LEADERSHIP, MORALITY AND ETHICS: DEVELOPING A PRACTICAL MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION-MAKING Alfred W. Kaszniak 1,3, Cynda H. Rushton 2, & Joan Halifax 3 1 University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 2 Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland 3 Upaya Institute Santa Fe, New Mexico Kaszniak, A.W., Rushton, C.H., & Halifax, J. (2018). Leadership, morality and ethics: Developing a practical model for moral decision-making. MindRxiv. April 17. mindrxiv.org/8qby6. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8QBY6 Introduction: Principled and authentic leadership in all sectors of society, including health, education, business, and finance, requires fundamental shifts in understanding how moral discernment operates. Cultivating leaders who exemplify integrity necessitates grounding in pro-social values, character formation, ethical principles, and contemplative practices that enhance moral decision-making and engaged moral action. The present paper is the product of collaboration between a neuroscientist, an ethicist, and a contemplative exploring issues around leadership, morality, and ethics. It is an exploration on how people in roles of responsibility can better understand how to engage in discernment processes with more awareness and a deeper sense of responsibility for others and themselves. It has been written in a global climate where a practical understanding of how moral decision-making works is essential in this time when there can seem to be an increasing moral vacuum in leadership. The meanings of the words morals and ethics overlap in common usage, though sometimes conflicting distinctions are drawn by philosophers and other scholars. One simple way of understanding the distinction is that, “Broadly speaking, morals are individual principles of right and wrong, and a system of ethics deals with sets of those principles.” <http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010813> The term ethics is often used in reference to the philosophical study of morality. A system of ethics, by such usage, has overlap with Haidt’s (2012) definition of moral systems: “Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible.” (p. 314) Here we use morals when we are referring to individual principles or discernment of right and wrong, ethics when we are referring to sets (particularly codified sets) of these principles, and moral/ethical when we are referring to both. Further, when examining mental processes that we see as involved in moral decision-making and action, we will draw distinctions between moral resonance, moral discernment (including, though not limited to moral reasoning), and moral action. We will refer to moral resonance in reference to an expanded perspective on moral sensitivity, which has been described as the ‘‘ability to recognize the presence of moral issues in real-world situations’’ (Navaez & Rest, 1995). One meaning of the word resonance is a quality that makes something personally meaningful or important. Moral resonance, as we are defining this term, involves a set of processes that detect whether initial reactions to an event are aligned with personally important values – with the leader’s character. These processes begin with attention to subtle and initially pre-conscious bodily cues reflecting emotional biases and empathic resonance with others. These cues can alert one to the possibility of a moral issue, and can interact with conscience and altruistic disposition (reflecting values and character). We will use the term moral discernment to refer to those mental processes that are primed by moral resonance to engage executive control processes. These executive processes, informed by intentions as well as social and emotional contexts, allow for pause, situational reappraisal, and arousal regulation. The emotional regulation and balance afforded by executive processes allows for a modulation of potential biases in moral reasoning (involving inductive and deductive logic, and the application of systematic ethical principles). Moral reasoning then informs moral decisions that support various courses of principled moral action (see Rushton, Kaszniak, & Halifax, 2013a). Moral discernment thus also appears to involve several distinguishable mental processes, most of these operating within conscious awareness. In what follows, we articulate a conceptual and practical moral/ethical model, motivated by recent scientific investigation, to support leaders in working skillfully and compassionately with the complexities that inevitably arise as they engage with their organizations, others, and themselves. The focus of this model is on how people process moral/ethical decisions, and how this processing can be done with greater fidelity to moral resonance, moral discernment, claims of conscience, ethical principles, and inductive/deductive approaches to moral/ethical reasoning. These modes of processing, which include cognitive, somatic, emotional, and spiritual dimensions, use different capacities, all of which are important in reaching morally/ethically grounded decisions and engaging in moral action. Unlike some early models of moral and ethical cognition, this model for an applied approach to morals/ethics focuses not only on logical conceptual reasoning, but also takes into account emotional determinants of moral behavior. These emotional determinants are often operating outside of, and prior to a leader’s conscious logical reasoning processes. The model also examines the leader’s ability to access values, view these values on both deep and synoptic levels, and align them within a systems perspective. An assumption of this model is that both conceptual and experiential appreciation of the interconnected domains we propose are essential when dealing with the critical and complex issues that leaders face today. It is intended that the proposed model will be applicable to leaders at all levels in health care, government, education, law, business, and many other areas that are both affected by and contribute to the global conditions that are associated with so much suffering in the world today. This model, and its implications for a new approach to moral/ethical education, is grounded in recent relevant scientific research and scholarship, as well as that concerning the consequences and biological correlates of contemplative practices that can enhance principled moral action. The following summary of scientific research and scholarship is not intended to be an exhaustive review, but rather endeavors to highlight representative published work that the authors view as most relevant for moral/ethical leadership. Scientific Research and Scholarship on Moral Resonance, Moral Discernment and Moral Action: Until the last decade of the 20th century, the predominant approach to a scientific understanding of morality examined developmental theories that placed their emphasis on conscious reasoning processes in adult moral decision-making and action (e.g., Kohlberg, 1969). From this perspective, individuals use logic as a means to resolve conflicts between competing possible actions and moral/ethical claims. Using both inductive and deductive inferences, individuals evaluate certain premises to reach conclusions about proper moral action. Although social processes are embedded in such cognitive approaches to moral discernment, the interpersonal and social elements are not clearly differentiated. In her groundbreaking critique of Kohlberg’s reasoned justice orientation as the foundation of ethics, Carol Gilligan introduced the interpersonal, emotional, and social aspects of ethics in what is now known as an ethic of care (Gilligan, 1982, 1988). Care ethics assert that moral inquiry begins with one’s own experience rather than first appealing to a priori principles, external norms, or standards. It emphasizes subjective experiential phenomena such as empathy and felt relational bonds as having compelling moral meaning and consequent moral claims and duties. Without diminishing the role of moral reasoning, an ethic of care emphasizes the affective, relational, and contextual elements of morality as practices of responsibility, from the immediate and personal to the larger domains of citizenship and public policy. (Hamington, 2010; Held, 2005; Held & City University of New York, 2014; Mohammed & Peter, 2009; Walker, 2008). This is an interesting and important perspective to bring to bear on the issue of moral leadership. A major premise of an ethic of care is a worldview that recognizes the interconnection and interdependence of all beings and things, and with it a responsibility to appreciate the impact of action on others, particularly disenfranchised and voiceless stakeholders, or even environmental dimensions. Walker (2008) identifies four essential elements of an ethic of care: 1) Responsiveness to human needs, 2) Responsible competence in attending to human needs, 3) Valuing human connection and relationship, and 4) Valuing the work and responsibilities of care. The present authors would add to these four elements a fifth: Valuing human interconnections with the environment and responsible competence in stewarding our environment. Taken together these elements create a broader foundation for appreciating the complexity, moral trade-offs, and contours of integrity-preserving action. Related to this is an increasing recognition in the cognitive sciences and neurosciences