Nike Corporation, Nike Women and Narrative Moral Dilemmas
David M. Boje
December 29, 2000
To understand Nike Corporation's moral development, one must understand what morality means at each stage. I propose to look at corporate moral reasoning development based on an analysis of narratives. The research question is what "voices" are central in leaders and non-leaders' narratives of moral reasoning in the Nike corporation?
The essay begins with an overview of Kohlberg's levels and stages of moral development, introduces narrative moral development theory, and and concludes with a narrative moral analysis of Nike stories. I conclude that dialogue between Nike and its critics is shaping Nike's moral strategic and policy responses in some 700 factories, mostly in Asia, employing some 600,000 workers, who are mostly female between the ages of sixteen and twenty three. It is there silent voices that are waiting to be heard. I begin with a brief overview of Kohlberg. After explaining Kohlberg's model, I will apply it to the gradual moral education of Nike Corporation.
TABLE ONE: KOHLBERG'S 3 Levels and 6 Stages of Moral Development
LEVEL STAGE SOCIAL ORIENTATION Pre-conventional
Obedience and Punishment 2 Individualism, Instrumentalism,
Conventional 3 "Good boy/girl" 4 Law and Order Post-conventional 5 Social Contract 6 Principled Conscience
Lawrence Kohlberg (born 1927 and died in 1987) observed people's growth and development in moral thinking along three levels and six stages. In his doctoral research, Kohlberg (1964, 1966, 1969, 1976, 1981 & 1984) studied differences in children's reasoning about moral dilemmas. He hypothesized that moral difficulties motivated their development through a fixed sequence of increasingly flexible kinds of moral reasoning. He also helped to clarify the general cognitive-developmental view of age-related changes (Source).
Kohlberg studied under Jean Piaget (1965), a psychologist, with a developmental approach to learning. Kohlberg extended the approach to stages of moral reasoning. Using surveys, Kohlberg presented his subjects with moral dilemmas and asked them to evaluate the moral conflict. He was able to prove that youth at various ages, as youth proceed to adulthood, they are able to progress up the moral development stages presented in Table One. His conclusions have been verified in cross-cultural studies done in Turkey, Taiwan, Yucatan, Honduras, India, United States, Canada, Britain, and Israel. Kohlberg argues that his six stages are hierarchically integrated in that people do not lose the insights gained at earlier stages, they integrate them into successively broader frameworks. The three levels are pre-conventional (egotistic self-interest and instrumental relativism), conventional (social conformity), and post-conventional (social contracting and self-reflective choice making).
Pre-Conventional Level -The first level of moral thinking is found in the home and at school. In the first stage, we learn to behave according to pre-conventional socially-acceptable norms that are enforced by authority (parents and teachers) and the threat of punishment. In the second stage, we learn to do what is best for our self-interests. Stage two is the instrumental, means over ends modal reasoning.
Conventional Level - In the second level of moral thinking is bounded by learning to seek approval, but within the "conventional" obligations of law and duty. Stage three is characterized by doing what gains the approval of others and stage four is abiding by the law and responding to dutiful obligations.
Post-Conventional Level - The third level of moral thinking (adulthood) is not achieved by most adults. In stage five, social mutuality, a genuine interest in the welfare of others is learned. In stage six, we learn to have an individual conscience, which Kohlberg defines as respect for the universal principle of means must be consistent with ends. For example, when Martin Luther King deliberately broke segregation laws in the south and Mahatma Gandhi broke British laws about manufacturing apparel, they did so openly and willingly went to jail to draw attention to social injustice and problems in the law.
Kohlberg believed that there was a stage six of moral development, but was not able to find enough subjects who could define it.
Critiques of Kohlberg's Model - A number of critiques and amendments to Kohlberg are now well known. First, the sample sizes Kohlberg used were less than adequate to his task. Kohlberg's (1958a) core sample from his dissertation was comprised of 72 boys, from both middle- and lower-class families in Chicago. Second, there are questions of test-retest reliability and the invariance of sequence-stages is questioned. Cross-sectional findings, however, are inconclusive. Third, there are questions of bias against women in the formulation. Carol Gilligan, a student of Kohlberg, did research on how women make moral decisions and concluded that their moral decision making and values are different than men's. Because of these sex differences, men and women do score at different stages on Kohlberg's scale. For example, women are more likely to base their explanations for moral dilemmas on concepts such as caring and personal relationships (Woolfolk, 1993). However, Rest (1983) argues that Gilligan has exaggerated the extent of the sex differences Fourth, not everyone is convince that a post-conventional order is better than a conventional one. Hogan (1973, 1975), for example, argues that it is dangerous for people to place their own principles above society and the law. Fifth, are the stages culturally biased? Simpson (1974), for example, asserts that Kohlberg's model is based on the Western philosophical tradition. Cushman (1990) also argues that "self-contained individualism" represents a western ethnocentric discourse about the self.
I would like to apply Kohlberg and Burns to Phil Knight and the Nike. There are ample samples of Nike's narratives of its moral reasoning in annual stock reports, press releases and speeches by corporate executives and public relations personnel. Nike expresses its moral reasoning in the stories it tells in response to a variety of critics of its labor strategies and ecological practices. It is clear that Nike and its critics are at odds over the stage of Nike's moral development.
My reading of Kohlberg's theory suggests that Nike is only progressing through the stages in Table One, one stage at a time, and has spent an awfully long time (almost 20 years of corporate life) in the egotistic early stages (1 and 2) and the conventional one (stage 3). Nike can not "jump" stages, and seems to me to be stuck between stages 4 and 5, with not much indication of any awareness of stage 6. Nike has moved away from a egoistic (selfish obedience to avoid punishment) orientation (stage 1) and an instrumentalism and exchange one (stage 2), such as maximizing means as long as the long arm of the law did not intervene to punish its subcontractor supply chain. Nike can not seem jump from free of these pre-conventional levels to the conventional level in which it learns the meaning of good Nike/ Bad Nike (stage 3) and develops a genuine belief in law and order (stage 4). There are lessons Nike is still learning at the lower levels, that is preventing its graduation to higher levels of moral reasoning and action.
The problem for Nike can be summarized as follows: Nike is being held accountable to a level of moral thinking (by activists and intellectuals) that it has yet to achieve. That is, activists and intellectuals would like Nike to base its decisions on a "social contract" (stage 5) with its workers in Third World Nations, a social mutuality or genuine interest in the welfare of its workers and Third World ecology. And some are holding an even higher standard of accountability to Nike's supply chain leadership, the recognition of universal principles, such as human rights, the dignity of man, and an ecocentric understanding of the planet.
James MacGregor Burns (1978) based his classic study of leadership on Kohlberg's levels of moral thinking. Burns looked at modal thinking (the means over ends reasoning) in the early stages of development and held these leaders to be "transactional." Transactional leadership "requires a shrewd eye for opportunity, a good hand at bargaining, persuading, reciprocating" (Burns, 1978:169). A "transformational leader," on the other hand, "recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential follower... (and) looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower" (p. 4). My hypothesis is that Nike is engaged in transactional leadership, and has yet to achieve transformational leadership moral thinking or action.
And if Nike can only progress through Kohlberg's stages of moral thinking, one stage at a time, the question is, what stage is Nike at now? I would argue that Nike exhibits many of the stage 1 to 4 qualities, a few of stage 5, and none at stage 6. Nike, according to Kohlberg's model can not leap frog over stages. It must learn each stage of moral rationale before it can resituate its strategy and policy to the moral reasoning at the top of the moral chain. Activists are expecting Nike to jump stages and Nike therefore views such demands as unreasonable moral instructions. An alternative would be to encourage Nike to take the next step, and move from its current stage of moral thinking to the next most advanced one.
Narrative Theory and Moral Dilemmas. People and organizations are storytelling animals. I view Nike as a storytelling organization, defining its identity in the stories it tells. White and Epston (1990) argues that the function of narrative is to imbue sequences of events with moral meaning. Howard
(1991) also argues that narrative method is appropriate for the analysis of issues of meaning, such as ethical and moral dilemmas. And Mkhize (1998) has conducted a study of African narratives of moral dilemmas. She argues that a narrative moral framework may emanate other voices which have not been accounted for in the current literature on morality. Restoring African women's narrative voice and their sense of connectivity, being one example.
I would like to apply narrative moral method at the corporate level. Nike, I assume, constructs its moral identity in stories, myths, and other symbolic expressions (changes in the monitoring and reporting of wages and working conditions). Nike legitimates its policies and strategies in historical narratives (Barry & Elmes, 1997; Landrum, 2000a, b).
The storytelling is intertextual, in that Nike's storytelling organization is not independent of the stories told in media, academia, unions, and activist circles. In Gertz's (1971: 5) terms, Nike is "suspended in webs of significance" it has spun in the search for the meaning of it's narrative moral identity. Nike's storytelling of its moral identity is also embedded wider webs of significance, in it's social and historical context. Changes in its moral identity take place over time and can be gleaned from an analysis of Nike stories and counter-stories.
One narrative moral dilemma for Nike Corporation is how to tell its story to different stakeholders who have differing moral standards. Shareholders do not seem to have higher order moral values, as contrasted with activists and intellectuals who seem to always expect more than Nike is capable of or willing to deliver. Nike is faced with the necessity to tell its story differently to different moral agents. Nike also seems to be taking, more recently, a relativistic narrative position, arguing that each nation defines the morale game rules of employment and wages. Its relativistic stance is at odds with Kohlberg's post-conventional qualities of universal moral values. Activists argue that Nike exploits differences in moral thinking from one nation to another for its own remunerative advantage.
There is a narrative voice that is silent. The voice of the worker is usurped and silenced in the debates over moral reasoning. Nike and its critics debate, while there are precious few attempts to hear the voices of the workers. It is difficult to penetrate the barbed wire fences and factory walls to find out the stories of the workers and their sense making of moral dilemmas. Gilligan (1977, 1982) argues that women's voices in moral dilemma research have not been as adequately researched as men's. Women's moral narratives contain (1) orientation to self that narrates survival interests, (2) a morality of care that is reflected in the care of dependents, and (3) a morality of non-violence that is reflected in the independent arbitration of conflicts. This being the case, the research question, I would like to explore in future study, is the differences between female Nike workers stories of moral dilemmas and those of the male spokespersons of the Nike corporation. Since the stories of women Nike workers are not yet accessible, I will look here at the male storytelling.
Kohlberg's theory can be related to narrative roles. Each person stories the situation by narrating themselves and others. In these narrative roles, the narrator imagines the situation of the other. As the stages of moral reasoning progress, the level of empathy for the other gets less ego-based and what Kohlberg termed more "reversible" solutions that were considered fair by a number of perspectives.
My narrative approach here is to look at the stages of moral development in Nike's corporate storytelling events. I intend to collect Nike narratives, from a variety of perspectives and voices, that present central characters in and about Nike and its subcontracts storying moral dilemmas. In this sense it is possible to reinterpret Kohlberg as a theory of narrative maturity, the ability to tell and read stories from multiple perspectives.
My hypothesis is that narrative moral development began early in Nike's corporate life, and has progressed stage by stage, to its current maturity level. And that Nike's moral development will continue to progress until the day consumers stop buying its products. Nike's knowledge of moral stages, is building one upon the other, but Nike is unable to skip a single stage in its maturation.
The good news is that Nike is developing as Kohlberg might have predicted, as a result of cognitive conflicts at each stage played out in the media, shareholder meetings, and debates between Nike and various activists and intellectuals.
Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. Therefore, it stands to reason, that Nike can progress to the next stage of moral thinking through active dialog with its critics. I believe Nike is not emerging with an understanding of conventional stage three reasoning, the rightness and wrongness of each act, and a growing stage four respect for law and order.
However, the subcontractors Nike is attempting to police into moral obedience, are at a different stage of moral development. Most subcontractors, are at stage 1, still grappling with Nike's parental demands for obedience to avoid punishment (fines or the cancellation of a subcontractor's contract).
We might suggest a type of Kohlberg training in which we present Nike with various moral dilemmas and ask them to comment on the conflict that is involved.
TABLE TWO: Nike's Stages of Moral Reasoning Development
LEVEL STAGE SOCIAL ORIENTATION Pre-conventional
1966 - 1970
Obedience and Punishment
Egocentric self-gratification and deference to superior power - Nike needs and wants customers for running shoes made in Asia. Nike's moral judgment is motivated by a need to avoid punishment.
1970 - 1980
Naively egoistic orientation- In an instrumental relativist orientation, right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies Nike's needs and occasionally the needs of others. Nike's moral judgment is motivated by a need to satisfy it's own desires for more customers and sales, not the needs of workers. Needs of workers and host countries are interpreted in a highly pragmatic way.
1980 to 1995
Seeking Approval while refusing socialization - Nike begins to conform to convention, but actively resists. Nike performs what it considers to be good or right roles, maintains the convention relation to its supply chain, and in pleasing its customers. Nike does not like being rejected by its customers or seeing their disaffection in disapproval ratings.
1996 - 1997
Law and Order
Just Doing the Right Thing - Nike's moral judgment is motivated by a need not to be criticized by authority figures in the media, university, or by activists. Its reaction is to question whether these are indeed "authentic" authority figures.
1998 - 2000
Nike is just beginning to learn that moral values reside in universal principles, not in spin control, and are separate from whether Third World governments can enforce them, of Nike's denial of the legitimacy of a particular government's right to enforce laws and sanctions with subcontractors. Most people believe Nike will never reach these stages. I while point out some possible exceptions.
Social Awareness (with Utilitarian Overtones) - Nike's moral judgment is motivated by community respect for all beings, respecting the social order of nations, and living under legally determined laws in each nation its supply chain operates. Yet, Nike also points out everyone has their own opinion, and Nike can not satisfy everyone.
Self Reflective Action Respecting the Dignity of Human Beings and Ecology - Nike's moral judgment is motivated by it's own conscience, rather than by consumer expectations, laws, or the opinions of activists, journals, or intellectuals.
Nike's moral decision making is a developmental task that requires time to develop its executive reasoning and to develop sufficient control and training relationships with its supply chain of over 700 subcontract factories.
In Table Two, each level represents a fundamental shift in the social-moral perspective of the Nike Corporation. I argue that, based upon an analysis of Nike's dialogues and conflicts with the media, intellectuals, and activists (on and off university campuses), Nike is mostly at stage four in its moral reasoning, but has achieved some examples of action at stage five and could respond soon at stage six. In the initial pre-conventional stages, Nike has an ego-centered moral reasoning. Stage 1 is egocentric, stage 2 is instrumental reciprocity ("you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"). In the conventional stage (3), Nike attends to the norms and conventions of each of the nations in which it does business. Morality becomes doing what each nation defines to be right corporate conduct. Nike obeys the laws of each country, especially when it is caught red handed. Nike reforms or releases subcontractors who are caught in violation of the law, and begins to police its supply chain regardless of getting caught. This is more or less where Nike and its moral action is at the present time. Here and there, Nike exhibits a post-conventional awareness of ethical fairness. Nike's morality is I hope beginning to regard the importance of human welfare in ways that transcend particular nation states, irrespective of getting caught or whatever local laws permit or punish. Yet, we can all agree, that Nike is no Mother Teresa.
There has been a good deal of attention in the media as well as in academic writing about the question of Nike's refusal to pay living wages, and opting instead for the legal minimum wage in each nation its subcontractors operate.
Stage 1 - In looking out for Number One, Might makes Right (avoid punishment and show deference to power) - Nike says publicly, it does not engage in any bad labor practices, the subcontractors pay the wage that is culturally appropriate to each nation. When abuses are brought to journalistic light, Nike says it is not responsible because it is the subcontractor who does the practices called into question. Subcontractor management is none of Nike's business. Still Nike does recognize the power of the customer. Labor practices are only bad if some authority is dispensing punishment. Nike weights the economic consequences of getting caught with poor labor practices, and just does it. Therefore, the customer (mommy) has no need to get mad at Nike for being powerful, and stop buying their shoes; there are no real penalties. At this stage nations in which Nike does business are not yet powerful enough to apply sanctions.
Stage 2 - Self-Serving Behavior - What is in this for Nike? Right action consists of behavior that satisfies Nike's own needs. Do things for others since they will do things for you. If customers demand the payment of living wages, then for a price, Nike will provide it, but the price of shoes must go up. Justice is: "Do unto others as they do unto you" (scratch my back, I scratch yours). is Nike's unstated motto. This is the Nike notion of fair exchange or fair deals. In addition, Nike argues that alll the athletic apparel manufacturers behave the same way, so why pick on Nike? Nike refuses to make any concessions. In corporate circles, "it is better to receive than to give." Right action is just doing what satisfies customer and investor needs. Nike remains in this stage until it notices that some customer's are no longer rewarding Nike's overseas behaviors.
Stage 3 - Pleasing Others - Whatever pleases the majority is defined as morally right. Nike runs its focus groups to decide what to actually do and say. Nike (in denial) does not admit to doing any bad labor practices, because consumers do not like it. Nike still maintains an "Everybody is doing it" strategic response. Nike aims to please its customers, but not break from standard industry practices. "If he can get away with it, why can't I?" Nike aims to show in its ads and annual reports that it has good intentions with regards to working conditions. Nike's bottom line, however, is that it does pay wages that are illegal, and if it does as in Stage 2), everybody does it that way, anyway.
Stage 4 - Nike fights back - Nike (in denial) does not do anything wrong, these are the ravings of fanatical reports and zealot activists. Nike's own studies suggest that it pays more than an adequate wage. "A good day's pay for a good day's work" is Nike's response to its critics. Nike ads, speeches, and report suggest that Nike has a respect for the law, and that by its own assessment is living up to the letter of the law in every way.
Stage 5 - Correct behavior is defined in terms of standards agreed upon by society. Nike stresses that in whatever nation it operates workers freely enter into their work contract with Nike and there are no situations permitted of forced overtime or wage cheating. Nike begins to set its standards by a corporate polity of consensus seeking, by hiring consulting and attending academic conferences. Nike stresses that it is working with anti-democratic societies to bring them economic freedom, and working with problem contractors to teach them better ways of managing human resources. Nike also takes action to change the situation based upon findings - Nike pays what it believes to be fair wages (but resists any efforts at paying a living wage) and upgrades factory work conditions because that is the law, and Nike believes in abiding by the law of each nation its subcontractors produce in. Nike's actions tend to be defined in terms of general rights and standards that experts say are right patterns of supply chain behavior. Nike can not enter this stage until it understands the meaning of a social contract, is based on more than the opponent's ability to enforce its laws. Nike has yet to reach the stage of workplace justice through democracy.
Stage 6 - Nike does the right thing - Nike may someday pay a living wage, not because it is the law but since Nike knows it is the right thing to do. This would require conceding that it is right to pay a living wage in every country because of the universal equality of living beings. Nike will not enter this stage until it understands universal moral principles. For now, Nike settles disputes over wage and working conditions through what it describes as a pragmatic and almost democratic processes. That is, workers and managers of subcontract firms are surveyed and interviewed in focus groups by consulting firms to reach consensus on changes that need to be made. There is an obvious power difference here, that Nike does not address. From Nike's viewpoint, it applies principles of justice by treating the claims of all parties in the supply chain in an impartial manner.
In many ways, Nike is like the spoiled child, never having to accommodate for others needs, only acutely aware of its own. Nike would rather spend its money on spectacular sports celebrity contracts than on raising wages for its subcontract workers.
I assume that different corporations, based upon the values and vision of their founder and successors, advance through the stages of moral reasoning at different rates. For example Tom Chapperel, of Tom's of Maine, began with the advantage of having completed his education at Harvard's Divinity and Theology School.
What would Moral Development Training of Nike's Decision Makers Look Like? Nike could be presented with a series of scenarios and asked to point out the moral dilemmas.
A subcontractor in Thailand is paying wages that appear to be less than livable. Studies of families of workers, reveal that they are mal nourished. The wages paid by Nike do not pay for the costs of a nourishing meal.
Nike says it does not have the resources to pay a living wage to Thailand workers.
Nike therefore made a decision and lowered the endorsement contract for Tiger Woods from $100 million to $50 million. Tiger is claiming that Nike reneged on its contract, and stole the money to give to Thailand.
Should Nike have done that?
Nike is becoming aware that there are consequences involved in breaking laws in various countries. Nike decides to punish subcontractors who break the laws of those countries.
Nike begins by punishing those subcontractors who are caught by the press breaking laws.
Should Nike have done that?
Nike is accused of broking the laws in Australia by employing workers in the home at poverty wage levels.
Nike denies that it employs home workers in Australia or any other nation.
The court in Australia rules that Nike does employ home workers and assesses a nominal fine.
Nike pays the fine.
Should Nike have done that?
One subcontractor in Vietnam devised a most effective strategy for getting workers (mostly female) to show up to work on time, not talk, and work overtime. The supervisor has the late comers run laps in the hot sun around the factory until they drop from heat exhaustion.
The media, first in Vietnam, then in the U.S. on the TV show Sixty Minutes, picks up the story. Customers, investors, and legislators begin asking embarrassing questions.
Nike has the subcontractor fire the manager.
Should Nike have done that?
Nike's judgments depend on what Nike believes should be done, not on what it is actually doing. Woolfolk (1993) makes the point, that advancing through Kohlberg's moral stages does not occur automatically, but depends upon rewarding or punishing a child for certain behavior. Similarly, we could hypothesize that Nike is not moving deterministically through the stages, but only advancing when the rewards and punishments get clear enough to push Nike past a certain behavior pattern, to the next level of maturation.
Then there is the issue of spin control. Nike may say it will do something when challenged by media, activists, and intellectuals to face up to an obvious moral dilemma. But, Nike may respond with a propaganda campaign that attests that there is no moral dilemma or Nike is already behaving in ways that are consistent with higher stages of moral reasoning. Many of Nike's self-presentations, suggest that Nike is the leader in its industry in moral practices, and that the protestations by activists that Nike change its behavior are quite unreasonable. Activists counter that Nike one day promises to make major changes in its moral behavior (such as the Phil Knight press conference in 1997), but in a few days is found to engaged in the same old problematic behaviors (i.e. employing underage workers, forced overtime, toxic conditions, and wage cheating).
In a Tamara'ish sense (many stories told by many tellers with different perspectives and meanings), Nike's critics question the fact that Nike is able to present its solutions to labor solutions to problems raised in the press as okay, as long as Nike's strategies are based upon rational
reason and legitimating narratives. Basically critics wonder if jsut telling stories about making changes for storied reasons is enough. They demand answerability in the form of checks and balances in the form of unannounced inspections, surveillance by NGOs, and stiffer penalties for violating laws.
The rates of progression through the stages of Kohlberg's model differ from corporation to corporation, but the progression from stage to stage will be evident in the study of their interactions with stakeholders (customers, workers, governments, investors, competitors, unions, and communities).
I have raised the question, is Nike stuck in a state of moral immaturity? Nike, it appears to me, has stayed an awfully long time in stages of egotistic moral reasoning. The rebel corporation has actively resisted its critics and continues to pay less than living wages to some 600,000 Asian workers (mostly women), while paying Tiger Woods $100 million for a few public appearances. It has taken Nike a long time to even mention its Asian workers in annual reports, speeches, and press releases, with the same ethic of economic-caring and support, as its sports celebrities. From a feminist critical perspective, there has not been much room in Nike's corporate strategy for an ethic of caring.
It is worth taking the time to debate and dialog with Nike Corporate officials and subcontractors. Through debate, it is possible that Nike will uncover the reasoning to advance to the next stage of moral reasoning. As Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions by looking at a situation through one another's eyes. The exploration and negotiation of perspectives is therefore worthwhile. In this way the "veil of ignorance" (Rawls, 1971) will be lifted.
Nike's strategic response to its moral dilemmas has to do with is historical stage of moral development. Is this an invariant sequence? Can Nike skip stages, or must it work through them one by one? Kohlberg's assumes that each stage, there are qualitatively different dilemmas requiring quite different thinking skills.
Few corporations may ever begin to think self-reflectively about moral dilemmas of their global supply chains like Mother Teresa, Socrates, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King. Still I do hold out the hope that Nike will achieve stage six.
|Barger, Robert N. (2000) A SUMMARY OF LAWRENCE KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT.|
|Marvin W. Berkowitz - Fostering Goodness: Teaching Parents to Facilitate Children's Moral Development.|
|Cain, W. C. (1985) Chapter 7 Stages of Moral Development. Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136. Good list of criticisms and Kohlberg's responses.|
|Churchman's Application of Kohlberg's model to education.|
|Examples of Moral Dilemmas|
|Lind, George (2000) "Educational Environments Which Promote Self-Sustaining Moral Development." Good source for recent work and references.|
|Mkhize, Nhlanhla (1998) "Culture, Morality and Self: In Search of an Africentric Voice." Department of Psychology, University of Natal - Pietermaritzberg.|
|Theological Extensions and applications.|
|Woolfolk's Critique of Kohlberg (1993).|
Geert, C. (1971). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptualizations of self and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47,
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Howard, G.S. (1991). Cultura tales: A narrative approach to thinking, cross-cultural psychology, and psychothereapy. American Psychologist, 46(3), 187-197.
Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M.L. Hoffman & L.W. Hoffman, Eds., Review of Child Development Research, Vol. I, pp. 381-43. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Kohlberg, L. A (1966) Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Childrenís Sex-Role Concepts and Attitudes.In The Development of Sex Differences, edited by E.E. Maccoby, Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Kohlberg, L. (1969) Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization. In Handbook of Socialization: Theory in Research, Ed. D.A. Goslin. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Kohlberg, L. (1976) Moral Development and Behavior. Moral Stages and Moralization, edited by Thomas
Likona: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, CBS College Publishing.
Kohlberg, L. (1981) The Philosophy of Moral Development: Essays on Moral Development (volume I). San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development, Vol. II, The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA:
Harper & Row.
Landrum, Nancy Ellen - ( 2000b) "Environmental Rhetoric of Nike." Academy of Management All Academy Showcase Symposium on "Time and Nike," David Boje and Nancy Landrum (co-chairs), August 9th, Session #170.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. The Free Press: New York (originally published 1932). .
Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). "Lawrence Kohlberg's Approach to Moral Education." New York: Columbia University Press.
Walker, L. (1991). Sex differences in moral reasoning. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development. Vol 2. (333-364). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White,Micael & Epston, David (1990) Narrative Means to Therapeutic
Ends. NY: W.W. Norton & Company.