Business, Ethics, and Carol Gilligan's "Two Voices"Author(s): Thomas I. WhiteReviewed work(s):Source: Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 51-61Published by: Philosophy Documentation CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857223 .Accessed: 28/08/2012 10:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Philosophy Documentation Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toBusiness Ethics Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

BUSINESS, ETHICS, AND

CAROL GILLIGAN'S "TWO VOICES'

Thomas I. White

Abstract: This article argues that Carol Gilligan's research in moral de?

velopment psychology, work which claims that women speak about ethics in a "different voice" than men do, is applicable to business ethics. This essay claims that Gilligan's "ethic of care" provides a plau- sible explanation for the results of two studies that found men and women handling ethical dilemmas in business differently. This paper also speculates briefly about the management implications of

Gilligan's ideas.

IN 1982 Carol Gilligan published her landmark work, In a Different Voice,

a book which contains the seminal claim that women speak about ethics

in a "different voice" than men do. The nature and legitimacy of Gilligan's claims remain hotly debated, but various researchers have used her model

to explore differences between men and women in a variety of areas?per? sonal relationships, law, and medicine.1 Gilligan's suggestion of a "female

ethic" has even spawned speculation about a "female epistemology."2

Surprisingly, despite the growing number of discussions of differences

between men and women in business, Gilligan's ideas have been largely ignored in this context.3 It is the aim of this paper, then, to make a prelimi-

nary case for the value of Gilligan's theory in the study of business ethics

by arguing that it provides a plausible explanation for some of the gender differences in handling ethical dilemmas that researchers have already noted but have not explained satisfactorily. This paper also briefly speculates that

Gilligan's outlook may additionally have important implications for busi? ness practice. The overall aim of this essay, then, is simply to suggest that

Gilligan's ideas are worth further investigation and that they can likely contribute to a better understanding of certain aspects of business.4

Ethics: Justice Versus Care

The claim that there are two ethical styles related to gender arose as the unintended result of research on the nature and stages of moral development performed by the late psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg's research convinced him that as our thinking about ethics matures, we acquire an

increasingly rational and objective outlook rooted in abstract moral princi? ples. This ethical perspective prizes rules, laws, or principles applied impar- tially and without regard to circumstances. It emphasizes competing rights

?1992. Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 2, Issue 1. ISSN 1052-150X. 0051-0061.

52 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

and resolves ethical problems by appealing to principles of justice and

fairness. Kohlberg's account is called an ethic of justice because he believes that this is the most advanced ethical notion.5

Kohlberg's account of moral development was initially accepted by other

researchers, but Carol Gilligan discovered that all of Kohlberg's subjects were male and that women generally did not advance into the higher stages of Kohlberg's hierarchy. Accordingly, based on research on a female sam-

ple, Gilligan constructed an alternate model of the nature and stages of

morality which, she claims, better describes women's experience. Gilligan's

conception of moral development adds feeling to reason, speaks about right and wrong in terms of what is appropriate to particular circumstances, and

focuses on our responsibilities to others. It is generally called an ethic of

care. She writes that in the view of most women, "the moral person is one

who helps others; goodness is service, meeting one's obligations and re?

sponsibilities to others."6

Gilligan links these different ethical "voices" with gender, but she also

explains them in terms of contrasting modes of self-definition. That is, she

suggests that our moral values and ethical outlook derive from and express the way we define our self. Paralleling Gilligan's two "voices," then, are two

"selves"?one autonomous and the other connected. One is separated from

others in a hierarchical world, and the other is joined to others in a "web"

of relationships. The former, argues Gilligan, predominates among men, the

latter among women.

Particularly important, however, is that these two selves have dramatically different conceptions of safety and danger. For the "separated" self, safety comes from the ordered movement of people on the hierarchy and from

having a protected zone that keeps us separated from one another. This

argues for an impartial, objective, rule-based ethical outlook that denies the

importance of the emotional content of relationships between individuals

unless they are codified according to this rule-based morality. Principles of

equality and justice are favored because they wash out differences among

people. "Rights" become central because they impartially establish the same

boundaries of everyone's protected area. Danger arises when a "separate" self feels that his protected zone is violated by another or when a kind of

emotional distance that the "separate" self feels should separate us from

others is jeopardized. Thus, behavior is usually labeled unethical by this

outlook when it violates some law or someone's rights (no matter what the

circumstances). It is compounded when such a transgression proceeds from

emotional partiality, e.g., favoring another because of anything from racial

bias to personal affection. Ethics adopts an almost "game-like" quality; the

moves that are acceptable and unacceptable are clearly defined before the

game, disputes are refereed impartially according to an abstract principle of

fairness, and setting a precedent becomes worrisome.

For the "connected" self, by contrast, safety comes from our connections

in a network of caring, protecting, nourishing relationships. This argues for

an outlook steeped in the emotional dynamics of personal relationships and

BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 53

in a realistic assessment of harm. Rights are less important than the respon? sibilities people have to assist each other and to preserve the "web" because

safety comes from connection with others, not from distance. Similarly, rules and precedent are less important than the actual circumstances individ?

uals face because impartiality is no longer a value. Danger arises when the strands of the web are threatened through lack of care, insensitivity to

suffering, isolation, or menacing behavior from someone who is part of our

web. Thus, someone's behavior becomes unethical when it fails short of

responsibilities, betrays someone's trust, or in some other way implies that

he or she is a weak strand in the web. The ethical outlook derived from a

"connected" self, then, is more situational and contextual than that which a

"separate" self produces. Instead of "rules of the game," the dynamics and

expectations involved in relationships are central.7

The Applicability of Gilligan *s Ideas to Business Ethics

As mentioned at the outset of this paper, despite the widespread discussion

Gilligan's ideas have stimulated, their applicability to business ethics has been largely ignored. Yet Gilligan's theory can explain differences that researchers have observed in how men and women respond to ethical issues in business, and this suggests that her ideas merit further investigation.

Gender Differences Among Marketing Professionals

One study (Akaah, 1989) finds that "female marketing professionals 'overall' evince higher research ethics judgments than their male counter-

parts."8 Akaah remarks that his findings are consistent with those of other

researchers, but, he concludes, "they defy easy explanation" (p. 378). He sides with the opinion of an earlier study that these differences probably derive from "the larger culture and the socialization process" (p. 378). But such an explanation is so vague as to tell next to nothing about the nature of the dissimilarities claimed to have been uncovered. A more satisfactory account of the differences is provided by examining the data of this study through Gilligan's perspective.

Akaah found the most pronounced differences between the responses of male and female subjects to the following three hypothetical scenarios:

1. A project director went to the Marketing Research Director*s office and

requested permission to use an ultra-violet ink to precode a question- naire for a mail survey. The project director pointed out that although the cover letter promised confidentiality, respondent identification was needed to permit adequate cross tabulations of the data. The Marketing Research Director gave approval.

2. A recent study showed that several customers of X company were

misusing Product B. Although this posed no danger, customers were

wasting their money by using too much of the product at a time. But, yesterday, the Marketing Research Director saw final comps/sketches on Product B's new ad campaign which not only ignored the problem of misuse but actually seemed to encourage it. The Marketing Research

54 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

Director quietly referred the advertising manager to the research re?

sults, well known to all of the people involved with product B's adver?

tising, but did nothing beyond that.

3. The National Marketing Advisory Council (formed of top marketing executives and marketing educators to advise the Commerce Depart? ment) has a task force studying inner city prices. The head of this study group recently called to ask if they could have a copy of a recent X

company study which showed that inner city appliance prices are sig? nificantly higher than in suburban areas. Since X Company sells appli- ances to these inner city merchants, the Marketing Research Director felt compelled to refuse the request.

In each case, female subjects disapproved of the Marketing Research

Director's actions more strongly than did male subjects.9 As mentioned

above, Akaah remarks that these differences are difficult to explain. A pos? sible explanation of the gender differences, however, is apparent if we view

these scenarios in terms of the main ideas related to the "ethic of care"?the

moral imperative to care for someone in need by reducing tangible harm or

the risk thereof, the view of the world as consisting of a "web" of relation?

ships, the premium this places on trust, and the idea that danger arises

primarily from anything that disrupts dependable, predictable, and nourish-

ing relationships. The women in this study may have found the actions

described in these scenarios as more offensive than the men did because the

actions measure up poorly against a principle of care and because they harm

a safe and dependable "web."

In the first case, the Marketing Research Director allows questionnaires to be invisibly coded despite the cover letter's explicit promise of confiden?

tiality. This action may not produce tangible harm, but it is a serious betrayal of trust. And trust is a major component in what makes positive relationships between people possible. Without trust, the "web" disintegrates. In the sec?

ond scenario, the Director tolerates advertising which encourages customers

to waste their money by misusing a product. Here, too, we have a betrayal of trust, as well as irresponsible behavior. The consumer assumes that the

ad is honest, while the Director knows that it is actually misleading and

manipulative. One might argue that with this knowledge comes a responsi?

bility to those people affected by the situation?a responsibility that the

Director fails to meet. The third scenario explicitly violates principles of

care and equity.10 The Marketing Research Director refuses to provide in?

formation that could reduce the price of appliances paid by inner city resi?

dents. Since these people are generally those in our society least able to pay for the means of life, the Director allows a harmful situation to persist.

Furthermore, since prices are lower for suburban residents who are in better

shape financially, we clearly have an inequitable situation?indeed, one that

is exactly the opposite of what the financial circumstances of each group should call for. In all three cases, then, the Director's actions fail short on

his or her responsibility to those people affected by them.

Why are the women more sensitive than the men in this case? Perhaps

BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 55

because the risk of harm looks greater from their "connected" perspectives than from the men's "separate" outlook. In a business setting, places on a

hierarchy are determined by financial and legal issues. In each scenario, the

Marketing Research Director chooses a course of action that may be morally

questionable, but it is legal and can enhance the company's financial perfor? mance: more effective marketing, greater sales, protecting outlets where its

products are sold. Furthermore, each action can be rationalized by the idea

that according to the "rules of the game" in the marketplace, every one is

responsible for looking after his or her own interest. There is no responsi?

bility to advance someone else's welfare. The outlook ofthe "separate" self

more easily accepts the concept that relationships in business are competi? tive and adversarial. To trust is to err. What counts is whether a "legal referee" will cry "Foul!" Actions which take advantage ofa consumer's trust

may even be laudable if they produce a competitive edge. They do not count as "vice" as strongly as they do when looked at from a "connected" perspec? tive.11 Damage to the "web" registers as less of a threat to someone who

feels safer as an autonomous agent.

Gender Differences Among Managers

A second study (Barnett and Karson, 1989) also uncovers significant dif?

ferences in how male and female managers say they would handle ethical

dilemmas.12 In this case, the authors conclude that the females in their study "are more ethical than males" in the way they handled six out of seven

scenarios (p. 759). This study also fails to offer an adequate explanation of

this fact. Again, however, if we apply Gilligan's ideas to the data, a distinct

pattern emerges. Barnett and Karson found that three vignettes produced the greatest dif?

ferences in how the men and women responded:

1. You are a newly-appointed marketing director attending a trade associ? ation meeting. The marketing director of your chief competitor is car-

rying a stack of copies of the competitor's marketing plan for next year. After the competitor has gone you discover that he has dropped one of the copies. Would you: A. Contact your competitor and return the plan unread.

B. Read the plan.

2. You are the new director and major shareholder of a large corporation. The corporation is currently being sued by a customer claiming the customer has received a personal injury. While going through your predecessor's personal files, which only you will see, you find some information supporting the customer's personal injury claim. There is a

large sum of money at stake, and you are presently in good shape to win the case. Would you: A. Reveal the information.

B. Not reveal the information.

56 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

3. You have recently resigned from your position as a sales consultant for a photocopier firm, and you will be leaving in several weeks. A custo? mer is interested in purchasing a used copy machine, and you have a recent model which the customer feels would meet company needs. You stand to make a good commission on the deal. However, you know that the customer could purchase a brand new copier from your firm for the same amount of money during a special rebate period. The commission on the new product, however, is substantially less than that on the used machine. You would:

A. Inform the customer about the special rebate.

B. Not inform the customer about the special rebate.

In each of these three scenarios, a significantly greater number of women

chose the first option: returning the competitor's plan unread, revealing the

information that will aid the customer in a suit against the company, inform-

ing the customer about the rebate.13 If we view these responses in light of

the ethical values implied by Gilligan's idea that the female "connected"

self sees the world as a "web," the women's responses make sense. As in the

previous study examined, these women are more sensitive than the men to

issues of trust and responsibility to others.

The "personal injury" scenario reveals a clear allegiance on the part of the

women in the study to Gilligan's "ethic of care." They are confronted with

a case in which the company is responsible for a customer's injury, and in

which they have the opportunity either to mitigate or to increase the harm.

Revealing the information is clearly consistent with "the moral imperative .

. . to discern and alleviate the 'real and recognizable trouble' of this world."

In addition, in both the "marketing plan" and "photocopier" scenarios, the

women in the study show a greater ability to be trusted with information

they could use to their own advantage at someone else's expense. They return the competitor's marketing plan unread. They inform the customer

about the rebate and accept a smaller commission. And, as we have seen, trust is a primary virtue when reality is experienced as a "web" of human

interconnection and when the risk of harm comes from dishonest, manipu-

lative, or exploitative relationships. In all three cases, the differences in the responses of the men and women

in this study are consistent with Gilligan's outlook. The women are harsher

than the men on actions that ignore responsibilities to assist others and that

weaken a sense of trust among people.

Discussion

An argument can be made, then, for suggesting that Carol Gilligan's ideas

can account for the differences described by researchers in how some men

and women have responded to a series of hypothetical ethical dilemmas in

business. But what is the significance of this? Unfortunately, it is difficult

to draw indisputable conclusions.

For example, it is important to note that the reasons for the subjects'

BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 57

responses were not solicited in either of the studies discussed above. Ac-

cordingly, the female subjects may have reached their conclusions by using an ethic of justice. After all, the issues involved (violating confidentiality,

misleading people, concealing data that could help someone, invading pri?

vacy, and so on) could be as offensive to an ethic of justice as they are to an

ethic of care. Moreover, there is no guarantee that subjects did not reach

their conclusions through some nonethical thought process or even through a distinctly unethical, purely self-interested line of reasoning.

Nonetheless, these studies did uncover differences associated with gender,

and, in light of Gilligan's work, there is reason to think that many women

do approach and resolve ethical dilemmas as Gilligan claims that they do.

While this essay cannot claim that Gilligan's ideas are the only possible

explanation for the gender differences that researchers like Akaah, Barnett

and Karson have described, it can claim that Gilligan's theory accommo-

dates these studies' data and provides a satisfactory explanation for them.

This offers added support for the legitimacy of Gilligan's ideas and for a

central claim of this essay, that Gilligan's ideas can be helpful in discussing differences in the way that men and women think about ethics in business.14

In this vein, Gilligan's ideas can be seen as a useful springboard for

speculation. For example, the studies cited above report not only that men

and women differ in the way they respond to ethical dilemmas, but also that

the women's responses suggest higher ethical standards. The female sub?

jects tended to disapprove of ethically questionable behavior more strongly than the male subjects did and they also claimed more frequently than the

men did that they would take the more ethical course of action. Nothing in

Gilligan's theory suggests that an ethic of care is superior to an ethic of

justice or that women are morally superior to men. But are Gilligan's ideas

also suggestive on this front?

Perhaps Gilligan's ideas imply that there is a closer relationship between the nature of business and an ethic of care than has been realized. On this

matter it is crucial to note Kohlberg's claim that only one in four people advances to the highest stages of moral reasoning. The vast majority of men, then, probably employ "conventional" moral thinking?an outlook that puts a premium on laws, rules, norms or conventions. The apparent ethical supe?

riority of the women in the studies may thus suggest that ethical dilemmas in business register more strongly with the average possessor of an ethic of care than they do with someone at the conventional stage of an ethic of

justice. Business, after all, is a "web" of relationships, where trust, reputa? tion, dependability, honesty, and respect for human dignity are critical. Per?

haps a "connected/care" perspective is more discerning of the ethical dilemmas that are likely to arise in business, issues that may be more easily washed over or overlooked by a "separate/justice" outlook which, particu? larly at a conventional level, may give primary attention to legal or financial considerations. The women in these studies, then, were not morally superior. But they may have been operating with a perspective that is more perceptive of the severity of certain problems and more attuned to the likely damage

58 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

that could follow from unethical behavior than the outlook employed by their male counterparts.15

Yet another piece of speculation generated by Gilligan's work is the mat?

ter of the practical, management implications of her ideas. For if it is true

that business is essentially a "connected" rather than "separate" enterprise, the model of business that has evolved, while it is has been dominated by men, could be seriously questioned. Gilligan points only to the ethical con?

sequences that come from a "separate" self, but a wide array of organiza? tional values also flows from this mode of self definition, and these are the

features that have defined corporations for years: a hierarchical, quasi-mil-

itary model of authority and decision making; a highly competitive, ad-

versarial model of dealing with colleagues, employees and competitors; a

narrow emphasis on the "bottom line;" a legalistic approach to personnel

policies; an approach to decision making that eschews emotions; a "team"

concept analogous to competitive athletic teams.

If these mainstays of American business in fact go against the grain of the

essentially "connected" nature of business, it is likely that they produce

significant inefficiencies. If a human dynamic calls for trust and coopera?

tion, these qualities will not only provide a sense of safety and security, they will also build an environment conducive to long term productivity, loyalty, and creativity. A true team, then, would be a "web" in which everyone's interest is genuinely intertwined. Distrust and adversarial relationships, by contrast, would be hindrances to maximum success, as would a model of a

team fashioned after the amalgam of individuals found in competitive ath-

letics. Thus, it is possible that companies which have succeeded with a

traditional model of doing business may have prospered in spite of, not

because of it.

The implications of Gilligan's ideas are thus, in some ways, very much in

line with recent discussions of differences in the ways that men and women

manage, discussions which hold that the traditional management style in

business is neither the only nor necessarily the best way to lead.16 Judy

Rosener, for example, claims that many women executives use a leadership

style that differs from their male counterparts by encouraging participation,

sharing power and information, enhancing other people's self-worth, and

getting others excited about their work.17 Such a style of leadership has an

obvious affinity with Gilligan's image of social reality as a "web" of rela?

tionships which requires trust, openness and the explicit aid and support of

others. Thus, Gilligan's ideas serve to validate the legitimacy of such a

management style.

Finally, we can infer from Gilligan's research that because business has

been dominated by men for so long, everything from the traditional way that

ethical dilemmas are assessed and resolved in business to the conventional

model for how executives should manage, may very well be based on only one of two different, but complementary ways of viewing the world. A more

prudent and farsighted approach to business would be to try to identify the

value of both outlooks and to find ways to nourish and utilize the benefits

BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 59

of both within the same organization. Detailed discussion of how corpora? tions might do this is beyond the scope of this paper, but I hope that it is

apparent that the ultimate contribution to business of Carol Gilligan's ideas

about different ethical voices may be that it encourages the consideration of

fundamental changes in how we think about and do business. And such

far-reaching implications certainly suggest that her theories and their impli? cations merit additional discussion.

Notes

^ee, for example, Julia T. Wood, "Different Voices in Relationship Crises: An Extension of Gilligan's Theory," American Behavior al Scientist, Vol. 29, No. 3 (January/February 1986), pp. 273-301; Daniel O. Dugan, "Masculine and Feminine Voices: Making Ethical Decisions in the Care of the Dying," Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics, 8

(Fall/Winter 1987), pp. 129-40; Carol Gilligan and Susan Pollak, "The Vulnerable and Invulnerable Physician" in Mapping the Moral Domain, edited by Carol Gilligan, Fanie Victoria Ward and Jill McLean Taylor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 245-62; Dana Jack and Rand Jack, "Women Lawyers: Archetype and Alternatives" in

Mapping the Moral Domain, pp. 263-88; and Lizbeth Hasse, "Legalizing Gender-Specific Values" in Women and Moral Theory, edited by Eva Feder Kittay and Diana T. Meyers (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1987), pp. 282-95.

2Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, Jill Mattuck

Tarule, Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development ofSelf, Voice, and Mind (New York: Basic Books, 1986).

3One of the few discussions of Gilligan's ideas is Robbin Derry, "Moral Reasoning in Work-Related Conflicts," Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Volume 9,

pp. 25-49. Derry's findings do not support Gilligan's thesis that the two ethical orientations are gender related. However, I have three reservations about Derry's study. First, one-third of Derry's subjects reported that they had never faced a moral conflict at work. Considering how pervasive moral dilemmas are in all phases of life, the fact that such a large percentage of Derry's subjects did not recognize any raises the possibility that there were problems with

Derry's methodology or her subjects. Second, excluding this percentage of Derry's subjects left only 27 subjects, a small number from which to draw any meaningful conclusions. Third, all subjects were selected from the same manufacturing facility. This calls into question how

representative Derry's sample was.

4A critical issue related to Gilligan's ideas is obviously the matter of the cause of the differences she has noted. Part of the debate over Gilligan's ideas centers on whether these

contrasting ethical outlooks are rooted in gender, socialization, deep psychological structure, or some other factor. (For an account of these outlooks that appeals to modes of self-defini-

tion, for example, see Nona Plessner Lyons, "Two Perspectives: On Self, Relationships, and

Morality," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, 1983, pp. 125-45.) This broader

aspect of the controversy, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. Thus, this essay is based on Gilligan's model of gender-relatedness and speaks of "male" and "female" outlooks.

Nonetheless, this should be taken as saying only that: 1) two ethical perspectives have been

identified, 2) one explanation argues for linking them to gender, 3) this account, however, includes concepts of self-definition as part of its account, and 4) it does not exclude the

possibility that members of the opposite gender can, do and should use the ethical orientation that Gilligan claims is more characteristic of the other gender.

60 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

5For a full account of Kohlberg's ideas see Lawrence Kohlberg, The Philosophy of Moral

Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice: Essays on Moral Development, 1 (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981) and The Psychology of Moral Development: Essays of Moral Development, 2 (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984).

6Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 66.

'The idea that a "separate" self leads to an ethic of justice and a "connected" self to an ethic of care is confirmed by a study by Nona Lyons. She writes, "individuals who charac- terized themselves predominantly in connected terms more frequently used considerations of response in constructing and resolving real-life moral conflicts; and individuals who characterized themselves predominantly in separate/objective terms more frequently used considerations of rights." Lyons, "Two Perspectives: On Self, Relationships, and Morality," p. 141.

For a discussion of the implications of these competing definitions of the self in terms of differences in how men and women speak, see the work of Deborah Tannen, e.g., You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (New York: William Morrow, 1990). Tannen claims that this line of discussion in sociolinguistics predates Gilligan's work and can be found in the scholarly literature as early as 1960. See You Just Don't Understand, p. 300, n. 25.

Ishmael P. Akaah, "Differences in Research Ethics Judgments Between Male and Female

Marketing Professionals," Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 8 (1989), p. 378.

9See Akaah, pp. 379-80. Subjects were asked to approve or disapprove of the action of the Marketing Director by means of a 5-point scale: "disapprove" (1), "disapprove some- what" (2), "neither approve nor disapprove" (3),"approve somewhat" (4) and "approve" (5). On example 1, the male mean rating was 2.6, the female mean was 2.2, and the F-value was 9.71. On example 2, the male mean was 2.9, the female mean was 2.5, and the F-value was 7.59. On example 3, the male mean was 3.7, the female mean 3.3, and the F-value 5.22. Akaah writes, "the mean evaluations suggest female respondents as evincing higher research ethics judgments than their male counterparts" (p. 378-79).

10Gilligan claims that "the morality of rights is predicated on equality and centered on the

understanding of fairness, while the ethic of responsibility relies on the concept of equity, the recognition of differences in need" (Different Voice, p. 164.).

Kohlberg claims that only one in four subjects advances to the most advanced stages of moral thinking?"post-conventional" morality. As a result, we can expect to see most men in Akaah's study employing an ethic that evidences something less sophisticated than a

philosophical allegiance to justice. That is, we should find a "conventional" outlook?a

legalistic orientation which sees life as not unlike a game. 12John H. Barnett and Marvin J. Karson, "Managers, Values, and Executive Decisions:

An Exploration of the Role of Gender, Career Stage, Organizational Level, Function, and the Importance of Ethics, Relationships and Results in Managerial Decision-Making," Jour? nal of Business Ethics, Volume 8 (1989), pp. 747-71.

13The relevant percentages on the three scenarios are roughly: 92% (female) to 82%

(male), 81% (female) to 65% (male), and 54% (female) to 30% (male). 14For example, Gilligan's theory will probably reveal some hidden dimensions of ethical

issues in business traditionally championed by women, specifically, sexual harassment and

comparable worth.

15This is consistent with the fact that different philosophical traditions in ethics respond differently to various issues. Note, for example, some of the classic tensions between

BUSINESS ETHICS AND "TWO VOICES" 61

deontological and teleological approaches to ethics. Inasmuch as it can be argued that an

ethic of justice and an ethic of care roughly parallel these two traditions, it would not be

surprising to find these differences. Although it did not happen in the studies considered, it is reasonable to expect that an ethic of justice would be more sensitive than an ethic of care would be to certain moral dilemmas.

16See, in particular, Judy B. Rosener, "Ways Women Lead," Harvard Business Review, (November-December, 1990), pp. 119-25 and Marilyn Loden, Feminine Leadership (New York: Times Books, 1985). Rosener makes no reference to Gilligan; Loden makes only passing mention of her.

17Rosener writes: "[M]en and women [differ when they] describe their leadership perfor? mance and how they usually influence those with whom they work. The men are more likely than the women to describe themselves in ways that characterize what some management experts call * transactional' leadership. That is, they view job performance as a series of transactions with subordinates?exchanging rewards for services rendered or punishment for

inadequate performance. The men are also more likely to use power that comes from their

organizational position and formal authority. The women respondents, on the other hand, described themselves in ways that characterize

'transformational' leadership?getting subordinates to transform their own self-interest into the interest of the group through concern for a broader goal. Moreover, they ascribe their

power to personal characteristics like charisma, interpersonal skills, hard work, or personal contacts rather than to organizational stature" (p. 120).

Rosener's overall assessment ofthe women's "interactive" leadership style hints that it is not merely different from but better than a more traditional "command-and-control" style: "Interactive leadership has proved to be effective, perhaps even advantageous, in organiza? tions in which the women I interviewed have succeeded. As the work force increasingly demands participation and the economic environment increasingly requires rapid change, interactive leadership may emerge as the management style of choice for many organizations. For interactive leadership to take root more broadly, however, organizations must be willing to question the notion that the traditional command-and-control leadership style that has

brought success in earlier decades is the only way to get results. This may be hard in some

organizations, especially those with long histories of male-oriented, command-and-control

leadership. Changing these organizations will not be easy. The fact that women are more

likely than men to be interactive leaders raises the risk that these companies will perceive interactive leadership as 'feminine' and automatically resist it." (p. 125)

?1992. Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 2, Issue 1. ISSN 1052-150X. 0051-0061.