Principles of Human Development Based on Morality and Freedom

Allen Carn

Program: PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences

Specialization: Leadership and Organizational Change

August 27, 2010

Abstract

Breadth

In this portion of the Knowledge Area Module (KAM) 2, it was determined that Kohlberg’s

theories of moral development and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can be applied to certain

concepts from Weber, King, Friedman, and a letter from I.R.. Specifically, the concepts include

Weber’s idea of a calling, while King’s belief in agape and the three dimensions of a full life

captures the progression aspect of Kohlberg and Maslow’s theories. Furthermore, this portion of

the KAM includes Friedman’s suggestions on how economic freedom and individual

responsibility provide an environment for human and individual development. Finally, the letter

to Bradford from I.R. provided five points on how self-reflection, continual improvement,

avoiding negative behaviors, and leadership provided the best opportunity for the group at

Plymouth Plantation to survive. All of concepts noted fit in to different portions of Kohlberg and

Maslow’s theories.

Abstract

Depth

The focus of the depth was to review moral development as it related to the individual, the

organization, and then leadership. Using a collaboration of inputs gathered from various authors

found in the breadth and the depth, two prevalent themes became abundantly clear. The first, in

what King would define as secular relativism, authors often proposed an adaptive moral

relativism system that required strict adherence with little or no concern for the individual. The

value of the research articles often left the reader traversing in the ambiguity of relativism that

found a way excuse some Machiavellian concepts. The second theme had a strict foundation that

provided a consistency of purpose while individualistic change was encouraged and expected.

This second theme based on utilitarian need and religious principles; virtue, enlightenment, and

individual development were prized societal expectations. As the individual developed, the moral

frame widens while the ethical blind spots decreased. Consequently, as the individual developed

so did humanity.

Abstract

Application

In the application portion of this KAM, the process of assembling an initial set of social

expectations begins. Theoretical information from the breadth and depth provided a path of

rediscovery to instruct undergraduate students and leaders on how certain societal expectations

provide the best opportunity for individual and leadership development. It was determined that

the social expectations lead to moral development included: the Ten Commandments; the topics

within I.R.’s letter; agape; the three dimensions of complete life; individual responsibility;

economic freedom; and a concept of virtue provide the best opportunity for development.

Furthermore, within each section, topics and training scenarios were installed to assist the student

or leader to understand the importance of moral development principles.

i

Table of Contents

Breadth .............................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

A Foundation of Individual Development .................................................................................1

The Impediments of Development .............................................................................................3

Decaying social expectations. ..............................................................................................3

Ignorance and hate. ..............................................................................................................5

Systems of hate. ...................................................................................................................7

The Engine of Individual Development ...............................................................................9

I.R.’s Letter of Development ...................................................................................................12

Daily self-reflection. ..........................................................................................................12

Patience & forgiveness. ......................................................................................................14

Avoid a dependence on charity. .........................................................................................15

Avoid apathy and complacency. ........................................................................................16

Sound leadership and its selection. ....................................................................................18

King’s Belief in Agape as a Key to Development ...................................................................21

King’s Development Process – the three dimensions of a complete life .................................23

Length dimension. ..............................................................................................................24

Breadth dimension. ............................................................................................................25

Height dimension. ..............................................................................................................26

Friedman’s Theories that Promote Individual Development ...................................................28

Individual responsibility. ...................................................................................................29

Economic freedom. ............................................................................................................32

ii

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................36

Depth ............................................................................................................................................38

Leadership in Human Development ..............................................................................................38

Annotated Bibliography ...........................................................................................................38

Literature Review Essay ..........................................................................................................60

Theory ................................................................................................................................62

Organizational ....................................................................................................................72

Leadership ..........................................................................................................................81

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................92

Application .....................................................................................................................................95

Rediscovering a Path to Human Development ..............................................................................95

Context ...........................................................................................................................................95

Social Setting ...........................................................................................................................95

Audience ..................................................................................................................................96

Objectives ................................................................................................................................97

Research Process ......................................................................................................................99

Analysis ..................................................................................................................................101

Presentation: Rediscovering a Path to Human Development ......................................................102

Presentation ............................................................................................................................102

Waypoints ..............................................................................................................................103

First waypoint. .................................................................................................................103

Second waypoint. .............................................................................................................104

Third waypoint. ................................................................................................................104

iii

Fourth waypoint. ..............................................................................................................105

Fifth waypoint. .................................................................................................................105

Sixth waypoint. ................................................................................................................106

Summary and Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................107

Observations ..........................................................................................................................107

Lesson Learned ......................................................................................................................108

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................109

References ....................................................................................................................................110

1

Breadth

SBSF 8210 Theories of Human Development

Introduction

The development of the breadth starts with Kohlberg and Maslow’s belief that human

development occurs only through individual development. The individual has always been the

basic building block of humanity; consequently, as individuals develop, humanity as a whole

benefits. However, Weber, King, and Friedman were specific in identifying four impediments to

individual development that carry over and impede human development to the point where

humanity as a whole regresses. These impediments were decaying social expectations, ignorance,

hate, and systems of hate. If an individual decided to work through the impediments, then several

concepts highlighted in the breadth provided a path of individual development. The concepts

found in the breadth included the concept of a calling, ideas noted in a letter written to Bradford,

agape, the three dimensions of a full life, individual responsibility, and economic freedom.

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs provided the

analytical theory to compare and contrast the concepts previously noted. The breadth ends with a

brief conclusion that encapsulates the findings found throughout this portion of the KAM.

A Foundation of Individual Development

In the United States, Judeo-Christian beliefs provided a foundation for individual

development. This environment of potentially positive interaction based on Judeo-Christian

religious beliefs was what Weber wrote about in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism (1958). However, the deterioration of those same Judeo-Christian beliefs concerned

Weber; consequently, he named capitalism as the main culprit causing the erosion of morality

leading to a regression in individual development. Unbeknownst to Weber, Marxist societal

2

concepts have hastened the natural erosion process as defined by Weber. This purposeful intent

to undermine the morality, values, and ethics of a free society has individuals focusing on their

most basic needs while being forced to ignore their potential to develop. According to King, it is

those same unapologetic Marxists who have forced individuals “to go back and rediscover some

mighty precious values [they] left behind” (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998, p. 7). As

validated by Kohlberg and Maslow, all four supporting theorists, who include I.R., Weber, King,

and Friedman, have promoted individual development and believed in political freedom. While

I.R., Weber, and Friedman understood political and economic freedom were intertwined and

necessary for individual development (Friedman, 1980). King (as cited by Carson & Holloran,

1988) preferred limited economic freedom; however, he still understood that economic freedom

was a necessity and that socialism robbed the individual of the traits that made him or her human.

To King, Marxism and its variants turned an inspired individual into a hopeless subhuman. This

dismal reality forced the individual to the lowest levels of Kohlberg and Maslow’s stages of

human development and hierarchy of needs.

The breadth portion of this paper will validate some key concepts of Weber, an author

known only as I.R., King, and Friedman. In doing so the reader will understand why a calling is

the engine for individual human development. They will understand why self-improvement is

critical in allowing an individual to survive and adapt to a hostile environment. Furthermore, they

will understand the meaning of agape and the three dimensions of a complete life. Finally, in

creating an environment for individual development, the reader will understand the need for

individual responsibility and the free market. The free market is societal in nature, but it is

profoundly dependent on individual development. Combined, these authors described important

concepts that make up the societal expectations of a free society; thereby, allowing for true

3

human development while keeping the impediments to development at bay. The next portion of

the breadth will note four impediments to individual development that King, Kohlberg, Maslow,

Weber, and Friedman wove into the theories and concepts.

The Impediments of Development

In reviewing the impediments of individual development, the reader must go back and

find out why so many individuals have become enamored with a system that restricts individual

development to the point that it can only lead the individual to Marxism’s version of slavery and

the elimination of individual development. The list of impediments has societal ingredients that

must be included in this topic of discussion. The impediments noted by all of the authors in this

KAM address the erosion of societal expectations, which becomes the breeding ground for

ignorance; this in turn allows hatred and systems of hate to promote class warfare. Consequently,

segments of the public have sponsored or promoted some of the impediments that were societal

in nature. This brief list was an attempt in explaining some of the issues the individual must

overcome in order to develop in a positive manner. Individuals in a constant pursuit of

development were society’s only preventive maintenance measure against societal and moral

decay.

Decaying social expectations. As Weber (1958) suggested, abundance and selfishness

were the first steps that encouraged individuals down the path of self-enslavement because they

ended up discarding the social expectations of morality, virtue, ethics, and continual

improvement that has allowed individual and human development to occur in the past. This self-

inflicted societal decay was due to members of society viewing some of the previously noted

social expectations as being antiquated, too demanding, or too restrictive in a free market setting.

Maslow (1971) with Weber believed that an unappreciated abundance created a relaxed

4

atmosphere where the individual forgets the reasoning behind societal fundamentals. In the

context of what were the fears of Weber (1958) and the predatory nature of capitalism, the

erosion of religious morality begins when a profit or bonus excuses an individual or corporation

from doing what has been morally right. This predatory or materialistic nature limits the

individual development to his or her most selfish of needs. As noted in Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs (1943), these same individuals would struggle with esteem, loving, and belonging because

they never get past the selfish needs of physiological and safety.

Weber (1958) lamented about the deteriorating social expectations in the nineteenth and

early twentieth century. However, Weber’s perspective was more on the church and its system of

social expectations. Though potentially useful to individual development, some individuals

viewed morality, virtue, ethics, and the discipline in continual improvement as being too

restrictive to their development and freedom, which brought about certain hostility towards the

church (Weber). Again, some of this hostility was not necessarily directed at the moral and

ethical system, but at those individuals who inserted themselves as the moral and ethical arbiters

of the church; thereby, making themselves the local dictators. In their religious zeal, they ended

up restricting individual development and freedom. Regardless, the power of economic and

political freedom had turned upon itself and in doing so; individuals began to doubt the moral

foundation that had provided them so much opportunity. In King’s (as cited by Carson &

Holloran, 1998) worldview, we as a people without thinking decided to discard morality, ethics,

and virtue (p. 16). Consequently, this has lead to instances and periods of tragic exploitation.

Whether the erosion that negatively affected individual development occurred as a revolt

against the Judeo-Christian system of social expectations, the church itself, individuals within the

church, or due to the less than ethical opportunist, it happened. King, Weber, Kohlberg, and

5

Maslow asserted that the degradation of societal expectations, which includes morality, virtue,

ethics, and the discipline in continual improvement, leads to a reduction in individual and human

development. Ultimately, this requires subsequent generations of individuals to rediscover, some

if not all of the lessons learned the hard way as they meander through the lower levels of

Kohlberg’s and Maslow’s development hierarchies in search of stable societal expectations.

Ignorance and hate. According to Maslow (1971), the erosion of positive social

expectations leads the individual to commit one of the most costly mistakes in regards to human

development, that mistake was ignorance. Maslow actually equated ignorance with evil. For

example, King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) noted that when 250 million individuals

fail to understand the source of their individual development and freedom, democracy and the

human potential for good suffers. As this relates to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943), this

means individuals stagnate at the lower levels of development and struggle to survive. Friedman

(2002) knew ignorance was where the enemy from within resided that has been destroying

freedom and the environment for individual development. If we as individuals, accept the

responsibility found in Kohlberg and Maslow’s higher stages of development, then we must

reject ignorance in all of its forms, this includes apathy and complacency as noted in I.R.’s

warning to Bradford (1966).

If not, individuals will lose their freedom to develop (Friedman & Friedman, 1980).

Simply, refusing to accept self-improvement as an individual responsibility equates to a loss of

freedom, which in turn imposes more restrictions on the individual development of future

generations. Ignorance prevents the incorrectly assumed to go unchecked, the wrongs of the

world to go uncorrected; consequently, individual development strays down dark paths that end

up hindering human development (Maslow, 1971). This dire path was supported by Friedman’s

6

(2002, p. 7) assertion that there was a tendency to control the free market using democratic

socialism, which in turn only leads to totalitarianism.

Furthermore, ignorance, according to Maslow (1971), is one of the primary factors

leading to hatred and systems of hate. King (1988) mentioned that the last two centuries have

seen humankind being plagued with hatred and the theology of Marxism. When these two

plagues upon humanity gain strength, freedom and human development have always suffered

(King, 1986). This in turn makes hate and Marxism pitfalls of individual development. In using

the examples provided by King (1981, 1986, 1988, 1998) and Maslow (1971), a compilation of

thoughts help define hate as the complete absence of compassion with a focused negative

activity; it goes beyond indifference because of its purposeful intent. For Maslow (1971), as

previously stated, hate and evil were the manifestations of ignorance; while Kohlberg (1981)

viewed hate as the absence of “respect for persons and of justice” (p. 193). As stated by King (as

cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), hate is more than just a single act; it is a series of acts leading

to a compulsive reaction.

More times than not, the reaction to a perceived wrong becomes a hate-filled response to

exact a certain amount of revenge. When “hate begets hate” (King, as cited by Carson &

Holloran, 1998, p. 51) the individual has lost sight of their future and individual development is

on hold. King would go on and explain that the horrific quality that hate brings out is that right

becomes wrong and what was wrong is now right. Ultimately, to break the chain reaction of hate

requires a morally and ethically strong person that believes in the value of the greater good.

Maslow would label that individual as a self-actualizing person focused on Kohlberg’s morally

right conclusions. Consequently, both Kohlberg and Maslow emphasized, hate in its various

manifestations would either suppress or cause the regression of human development.

7

Systems of hate. As King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) preached and wrote

about, hate becomes the perfect environment for class warfare and systems of hate such as

Marxism since class warfare begets class warfare. This is not surprising since the individuals

propagating class warfare view humans as nothing more than animals. Animals do not have

moral or ethical codes worthy for those who classify themselves as intellectually superior;

consequently, societal expectations have always been a minor inconvenience to those who tread

upon the freedoms of others (King, 1981, 1988). Marx (Marx & Engels, 1959; Marx, 1970), who

often ridiculed traditional moral ethos, would approve of suppressing human development for the

greater good of the controlling central agency. Kohlberg (1981) would disagree, this Marxist

relativism or any philosophies based relativism, distort right and wrong as to prevent any

absolutes, this opens the door for an individual to excuse egregious acts. When moral relativism

serves as a foundation of a socio-economic system, the excusal of egregious acts becomes

systematic and its offspring will always be hate-based systems (King, as cited by Carson &

Holloran, 1998). Friedman (2002) would go as far as to say that equalized output and social

justice are examples of hate-based systems because they elevate one individual over another and

in some instances take from one to give to another. In these instances, individual and human

development suffers since the emphasis is on a specific group and not society as a whole.

Despite this, King (1981) decried that those individuals trapped in the cycle of hate fall

prey to the false hopes propagated by those who promote equalized outcomes and social justice.

King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) predicted the possibility that negative consequences

befall any who seek vengeful retribution, too often the only thing they end up promoting was

more hate. According to Friedman (2002), social vengeance ultimately opens the door to

Marxism and its variants that include Fascism, Socialism, and Communism, all of which

8

equalized the output of every individual. As King noted (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998, p.

29), life’s problems have never been solved when an individual cannot tell right from wrong as

happens in “ethical relativism” which serves as the foundation of Fascism, Socialism,

Communism, and Marxism. Anyone who is in search of individual development should reject it

since it only offers the illusion of political freedom and individual development, but not the

means to attain and maintain them (King, 1981 & 1986; Friedman, 2002). Even in the best of

situations, Marxism only allows an individual to develop in a manner that strengthens the central

planning system; why else would a central planning unit invest resources on individuals (Marx &

Engels, 1959). The Marxist-like systems of hate have always ran contrary to the basic essence of

individual development, which is human nature and humankind’s desire to improve their

economic and political status while having some control over their life’s direction (Friedman,

2002).

As systems of hate build, the moral development of the individual will always focus on

revenge, retribution, and reparation, which dooms the individual to Kohlberg’s (1981) lowest

stages. Consequently, the needs of the individual will only advance as far as the desire that

carries the individual concerning a specific cause based on revenge, retribution, or reparation

(Maslow, 1943). As previously stated, the spin cycle of hate ensnares individual and human

development, since hate begets hate, more equalized output begets more equalization, while

more social justice begets more perceived social inequity, which ultimately leads to class

warfare, and in turn leads to Marx’s never ending class struggle (Marx & Engels, 1959).

These impediments of freedom and individual development require constant diligence of

all individuals. King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) tried to dissuade individuals from

choosing the path of hate and ignorance, because he knew they were actually making a decision

9

that would prevent them from developing to their fullest potential. In turn, they would put

themselves in a poor position to succeed while being seduced by illusions of grandeur offered by

systems of hate. King would go further and state that the act of embracing hate would condemn

future generations to levels of greater inequity and hate. Maslow (1971) stressed that in order to

stop these impediments from being successful requires as many individuals as possible striving

to achieve the highest levels of human development. That means everyone must be inspired to

achieve the highest possible need (Maslow, 1943) or stage of moral development (Kohlberg,

1981), for all humanity is dependent upon it. The concepts and theories found in the next sections

will offset the impediments of development. In doing so, some of the impediments noted may

take on a different persona than previously noted.

The Engine of Individual Development

Oppression and subjugation has been the dominate condition for most of humanity, as a

few decide the future of the many. Before the most recent age of enlightenment, freedom was an

ancient relic of Greece or early Rome. According to Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980),

most of the people of that era understood political freedom and economic freedom were

synonymous and one could not exist without the other. However, that did not persuade some

from thinking otherwise. Bradford (1908; Bradford & Winslow, 1966) would criticize those who

thought they knew better or had some divine right to push aside freedom and assert brutal control

over the rest of humanity. As a result, human and individual development crept backwards into

the dark ages. Fortunately, the concept of freedom secured a foothold initially in Great Britain.

Freedom would eventually take root in the New World leading Charles Adams to coin an

expression describing this as the American Experiment. Eventually, the American Experiment

would become the subject of Weber’s work as he wrote the Protestant Ethic and developed the

10

concept of a calling. A calling was just one of many steps an individual takes to rediscover the

path of moral development and freedom.

As Weber (1958) compiled his research on the Protestants, he discovered a concept so

powerful that once discovered by the individual, they should pursue it with all their might as if it

unlocked the door to all of life’s problems. If pursued, to a certain degree, a calling would answer

so many of life’s questions because it is the engine of individual development. In Weber’s

opinion, the individual should maximize their time in a utilitarian pursuit of a calling for it could

provide mental, spiritual, and physical nourishment. Furthermore, Weber described a calling in

many ways: a life’s passion, performing a current vocation in the best possible manner, a

professional higher plane of awareness, or a selfless commitment to duty in which life’s rewards

could be either spiritual or monetary. Maslow (1971) equated the pursuit of a calling as being

values, which drive the individual to seek out the peak experiences that make up self-

actualization. In any case, Weber (1958) asserted that once an individual has found their calling

and chooses not to pursue it; it was sinful if the individual wasted the gifts provided to him or

her. King (1988) suggested that once discovered the individual should pursue a calling as if it

was his or her destiny; as if, the preordained individual had some divine right that elevated him

or her to pursue something historically significant. Even more so, King mentioned that no matter

whatever an individual’s calling might be, be it big or small, pursue it in a manner that makes

him or her the best at it no matter what it was. Whether it was being a street cleaner, janitor,

teacher, lawyer, businessperson, or whatever, just be the best at it.

According to King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), freedom is the most important

ingredient for an individual to decide on what their calling is because it is their inalienable right.

Freedom allows the individual the opportunity to pursue anything that society allows. According

11

to Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980), the United States government does not have rights;

consequently, selecting an individual’s vocation is not one of them. To do so would require the

individual to surrender something that this nation’s founders never intended. Friedman (2002)

would go on to say that many Marxists and elitists’ believe a strong central planning unit should

decide for each individual what their future holds for them in regards to many things and an

individual’s vocation is definitely one of them. How else can any central planning system run

efficiently if it does not have pre-selected or groomed individuals to fill less than desirable

vacancies?

In regards to an individual being afraid of pursuing a calling, Maslow (1971) asserted that

some individuals go through life seeking normalcy and averageness limiting their future

development to Kohlberg and Maslow’s lower levels. These individuals have a tendency to

despise others who over-achieve or appear successful. Some of these individuals have become

fearful of their own potential. Friedman (2002) would add that the rest of us who want to be

more and achieve higher levels of development, normalcy and averageness were unacceptable.

Failure or a search for the potentially unattainable is an acceptable risk.

Friedman (1980, p. 128) wrote when the founding fathers talked of equality and liberty,

they meant the equality of opportunity. The only consistent roadblock to the equality of

opportunity in searching for a calling has been government or some type of ruling class

(Friedman, 2002). King (1986) would have agreed while adding a warning about systems of hate.

When a government over-regulates economic freedom, it means less opportunity for all and less

opportunity for an individual to develop and find his or her calling (Friedman, 2002).

Furthermore, it impedes a large portion of our population in developing as they see fit in order to

achieve higher levels of development. King (1986) attested, to impede the burning desire for one

12

individual to find their true vocation was to do so to the detriment of society’s future. The best

advances in society came from those individuals who were inspired, by whatever reasons, to be

more as they pursued their calling. Weber (1958) agreed while suggesting that the inverse of that

statement was true as well, not to pursue a calling was unhealthy, for society as well as the

individual. An unhealthy society was one that restricts individual and human development.

I.R.’s Letter of Development

In speaking of individual development in a small group setting, William Bradford

received a unique and profoundly astute letter from George Morton’s friend who signed the letter

only as I.R. The letter must have been extremely influential since it survived the voyage, the lean

years of the early settlement, and the years following the success of the Plymouth Plantation. The

title of the letter in Bradford and Winslow’s (1966) journal was simple; it was a Letter of Advice

to the Planters of New-England. The title was an understated label for something that was highly

profound. Its suggestions offered sound advice to Bradford and his followers on how they should

conduct themselves, how they should interact amongst each other, and how they should act as

leaders, to name a few. In short, it was a letter of advice on individual and human development.

The letter incorporated five distinct points that focused on the topics of individual and leadership

development.

Daily self-reflection. The first point the letter made suggested that the individuals of

Plymouth were to reflect daily upon their actions and repent when necessary (Bradford &

Winslow, 1966, p. B2). The repentance I.R. spoke of was referencing God; however, if an

individual looks past the religious context and just at the intent of the suggestion, the individual

should look upon this as an inward reflection upon their actions throughout the day. Despite the

erosion of social expectations of today (Friedman, 2002), according to Maslow (1971),

13

individuals should have a general understanding on how they would want to be treated by other

individuals in society. If any individual would reflect upon their actions throughout the day in the

context of how they would want to be treated, they would find good deeds and some that have an

opportunity for improvement. King (1986), Kohlberg (1943), and Maslow (1971) all made

references to the Golden Rule, the Good Samaritan, or the Ethic of Reciprocity, which draws

parallels to this point. I.R. must have known that the planters and adventurers would face trying

times that would push them to the limits of their group’s social expectations and they may have

days were they did not live up to those expectations.

King (1981) supported this assumption as he wrote and spoke about the Good Samaritan.

However, he knew that no one could live up to the standard set forth in his belief of the Good

Samaritan all of the time. King just wanted individuals to go from “passive commitment to active

participation” in being a Good Samaritan (p. 18). Active participation required the attempt and

the commitment to do what was right. King (1986) went further to suggest that active

participation in self-reflection required the attempt to improve oneself. Conversely, King defined

negative or passive commitment as “tokenism” (p. 51); moreover, it never does anything to

encourage positive active participation. An individual’s inward reflection would allow them to

see the opportunities for improvement in earning and giving respect. Furthermore, King (1986)

suggested that a daily reflection upon one’s deeds would reveal the true potential in the human

spirit and thereby unlocking the potential for continual individual and human development. In the

extreme situations facing the planters and adventures, individual and societal improvement was

necessary for survival. Kohlberg (1981) viewed this as a method that takes the individual from

self-interest orientation to interpersonal concordance orientation. For Maslow (1943), this point

14

takes the individual from the loving and belonging stage to the esteem stage because it not only

aided in developing friendships, it promoted respect of and by others.

Patience & forgiveness. The second point made in the letter was patience and

forgiveness. Daily self-reflection, practicing patience, and bestowing forgiveness were similar

since they required introspection. However, patience and forgiveness comes into play if the

individual offends or continually irritates another. Patience and forgiveness required the

individual to be diligent in practicing their faith while promoting unity within the group when

those situations occurred (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). In a small group, facing potentially

deadly situations that the planters and adventures of Plymouth found themselves in almost daily,

not giving or taking offense was critical in dealing with stressful situations. Maslow (1971)

warned, if they did, the group cooperation would have dissolved into bitter infighting, individual

development regresses where the individual focuses on the most basic needs and motivation. The

members of the group become more concerned with retribution or reparation while focusing on

lower level needs.

King (1981) had an expression for this, “the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy would leave

everyone blind” (p. 42). King could have coached the people of Plymouth by reminding them

they could not “overcome evil with evil” (p. 42) they had to “overcome evil with good” (p. 42).

When the people of Plymouth first set foot in the New World, a small Indian scout party fired

arrows at them (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). If the adventurers had attacked aggressively in the

next encounters, they would have lost a valuable Indian ally that provided aid and guidance.

Another example occurred when some of the Indian tribes noticed the foreigners rummaging

through their food stores and burial grounds. Had the Indians acted negatively, they would have

lost a trading partner and a valuable ally that provided protection from the other hostile tribes.

15

For a modern day example of eye for an eye tactics, a person would not need to look further than

politics and gang activity that ravage a majority of cities (Friedman & Friedman, 1980).

Individuals involved in both politics and gang activity fail to heed King’s (1981) warning and

look to establish territorial control through any means possible as the ends justify the means. In

the end, the losers will always be the ones caught in the middle while the titles of aggressor and

victim become interchangeable. Kohlberg (1981) stressed that no individual can develop in a

positive manner while trying to survive in that type of environment. Guiding the people of

Plymouth from this dismal potential reality was I.R.’s intention (Bradford & Winslow, 1966).

This point was more of a preventive measure in order to keep the individual focused on

improvement and the positive. If the individual were making any improvement in regards to self-

reflection, patience and forgiveness would deter the individual from becoming petty and

regressing downward in Kohlberg and Maslow’s hierarchies.

Avoid a dependence on charity. The previous sections, self-reflection and patience,

helped the individual to avoid a hasty and hateful response that would destroy group unity. The

letter’s third point focuses on dependence and the wasted efforts of those seeking retribution or

reparations (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2). This point goes on to explain that any persons

seeking charity for petty or fabricated transgressions were “gross and hypocrites” (p. B3). As

important, those who take and give offense easily have proven to be unreliable and influence the

development of others negatively. Finally, this section was specific in its intent; the goal was to

make everyone in a society productive, especially when the group’s survival is in question.

Maslow (1971) concurred, not only have the questionable victims wasted their resources in

complaining and halting their development, they have wasted the resources and the potential

development of others trying to resolve their need. Another negative according to Maslow was

16

that continual complaining breaks down group unity; it even drains the energy of those not

involved in the transgression, thus limiting their development.

King (1981) was weary of those expecting charitable handouts of others; it reduced their

dignity and individualism to the point where darkness surrounds them. As a society declines, its

combined dire need will increase, resources will become limited making I.R. suggestions more

poignant as those trapped in the darkness as previously described by King will waste time and

resources following false hopes peddled by charlatans. Humanity cannot develop if it wastes time

with its hands out instead of having its hands being productive and useful. Only the light of

knowledge, love, and firm belief in the individual can get them past their apathy, fears,

ignorance, hate, or failures. In doing so, King suggested that leaders develop a stern approach in

teaching others to handle the type of adversity previously described. Maslow and Kohlberg’s

beliefs paralleled King’s approach. If individuals constantly complain about their physiological

needs (Maslow, 1943) while being stuck in a self-interested orientation (Kohlberg, 1981), they

will never develop. The individual stuck in this rut has to make an all out effort to develop to

their fullest potential (Maslow, 1971), for their own sake as well as the group’s.

Avoid apathy and complacency. This section highlights the deadly potential of apathy

and complacency, which was the fourth point in the letter. Even though I.R. was more concerned

with planters and adventurers’ becoming lethargic after any initial gain before the Plymouth

settlement was actually self-sustaining (Bradford & Winslow, 1966), the warning transcended

time as Friedman, King, Kohlberg, and Maslow issued their own warnings. I.R. labeled apathy

and complacency as a “deadly plague” (p. B4) and it should be avoided at all cost for the general

welfare of the individual and the group.

17

However, the deadly plague applies to well-established individuals and societies, since

apathy suggests stagnated or regressed human development. The source that feeds apathy and

complacency according to Kohlberg (1981) was ignorance. Furthermore, ignorance, apathy, and

complacency formed a cycle of self-destruction. Maslow (1971) suggested to break the cycle

required the light of knowledge, which was the ultimate driving force that anyone searching for

positive individual and human development can take from this point.

Unfortunately, King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) and Friedman (2002)

complained that most public schools fail to teach economic freedom survival techniques to get

individuals to set goals that included higher levels of development. By failing to address the

needs of the students in order to survive in a free society, Maslow (1943) pointed out that not

having the information and thereby economic means to secure physiological and safety related

needs, the individual would have a difficult time to consistently achieve love, esteem, and even

self-actualization needs. By ignoring these techniques, public school systems have denied

historical knowledge, a concept of self-reliance, competitive spirit, and the understanding that

economic freedom is a part of political freedom to many Americans (King, 1986 & 1998).

Friedman (2002) warned that a failure to educate individuals in a society allows them to become

complacent and apathetic with the moral relativist issues of forced diversity, social justice, and

equalized outcome. So much so, that the individuals no longer believe in themselves, have will

power, or have the mental tools to succeed (Friedman).

Kohlberg (1981) added that the combination of degrading moral boundaries and the

ignorance fostered by a failed education system condemns the majority of individuals to

Kohlberg’s obedience and punishment orientation. Without knowledge and the understanding of

right and wrong, the individual fails to understand the dire-nature of their situation, the

18

incremental changes that restrict individual development goes unnoticed. Like the frog

swimming in the proverbial pot of hot water, it never realizes the slow but steady increase in

temperature. Like the frog, the individual never realizes the deadly nature of the situation until it

is too late. This was why complacency and apathy were not only a deadly plague to the survival

of the people of Plymouth Plantation, but they have always been a plague to individual

development. Maslow (1971) emphasized that complacency and apathy allowed the majority to

believe in delusional concepts of normalcy and averageness; as a result, they find it morally

justifiable to hinder the individual achievement of the over achievers. Lastly, complacency and

apathy feed the Jonah Complex in which they become afraid of their own potential;

consequently, they stop developing and seek to hinder the development of others.

Sound leadership and its selection. The final point in I.R.’s letter referred to leadership

in the context of human development (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). It has phrases and notions

such as, letting “wisdom and godliness” (p. B5) aid in the selection of leaders that promote the

common good. In order to promote the common good, leaders should know the moral application

of duty, honor, and obedience in the administration of all laws and ordinances. Finally, leaders

should promote the common good even if it means going against the “foolish multitude” (p. B5)

enamored with the trivialities of life that lead to complacency and apathy.

There were two critical items concerning this point. The first critical item was the masses

needing to select a leader who had unquestionable integrity and honor with a proven track of

obeying the agreed upon laws and social expectations (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). In doing so,

selected leaders should promote the common good of all people and the only way to accomplish

that feat was through the promotion of economic and political freedom (Friedman, 2002). As

soon as a leader promoted one class, race, gender, or any other societal division, they have failed

19

to honor the general common good of all individuals. This travesty of leadership ends up

selectively hindering the human development of targeted individuals via economic and political

regulations; furthermore, the benefactors become developmentally hindered as systems of

dependency force individuals to become complacent and apathetic. Punitive regulation punishes

instead of inspiring individuals to reach their potential.

The second critical item stems from the personality traits of the leader. The leader must

prove that he or she is more than capable in administering the laws and ordinances on all people,

including themselves. As soon as a leader creates a set of laws or social expectations that are no

longer in line with a society’s, the leader is no longer of the people for the people (Bradford &

Winslow, 1966). Friedman (2002) stated that they have separated themselves as a class through

the misuse of the power of the people. This mimics the irony of socialism as it supposedly strives

to achieve a classless society; yet, as soon as the revolutionary party creates a strong central

planning unit it has already established a ruling class. According to Friedman, this meant that

human development would begin to slow to a crawl, stagnate, and then regress under totalitarian

rule. As King (1986) cautioned, we have reached a critical point in maintaining and reclaiming

lost freedom. This encouraged King to make a call to arms for all individuals that believed they

could be leaders that were prudent, judicious, humane, and have a highly developed

understanding of integrity. We do not need leaders caught up in the rapture of power while

promoting the deadly sins of pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth. The emphasis

here, holistic human development can only be achieved in a society that promotes both economic

and political freedom and our society has been in desperate need of leaders who understood that

simple premise.

20

In total, what this point referred to in Kohlberg’s theory of development (1981), an

individual or leader can generate ideas on several different levels of development. An individual

or leader should aspire to make decisions or generate ideas consistently at the highest levels of

development. In addition, leaders who can operate at the highest levels of Maslow’s (1943) needs

can provide the grounded guidance that a society made up of individuals striving for individual

development requires. Society should avoid elevating individuals who cannot perform

consistently at these higher levels (Friedman, 2002). This need becomes more evident as a

society calls upon a selected leader to stop the public or any portion of it from self-destruction

(King, 1986).

I.R. wrote this letter of advice to a group of planters and adventurers who were going to

set sail for the New World with an understanding that they would have to endure and overcome

numerous obstacles (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). Even though their situation required them to

improvise, adapt, and overcome numerous impediments, they never lost sight of the

fundamentals and insights of individual development concepts captured in this letter of advice

(Bradford & Winslow). Similar to planters and adventures of Plymouth, Kohlberg (1981) and

Maslow (1971) declared, when a group of individuals aspiring to develop on an individual basis

prospers, the group prospers and the potential of this group would be unlimited.

As planters and adventurers of Plymouth prospered, they rediscovered some basic

principles of human development. According to King, the first was freedom; the next was a

common understanding of the moral foundation (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998, p. 10).

The final point of I.R.’s letter highlighted the importance of principled leadership. I.R. was

explicit in that a leader has to understand that he or she is a servant of the people and not the

other way around. King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) confirmed I.R.’s assertion by

21

writing, those that lead must serve those that follow. As evidence of the eventual success at

Plymouth, when the Pilgrims unleashed their potential as I.R. suggested, only then did they

achieve sustainable success and individual development.

King’s Belief in Agape as a Key to Development

The process in which an individual overcomes personal and systematic hate was a general

theme found in many of King’s speeches, sermons, and books. His belief was in love; in

addition, love was the only way to stop hate and the socio-economic systems that perpetuate hate

(King, 1981, p. 120). King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) even noted love as being a cure

for the most self-absorbed individual or country because it forces the individual to realize that the

world does not exist to fulfill their needs alone. According to King (1981), love in its various

forms has been the foundation of a group of individuals wanting to get along so they can prosper

and proliferate together. From love, humanity develops moral expectations so individuals can

interact without slaughtering one another. Only then do individuals have a chance to develop,

since inspired individuals working together realize most of Maslow’s (1943) basic needs more

efficiently. These basic needs include food, safety, housing, and a method of cooperation. This in

turn satisfies the requirements of Kohlberg’s (1981) first two levels of moral development while

providing fertile ground for individuals to develop the third level of moral development, which

includes “social contract” and “universal ethical principle” orientations (pp. 19-20).

When King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) spoke of love, he did not mean it to

indicate the love found in an affectionate relationship or the lust of a one-night stand. He meant it

in a neighborly way, as in one fellow human being or entity helping another, in the same manner

as the ancient Greeks would define agape. Furthermore, agape becomes integral part of his three

dimensions of a complete life, this interaction will be explained in the following paragraphs.

22

Together, agape and the three dimensions of a complete life provide excellent examples of social

expectations that can inspire individual development and beat back the hate that can envelop the

individual causing him or her to regress.

Agape was one of a few different definitions that the Greeks used to define love (King, as

cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998). Agape was a “disinterested love” (King, 1986, p. 19) and the

level of interaction between individuals was somewhere between friendship and the general

concern for an unknown person. For Maslow (1971) and King (1986), a heightened sense of

humanity or agape was a part of the invisible hand that bound people together if only for the

reason that they were in need. It is to care for someone when there is no benefit to the person

giving aid; it does not look at an individual in need and then discriminate between skin color,

their wealth, and social status. King described agape as a neighborly love that expects any

individual to treat complete strangers with the same respect and dignity as they would any

neighbor that they liked. As in bible story about the Good Samaritan, this enhanced King’s

concept of agape. For Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971), agape was an example of the Golden

Rule or the Ethic of Reciprocity.

For agape to function properly, an individual needs to develop inner love for them self,

King (1981) expected the individual not to become resentful and angry because of the difficulties

of life. This will end up causing the individual to wrap him or herself up in a cloak of hate

sealing the individual off from their inner love or the rest of the world. Thus, they begin to

digress down the hierarchical development processes of Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971).

This developmental retreat requires family, friends, and neighbors to promote an attitude that

never quits. To quit means the individual has now become dependent and has lost the inner love

for them self that allows them to believe that they are unique and wonderful.

23

In our society, there were those who have been coaxing individuals to quit before they

even try (King, 1981). Ultimately, they become bitter and view economic freedom as evil. An

individual must resist the temptation to become angry or hate when life becomes difficult, they

must approach life with resiliency, dignity, discipline, and love (King, 1986). The absolute worst

thing an individual can do is fall prey in hating someone, because the individual surrenders their

power and control to the object of their hate. King’s last statement included the systems of hate

such as Marxism and its variants. Consistent with the theories of Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow

(1971), agape provides the energy for further individual development while serving as the

firewall to prevent hate and developmental regression.

King’s Development Process – the three dimensions of a complete life

To expand upon the concept of agape, King (1988) created an individual development

process that he explained as the three dimensions of a complete life. The three dimensions

incorporate the concept of agape and provide a further enhancement of societal expectations.

According to King, the three dimensions that each individual should aspire to attain include the

length, breadth, and height of an individual. The basis for the three dimensions comes from the

bible and specifically the scriptures of John. King deduced that according to John a full and

wonderful life needed to be “complete on all sides” (p. 40). If an individual strives to attain a

complete life, there will be no questions about his or her character, for it will be on display every

day. A complete life in many regards equates to Kohlberg’s (1981) stage six, “universal ethical

principle orientation” (p. 19), and Maslow’s (1943) “self-actualization need” (p. 382). If

individuals in a society have a similar set of expectations, then the potential for human

development becomes infinite, only limited by the imagination of the individuals.

24

Length dimension. The first dimension of a complete life was what King labeled as the

“length of life” (1988, p. 40). King considered this the selfish dimension of human development

where the sole focus of the individual was on their own life in order to satisfy their lower level

needs as defined by Maslow (1943). However, the length was a necessary stepping-stone in

human development. Maslow’s thoughts ran congruent with this concept since a majority of

these needs he classified as “physiological” (p. 372) or as “safety needs” (p. 376). Without it, the

individual could not develop self-confidence, an appreciation for the natural gifts provided them,

or simply to be able to live comfortably in one’s own skin.

All previously noted needs serve as the foundation for the “love” (Maslow, 1943, p. 380)

and “esteem needs” (p. 381). Too often, individuals blessed with unimaginable ability cannot see

the wonderful uniqueness of their life, misguided by self-doubt, they second-guess themselves

and everyone else; in turn, allow ignorance to creep into their souls and contaminate their daily

activities (Maslow, 1971). When they can find the ill will in everything, they will have a difficult

time developing past the most basic of needs. This becomes the ultimate negative reality of an

individual; they eventually become land locked in hate never to embrace the ever-changing world

around them, their desire is to control it and morph it to their worldview (King, 1981).

There are those with great self-confidence and abilities, yet they never develop beyond

the length dimension, so enamored with materialistic potential of their economic freedom, they

choose to bring development to a halt (King, as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998). The deadly

plagues of apathy and complacency set in as I.R. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966) had warned about.

In the end, the length is a necessary step in human development; it offers the potential of self-

actualization by satisfying some of the most basic needs while fostering a love of the inner self.

Like any gift, it is what the individual does with it next that matters the most.

25

Breadth dimension. The next dimension was the “breath of life” (King, 1988, p. 40). It

takes the individual from their self-centered reality and expands it to include the concept of agape

and the noticeable worry for others. An individual being extremely successful at the length

dimension does not make them great it only accentuates their shallowness. To expand the process

of individual and human development, the individual must understand the “the depths of human

need” (pp. 44-45). This dimension builds on the premise that every sentient being was

interconnected and that if something happens to one it has happened to us all. As mentioned in

the section on agape, a well-developed breadth has the potential to empower the individual to be

more and do more to promote positive social change. In offering unconditional aid to fellow

individuals, the breadth dimension offers some of the greatest rewards available in regards to

human development and interaction.

This dimension captures Maslow’s (1943) human motivational needs of love and esteem.

In addition, this dimension parallels Kohlberg’s developmental path that takes the individual

from “interpersonal accord and conformity” (p. 18), through “authority and social-order” (p. 19)

to “social contract orientation” (p. 19). The breadth dimension expands the moral development

process of the individual.

However, the drawback to this dimension comes into play when individuals perform

deeds of sacrifice in order to promote themselves in the community. In doing so, the individual

does not develop past the length dimension, for the act of agape was done to promote them self

or as a tax write off, not to give unconditional aid. This type of aid described was what King

(1986) labeled as tokenism. This is a prop of a false leader or individual and was what I.R.

warned about in his letter to Bradford (1966). Tokenism has been on display for sometime in

American politics, when self-interest and promotion lead to dishonesty, corruption, and cronyism

26

the result has been societal decay (King, 1986). Tokenism denotes the failure of individual in

progressing out of the length dimension. When token leaders get away with token acts, individual

and human development suffers.

Fortunately, King’s (1986) belief in agape and selfless acts that make up the breadth

dimension propagate in our society every day, but good deeds usually do not make the headlines

in the evening news as an example for others. Even when people do accomplish good deeds that

make the news, a doubt exists that the deed was one as an act of self-promotion as King noted in

his sermon about the “drum major instinct” (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998, p. 166). For

the individual, to understand the difference between doing a good deed for the sake of doing it or

doing a good deed as an act of self-promotion falls under Kohlberg’s (1981) idea of a “principled

conscience” (p.20). King addressed this level of self-understanding and consciousness in the

height dimension.

Height dimension. The final dimension of a complete life was called the height and “the

height of life is the upward reach for God” (King, 1988, p. 40). King (1988) believed that an

individual’s life was meaningless without spiritual redemption. He would also describe the

height of life as the dedication to pursue something greater than humanity (King, 1986). For the

spiritual person this meant that an individual should go search out the path to spiritual salvation

(King, 1988). At times, this may take the individual down the path less travelled. For the essence

of spirituality, or the absence there of, is found in everything that the individuals sees, touches,

hears, or has faith in. It is faith that takes the individual beyond our current realm of

comprehension to a higher plane of existence (King, 1986). King (1988) saw faith as the true

opportunity in developing a height dimension.

27

In a non-spiritual sense, the individual develops the inward and outward balance in their

life to attain a higher plane of existence. According to Maslow (1971), as the length and breadth

develops outward persona, the height dimension actually refers to the inner growth necessary to

counter balance the other two dimensions. Consequently, maintaining this inner balance requires

greater effort in order for the individual to continue to develop. In doing so, the non-spiritual

person develops a level of spirituality that is unique unto them self. They begin to process life

with selfless creativity and spontaneity not allowing pettiness to creep in to their thoughts

(Maslow, 1943). They function at a higher level of morality that takes them past the Ten

Commandments and any human-made legal realm to a realm where he or she understands that

human life in all of its forms is sacred (Kohlberg, 1981). The individual is predominantly

operating in the “self-actualization realm of needs” (Maslow, 1943, p. 381) while achieving the

“orientation of the universal ethical principle” (Kohlberg, 1981, p. 20). The non-religious person

is the counter balance to a society that is religious in nature.

Whether a person was religious or an atheist, the ultimate aim for the individual at higher

levels of development was to avoid the desire to fix everything in everyone’s lives. King (1988)

and Friedman (2002) would equate an individual trying to fix everything in another individual’s

life as a central controlling agency (King, 1988). This forces the individual to surrender the

capability to remain free and ultimately dooms the individual to the lower stages of development

and the secularist religions of Marxism and its variants. As with materialism, the secular

religions epitomize the absence of love and agape thereby stopping the development process.

Moreover, Weber (1958) warned about the fanatical tendencies that occur when there is an over

dependence on a central religion as well. When surrendering freedom and power to any central

controlling entity, the individual should use extreme caution (Friedman, 2002).

28

That is why it is essential to "keep love at the center of our lives” (King, 1986, p. 13),

love serves as a defensive barrier against hate. Furthermore, the only way to change humanity is

to serve as an example in seeking positive individual development on a continual basis.

According to King, an individual who truly loves and practices the breadth and height

dimensions, they help by not taking away, but by inspiring others to find that inner glow that

resides within them so they can develop as they see fit. An individual should use caution when

providing materialistic needs to an individual because it robs the individual of their inner self-

love, dignity, and makes them dependent. If the individual works to develop the length, breadth,

and height effectively, the individual will maintain equal proportions of the three dimensions or

the inner and outward balance. A highly developed individual never imposes their beliefs upon

another. In doing so, they have lost the height they worked so hard to attain. They should only

encourage another individual as an aspiring mentor, with the hope that the mentor in training

discovers their own path to enlightenment. The main difference between the breadth and height,

in the breadth the individual serves as an example to relatives, neighbors, and individual

strangers. In the height dimension, the individual serves as an example to a whole society.

Friedman’s Theories that Promote Individual Development

Everything previously mentioned, the concept of a calling, I.R.’s letter to Bradford,

agape, and the three dimensions of a complete life have alluded to two of Friedman’s

fundamental necessities of individual development and building of a better society for future

generations. It was Friedman’s (2002) belief that individual responsibility and a free market

approach have historically provided the best results while providing equal opportunity for

everyone. They are the topics of discussion in this and the next section.

29

Individual responsibility. In explaining the positive of individual responsibility, it

requires the individual to understand the negative first. The worst possible outcome for

individual development occurs when an intrusive entity coerces a responsible person “into

irresponsibility by his responsible love for his family” (King, 1986, p. 191). The act of coercion,

according to King, meant the individual has less economic or political freedom. For Friedman

(2002), this intrusive entity in most cases is government or the legal system, while the method of

coercion is either legislation from a congressional body or a ruling from the bench. According to

Maslow (1971), political or economic coercion forces individuals at higher stages of

development to focus on their most basic of needs while being oriented to the obedience and

punishment stage. When a government endorses and promotes irresponsibility, the individual

does not develop. They regress and become dependent (Freidman, 2002). When a government

forces productive hands into counterproductive activities it does so at the detriment of society,

this becomes the ultimate social injustice (King, 1986). Consequently, people practicing

individual responsibility while participating in a free market environment become the only means

to throw off the shackles of systematic dependency.

A morally developed person understands that individual responsibility was the same thing

as self-leadership. Self-leadership falls within the realm of Kohlberg’s (1981) fifth stage which

was the “social contract orientation” (p. 19) since the individual understands their role and social

expectations within the community and acts accordingly to maintain it. Maslow (1971) noted, as

self-leaders seek to attain their esteem needs, they display self-confidence and offer inspiration to

others. Kohlberg (1981) promoted the idea that a self-leader does not flinch when addressing

ethical problems that can occur on a daily basis. In doing so, it forces the aspiring self-leader, in

the context of moral development, to focus on what they should do to best exercise their freedom

30

to improve their own and the lives of others (Friedman, 2002). In essence, if the individual wants

to practice individual responsibility and self-leadership then the individual needs to embark on a

course that takes him or her to find a calling as they exercise their economic and political

freedom (Weber, 1958).

Self-leadership and individual responsibility is all about an individual having the political

and economic freedom to plot a course of personal development while ensuring that he or she is

not encroaching upon the freedom of others (Friedman & Friedman, 1980). In other words, an

individual’s level of development is dependent on the amount of economic and political freedom

he or she enjoys while being responsible in not restricting those same freedoms for others. These

“freedom[s are] a tenable objective only for responsible individuals” (Friedman, 2002, p. 33).

Freedom requires action and the ownership of that action.

If self-leadership were about plotting a course of personal development, which has a great

potential for human development, then as I.R. (Bradford, 1908) wrote in the letter of advice that

taking ownership of one’s actions was the historical reflection of opportunities missed and

problems understood in order to avoid future reoccurrences. All of this allows to the individual to

glean information from the past to improve the future. I.R.’s belief corresponded with the beliefs

of all of the authors found in the breadth. For example, King (1986) added that the ownership of

action meant an individual has earned the results of those actions for better or for worse.

Friedman (2002) stated that personal and human development has always occurred when

individuals make their own decisions and assume responsibility of the consequences. While

Maslow (1971) declared that good and bad repercussions of action become the building blocks of

development. Finally, this ownership of action was in-line with the theories of human

development of both Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971).

31

Historically, individual responsibility only occurs when political and economic freedom

has prevailed (Friedman, 2002). Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980) warned that the

precursor to socialism comes when a person is led to believe that he or she never does anything

wrong. In so doing, blinding them to their own need to improve and setting him or her up for hate

and class warfare (Friedman, 2002). To learn from failure can be heart wrenching at times.

However, failure in a totalitarian state is brutal (Friedman). In understanding the importance of

freedom and the consequence of personal action, King (1986) suggested that the individual

should risk everything in order to maintain and promote it. This included the ultimate example in

self-leadership, the sacrificing of one’s own life to maintain the freedom of others. King’s life

serves as an example because it incorporates everything that is necessary for an individual

striving for self-leadership, positive social change, and the ability to choose while suffering the

consequences of those actions in order to serve as an inspiration for others.

According to King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), when he spoke about the drum

major instinct, he mentioned that it is natural for the individual to seek a position of power,

respect, and money. A healthy society should encourage all of its citizens to maximize all of their

potential. However, a responsible person understands that an individual has to earn power,

respect, and money. If those items were undeserved, they will do irreparable harm to the

development of the individual. Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980) added, to give to those

that do not deserve destroys responsibility and endangers freedom. In order to earn power,

respect, and money, it requires the individual to achieve positive societal results and have

genuine respect for the system and their fellow citizens (Friedman, 2002). Kohlberg (1981) and

Maslow (1971) believed that a complete understanding of the concept of individual

responsibility, which includes the earning of rewards, was a prerequisite to the highest stages of

32

development. In summation, an individual that understands all action, both positive & negative,

requires ownership. This ownership allows the individual to grow by gaining a better

understanding of where they have been and where they need to go.

Economic freedom. It was a firm belief of Friedman (2002) that if a society was going to

prosper and develop, it needed morally responsible individuals working and developing in a free

environment unhindered by coercion. The only socio-economic system that provided both

economic and political freedom in a manner that allowed the individual to maximize their talents

and develop to their fullest potential has been a free market system (Friedman & Friedman,

1980). Furthermore, in a free market system the individual has Maslow’s (1943) lower level need

incentives built in to allow the individual to maximize their own unlimited potential as they see

fit (Friedman, 2002). This allowed the individual to traverse the first two needs quickly.

Friedman believed that the efficiency in productivity benefited everyone for the abundance

allowed the majority the opportunity to focus beyond the basic needs and strive to accomplish

greater levels of development. Since the previous was true, then it has always been through

limited government that an individual can attain the most possible freedom to accomplish higher

levels of development.

For those that might use Weber’s (1958) concern about the free market as an argument

against it, they need reminded that his concern was about individuals trying to develop and

prosper in an immoral world without ethics and virtues. Friedman (2002) warned that if a free

market, as with any freedom, exists without laws, ethics, morality, and virtue, those things that

make up social expectations, then chaos would reign and little to no individual development

would occur. However, if a socio-economic system develops with a strong central planning unit,

then the bureaucratic burden of laws, taxes, and regulations will have the same effect as chaos,

33

little to no individual development (Friedman). As a result, to counter Weber’s concern from

Friedman’s perspective was a free and morally developed individual exercising his or her

economic freedom.

The unfortunate reality for the individual who hands over their personal responsibility to

a central planning concept is that a central planning unit cannot be all things to everyone;

consequently, if an individual surrenders their power of personal responsibility then the

individual will be forced to accept the limited or pre-ordained responses that emanate downward

to the individual (Friedman, 2002). This idea led Friedman to issue a strong warning when he

wrote about a society putting social justice, political correctness, and equalized outputs ahead of

freedom, the citizens will no longer be free while being mired in class warfare. To accentuate this

point even further, King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) used Lord Acton’s dictum as

warning for humanity, King preached about the consequences of an unscrupulous leader taking

control of an intrusive central planning system, individual development will cease to be an option

for the masses. Maslow (1971) surmised that if total anarchy or total control dominated the

individual’s existence, then it forced the individual to be more concerned about surviving and

anxious about fulfilling lower level needs; consequently, individual development suffers.

Despite the lessons of history as laid out by Friedman (2002), many individuals question

the free market’s potential because of those who peddle ignorance and hate have lead them

astray. To compound the disinformation, Weber (1958) warned that the multitude of societal

conveniences that comes with successful human and societal development allow apathy and

complacency to set in. As a result, Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980) believed that

disinformation, apathy, and complacency allow individuals to believe that because they exist,

they are entitled to a certain amount of equality of outcome. In other words, some individuals

34

believe it is their right to have their lower level needs provided for by the state and it is a social

injustice for them to earn what so many already have (Friedman, 2002). As noted previously,

providing unearned resources to individuals using the equality of outcome concept does nothing

but destroy individual development potential. However, developed societies continue to ignore

Friedman’s (2002) warning at their own risk.

Since class warfare begets class warfare, Friedman (2002) expressed concern about

welfare programs that were originally created from compassion, have become either punitive in

nature to productive members or created a system of dependency that robs a potentially

productive individual of incentive and creativity to develop. Those trapped in the welfare system

have been required to sell their dignity and potential to develop little by little for a pittance at a

time (King, 1986). As stated by Friedman (2002), any centralized socio-economic system does

not help those who have little; it only punishes people who want to do more with their life while

posing as aid to those with little or nothing. Friedman continued by suggesting welfare or

government aid needs to have societal agreement; furthermore, the delivery of any aid has to be

done in a manner that helps an individual out of a temporary predicament not as a long-term

subsidy without any specific goals that leads to self-sufficiency. Maslow (1971) and King (1986)

echoed this concern as well.

According to Friedman (2002), the government’s involvement in day-to-day activities of

individuals has had a negative effect on the free-market. It was alarming to Friedman that free

people have knowingly allowed the government to infringe upon their economic freedom and

their potential to develop. In addition, re-distribution of wealth means minority groups end up

fighting amongst each other for dwindling resources, which only generates more envy, class

warfare, and an unproductive dysfunctional society that guides its citizen down the road to

35

becoming indentured servants (Friedman & Friedman, 1980). King (1986) and Maslow’s (1971)

thoughts had a similar outcome, as hate begets hate, class warfare begets class warfare; the

biggest loser will be individual freedom and development. In order for free markets and

economic freedom to occur, government must be limited. In turn, an increase in economic

freedom with limited government promotes true political freedom necessary for the individual to

develop as they see fit (Friedman, 2002).

Another point made by Friedman (2002) concerned the government having two primary

roles, protect individual freedom from enemies abroad and to protect freedom by ensuring fair

play amongst all of its citizens. King (1981) elaborated by noting that if government worked to

ensure fair play, government works in a positive manner to stop anarchy and domination from

occurring in a free market. To make this work properly, Friedman (2002) advocated that a

functioning republic required an educated citizenry operating with well-understood social and

moral expectations. Weber (1958) added clarification in noting a free society does not want laws

and regulations to cover every possible human interaction hence the need for moral development.

According to King (1981), the alternative to well-understood social and moral expectations was

the “social evils” (p. 134) of Marxism, where social evils equates to Maslow’s (1971) concept of

ignorance. As a result, ignorance causes humanity to make conscious decisions that leads them

down a path to “psychological fatalism” (King, p. 134). King would go on to say that fatalism

was the ultimate goal of the weak willed and weak minded that believe in the variants of

Marxism. Friedman (2002) offered one last warning as it related to the government’s role, an

over-reaching government that failed to maintain fair play was no better than the central planning

entities behind socialist and communist states. As a result, social evils, ignorance, an over

reaching government, Marxism, and fatalism causes individuals to de-evolve (King, 1981). To

36

counter the dire future of fatalism, a society that endorses individual responsibility and economic

freedom wrapped in positive social expectations provides the best chance for true individual

development.

Conclusion

In closing the breadth portion of this paper, the concepts presented have provided a

historically successful path to true individual development where the balance of choice resides

with the individual. The first and most important point, until the nineteenth century, freedom has

always included both political and economic freedom (Friedman, 2002). This freedom directly

relates to the individual being able to maximize their development as they so chose. Based on

various morals, values, and ethics, societal expectations of a free society, this combination

provides the moral foundation to allow a group of individuals to cooperate and work together in

the most efficient manner to satisfy their most basic needs (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). Societal

expectations as expressed in this paper included a person having the freedom to search for a

calling (Weber, 1958). A calling was determined to be the engine of individual development. In

reference to I.R.’s letter of advice, those five simple points force the individual to look inward to

their own path of salvation and development (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). The basis of all

individual development starts with a well-defined understanding of one’s self (Bradford &

Winslow). Weber’s concept of a calling and I.R.’s five points were comparable to Maslow’s

(1943) lower needs and Kohlberg’s (1981) first three stages of development.

King’s (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) concept of agape, based on neighborly

love, was comparable to the conformity, loving, and belonging stage of both Kohlberg (1981)

and Maslow (1943). King (1988) also presented a potential development process that

incorporates agape and takes the individual from the lowest levels of development to the highest.

37

King (1988) described this individual development process as the three dimensions of a complete

life and it was similar in nature to both Kohlberg’s and Maslow’s human development processes.

Throughout the process of individual development, there were two critical ingredients

necessary to allow the individual to develop as they saw fit. As defined by Friedman (2002), the

concepts of individual responsibility and a free market allow the individual to maximize their

potential to reach the highest development stages. When individual responsibility and the free

market concepts include Kohlberg’s (1981) theories on moral development, social expectations

develop and the cycle described has proven to be historically successful as defined by Friedman

(2002). Even though the concept of a free market is societal, it was necessary to include it since

the highest levels of development require the individual to work within a societal construct

(Kohlberg, 1981).

Marxism was another societal concept included, because it and its variants were the

alternative to a free market. As discussed, if Marxist concepts were implemented, bureaucratic

mandates would force the individual into the obedience and punishment orientation (Kohlberg,

1981). As resources become less available to the masses, the individual will regress to Maslow’s

(1943) lower needs as they strive to survive. In the depth portion of this KAM, the evaluation of

current literature will be using moral self-leadership as defined by the societal expectations noted

in the breadth. In addition, the idea behind the depth is to provide an enlightened response to

theories and concepts discussed in the breadth.

38

Depth

AMDS 8222 Leadership in Human Development

Annotated Bibliography

Chisholm, R. (2007). The ferocious morality of Niccolo Machiavelli. Instituto de Estudos

Avançados da Universidade de São Paulo. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from

http://www.iea.usp.br/english/articles/chisholmmachiavelli.pdf

Chisholm examined the blunt political power philosophies of Machiavelli to find

constructs of morality. A critical topic analyzed by Chisholm was Machiavelli’s concept of virtù

which had very little to do with the modern concept of virtue since it was based on the simple

“Greek idea of arete” that required a leader to search out the “excellence of a thing” (¶ 7). This

search of excellence was how Machiavelli evaluated various leaders found in his work called The

Prince. Chisholm used virtù to ascertain the greatest qualities of a leader, those were a self-less

dedication to the state and great leaders must exhibit immense ambition that somehow redefines

the state or leads to a great conquest.

The author took a unique look at Machiavelli’s work and through the chaos found what

Chisholm called the “effectual morality” (¶ 29) of leadership. The author provided an expanded

view of Machiavelli’s theories on leadership, which required the reader to re-evaluate what

Machiavelli had to offer in regards to societal expectations. Evidently, the leader has two sets of

moral codes, the one for the public to adhere to and admire, and another set, which allowed the

leader to use every means at his or her disposal to attain power and shape it to his or her will.

Chisholm’s perspective helped explain why King viewed Machiavelli’s political philosophy as a

philosophy idolized by socialistic beliefs built on hate.

39

The value of this piece was that it offered the antithetical perspective to King’s (1986)

beliefs concerning leadership and morality. However, various authors in the breadth would view

the expectation that a leader, as well as the people, should be dedicated to the state as a positive

(Chisholm, 2007). As the state develops, so does the individual. Another positive leadership

development trait noted by Chisholm was a Machiavellian belief that a braggadocios behavior

built on an exaggerated reputation was vulgar. Negatives taken include the expectation that a

leader was to have enough ambition to re-shape a society after they attain power in order to fulfill

their pursuit of excellence or as Machiavelli would define as virtù. The concept of virtù was in

line with Weber’s concept of a calling (Chisholm); however, the difference between the two was

substantial since Machiavelli’s pursuit of excellence came at the expense of other individuals’

development potential. Secular beliefs of Marxism and its variants have always elevated the

needs of the central authority over the demands of the people. Ultimately, Machiavelli promoted

controlled narcissism. As Maslow (1971) would attest that this limited the leader’s moral

development since the result of any action justified the means. In addition, as King noted total

power corrupts (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), this would hinder the development of

those who followed such a leader.

Courpasson, D. & Dany, F. (2003). Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic

hybrids. Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 24; 1231-1260. doi:

10.1177/01708406030248001.

The authors acknowledged there is a void between the rule of law and the rules that a

society needs to serve its numerous interests. To fill the void, the authors analyzed case studies to

determine the most effective organizational and sociological approaches. They surmised that a

need exists to connect obedience to a centrally controlling entity. Since this controlling authority

40

had the power and knowledge, the authors questioned if it was possible that we as individuals

would “witness the rebirth of a kind of ambivalent” dictator (p. 1257). Other notable topics

included the concept that authority was a social process and that a political or business entity can

manipulate an individual’s indifference to achieve goals with little resistance.

Even though obedience was a part of the process in Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow’s

(1943) development paths, obedience was not the final stage of development. King (1986) would

find it disturbing that the authors seemed excited about promoting obedience within the political

and business related realms in a free society as a good thing. Courpasson and Dany (2003)

suggested that if employees were subservient and self-defecating as dutiful slaves waiting on

orders from upper management, it would lead to higher pay, bonuses, job satisfaction, the

expectation of possible promotion, and mutually benefiting from the company’s success were the

typical reasons why individuals should prescribe to this line of thinking. Individual development

would be severely restricted since the expectation is for the individual to perform duties in the

early stages of development. Most individuals in a free society would not classify themselves as

indentured servants to the community. The authors’ indifference towards the subjects of a

community suggested they might agree with Machiavelli’s description of the populace as being

vulgar (Chisholm, 2007).

Courpasson and Dany’s (2003) contribution to human development, morality, and

leadership appears to generate negative consequences. First, the authors implied that they were

ways to coerce subordinates into achieving the goals of the ambivalent dictator. Instead of

leading by inspiring, the authors suggested using indifference as a tool to achieve less than

desirable objectives. In addition, the authors seemed ecstatic at the thought of authoritarian rule

and centralized power with in politics and business. Friedman (2002) would agree with the

41

authors when they described this reemergence as a rebirth, which was a correct description since

totalitarianism was nothing new to the existence of humankind and its development. Finally,

King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) would find it alarming to read a movement of

academic thought that takes students from the concept of we or us being interrelated, as in all of

us need to work together, to the singular where one individual needs coerced to do the bidding of

another. In doing so, a business was supposed to incorporate multiple levels of bureaucracy to

create a pseudo “moral movement” (p. 1257) to set up a system that endorses an ambivalent

dictator.

Drolet, M. (2008). A morality tale, or tyranny in Ireland. European Journal of Political Theory,

7; 241-253. doi: 101177/1474885107086452.

The author used the observations of Beaumont, Tocqueville, and the historical analysis of

Thierry to explain the failed launch of democracy in Ireland, which in turn led to the Irish Famine

of 1845 to 1849. The admitted precursor to the failure of democracy and famine was the brutal

economic and political policies of England that left Ireland poorly prepared to stand on its own.

In doing a root cause analysis of the failure, Drolet discovered that government should have

created a centralized plan that incorporated employment opportunities, birth control throughout

the population, and a welfare program to assist the poor. According to Drolet, his three-point

plan would have led to a robust middle class in Ireland and prevented the famine.

There was a fundamental flaw in the analysis of Drolet and it had to do with his concept

of a democracy. In this evaluation, Drolet used the French colony of Algeria and the failure of

Ireland as examples of why democracy fails. Friedman (2002) would find it hard to imagine that

democracy had a very strong foothold in a centrally controlled colony and aristocracy. At most,

democracy was a token effort in both instances. The implemented democracy in both examples

42

serves more of a demonstration on why democratic centralism fails than the failure of democracy

since Algeria and Ireland had an established centralized planning entity. As noted by King

(1986), democratic centralism or socialism is an example of the tokenism that enslaves the soul.

Friedman (2002), on the other hand, thought of democratic centralism or socialism as the folly of

the intellectual class that restricts economic freedom and individual development.

Drolet’s (2008) input to human development and leadership was that it provided another

example of Friedman (Freidman & Friedman, 1980) being correct in asserting that limited

economic freedom due to a centrally planned system generates untold harm to the masses and

their development. Consequently, it makes strong central planning systems immoral in regards to

individual development. In using Friedman’s (2002) description of democracy, Algeria and

Ireland were not examples of a democratic movement in the purest of sense. Furthermore, the

artificial growth of a middle class with a limit on prosperity should never indicate the growth of

democracy (political freedom) and economic freedom. Lastly, Friedman would assert population

growth during times of misery is not a problem that bureaucracy needs to solve; it is a symptom

of a much larger problem. Namely, leaders and policy makers should actively search out barriers

to progress of the people and eliminate them.

Feldman, R. M. & Feldman, S. P. (2006). What links the chain: An essay on organizational

remembering as practice. Organization, 13; 861-886. doi: 10.1177/1350508406068500

The authors reviewed the systematic social expectations found within any organization as

it relates to problems associated with gathering of knowledge. Examples of some of the problems

included, losing objectivity or succumbing to groupthink causing a biased output. The authors

suggested that organizational remembering as one measure to avoid the traps found in the soft

issues while being used in both academic and non-academic environments. According to

43

Feldman and Feldman, within each organization, there exists a set community level social

expectations. It is the level of active participation by leaders that often sets the stage of how well

subordinates adhere to power structures, morality, political gamesmanship, and the level of

discipline which was the essence of organizational remembering. As a result, this makes

organizational remembering a leadership standardization process.

Feldman and Feldman captured a more holistic approach to organizational remembering.

The authors cut a path of exploration through the various organizational conflicts by using

successful past practices or lessons learned to offset disagreements in policy deployment that

may influence moral development. The goal of this process was to document the struggle of

growth in a systematic and unbiased manner in order to allow current participants and their

descendants in the organization to avoid the pitfalls and internal conflicts, while promoting an

environment of continual improvement. Furthermore, outdated past practices may need re-

evaluated in order to fit a current organizational need.

While embarking on a never-ending quest for human development, organizational

remembering can avoid I.R.’s deadly plague concepts of apathy and complacency. According to

Feldman and Feldman, organizational remembering has ties to organizational training and

especially the history of why or why not the organization chose a particular path. In doing so, the

decisions made may require a change in the soft issues. The organization retrains its leaders and

members to the new standard. In doing so, it re-establishes the importance of the organizational

social expectations. Leaders failing to understand organizational social expectations open the

door to organizational meandering, apathy, and complacency allowing the organization to

become less efficient and effective in achieving its goals and avoiding organizational problems.

Kohlberg (1981) also found moral meandering hinders both individual and organizational

44

development. Consequently, the most important part of this process requires leaders to correct

other leaders not adhering to established social expectations.

Holt, R. (2006). Principals and practice: Rhetoric and the moral character of managers. Human

Relations, 59; 1659-1680. doi: 10.1177/0018726706072867.

The author compared the moral managerial constructs of MacIntyre and Friedman to

support Aristotle’s belief in a morally equitable world that was searching out the betterment of

fellow citizens by using rhetoric. Holt defined the process of phronesis in terms of a manager

using rhetorical arguments to get their subordinates to do the bidding of the company in order to

maintain or improve the interests of all stakeholders. Holt believed that a manager should use

distracting information or rhetoric as defined by Aristotle to mask their true intent and ulterior

motives because the result ultimately justifies the method of delivery. Ironically, Holt suggested

managers would do well to develop firm organizational social expectations in their subordinates,

which seems superficial and contradictory in relation to the overall concept of phronesis.

Holt did well to expand the concept of moral development to include all types of leaders,

not just business leaders. Furthermore, she emphasized leadership morality and the need to

develop others. However, when Holt decided to quote Friedman and his belief concerning a

business leader’s primary responsibility, she omitted a key point found at the end of the quote. It

was Friedman’s belief that a business leader was to legally and ethically increase profits “without

deception or fraud” (2002. p. 133). According to Friedman, social good of the business was the

responsibility of the owner(s) or shareholders, not the business leader. Unfortunately, Holt’s

(2006) over all point tried to use Friedman’s belief while excluding the deception and fraud part

of the quote since Holt believed in incorporating ethical relativism in the thought processes of

managers.

45

Holt did incorporate some leadership, human development, and social expectations;

consequently, their contribution was significant. Like Holt, King (1986) believed that a leader’s

active participation was necessary in a society. However, Holt’s concept of phronesis and the use

of rhetoric with its heavy dependence on ethical relativism would run contrary to the beliefs of all

of the authors of the breadth. Even though Holt wanted to use rhetoric as a tool to develop a

morally neutral belief, she believed it was a useful tool to develop firm organizational social

expectations with a multinational perspective based on ethical relativism. Ethical relativism, as

viewed by King (1988), was the foundation that led to Marxism. However, a critical function of

Holt’s piece, ethical relativism, when combined with Moberg’s blind obedience has lead

humanity to do the most despicable acts of barbarism. Maslow (1971) simply stated that human

and individual development becomes a luxury when an individual was just trying to survive

while focusing on lower level needs.

Kenneally, I. (2009). Chantal Delsol: Christian moral realism and universalism, Properly

Understood. Perspectives on Political Science, 38; 149-156. EBSCOhost database. ISSN:

10457097.

The author described many of Delsol’s modernistic theories on political science,

enlightenment, leadership, and morality. They relate to Delsol’s belief that a recent trend of a

unified world systematically destroying the individuality and uniqueness of everyone. During this

process, strong universal central control hijacks individual and societal development. The main

tools of destruction emanate from a unified law and obedient leaders. In addition, this quest of a

unified law has been a veiled attempt to replace the social moral Christian ethos. Historically,

according to Kenneally, power brokers make agreements based on political convenience and

hate; this distorts the unified law process. As it relates to the individual, regulations emanating

46

from the heavily brokered unified law become ineffective, confusing, difficult to administer,

punitive, and costly in deployment. This meant individual development of those targeted has

been severely demoralized. To counter this growing concern, the Kenneally and Delsol

recommended that the success of humankind as a species resided within every human’s natural

desire to be free and unique. Positive individual development built on sound social moral ethos

was humanity’s best chance to survive.

To comment on Kenneally’s analysis of Delsol requires connectivity to the theories and

concepts noted in the breadth. First, King (1986) often wrote and spoke of how each of us were

interrelated; all of us need each other to be productive and actively participating in order to

survive and develop as a species. Furthermore, King, Friedman, and now Delsol often spoke of a

renaissance, for King (1986) it was rediscovering lost values, for Friedman (2002) it was about

restoring economic freedom to revive our lost potential, and for Delsol it was about spiritual

renewal. The great deterrent for all three were systems of hate that robbed the individual of their

specificity, uniqueness, inner agape, and development potential, to name a few. As with all three,

there was a strong central planning unit or belief system generating the hate. These systems of

hate destroy the gifts of humanity.

According to Kenneally (2009), Chantal Delsol wrote about a portion of modernity’s

betrayal occurs as it passes off what it calls a diversity of thought, when it has less to do with

diversity and more to do with political correctness of ethical relativism and propping up secular

religions. Instead, many modern intellectual elites have resurrected the old idea of the few

dictating to the many such as Courpasson, Dany, and Drolet. Freidman (2002) and Kenneally’s

(2009) beliefs provide the source of the question, how can a society advance when its largest

resource, its people, have been led down a path to serfdom and restrictive development policies?

47

Instead of resurrecting a destructive path that leads to totalitarianism, Kenneally suggested that

individuals should embrace their inheritance of freedom and individual development as a means

to ensure humanities’ survival. Much of the world’s present success according to Kenneally’s

interpretation of Delsol was a set of societal expectations built upon some very simple Christian

concepts. The most fundamental of these Christian concepts were the Ten Commandments.

While building upon the commandments, leaders at all levels must embrace the uniqueness and

diverse drive of individual development in order to achieve true societal development.

Major, R. (2007). A New Argument for morality: Machiavelli and the ancients. Political

Research Quarterly, 60; 171-179. doi: 10.1177/1065912907301705.

Major’s intent found in this analysis was to expose the efforts of ancient authors that

Machiavelli condensed into one book called The Prince and then to establish ties to modern

morality. As proof of the ancient author’s influence, Major focused in on chapter three and noted

several quotes from Sallust, Aristotle, Plutarch, and Xenophon. What Major theorized about

Machiavelli was nothing different than Sun Tsu did with the Art of War, both compiled the

lessons learned from their predecessors and personal experience into one complete book. Both

reference materials have proven to be very efficient in regards to their subject matter for those

that heed the teachings. For Machiavelli and the ancient authors, the commonality with modern

morality was in utility, security, and self-preservation. The concepts of Machiavelli are as

applicable today as they were during his lifetime.

The critique of Major’s work begins with the leading line in the opening paragraph. It

explained Machiavelli’s “bold and liberating attack” (p. 171) aristocratic and theocratic power

structures that made up most of the central planning systems of his day. However, Major’s basic

premise was that Machiavelli built his theories on the works of ancient authors, then the bold and

48

liberating attack was nothing more than re-stating previous theories on power. The liberating

portion of Machiavelli’s work was nothing more than expanding upon or re-stating the obvious

survival techniques of those wanting to either expand or maintain political power. The irony of

Major’s work was that Christian moral ethos that was one of the targets of the liberating attack

provided the best examples on how to wield political power in the most efficient ruthless

manner.

The value of what the author presented reaffirms King’s belief that if the end justifies the

means it requires a system of hate such as aristocracy, theocracy, communism, or totalitarianism

to provide an environment for it to thrive. Machiavellian style political power brokers thrive in a

system that provides little class movement and individual development. During that time, if an

individual had aspirations for more, the only way to attain it was to create opportunity in some

distant land or wrest power from an existing source, hence the need to assert the Machiavelli’s

value system (Chisholm, 2007). This combative atmosphere often led to people to believe in

ethical relativism by justifying actions with results, which was what King (1986) warned others

to avoid. Friedman (2002) would warn, this combative atmosphere does nothing for human

development and has become more prevalent in modern societies as they adopt more and more of

Marx’s theories.

Moberg, D. (2006). Ethics blind spots in organizations: How systematic errors in person

perception undermine moral agency. Organization Studies, 27; 413-428. doi:

10.1177/0170840606062429.

According to Moberg, all individuals perceived others by assessing their morality and

competency. In addition, this could lead to four possible perceived categories or agencies in

which individuals evaluate others. Those were “virtuous and able, unethical but able, virtuous but

49

inept, and unethical and inept” (p. 415). For the observer of an event, the moral and competent

make-up sets the frame on their perception of an event or situation. After the frame was set, a

blind spot was a defect in an individual’s perception. The individual can improve their moral

agency by searching out role models who exemplify traits that they lack; in addition, by

improving their moral agency it allowed them to reduce their blind spots and develop.

There were two issues with Moberg’s analysis. The first issue was that Moberg used

examples that focused blame on the individual and not the leader. This conflicted with

Friedman’s (2002) belief that leaders were always responsible for the actions of their

subordinates. That was why, as Kenneally (2009) believed, a leader should aspire to be a moral

role model because a strong leader inspires subordinates to overcome deficiencies. However, if

the leader has been unethical, this moral and ethical deficiency sets a socially negative group

frame. The second key issue focused on why managers have been more apt to handle competency

deficiencies in subordinates better than moral deficiencies. According to Feldman and Feldman

(2006), competency issues were more objective, less time consuming to address, and the

probability of fixing the problem was greater. While moral deficiencies were more difficult to

spot and solutions tend to be complicated. When spotted, a manager’s typical response was to

address them indirectly via performance related issues.

The value of Moberg’s analysis was that it appeared to enforce the concept that leaders

and managers should get a free pass when it comes to their moral deficiencies. This became more

apparent when Moberg used the debacle of WorldCom as an example. Moberg (2006) even

highlighted the financial improprieties of the CFO and CEO, yet choose to write about the

negative effects of whistle blowing have on the business when it fails to handle moral and ethical

issues. According to Feldman and Feldman (2006), when leaders get into trouble their moral

50

frame has de-evolved because they no longer view decisions as right or wrong, they view it in

terms of risk versus reward. A last key note, Moberg implied that every individual believed in

himself or herself as being virtuous, ethical, and moral. This was contradictory with Marx (Marx

& Engels, 1959) and those that believed in various secular religions that do not care about

morality because it has traditional religious and free market connotations. Morality to them was

determined upon a successful resolution to a problem (King, as cited by Carson & Holloran,

1998).

Patriotta, G. & Starkey, K. (2008). From utilitarian morality to moral imagination: Reimagining

the business school. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17; 319-327. doi:

10.1177/1056492608324449.

Patriotta and Starkey wanted business schools to redefine their current business

paradigms to be more modern, flexible, and fluid using moral imagination as a basis for change.

Currently, business schools have been stuck in the time honored concepts that promote

efficiency, cost reduction, and profit. According to the Patriotta and Starkey, this business school

doctrine needs updated to fit the modern need to use businesses to promote social change and be

arbiters of moral imagination as it relates to their workforce. Instead of profit, Patriotta and

Starkey suggested business schools needed to adopt liberal arts and humanitarian moral frames

that run the risk of bankruptcy in order to save the world.

Patriotta and Starkey’s belief that businesses play the role of implementing social change

was in direct conflict with Friedman’s (2002) belief that a business should emulate what was

socially acceptable. However, Patriotta and Starkey (2008) appeared to be endorsing a brand of

environmental activism where corporate officers push a green policy at the expense of all

stakeholders since any environmental goal achieved would vindicate any indiscretions. If a

51

business owner or a majority of stockholders chooses to save the world while using the profits

and assets of a business to do so, they have every right to do so. If a corporate officer chooses to

accomplish the same goal without the approval of the board then that was another matter

completely and was something Friedman wrote about as being wrong. Business was the last

place to be experimenting with social engineering. Finally, King’s (1988) description of ethical

relativism appears to describe Patriotta and Starkey’s (2008) concept of moral imagination in

which King loathed ethical relativism.

The value of Patriotta and Starkey’s work was that it provided an example of ethical

relativism in action as it appeared to promote deception in the guise of a moral framework. Both

Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971) believed in a standardized set of moral codes, which stands

in direct contrast with the concept of moral imagination. Moral imagination would be the

equivalent of building a foundation on the murky muck of quick sand. Furthermore, Maslow

(1971) believed that development was only capable when a vast majority of individuals in a

society understood and practiced a common set of moral principles. This differs greatly from

Patriotta and Starkey’s (2008) individual based system of moral imagination where each

individual could act on a belief that a majority of the members in society would find objection. In

this instance, anything was okay as long as it promoted the greater global good.

Patton, D. (2007). The Supreme Court and morality policy adoption in the American states: The

impact of constitutional context. Political Research Quarterly, 60; 468-488. doi:

10.1177/1065912907303844.

Patton used a quantitative approach to create a theory and assess the level of Supreme

Court involvement in state morality policy that has occurred in recent years. More specifically,

Patton’s research determined the extent of influence the Supreme Court has in regards to policy-

52

making environment in the state legislatures. With foundational morality continually under

assault by various activists, issues of morality continue to surface according to Patton. Using

judicial review as a vehicle of involvement, the Supreme Court has interjected itself in moral

adoption policies. Patton has determined that the Supreme Court has directly affected numerous

moral policies and policy creation processes. To the point where business and political leaders

have shown the propensity to make long-term decisions not on socially accepted moral ethos, but

on the philosophical make up of the Supreme Court.

In the study, the author paraphrased a thought from several other studies that morality

policies were “not driven by socio-economic variables” (Patton, 2007, p. 469). This statement

would be more relevant if the Supreme Court was not agenda driven and started reaching beyond

the scope of the constitution. Supreme Court justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor prefer to

use international law and rulings to interpret the Constitution (Levy, 2009); in doing so, they

would inject socially engineered morality based on socio-economic policies of other foreign

countries in to national and state issues. The justice’s preference actually counters the statement

concerning socio-economic variables made by Patton. Patton’s mistake was that he viewed

morality and socio-economics as two different things when according to both Maslow (1971) and

Kohlberg (1981) morality serves as the foundation to socio-economics.

The amount of influence the Supreme Court has wielded as noted by Patton (2007) was

contradictory to Kohlberg’s (1981) belief that a minuscule number of individuals should not get

to decide what was morally right for an entire society. The value of this study was that Patton

(2007) provided evidence that a branch of government that should only be interested in the

constitutionality of laws, regulations, and judicial decisions of other U.S. courts, according to

Friedman (2002), has been creating social expectations. Unfortunately, this has forced members

53

of various legislative branches, the people’s representatives, to hand over a portion of their power

(Patton, 2007). Ironically, King (1986) who used the court system extensively to ensure equality

of opportunity would find issue with the level or type of coercion. King (as cited by Carson &

Holloran, 1998) would detest the level of intervention as described by Patton since it provides the

potential to incorporate systems of hate into society without any say from the citizenry.

Rutgers, M. & Schreurs, P. (2006). The morality of value- and purpose-rationality: The Kantian

roots of Weber's foundational distinction. Administration & Society, 38; 403-421. doi:

10.1177/0095399706290632.

Rutgers and Schreurs conducted theoretical research on the many questions found in

Weber’s work on value-rationality and purpose-rationality. After an extensive review of

Weber’s work and Kantian theory, they surmised that purpose-rational orientation was action in

response to some external stimulus and the response to the stimulus was strategic or tactical with

a concern about the outcome or any repercussions. Value-rational orientation was action in

response to a stimulus that caused a basic emotional or metaphysical reaction. The climax to all

of the analysis was as many questions as there were answers, leaving the authors to suggest that

future research should focus on moral ethos and its impact on society and not the reasons behind

the creation of moral systems.

Rutgers and Schreurs were thorough in trying to come to some clear and concise

definition between the two rationalities; however, finding an ending to one of the two

rationalities does not always lead to the beginning of the other. It was extremely rare for one of

the two rationalities to be the sole source of inspiration for any action. Most of the time, they

overlap to one degree or another as an individual carries out an action in response to some

stimuli. Overlapping rationalities was similar to an individual existing in different stages of

54

development as noted by Kohlberg (1981). Rutgers and Schreurs noted that the lower stages of

development have tendency to be more purpose-rational, as the individual develops past the

orientation or need issues, future issues become less emotional and more value-rational. The

authors were trying to bring light to a concept clouded in fog and eventually spun themselves to

the conclusion that told the reader to look elsewhere. In the final analysis of this critique, the

authors should have heeded their own advice.

The value of Rutgers and Schreurs (2006) research was that it brought to light some neo-

Kantian theories concerning autonomy and heteronomy. Taken at their extremes, they were equal

to barbarism and dutiful slave. However, Weber, I.R., King, and Friedman believed that

responsible autonomic response to social expectations was a prerequisite of freedom. This belief

was in line with Rutgers and Schreurs idea that a combination or overlapping of autonomy and

heteronomy was essential for the individual to develop and respond to social expectations.

Meanwhile, social engineering of a Marxist-like state tries to ingrain obedience based on a belief

of heteronomy as noted by King (1986). In doing so, they corrupt the natural purpose- and value-

rationalities of the individual causing them to suppress natural responses while encouraging

irrationality to others (Friedman, 2002). The increased irrational responses to some stimuli

increased the likelihood that the individual will see things that were once beautiful as ugly and

some of the uglier things as being beautiful (King, as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998).

Taft, S. & White, J. (2007). Ethics education: Using inductive reasoning to develop individual,

group, organizational, and global perspectives. Journal of Management Education, 31;

614-646. doi: 10.1177/1052562907307641.

Taft and White attempted to fill a perceived void in business ethics education. It was their

belief that current ethical pedagogies have been too muted or not comprehensive enough to

55

address a multitude of ethical issues. The authors created a structure of inductive ethics education

that takes the student on a path of self-discovery to an understanding of where their belief system

fits in the grander scheme of international business and ethics in general. In doing so, the student

will advance through a moral development process similar to Kohlberg, Maslow, and King’s.

Taft and White broke their process down using four levels of ethical analysis, they were

“individual, group, organizational, and international perspectives” (p. 614). Along the path of

discovery, the individual will learn the history that makes up ethics, the expectations of societal

morality, and how those expectations have an impact on the local contextual interpretation,

which leads to the actions carried out by the individual.

The critique to Taft and White’s article actually comes as a word of caution. Since the

authors appeared to have developed a system similar to Kohlberg, Maslow, and King’s, the

concept that the authors utilized appeared to be sound and should provide an excellent

opportunity for students to enhance their knowledge of ethics and ethical dilemmas. However,

the risk starts to occur when the inductive method used becomes coaching. Taft and White’s

process of coaching begins by breaking a student’s individual principles down by reviewing his

or her own aspects and influences. Then the student provides potential responses to hypothetical

situations to help refine their set of moral principles. It is at this point McGonigal (2005)

cautioned educators to be careful during the journey of self-discovery and understanding; this

could easily turn into a forced transformational learning event. For example, transformational

learning can easily become indoctrination into whatever the belief system the instructor wanted

to edify. In this case, individual development does not occur in a free environment, it becomes a

disturbing path of indoctrination.

56

One of the theories Taft and White offered was the concept of normative ethics, which

was ethics having a common root. According to the authors, the root source for most normative

ethics comes from various religious teachings that incorporate their version of the Ten

Commandments or the Golden Rule. This important fact, brought up by Kenneally’s (2009)

examination of Delsol’s work and King’s (1981; 1986; 1988) interpretation of moral

development found in his books and speeches provided the need to examine it further in the

application portion of this paper. Another value was that the authors captured the new concept of

regimented diversity. According to Taft and White (2007), this occurs as diverse thoughts

develop into a process requiring individuals within an established society to adopt minority belief

systems. Kohlberg’s (1981) belief differed greatly because he theorized that forced diversity

distorts the common understanding in normative ethics despite the similarities; in turn, societal

understanding becomes disparate. In this instance, individual and leadership development slows

as the energy of thought becomes wasted chasing after politically correct caprices.

Thoms, J. C. (2008). Ethical integrity in leadership and organizational moral culture. Leadership,

4; 419-442. doi: 10.1177/1742715008095189.

Thoms analyzed the effects of leadership on the organizational moral culture of several

organizations that included Salomon Brothers, Enron, WorldCom, HIH Insurance, New South

Wales Police Services, Johnson and Johnson, Pitney Bowes, and MCI Inc. In using evaluation

criteria such as: does the organization have a holistic moral enforcement belief system; open

communication; treat all stakeholders with dignity and respect; customer focus; and a clearly

defined code of conduct. After completing a comparative analysis on the case studies, Thoms

deduced that leadership has a strong influence on the moral health of an organization and

57

individuals. In addition to doing what is right, a good leader must actively seek moral

development in a continuous manner in order to stave off complacency and apathy.

One of the key points that Thoms made was that choosing between right and wrong only

becomes difficult when leaders and individuals willingly abandon their core beliefs.

Consequently, they make an easy choice purposefully difficult as to offer themselves the illusion

of ethical cover. According to Thoms, the difficult choice has always been a leader having to

choose between two ethically right choices. These right-versus-right ethical dilemmas include

“truth versus loyalty; individual versus community; short term versus long term; and justice

versus mercy” (p. 424). Thoms suggested that the leader seek out options and alternatives while

avoiding the trap of a right-versus-right ethical conflict.

The value of Thoms’s research was that it stood in stark contrast with Moberg’s (2006)

desire to excuse inappropriate executive behavior at WorldCom and MCI Inc. In addition,

Thoms’s research countered Patriotta and Starkey’s (2008) belief in moral imagination as nothing

more than smoke and mirrors code of conduct. The ultimate reality that Thoms discovered was

that doing what was right all the time was difficult. However, if an individual tries to develop

continually while trying to make the decisions that benefit the greatest number of people as

suggested by the Golden Rule, the Good Samaritan, the Ethic of Reciprocity, or the Natural Law,

then more times than not the leader will make the best choice for all stakeholders in the

organization.

Weaver, G. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency.

Organization Studies, 27; 341-368. doi: 10.1177/0170840606062426.

Weaver (2006) developed the concept of virtue using the theories of Aristotle and

MacIntyre as basis of self-improvement and organizational improvement. The overall goal in the

58

development of virtue was the journey of continual improvement. To Weaver, the sum of acts

was more important than a specific type of virtuous act. Furthermore, the actions of today

determine the level of virtue an individual attains tomorrow. The sum of virtuous acts can inspire

others in close proximity to be virtuous. Weaver’s belief in leading by example provided the

opportunity for the virtuous leader to inspire others throughout an organization. In addition to

leading by example, the virtuous individual can offer aid in the form of knowledge or

opportunities for improvement. Conversely, a leader lacking virtue can deflate an organization,

which halts the virtuous development of others.

The emphasis of Weaver’s article was on the individual, where the individual can develop

their virtue by expanding their “moral identity” (p. 346). A moral identity can be a source of

inspiration for others to develop virtue, even if they are not in a leadership role. However, it was

important for an individual to develop a process of self-evaluation, as noted by I.R. (Bradford,

1966). If not, Weaver (2006) was concerned that they risked developing a narcissistic mentality

that takes away from the virtue developed because the individual has lost perspective on the

world around them. The same was true about organizations; self-delusion can be a recipe for

failure. One thing to note, as organizations and institutions develop, the ability to develop virtue

will determine whether the saint or sinner becomes the dominant moral identity in leaders,

employees, and students to name a few.

The focus of Weaver’s concepts in developing a virtuous society falls in line with I.R.’s

letter to Bradford and King’s belief in a person needing to develop three dimensions of a

complete life. In addition, moral identity or virtue development as noted by Weaver parallels

Kohlberg’s (1981) moral development process. For Kohlberg, as the individual developed they

become cognizant of their moral behavior. At first through the perceptions of others, but as they

59

develop they understand and seek methods to improve their self-perceived moral identity. As

they do so, they work to achieve higher levels development as defined by Kohlberg. As the

individual develops in to a virtuous leader, the individual encourages positive human

development throughout humanity (Weaver).

Zupan, D. (2007). The logic of community, ignorance, and the presumption of moral equality: A

soldier’s story. Journal of Military Ethics, 6(1); 41-49. doi:

10.1080/15027570601183386.

Zupan provided a detailed analysis on the concept of Moral Equality of Combatants

(MEC) as it relates to normally accepted social moral norms. In MEC, combatants on both sides

were morally equal and subsequently innocent because they do not have enough information to

determine if a war was just or unjust. To add extra emphasis to the concept of MEC, it would be

negligent to leave out the fact that Zupan was an active duty Colonel in the United States Army

at the time of its publishing. In the essay and through his own admission, Zupan weaved a

morally tortured path to justify his and others continued involvement in a war they were starting

to think as unjust. As Zupan alluded to, unit integrity and the chain of command begins to

breakdown when its leaders and soldiers begin doubting themselves and their involvement in

combat actions. Ultimately, as leaders and soldiers began worrying about the morality of their

actions they put the lives of their fellow soldiers in jeopardy. This thought parallels Kohlberg’s

(1981) belief that when the structure of moral development breaks down, individual development

regresses.

The critique of this essay was that it served as Zupan’s (2007) deposition of his innocence

in being involved in a war that some political leaders and people in the media were claiming as

unjust. In speaking about the people who voted for President Bush in 2004, Zupan wondered if a

60

citizenry that routinely fails to show up to vote or continually elects incompetent leaders would

condemn him and his fellow soldiers for legally following the orders of elected representatives.

Zupan went into elaborate detail to equate his actions and the actions of his subordinates as the

equivalent to the police as they are following the orders of elected officials and their constituents.

He even goes a step further to suggest that Bush administration was a corrupt police chief

sending his police officers out to commit an unjust act by feeding them bogus information.

Zupan provided an example of modern leaders just as his essay was an example of ethical

relativism.

What Zupan offered was very important because it served as a piece of evidence

demonstrating the detrimental effects of leadership on those carrying out the duties of their

superiors regardless of whether the activity was civilian or military. Whether an individual was

for or against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Zupan’s quest for innocence reaffirmed the level

of influence that leadership and especially political leadership has on the emotional morality of

those military personnel serving their orders. Friedman, King, Courpasson, Dany, Feldman,

Weaver, and Thoms reaffirmed this idea numerous times in this KAM. As Zupan (2007) noted,

the ultimate shame in the politicization of war and morality was that the victims become the

soldiers in the field as unit harmony breaks down. This reality plays out in the civilian world as

well, according to Weaver (2006) and Thoms (2008), when leaders politicize morality;

individuals striving to develop themselves often become casualties of the moral malaise.

Literature Review Essay

The general theme that was the driving force behind the breadth was moral development

in individuals, leaders, and even organizations since a leader’s moral development greatly

influences the moral ethos of the organization (Weaver, 2006; Thoms, 2008). This literature

61

review essay as well as the application portion of this KAM will incorporate this assumption.

The literature review accomplishes the following by using the breadth’s moral development

constructs as a litmus test to validate or repudiate themes found in depth; as important, it

compares and contrasts the different theories found in the depth. An additional item of note, in

the final analysis of all research found in this essay, just because an author or authors suggested

to make a change, it does not automatically mean that the change was positive. A point made in

the breadth emphasized the general theme of that statement; individual moral development

required an eighteenth century version of freedom, which was both political and economic. If

research harms that intent, the literature review captured its effect on individual moral

development.

The organization of the literature review includes sections on theory, organization, and

leadership. The initial section reviews modern theoretical aspects of morality as it relates to

individual development. Topics include Christian moral realism, morality value rationality, and

purpose rationality. This section ends with the practical side of theory on how to introduce moral

imagination in business schools, a holistic approach to ethics education, and a case study on the

affects of judicial review on morality and ethics. The next section of the literature assesses and

reviews the organizational aspects of morality and its effects on individual development. It

touches on the topics of organizational remembering, virtue, ethical blind spots, and business

firms being democratic hybrids. This establishes a path to the last section; it reviews the effects

of moral and amoral leadership on individual development. In this final section there are two

different articles dealing with leadership and morality as defined by Machiavelli. Then this

section reviews the concept of rhetoric and morality of managers. It finishes with two articles on

62

the effects moral leadership as it relates to the history of Ireland and the ongoing war in the

Middle East.

Theory

The predominant theory found in the breadth identified freedom as the prerequisite to

individual moral development; however, this would require the individual to act responsibly in

adhering to the socially acceptable norms. Thoms (2008) wrote that when leaders of a society or

organization stray away from its moral foundation, this has always had a negative effect on moral

development of individuals. One of the reasons why a society begins to stray according to

Kenneally (2009) was something he defined as modern universalism or what King (1988)

described as ethical relativism. Kenneally believed that modern universalism destroys

individuality and does everything possible to make moral development improbable. In essence,

moral universalism has become the secular religion that Feuer wrote about in the preface of Marx

and Engels book on the Basic writings on politics and philosophy (1959). Ultimately, according

to Kenneally (2009), modern universalism and ethical relativism force the individual to stray

away from their moral foundation.

According to Friedman (2002), as the secular religions that make up ethical relativism

and modern universalism gained strength, individuals lost freedom. Kenneally (2009) believed

that without freedom to make personal moral choices, modern universalism has left little room

for the majority of people to develop individual responsibility. As a result, leadership becomes

less of a choice and more of technocracy pushing its ideology via preordained choices on the

masses. Kenneally continued by stating modern universalism destroys hope and faith, which

were the cornerstones of most religions. In the process, the normative ethics proposed by Taft

and White (2007) began to erode. It was at this point that those who believed in the secular

63

religion of modern universalism have worked to create systems of hate to take advantage of the

decline in morality. In doing so, the acolytes of modern universalism pit one set of individuals

against another in an effort to promote class warfare since the extreme absence of hope and faith

has always been hate, pointless turmoil, and an era of history devoid of meaning other than the

many serving the few. Friedman (2002) believed that at this point ethical relativism forces human

development to serve those in power at the expense of the many.

For Delsol (as cited by Kenneally, 2009), enlightenment is the only way to combat

expanding ignorance generated by moral universalism and the ever-growing restrictions on

economic freedom. Kenneally continued by stating that the path to enlightenment meant that the

individual needed to appreciate the differences in cultures and other individuals with an

understanding that none of us has the whole truth. This plurality of cultural worlds required an

individual to understand other cultures while not surrendering their cultural and moral identity.

By understanding other cultures, the path of enlightenment has kept the flame of knowledge lit,

which has become the only way individuals fend off the darkness of moral universalism.

Fortunately, most nations and cultures should never need to expend any effort in creating some

scientific breakthrough in regards to human development. King (1986) suggested that the process

of human development required individuals to rediscover their birthright of freedom,

responsibility, and the social expectations that built a society where the individual and humanity

as a whole could prosper. When combining Kenneally, King, and Friedman’s interpretation of

individual responsibility it became apparent that they were describing a form of self-leadership.

Kenneally’s (2009) interpretation of Delsol’s work provided a modern theoretical

perspective on where politics, leadership, and morality were going. Furthermore, the article

agreed with much of the subject matter relating to freedom and morality that were a concern to

64

Friedman (2002), King (1988), and Thoms (2008). As Kenneally stated, the moral framework for

those societies founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs was the Ten Commandments. However, in the

absence of morality, society is nothing but a technocracy, which Delsol spoke of in her books.

Without morals, King (1986) was concerned that human existence would de-evolve making the

individual a glorified pack animal, manipulated and controlled, by those in power. Friedman

(2002) and Hayek (2007) had similar beliefs to King, that human development would stop and

the role of the common individual would be at best an indentured servant, at worst a slave to the

state. Kenneally reiterated this point when he stated that it was unfortunate for all of humanity, as

moral universalism progresses, the flame of freedom and individual development would continue

to recede. Weaver (2006) and Thoms (2008) made similar claims in their research: as moral

development retreated, lawlessness and the need for more bureaucracy, or technocracy, has

increased in a never-ending cycle of lawlessness and more laws.

In breaking down Weber’s theories concerning morality, Rutgers and Schreurs (2006)

tried unsuccessfully to explain what Weber actually meant by the moral concepts of value-

rationality and purpose-rationality. However, they did note that there were similarities between

value-rationality, autonomous volition, and intrinsic values. In addition, they also noted there

were similarities between purpose-rationality, heteronymous volition, and extrinsic vales.

According to the authors, it was extremely rare for one type of rationality, purpose- or value-, to

be the primary basis of all action without the other. However, Rutgers and Schreurs noted five

differences between the value-rationality and purpose-rationality: (a) value-rationality was based

more on “emotions or beliefs”, (b) value-rationality flowed continuously while generating

“affectual and traditional” action. Whereas the concept of purpose-rationality was more rigid and

in rare instances, it could be absent of affectual and traditional action. (c) This difference

65

primarily had to do with what the authors called the “orientation of behavior” which meant that

there was a purposeful intent in caring out an action that has a certain level of premeditation. (d)

Individuality and the uniqueness of the action played a role in value-rationality while

institutionalized responses were purpose-rationality. These were often competing and conflicting

as the individual acts on certain stimulus. (e) The final difference lies in the “meaning of the

action” in which value-rationality had to do with the “nature of the action” while purpose-

rationality was all about results (pp. 406-407).

Using the descriptions of value-rationality and purpose-rationality provided by Rutgers

and Schreurs (2006) with King’s (1986) thoughts on ethical relativism would provide the

following patterns. For those pushing Marxist-like secular religions, the goal is to manipulate

value-rationality while creating chaos via class warfare in order to increase the level of imposed

institutionalized purpose-rationality. Institutionalized purpose-rationality would lead to the

technocracy that Kenneally (2009) noted in his interpretation of Delsol’s work and the obedience

Courpasson and Dany (2003) sought in their research. On the other hand, Friedman (2002) and

King (1986) wanted to limit government’s influence on purpose-rationality while creating an

environment that encouraged value-rationality as long as it fits within the confines of social

expectations that were purpose-rational in nature, which was what Weaver (2006) sought in his

work on virtue. In other words, as a means of positive individual development, some want to put

limits on the amount of institutionalized influence of purpose-rationality while encouraging

socially accepted ethically and morally sound value-rationality. See for example Weaver’s

reflections on establishing a moral identity based on virtue, Taft and White’s (2007) thoughts on

inductive reasoning, or Thoms’ (2008) rationale on ethical integrity. All of the examples limited

the amount of coercion on the individual development process while allowing the individual to

66

pursue his or her calling, since Weber (1958) implied that a calling was the engine of individual

development. In doing so, it ensured there was a minimum level of purpose-rationality emanating

from the mutually agreed upon social expectations found in a developed society to prevent

anarchy.

As a means of opening the door to institutionalized purpose-rationality, Patriotta and

Starkey (2008) tried taking the reader from utilitarian morality, which was the foundation to the

works of Kenneally (2009) and Thoms (2008), to a notion of what Patriotta and Starkey called

moral imagination. This concept of moral imagination was based on Dewey’s (as cited by

Fesmire, 2003) description of imagination and Holt’s (2006) faith in rhetoric. Patriotta and

Starkey defined moral imagination as the ability to perceive the needs of others with empathetic

creativity in order to cultivate new concepts that would challenge moral and ethical paradigms in

business schools and learning institutions. Initially, Patriotta and Starkey’s concept seemed

congruent with some of the individual development and societal change schemes of Feldman and

Feldman (2006) and King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998). Since the authors endorsed a

thought that required an individual to have a foundation and that same foundation would need to

change from time to time as the individual develops a greater awareness. However, unlike moral

imagination or organizational remembering, King (1986) and Thoms (2008) understood change

needs to occur, when it does it has to be a well thought-out process because impulsive change

often leads to dire consequences.

According to King (1986), the foundation of morality has to be strong and the ability to

adapt is a sign of strength, not weakness. This stands in stark difference to the impulsive good

intentions that formed the foundation of moral imagination. Furthermore, the fundamental flaw

of impulsive good intentions, as described by Patriotta and Starkey (2008), is that they are

67

individually subjective making a common understanding of morality difficult, if not impossible.

Subjective understanding is the antithesis to Thom’s (2008) notion of moral structure. Instead of

a common understanding of morality as suggested by Thoms, Patriotta and Starkey’s concept of

moral imagination would hinge on the empathetic transference of moral understanding by a

group of individuals with differing backgrounds and levels of understanding. In Thoms’ research,

to assume moral understanding as Patriotta and Starkey suggested often led to

miscommunication, manipulation, and corruption.

Patriotta and Starkey (2008) wanted to start with business schools as a method to deliver

moral imagination to the rest of the modern world. During the initial phases of this process,

business schools would begin to emulate other academic schools of thought. The irony found in

this piece was Patriotta and Starkey wanted to change one school of thought to be more like the

other schools of thought which in turn explains why Freidman (2002) thought many universities

suffered from groupthink and socialism. As with ethical relativism (King, 1988) and moral

universalism (Kenneally, 2009), this universal moral imagination discourages independent

development and thought.

King (1986), a leader of the civil rights movement, knew there were limits to social

change. His belief in social change was in the principle of having all people of this great nation to

enjoy the same freedoms. It had nothing to with changing the foundation as Patriotta and Starkey

(2008) suggested. Actually, the utilitarian moral foundation to King is solid; he, Weaver (2006),

and Thoms (2008) want it equally applied to everyone. The current application of social justice

has become social injustice based on decades of implementing politically correct social

engineering theory similar to Patriotta and Starkey’s moral imagination. For Friedman (2002),

morality based on politically correctness has been a recipe for moral collapse and a society

68

struggling with continual upheaval. This is what Thoms (2008) and Weaver (2006) warned about

it in their own articles and research. Patriotta and Starkey appeared to have used the constructs of

ethical relativism to create the theory of moral imagination. Unfortunately for those that would

listen, their theories will force individuals to embrace systems of hate while preventing them

from changing in a positive manner in order to rediscover lost social expectations and their

individual development potential.

To continue with individual development, ethics, and educational theory, Taft and White

(2007) wrote a piece on a holistic approach that used inductive reasoning to develop ethics in the

workplace as a form of individual development. Their theory was a multifaceted approach that

started with the individual, expanded it to include small groups, and finally the organization. The

ultimate aim of the authors was to create a system that took the individual to “highest level of

fully ethical managerial decision making” (p. 615). To start the process, all students would be

required to review their core moral and ethical beliefs in a manner that allows them to apply their

beliefs to hypothetical situations. From there, the teacher works to enhance this inward focus on

ethics by allowing students to expand their ethical frame to include their local community. For

instance, during small group ethics education, the student would expand their knowledge with

small group dynamic issues such as dealing with varying religious beliefs. As a part of this

process, they would begin to understand how their ethic orientation meshes with others, which

may or may not be similar. As their level of understanding grew, this eventually leads to the

organizational level ethics training where abstract and complex critical thinking would become

necessary as the student addresses organizational ethical issues that were dynamic and

multifaceted. Throughout the process, the teacher would be required to provide the student with

69

opportunities to enhance their moral foundation with multiple religious perspectives,

philosophical fundamentals, modern cultural aspects, and historical contexts to name a few.

Taft and White (2007) wanted students to develop their ethical understanding sufficiently

to handle the nuances found in a multitude of international issues. However, Weaver (2006)

issued a warning about individuals losing their moral identity. In this instance, students could

lose their moral identity when inundated with a multitude of moral philosophies while being

forced to provide solutions to larger and complex issues found in international ethics before they

truly understand their own moral foundation. Furthermore, McGonigal (2005) warned that a

student who has opened him or herself up philosophically risks the potentially negative

consequences found in transformational education where they acquire disparate social

expectations. This effect occurs as instructors force their own or another nation’s moral ethos on

the individual. In turn, the instructor could warp the self-discovery development process into

indoctrination since the architect of choice is the instructor. Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971)

issued a general warning; if an individual lost their moral foundation in similar situations, it

would eventually cost them their freedom.

Another interesting aspect of the article had to do with an individual’s responsibility to

act when faced with an ethical dilemma. Taft and White (2007) believed that failing to act when

faced with a dilemma suggested that the individual suffered from an underdeveloped morality,

which explained why some individuals would exhibit ethical cowardice. Thoms (2008) had a

similar opinion of individuals failing to act while adding that a leader’s inaction actually

condoned the subordinate’s negative activity. In addition, if the ethical dilemma was an accident,

then inaction prevented the offending individual the knowledge to correct their action or learn

not to repeat it. This fell in line with King’s (1981) belief that all individuals should actively

70

participate in the world around them in order to stop some of the injustices that occur on a daily

basis. Furthermore, Weaver (2006) added, if individuals actively participate in stopping the

injustices of the world, at a minimum the individuals would become responsible and self-

directed. In doing so, they would develop into responsible leaders and be examples for future

generations. Responsible leadership includes all aspects of society, which consists of business,

community, and politics.

Patton’s (2007) quantitative research focused on the Supreme Court’s influence on moral

policy development. His results deduced that the Supreme Court has significantly influenced

moral policy development and deployment in politics and society. With its power of judicial

review, the Supreme Court could assess the constitutionality of all state and local laws. The

Supreme Court’s predisposition, gender or party affiliation, at the time of judgment usually

determines the level of interference in the selection and decision processes. Recent trends have

the Supreme Court delving into the arena political correctness in regards to traditionally hot

button issues of abortion, gay marriage, and the posting of Ten Commandments.

Since a politically correct driven morality was nothing more than another form of King’s

(1988) ethical relativism, the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions has had a negative impact

on individual development. For example, Patton (2007) was alarmed to find out that the reach of

the Supreme Court extended into state policy development. When these instances have occurred,

the court has moved from the pragmatic role of validating the constitutionality of legislation to

injecting itself into the center of moral policy creation and adoption via judicial review at the

state level. This has made legislators hesitant to tackle issues concerning moral clarity while

generating societal moral confusion. As espoused by Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971), when

71

a few determine what should be right for the many, moral confusion and isolation often becomes

the result, which hinders the development process.

The problem with the Supreme Court injecting itself into moral policy creation and

adoption becomes even more egregious when justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer,

and Sonia Sotomayor want to use international laws and rulings as a source to initiate judicial

review as well as in interpreting the Constitution (Levy, 2009). Policy makers not only have to

worry about the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, they also have to be concerned about

the court’s sources used to interpret any legislation. Kenneally (2009) warned about this brand of

judicial activism that has made moral policy legislation difficult while confusing the populace on

acceptable moral conduct. As noted by Patton (2007), this becomes especially true when the

Supreme Court takes on morality issues that lie on the fringes of Constitution to push an agenda

that re-establishes morality at the local level. Consequently, foundational morality and

individual’s uniqueness is continually under assault. As Thoms (2008) warned, when

foundational morality goes into in a state of flux, individual development slows and stagnates.

There was one erroneous statement made by Patton that ties back to judicial activism and

liberal policies. Patton wrote, “The adoption of moral policies [by the Supreme Court] is not

driven by socio-economic variables such as state wealth or urbanization” (2007, p. 469). If

justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, or Sotomayor admittedly look to international law and foreign

court rulings that have Marxist or Socialistic designs, then the justices have introduced socio-

economic factors into case selection as well as judgment. As Weaver (2006) noted, to omit the

understanding of the source and the process encourages inconsistency in the deployment of laws

making ethical relativism more mainstream.

72

As the landscape of morality changes, leaders have to look inward to answer the

questions of morality. This brings everyone back to understanding the social expectations that

require the individual to seek out a calling (Chisholm, 2007; Weber, 1958), continually improve

to develop a complete life (Feldman & Feldman, 2006; Thoms, 2008; Weaver, 2006; King, as

cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998). As they improve, they need to actively participate in the

affairs of the community (King, 1986; Weaver, 2006; Taft & White, 2007), practice neighborly

love, understand the importance of individual responsibility (Taft & White, 2007; Friedman &

Friedman, 1980), and understand why economic freedom is necessary (Kenneally, 2009;

Friedman, 2002). According to King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), these were the same

social expectations that served as the inspiration to help write the United States Constitution. A

constitution that has promoted individual development and freedom through limited government;

in turn, creating one of the most advanced societies throughout humanity.

Organizational

This next section uses the organization as the vehicle for individual development; in

many instances, the authors delivered a top-down approach wrought with potential problems.

The problem with a top-down approach starts with Kohlberg’s (1981) philosophical question,

who is more ethically capable to determine what is morally correct? In Feldman and Feldman’s

(2006) essay on organizational remembering, it provided an example of how the authors intended

to use the business setting to shape the morality, culture, and traditions of leaders and their

subordinates. In theory, organizational remembering has numerous positives since it strives for

the same type of continual improvement that advanced societies promote. However, Feldman and

Feldman’s theory on organizational remembering requires a select group of individuals to

synthesize a wide variety of ideas and belief systems into a collective meaning in order to

73

establish a framework of ethics, morals, a code of conduct, and values. From that point,

organizational members begin the process of interpreting the framework of the organization’s

social expectations and start practicing them on a daily basis. As soon as the individual begins

practicing the organization’s social expectations, in theory the development of the individual

commences. However, the approach noted had the potential to be an indoctrination process since

the power for individuals to develop resided within the control of a few in the upper hierarchy of

the organization.

Once the organization has developed a framework of social expectations, they were

assumed to be “normatively defined and fairly stable, but were also heterogeneous, flexible, and

interconnected” (Feldman & Feldman, 2006, p. 881). This was where the confusion began as

organizational remembering takes on politically correct facade and tried to be everything to

everyone. The act of remembering as stated was supposed to be defined and stable. However, to

be flexible, Feldman and Feldman suggested that the framework needed reviewed on a continual

basis to include recent issues from any negotiations, policy interpretation issues, political issues,

and the input from those that some in society have deemed as being marginalized. In every

instance noted by the authors, the few decided what was morally acceptable for the many. It

appears that the level of flexibility prescribed requires organizations to contort to the politically

correct impulse of the day. Since political correctness and moral relativism appear to be

synonymous, management is required to sacrifice individual development and organizational

efficiency to appease other external entities both business and non-business related.

Initially, the concept of remembering has a practical application since it avoids having an

organization and individuals re-learn lessons learned the hard way, which presents itself as a

huge cost avoidance opportunity for the organization. More specifically, individuals could

74

develop faster on a firm understanding of organizational morality and business lessons learned.

Nevertheless, as an individual digs deeper into the authors’ theory, two issues with this concept

make it impractical. First, the organization is being setup to adhere to political correctness.

Feldman and Feldman (2006) made it perfectly clear; the focus was not on the individual or even

the organization it was on societal obedience. Second, as Thoms (2008), Weaver, (2006),

Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971) have warned about, if the concept of what is right and

wrong continually changes, then the level of confusion only increases not decreases. This would

mean the organization has to reprimand individuals for the confusion that the leaders and the

supposed socially superior created; as a result, this would deflate moral. A loss in productivity

would follow a loss in moral, since those that failed to adhere to the new politically correct

standard, as Feldman and Feldman suggested, need additional training. Kohlberg (1981) believed

that similar situations as described inhibit leadership and human development, leadership

becomes so absorbed with the continual changes it has little opportunity to improve. Individual

development would be on hold until management decides to make up their collective mind.

Maslow (1971) believed that if individual development slows to the point of stagnation,

organizational morality and moral would turn negative. Whether an individual realizes it or not,

development only has two primary states. The individual is either developing or regressing, while

anything in between is a moment in time.

In the grand scheme of social expectations, virtue has to be included. In his article on

virtue in organizations, Weaver (2006) wrote, to justify a good life or organization because of

virtuous acts missed the point; the measure of a good life was how well the individual pursued

virtue. As King (1988) emphasized, the means do not justify the end; it was the method, the level

of commitment, and the continual pursuit of self-improvement that justified the end. The

75

emphasis on the path to development was something Taft and White (2007) extolled in their

process of ethics education. In the pursuit of ethical leadership, Thoms (2008) emphasized

continual improvement as well. Unlike the end justifying the means, eventually being virtuous

was never the goal; the goal was always the life-long pursuit of virtue that made an individual

truly virtuous.

In addition to the individual learning about virtue, Weaver (2006) also believed that

virtuous behavior needs practiced and objectively evaluated on a daily basis. Once a moral

identity was established, a virtuous path of self-discovery becomes possible and has many the

same beliefs as the individual striving to pursue moral development. However, Weaver reissued

a warning uttered by Aristotle, this development could only occur when society has agreed upon

a set of social expectations that promotes both economic and political freedom.

In the most realistic terms, it was Weaver’s (2006) belief, a perfect life-long pursuit of

virtue is nearly impossible to attain. For most people, life’s failures become opportunities for

improvement for those who want to learn from life’s lessons and continue the pursuit for virtue.

As with I.R. (Bradford, 1966), failure was never a reason to stop, it was an opportunity to re-

examine the decisions that lead to failure and make the necessary adjustments. Setbacks and

failures occur throughout humanity on a daily basis; consequently, the true worth of a virtuous

individual lies in the ability to recover by improvising, adapting, and overcoming any adversity

that may be in his or her path.

From a leadership development standpoint, Weaver (2006) suggested to those who tried

to be virtuous with some measurable success could be examples to others; this thought was

reiterated by Thoms (2008). Weaver (2006) also believed that through interaction with others in

small groups, the virtuous through their actions could lead by example, facilitate, and mentor

76

those wanting to develop a virtuous path. The problem for those seeking to become virtuous is

becoming an aggressive zealot while trying to impose his or her beliefs on others. The virtuous

path has always been about establishing a moral identity then following a path of self-discovery

and improvement. It was never about an individual following the mandates and edicts of those

who think they somehow know better than others seeking knowledge.

Two different authors who captured the pursuit of virtue were Chisholm and King.

Chisholm’s (2007) description of a Machiavellian version of virtue required an individual to seek

narcissistic excellence by achieving personal goals. While King’s (1988) belief in virtue had a

narrower focus as it encourages the individual to seek excellence in developing a complete life.

More importantly, developing virtue could assist the individual in achieving the breadth

dimension as they assist others. This was where the two searches for excellence took different

paths. Chisholm’s (2007) was a concept built in developing the length or egocentric aspect of life

only. While Weaver’s concept mimicked the three dimensions of a complete life and would take

the individual to the height of life. The antithesis of the virtue, as described by King (1988) and

Weaver (2006), has been narcissism. For example, one of the goals of virtue was to develop a

certain amount of self-love as King mentioned; without self-love, it was “impossible to love

others” (p. 41). However, if self-love turned into self-absorption, self-absorption would cause the

individual to care little for others in need and the individual would become void of all love

except for oneself. This was the fallacy of Machiavellian virtue and Chisholm’s endorsement of

it.

According to Weaver (2007), to prevent self-absorbing behavior, an individual needs to

appraise their own actions and actively edit any undesirable behaviors. If an individual chooses

not to morally self-evaluate or self-censure, it is a form of cowardice because the individual

77

chooses to ignore or refuse to see the imperfections in their character. King (1986) would add

emphasis by suggesting that those who follow an individual that fails to understand what he or

she sees in the mirror; hardship and pain become potential outcomes. Thom’s (2008) pointed out

that organizations plagued with a narcissistic leader(s), success will only last as long as the

character flaws do not inhibit sound judgment in regards to the organization. This ultimately

takes the person back to Weaver’s (2006) original concern of this section. If the individual has

taken a virtuous path based on societal expectations, they may end up disagreeing with the

organization. If they take the path that follows the virtues as determined by the organization, then

they may end up breaking laws. The correct path as suggested by Weaver requires organizations

and individuals to pursue virtue as pre-determined by society, then work together to make any

corrections on an as needed basis.

To expand upon the weaknesses within leadership and organizations, Moberg (2006)

wrote an article on the ethical blind spots that occur in leadership and throughout the

organization. More specifically, ethical blind spots that occur during the creation of a leader’s

moral foundation generate systematic errors that could distort the leader’s organizational moral

composition. Moberg went on to explain a frame as personal interpretive perspective and a blind

spot occurs when bias, personal experience, or traditional codes restrict a leader’s or an

individual’s frame. As a result, the leader or individual could omit significant information during

the decision making process. Moberg continued on to describe one potential source of blind spots

that has occurs as an individual develops professionally, they could ignore their moral

foundation. This was a point reiterated by Thoms (2008). In other words, an individual could

become so self-absorbed in the pursuit of their business and personal goals that he or she ignores

various social expectations because the end justified the means.

78

Rightly, Moberg (2006) also mentioned that most business related reward systems create

blind spots because they are strictly competency based, which has the potential to induce less

than ethical behavior. Despite the overlapping systems that promote performance-based behavior

throughout organizations, Moberg suggested that leaders evaluate subordinates more on their

moral competence, than their professional competence. A failure to do so could encourage more

moral or ethical transgressions highlighting the struggle between job proficiency and morality-

based competencies. Again, the points made in this paragraph where reiterated by Thoms (2008).

As Moberg (2006) continued, he noted that the failure of the WorldCom, Enron, and

Arthur Anderson had more to do with the failure of leadership in not recognizing the unethical

behavior of their subordinates, than it had to do with the leadership structure promoting and

encouraging these acts. It was at this point Moberg and Thoms’ views on leadership began to

disagree. For example, Moberg (2006) wrote about whistleblowers in the workplace and

provided reasons why managers ignored their claims of criminal impropriety. According to

Moberg, whistle-blowers did not phrase their messages of impropriety using the correct context.

Using Moberg’s logic, a person should not waste their time making claims to leaders about right

and wrong. Hypothetically, if an individual claims sexual harassment in the work place, in order

to get a business leader to act requires him or her to tell the leader that if they did nothing the

business risks losing tens of thousands of dollars in legal proceedings. Thoms (2008) view was

simple, regardless of the impact to the business; the leader must be compelled to act for benefit

of all stakeholders. To do otherwise would promote an environment of corruption as noted in a

majority of Moberg’s examples that Thoms’ used in his research.

As confirmed by King (1986), a morally responsible leader would act regardless whether

the context of the claim is business issue or not. Weaver’s (2006) belief paralleled King’s, if an

79

individual or leader wants to develop, they should respond to moral or ethical situations without

using risk or cost scenarios. Moberg (2006) even acknowledged this because he admitted that

subordinates did evaluate leaders on their morality, because subordinates have to know what they

can potentially get away with on a daily basis. As suggested by Thoms (2008), this meant a

leader has to react or bear the consequences of their inappropriate response because their

subordinates would make decisions based on that response. Consequently, leaders needed to

react proactively with a sound societal moral basis or the ethical wellbeing of the organization

and subordinates are in jeopardy.

In consideration of leadership and human development, Moberg’s (2006) initial premise

found in this article appeared to be sound; the article broke down with some of its supporting

logic and examples. Furthermore, Moberg’s article suggested morality and virtue development in

individuals derived from the organization via the leader, not society. Kohlberg (1981), Weaver

(2006), and Thoms (2008) believed that morality and virtue derived from society and

organizational problems occur because of systematic issues in leadership. According to Weaver,

when leaders do not pass along the directive of the organization or fail to see issues in

subordinates due to blind spots, the problem is with the leader not the individual. This would

become especially true if the origin of virtue, as Moberg suggested, is the organization.

In reference to subordinates acting on their own moral foundation or the purpose-

rationality of the institution, Courpasson and Dany (2003) tried to analyze the extent to which has

played a more dominant role. As the authors noted, if people acted solely on the purpose-

rationality of the institution then there would be a strong case in which they were acting out

either indifferently or obediently. However, a vast social dynamic exists in various organizations

as individuals operate in the gray zones of institutional code of conducts; this is where the moral

80

foundation of the individual comes into play. Courpasson and Dany suggested using rhetoric to

reduce the institutional gray zones, which would increase the purpose-rationality of the

institution. In doing so, the intent of the authors is to increase the submissive qualities of

obedience and indifference in individuals. Moberg (2006) suggested that reducing the size of the

gray zone or blind spot provides the best opportunity for leaders to help individuals to develop

since the individual and their leader could work together to determine good and bad behavior.

Unfortunately, working together according Courpasson and Dany (2003) meant the leader using a

series of questions and platitudes that form rhetoric to shape the individual to believe in their

version of morality. If the leader fails to address ethical blind spots, Courpasson and Dany

believed that the leader would ignore unethical behavior and endorse the gray zone actions of his

or her subordinates through inaction.

Courpasson and Dany (2003) went further and proposed using rhetoric on a much larger

scale. It was their conviction that the use of rhetoric to increase the submissive qualities of

indifference and obedience should not be limited to the number of employees working at the

institution or organization. In order for rhetoric to be truly effective, a coerced society needs to

believe that being submissive is good for the collective. In doing so, Courpasson and Dany were

passionate in their belief that a society would “witness the rebirth of an ambivalent authoritarian

personality” (p. 1257). Especially since the natural state of humanity was being obedient to

authoritarian rule. Furthermore, Courpasson and Dany (2003) seemed excited at being able to

quote this next passage from the book, the authoritarian personality. The authoritarian was

“enlightened and superstitious, proud to be an individualist and in constant fear of not being like

all the others, jealous of his independence and inclined to submit blindly to power and authority”

(Adorno et al, 1982, p. xi). That tortured passage read as if Kets de Vries (2001) wrote it in his

81

study on the anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership style in

which he described the Russian psyche while under Communist rule in much the same fashion. A

Russian leader was a tortured and abusive bi-polar individual that was capable of lashing out at

subordinates, while submissive in accepting the abuses of his or her leaders.

The theories of Friedman (2002), King (1986), Thoms (2008), and Weaver (2006) stand

in utter contrast with Courpasson and Dany’s (2003) entire article. Using rhetoric to increase

submissive qualities was endorsing a step backwards in individual and human development.

Especially when Courpasson and Dany suggested that blind obedience was required from all

individuals to prop up the organization. Friedman (2002) and Hayek (2007) believed that blind

obedience lead to groupthink, totalitarianism, and enslavement for all individuals not in power.

Furthermore, obedience erroneously assumed that top leadership was always moral and ethical.

Blind obedience was the reason why the Allies hanged Germans at Nuremburg in 1946 (Zupan,

2007). Zupan (2007) and Drolet’s (2008) research actually provided examples of why ambivalent

authoritarian rule in the guise of democratic socialism did not work.

Leadership

In research conducted by Courpasson and Dany, Feldman and Feldman, Moberg, and

Weaver, they spoke of how organizations play a role in altering the moral makeup of individuals

to attain some level of development. In this final section of the literature review, the analysis

focuses on leadership’s ability to influence individual moral development. It begins with Thoms

and his perspective on ethical leadership. Thoms’ theories will be compared and contrasted with

Chisholm and Major’s analysis of the brutally effective Machiavellian methods to attain and

wield political power that continue to serve as a reference guide for aspiring unscrupulous

leaders. In addition, the comparison also includes Holt’s perspective on the moral character of

82

leaders. The section ends with two examples on the effects of amoral leadership; Drolet and

Zupan’s research provides the examples.

Thoms’s research was alarmingly unique. Alarming in the sense that many authors

discussed previously tried to downplay the importance of a leader’s influence on a person’s

moral development. It was unique since it was dissimilar with the theories of Chisholm, Major,

and Holt. In Thoms’s (2008) analysis of several organizations, he determined that a leader did

have a tremendous influence on the moral composition of an organization and more specifically

the individuals that makeup that organization. Thoms even suggested that a leader should not

have an ethical gray zone because hesitation or second-guessing would erroneously promote

negative moral conduct. Consequently, a leader must have a well-established and concise value

system. If a leader demonstrates a willingness to abandon personal and organizational moral

codes, the leader needs training or removed from his or her position. In every instance, the leader

should assume responsibility of a situation and lead by example.

If a leader’s subordinates fail, the leader has failed and needs to learn from the event. In

some instances, a leader fails because he or she did not provide their subordinates with the tools

to succeed. In other instances, the leader put individuals in situations where success is nearly

impossible to attain. A failure in leadership could also draw from a leader’s complacent and

apathetic attitude concerning moral individual development. A leader must seek the continual

improvement in the moral development health of individuals throughout the organization.

Without continual improvement in individuals, complacency and apathy have always promoted

unacceptable ethics and moral conduct. As noted in Thoms’s (2008) research, complacency and

apathy were one of the root causes that destroyed a strong corporate value system. As the value

system disintegrated, so went the organization in to ruin.

83

Failure was not an option as Chisholm noted in his research that defended Machiavellian

morality. According to Chisholm (2007), Machiavelli’s moral concepts become useful tools in

governments with strong central planning units because they are where the power and the

remnants of freedom reside. The first concept Chisholm discussed was the Machiavellian version

of virtue, which differed from what King (1988), Thoms (2008), and Weaver (2006) had in mind.

According to Chisholm, Machiavelli believed in the ancient Greek concept of “arête”, which

Machiavelli labeled as “virtù” (2007, ¶ 7). Agathocles of Syracuse first prescribed to this notion

of virtue and it had little to do with the nurturing and morally sound version of virtue as defined

by Weaver or Thoms. In the Machiavellian world, virtù was similar to Weber’s (1958) definition

of a calling since it was the pursuit of excellence. However, the pursuit of excellence at any cost,

as suggested by Chisholm, often had disastrous consequences as Thoms noted in his research on

ethical leadership. Furthermore, excellence at any cost suggests that it is okay for a leader to have

an amoral value system as Thoms alluded to in his research. To offset this absence or amoral

value system, Chisholm noted in his research that it required an exceptionally strong narcissistic

leader to bend people to his or her strength of character. In this instance, the individual would

become an appendage to the leader with very little freedom to develop on an individual basis. If

the self-absorbed leader allows freedom, it would require the relinquishing of Machiavellian

power and in turn open the door to failure.

Another Machiavellian moral leadership concept, as noted by Chisholm (2007), requires

the leader to serve the state or institution with dedication and loyalty. Chisholm accentuated this

point when he wrote about the reward for a Machiavellian leader is the wielding of power, not

the money and personal riches that may come with it. For Machiavelli, a leader that displays self-

less dedication to the people of his state, he or she would gain enough support to defeat any rival

84

trying to use the masses to overthrow him or her. This assumption provides another example of

why the situations noted by Drolet (2008) and Zupan (2007) failed since serving the people in

both cases was never the leaders’ primary concern. Ironically, this Machiavellian moral concept

is very similar to Thoms (2008) belief that leaders serve their subordinates. However, the

difference between Chisholm and Thoms’s views on leaders serving was who stood to benefit.

Chisholm’s ultimately was a self-serving concept; meanwhile, Thoms’s concept could range

from altruism to the mutual benefit of all stakeholders. Ultimately, there were no losers in what

Thoms offered. Maslow (1971) had a similar belief to Thoms as it relates to leaders and

individual moral development. Maslow gave credence to the belief that a leader that has self-less

dedication to the society that he or she leads should want to promote individual development of

all types. Regrettably, Chisholm believed that in the Machiavellian world, individual

development had to have limits since a strong leader could not let potential adversaries develop.

In agreeing with Chisholm (2007), Major (2007), who wrote a new argument for

morality: Machiavelli and the ancients, believed that Machiavelli’s work on the Prince was

actually a compilation of some of the greatest thoughts of the ancients as it related to the

acquisition and use of power. It was a point confirmed by Chisholm’s description of arête. The

actual value of this paper by Major was not the influence that ancients had on Machiavelli, but

rather the Machiavellian maxims and their ancient wisdom. These moral maxims formed the

basis of Chisholm and Major’s evidence. Since the last two maxims provide examples of the

ends justifying the means, King (1986) and Thoms (2008) are clear on how that concept

negatively affects morality, leadership, and individual development since both of those maxims

require individuals to be at their worst in order to survive a perceived threat. The focus of these

85

maxims is not just potential internal enemies; it is also a way of dealing with external enemies

and their desire to acquire power and position in the world.

As Major (2007) identified the three Machiavellian maxims, the linage of the first maxim

was tied back to the ancients and was considered a natural condition that stated all people want to

improve their current situation. Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980) wrote about an

individual’s desire to improve their current situation or the future prospects of their children has

been one of the driving forces behind humankind’s desire to succeed throughout history. It was

the driving theme behind Taft and White’s (2007) thoughts on ethics education and inductive

reasoning. Furthermore, the natural desire for an individual to improve their current condition

provides the potential energy necessary to keep the continual individual moral development

process as Thoms (2008) wrote about ongoing. One last comparison, Major’s point actually

provides further evidence as to why Courpasson and Dany’s (2003) beliefs about an individual’s

natural state being obedient is erroneous.

The next maxim and the second natural condition requires the leader to develop a method

to maximize the first natural condition. Major (2007) wrote that individuals wanting to improve

their station would assist the Machiavellian leader. However, the leader would also be required to

harm these individuals as they may hinder further attainment of power. For example, Major

suggested that leaders building a power base might want to promote “easygoing market place,

relatively low taxes, and occasional acts of humanity and munificence” (p. 175). In other words,

the effectual leader must offer the appearance of political and economic freedom to allow

individual development. This illusion of freedom would be something quickly recalled on a

moment’s notice. Recalling freedom is the inevitable response of a Machiavellian leader, since

their mission in life will always be protecting and enhancing their powerbase. When recalled, it

86

harms those that invested heavily in the false pretense of economic and political freedom. If so,

as Maslow (1971) warned, morality and individual development ceases to exist, as development

has become an obstruction to the power structure. The second maxim is the antithesis to ethical

leadership (Thoms, 2008), virtue (Weaver, 2006), and a society built on agape (King, 1998). It

only offers tokenism, in which King, Thoms, and Weaver found abhorrent.

This lead to Machiavelli’s last maxim that Major (2007) noted, it requires an effectual

leader to punish anyone that has a natural overabundance of desire or ability to acquire money,

power, and information. A leader must not allow adversaries to develop; the leader must control

individual development, whether it is one person or group of people. According to Major, if

individuals become too rich or powerful, then they could breed discontent or be a source that

endorses discontent. At this point, individual development becomes a matter of state security.

This exemplified the amoral virtue as expressed by Chisholm (2007) while eliminating virtue

(Weaver, 2006) and ethical leadership (Thoms, 2008). In essence, the control and destruction of

any individual development becomes a necessary function of the state. King (1986) rightfully

showed his disdain for Machiavellian theories because the end does not justify the means.

In the pursuit of power, as noted by Chisholm (2007) and Major (2007), Machiavelli

suggested using numerous rhetorical tricks to soften the bluntness of an authoritarian power grab.

The same was true about Holt’s (2006) suggestion that a leader should use rhetoric in the same

manner as noted by Courpasson and Dany (2003). The manner in which Holt used rhetoric

suggested she molded it with a belief in ethical relativism since it required a leader to pose

numerous questions in order to understand the nuances of an event or issue. These questions

form an amoral and dubious piece of reasoning in order to get subordinates to do something that

they would normally find morally objectionable.

87

Holt’s premise had a major flaw in it; King (1981) described it as ethical relativism, since

ethical relativism “accepts no stable moral absolutes” (p. 98). In addition, as one of the original

leaders of ethical relativism suggested, Lenin, lying and deceit were justified by victory.

According to Thoms (2008), right and wrong were trivial issues when waging class warfare,

especially since the first victim of it was the moral truth. The second victim was individual

development. When a leader combines ethical relativism and rhetorical reasoning (Holt, 2006)

with Courpasson and Dany’s (2003) blind obedience, the door opens to allow a leader’s sadistic

and subservient followers the potential to inflict inhumane harm upon others (Hayek, 2007).

King (1986) had cautioned that this would allow an individual to justify their atrocities by saying

they were just doing their job or following orders.

Holt lifted a quote out of context by implying that Friedman endorsed a concept where a

manager should not be concerned with their or their subordinates virtue and moral development.

In doing so, Holt left out the part where a manger should never engage in “deception or fraud”

(Friedman, 2002, p. 133). To further counter Holt’s point, Friedman (Friedman & Friedman,

1980) understood the importance of stable social expectations, since they served as the basis of

positive individual development. Stable moral codes or social expectations were what Weaver

(2006) and Thoms (2008) determined as a necessary foundation when developing individuals and

organizations. As King (1986) noted, a stable platform in deciding what is right and wrong

prevents an individual from committing horrible acts. If not, as hate begets hate, victims and the

offenders quickly become interchangeable. According to Thoms (2008), leaders must encourage

positive moral development, not deter it with ethical relativism and tokenistic rhetoric as

prescribed by Holt.

88

As evidence that individual development suffers when inept leaders curtail political and

social freedom, Drolet (2008) wrote a flawed article on political theory entitled, a morality tale,

or tyranny in Ireland. Drolet’s own text highlighted some of the flaws found within the article.

However, these flaws still provide a necessary piece of evidence pertaining to individual

development and the impact of morally bankrupt leaders that restrict freedom. From a theoretical

standpoint, the article tried to pass off Ireland and the French colony of Algeria as failed attempts

in democracy. Drolet countered his own inaccurate statement when he admitted that Algeria and

Ireland were centrally planned countries; France still controlled Algeria, while Ireland had a

ruling class.

For Friedman (2002), Algeria and Ireland provided examples of where political and

economic freedoms were restricted. Drolet (2008) expounded upon Friedman’s point when he

went on to suggest that the aristocracy that ruled Ireland was highly despised. As for North

Africa, France tried to “reform the rural economy” and tried to grow an “indigenous middle

class” (p. 242). Drolet even labeled this as a “classic account of modern tyranny” (p. 242). Yet,

he took a literary leap of faith to call it “as a great study of the failure of democracy” (Drolet,

2008, p. 242). Limited political and economic freedom under a centralized authority serves as a

poor example of democracy.

It should not be any wonder why both countries failed as democracies since Algeria and

Ireland were not close to being an independent democracy. However, both serve as an excellent

example of why the use of tokenism by political leaders, as defined by King (1986) and Thoms

(2008), fails to promote individual development. Furthermore, Drolet (2008) displayed contempt

for those that have an independent spirit by proxy when he used the observations of Beaumont.

Drolet described independent thought in terms of being “haughty, wild, without restraint, savage,

89

inordinate pride, and unbounded confidence” (p. 244). This description seems to capture a

portion of characteristics that Courpasson, Dany, and Kets deVries extolled in their articles about

submissive leaders. In response to the authors that wrote about obedience and moral imagination,

which were traits of ethical relativism, it is okay to have characteristics similar to those described

by Drolet only as long as the individual is submissive and ultimately knows who is in charge and

act accordingly.

Despite this, Drolet (2008) advocates one other fallacy in his article concerning the

middle class. In extrapolating points made about restrictive land reform policies that hindered

economic growth that in turn delayed the establishment of a middle class. Drolet defined a

successful democracy as a robust middle class. The concept requires a central planning unit to

stop individual development at a point where robust middle class could grow in numbers.

According to Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980), an artificially robust middle class

establishes the bar for individual development low enough to provide token success. In addition,

an artificial middle class unintentionally or intentionally creates a barrier as to prevent class

movement to the upper class so the desirable middle class could grow in numbers. Friedman

believed that the growth of a middle class was never a good indicator of democracy and

economic freedom, especially when progressive tax systems and other restrictions on economic

freedom prevented anyone reaching higher levels of prosperity and individual development. It

was Friedman’s belief that class movement, from high to low, low to high had historically been a

better indicator of economic health.

According to Weaver (2006) and Thoms (2008), good leaders allow individuals to learn

from their mistakes and reap the rewards of their success. This is necessary in order for the

individual to fully develop and understand their true potential. Individuals do not learn or

90

develop when a leader or government ignores their subordinates (Thoms, 2008) and then

artificially props them up (King, 1986). For an individual to maximize their potential, it requires

economic and political freedom (Friedman, 2002). The inverse of this is true as well. Any system

that encourages leaders to issue punitive taxes, promote class warfare, or purposely restrict

freedom, individual development slows, if not stops. It was this point that Drolet (2008) appeared

to have missed throughout his article.

Zupan (2007) wrote about what he described as a philosophical plea for innocence in

regards to any war crimes that he and his fellow soldiers, throughout the armed services,

allegedly committed while he served as a Colonel in the United States Army as the Al-Qaeda

insurgency in Iraq was at or near its zenith. The war stateside had turned into what Chisholm

(2007) would define as a Machiavellian style power play for those seeking to undermine the

Bush Administration. The political turmoil characterized the war as unjust and plagued by

alleged war crimes that left many in military’s leadership ranks questioning their involvement

(Zupan, 2007). For example, the alleged massacre at Haditha was in the news and Rep. John

Murtha of Pennsylvania had proclaimed the U.S. Marines guilty of being war criminals before

the Naval Criminal Investigative Service filed charges (Miklaszewski and Viqueira, 2006). From

a moral leadership and individual development standpoint, Chisholm’s article on Machiavelli

suggested that Machiavelli would have despised the actions of politicians who voted to send

troops to war and betray their service as the politicians became active in providing propaganda to

enemies of the state.

This was the backdrop to the article and the events it captured left leaders like Zupan

(2007) questioning their involvement. A major piece of Zupan and his subordinate’s defense in

any action carried out was the Moral Equality of Combatants (MEC) principle. Simply stating

91

that combatants that were not in a position of power could not be held accountable for their

actions since they were in a position of not knowing if they were in a just or unjust war.

Typically, combat personnel in positions of knowing were staff officers serving on the “Joint

Staff” (p. 42). Zupan expanded the MEC to emphasize his defense due to ignorance when

wielding deadly force. His example in explaining this defense was a corrupt command level

police officer sending in a plain-clothes unit to arrest a group of criminals. However, within the

group was an undercover policeperson close to discovering the corrupt police chief. Knowing the

situation was going to erupt in gunfire, the police chief hoped to eliminate the undercover

policeperson in a friendly fire incident. The plain close officers and the undercover policeperson

would be innocent of any wrongdoing since they were ignorant of the others presence at the time

of action.

This philosophical plea of ignorance (Zupan, 2007) demonstrated the impact of self-

serving highly politicized leadership on the command structure, morality, and in turn individual

development. In the face of such despicable leadership emanating from politicians, those that

serve become defeated and suffer fractured unity integrity during periods of deployment

(Chisholm, 2007). According to Zupan, this only made the deployment that much more

dangerous because they had to worry about the enemy, the troops that they served with, and the

unknown of how they were going to be perceived by their respective communities when they

returned home. The amplification in stress level only increased the chances of units making

mistakes and in turn increased the chances of civilian and unit casualties. Furthermore, an

individual involved in those situations could not develop in an environment of oppressing

negativity, death, and the potential loss of moral support of those they have sworn to defend

(Maslow, 1971). The best that individual soldiers could hope to do was to survive as best they

92

could and focus on Maslow’s (1943) lower level needs. For those that had an avenue, they could

write about their innocence using MEC to claim ignorance when political leadership has

designated them as expendable pawns in their quest for political power using an approach that

even Machiavelli, as noted by Chisholm (2007) and Major (2007) , would detest.

Conclusion

In this literature review, 15 articles were critically reviewed that dealt with the topic of

moral development as it relates to the individual, leadership, and the organization. During this

review, the path of discovery involved Weaver’s (2006) belief that virtue and the power of

enlightenment are necessary to push back the darkness of ignorance and ethical relativism.

Inversely, institutionalized purpose-rationality (Rutgers & Schreurs, 2006), a wishful return of an

ambivalent dictator (Courpasson & Dany, 2003), using rhetoric to supplant virtue (Holt, 2006),

and blind obedience (Moberg, 2006) would lead individuals to ethical relativism, secularism, and

technocracy. Ethical relativism assumed several descriptions; Chisholm (2007) described it as

effectual morality, Patriotta and Starkey’s (2008) explained it as moral imagination, Courpasson

and Dany (2003) introduced indifference or obedience, for Holt (2006) it was rhetoric, and the

Supreme Court’s search for a universal law captured its intent (Patton, 2007).

I also determined that ethical relativism requires a central planning unit to establish a

practice of organizational remembering (Feldman & Feldman, 2006) to supplant the historical

religious morality used to fill the void between laws and freedom. As the noted authors searched

for various renditions of ethical relativism, Drolet (2008) inadvertently offered evidence that

central systems were immoral and Zupan’s (2007) plea for innocence provided further damning

evidence that leaders who practice ethical relativism were to be despised by all. Even

Machiavelli, as noted by Chisholm (2007), had an issue with ethical relativism when it started to

93

destroy the state from within. These negative assertions about ethical relativism emanated from

the theories and beliefs of Kenneally (2009), Thoms (2008), and Weaver (2006).

Freedom and development on the individual level were key concerns of Kenneally, Taft,

White, Thoms, and Weaver. To start with, true individual development stems from a well-known

and consistent set of social expectations (Taft & White, 2007; Kenneally, 2009; Weaver, 2006;

Thoms, 2008) that applies to all levels of power and occupation. Social expectations would need

to evolve because ethical blind spots (Moberg, 2006) do exist; however, it was evident in several

pieces that inept leadership (Zupan, 2007), moral imagination (Patriotta & Starkey, 2008),

increased bureaucracy (Drolet, 2008), and organizational remembering (Feldman & Feldman,

2006) are the antithesis of a consistent set of social expectations and hindered individual

development.

Along with social expectations and freedom, individual development requires active

societal participation of the individual (Weaver, 2006). As Thoms (2008) proposed, leaders and

individuals must strive for continual individual development that included active participation if

a society hoped to advance. Feldman and Feldman (2006), Holt (2006), Kenneally (2009), Taft

and White (2007), Thoms, and Weaver all believed in the power of active participation.

Furthermore, Holt, Kenneally, Thoms, and Weaver considered it mandatory for leaders to lead by

example while mentoring the individual development of their subordinates. Kenneally believed

that humanity needed to promote and encourage selfless leadership, because the alternative was

Machiavellian style politics currently employed throughout government.

Unfortunately, a government that believes that the end justifies the means would be

required to hinder individual development. According to Major (2007), this becomes all too true

as all power must be consolidated within the control of the Machiavellian leader. However, in the

94

initial stages of gathering power, the Machiavellian leader allows individual development to

occur in order to develop a robust support base. When deemed appropriate by the Machiavellian

leader as in an effort to support his or her political ambitions, the leader is required to exploit his

or her own support base. As a result, individual development ceases to exist because the

Machiavellian leader destroys the freedom necessary to develop in order defeat external enemies

or prevent internal enemies from developing.

In order to enhance the theories found in the breadth, the application portion of this KAM

will incorporate the following items found in the breadth and depth to create a path that

rediscovers moral development. The path begins by focusing on the selfish desires and then

moves on to integrate morals, ethics, and virtues that transcend time (Kenneally, 2009). Most of

the morals, ethics, and virtues to be included in the application will have similar constructs as the

Golden Rule, the Good Samaritan, the Ethic of Reciprocity, or the Ten Commandments (King,

1986; Kenneally, 2009; Taft & White, 2007). Simply, the design of the application mimics

Thoms (2008) belief that ethics, morals, and virtues requires continual exercise in order to find

balance between Rutgers and Schreurs’s (2006) value-rationality and purpose-rationality. The

emphasis as suggested by King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) and Weaver (2006) will be

on the process and not the end as Marx (Marx and Engels, 1959) believed. A corrupt process will

always have less than desirable results; in regards to moral development, a corrupt process

hinders individual development.

95

Application

AMDS 8232: Professional Practice in Leadership & Human Development

Rediscovering a Path to Human Development

In an effort to explain the accompanying presentation entitled “Rediscovering a Path to

Human Development,” this essay will define the social setting, audience, and objectives; the

research process, analysis, and presentation; and use waypoints to highlight findings, note

observations, and identify a lesson learned. In essence, the presentation provides a theoretical

path to human development that generates the potential for positive social change. As a result,

the primary goal in creating the “Rediscovering a Path to Human Development” presentation is

to remind or even enlighten students that a proven path to human development does exist and it

includes the concept of moral individual development. The effort to remind the student is an

attempt to remedy the moral decay generated by two dominant social economic systems.

Context

Social Setting

The presentation is a general studies class designed for a social setting that is comprised

of 10 to 15 undergraduate students. This setting imitates Taft and White’s (2007) methodology in

presenting their research on inductive reasoning to business students. In doing so, it incorporates

transformational educational aspects that require the student to self-reflect and share their belief

systems. Information and discussion themes noted in the bullet points for each of the topics are to

inform as well as elicit discussion of a personal nature. Since discussion is highly encouraged,

the classroom setting cannot be large. With a large class, the positives of open discussion become

a burden slowing progress and allowing students to disengage mentally. Since the overall size of

the class will be relatively small, it can easily incorporate an online classroom format similar to

96

those at Walden. Online classrooms offer the student anonymity to be more open than the student

would in a classroom setting. The negative to an online classroom is that it excludes non-verbal

communication cues that can add emphasis as students define their moral frame to others.

Audience

The target audience consists of traditional undergraduate students taking general or core

competency classes. The literature review and analysis in the depth provides the rational to

involve this larger group of students. Many of the non-business research articles focused on

business schools as the vehicle to promote positive social change. It appeared that many of the

authors were trying to fix societal problems by offering human development solutions that

targeted a specific school of thought and a relatively small portion of students in regards to the

total student population. The intent of this class was the inverse; target numerous students with

the simplistic notion of moral individual development.

There are two specific reasons for targeting traditional undergraduates. First, a majority of

traditional undergraduates are typically at the beginning of their college education process. It

seems prudent that a foundational single session class promoting continuing education and a

general code of conduct would increase the chances of students returning for post-graduate

education. In addition, the positive learning environment is achievable by promoting morality

similar to the ethic of reciprocity that complements concepts that most universities try to advance

in their orientation classes. The second reason for setting a standard early in the continuing

education process is that it provides the greatest potential for social change. High school students

may not be mature enough to provide a depth of reasoning while graduates near the end of their

undergraduate work or beginning their post-graduate work may have enhanced moral frames that

97

will make social change difficult. Undergraduate students offer the most potential to justify the

resources needed in a small classroom setting.

Objectives

The presentation on human development has four objectives. The first objective is to

define a successful human development process. King (1986) defined success as a system that

provides the most development potential for a majority of individuals in a society. Furthermore,

Friedman (2002), King (1986), Kohlberg (1981), and Maslow (1971), were very clear that the

most successful human development process was one based on moral individual development

that operated in an environment that encourages freedom. Friedman (2002) extended this thought

even further to define freedom as both economic and political since one cannot provide optimal

potential without the other. Bradford (1966) provided an example of this combined potential

during Plymouth Plantation’s troubled beginning and subsequent need to inject economic

freedom in their planned production system. Together, freedom and moral development have

historically offered the most potential for human development.

The second objective is repeatability, defined as the capacity to start or reinvigorate a

dying human development system. Repeatability was something Bradford demonstrated in his

notes on Plymouth Plantation. Friedman (2002) and Weber (1958) provided another example

with their descriptions of the late eighteenth century. While King’s (1986) belief in the founding

of America suggested moral individual development is repeatable. In each example, the authors

noted that human development has flourished if the key points identified in the presentation,

“Rediscovering a Path to Human Development,” exist. They include both types of freedom; a

system of mutual understanding that leads to mutual appreciation and respect; and the

individual’s desire for continual improvement. Thoms (2008) and Weaver (2006) reiterated these

98

same key points in their research on moral development. If the key points exist, an environment

of success makes repeatability the easiest objective to obtain. However, if the key points do not

exist, the human development process based on moral individual development will have a

difficult time getting started.

The third objective is to define a human development system that promotes positive

social change. Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980) declared that a free society often becomes

the most generous and desirable because it exists at the mutual benefit of other individuals. In

doing so, the potential for positive social change from an informed and free society was

exponentially more efficient than any offered by a centrally planned command and control

structure. In simple terms, an energized and informed mass made up of millions of individuals

have outperformed any centrally planned agency burdened with bureaucratic red tape. Friedman

went further and stated that a centrally controlled or planned organization has to control the rate

of change in order to manipulate human development for its purposes. On an individual level, the

process of moral individual development in a free society has encouraged and promoted positive

social change as a necessary function of the development process. Evidence of this can be found

in the upper levels of Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs, the fifth and sixth stages of

Kohlberg’s (1981) human development process, and King’s (1988) height and breadth

dimensions.

The last objective is sustainability and it is the most difficult of the objectives.

Sustainability asks the question: Can a human development system survive multiple generations?

Sustainability was an issue brought up by Weber (1958) and Marx (Marx & Engels, 1959) when

both authors spoke of moral decay from different points of view. Weber’s concern was about the

natural moral decay that occurred in a capitalistic system, while Marx found morality abhorrent

99

and suggested destroying it. The presentation attempted to solve this issue by identifying several

codes of conduct named by various authors in the breadth and depth that established a moral

foundation of mutual cooperation. In addition, Friedman (2002) often warned that a socially

responsible individual needed to protect both economic and political freedom to ensure that

future generations could have the same freedom and resources to develop a moral foundation in

manner that was efficient and beneficial to the individual. What is often lost in a free society is

the cost of freedom (Friedman & Friedman, 1980). Hence, the need for strong education systems

that emphasize the historical lessons learned that provide context in the protection of freedom

(Friedman, 2002; Taft & White, 2007; Thoms, 2008; Weaver, 2006). If not, future generations

will lose the importance in protecting freedom as they become apathetic and complacent about

the knowledge of sacrifice and the lessons learned by their predecessors.

The four objectives capture a holistic approach to human development via moral

individual development. There are many paths for individuals to find enlightenment, the

approach in the presentation is not to suggest that it is the only way, it is to suggest that a path

with a proven record of accomplishment does exist. It only requires individuals with the moral

courage and commitment to ensure that the result is always justifiable by the means. As King

(1986) notes, the process of defining the character of an individual includes the manner in which

they complete any task.

Research Process

The research process was a qualitative search that started with Weber’s (1958) lament

about moral decay causing individuals in a capitalistic system to regress from a human

development perspective. Weber suggested morality allowed mutually beneficial exchanges

between individuals to exist; as a result, this mutual cooperative effort made them more efficient

100

and allowed both individuals to prosper. Morality’s absence caused individuals to pray upon each

other as validated by Marx’s (1970) statement about the ends justifying the means. As a result,

Weber (1958) noted that individuals’ prevented or discouraged from seeking better opportunities

suffered developmentally. Opportunity was the incentive for development.

An individual having the opportunity to seek a better life, thereby having incentive for

development forced the research in the breadth to include Friedman’s (2002) socio-economic

beliefs about capitalism, economic and political freedom, and the human development concept of

individual responsibility. Friedman’s work required examples of individuals who searched out

freedom to assist others in developing in a mutually beneficial manner. This was where

Bradford’s journal and King’s books became involved in the research. Bradford’s (1966) journal

provided information on two key points. First, it explained how the Plymouth Plantation

experimented with socialism and then had to switch to a capitalistic system in order to survive.

The second was a letter to Bradford that he incorporated into his journal. The letter included

several human development techniques based upon his group’s established moral norms. In

contrast to Bradford’s journal, popular opinion described King’s work during the civil rights

movement as socialistic in nature. Surprisingly, King (1988) dabbled with socialism only during

his earlier years. King (1986) eventually found socialism deplorable since it had an inherent

tendency to destroy human development. His thoughts were it reduced individuals to be nothing

more than pack animals. As a result, King’s work was comparable to Bradford’ journal since

both had similar conclusions. For example, King’s work offered the human development concept

of agape (1981) and a human development process, the three dimensions of a complete life

(1998) as an answer to Weber’s concern about morality.

101

When compiling Friedman’s work with Bradford and King’s, a loose structure of human

development via moral individual development came to the forefront. Maslow’s theories and

Kohlberg’s moral development process reinforced and validated after comparing and contrasting

them. In addition, the moral development research conducted in completing the depth provided

further enhancement. In total, the research provided a complete answer to Weber’s lament.

Analysis

Ultimately, the analysis of the research clears up the ambiguity to define human

development in terms of moral individual development. In addition, it helps to clarify the need to

include social aspects in the process of human development because the goal of human

development is to get the individual to think in positive social terms that engages their creativity

to help others. The analysis also provides a reason to start the human development presentation

with a social problem. The presentation attempts to solve the problem through moral individual

development and then ends with the social responsibility of protecting freedom in order to

sustain human development.

The irony to the analysis was that many of the authors who appeared to exclude moral

development as a key to human development provided the best examples to defend moral

development. For example, Marx (1959) and his theories captured in the Communist Manifesto,

Drolet’s (2008) centralized planning morality theory, and Holt’s (2006) use of rhetoric to name a

few. All of them created theories that logically generated more harm than good since they

mimicked Machiavellian theories (Chisholm, 2007; Major, 2007) that required a select group in a

position of power to control human development. According to Major, Machiavellian theory

suggested that these ordained power brokers were required to harm the populace to protect their

self-interests. Consequently, those same theories expected a common individual to believe that a

102

self-professed amoral individual in a position of corruptible power would do what was right for

the populace.

Presentation: Rediscovering a Path to Human Development

Presentation

The research and analysis provide the necessary information to create the essential

message in the presentation, which is to rediscover a successful path to human development. The

concept of human development using moral individual development is nothing new. It has

existed before the ancient Greeks; however, the concept of freedom was a rarity throughout

human history. As King (1998) noted, it was always easier to hate than it was to love. Hate in this

instance emanated from a ruling class or central planning entity. It takes a non-conformist to love

thy neighbor and promote holistic human development. The presentation takes the individual

down the path of the non-conformist as King describes.

In taking the path of the non-conformist, the presentation encourages individual

responsibility, continual development, and the concept of interrelatedness. The concept of

interrelatedness as King (1981), Weaver (2006), and Thoms (2008) defined is a belief that all

individuals were connected. Consequently, the actions by one individual could affect the life of

another individual on another continent. By promoting freedom, respect, mutual cooperation, and

continual improvement, the presentation defines positive social change in that context.

Furthermore, as the individual searches for knowledge, the evil of ignorance (Maslow, 1971)

recedes and the potential for positive growth increases.

Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1981) suggested that from ignorance, complacency and

apathy would soon follow and provide the perfect environment to twist the potential good that

freedom offers everyone in to something negative requiring regulation and bureaucratic control.

103

Freedom, a conceptual foundational strength in the presentation becomes a negative. This in turn

highlights the limitation of any system built upon freedom; it will always be dependent upon

individuals that have moral courage and foresight to know that being free is always a personal

responsibility. This in turn explains why Maslow (1971) and King (1986) believed that freedom

and positive human development have never been a societal norm throughout human history.

Waypoints

In order to halt this cycle of developmental regression, Maslow (1971) and Friedman

(2002) suggested it was necessary to include the protection of freedom as one of the key

waypoints in rediscovering a path to human development. Along with protecting freedom, the

presentation highlights six waypoints that represent the path to human development, which

fulfills the four objectives. The waypoints represent a navigational path to human development

via individual development. As with Kohlberg’s (1981) stages of development, the first three

waypoints have the potential for concurrent completion.

First waypoint. The first waypoint along the path focuses solely on Major’s (2007) belief

that the natural desire of any individual is to improve their current situation. This is selfish in

nature since it requires the individual to focus only on them self as they satisfy their most basic

needs according to Maslow (1943). In doing so, the premise of the first waypoint is to challenge

the individual to find a calling, acquire knowledge, work to prosperity, and find self-love.

Theoretically, the premise of self-focus is found in Kohlberg’s first stages, King’s length

dimension, the launching point of Taft and White’s (2007) inductive reasoning training process,

and Thoms’s (2008) process involving ethical integrity. In attaining this waypoint, the individual

begins to provide an answer to the objective of repeatability.

104

Second waypoint. The second waypoint in the presentation requires an individual to

focus on them self as well. However, instead of fulfilling personal needs this waypoint requires

the individual to self-analyze their daily activities in order to spot strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and threats. In doing this self-analysis, the process mimics the first step in Taft and

White’s (2007) training process and captures I.R.’s intent in a letter to Bradford (1966). In

addition, it is similar to King’s (1986) belief that if an individual truly understands them self,

they would understand one of their greatest impediments to their own development. An indicator

of self-understanding is patience and forgiveness. If an individual truly understands them self, he

or she will understand their own limitations and be able to spot similar limitations in others. This

allows the individual to appreciate learning process of others. In addition, it provides further

direction answering the objective of repeatability.

Third waypoint. The third waypoint provides examples of moral codes of conduct that

according to Kenneally (2009) already exist on an international level since many religions have

similar concepts. The human development mechanics of what they have to offer is powerful

enough that many legal systems try to emulate their simplicity as they create social contracts

consisting of laws. Codes of conduct and social contracts of mutual cooperation are an important

component of Kohlberg’s stages four and five. They provide a path so the individual can achieve

Maslow’s self-actualization need. Codes of conduct are a prerequisite in the development of

virtue (Weaver, 2006) and inductive reasoning (Taft, and White, 2007). According to Maslow

(1971), codes of conduct are the invisible hand that helps individuals to distinguish between right

and wrong. In practicing them, codes of conduct will allow the individual to understand when it

is prudent to elicit or offer assistance as the Good Samaritan does in King’s (1998) sermon. As

King (1986) notes, social contracts consisting of laws have no meaning unless there is a general

105

societal acceptance of a code of conduct that defines acceptable behavior. Friedman (2002)

expounds on this thought when he mentions that laws without morality become the playthings of

fools, the arrogant, and tyrants. When morality in the form of a code of conduct ceases to support

laws, human development suffers. The total sum of the first three waypoint answers the objective

of repeatability.

Fourth waypoint. The fourth waypoint begins the process of directing the individual’s

attention from himself or herself to other individuals within their sphere of influence. In terms of

Kohlberg’s stages of development, it captures the intent of interpersonal accord and conformity

(1981, p. 18) while stressing the importance of enjoying and appreciating the gift of life. To

define it in terms that King (1998) uses, the fourth waypoint encourages the individual to transfer

from length dimension to the breadth dimension while expressing a neighborly love similar to the

Greek love concept of agape. This waypoint encourages the search for virtue as Thoms (2008)

suggests in his research; as a result, it requires the individual to search for and express the good

they have within themselves and be an example to others. The fourth waypoint begins to answer

the positive social change objective.

Fifth waypoint. The fifth waypoint is to get the individual to think holistically about

their development and to share this knowledge with the community. It attempts to get the student

to think of his or her own development path and use the lessons learned to help others. It captures

King (1986), Kohlberg (1981), Maslow (1943), Thoms (2008), Taft and White (2007), and

Weaver’s (2006) methodology in getting individuals to appreciate and understand the concept of

interrelatedness. As the student understands his or her development, they begin to understand the

support and input of others that help make their developmental progression possible. When they

share their trials, tribulations, and lessons learned, they share their potential for positive social

106

change. As King (1986) states, it is never about the result. Life is always about the path that leads

to the result that defines an individual. This is why, in a free society, the path will always be as or

more important than the result.

Sixth waypoint. The final waypoint serves as a safeguard for future generations as they

begin the process of searching for the first waypoint. It is a method of one generation handing off

the responsibility of maintaining freedom to the next so they can work to protect future

generations. It requires a strong education system that teaches students the lesson learned from

previous generations as one of its core subjects. To do so, future students will know the fallacy of

centrally planned systems that breed dependency and developmental regression. According to

Friedman (2002), protecting political and economic freedom is the only way to sustain the

concept of equal opportunity, which is the driving force behind human development.

When the individual travels down the path as laid out in the six waypoints, the individual

emulates a proven path to successful human development that emphasizes individual moral

development. Human development as defined by Maslow (1943 & 1971) and Kohlberg (1981) is

dependent upon individual moral development. Individual moral development is dependent upon

the individual having the freedom to make choices and to learn from those choices. Furthermore,

the quest for knowledge and continual development allows the individual to avoid lessons learnt

by previous generations in a positive atmosphere. The individual development path laid out

includes multiple theoretical paths that share similarities and promote positive social change. It

has a historical track record of proven human development success. King (1986) offered the

United States as an example of its historical success. In total, the six waypoints satisfy all four

objectives necessary for an effective human development system.

107

Summary and Concluding Remarks

Observations

Similar to the path that an individual takes, there are observations and opportunities that I

identify for further research. The first observation involves a specific code of conduct. Moral

development was the foundation that the essay and presentation were both built upon. Kenneally

(2009) and Taft and White (2007) wrote about the Ten Commandments in a manner that

suggested it had a tremendous effect on morality throughout the Western world. The moral

mechanics of cooperation found in the Ten Commandments need to be researched in a non-

religious manner to determine if an international system of mutual cooperation exists, but often

ignored by arrogant fools and dictators.

Another opportunity for further research stems from King’s (1998) sermon entitled

“Unfulfilled Dreams”. The delivery of the sermon occurred a few short weeks before his sudden

death. In the sermon, King spoke about the good he attempted to complete and the manner in

which he pursued it. Dr. Vincent Harding thought the speech was an admission of guilt about an

adulterous affair. However, the text spoke of another affair that needs more research. King had

admitted to having a lifelong desire or flirtation with the concept of socialism. It appeared that he

was apologizing for wasting time and energy with this flirtation. Despite this, his writing was

poignantly emphatic that human development would suffer if socialism prevailed. It was ironic

that his death opened the door to allow socialistic entities to commandeer the post-King era of

the civil rights movement. His ties to socialism before his death require more research.

The last observation deals with the diversity of thought as defined in Kenneally’s (2009)

research and not the token concept of regulated diversity as King (1981) warned about.

According to Kenneally, diversity is something that does not require an individual to surrender

108

their moral identity or their unique heritage. Diversity of thought is actually diversity in

understanding the perspective of other individuals. Just because an individual understands

another person’s perspective does not mean he or she is required to adapt or even agree with the

other person. However, token diversity in the modern sense requires an individual to assimilate

because of a politically correct token issue. King’s worry was that the individual would lose their

sense of self and self-worth. Research needs conducted in order to ascertain if multiformity,

which diversity has evolved into, promotes human development.

Lesson Learned

As the observations implied, my primary lesson learned was one of maintaining focus on

the subject of moral individual development. In addition to the observations, there was a

tendency to stray into societal development issues as well as leadership development issues. Even

though all three were interrelated, the subject was moral individual development as a means to

human development. To include societal or leadership development issues was limited to

defining their impact on moral individual development. For example, the societal issues of

freedom and socialism affected the development process in many different ways. One provided

the environment for development as the individual saw fit. The other, at best, only restricted

development as the individual developed in a manner regulated by the central planning entity. To

exclude those two issues was to neglect something that had a fundamental impact on the

development potential of the individual. However, the problem arose of where to draw the line

and avoid straying into political issues. When research strayed into political issues the subject of

moral individual development lost focus.

109

Conclusion

In conclusion, the path to completing this project may have been arduous at times due to

my inability to keep on the subject. However, the process of acquiring knowledge and working

on the skill sets necessary to be scholarly professional will be extremely beneficial in future

works. The question remains, if I had to do it over again and take a simpler approach would I

take it. As King (1986) alluded to in his book A Testament of Hope, if an individual wants to

push the boundaries of thought and attainment of knowledge, an individual will need to take the

less travelled path of the non-conformist. On the edge or outside the boundaries of what we know

is where an individual will find positive social change. To answer the question, no, if an

individual researches the boundaries they better have thick skin and be ready to suffer a few

setbacks. This essay is an example of my never-ending development quest while emphasizing the

need to protect freedom of future generations.

110

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J. and Sanford, R. N. (1982) The

authoritarian personality. NewYork: Norton.

Bell, A. H. & Smith, D. M. (2004). Difficult people at work: How to cope, how to win. New

York: MJF Books.

Bradford, W. (1908). Bradford's history of Plymouth plantation, 1606-1646. (Davis, W.). New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from

http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml&action=sh

ow

Bradford, W., & Winslow, E. (1966). Journal of the English plantation at Plimoth. March of

America facsimile series, no. 21. Ann Arbor [Mich.]: University Microfilms.

Chisholm, R. (2007). The ferocious morality of Niccolo Machiavelli. Instituto de Estudos

Avançados da Universidade de São Paulo. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from

http://www.iea.usp.br/english/articles/chisholmmachiavelli.pdf

Courpasson, D. & Dany, F. (2003). Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic

hybrids. Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 24; 1231-1260. doi:

10.1177/01708406030248001.

Drolet, M. (2008). A morality tale, or tyranny in Ireland. European Journal of Political Theory,

7; 241-253. doi: 10.1177/1474885107086452.

Feldman, R. M. & Feldman, S. P. (2006). What links the chain: An essay on organizational

remembering as practice. Organization, 13; 861-886. doi: 10.1177/1350508406068500.

Fesmire, S. (2003). John Dewey & moral imagination. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

111

Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and freedom: Fortieth anniversary edition. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, M. & Friedman, R. (1980). Freedom to choose: A personal statement. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hayek, F. A. (2007). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents – The Definitive Edition.

(Caldwell, B.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Holt, R. (2006). Principals and practice: Rhetoric and the moral character of managers. Human

Relations, 59; 1659-1680. DOI: 10.1177/0018726706072867.

Kenneally, I. (2009). Chantal Delsol: Christian moral realism and universalism, Properly

Understood. Perspectives on Political Science, 38; 149-156. EBSCOhost database. ISSN:

10457097.

Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and

leadership style. Human Relations, 54; 585-627.

King, M. L. (1981). Strength to love. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

King, M. L. (1986). A testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther

King, Jr. New York: Harper Collins.

King, M. L. (1988). The measure of a man. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. .

King, M. L. (1998). A knock at midnight: Inspiration from the great sermons of Reverend Martin

Luther King, Jr. (Carson & Holloran). New York: Warner Books.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice.

San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: The Viking Press.

112

McGonigal, K. (2005). Teaching for transformation: From learning theory to teaching strategies.

Center for Teaching and Learning: Stanford University, 14-2; 1-5.

Levy, C. (2009). Sotomayor and International Law: If other countries have 'good ideas' it's up to

Congress, not the courts, to copy them. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from

Liker, J. K. & Meier, D. (2006). The Toyota way fieldbook: A practical guide for implementing

Toyota’s 4Ps. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liker, J. K. & Meier, D. (2007). The Toyota talent: Developing your people the Toyota Way.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Major, R. (2007). A new argument for morality: Machiavelli and the ancients. Political Research

Quarterly, 60; 171-179. doi: 10.1177/1065912907301705.

Marx, K. (1970). Critique of the Gotha Programme. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Retrieved

March 21, 2009 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf.htm

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1959). Basic writings on politics and philosophy. (Feuer, L). Garden

City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: The Viking Press.

Miklaszewski, J., & Viqueira, M. (2006). Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’. Navy

conducting war crimes probe into November violence in Haditha. MSNBC. Retrieved

September 14, 2009 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/

Moberg, D. (2006). Ethics blind spots in organizations: How systematic errors in person

perception undermine moral agency. Organization Studies, 27; 413-428. doi:

10.1177/0170840606062429.

113

Monden, Y. (1993). Toyota Production System: An integrated approach to just-in-time. (2nd Ed.).

Norcross, Ga.: Industrial Engineering and Management Press.

Nelson, T. (1989). The Holy Bible: King James Version. ISBN: 0529064634

Novak, M. (2005). Max Weber Goes Global. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion &

Public Life, 152, 26-29. EBSCOhost database.

Patriotta, G. & Starkey, K. (2008). From utilitarian morality to moral imagination: Reimagining

the business school. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17; 319-327. doi:

10.1177/1056492608324449.

Patton, D. (2007). The Supreme Court and morality policy adoption in the American states: The

impact of constitutional context. Political Research Quarterly, 60; 468-488. doi:

10.1177/1065912907303844.

Rutgers, M. & Schreurs, P. (2006). The morality of value- and purpose-rationality: The Kantian

roots of Weber's foundational distinction. Administration & Society, 38; 403-421. doi:

10.1177/0095399706290632.

Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. New York, NY; Routledge.

Sowell, T. (1995). The Vision of the anointed: Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy.

New York, N.Y.: BasicBooks.

Stone. J. & Mennell. S. (Eds.). (1982). Alexis de Tocqueville: On democracy, revolution, and

society. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago.

Taft, S. & White, J. (2007). Ethics education: Using inductive reasoning to develop individual,

group, organizational, and global perspectives. Journal of Management Education, 31;

614-646. doi: 10.1177/1052562907307641.

114

Thoms, J. C. (2008). Ethical integrity in leadership and organizational moral culture. Leadership,

4; 419-442. doi: 10.1177/1742715008095189.

Wall Street Journal. (2009). Global warming with the lid off: The emails that reveal an effort to

hide the truth about climate science. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?

mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

Weaver, G. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency.

Organization Studies, 27; 341-368. doi: 10.1177/0170840606062426.

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner.

Yakushko, O. (2007). Career Development Issues in the Former USSR: Implications of Political

Changes for Personal Career Development. Journal of Career Development; 33; 299-315.

Zupan, D. (2007). The logic of community, ignorance, and the presumption of moral equality: A

soldier’s story. Journal of Military Ethics, 6(1); 41-49. doi:

10.1080/15027570601183386.