Reflect On An Ethical Dilemma You Have Encountered ✓ Solved

Reflect upon an ethical dilemma you have encountered in an o

Reflect upon an ethical dilemma you have encountered in an organization (one you are/ were with or that is in the news). Familiarize yourself with Kohlberg's stages of moral development. For your initial post, using scholarly research to support your perspectives, address the following: Summarize the ethical dilemma; identify which of Kohlberg's stages of moral development the example represents and justify your choice; state whether another theory of moral development better describes the example and why; postulate the best- and worst-case outcomes of this dilemma. Then respond to at least two peers' initial posts, discussing whether you agree with their selection of Kohlberg's stage and why, whether another theory would better describe their examples and why, and the impact of the ethical decision that was made.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper reflects on a real organizational ethical dilemma, applies Kohlberg's stages of moral development to interpret the actors' reasoning, considers whether an alternative moral development theory better explains the behavior, and proposes plausible best- and worst-case outcomes. The analysis draws on scholarly ethics literature to ground interpretations and suggested outcomes (Kohlberg, 1981; Gilligan, 1982; Treviño, 1986).

Summary of the Ethical Dilemma

The dilemma involved a manufacturing plant where a quality-control failure led to production of a batch of parts that did not meet safety tolerances. A mid-level manager, concerned about immediate production targets and potential plant shutdowns that could endanger employee jobs, instructed the quality team to alter inspection records so the batch could be shipped. The decision prioritized short-term operational continuity and local employment stability over compliance with safety standards and regulatory reporting requirements. When an engineer raised concerns, the manager dismissed the objections and emphasized loyalty to the plant and meeting monthly quotas.

Application of Kohlberg's Moral Development Stages

Kohlberg's framework identifies stages from preconventional (self-interest and obedience) through conventional (conformity and law-and-order) to postconventional (social contract and universal principles) reasoning (Kohlberg, 1981). The manager's actions best align with Kohlberg's Stage 2 (instrumental-relativist orientation) and to some extent Stage 3 (interpersonal accord/conformity). The Stage 2 interpretation rests on the manager's calculus of exchanging truthful reporting for protection of employees and short-term organizational interests—an instrumental cost-benefit logic that privileges personal and in-group benefits (Kohlberg, 1981). The manager treated rules as negotiable tools to achieve desirable outcomes rather than as moral imperatives.

Stage 3 elements are present because the manager sought approval within the immediate workplace community—seeking to be viewed as a protector of employees and their livelihoods. However, the primary motivation appears instrumental (protect jobs, meet targets), not grounded in maintaining social order or abiding by universal principles; thus Stage 2 is the stronger fit.

Alternative Theoretical Explanation

Carol Gilligan's ethics-of-care (1982) offers an alternative lens that emphasizes relationships, responsibility, and context. From a care perspective, the manager's decision can be interpreted as an attempt to preserve interpersonal ties and protect vulnerable workers—an ethic centered on relational duties rather than abstract rules. Gilligan would argue this behavior reflects moral reasoning grounded in care obligations to specific people (Gilligan, 1982). This perspective explains the manager’s emphasis on employee welfare but does not excuse the violation of safety and legal norms; it instead clarifies the motivational structure behind the choice.

Both frameworks are informative: Kohlberg highlights the cognitive stage (instrumental reasoning with some concern for conformity), while Gilligan explains the relational motives that made the manager prioritize immediate human consequences over procedural justice or broader societal obligations.

Best-Case and Worst-Case Outcomes

Best-case outcome: The engineer's concerns trigger an internal review; management reverses the decision, halts shipment, informs regulators, and undertakes corrective actions. The plant temporarily reduces output but implements remediation, reinforces safety culture, and protects employees through reassignment or support programs. Long-term, transparent handling preserves organizational reputation, avoids regulatory penalties, and strengthens ethical norms—resulting in improved safety systems and employee trust (Kaptein, 2008; Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006).

Worst-case outcome: The altered records remain concealed, the faulty parts are shipped, and the failure results in product malfunction causing harm or a recall. Discovery leads to severe regulatory fines, litigation, loss of customer trust, and potential plant closure. Employees lose jobs anyway, and the organization suffers reputational damage far worse than if the issue had been disclosed and corrected promptly (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011). Additionally, the culture of concealment becomes entrenched, discouraging whistleblowing and increasing future risk (Near & Miceli, 1985).

Ethical Decision Impact and Recommendations

The immediate impact of the manager's choice was erosion of reporting norms and increased moral risk. If allowed to continue, the behavior signals to employees that rule-bending is tolerated when expedient, decreasing psychological safety and likelihood of future reporting (Trevino, 1986). To mitigate such dilemmas, organizations should strengthen ethical infrastructure—clear reporting channels, protected whistleblower policies, and leadership that models rule-based decision-making—so care-based motivations (protecting employees) can be channeled into ethically acceptable actions like temporary furlough support and transparent remediation (Kaptein, 2008; Rest, 1986).

Conclusion

This case demonstrates how a combination of instrumental moral reasoning (Kohlberg Stage 2) and care-based motivation (Gilligan) can explain organizational misconduct. Effective organizational ethics must address both the cognitive stages of moral reasoning and the relational dynamics that drive decisions. Encouraging transparent, principled decision-making while providing mechanisms to protect employees during corrective actions reduces incentives to conceal problems and aligns immediate human concerns with legal and ethical obligations.

References

• Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Ethical breakdowns. In Blind spots: Why we fail to do what's right and what to do about it (pp. 17–34). Princeton University Press.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press.
• Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. Harper & Row.
• Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Rand McNally.
• Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 923–947.
• Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.
• Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.
• Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
• Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.
• Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.