IX Coach

Coaching approaches

Moral development coaching

Moral development coaching works with how a person reasons about right and wrong, using real dilemmas and structured discussion. It draws on Lawrence Kohlberg's account of stages of moral reasoning and on Carol Gilligan's argument that care for others is a distinct moral orientation. Studies of moral education that use dilemma discussion report modest effects on moral judgement (Schlaefli et al., 1985). Those studies are of classrooms and programmes, not coaching, and no outcome study of moral development coaching as such turned up.

What it is

A moral development conversation looks at how you reason about a choice, not only at what you decide. The coach may present a dilemma, or you may bring one of your own. You say what you think should be done and why. The coach then asks who is affected, what you owe them, and what would change your view, so that the reasoning under the decision becomes visible and can be stretched.

Kohlberg described moral reasoning as moving through stages, from reasoning about consequences and rules toward principles of fairness. Gilligan argued that this account gave too little weight to care and responsibility for particular people. Coaching adaptations draw on both views. They are not a clinical treatment, and some researchers have questioned the stage model, so this page treats it as one framework among several.

Where it comes from

Lawrence Kohlberg set out his account of moral stages in The Psychology of Moral Development, the second volume of his Essays on Moral Development (Kohlberg, 1984).

Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice, first published in 1982, argued that women's moral reasoning centres on care and relationships, and that Kohlberg's scheme did not fully capture it (Gilligan, 1993).

The principles underneath

Reasons matter more than answers

The conversation is about how you reach a judgement, because the reasoning is what changes over time.

Reasoning moves in steps

Kohlberg's account treats each stage as able to take in a wider range of perspectives than the one before (Kohlberg, 1984).

Care as well as justice

Gilligan's care orientation treats responsibility to particular people as a form of moral reasoning in its own right (Gilligan, 1993).

Judgement and action can come apart

Blasi's critical review of the research examines the link between moral judgement and moral action (Blasi, 1980), which is one reason to look at the gap between what you think and what you do.

How a session runs

  1. You bring a real choice or dilemma you are weighing, or one is presented to you.
  2. You say what you think should be done, and what you are weighing on each side.
  3. The coach asks who is affected, what you owe them, and what would make the choice fair.
  4. The coach offers a different position or a counter-argument, and you respond to it.
  5. You name the reasoning you now trust, and what you have not yet settled, before the next conversation.

When it tends to fit

  • You are torn between loyalty to someone and what you think is fair, and you want to think it through rather than settle it quickly.
  • A decision at work will affect people you care about, and you want to see the reasons under your own position.
  • You have a clear view and want it tested against a different one.

What the research shows

Evidence: Some peer-reviewed studies

The closest outcome research is on moral education. A meta-analysis of 55 intervention studies that used the Defining Issues Test found modest overall effects from dilemma discussion and from psychological development programmes. It reported that programmes of about 3 to 12 weeks were optimal, and that effects were larger with adults than with younger participants (Schlaefli, Rest & Thoma, 1985). Rest and colleagues later devised a revised version of that test (Rest et al., 1999). A meta-analysis tested gender differences in moral orientation, the question Gilligan raised (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000). Its abstract reports small differences: a care orientation favouring women and a justice orientation favouring men. It says these findings do not offer strong support for the claim that either orientation is used predominantly by one gender. Blasi (1980) reviewed research on how moral judgement relates to moral action. None of these studies is of moral development coaching. Their participants were students and adults in education programmes.

Where the evidence is thin: The intervention studies are of moral education, mostly in classrooms and programmes, and they measured moral judgement on a test rather than in coaching. Moral judgement and moral action can differ, so gains on a judgement test do not show changed behaviour. Gilligan's claim that care reasoning is mainly a women's orientation is contested, and Jaffee and Hyde (2000) found only small gender differences.

Sources

  1. Schlaefli, A., Rest, J. R., & Thoma, S. J. (1985). Does moral education improve moral judgment? A meta-analysis of intervention studies using the Defining Issues Test. Review of Educational Research, 55(3), 319–352.
  2. Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644–659.
  3. Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.
  4. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 1–45.
  5. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard University Press.
  6. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Vol. 2). Harper & Row (ISBN 978-0-06-064761-2).

Where it stops

A moral dilemma can carry guilt, shame or a real risk to someone's safety. If a choice involves harm, abuse, or a decision that cannot easily be undone, talk it through with a qualified professional or a trusted adviser who knows the situation.

Stage theory describes patterns of reasoning, not people's worth, and it is not a ranking of who is more ethical. A coach should not treat a reasoning style that a framework places earlier as a failing.

Practices for this approach

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice