Morele oordeelsvorming door commissarissen en toezichthouders, en de relatie met morele identiteit en geslacht | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 37, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0921-5077
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7235

Abstract

Samenvatting

Bestuurders en commissarissen in de top van ondernemingen en organisaties moeten regelmatig besluiten nemen waarbij ze te maken hebben met tegenstrijdige belangen en conflicterende morele normen. Deze afwegingen en besluiten worden vaak bekritiseerd, en zelfs immoreel of onethisch genoemd. In deze studie wordt de relatie onderzocht tussen morele identiteit en geslacht van commissarissen en hun morele oordeelsvorming. We onderscheiden in morele oordeelsvorming (1) utilitaristische overwegingen, waarbij belangen worden afgewogen, in een rationeel proces, en (2) deontologische overwegingen, waarbij de consistentie met morele normen bepalend is, in een meer emotioneel proces. In ons onderzoek onder 145 Nederlandse commissarissen is de morele identiteit gemeten. Met negen morele dilemma’s en de zijn aparte scores berekend voor utilitaristische en deontologische overwegingen. Het private deel van morele identiteit (internalisering) en het geslacht van de commissarissen bleken voorspellend voor deontologische overwegingen, maar niet voor utilitaristische overwegingen. Mannelijke en vrouwelijke commissarissen verschilden dus vooral in het snelle, meer intuïtieve proces van deontologische morele oordeelsvorming.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.1.004.LUCK
2024-03-01
2024-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, R. B., Licht, A. N., & Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and stakeholders: How do directors decide?Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1331-1355. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.940
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldrich, D., & Kage, R. (2003). Mars and Venus at twilight: A critical investigation of moralism, age effects, and sex differences. Political Psychology, 24(1), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00315
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1423
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Conway, P. (2018). Clarifying gender differences in moral dilemma judgments: The complementary roles of harm aversion and action aversion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618755873
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arutyunova, K. R., Alexandrov, Y. I., & Hauser, M. D. (2016). Sociocultural influences on moral judgments: East-West, male-female, and young-old. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01334
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baron, J., & Goodwin, G. (2020). Consequences, norms, and inaction: A critical analysis. Judgement and Decision Making, 15(3), 421-442. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9zsnr
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (2009). Protected values and omission bias as deontological judgments. In D. M.Bartels, C. W.Bauman, L. J.Skitka, & D. L.Medin (Eds.), Moral judgment and decision making: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 50, pp. 133-167). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)00404-0
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Block, K., Croft, A., & Schmader, T. (2018). Worth less? Why men (and women) devalue care-oriented careers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1353. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01353
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bostyn, D. H., Roets, A., & Conway, P. (2022). Sensitivity to moral principles predicts both deontological and utilitarian response tendencies in sacrificial dilemmas. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 436-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211027031
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bostyn, D. H., Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2016). Right-wing attitudes and moral cognition: Are right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation related to utilitarian judgment?Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 164-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.006
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Byrd, N., & Conway, P. (2019). Not all who ponder count costs: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, but logical reflection predicts both deontological and utilitarian tendencies. Cognition, 192, 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Byron, K., & Post, C. (2016). Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 428-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12165
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Christensen, J. F., Flexas, A., Calabrese, M., Gut, N. K., & Gomila, A. (2014). Moral judgment reloaded: A moral dilemma validation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 607. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00607
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216-235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D., & Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellemers, N., Van der Toorn, J., Paunov, Y., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2019). The psychology of morality: A review and analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(4), 332-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318811759
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Erikson, E. H. (1964). A memorandum on identity and negro youth. Journal of Social Issues, 20(4), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1964.tb00471.x
    [Google Scholar]
  20. FaulF., ErdfelderE., LangA. G., & BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-91. https://doi:10.3758/bf03193146
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Financial Reporting Council (FRC). (2018). Guidance on board effectiveness. https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/61232f60-a338-471b-ba5a-bfed25219147/2018-guidance-on-board-effectiveness-final.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Freeman, R. E. E., & McVea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Friesdorf, R., Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 696-713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215575731
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Galperin, B. L., Bennett, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2010). Status differentiation and the protean self: A social-cognitive model of unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0556-4
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hutter, M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Glover, S. H., Bumpus, M. A., Sharp, G. F., & Munchus, G. A. (2002). Gender differences in ethical decision making. Women in Management Review, 17(5), 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420210433175
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111(3), 364-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.001
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hannikainen, I. R., Machery, E., & Cushman, F. A. (2018). Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible?Cognition, 170, 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.013
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Huhtala, M., Fadjukoff, P., & Kroger, J. (2020). Managers as moral leaders: Moral identity processes in the context of work. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(4), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04500-w
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., & Ku, G. (2017). A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 138, 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.11.003
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Korner, A., Deutsch, R., & Gawronski, B. (2020). Using the CNI model to investigate individual differences in moral dilemma judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(9), 1392-1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220907203
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kunnari, A., Sundvall, J. R. I., & Laakasuo, M. (2020). Challenges in process dissociation measures for moral cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 559934. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.559934
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee, J. J., & Gino, F. (2015). Poker-faced morality: Concealing emotions leads to utilitarian decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.006
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lückerath-Rovers, M. (2023). Morele dilemma’s in de boardroom. Mediawerf.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lückerath-Rovers, M., & De Bos, A. (2020). Nationaal Commissarissen Onderzoek 2020: Langetermijnwaardecreatie. TIAS Tilburg University. https://www.tias.edu/docs/default-source/kennisartikelen/nco2020.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  36. MCCG. (2016). De Nederlandse Corporate Governance Code 2016. https://www.mccg.nl/download/?id=3367.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Patil, I., Zucchelli, M. M., Kool, W., Campbell, S., Fornasier, F., Calo, M., Silani, G., Cikara, M., & Cushman, F. (2021). Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 443-460. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000281
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Patyal, V. S., & Koilakuntla, M. (2015). Infrastructure and core quality practices in Indian manufacturing organizations. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 12(2), 141-175. https://doi.org/10.1108/jamr-06-2014-0035
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Skubinn, R., & Herzog, L. (2014). Internalized moral identity in ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2369-3
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Soltani, B., & Maupetit, C. (2013). Importance of core values of ethics, integrity and accountability in the European corporate governance codes. Journal of Management & Governance, 19(2), 259-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-013-9259-4
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 531-542. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000099
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sweeney, B., Arnold, D., & Pierce, B. (2009). The impact of perceived ethical culture of the firm and demographic variables on auditors’ ethical evaluation and intention to act decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 531-551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0237-3
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tassy, S., Oullier, O., Mancini, J., & Wicker, B. (2013). Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00250
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 320-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Versteeg, B., & Bertrand, R. (2019). An exploration on measuring and assessing ‘Tone at the Top’ with Dutch listed companies (AEX). Maandblad voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie, 93(9/10), 297-305. https://doi.org/10.5117/mab.93.37770
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Xu, Z. X., & Ma, H. K. (2015). How can a deontological decision lead to moral behavior? The moderating role of moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 537-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2576-6
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.1.004.LUCK
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.1.004.LUCK
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error