Ethical business conduct: an exploratory study of gender differences.

Schrader, Julie Toner ; Luthy, Michael R.

INTRODUCTION

Articles concerned with the cohort of the American population referred to as "Generation Y" (also known as the "Echo Boom," the "Baby Boomlet," the "Internet Generation," and the "Millennial Generation") those born between the years 1975 and 1995, can be found in outlets as diverse as refereed journals, the popular press, and international and regional conference proceedings. Even the tabloid press is represented. The interest in this group stems in large measure from their attractiveness to marketers and businesses in general. Following the previously center-stage Baby Boom and Generation X age cohorts, members of Generation Y have been increasingly targeted by marketers. Businesses have discovered that they can achieve growth in sales and profitability by targeting increasingly more specific groups of consumers; in short those consumers defined as a generation and sharing important life experiences. The ushering of Generation Y members to the forefront has coincided with their reaching economic adulthood, typically between the ages of 17 and 21. The age of economic adulthood is viewed as significant because attitudes, values, and preferences (for products, brands, and firms) that form before and during this time are unlikely to change as individuals age (Meredith and Schewe 1994).

Another consequence of this age cohort reaching economic adulthood, aside from their importance in their role as consumers, is their emergence as managers, entrepreneurs, and business decision-makers. How individual members of Generation Y will perform in these roles will also affect businesses as they interact with each other as strategic allies, channel partners, suppliers, and colleagues. Additionally, how Generation Y deals with customers, stockholders, and other stakeholders will have spillover effects for the general public. At the dawn of the 21st Century, an examination of Generation Y's ethical foundation is called for. More specific questions related to this line of inquiry include: What influences do they view as important in their development? How familiar are they with various ethical constructs and theories? How do they envision the ethical business organization of the 21st Century? It is likely that gender, in addition to age, will have an impact on Generation Y's activities as they progress in their professional careers. Given the strides that women in particular have made throughout the middle and latter parts of the 20th Century and the trend toward more female-owned and -operated businesses, an examination of potential differences in the ethical foundations of the two genders is warranted.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Ethics represent the moral principles and values that govern the actions and decisions of an individual or group (Lazniak and Murphy 1993). Public outcries concerning the ethical practices of businesspeople have long been around. Results of public opinion studies indicate that 58% of American adults rate the ethical standards of business executives as only "fair" or "poor"; 90% believe white-collar crime is "very common" or "somewhat common"; and 76% say the lack of ethics in businesspeople contributes to plummeting societal moral standards (Krohe 1997, Dallas Morning News 1998, Walker Information 1998).

In an essay, "The Myth of the Amoral Business," DeGeorge (1999), discusses a commonly held view of American business. One of DeGeorge's major assertions is that the American public does not view businesspeople as unethical or immoral, but instead, as being amoral due to the fact that ethical considerations are often seen as inappropriate in business situations. "Business is not structured to handle questions of values and ethics, and its managers have usually not been trained in business schools to do so," (DeGeorge 1999, p. 7). The breakdown of this line of reasoning has begun as a result of three societal trends: (1) more reporting of scandals and the public reaction to these reports; (2) organizing of consumerists; environmentalists, and other socially-conscious groups, and (3) emerging corporate codes of ethical conduct and ethics programs in addition to ethics conferences, and magazine and newspaper articles on the subject (DeGeorge 1999). Although all three of these trends are important to the understanding of business ethics, the first two lie beyond the scope of the present paper. A brief account of the third, the corporate ethics movement and its impact on American society, follows.

The Corporate Ethics Movement

Prior to the 1960s, business ethics were discussed but not in a widespread manner. During the decade of the 1960s, however, businesses came under increasing attack for a general lack of social consciousness and unwillingness to address questions related to consumerism, the environment, and the build-up in the military-industrial complex. Corporations often found themselves on the defensive. Business schools then began to offer "social issues" courses to explore allegations against business as well as to discuss possible solutions and remedies. As the demands of students and consumer groups spread to the general population in the 1970s, the business ethics movement gained strength. Corporations and institutions of higher education responded to this growing widespread disapproval of business by sponsoring conferences on business ethics. Eventually, colleges and universities established business ethics as a discipline separate from the more general field of philosophy. Courses, textbooks, professional societies, and journals related to business ethics began to form. The media took notice of these events and reported them to the general public. Individual corporations also began to develop corporate codes of ethics during the decade of the 1970s. As firms became increasingly sensitive to charges of unethical conduct, corporations also began to develop in-house ethics programs.

The decade of the 1980s saw even more interest on the part of organizations to at least appear sensitive to business ethics issues. By the end of the decade, many Fortune 500 Companies had adopted corporate ethical codes, ethical hotlines, ethics committees at the Board of Directors level, and ethics training programs.

The federal government took on an increasingly important role in the area of business ethics during the 1990s. A significant provision of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (U.S. Sentencing Commission 1993) was that companies could receive reduced fines for ethical lapses if they had taken steps to develop efficient programs to prevent and detect violations of law. Corporations then became more willing to establish standards and procedures for employees to follow. At that time, many organizations began an effort to establish a more ethical climate for employees that went beyond the letter of the law.

One Study's View on the Ethics of Generation Y

A recent study conducted by Northwestern Mutual Life concludes that members of Generation Y are religious, intend to vote, and actively volunteer for good causes (Kate 1998). According to the survey, Generation Y admires the following attributes: honesty/integrity, hard work/dedication, and motivation/desire. Kate goes on to report that among the students surveyed, the person they admire the most is their mother followed by their father. Nearly 90% believe in God and 57% attend religious services. While the influence of parents on Generation Y members is established by the Northwestern Mutual Life study, a number of other questions remain unexplored, including the differential effect, if any, of gender and the role of other influences on Generation Y's ethical development.

The Changing Role of Women in Business

One of the most notable changes in this country in the last three decades has been the changing role of women in the culture. From 1975 through 1998, the percentage of labor-force-age women working outside the home increased from 46% to 60%, and the percentage of women in the workforce with school age children rose to more than 77% (Bureau of Labor Statistics 1999). This trend of more women in the workforce is underscored by their increasing representation in all areas of the economy including the professions. For example, women account for more than half of all financial managers, accountants and auditors, technical writers, economists, and public relations specialists (Hayghe 1997). Companies as diverse as Chrysler, Coca-Cola, Coors, JC Penney and Sears, recognized the changing gender landscape of American business and have developed initiatives to increase their business with female-owned suppliers and vendors (Forbes 1998 a and b). Fortune magazine (Sellers 1998) reported that 11% of the officers and directors of the 500 largest corporations in the United States are women. With the increasing presence of women in American business and the resulting increase in their control of decision-making authority, an examination of the role gender plays in the way future managers may exert that authority is appropriate.

METHODOLOGY

A convenience sample of approximately 40 upper-level undergraduate business students completed five directed tasks, over a period of several weeks, at a small, private liberal arts college in the Mid-south. Subjects were enrolled in Principles of Marketing, a predominantly junior-senior level course required for all majors in the business school. Additionally, the course is required for selected majors outside of the business school, most notably Arts Administration, as well as serving as a suggested elective for various major and minor programs at the institution.

Subjects completed a paper and pencil questionnaire, which asked about: familiarity with 13 different ethical concepts or theories (two of which were fictitious), the relative importance of 15 different social influences on their ethical development, and whether they had ever performed specific questionable behaviors. Additionally, students agreed to role-play a scenario in which they had recently graduated, were working for their "dream firm," and had been asked to construct an ethics statement that would serve as a guide for how the organization would deal with a host of constituencies. Each student also completed a VALS Typology survey and a Wall Street Journal quiz on ethics in the workplace. Lastly, students were asked to rank order a number of behaviors (using a card deck) according to how ethical they believed each behavior to be.

After eliminating the responses of students not born in the targeted time frame and thus not part of Generation Y, a usable sample size of 38 was retained for analysis. Although a convenience sample, the profile of the respondents reflects a sufficiently diverse and balanced group across most classification variables to reflect at least minimal generalization to the larger target population of Generation Y (63% men, 37% women; 11% sophomores, 54% juniors, 35% seniors). One potentially limiting factor in the study is that while the respondents are representative across gender and academic level characteristics, they skew approximately 55% Roman Catholic, (with 13% identifying themselves as Christian, 11% Baptist, 5% Methodist, 3% Agnostic and 13% no religious affiliation). This is most likely attributable to the nature of the institution from which they were drawn, which has a heritage of affiliation with the Catholic Church.

RESULTS

Knowledge of Ethical Theories and Constructs

One of the major goals of the current study is to determine the extent to which members of Generation Y have been exposed to, and have retained knowledge of, different theories and constructs that possess an ethical component. Based on an examination of selected textbooks (e.g., Peter and Donnelly 1997; Berkowitz, Kerin, Hartley, and Rudelius 2000) a listing of ethical theories was constructed. This list was supplemented with additional theories as a result of discussions with other researchers. Finally, two non-existent theories were added to the list as a concept check to assess "yea-saying" behavior (Tashchian, White, and Pak 1988).

Subjects were asked to assess their degree of familiarity with each of the 13 ethical constructs. Seven-point scales were used ranging from "somewhat familiar" (1) to "extremely familiar" (7). A separate check box for "totally unfamiliar" was also provided. For each construct, the percent of male and female respondents answering "totally unfamiliar" is presented along with the average for those respondents who indicated some degree of familiarity.

The two non-existent ethical theories contained in the listing were the Galbraigth Role-Play and Nelson Decision Rule. A majority of the respondents for both genders admitted having no knowledge of either construct however, women were markedly more willing to admit that they did not know about the constructs than men. For the remaining respondents, those who indicated some degree of familiarity, the relatively low averages among these individuals lends credence to the interpretation that the generic terms "role-play" and "decision rule" were significant enough to elicit some response, even though the personalization aspect must have been unfamiliar.

For the other eleven ethical theories respondents reported varying levels of familiarity. The one most familiar to all respondents was "The Golden Rule" (treat others as you want to be treated). The Cost/Benefit Analysis (tradeoffs between gains and losses) was viewed as next most familiar. Constructs of materiality, a professional ethic, and moral idealism, while unfamiliar to a higher percentage of male respondents, still exhibited a relatively high average familiarity rating. As a subsample, women reported in greater numbers knowledge of a wide range of ethical constructs.

With the remaining theories, the percentage of respondents expressing some level of familiarity decreased. Among those who expressed some familiarity, the level of that familiarity also was lower. It is likely that formal coverage of these theories is minimal to non-existent in courses taken by respondents. Additionally, exposure to these constructs in everyday life or conversation is also unlikely, especially compared to such "wide spread" constructs as the Golden Rule and Cost / Benefit analysis. One notable observation is that women reported a higher degree of familiarity with a broader number of ethical constructs than their male counterparts.

Lifestyle Segmentation

Since lifestyle analysis has proven useful in segmenting and targeting of consumers, it is believed that lifestyle analysis may also be useful in predicting the behaviors of managers. The Values and Lifestyles (VALS) Program developed by SRI International is the most prominent tool used to analyze lifestyles (American Demographics 1996). The VALS Program identifies three patterns of attitudes and activities or "orientations": principle-oriented, status-oriented, and action-oriented. These patterns of behavior are further subdivided according to an individual's available resources. Table 2 presents profiles for the sample.

None of the respondents fall into the lowest category of available resources for each orientation. This may be partially attributable to the fact that the sample was drawn from a private school. Combined with the relatively small sample size, these results may not be generalizable to the larger Generation Y population. The largest VALS category for both males and females was "Experiencers" which indicates that they are young, enthusiastic, impulsive, and rebellious consumers who are still formulating values and behavior patterns. From an ethics perspective, it is notable that 0% of the females and only 8% of the males are in the principle-oriented lifestyle orientation. Principle-orientated respondents attempt to match their behavior with their views of how the world is or should be (Berkowitz et al. 2000). The majority of male and female respondents exhibit status-orientation, which means that both are motivated by the actions and opinions of others.

Influences on Ethical Development

Another major goal of the current study is to investigate the influences that male and female members of Generation Y report as significant to their ethical development. In the survey, subjects were asked to rate each potential influence on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from "extremely unimportant" (1) to "extremely important" (7).

Perhaps most reassuring, and contrary to many of the fears expressed in some of the more tabloid forms of information available in the last few years, parents continue to have the most influence on their children's ethical development--both male (6.3 out of 7) and female (6.7), even more than friends, or the media. Both male and female respondents also reported that teachers, at the primary, secondary and post-secondary levels, have also had a positive impact on students although not as great as church activities, employers, and other family members. Interestingly, news reporting and entertainment media, long touted as having a significant (and negative) impact on children have apparently not had as significant an effect on their ethical development. Most likely, this is due to the positive, insulating effect of the other influences respondents rated higher. Further examination of Table 3 highlights a number of influences where there appears to be significant gender difference. Most notably, the influence of College Teachers is greater on females than males. One possible explanation is that males, by the time they enter a post-secondary educational setting, have more fully formed their ethical outlook on life than females. Also noteworthy, with the exception of involvement with community groups, ethics statements, and spouse, all of the other sources were reported as more influential on the ethical development of women than men.

Ethical Evaluation

For this portion of the study, subjects were presented with a questionnaire listing 36 specific behaviors and asked to indicate whether they had ever performed each behavior. Several weeks later they were provided with a deck of note cards with each behavior on a different card and asked to place the cards in order from the most ethical to the least ethical (in their view). The results of these two tasks are reported in Table 4.

The "Ethical Rank" of each behavior was determined by summing the severity index for both men and women; as the sum increases, so too does the severity (i.e. the perceived unethical nature) of the behavior in the eyes of the respondents. The "Severity Index" for men and women was determined by multiplying the percentage of each gender sample's respondents rating a particular behavior's position in the card deck returned (1 for most ethical, 2 for next most ethical, etc.) converted to quartiles (e.g. positions 1-9 first quartile) times 25 for the first quartile, 50 for the second, 75 for the third, and 100 for the fourth. If for example, 90 percent (0.9) of men had ranked a given behavior in the last quartile (card deck position 28 or higher) the severity index would be 90. Also presented in Table 4 is the percent of each gender that admitted performing the behavior.

Comparing the severity indices of men versus women across the 36 statements we observe that 18 of the behaviors are viewed by women as more severe (i.e. more unethical) than their male counterparts with 15 of the behaviors viewed by men as more severe and three equally severe. Multiplying the gender severity index times the percentage who have committed the behavior and sum over the behaviors listed, men scored 1241 and women scored 912. With higher scores on this measure reflecting a more severe rating of a given behavior, a higher rate of committing the behavior, or both, it indicates that women are approximately 26% more ethical. The question next becomes whether this would affect their business behavior.

Workplace Ethics Quiz

Respondents completed a 15-item bi-polar workplace ethics quiz recently published in the Wall Street Journal (McCarthy 1999) (see Table 5). The greatest difference in responses between males and females was an absolute difference of 53 percentage points on the question of whether it unacceptable to receive a $50 gift from the boss. Fifty-eight percent of women believed that this was true while only 5% of the men believed this to be true. One interpretation for this outcome is that females may assume that acceptance of a gift of this value may represent more than a gesture of appreciation from a superior. The smallest absolute difference in responses between males and females was 7 percentage points for the question, "Can you accept a $75 prize won at a raffle at a supplier's conference?"

A behavior which both the male (90%) and female (100%) sub-samples found very unethical was using office equipment to visit pornographic web sites. Results published in the Wall Street Journal indicated that this held true for a cross-section of workers at large companies nationwide (McCarthy 1999). One hundred percent of the females in the current study indicated that taking credit for someone else's work or idea was unethical while a quarter of the males in the study admitted to haven taken credit for someone else's work. The Wall Street Journal reported a mere 4% of the cross-section of workers in their study admitted to taking credit for someone else's work. The behaviors which the male sample in the current study found least unethical (tied at 5%) were accepting a $50 gift from the boss and accepting a $100 food basket from a supplier.

An overall look at Table 5 suggests that the females in the study find the behaviors listed far more objectionable than the males in the study. Summing the percentage points for the behaviors that females found unethical produces a score of 940 while the same score for the males was 535. Following a similar analysis that was discussed in connection with Table 4, the differences between males and females on the Wall Street Journal workplace quiz indicates that women are 43% more ethical than males--at least on this set of issues.

Ethical Business Statements

Study subjects were asked to construct an "ethical business statement" based on the following instruction:

"It is now August 2003. You graduated from your degree program at
 (this institution) three months ago. The company you hoped would
make you an offer did--and you accepted. Since you are new to the
organization they have asked you to write a brief but informative
statement on 'ethical business behavior.' This statement will be
the basis for how the company should/will deal with customers,
suppliers, employees, etc."

The responses to this task spanned a reasonably wide range of ethical business statements. The following excerpts illustrate one extreme:

1 "To begin with, ethical behavior shall be defined as guidelines
to act rightly and justly when facing a moral dilemma. ACME
employees shall demonstrate honesty and respect when dealing with
customers. The rules set forth by ACME, Inc. should be followed by
every employee at all times. Unethical behavior shall be reported
among co-workers and the necessary penalizations will result. All
employees will be expected to display professional behavior and
confidentiality".

2 "In order to do this one must set a clear and realistic vision
instead of an exaggerated one and express that vision to customers
and investors. If an employee makes a mistake or ethical error they
should admit it and try to find the best way to resolve the
situation. Quality and excellence are of the utmost importance...."

3 "The XYZ Company will move forward with competence, integrity,
objectivity and sincerity. There are rigid guidelines that all
employees should follow, but one know s that everyone has a
different ideal of what is right and what is wrong."

At the other end of the continuum are excerpts of statements illustrated by those below:

1 "The preceding values are those most important and valued by this
company, and all employees should demonstrate these within their
daily business dealings whether they are internal or external. It
is the additional responsibility of management to convey these
beliefs to all new members of our community and commend those who
display ethical behavior. The endeavor to maintain integrity can at
times be challenging, but all employees should realize that ethical
behavior is value and extolled by the leadership of this
corporation."

2 "To ensure that our core ethical values are upheld, we
acknowledge the social responsibility that accompanies every action
and attitude of our business and its practices. To ensure that our
company is accountable to society, and therefore our customers, for
its actions, we expect the society norms of ethics to be upheld."

3 "To begin with, as accountants our first responsibility is to our
clients. Because our work is relied upon by outside users to make
investment and other decisions about, or involving, our clients, we
have a responsibility to prepare accurate and timely reports. We
must remain independent from our clients so as not to make our work
appear biased. Our secondary responsibility is to the accounting
profession."

Although every respondent in the study indicated a familiarity with the Golden Rule, only 12% of the males and 8% of the females mentioned the Golden Rule or a variation of it in their ethical business statements (see Table 6). The ethical constructs used most often by the females were Kant's Categorical Imperative (C.I.) (100%) followed by Moral Idealism (92%). For the males, the ethical constructs used most often were Kant's C.I. and Moral Idealism (both at 96%). The greatest absolute percentage point difference between the responses of the males and females was on the ethical construct of Cost/Benefit Analysis. Forty-four percent of the males and only 8 percent of the females included this construct in their ethical business statements.

The second section of Table 6 presents the results of a content analysis of the respondents' ethical business statements. The greatest difference between the male and female sub-samples was the level of expressed concern for stakeholders. Similarly high gender differences were observed with regard to investors and suppliers (each more than 20 percentage points). Overall, males included more groups and issues in their ethical business statements than females. Concern for the environment was the only issue included more frequently in women's ethical business statements than men's.

DISCUSSION

An article by Deborah Johnson (1985) asserts that professional codes of ethics should be created with four types of obligations in mind: (1) obligations to society; (2) obligations to the employer; (3) obligations to customers; and (4) obligations to colleagues. The selected ethical business statements presented earlier provide evidence that even college students, often with limited experience and a naive knowledge of business, draw on their ethical backgrounds and exhibit varying levels of sensitivity to the constituencies Johnson more formally discusses.

Both the males and females involved with this study exhibited knowledge of ethical theories and constructs, owe a good deal of their ethical development to their parents and other more immediate contact sources, and employed multiple theories in the construction of their ethical business statements. This constitutes evidence of complex ethical development that likely will manifest itself in their professional careers. The distinguishing characteristic between the males and females in this study point to a pattern of responses indicating a difference of degree so significant that it indicates a difference in kind between the two groups. Females were markedly more likely to have knowledge of more ethical constructs and theories, were influenced by a wider range of groups and information sources contributing to their ethical development, and viewed more behaviors (both in and out of the workplace) as unethical. The small sample size and non-random nature of the sample should give the reader pause before applying these results to Generation Y as a whole. Nevertheless, the results do validate the need for additional research that both focuses on Generation Y and the role of gender with these future business managers.

While it may take years for members of Generation Y, both males and females, to come into their own as full and controlling members of business organizations, early indications are that they posses, to differing degrees, knowledge about ethical constructs, they have been influenced by their family and others concerning what ethical behavior is, and have demonstrated that they can make the leap from theory to application where business practice is concerned.

REFERENCES

American Demographics (1996). The frontiers of psychographics, (July), 38-43.

Berkowitz, E. N, R. A. Kerin, S. W. Hartley & W. Rudelius (2000). Marketing Sixth Edition, Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (1999). Labor force statistics from the current population survey, (January).

DeGeorge, R. T. (1999), Business Ethics, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dallas Morning News (1998), Embracing ethics, (June 10), pp. 1D, 10D.

Forbes, (1998a), Diversity: A business imperative," (April 20), 1-3.

Forbes (1998b), Sears, Roebuck, and Co.: Minority suppliers energize growth and the bottom line, (April 20), 14.

Hayghe, H. V. (1997). Developments in women's labor force participation, Monthly Labor Review, (September), 41-46.

Johnson, D. (1985), Computer Ethics, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kate, N. T. (1998), Freshmen get wholesome, American Demographics website: http://www.americandemographics.com/publications/ad/98%5Fad/ad98059.htm

Krohe, J. (1997). Ethics are nice but business is business, Across the Board, (April), 16-22.

Lazniak, E. R. & P. E. Murphy (1993). Ethical Marketing Decisions: The Higher Road, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McCarthy, M. J. (1999). Now the boss knows where you're clicking, Wall Street Journal, 234(79), (October 21)., B1.

Meredith, G. & C. Schewe (1994). The power of cohorts, American Demographics, (December), 22-31.

Peter, J. P. & J.H. Donnelly, Jr. (1997), A Preface to Marketing Management, Seventh Edition, Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Sellers, P. (1998). The 50 most powerful women in american business, Fortune, October 12, 76-98.

Tashchian, A., D. White & S. Pak (1988). Signal detection analysis and advertising recognition: An introduction to measurement and interpretation issues, Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (November), 397-404.

United States Sentencing Commission (1993), United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, Chapter 8, (November 1).

Walker Information (1998), U.S. Employee Perceptions of Ethics in Organizations, Indiana.

Julie Toner Schrader, Bellarmine University

Michael R. Luthy, Bellarmine University

TABLE 1: Avowed Familiarity with Ethical Theories and Constructs

 Percent Mean Percent
 total Familiarity total
 Unfamiliar Rating Unfamiliar

Ethical Construct Males Males Females

The Golden Rule 0% 5.7 0%
Cost/Benefit Analysis 8% 4.5 0%
Materiality 13% 4.7 0%
Professional Ethic 13% 4.4 0%
Moral idealism 13% 4.4 0%
Narcissism: 21% 4.8 14%
Situational Ethic 25% 4.4 0%
Machiavellianism 29% 3.6 29%
TV Test 33% 4.4 21%
The Utilitarian 33% 4.4 0%
Principle
Kant's C.I. 46% 3.5 43%
Nelson Decision Rule 58% 3.2 79%
Galbraigth Role-Play 63% 3.2 79%

 Mean
 Familiarity
 Rating

Ethical Construct Females Brief Description

The Golden Rule 6.1 Treat others as you want to be
 treated.
Cost/Benefit Analysis 4.9 Tradeoff between gain and loss.
Materiality 5.6 Is it significant?
Professional Ethic 5.3 Action viewed as ethical by
 colleagues.
Moral idealism 5.1 Rights are universal regardless
 of outcome.
Narcissism: 5.3 No regard for others.
Situational Ethic 5.3 Circumstances govern what is
 ethical.
Machiavellianism 4.3 Whatever I can get away with is
 acceptable.
TV Test 4.1 Comfortable explaining to TV
 audience?
The Utilitarian 4.8 Greatest good for the greatest
Principle number.
Kant's C.I. 3.5 Universal law or behavior.
Nelson Decision Rule 3.7 Non-Existent Ethical Theory
Galbraigth Role-Play 4.0 Non-Existent Ethical Theory

TABLE 2: VALS Typology Survey Results

 Total Sample Males Females Absolute
 difference
 (Percentage
 Points)
Principle Oriented:
Fulfilleds 5% 8% 0% 8
Believers 0% 0% 0% 0
Status Oriented:
Actualizers 24% 24% 23% 1
Achievers 21% 24% 15% 9
Strivers 16% 12% 23% 11
Strugglers 0% 0% 0% 0
Action Oriented:
Experiencers 34% 32% 39% 7
Makers 0% 0% 0% 0

TABLE 3: Influences on Respondents Ethical Development (Mean Scores)

 Absolute
 Males Females Difference

College Teachers 3.8 * 5.0 1.2
Family members other than parents 5.3 * 6.0 .7
Grade School Teachers 3.5 * 4.2 .7
Involvement with Church 4.6 * 5.3 .7
Friends 5.2 * 5.8 .6
Involvement with Community Groups * 3.4 2.8 .6
Co-workers 4.1 * 4.5 .4
Employers 4.2 * 4.6 .4
High School Teachers 4.0 * 4.4 .4
Involvement with Student Groups 3.5 * 3.9 .4
Parents 6.3 * 6.7 .4
Mentors 4.8 * 5.2 .4
Entertainment Media
 (TV, movies, etc.) 3.0 * 3.2 .2
News Reporting 3.3 * 3.4 .1
Ethics Statements by Companies 3.6 3.6 .0
Other: Spouse 4.1 4.1 .0

* Indicates higher mean

TABLE 4: Ethical Severity and Behavioral History

Ethical Severity Index Gender
 Rank Difference

 Males Females

 1 34 28 18%
 2 29 35 -21%
 3 43 28 35%
 4 41 30 27%
 5 38 35 8%
 6 39 40 -3%
 7 45 55 -22%
 8 61 43 30%
 9 68 40 41%
 10 59 50 15%
 11 59 50 15%
 12 46 63 -37%
 13 52 58 -12%
 14 50 60 -20%
 15 50 63 -26%
 16 57 60 -5%
 17 66 53 20%
 18 71 50 30%
 19 54 68 -26%
 20 50 75 -50%
 21 63 65 -3%
 22 61 75 -23%
 23 66 75 -14%
 24 64 78 -22%
 25 70 75 -7%
 26 77 70 9%
 27 80 68 15%
 28 75 75 0%
 29 80 75 6%
 30 80 80 0%
 31 79 85 -8%
 32 80 85 -6%
 33 84 90 -7%
 34 91 90 1%
 35 95 90 5%
 36 95 95 0%

Ethical
 Rank

 Statement

 1 Told a lie to avoid hurting someone's feelings?

 2 Found change in a pay telephone and kept it?

 3 Told someone on the phone that there was someone at the
 door to get out of talking to them?

 4 Told someone a lie to get out of attending a social
 occasion?

 5 Tried to use a coupon after it had expired?

 6 Called in sick to work when you weren't?

 7 Told an untrue story (or cried) to a police office to get out
 of a parking or traffic ticket?

 8 Drank alcohol underage?

 9 Took a magazine from the waiting area at a doctor's
 office, haircutting salon, etc.

 10 Reused a canceled postage stamp?

 11 Looked in someone's medicine cabinets, or closets, etc.
 when they weren't around?

 12 Resold a ticket to a concert or sporting event for more
 than its face value?

 13 Used "slugs" or Canadian money in U.S. vending or
 washing machines?

 14 Mixed Canadian coins in with U.S. coins to pay for an
 item?

 15 Loaded a copy of a software program on your computer
 that you did not pay for?

 16 Took a towel(s) from a hotel?

 17 Took office supplies (e.g. tape dispenser, binder, etc.)
 home from a job?

 18 Used a fake I.D. card?

 19 Discovered that you received too much change from a
 purchase at a retail store and kept it?

 20 Returned an item to a store that you had used and did not
 get a replacement?

 21 Saw someone cheating on a test and did not report it?

 22 Sneaked into a movie without paying for it?

 23 Rocked a vending machine to get a product you didn't pay
 for?

 24 Tried marijuana?

 25 Told something to someone that you had promised not to
 reveal?

 26 Eaten food in a grocery store that you did not pay for?
 (free samples don't count)

 27 Parked in a handicapped parking space that you weren't
 entitled to use?

 28 Purposely opened a letter or package that was addressed
 to someone else?

 29 Cheated on a test yourself?

 30 Reported losing money in a vending or washing machine
 when you didn't?

 31 Tried an illegal drug other than marijuana?

 32 Purchased marijuana?

 33 Hit or noticeably scratched someone's car and not left a
 note?

 34 Shoplifted an item from a store?

 35 Purchased an illegal drug other than marijuana?

 36 Left a restaurant without paying the check?

Ethical Have
 Rank Committed
 Behavior

 Male Female

 1 100% 100%
 2 96% 100%
 3 75% 86%
 4 100% 100%
 5 63% 50%
 6 75% 64%
 7 54% 43%
 8 88% 79%
 9 33% 14%
 10 17% 0%
 11 63% 93%
 12 42% 14%
 13 46% 7%
 14 50% 50%
 15 58% 57%
 16 71% 43%
 17 54% 79%
 18 54% 50%
 19 83% 57%
 20 54% 21%
 21 96% 100%
 22 46% 29%
 23 46% 36%
 24 67% 43%
 25 79% 64%
 26 33% 21%
 27 58% 21%
 28 50% 43%
 29 88% 64%
 30 17% 7%
 31 33% 29%
 32 46% 21%
 33 38% 21%
 34 54% 36%
 35 33% 7%
 36 38% 7%

TABLE 5: "Yes" Responses to Wall Street Journal Workplace Ethics
Quiz Questions

 Male Female Absolute
 Diff.
 (% Points)

Is a $50 gift FROM the boss 5% 58% 53
unacceptable?

Of gifts from suppliers: Is it OK to 80% 33% 47
take a $120 pair of theater tickets?

Of gifts from suppliers: Is it OK to 95% 50% 45
take a $100 holiday food basket?

Of gifts from suppliers: Is it OK to 75% 33% 42
take a $200 pair of football tickets?

Is a $50 gift TO a boss unacceptable? 20% 58% 38

Due to on-the-job (OTJ) pressure, have 70% 33% 37

you ever abused or lied about sick days?

Is it unethical to blame an error you 55% 83% 28
made on a technological glitch?

Due to OTJ pressure, have you ever taken 25% 0% 25
credit for someone else's work idea?

Is it wrong to use office equipment to 25% 50% 25
help your kids/ spouse do schoolwork?

Of gifts from suppliers: Is it OK to 90% 67% 23
take a $25 gift certificate?

Is it wrong to use office equipment to 65% 83% 18
do Internet shopping?

Is it wrong to play computer games on 70% 83% 13
office equipment during the workday?

Is it unethical to visit a pornographic 90% 100% 10
Web sites using office equipment?

Is it wrong to use company e-mail for 25% 33% 8
personal reasons?

Can you accept a $75 prize won at a 85% 92% 7
supplier's conference?

TABLE 6: Constructs In Ethical Business Statements

Ethical Constructs Male Females Absolute
 Difference
 (% Points)

Cost / Benefit Analysis 44% 8% 36
The Utilitarian Principle 20% 8% 12
Situational Ethic 12% 0% 12
Professional Ethic 44% 54% 10
TV Test 24% 31% 7
Kant's C.I. 96% 100% 4
Golden Rule 12% 8% 4
Moral idealism 96% 92% 4
Materiality 20% 15% 5
Machiavellianism 0% 0% 0
Narcissism: 0% 0% 0
Groups Mentioned:
Concern for stakeholders 96% 69% 27
Concern for investors 92% 69% 23
Concern for suppliers 92% 69% 23
Concern for society 33% 23% 10
Concern for creditors 8% 0% 8
Concern for environment 13% 15% 2
Concern for customers 100% 100% 0
Concern for employees 100% 100% 0

Ethical Constructs Brief Description

Cost / Benefit Analysis Tradeoff between gain and loss.
The Utilitarian Principle Greatest good for the greatest number.
Situational Ethic Circumstances govern what is ethical.
Professional Ethic Action viewed as ethical by colleagues.
TV Test Comfortable explaining to TV audience?
Kant's C.I. Universal law or behavior.
Golden Rule Treat others as you want to be treated.
Moral idealism Rights are universal regardless of outcome.
Materiality Is it significant?
Machiavellianism Whatever I can get away with is acceptable.
Narcissism: No regard for others.
Groups Mentioned:
Concern for stakeholders
Concern for investors
Concern for suppliers
Concern for society
Concern for creditors
Concern for environment
Concern for customers
Concern for employees