–1018.

Confessore, G. J. (2009). The role of learner autonomy in the reconciliation of cognitive dissonance. In M. G. Derrick and M. K. Ponton (Eds.), Emerging Directions in Self-Directed Learning (pp. 77–98). Chicago, IL: Discovery Association Publishing House.

Havard, A. (2007). Virtuous leadership: An agenda for personal excellence. New York: Scepter.

Johnson, C. E. (2009). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: casting light or shadow. Lost Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement processes or organizational corruption. Journal of business ethics, 80(1), 129–239.

Rego, A., Pina e Cunha, M., & Clegg, S. R. (2012). The virtues of leadership: Contemporary challenges for global managers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.