Listen to the article.

What are the characteristics of a high or low MQ? Why do some people have a high MQ and others have a low MQ? How does the moral quotient develop?? What happens to work, social, friendship, or family dynamics when people have moral quotients at the opposite end of the scale? What role does your moral quotient play in your well-being? In which contexts is too low or too high a moral quotient harmful or helpful? Is your MQ something you can alter? Is there an optimum moral quotient?

The concept of moral quotient seems increasingly central to explaining, and shaping ethical behaviour. 

What is the moral quotient (MQ)? 

MQ refers to an individual’s capacity to understand what is morally right and wrong, and to translate that understanding into ethical behaviour.  It goes beyond simply knowing the rules; it involves critical thinking, empathy, and the ability to navigate moral dilemmas. Similar to IQ and EQ, in some ways, MQ is not a fixed trait but rather a mindset and set of values that can be developed over time.

What are the characteristics of high and low MQ?

People with a high MQ exhibit some or most of the following:

• Integrity. Integrous people have a strong moral compass, are honest (to a fault), and will not compromise what is right, even when it is to their advantage to do so. They are vanishingly rare.
• Moral courage. People with a high MQ speak up for what’s right even in the face of wrongdoing opposition. They have high levels of moral courage and tend to do the right thing when everyone else is running for cover from wrongdoers.
• Self-responsibility. People with a high MQ They take ownership of their actions and their consequences. When they make a mistake, they admit it, learn from it, and do what can be done to put the mistake right.
• Fairness and justice. High MQers strive for justice and treat everyone with respect. They will not be passive bystanders when things are going wrong, or harm is being done to others. They will call it out.
• Empathy and Compassion. People with a high MQ can understand and resonate with the feelings of others, leading them to take compassionate actions.

Individuals with low MQs typically engage in some or most of the following:

• Mendacity and duplicity. People with a low MQ think nothing of telling a lie one minute and then lying to cover up the first lie, the next, and so on.
• Rationalise unethical behaviour. To low MQers, anything that results in their own personal gain is justifiable. They will rationalise their wrongdoing in a way that will be believed by those they seek to deceive.
• Moral cowardice. People with a low MQ stay silent when they witness wrongdoing. They will even deny that they witnessed the wrongdoing, and, in some cases, give false testimony against rightdoers with a high MQ.
• Devoid of empathy. With years of practice, those with a low MQ pay no attention to the welfare of others. They can and do carry out the most horrendous acts, with no regret or remorse.
• Responsibility deflection and evasion. They avoid taking responsibility for their choices. They make excuses, gaslight, deflect blame, or blame others. Nothing is ever their responsibility. Someone, anyone, certainly not them, is always to blame.

How widespread is low MQ? 

Alas, for society, the silently complicit make up between 85% and 95% of the population. If you have ever wondered why corruption is so common, that is the reason: most people do not, and will not, call it out. Going unchallenged, wrongdoing is encouraged.

If you think that the characteristics of those with a low MQ are remarkably similar to those of narcissists, sociopaths, Machiavellians, and psychopaths (the toxic tetrad), you would be right. Those with a low MQ are responsible for most atrocities.

Why do some people have a high MQ and others have a low MQ? 

To answer that question, it is essential to ask and answer the question: What influences the development of MQ?

• Upbringing and role models. When people grow up surrounded by strong moral values, ethical and integrous decision-making and behaviour, they tend to develop a higher MQ. Their role models can be parents, teachers, community leaders, and even peers. Alas, when young people witness politicians lying, on an ongoing basis, and getting away with it, or even being advanced because of their mendacity, that negative role-modelling leads to a lower MQ.
• Cognitive development level. As a person’s cognitive ability increases with age, and education, their increasing ability to scenario plan and consider moral and ethical dilemmas increases. Whether their enhanced cognitive ability is used or not, depends on other factors on this list.
• The role of culture and religion. Cultural norms and religious values significantly shape the development of morality. For instance, in some societies, it is thought acceptable to kill people for listening to music, or not wearing a particular type of clothing in public. It is no accident that societies with such low MQs have committed some of the most heinous and immoral acts in history.
• Personal life experiences. We have all experienced moral dilemmas. How we responded to those quandaries, and what happened after our decision, shapes our MQ.
• Rewards. The old adage, ‘everyone has their price,’ indicates that people can be induced to act in ways incompatible with their MQ. For example, there are “expert” witnesses who are paid to discredit the victims of child sex abuse. Such low-MQ people base their “testimony” on the assertion that the victim is experiencing ‘false memories.’ Those who are willing to give any testimony for the right price have captured some professional organisations. Their so-called ‘experts’ are even given awards by those ethically compromised ‘professional organisations.’ The collective MQ in such organisations is generally low.
• Self-interest vs shared interest. When people place self-interest above the common good, they are displaying their low MQ. As just one of many possible examples, in the UK Post Office scandal, during the inquiry, the executives who orchestrated the harm done to hundreds of innocent people, displayed a shocking contempt for integrity, truth, the rule of law, or justice. At the time of writing, there are ongoing criminal investigations into perjury and perverting the course of justice in the UK Post Office. Few of those in the UK with a high MQ believe that wrongdoers will be held personally liable. If they turn out to be right, that in turn will send a signal to UK society that deceit in public office is acceptable. Those low-MQ role models will then be copied, and the overall MQ in the UK will be reduced.
• Social compliance, group think, and risky shift. In order to ‘fit in’ to a group, the participants are expected to share the same norms. When people are subjected to “fit-in” peer pressure from people with low MQs to go along with immoral, unethical or harmful behaviour, they are likely to give in. Once toxic norms have been established in a group, the group engages in a collective delusion, that self-justifies heinous acts, known as ‘group think.’ Once peer pressure and group think have taken hold of group members, they will experience what is known as a “risky shift” – a greater willingness to make decisions that are incompatible with their own MQ. That inevitably descends into public scandal, usually exposed by someone of courage, with an ultra-high MQ.

In every organisational scandal, those wrongdoers who presented themselves as angels are, upon public scrutiny, shown to have acted diabolically. They presented themselves as being of high MQ, but, of course, are the exact opposite.

How does moral quotient develop? 

Looking in more detail at levels of development of MQ, we can draw on the brilliant work of Lawrence Kohlberg. He gave people story-based moral dilemmas, and invited the expression of judgement about the key characters. After exploring the reasons his subjects gave for their judgements, Kohlberg identified three stages of moral development: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality. 

Pre-conventional morality breaks down into two age-related substages. From around 2–3 years to 5–6 years, children seek to avoid punishments by adults. 

From around 5 years until around 7 years, (or slightly later in some cases), children seek to behave well in order to get access to rewards. 

Conventional morality, also emerges in two sub-stages. It takes over when children realise that family, friends, and social groups become the sources of authority. From around 7 until 12 years old, children seek to satisfy the other members of their group. They defend the rules of the game that they have learned to play. 

During the second substage, from approximately 10 to 15 years old, children consider whether any possible behaviour is consistent with the rules of their wider society. Some people never go beyond what could be called “rules-based morality”, That is, however wrong or evil the rules, most people will follow them. Authorities setting the rules that made genocides possible made almost all atrocities in history possible.

Post-conventional morality, also emerges in two sub-stages, and is so called because, at this level of moral development, a person’s morality goes beyond any one society. Very few people reach this level of MQ. In the first sub-stage, some people as young as 12 develop a sense of choosing to enter a shared moral commitment with those around them based on the shared benefit of abiding by the collective rules.

During the second sub-stage, in a tiny percentage of the population, universal moral principles emerge. While such high MQ people acknowledge the needs for societal norms and laws, their reasoning operates at a higher level. They can see situations in which the laws and rules would cause huge injustice and harm society, which are invisible to the vast majority of the population. 

Those with the highest MQ can explore and weigh up any intention or action and develop a deep understanding of the moral issues surrounding it, which is way beyond the consideration contained in any rules or laws.

How opposite MQs affect relationships and work dynamics

At work, in social settings, in friendships, even in families, if a person has a high MQ and they are surrounded by unethical, low MQ people, conflict is inevitable. It is only a matter of time before a situation emerges, or a decision has to be made that flushes out the differences. Most people tend to seek out and work with others who have a similar MQ to themselves: people who validate their moral (or immoral) world view.

What role does your moral quotient play in your well-being? 

In which contexts is a moral quotient harmful or helpful? Is there an optimum MQ?

People with an ultra-high MQ find themselves in a world that seems immoral and ethically repulsive. Some tend to group together to protect themselves against the corruption they see all around them. 

Other high-MQ people simply block out their awareness of the wrongdoing going on around them. That suggests that some people, with high MQs choose silent complicity when faced with widespread or normalised wrongdoing. Why? Because they have lost all hope that it can be stopped, they decide that their wellbeing is most important.

In my experience helping leaders of integrity (whistleblowers), I’ve observed that they find it intolerable to stand by and watch wrongdoing occur right in front of them.

On the other hand, people with a low MQ, who work and socialise with others like them, seem perfectly comfortable with wrongdoing, often participating in it. They believe that morals are for fools and those out of touch with the predatory nature of human beings. Their only limits are what they can get away with. If something isn’t explicitly prohibited by law or the laws are unenforced or unenforceable, low MQers feel justified in doing whatever harm they wish to gain an advantage.

Most people with mid-level MQs tend to avoid discussing moral or ethical issues, as they have found that these topics disrupt harmony and may jeopardise their livelihoods or friendships. Like politics, sex, and religion, morals are seen as subjects best left undiscussed.

Is there an optimum MQ?

It seems that the best MQ is the one that is ideally suited to the context in which a person finds themselves. Too high or too low an MQ compared to their peers, and problems will surface. 

One of the unacknowledged parts of the interview, dating and friendship-forming game, is mutual, unconscious evaluation of MQ. High MQ people want to be with other high-MQers.

If you wanted to, can you change your MQ?

Before answering that, perhaps we should ask: Why would anyone want to change their MQ? To acquire peace of mind. To feel good about themselves.

That can mean, abandoning deeply held principles, dropping their MQ, or keeping their job in a corrupt organisation or profession.  Let’s assume that you are reading this article on MQ because you want to move in the opposite direction. How can you increase your MQ? 

• Take time to reflect on your values. What do you believe in? What markers are on your moral compass? The more you know and understand your beliefs and values, your MQ, the more you can choose to act on them.
• Identify and challenge your biases. We all have biases. They influence our moral decisions. Again, increased awareness, makes high MQ action more possible.
• Ongoing learning. Each time you face an ethical dilemma, reflect on it, learn from it, and praise yourself for doing the right thing.
• Find and connect with high-MQ role models. Surround yourself with people who epitomise high moral character.
• Take time to empathise. Walk a moon in the shoes of another to understand how your actions might impact them.
• The journey towards and maintaining a high MQ is lifelong. There will be temptations, challenges, and setbacks. If you want to be able to look yourself in the mirror every morning and know you are a person of high moral character, the journey to heighten your moral quotient is worth it.

Professor Nigel MacLennan runs the performance coaching practice PsyPerform.