Chapter 3 The TERA Model

The process of moral development is the journey from the irrational and untenable paradise of irresponsible freedom to the lasting and attainable paradise of responsible autonomy.

—William S. Hatcher, Love, Power, and Justice, 64

In the preceding chapter, we observed that ethics can be seen as an intellectual discipline offering tools for reflection. Ethics can also be approached from the point of view of a particular language—vocabulary, concepts, methods of reasoning—that enables those who use it to name and study certain fundamental elements of the human experience. Ethics is a process that allows us to analyze the principles underlying a decision and culminates in a specific action. Ethical analysis concerns norms (interdictions, possibilities) that guide human behaviour, as well as values and practical rules that lead us to choose one way over another and moral principles that we strive to respect in terms of our relationship to ourselves and to others (Langlois 2004).

The TERA model is part of this vision of ethics, one that aims to discover and highlight elements that will allow for such moral reflection. Ethical questioning is part of an inner attempt to bring moral considerations to the surface. To aid this process of emergence, we have listed several questions that can help to set the process in motion:

• What values underlie my decision?
• What goals am I pursuing, and on what basis does my decision rest?
• What do I consider to be just or unjust (good or bad) in this situation?
• What are the consequences for the subject of the action (that is, for the person who undertakes the action) and for others (relatives, communities of interest, society)?

These initial questions provide an entryway into the ethical decision-making process and aim to restore meaning to the term moral responsibility. Moral responsibility consists of recognizing oneself as the subject of one’s actions and accepting that others recognize this and therefore can ask for an accounting. This is an essential condition for maintaining our sense of identity over time (Ricoeur 1992).

Situations that call for ethical deliberation are omnipresent. Questions come up whenever there is a choice or a commitment to be made, a responsibility to take on. What should I do in this situation? How should I behave? On what basis should I seek support to confront this dilemma? Such questions prompt the intervention of the ethical dimension. It is not just a matter of asking ourselves what should or should not be done (that is, what is good or bad) but also of questioning ourselves about how best to become engaged in this problem and how to assume full responsibility for our actions. Ethics leads us to envision the implications of responsible commitment. This ethical dimension, understood as a reflective approach, is about taking a personal stand—assuming responsibility and the authority that underlies commitment—in order to learn how to be, as Ricoeur says, the subject of one’s own actions. This view highlights the following: ethics is a course of action in which the individual is perceived not as a means or an end but rather as a human being deserving of respect for his or her own humanity.

Why should we be interested in moral or ethical dilemmas? I would argue, for one thing, that someone’s experience with an ethical dilemma reveals much about the person’s ethical sensitivity. Indeed, we should not assume that all people experience ethical dilemmas. To illustrate the notion of an ethical process, I put into context a situation that involved an important ethical dilemma for a particular person, with the goal of discovering how the decision-making process was approached. During a pan-Canadian research project intended to examine ethical dilemmas faced by administrators, I was struck by the relative absence of ethical dilemmas among those who work in management. Some forty administrators stated that they experienced no ethical dilemmas at work. This result intrigued me. By slightly expanding the scope of my research, I noticed that the organization for which these administrators worked strongly influenced their decision-making process and prevented them from developing a moral sensitivity with regard to the ethical issues they encountered. This blind spot in terms of ethical dilemmas went hand in hand with a lack of decision-making latitude. All decisions had to be justified on the basis of standards and rules established by managers and approved by their immediate superior in the organizational hierarchy. The process of reflection was heavily marked by, and framed within, a well-established bureaucratic model. Although some managers admitted that they felt ill at ease in this structure, they also said that, in the end, the process helped them to detach themselves from responsibility, shifting the burden onto others. Individualism and the lack of an awareness of relationships were very noticeable in this organization.

This result revealed a great deal about ethical sensitivity. Critical issues, such as injustice and inequality, were not discussed or even broached. They were simply ejected by the institution so as not to upset the established order. An analysis of the decision-making process through the exploration of ethical dilemmas thus remains very important for me because it allows for a better understanding of a person’s ethical sensitivity.

Moral Dilemma

In philosophy, the notion of moral dilemma is very controversial and raises a number of questions for moral theorists. The most important debate revolves around the following question: What is an authentic ethical dilemma? Philosophers remain skeptical about the existence of authentic ethical dilemma. Some even doubt whether there is such a thing as an ethical dilemma. I do not share this belief. During my research, I met people who clearly stated that they experience ethical dilemmas; they were living in situations where they felt at a loss and expressed their dismay at the behaviour they observed and the injustices that were perpetuated. Ann Davis (2004) confirms that an ethical dilemma is intimately connected with a person’s moral identity. What distinguishes a moral dilemma from the resolution of an ordinary problem consists in the fact that a person has difficulty choosing between two important values. There is an internal conflict between the values one holds and the problem at hand, which causes other values to come into play. The solution is not obvious, as these various values are in conflict. Furthermore, all potential action could be harmful in some way. As Hatcher concludes:

In resolving a moral dilemma, we can do no better than to evaluate carefully the various elements of the interaction, to determine the predominant principles, and then to act accordingly. We will not always succeed, even when trying our best, nor will we always have the time to engage in extensive reflection before acting. (1998, 121)

The study of ethical dilemmas involves the exploration of a confrontation between axiological considerations (the conflict of personal, professional, and organizational values) that, in a reflexive process of calibration, serve to legitimize, temporarily or permanently, the decision of the subject.

In the face of an ethical dilemma, two factors are at issue: the stakes and the ethical choices. By reflecting on a particular ethical dilemma, I developed a semi-structured guide that allows for the detailed study of an ethical dilemma (Langlois 1997). The usefulness of this guide has been validated, and its content improved, over the course of my research.

Ethical Questioning

Ethical questions are raised by the desired results of actions undertaken and the consequences envisaged for oneself and others, which aid our efforts to make a good decision. This introspection engages our capacity for reflection and contributes to moral imagination. The person anticipates several situations, while also weighing the possible positive and negative consequences. Reflection (regarding the outcome of the action) and imagination (anticipation of consequences) are two important elements in ethical questioning.

Ethical Stakes

Attached to the notion of ethical dilemma are situations in which the problem at hand is not clearly defined because values and principles have not yet been established or have not been explicitly laid out. In such cases, there is a risk of ethical dilemmas arising. Taking the time to reflect on the ethical stakes and the goal pursued can help us to resolve the dilemma. A consideration of ethical stakes aims to highlight the values and the various normative standards (or the absence thereof) that bear on the problem, which helps us to understand the situation better. The goal pursued brings to light what is essential with regard to retained value. Reflection relates mainly to an understanding of the broader ethical stakes that need to be evaluated in the context of the immediate problem. What are the anticipated situations? How should we frame (in a normative or regulatory manner) this problem should it come up in the future? What challenges does it raise at the ethical, legal, and social levels? What values do we want to protect? These questions allow for better discernment of the ethical challenges that prevail in a given situation.

An ethical issue is, in a way, a situation that focuses attention on that which could potentially be weakened in the domain of values. What values are imperilled by the situation that has arisen? This question offers the key to an exploration of ethical issues.

Ethical Choices

The sudden presence of an ethical choice provokes questioning and an evaluation of ethical stakes. Ethical choices are not neutral: on the contrary, they convey values and particular standards. In this light, remaining conscious of the fact that our choices reflect one or several normative aspects is important to our sense of empowerment within an ethical framework. The evaluation of choices results from a careful analysis of the stakes involved in a situation. These choices will also bear on principles—prevention and precaution, for example—that mark the actions undertaken or the decisions made by a person, group, or organization.

Ethical Trends

Contributing to our general definition of ethics are multiple currents that have influenced it: Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, consequentialist ethics, and so on. The intention here is not to provide an exhaustive definition of these various approaches: others have already done this. My research has been inspired by the three ethics outlined by Robert Starratt in the multidimensional model he presented in “Building an Ethical School” (1991): critique, justice, and care. This theoretical presentation was part of an ongoing debate that turned on the dichotomy between two ethics, namely, moral reasoning based on considerations of justice (Lawrence Kohlberg) and the concept of care (Carol Gilligan). For Starratt, combining these two conceptions of ethics with an ethic founded on critique constituted quite a challenge, all the more so because, at the end of the 1980s, acknowledging the existence of an ethic of care provoked a powerful debate among moral theoreticians. To complete his theoretical model, Starratt proposed the ethic of critique because of the transformative perspective it provides. I was able to validate his model during my doctoral research (Langlois 1997). The TERA model was inspired by this theoretical construction, and its utility was subsequently confirmed in several research projects and numerous training sessions that involved various organizations and different categories of employees. To understand the TERA model, we must explore the ethical dimensions that will guide this analysis in greater depth.

Three Fundamental Ethics: Critique, Justice, and Care

The Ethic of Critique

The ethic of critique that Starratt proposed is rooted in critical theory, as it developed in the Frankfurt school and was formulated by thinkers such as Theodor Adorno, Jürgen Habermas, Max Horkheimer, and Iris M. Young. This approach seeks to uncover the injustices that one can perceive in social relations or that are created by laws, or that are perpetuated in organizational structures or by the use of language that seeks to obscure the real problem or to render one relationship dominant. In brief, these thinkers sought to uncover situations that benefitted one person or a group to the detriment of others. For Starratt, the ethic of critique aims to discover a whether one group is dominating another and to show how this situation came about so that the injustice can be corrected.

This ethic includes four questions designed to help us understand relations of power: Who benefits from this situation? Is there a dominant group? Who defines the structure? Who defines what is valued or undervalued? When an injustice is discovered, those who adopt this ethical perspective attempt to sensitize others in order to obtain a better balance in the distribution of social benefits. As Starratt notes, “their basic stance is ethical for they are dealing with questions of social justice and human dignity, although not with individual choices” (1991, 189).

The intention of those acting according to an ethic of critique is to ensure that organizational and social arrangements are more in line with the human rights of all citizens. Their goal is also to allow persons concerned by these arrangements to express their opinion and contribute their point of view. The right to be heard can inspire exchanges that are more profound and can bring about changes that make the situation more equitable. The ethic of critique allows every stakeholder to offer whatever suggestions, recommendations, or critiques seem necessary to improve an organization or society. This is, in essence, a form of social responsibility, one that preserves justice and ensures the well-being of those who sometimes find it difficult to make themselves heard.

Organizations offer no shortage of examples in which the perspective of an ethic of critique is relevant: sexism or racism during the hiring process, prejudice towards other cultures or religions, unfair representation on committees (the absence of certain groups), sexist or racist language, the distribution of tasks on the basis of gender, a lack of programs that promote equality, the implementation of policies without any genuine consultation with those affected, the distribution of resources according to ad hoc criteria, access to professional networks or clubs that is restricted to men, and so on. All of these examples raise ethical challenges because they involve unjustified presuppositions and/or offer disproportionate advantages to some to the detriment of others. As regards the existence of such arrangements, those who adhere to an ethic of critique are by no means naïve. As Starratt comments:

The point the critical ethician stresses is that no social arrangement is neutral. It is usually structured to benefit some segments of society at the expense of others. The ethical challenge is to make these social arrangements more responsive to the human and social rights of all the citizens, to enable those affected by social arrangements to have a voice in evaluating their results and in altering them in the interests of the common good and of fuller participation and justice for individuals. (1991, 189–190)

Those whose moral reasoning is heavily influenced by an ethic of critique will grapple with the realities underlying choices that might ensure greater social justice. The process of reflection that this approach entails will also bring to light the sort of disproportionate allocation of benefits that can arise when power is misused. This ethical perspective helps us move from a sort of moral innocence, in which we simply assume that this is “the way things are,” to a consciousness of the fact that political and social arenas reflect arrangements of power and privilege, interests and influence, that are often legitimized by a supposed form of rationality, as well as by law or custom (Starratt 1991, 190).

In accordance with an ethic of critique, decisions or arrangements are reconsidered in an effort to promote greater equity and justice. The ethic of critique must also be based on the social nature of human beings. The human objectives that the social organization is intended to serve may inspire a manager to promote a sense of responsibility, not only towards the members of the organization but also towards society as a whole. The moral goal pursued by public organizations, such as governments, schools, and hospitals, is to offer the same quality of services equally to all citizens.

The danger or weakness of this ethic is that the critique can become exaggerated and destructive, challenging all decisions and seeing abuse of power everywhere. Given that the word critique is preceded by the word ethics, it makes sense that, if we are to remain on course, we must pursue a constructive path so as avoid the sort of negative commentary that undermines an organization and creates disunity. Another weakness of an ethic of critique is that it rarely offers concrete proposals about how to reconstruct the unsatisfactory social order. The second ethic, justice, can help us to identify solutions and thus to compensate for the weaknesses of the ethic of critique.

The Ethic of Justice

There are currently two major schools of thought as regards the ethic of justice. The first, according to Starratt, dates back to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, in the seventeenth century, and finds much of its contemporary expression in the works of John Rawls (1971). Starratt defines this first school of thought as one that puts independent individuals ahead of social relations—which, as they are based solely on the acquisition of certain advantages, were thought to be artificial and governed solely by private interests. The only important values are the interests of each person and individual preference. The social contract of this school of thought is one wherein citizens agree to abandon some of their freedom in exchange for protection from the state. According to Sullivan, social justice is a “social technique which serves to harmonize the needs and desires of individuals autonomously and independently of one another in society” (quoted in Starratt 1991, 192).

The second school of thought, which dates back to Aristotle, can be traced through Jean Jacques Rousseau, Hegel, Karl Marx, and John Dewey and is more in keeping with the concept of an ethic of justice envisaged in my study. It is by experience, by living in society, that each person learns the lessons of morality. This participation in community life teaches people how to view their own behaviour in terms of the greater common good. Civic sense is an initiative and responsibility shared by those who are committed to mutual well-being (Starratt 1991, 192).

According to this school of thought, ethics is rooted in practices within the community. Kohlberg also believes in this manner of learning about justice. For him, moral reasoning and choice were facilitated by a community environment. The protection of human dignity depends on the moral quality of social relations, which, ultimately, is a public and political affair. According to Starratt, in this perspective:

a communal understanding of the requirements of justice and governance flows from both tradition and the present effort of the community to manage its affairs in the midst of competing claims of the common good and individual rights. That understanding is never complete; it will always be limited by inadequacy of tradition to respond to changing circumstances and by the impossibility of settling conflicting claims conclusively and completely. The choices, however, will always be made with sensitivity to the bonds that tie individuals to their communities. (1991, 193)

As one can observe, then, two interpretations are given to justice. In the first school, each person is considered to be a distinct social entity, and social relations are governed by a contract according to which each abandons some freedom for the sake of social harmony. In this view, justice rests on individual choice. In the second school, each person is considered inseparable from society: one’s development takes place through one’s participation in social life. This training, which is directed at the greater common good, presupposes a certain measure of consultation with one’s peers. In this perspective, justice is based on community choice and aspires to equitable governance.

The workplace engages both perspectives on justice: individual choices are made on the basis of a certain consciousness of community, while the choices of the organization are the sum of individual choices made every day at work. An ethic of justice requires the institution to serve both the common good and individual rights. A balance between the two is the goal. How, then, should we govern ourselves? Starratt put this question at the heart of the ethic of justice. Effective governance involves continuous consultation with various stakeholders about policies and regulations. Many organizations have recently turned their attention to crafting mission statements that reflect organizational values. This initiative is an example of a contract that requires the agreement of all. It is interesting to note that, traditionally, the first article of a law lays forth values that will serve to legitimize its purpose. Today, such preambles are avoided.

The goals of an ethic of justice, as advanced by Starratt, is to provoke exchange, to engage people in debate, to demonstrate transparency in management, and to foster consultation and understanding. Those who act in accordance with the ethic of justice aim for responsible autonomy based on cooperation and on the promotion of a just social order within the organization.

A person seeking to foster an ethic of justice wishes to see ethical training activities incorporated into the workplace to foster discussion about individual and collective choices and to sharpen the sensibilities of all. This could mean programs on conflict resolution, value clarification, problem solving, multicultural understanding, and so on. Encouraging exchange on the injustices experienced by persons of different cultures makes it possible to achieve a better understanding and to establish programs that better suit their purpose. Discussions can take place, for example, on the methods of classification and evaluation used by the organization from the standpoint of justice. As Starratt acknowledges, however, none of this is easy: “No doubt such freewheeling discussion of so many taken-for-granted elements of schooling will get messy and unmanageable. Most administrators dread such initial lack of definition” (1991, 194).

Of course, initiating a dialogue on these aspects of organizational life can make some people insecure. We believe, however, that the power of debating what is and is not allowed in an organization should not be underestimated. There must be very close reciprocal relations between the ethic of justice and the ethic of critique. As Starratt goes on to point out, “often the naming of the problem (critique) will suggest new directions or alternatives for restructuring the practice or process in a fairer manner” (1991, 194–195).

The weakness of the ethic of justice has to do with the effort required on the part of the community to manage its affairs while at the same time taking both the common good and individual rights into account. For some, it is difficult to determine the points of conflict. What is just for one person or group can be unjust for another person or group. Another pitfall associated with this ethic is that it can become bogged down in minimalist considerations. What are the minimal conditions required to satisfy the claims of justice? One should not be afraid to go beyond these minimal conditions and raise the bar. How many organizations have created precedents simply by reconsidering the way things are done and by developing criteria of excellence that were subsequently supported by norms? But in order for the ethic of justice to meet its ultimate goal, it requires the complementary ethic of care.

The Ethic of Care

Starratt bases his ethic of care on the work of Carol Gilligan (1982) and Nel Noddings (1984). Gilligan, in particular, encourages the adoption of this ethical approach from the point of view of psychology. Long associated with the feminist perspective, research on the ethic of care focused initially on the moral development of young women, turning only later to that of men.

The ethic of care relates to the fundamental requirements of interpersonal relations, not from a contractual or legal standpoint but in terms of absolute respect. Starratt adds that this perspective, which is developed through interpersonal relations,

places the human persons-in-relationship as occupying a position for each other of absolute value; neither one can be used as a means to an end; each enjoys an intrinsic dignity and worth, and, given the chance, will reveal genuinely loveable qualities. An ethics of caring requires fidelity to persons, a willingness to acknowledge their right to be who they are, an openness to encountering them in their authentic individuality, a loyalty to the relationship. (1991, 195)

Those who practice an ethic of care consider human relations to be of major importance to the proper functioning of organizations. There must be concern for the welfare of people in the workplace.¹ The struggle for power must make room for more harmonious social relations, in which everyone works towards common goals. This approach is not about the management of people but rather about management with people.

This approach to ethics requires that the individuality of the other be recognized. It requires a quality of openness that welcomes each person’s distinctiveness; it explores the conditions needed to establish and maintain confidence, frankness, and good communication. An ethic of care goes beyond superficial relationships based solely on legal obligations to establish relations based on esteem, mutual respect, and loyalty.

Several examples can serve to illustrate how this ethic operates in the workplace. Sometimes, relations within an organization include a form of domination or prejudice that blocks all attempts to move towards care, respect, and dignity. As Starratt observes:

When these underside issues dominate an administrative exchange, they block any possibility of open, trusting, professional communication. Mistrust, manipulation, aggressive, and controlling actions or language on the part of the administrator can lead to a relationship that is hypocritical, dishonest, disloyal, vicious, and dehumanizing. (1991, 196)

An organization concerned with maintaining an ethic of care will establish a culture that encourages the development of harmonious relations. As Starratt says: “Often the use of language in official communiqués will tell the story: formal, abstract language is the language of bureaucracy and of distance; humor, familiar imagery and metaphor, and personalized messages are the language of caring” (1991, 196). Policies founded on the recognition of the individual within the organization and the place that each person occupies express care for others. When a workplace pits individuals against each other, favouring competition and encouraging employees to take on extra burdens, it distances itself from care. In contrast, workplaces that value people give priority to respect, service, and the spirit of mutual helpfulness. An organization that is guided by an ethic of care values interpersonal relations, the quality of life at work, the health of workers, and the health of the community of workers.

Yet the ethic of care also has its shortcomings. Given a heightened level of familiarity among individuals, it can be challenging to announce a decision that may hurt someone or be a source of concern. For example, a manager who knows that an employee is in the middle of a difficult personal situation might hesitate to share complaints from other colleagues about the person’s performance at work. Familiarity between people can also make it hard to view situations in a more global manner. Such limitations can, however, be overcome by applying the other two ethics.

For an understanding of human relations, an ethic of justice requires the profound personal recognition offered by an ethic of care. At the same time, an ethic of justice obliges us to pay attention to the need for greater attention to the social order and to equity. The ethic of critique requires that of care in order to avoid cynical and often depressing expressions of constant discontent. And, finally, an ethic of justice needs the insights offered by an ethic of critique if it wants to look beyond procedural arrangements that ignore the evolution of context. As Starratt reminds us:

Knowing our own failures to care for others, our own immature ways of rationalizing moral choices, knowing our own reluctance to challenge questionable school arrangements, we are able to confront the general weakness in the human community. Despite our heroic ideals, we often act in distinctly unheroic ways. (1991, 197)

The three ethics reinforce each other to form a holistic approach to analyzing situations. Very complex problems can be examined from the standpoint of what each of these three ethics demands, even if the final decision rests perhaps on only one. This decision can, however, be enriched by applying all three perspectives, while this can also foster greater awareness of the complexity of the ethical problems that arise in the organizational milieu.

The weaknesses of each of these ethics can cause them to depart from the ethical sphere. As mentioned earlier, each ethic has its proper boundaries that enrich and maintain the ethical trajectory overall. When a person acts on the basis of these weaknesses or vulnerabilities, that person is no longer on the ethical trajectory. For example, a manager hesitates in firing an incompetent employee, in spite of negative evaluations, because he knows the individual personally, is a friend of the family, and is aware of the employee’s financial situation. Here we encounter a weakness of the ethic of care that overlooks the ethical dimensions of the situation. Turning a blind eye on responsibility, the manager becomes too paralyzed to act and thus perpetrates an unethical practice.

Table 3 highlights the three ethics and the specific moral actions to be undertaken by individuals who wish to remain on an ethical course. My own model for an ethical approach, the TERA model, incorporates the perspectives offered by each of these ethics as part of a moral analysis of a given situation. My model rests on three major pillars that together constitute the process of ethical analysis: knowledge, volition, and action. Each of these concepts allows for multidimensional ethical reflection that can serve to better guide decision making.

© Lyse Langlois 2000

The TERA Process: Knowledge—Volition—Action

The principle that governs morally authentic general interactions is that we should always act so as to increase our consciousness and awareness of reality. Moral development means a continual enlargement of consciousness and increase in sensibility and awareness.

—William S. Hatcher, Love, Power, and Justice, 131

Knowledge

Knowledge is the first step in this process of ethical analysis. It reveals the degree of ethical sensitivity that an individual possesses and makes it possible to grasp the moral dimensions of a situation of conflict and the potential ethical challenges. When one embarks on this phase, ethical reflection engages with the ethical dilemma at hand. This process of reflection is based on the three ethics of care, justice, and critique. The person analyzes the situation by calling consecutively on the three ethics and examining the potential effects that attach to each. This analysis of consequences in the light of the three ethics integrates the dimensions of self, of others, and of the self with respect to others (reciprocity).

The sensibility aligned with an ethic of care requires the capacities for listening, understanding, dialogue, and empathy. Such a sensibility gives rise to a strong awareness of others who are affected by the situation. This ethic derives its legitimacy from a concern for other people and the preservation of their dignity.

A sensibility that places the emphasis on an ethic of justice requires the skills needed to carry out an investigation, taking into account the regulatory framework, while also bearing in mind what is equitable and just. In this context, the person must examine legislative and political measures and procedures pertinent to the situation. The legitimacy of the ethic of justice derives from legal and normative considerations that ensure social cohesion in the light of what is just. Consequences are thus evaluated as a function of this dimension of justice.

The sensibility that rests on an ethic of critique calls for the capacity to sense injustice in language and structure—in other words, to denounce subterranean arrangements (hidden agendas, conflicts of interest, favouritism) that give one group an advantage over another. The consequences are analyzed according to the criterion of greater social justice. The legitimacy of this ethic is rooted in the identification of situations that are to the advantage of some but work to the detriment of the whole.

My research (Langlois 1997, 2004) allowed me to demonstrate that, in the case of any given individual, one of the three ethical dimensions will be more developed than the other two and that most people favour a single approach when examining a situation. In this sense, the “experience” variable is important, as it enables some people to integrate a second and sometimes a third ethical dimension into their understanding of the situation. The integration of the three viewpoints thus often rests on accumulated experience and on a capacity for openness. My research also allowed me to conclude that it is possible to learn and develop an ethical approach that is based on a multidimensional perspective.

During a TERA training program, the knowledge component aims, on the one hand, to help individuals identify their personal ethical viewpoint and mode of analysis and, on the other, to become aware of other ethical perspectives and the consequences of their choices. This multidimensional reflection plays an important role in the development of the sort of ethical sensibility that is central to an ethical decision-making process. This is the path to a clear and well-considered judgment that allows one to become aware of the action to be taken. Knowledge seen in this three-dimensional way enables us to discern the issues more clearly while attempting to bring out the values implicit in each of the three ethics.

The following are the sort of questions that participants in the TERA program ask themselves when they engage in ethical reflection: Are people conscious of the ethic they favour? Do they recognize the place of ethics in the organization? Are they able to perceive injustice and inequitable or inhumane situations?

To proceed to the next stage, that of volition, it is essential to have completed the first, that of knowledge.

Volition

Volition is the second stage in the TERA model. It brings to light the axiological dimensions, beliefs, standards, and principles to which we subscribe and determines to what extent we are conscious of their existence. This reveals the degree to which we adhere to such values and the strength of our volition to use them as internal rules. This stage also allows us to determine to what extent we are capable of exercising our free will. It is often difficult to disengage from a problematic situation without yielding to influences or pressure of some sort. The ability to stand back and detach oneself from a situation in order to get a better view of its axiological dimensions proves to be vital. In this way, we are able to pinpoint the considerations that offer essential support for our arguments. To this end, an individual will seek to understand, to exercise judgment, and to choose the value to be defended in a given situation. This stage allows us to determine how far we are willing to defend our point of view in accordance with our principles. It also reveals whether we are motivated to take action to resolve the dilemma while also being able to justify the motives that guide our decisions.

Research carried out during TERA training sessions revealed that those who engage in this stage of volition are able to distance themselves from events, and once they have determined their values and legitimized their decisions, they manifest the courage needed for action. Let us return to the previous example, regarding Nadine’s ethical dilemma.

This stage of the model is crucial, for it reflects a person’s moral constitution. As it turns out, individuals can feel lost when they realize that they have no truly profound convictions or identifiable values. This stage often leaves them in complete disarray, which prevents them from moving on to take action. The person senses a moral void or a lack of the moral strength needed to act. This moral strength is defined as the capacity to ascribe to oneself robust, constructive, and lasting convictions (Grand’Maison 2007, 12). As William Hatcher observed:

We must therefore strive to maintain the higher view and the broader perspective whenever we are in the midst of our struggle. We cannot succeed unless we are firmly convinced and inwardly resolved that our attempts to act morally constitute the only true and ultimate meaning of our life. (1998, 136)

Action

Several actions have already been accomplished during the previous stages of the ethical process—actions rooted in one of the three ethics. In fact, this last stage, that of action, marks the final decision. At this stage, it is important that we clearly identify the considerations that will serve to defend our position. Before we make any sort of public communication, we must ask ourselves whether our decision will stand up to an in-depth examination by our colleagues, the public, and ourselves. Will we in fact be able to defend our point of view in public and thus pass what ethicists call the media test (Cooper 2006)? Would I still be capable of making and defending this decision even if it were to reach the ears of the media? The following questions help to test our ethical reflections during this stage in the process: Are there any unseen factors that could alter my decision? Am I setting an example? Am I maintaining a bond of confidence with others? Will my decision, which seems just today, seem so tomorrow? Are there particular circumstances that would lead me to make exceptions?

The main skills developed during this stage are moral imagination and judgment, the ability to articulate the two, and steadfastness in terms of choices. When we make our decision, we are sometimes forced to choose between solutions that are equally justifiable and legitimate. Given this complexity, it is important to ground our decisions in what we judge to be solid and worth upholding.

This process, which encompasses the three phases of knowledge, volition, and action, allows us to make an enlightened decision. Such an approach rests on a process of ethical reflection in which we are conscious of the final action we must carry out. An ethical leader is a person who is committed to an authentic process of reflection. The leader seeks to analyze the situation and to gain a global understanding of what constitutes ethical action and then, as a result, will undertake to make a decision that is based on the search for improved knowledge and on volition framed in terms of constructive action.

By taking into account the three ethical dimensions that surround the stages of knowledge, volition, and action, we are able to outline a decision-making trajectory that is both ethical and authentic. These three stages are presented to managers with the goal of enabling them to put into practice a trajectory that is ethical, responsible, and authentic (TERA).

According to André Comte-Sponville (1995), to be authentic means to act in good faith; it means that our words and actions are in keeping with our private convictions and thoughts. As Hatcher comments: “Authenticity leads to autonomy and autonomy to authenticity; each reinforces the other in continual reciprocity” (1998, 124). This reciprocal relationship can serve as a sort of test. Despite being motivated to do so, we may decide at the last moment not to act. Undue pressures can arise, as can doubts about our own capacity to assert our position, which can prevent us from acting. But if we are truly interested in ethics, we cannot be content with good intentions and a desire to do something without actually taking any action. Taking action is evidence of a sense of responsibility that shows we have the courage of our convictions. According to Hans Jonas (1990), the concept of responsibility transcends the familiar Kantian imperative. To remain authentic for the duration of the decision-making process sometimes requires that we go beyond the framework of regulations in order to better respond to a particular situation. To be responsible, in an ethical sense, means to be responsible for one’s actions and to be able to justify one’s choices. As Jonas sees it, ethical responsibility demands that we envisage all the possible consequences of our actions, be these positive or negative, prior to making a decision.

A Challenging but Necessary Interdependence

Man’s life depends on his will; without will, life would be left to chance.

—Confucius

The bonds between the three components—knowledge, volition, and action—are not always tightly tied in the actions of those seeking to engage in an ethical process. In my research, I found that volition forms the bedrock of the three components, and, for this reason, it stands in the middle of the process. I also observed that tension can be found primarily between volition and action. The passage from volition to action can constitute a significant challenge. It is perfectly possible to identify, in the abstract, what should be done and to perceive it with relative clarity, but it is more difficult to actually carry it out, in accordance with one’s sincere sense of determination and one’s volition. Each of us vacillates between what can be done—what we can in fact commit to—and a lack of the will to act, which may exist for all sorts of reasons, including lack of courage, conflicts of interest, indifference, and so on.

To sever the connection between volition and action can be a sign of weakness. The separation thus created between the two phases can cause us to abandon the ethical process on which we have embarked. Individuals who were questioned about the gap between volition and action mentioned that personal stumbling blocks—including a lack of motivation—constituted one of the greatest sources of strain. Besides such personal blockages, organizational and structural elements also came into play, such as a work environment that had deteriorated to the point where any action, even that likely to promote improvement, constituted an enormous risk for the employee in terms of career and psychological well-being. When a superior establishes controlling interpersonal relationships with employees, this can also rupture the bonds that exist among the three elements.

Ideally, gaining knowledge of what is acceptable, while considering contingencies, should lead to volition capable of resulting in constructive action. Volition is the link between knowledge and action. The question is, do we need volition to accomplish action? There are several responses. Let us consider a fireman. His training offers him knowledge about what he should do to put out a fire, but is it his instinct or volition that prompts him to throw himself into the fire to save someone? A person who is drowning will be gripped by a survival instinct that will automatically drive him to flail his arms, but it is his volition that will drive him to swim to shore. Without volition, or the capacity to decide and exercise our free will, we are not free.

Our beliefs, our education, and our philosophy of life serve as criteria when we engage in action. I was able to determine that the weakness observed when individuals disengage from an ethical trajectory such as that proposed by the TERA model could be evidence of an underlying void with regard to meaning and values. I observed that people sometimes felt confused during this middle stage in the analysis. They became aware, for the first time, of a certain axiological absence or emptiness when they seemed incapable of carrying out an action or according meaning to their action. For example, if I am in my car and there is a red light, I stop. I know that if I run the red light, I risk causing an accident. Thus, I have the volition to stop. I protect myself, and in so doing, I protect others as well. Volition is the ability to mobilize these personal forces to attain a goal; it involves motivation, initiative, and decision. It is also at this stage that we see the appearance of courage—the pluck needed to handle a situation and the determination to see it through to the end. In fact, as one of the participants in the TERA research project confirmed, in the course of exercising their authority, some managers attempt to make themselves popular. For her, maintaining ethical behaviour should not form part of a campaign to please everyone. Rather, it requires a dedication to courage, in spite of the traps set in one’s way.

The TERA Model: Moving Towards Responsible and Authentic Relationships

The ethical process presented rests on a critical, reflective approach that should allow for (a) the awakening of an ethical sensibility; (b) an awareness of elements of injustice, such as a lack of consideration for others or a lack of respect for rules and regulations; (c) the highlighting of different possibilities, according to the three ethics of justice, care, and critique; and (d) an understanding of the consequences, and the potential consequences, of a decision. The goal of this process is to identify an action that is just and that accords with authenticity and responsibility. By setting such an approach in motion, we are able to distance ourselves from new forms of oppression that alienate the critical spirit and that, in the end, lend legitimacy to social injustice.

A Rising Level of Confidence

There can be no doubt that consciousness or self-awareness is the most fundamental characteristic and defining capacity of the human being.

—William S. Hatcher, Love, Power, and Justice, 46

According to Canto-Sperber (2001), an ethical approach must include the following four elements: understanding, knowledge (that is, recognizing what is real), reasoning (anticipating likely consequences), and the specific action, as well as the effect it can have. We see that the TERA model incorporates these four elements at various stages of the process and that, by means of them, the capacities characteristic of the ethical approach are developed.

The first capacity is ethical sensitivity, which is kindled by an ethical dilemma. This ethical sensibility is often coloured by a specific ethical orientation, variously associated with care, justice, or critique. For example, it is possible for a person to be faced with an ethical dilemma in a variety of a situations—one that threatens to lead to significant injustice for a specific group, one that could bring harm to someone, owing to the treatment meted out to an employee, one that involves questioning the rules and their application, and so on. An ethical sensitivity represents the conscience that judges these diverse situations. According to Eric Blondel:

Conscience is in fact the final instance of moral judgment; if it is not the absolute and infallible criterion of the morality of an action, the fact remains that it is the last court before which actions are judged, evaluated, and decided. Without recourse to this last instance of conscience, I am but a blind instrument whose free will resembles that of a roasting spit. (2000, 32)

During one of my research projects, I was able to demonstrate that only the ethic of critique can predict, to a significant degree, the existence of an ethical sensitivity (Langlois 2010). This helps to confirm the importance of this ethic in professional practice. This ethic, which is very close to justice, involves a thoroughgoing social analysis that aims to highlight the elements that prevent the establishment of greater social justice. (Thus we see that the initial action of social movements, such as women battling for equality or those of ethnic and religious minorities, is always driven by an ethic of critique.)

A second capacity is that of moral imagination, which is activated during the process of anticipation and the search for solutions, in terms of consequences for oneself and for others.² Moral imagination requires depth if it is to allow us a clearer vision of the consequences of a proposed decision. This process demands that we consider several possibilities and assess, in good conscience, what could happen if we were to choose this or that solution to a problem. In this way, one fully becomes the subject of one’s actions (Ricoeur 1992) and is able to justify them.

A third capacity involved in the decision-making process is judgment, or moral evaluation, which is carried out in the light of one or another possible option. Moral evaluation also requires detachment on the part of the subject so that he or she can better assess all the imaginable solutions. Of course, we can only consider what we are able to understand; we cannot overlook the fact that contingencies may arise in spite of a rigorous evaluation. At this stage, standards, rules, and values are taken into consideration, as are the goals to be pursued. According to Ricoeur, ethics aims to reconstruct the intermediaries between freedom, which is the point of departure, and the law, which is the point of arrival. The area that lies between freedom and the law is that of moral evaluation. Of course, this capacity is not immune from external pressures that might aim to influence the exercise of free will.

The fourth capacity is authenticity. To become engaged in an ethical decision-making process requires being true to ourselves in terms of the values we claim to uphold and to be authentic in the relations we have with others. Our behaviour affects others and our working environment overall, especially when we must exercise leadership.

The final capacity is ethical responsibility. Philosophers have stated that in order to be responsible, we must answer for our actions. In fact, sponsio spondere means to vouch for, to solemnly promise, to commit ourselves to one another and to the law, which requires that we be fully present to others and to ourselves. Questions that come to mind in terms of this last (but not least) capacity are: How should we respond? On what basis should we respond? According to Jean-François Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thébaud, the postmodern age is characterized by the impossibility of judging because “we judge without criteria” (1985, 30). The complexity of today’s world has in fact created a void at the level of personal responsibility for making judgments. As a result, we find it increasingly difficult to perform this act, even though we are conscious of the fact that it must be done. In this regard, Jacques Derrida says: “If criteria were simply possible, if the law were present there, before us, there would be no more judgment. There would be technical know-how, the application of a code, the semblance of decision” (Derrida et al. 1985, 94). Responsibility would thus become meaningless because one would no longer have to ask how to make a decision. As de Fontenay (1990) stated, there is no ethical or political responsibility without this test and this passage through the undecidable. Thus, a decision is an experience of the undecidable. This broadening out of responsibility, or this elastic responsibility, complicates the experience of the undecidable, because people may shirk their responsibility when faced with a major decision. In an ethical decision-making process, responsibility is bound to volition so that we may find meaning and justifications and thus better understand the real. All the capacities in the ethical decision-making process become blurred if they are not stamped with the seal of responsibility; in its absence, there can be no real ethic.

To embark on a path of ethical reflection, in an effort to practice ethical leadership, can be a major challenge owing to both the pressures under which we now operate and the whirlwind rush into which we are plunged. This state of urgency has become the basic principle that governs our behaviour at work.³ People are increasingly connected to the immediate moment rather than to the span of time. To find ourselves constantly pushed into this state has important ethical consequences. As the principal function of business problem-solving is to create solutions that work in the short term, this urgency is at odds with the process of ethical reflection, specifically the moral evaluation of the situation, which requires a certain distancing. Today, we no longer engage in this reflection, because the prevailing force of opinion regards thinking about a problem and achieving the distance necessary to evaluate it properly as a waste of time. The needed distancing cannot adequately be achieved because it is increasingly difficult to extract oneself from the here and now. To do more with less is the leitmotif of postmodern organizations.

This cult of urgency has had tangible effects on human relations. Integration becomes difficult, and the feeling of unity becomes increasingly fragmented because individuals are isolated and have fewer opportunities to gather facts or compare points of view. The philosopher Jean Onimus stated that the greater the weight of the economy on our relations and our judgments, the more it will blind us to the lives of others. The pleasures of being together, of creating bonds, of subjecting a situation of moral dilemma to a thorough evaluation before making a choice are difficult to quantify. These are part of another order, that of temporality. Our economic system does not favour this order because it demands too much time.

Our incapacity to engage in ethical reflection, in spite of our desire to do so, produces a sense of urgency, and we feel pressured. Thus the “knowledge” element finds itself conjured away. Those who find it difficult to separate situations from the influences that bear upon them sometimes begin to legitimize situations. They even manage to place them behind a veil to hide their reality. Such legitimacies, sometimes built on false assumptions, constitute major obstacles. The ethical approach aims to delimit new and less porous frontiers, which will serve to preserve the rigour of the ethical decision-making process.

Towards Responsible Leadership

Implementing ethical leadership suggests the importance of thinking critically about the standards and values that underpin our organizations. Such questioning also involves important reflection on extreme situations brought about, for example, arguments that put weight on the normative in order to protect the perpetrator and hide the real causes of improper behaviour. For the manager who attempts to dismantle such legalistic dissimulation, which obstructs the search for truth and prevents sanctions being brought against behaviour that is detrimental to the well-being of the workplace, this can be a veritable obstacle course. For example, a person whose conduct at work is inappropriate or amounts to harassment can benefit from multiple sources of protection before eventually being punished. Sometimes, employees who must work alongside such people can be affected so profoundly that the deviant behaviour leaves them with scars or ends up affecting the overall working environment. Such disruptive behaviour may have endured because of insufficient institutional follow-up, or because no one wants to be responsible for possible interventions, or because the employee was not adequately evaluated. Several managers who demonstrated characteristics of ethical leadership expressed their frustration with such situations. With little or no written evidence to document poor performance at work or behaviour judged to be inappropriate, they must “build a case file.” Because this process takes time, a long period passes before sanctions can be applied. The person at fault is thus protected and can continue working with full impunity in spite of faulty performance, resulting in a variety of consequences that affect both co-workers and the organization.

The same goes for those who engage in destructive actions by using dubious means to arrive at their ends. Behaviour that transcends the limits of acceptability and transgresses against norms should be considered unethical. To encourage such actions or to ignore such behaviour means that the manager is likewise supporting a lack of ethics in the workplace. In order to pursue an ethical approach to decision making, managers must be thoroughly familiar with what constitutes professional practice and understand the role and the responsibilities they must assume in order to allow a workplace ethics to take root. When a manager instead covers up the incompetence of an employee because bonds exist that could prove useful or serve his personal interests, he departs from the ethical framework of his job and finds himself standing outside normative standards or in the realm of the unethical.

In the context of the present day, what is needed is critical ethical questioning regarding the limits of the process of humanization and the socialization of behaviour, both individual and collective. An ethic of justice remains vital for governing our collective relationships. However, this ethic must necessarily bring with it a form of questioning associated with the ethic of critique, namely, a questioning of the structures, rules, and foundations that guide us with a view to understanding their social relevance while also taking into account how the context has evolved. Furthermore, certain conditions must be met if we are to bring about a profound change in human relations.

An Ethical Culture

At the very beginning of this work, we raised the idea that ethical leadership in line with a learning organization (Senge and Gauthier 1991), which allows a group to examine its manner of working and to review the benchmarks it uses in its practices. To co-exist, it is necessary to have a common understanding of the norms and values in which our management practices are embedded. In the absence of any real dialogue on values and norms, we find ourselves before an empty organizational shell that does not foster a collective spirit. Ethical leadership is a tributary of this quality of reflection, which we collectively create. This approach requires that the organization provide time and space for reflection and that we distance ourselves from the logic of the market and the pressures that can blur our values. It also requires a certain degree of maturity to initiate a dialogue on sensitive issues that bear on the ethical domain and to learn from our ethical actions in the past as well as from those that were less so.

According to Treviño, an ethical culture rests on values, norms, beliefs, and shared presuppositions that guide ethical behaviour. This foundation raises a whole set of questions about the way of doing things in the organization and the level of acceptance that will legitimize this ethical culture and the norms that surround such practices. During my research, I noticed that several managers who sought to establish an ethical culture in their organization were soon faced with opposition. Their opponents viewed this approach as a disruption of their well-established habits, and they preferred not to initiate such a process of reflection for fear of bringing to light certain unacceptable patterns of behaviour that had hitherto gone undetected. To counter efforts to establish an ethical culture, some even went so far as to request union intervention. Changing workplace behaviour or initiating dialogue on values and norms is no small challenge. Different organizations have different levels of maturity and, good intentions notwithstanding, it can be hazardous to try to bring about a change in workplace culture even if it is intended to put ethics at the heart of the organization.

Bringing ethics into the workplace in the form of a critical capacity for reflection requires an organizational maturity that develops only gradually. For some, the process can begin with the establishment of a code of conduct or a declaration of shared values. For others, it can mean revising human resources policy so that it can serve as a beacon for managers who are dealing with a crisis or provide a way to reflect on complex problems experienced at work. Certain conditions are necessary for establishing such a culture: attitudes that elicit individual and collective respect, regard for transparency and clarity in decision making and communication, and rewards for good practices. In brief, maturity begins with a series of actions intended to unite rather than divide, and a set of practices designed to inspire and sensitize people rather than to control them.

The establishment of real dialogue, such as that described by David Bohm, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett (1991), is the lever that allows for the creation of an ethical culture. William Isaacs defines dialogue as a “shared exploration, a way of thinking and reflecting together” (1999, 9). It is, in a sense, to create something with people, to work with others to establish an ethical culture. It is not about a small group of chosen individuals deciding on norms and on what is legitimate for everyone. Establishing dialogue requires changing our way of doing things, which is so often founded on a process of negotiation in which each person must defend his or her position. According to Bohm and his colleagues, dialogue presupposes that perception is privileged over knowledge, the existence of multiple perspectives over compromise, and discernment over decision. In their view, a successful dialogue must include the following elements:

• A temporary exclusion of impulses, value judgments, and so on, which requires exposing our reactions, feelings, and opinions so that our own psyche as well as the other members of the group can see and experience them
• Paying close attention to reactions, impulses, feelings, and opinions so that their structures will be visible the moment these elements appear
• Forgetting hierarchy, because dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals
• Allocating time (at least two hours) so that the dialogue can get going in the group

This practice of dialogue proves essential when, for example, the complexity of situations brings to light considerations that are all equally valid, when unethical behaviour remains vague and difficult to identify, and when there are sensitive areas in the organization that can create situations of crisis.

According to Johane Patenaude (2001), dialogue is a mutually acceptable approximation of the values of truth and justice. It does not necessarily result in consensus but rather is the fruit of a joint process. To engage in dialogue means to accede to the reasonable: one passes from violence to disagreement, from disagreement to questioning, and from questioning to more reasonable questioning. Dialogue requires moving to the level of the object, which is the joint enterprise of sharing meaning, and the subject, namely, the we.

This approach to ethics, at the heart of which is dialogue, aims to establish a new moral and social contract, one better suited to meeting individuals’ current needs. In the past, ethical principles may have been present but in an implicit manner. With the establishment of ethical leadership, these principles can be articulated and rendered transparent, so that individuals can abide by clear rules when making crucial choices.

In this conception, ethics, instead of being a matter of moralizing to which people must submit, is something they actually live. Such ethics call for initiative and responsibility rather than obedience. Ethics thus becomes an act of responsibility that lies at the forefront of management. This work, carried out in depth, promotes the development of an ethical awareness and sensibility, which are essential to maturity.

If people do not commit themselves to a path of reflection, other, more external imperatives will assume responsibility for formulating conduct appropriate to the workplace and for keeping the public informed: organized citizen groups do not hesitate to demand accountability from institutions. Some even expose behaviour judged to be unacceptable. Without appropriate intervention, this can poison the organization and the work environment. The weight of public opinion becomes important. Numerous non-governmental organizations are engaged in the work of sensitization and in demanding redress in connection with questionable practices. These groups sometimes play the crucial role of watchdog, on the lookout for practices or decisions perceived to be harmful, especially to their community or the environment. In this way, citizens become more aware of both the challenges and obligations of organizations with regard to their roles and responsibilities in the community. Social responsibility is thus gaining ground and is increasingly included in mission statements and codes of conduct. Ethical behaviour at work is of growing concern. External regulations are increasingly common, which contributes to a certain homogenization of behaviour. Such codes of conduct often serve to justify disciplinary measures that are aimed more at ordinary employees than at managers.

At the same time, in some organizations input from employees is invited regarding the values that should govern management practices and inspire people to behave appropriately at work. There is a desire that individuals contribute to defining that which will ensure collective well-being, that will be a source of inspiration, and that will reflect beliefs and values of individuals at work.⁴ Objections have also been raised concerning how these initiatives are structured, whence the importance of insisting on transparency throughout the process and when working groups are being set up. If the collective work of reflection is to be productive, it is essential that the team include a representative cross-section of employees. Once a statement of values has been formulated, it must be put into practice in the workplace and subjected to evaluation.

Ethical leadership is not a universal remedy for the numerous ills that afflict the workplace today. However, it is a powerful lever for transformation, one that has as its goal learning how to be and how to live together, rather than instrumental relationships often dictated by accounting, financial, and marketing tools. Ethical leadership, as explored here, allows for questioning the very foundations of an organization and the decisions that govern us.

This transformation enables us to readjust our relationships to accord with an environment that favours autonomy and encourages a constant sensitivity concerning our actions. The paradigm that still dominates our understanding conceives of human relations as inherently conflictual. We must abandon this paradigm so as to make room for management that is better able to build a more human and vital organization.