From: MBAs and Ethics A look at the ethical preparedness By Vince Cavasin April 30, 1999 For Professor Louis Chauvin Winter 1999 Independent Study
Executive summary Virtually all professionals are confronted with ethical quandaries in =
their=20
work, but I contend that those faced by the manager generally have the =
highest=20
potential impact on society. The importance of business ethics implied =
by this=20
statement coupled with the general lack of attention given to it by most =
MBA=20
programs led me to formulate the hypothesis for this project: that the =
study of=20
ethics is as fundamental to a business education as a study of =
accounting or=20
marketing, and that while any number of ethical systems can be employed =
in the=20
context of business, future business leaders are ill-equipped to apply =
any of=20
them due to a lack of training. The project was based on a survey of about 1500 MBA students at over =
16=20
schools worldwide. The survey is built around questions that present=20
business-related ethical quandaries and offer a series of =
multiple-choice=20
answers to each. Each answer models one of six ethical theories (the =
selection=20
of which is outlined below); the same theories are modeled for each =
question.=20
Respondents are asked to choose the answer that best matches their =
thought=20
process in solving the quandary. The survey mainly looks for consistency =
in=20
answers across the quandaries, in hopes that correlations can be drawn =
between=20
consistent answers and certain respondent attributes. This paper presents an overview of ethical thinking throughout =
history, and=20
identifies 13 main ethical systems that can potentially be applied to =
business:=20
Virtue Ethics, Judeo-Christian ethics, Machiavellianism, Social Contract =
Theory,=20
Individualism, Kantian ethics, Utilitarianism, Social Darwinism, =
Socialism,=20
Rawlsian Justice Theory, Objectivism, Libertarianism, and =
Communitarianism.=20
Based on the selection criteria of 1. applicability to business, 2.=20
modelability, and 3. overlap, I distilled these 13 theories into a more=20
manageable 6 for the survey: Objectivism, Machiavellianism, =
Contractarianism,=20
Moral Absolutism, Ethical Relativism, and Utilitarianism. While there were many problems with the survey, its results basically =
support=20
my hypothesis; 29% of respondents are what I classify as "ethically=20
consistent." After some analysis of the survey details, this paper draws the =
following conclusions:
Contents Preface
of MBA students =
and how=20
it might be improved
Introduction
*Hypothesis
*Overview
*A brief overview of the survey
*Ethical theories
*A brief history of ethics
*Theories considered
*Selection criteria
*Theories rejected and why
*Virtue Ethics
*Judeo-Christian and Kantian ethics
*Social contract theory and Rawlsian Justice
*Individualism and Libertarianism
*Social Darwinism
*Socialism and Communitarianism
*Theories chosen
*Utilitarianism
*Machiavellian
*Objectivist
*Contractarian
*Moral Absolutism
*Ethical Relativist
*The Survey
*Goals
*Personal goals
*Method
*Survey construction
*Quandary/response construction
*Testing
*The final survey
*Sampling
*Known Biases/problems with quandaries
and response modeling =
General statistics
*Analysis of responses
*How many MBAs are ethically consistent?
*What ethical systems do MBAs favor?
*Correlations between consistent responses and other attributes =
*Side effects
*Conclusions
*So, have I proved my hypothesis?
*The fruits of reflection
*Planting the seed
*And where do we go from here?
*Create interest
*Require an ethics core course
*Promote
ethics *And the last word...
*Endnotes
*Bibliography
*Acknowledgements
*Exhibit 1: BE core requirements and
response rates per school =
surveyed=20
Exhibit 2: The survey, with key
*Exhibit 3: Rejected survey questions
*Exhibit 4: Rough draft survey
*Exhibit 5: Summary country statistics
*Exhibit 6: Summary individual consistency statistics
*Exhibit 7: Breakdown of ethical system choices
*Exhibit 8: Consistency by industry and MBA concentration =
*
Preface (or, Sob Story)
A preliminary note concerning two major problems that severely = affected the=20 success of this project is in order.
The foundation of the analytical portion of this project was an email = survey=20 of students enrolled in 16 MBA programs worldwide. Careful survey = construction=20 is crucial to a project like this, and the first problem occurred during = the=20 time I had scheduled to construct the survey when a family emergency = effectively=20 occupied more than two weeks of my time, significantly reducing the time = I had=20 to spend on building the survey. In order to allow adequate time for = respondents=20 to respond and subsequently for the survey data to be analyzed, I had = very rigid=20 deadlines for delivering the survey. This forced me into the difficult = choice of=20 whether to send out a hastily constructed survey in order to allow = adequate=20 response and analysis time, or to construct a more rigorous survey, send = it out=20 late, and gamble on insufficient response and analysis time. I chose the = former,=20 which at the time seemed an obvious choice, but in light of the next = tragedy,=20 was unfortunate.
The survey was originally distributed to about 1500 students, and = about 250=20 of them responded. Unfortunately, half way into the analysis of the = responses=20 (and about 4 weeks before the project was due), the second tragedy = struck: my=20 hard drive crashed and I lost all the work I had completed; not having = made any=20 backups, I basically had to start over from scratch. This entailed = emailing all=20 respondents again (which itself proved difficult since I lost all my = email=20 records) and asking them to resend their completed surveys if they still = had=20 them. This yielded about 70 responses over the subsequent three weeks. = Refer to=20 = Exhibit=20 1 for a breakdown of the origins of the responses ultimately = analyzed (a=20 breakdown of the original responses is impossible because all records of = them=20 are completely lost).
Completely lost were over half the responses from Asia, the majority = of those=20 from Europe, and almost all of the responses from U.S. schools that had = a=20 business ethics requirement in their core curriculum (Wharton and = Stanford).=20 Since correlating ethical reasoning to nationality and educational = requirements=20 was one of my main goals, this represented a significant loss. Therefore = I have=20 expanded the paper=92s focus on analyzing ethical systems applicable to = business,=20 and lessened its focus on the survey. However, I believe that even the = limited=20 survey responses compiled here offer some interesting insights, which I = will=20 explore.
Virtually all professionals are confronted with ethical quandaries at = least=20 occasionally in the course of their work; those faced by the teacher, = the=20 doctor, and the lawyer are easy to imagine. However, of the many = professionals=20 who face ethical quandaries, I contend that upper managers are the group = whose=20 approach to their resolution potentially has the largest impact on = society = [1].=20 A doctor's ethical decisions in the treatment of an individual may be a = matter=20 of life and death, but the impact of their effects will be limited to = the=20 patient and her immediate family. An executive, on the other hand, may = well face=20 ethical decisions that have life and death implications for generations = of=20 thousands of families, as shown by the Bhopal Union Carbide pesticide = plant=20 disaster (Bhopal, 1985).
Given the importance of the ethical decisions future business leaders = may be=20 called upon to make, I find the emphasis place on ethical development in = MBA=20 programs to be inadequate, to say the least. Of the Business Week = top 20=20 U.S. MBA programs, only 8 have a core requirement in business ethics = (see = Exhibit=20 1). Several of those that don't have a core requirement don't even = regularly=20 offer a Business Ethics (BE) elective, and BE courses offered are = typically=20 concerned more with teaching social or legal responsibilities of = business rather=20 than with providing any kind of foundational ethical frameworks. MBA = students=20 are universally taught the fundamentals of financial statement analysis, = the 3=20 C's, Porter's 5 Forces, and numerous other analytical tools for use in = thinking=20 about business problems in core courses; these tools are then used and = built=20 upon in subsequent courses. On the other hand, if they are taught ethics = at all,=20 the fundamentals are frequently ignored in favor of syllabi that = immediately=20 emphasize analysis of real-world cases = [2].=20 This is analogous to putting a student in an Options and Futures class = before he=20 has been taught how to calculate an NPV.
The importance of ethics to business people coupled with the lack of=20 attention it is given by MBA programs led me to formulate the hypothesis = for=20 this project: that the study of ethics is as fundamental to a business = education=20 as a study of accounting or marketing, and that while any number of = ethical=20 systems can be employed in the context of business, future business = leaders are=20 ill-equipped to apply any of them due to a lack of training. I had = originally=20 hypothesized, as a corollary, that there is a correlation between core = MBA=20 requirements in ethics and consistency in ethical decision-making, but = as=20 mentioned in the Preface, meaningful analysis of this was made = impossible by the=20 hard drive crash.
The core of this project was a survey of MBA students at over 16 MBA = programs=20 worldwide. This survey, described in detail further on, was intended to = measure=20 consistency in ethical reasoning and correlations between consistency = and=20 various respondent attributes, and to thereby provide evidence for or = against my=20 hypothesis.
This paper begins with a comprehensive overview of various ethical = theories=20 and evaluates them for their applicability to business [3].=20 After determining the most applicable theories, it presents the survey = and an=20 analysis of responses, then draws conclusions based on this=20 analysis.
A brief overview of the = survey
In order to clarify the context of the next section, I=92ll provide a = brief=20 overview of the survey here. Comprehensive coverage is given in the=20 Survey section.
The basic idea behind the survey is that, when confronted with an = ethical=20 quandary, people go through some kind of reasoning process to decide = what to do.=20 Consider the following example from everyday life: you=92re stopped at a = red light=20 at 3 a.m.; there are no other cars anywhere in sight, and you know = it=92s a long=20 light. Do you run it? You might reason that the law is always to be = obeyed, so=20 you will wait for the green; you might reason that you=92d like to run = it, but are=20 afraid there may be a cop lurking around the corner, so you won=92t to = avoid the=20 risk of getting a ticket; you might reason that lights are for people = who are=20 too stupid to know when to stop at intersections, and proceed; I could = go on.=20 The point is, each of these choices represents the application of a = different=20 system of ethical reasoning to solve the same problem=97whether to run = the light=20 or wait. The thought process might not be as explicit as I=92ve made it = out to be,=20 but this would likely owe to the fact that you=92ve thought through it = so many=20 times before it has become unconscious (such automation of ethical = reasoning=20 would be an interesting thing to explore in itself, but is beyond the = scope of=20 this paper).
My survey is built around questions that present business-related = ethical=20 quandaries and offer a series of multiple-choice answers to each. Each = answer=20 models one of six ethical theories (the selection of which is outlined = below);=20 the same theories are modeled for each question. Respondents are asked = to choose=20 the answer that best matches their thought process in solving the = quandary. The=20 survey mainly looks for consistency in answers across the quandaries, in = hopes=20 that correlations can be drawn between consistent answers and certain = respondent=20 attributes.
The Oxford English Dictionary, that omniscient crutch of uncreative = grad=20 students, defines ethics as:
The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the = principles=20 of Human duty.
Science? Morals? Principles? Duty? Sounds like a definition to = pull=20 out if you want to start a fight! It's no wonder that I find society = unconcerned=20 with ethics; the very words used to define it are, in combination = anyway,=20 controversial. It=92s much easier to ignore ethics than to think about = or study=20 it, especially if you=92re a manager working 80 hours a week. However, = few would=20 argue that we, as members of civilized society (and even as managers), = have=20 moral duties. What I'm concerned with here is the science = aspect=97the=20 study, formulation, and understanding of those duties, and their = application to=20 real life situations.
Concern with standards of human conduct is as old as civilization = itself, but=20 the birth of western ethics is generally credited to the ancient Greek=20 philosophers. The first Greek to develop a formalized ethics was = Pythagoras=20 (Collinson, 1987), but Greek ethics probably reached its pinnacle with=20 Aristotle, whose Nicomachean Ethics, written in the late 4th = century BC,=20 has spawned modern Virtue Ethics and has had an immeasurable influence = on=20 countless ethicists over the last 2300 years [4].=20 Virtue Ethics defines as right actions that facilitate some highest = good; for=20 Aristotle, this good (stated in extreme summary) is individual happiness = [5].=20 Ethics that define right according to the facilitation of some end (in = Greek,=20 telos) such as this are called teleological ethics (Lacey, = 1996).
Unsurprisingly, religious beliefs have always influenced (and been = influenced=20 by) philosophical ethical theories; the Greek religion Orphism served as = the=20 basis for Pythagoras's ethics. Prior to that, the Jews enumerated their = moral=20 beliefs in the Torah, which is perhaps the first comprehensive written = record of=20 a moral code and continues to form the basis for Jewish moral philosophy = and=20 part of the basis for Christian moral philosophy. Jewish and Christian = ethics=20 are teleological, but rather than pursuing Aristotle=92s individual = happiness=20 telos, their telos is pleasing God.
In the West, the evolution of Christianity illustrates the ongoing = interplay=20 between religion and philosophy. Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas = worked in=20 the fourth and thirteenth centuries, respectively, to integrate Greek = ethics=20 with the teachings of the Church. Christ's golden rule, "So whatever you = wish=20 that men would do to you, do so to them..." (Matthew 7:12) is the = fundamental=20 statement of Christian ethics, and its influence can be seen in Kant's=20 categorical imperative (Velasquez, 1995), Rawlsian Justice Theory, and = even=20 modern Libertarianism and Objectivism.
In the 16th century, Niccolo Machiavelli began to move the basis of = ethics=20 away from religion and toward humanism. His ethics, intended to guide = the=20 actions of rulers rather than the common man, define morality in terms = of what=20 is necessary to maintain power and the order of the state (Machiavelli,=20 1983).
A more rigorous and general secularization of ethics began in the = 17th=20 century with social contract theory as developed by Thomas Hobbes and = John=20 Locke, and refined in the 18th century by Jean Jacques Rousseau. Many = modern=20 ethical systems, especially those most often employed in business, owe = much to=20 Locke=92s theory of natural rights=97the rights to liberty and = property that=20 every person would possess in a perfect state of nature. Also in the = 18th=20 century, David Hume and Adam Smith put forth Individualistic theories of = ethics=20 that identified right and wrong based on individual happiness, with the=20 assumption that individuals working for their own good also worked for = the good=20 of society. Smith's Wealth of Nations is probably the first book = to=20 integrate ethical theory into the study of business, drawing upon the = ethics=20 developed in his earlier work Theory of Moral Sentiments = (Microsoft,=20 1997).
Then came Kant, whose categorical imperative determines right and = wrong based=20 on motivation and duty, effectively secularizing the golden rule. = However,=20 Kant's ethics are fundamentally different from Christian ethics in that = it=20 rejects the notion that right is determined by the outcome of the action = (i.e.=20 the God-pleasing telos of Christian ethics), and instead stipulates that = right=20 is determined by the intention of the action alone. This is called a=20 deontological approach (Lacey, 1996).
In contrast to Kant's deontological ethics is the return to teleology = represented by Utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Benthem in the late = 18th=20 century and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century. Utilitarianism=92s = telos depends=20 on which Utilitarian philosopher you consult, but rather than pursuing=20 Aristotle's greatest individual happiness, Utilitarianism generally = pursues the=20 happiness of the greatest number of people in judging right and wrong = (Lacey,=20 1996).
Around the same time, Charles Darwin published his theory of = evolution,=20 inspiring Herbert Spencer to develop the theory of Social Darwinism, = which says=20 that morality results from natural selection in man's social evolution = (Meising,=20 1985). In business, the natural laws of competition determine survival = and=20 punish inefficiency with failure, and in the end society benefits from = the=20 survival of the strongest.
In stark opposition to this was Karl Marx's Socialism, with its = notions of=20 "social rights" and redistribution from the strong to the weak with = limited=20 regard for individual moral rights in the process (Velasquez, 1988).
The most accessible ethical systems to emerge in the 20th century = (I'll spare=20 you=97and myself=97a digression into the incomprehensible existentialist = ethics of=20 philosophers like Heidegger and Sartre) draw heavily on theories = spanning the=20 entire history of philosophy, but tend to attempt to overcome their = individual=20 shortcomings by combining them into broader theories, and generally = strengthen=20 them with deeper analytical rigor. John Rawls=92 theory of justice = (Rawls, 1971)=20 draws upon Locke's notions of individual liberty but tempers them with=20 exceptions that show the influence of Utilitarianism and Marx.
Ayn Rand's objectivism also builds on Locke, but adopts Aristotle=92s = telos and=20 many of his virtues and rejects any notion of positive rights. Robert = Nozick's=20 Libertarianism reaches basically the same conclusions as Rand, but = without=20 Rand=92s rigorous derivation from existence to ethics (Nozick, 1974; = Peikoff,=20 1991).
Virtue Ethics, which has gained considerable popularity in the last = 20 years,=20 is an attempt to return to Aristotle's notion of determining the = morality of an=20 action by looking at the character of the actor.
Most recently, Communitarianism, the social philosophy primarily = attributed=20 to Amitai Etzioni, has emerged. Communitarians believe that "strong = rights=20 entail strong responsibilities" (Etzioni, 1992), and that the community = is the=20 best judge of morality and the most appropriate enforcer of=20 responsibility.
I'll now distill the ethics enumerated above into 13 ethical systems = in order=20 to judge their applicability to business and modelability in a survey. = This=20 gives us:
Obviously, trying to model all these systems in a survey would be = cumbersome,=20 to say the least. Luckily, they can be paired down further for our=20 purposes.
In selecting theories to use in the survey, I had to balance three = main=20 criteria:
As I was evaluating my list of ethical theories based on these = criteria, I=20 realized that, taken in aggregate, the criteria specify an overarching = goal: I=20 was looking more for general methods of reasoning than for = rigorous=20 application of some specific ethical theory. All ethical theories have = many=20 subtle details that are seldom intuitive; however, the broader thought = processes=20 behind the details are often quite intuitive (except, of course, in the = case of=20 the dreaded existentialists!) and often subsume more than one ethical = system.=20 For example, the general thought process behind all forms of=20 Utilitarianism=97"will doing act A have a greater positive impact than = not doing=20 it?"=97is a fairly intuitive way to approach a problem, and it exists at = a level=20 above the details of act vs. rule Utilitarianism (which are explained = further=20 on). Act vs. rule might make for interesting philosophical debate, but = in the=20 context of contrived survey responses, the distinction is unnecessary = because=20 the quandary being addressed can be designed to avoid the need for=20 it.
The emergence of the "metacriteria" described above allowed = consolidation of=20 some of the ethical theories, while the lower-level criteria allowed = elimination=20 of some.
Due to its reliance on the personal character of the actor, I found = Virtue=20 Ethics to be insufficiently specific to allow construction of = consistent, brief=20 quandary solutions. In fact, Pincoffs (1986) points out that Virtue = Ethics is=20 perhaps the antithetical approach to the curt quandary-solving approach = to=20 ethics necessitated by my survey. However, the reasoning employed in = objectivism=20 is, at a general level, similar to Virtue Ethics, while the specificity = supplied=20 by objectivism=92s concern with individual rights allows more = straightforwardly=20 modelable solutions.
Judeo-Christian and Kantian = ethics
As previously mentioned, I consider both of these systems to be = absolutist,=20 albeit for different underlying reasons. Had I modeled them separately, = brevity=20 would have required that the Kantian answer rely on some restatement of = the=20 categorical imperative and the Judeo-Christian answer rely on some = restatement=20 of the golden rule, and they would have looked very similar. Instead, I = chose to=20 use more general Moral Absolutism, as described in the = Theories=20 chosen section.
Social contract theory and Rawlsian=20 Justice
I consider social contract theory to be an excellent example of how = an=20 ethical system can evolve over time along with societal norms. Born in = the moral=20 Contractarianism of the Greek Sophists, later politicized by Hobbes, = Locke and=20 Rousseau, and most recently revived as the foundation for the work of = Rawls and=20 Gauthier, at its most fundamental level Contractarianism seeks to = justify=20 morality by reference to an implicit or explicit rational agreement = (Morris,=20 1996). I therefore chose to simplify Social Contract Theory and Rawlsian = Justice=20 into simple Contractarianism, as described in the Theories chosen=20 section.
Individualism and = Libertarianism
Nozick=92s Libertarianism is to Smith=92s Individualism as Rawlsian = justice is to=20 Rousseau=92s Social Contract. Libertarianism, Individualism and = Locke=92s natural=20 rights are, for practical purposes, subsumed by Rand=92s Objectivism; = none of the=20 four are particularly straightforward to model, but the differences are = subtle=20 enough that in many cases it would be hard to distinguish between models = of more=20 than one. Objectivism does tend to rely more on virtue and integrity = whereas=20 Libertarianism, with its goal of naturally evolving minarchist utopias = (Nozick,=20 1974), relies more on Contractarianism to ensure harmony between = individuals.=20 This may create some biases as described further on. Objectivism also = offers the=20 advantages of being the most complete and rigorous of the four, giving = it a=20 higher degree of specificity which helps to facilitate modeling, and its = birth=20 in the context (and loving embrace) of modern capitalism makes it more=20 applicable to business than the older theories.
The decision to cut this theory came down to modelability=97modeling = responses=20 based on "survival of the fittest" was difficult for the quandaries I = designed=20 for the survey. While Social Darwinism=92s fundamental premise differs = greatly=20 from that of Machiavellianism=92s, the Social Darwinist respondent would = likely=20 find Machiavellian reasoning most appealing due to its pragmatic focus = on what=92s=20 best for the business.
Socialism and = Communitarianism
As with Social Darwinism, these theories were difficult to model.=20 Fortunately, however, their social and political focus meant that they = were=20 generally not applicable to the business quandaries I constructed. Both = the=20 socialist and the Communitarian are concerned with social rights and=20 responsibilities, at the expense of moral rights if necessary; the main=20 difference between Socialism and Communitarianism seems to be where = enforcement=20 responsibilities fall, with the Communitarians favoring more localized = and the=20 socialists more nationalized enforcement. While little is written on=20 Communitarian ethics, I believe that both of these theories advocate a = form of=20 Utilitarian morality: Communitarians strive to maximize good to the = community,=20 while socialists strive to maximize good to society. Both strive to = maximize the=20 quantity of people positively affected over the absolute amount of good=20 achieved. The socialist or Communitarian respondent would therefore be = likely to=20 have his reasoning modeled by the Utilitarian response. However, for = some cases,=20 the Communitarian respondent might also consider the Ethical Relativist=20 response, since for some quandaries it was the one more concerned with = the local=20 community=92s view of the good.
Now we'll look in more detail at the theories I chose to include in = the=20 survey and the assumptions I used in modeling them.
The term "Utilitarian ethics" is used to describe a huge number of=20 teleological ethical systems which judge morality according to its = facilitation=20 of some quantifiable "greatest good", but differ in the way they define = and=20 measure this good; this is no surprise, since the main criticism of = Utilitarian=20 ethics is its lack of specificity in measuring and defining the good. =
The two major divisions of Utilitarian ethics are act and = rule=20 Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarians strive to maximize the good on a = case-by-case=20 basis, which makes them especially susceptible to inconsistency. Rule=20 Utilitarians attempt to avoid this criticism by always following the = course of=20 action that would, in most circumstances, provide the greatest good, = even if in=20 a particular given case it wouldn=92t. Utilitarianism can also be = divided into=20 negative and positive camps, with the negative advocating only the = avoidance of=20 evil, while the positive advocates both avoidance of evil and action = toward the=20 good (Lacey, 1996).
These divisions do not specify what the greatest good is, only how=20 facilitating it should be addressed. The greatest good seems to have as = many=20 different definitions as there are Utilitarian philosophers, with some = form of=20 happiness usually emerging as a common theme. Bentham described it as = "the=20 greatest good, or the greatest happiness, for the greatest number of = people."=20 (Bentham, 1982). Egoistic Hedonism, a form of Utilitarianism that = originated in=20 ancient Greece, exalts personal pleasure without regard for consequences = as the=20 highest good (Microsoft, 1997). George Edward Moore argued that personal = affection is the greatest good (Collinson, 1987). Marx=92s "from each = according to=20 his ability, to each according to his needs" implies that good is = maximized by=20 spreading it throughout society to the largest number of people.
In the context of business, the Utilitarian must decide among many=20 stakeholders and several definitions of the good. Potential goods = include=20 profits, safety, community, and community development; potential = stakeholders=20 include workers, investors, management, the actor, community members, = and=20 society in general.
In modeling my Utilitarian survey responses, I generally combined an = economic=20 perspective with Bentham=92s greatest happiness principle. My assumption = was that=20 happiness was facilitated by economic prosperity, and that the broader = the base=20 of recipients of such prosperity, the better. I did, however, reject = "Iacoccian"=20 temptation to put a dollar value on human life, and allowed concern for = human=20 life to override concern for profit. Introducing such a "trump" into an=20 economically based Utilitarian ethic may not be entirely consistent, but = in my=20 experience is consistent with the views of the average MBA = student.
Machiavelli intended his ethics to apply only to rulers, specifically = to=20 Italian Renaissance monarchs. His moral guidance may be summed up as=20 "maintaining power at all costs." Leaders are not bound by traditional = ethical=20 norms; their only ethical requirement is to succeed politically and = maintain the=20 support of their "subjects," whom he characterizes as "ungrateful, = fickle,=20 liars, and deceivers" (Machiavelli, 1983). Machiavelli advocates deceit = and=20 cruelty when they are necessary to maintain power.
Unsurprisingly, Machiavelli=92s ethics draw criticism. The most = fundamental is=20 that it is neither rigorous nor complete; he assumes many points that = most=20 philosophers would argue, and his ethics offer guidance only for rulers, = not for=20 the common man. Also criticized is his pragmatism and espousal of = deceit.
However, in the context of modern business (as well as modern = politics, as=20 evidenced by the current President of the United States), = Machiavelli=92s ethics=20 are often, if sometimes unwittingly, embraced. For example, Anita = Roddick,=20 founder of the Body Shop, a cosmetics company, made "social = responsibility" a=20 major selling point for her company=92s products for16 years, until her = fraudulent=20 claims were exposed in an article in the September 1994 issue of = Business=20 Ethics (Entine, 1995). While the company publicly repented and made = internal=20 changes, Roddick remained in control and the Body Shop suffered no legal = or=20 financial consequences other than the damage to its image, which it = hired PR=20 firms to repair. It did, however, in true Machiavellian style, lash out = with=20 lawsuits against the reporters that covered the story.
I chose to include Machiavellianism in the survey for two reasons. = First, it=20 is the greediest of ethics, and MBA students are often characterized as = being=20 greedy; it would provide a check for this. Second, its pragmatism = requires=20 little moral development to understand or embrace, so it would provide = some=20 measure of MBA students=92 moral development (recall that my hypothesis = indirectly=20 implies that this is lacking). In contrast to the other theories = included,=20 Machiavellian reasoning is simple to model and simple to = understand.
In Objectivism, morality "is the science of human self-preservation"=20 (Peikoff, 1991). Unlike plants and animals, human beings follow no = automatic=20 course of action in order to survive; they must consciously figure out = the=20 correct course and rationally decide to follow it. The best course is = the one=20 that facilitates achievement of man=92s highest moral purpose, which, = for Rand, is=20 happiness, and happiness is "that state of consciousness which proceeds = from the=20 achievement of one=92s values" (Rand, 1957). These values, in turn, are = objective=20 truths, discovered by man when he actively and rationally pursues them = in his=20 own life.
Rationality, "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one=92s = only source=20 of knowledge, one=92s only judge of values and one=92s only guide to = action" (Rand,=20 1964), is Objectivism=92s primary virtue. All other Objectivist = virtues=97among them=20 independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride, and=20 selfishness=97derive from rationality. Its primary vice=97initiation of = force=97is=20 considered the ultimate evil because it disregards rationality. = Objectivists=20 believe that disagreements should be settled through appeals to reason; = when a=20 man initiates force against another man, he must be giving up on = rationality,=20 which is fundamental to everything Objectivism stands for. The = initiation of=20 force is therefore the rejection of Objectivism.
Objectivism is fundamentally egoistic, meaning that it = considers=20 oneself to be the only proper beneficiary of one=92s moral actions.
In extreme summary, then, Objectivist ethics require a person to = rationally=20 determine the values that will facilitate attainment of happiness in her = own=20 life, and to pursue them while respecting the rights of others.
As mentioned, Objectivism resembles Virtue Ethics in that happiness = is its=20 telos and morality is highly dependent upon personal character and = integrity,=20 which Objectivism defines as loyalty to rational principles. The = fundamental=20 egoism, rejection of positive rights and admonition against initiation = of force=20 implicit in Objectivist ethics also make them attractive to Libertarians = and=20 Individualists. I chose to include Objectivism not only because it = generally=20 subsumes these other ethics, but also because it offers the highest = degree of=20 specificity, making it easiest to model. And of course, because I = consider=20 myself an Objectivist (see the Biases section, which=20 follows).
As mentioned, I chose Morris=92s (1996) simple Contractarianism, = which seeks to=20 justify morality by reference to an implicit or explicit rational = agreement, for=20 the survey because it represents the least common denominator among the = various=20 Contractarian ethical theories. This made sense since, in the context of = business, neither the socio-political orientation of Hobbes, Locke and = Rousseau=20 nor Rawl=92s socio-economic Utilitarian modifications (Velasquez, 1988) = were=20 necessary. I wanted to present respondents with a more pure = Contractarian choice=20 more in line with Friedman=92s (1970) philosophy, which is extremely=20 business-centric. Simple Contractarianism was much more straightforward = to model=20 than the other forms, and I assumed that the socially concerned = respondents who=20 might be attracted to a Rawlsian response would find the Utilitarian = choice=20 adequate.
Simple Contractarianism considers an action wrong if a contract = prohibits it;=20 if not, no judgement is passed on the action and it is considered = permissible=20 (and by implication, right). The contract in question may be explicit = (as in a=20 written or verbal employment contract), or it may be an implicit = contract=20 commonly assumed in a business relationship (e.g. that your boss has the = right=20 to tell you what to do). Each Contractarian response clearly states the = contract=20 on which it is based. I consider Contractarianism to be a form of weak = moral=20 absolutism, with the moral absolute being "do what you agreed to do", = but with=20 lower-level absolutes enumerated in the agreement.
In contrast to the weak absolutism of Contractarianism, what I=92m = calling=20 Moral Absolutism is basically a more general deontological = approach;=20 circumstances and consequences are irrelevant, ethical notions of right = and=20 wrong are universal, and value judgements are based on these ethical = absolutes;=20 this is what Meising (1985) calls "Universalism." While I didn=92t = introduce=20 notions of teleology or deontology into the Moral Absolutist responses = (the=20 business ethics context didn=92t require me to), I generally based their = reasoning=20 on Judeo-Christian ethics, since I assumed these would represent the = most common=20 instinctual absolutist responses given my survey population.
This previously unmentioned system owes to Meising (1985) and was = included=20 for completeness since its reasoning is the exact opposite of = Absolutism.
Both Relativism and Absolutism can be considered meta-ethics; they = are=20 concerned with whether the concepts "right" and "wrong" are absolute or = relative=20 to some contextual issue such as time or culture. A classic example is=20 cannibalism, a practice that was considered right and even incorporated = into=20 religious ceremonies in some ancient cultures, yet is almost universally = considered wrong today. The die-hard Relativist would allow cultures = that=20 practice cannibalism to be ethical, and in fact may call opponents of = the=20 practice in those cultures unethical. The Absolutist, of course, would = consider=20 cannibalism to be wrong (or perhaps right) always and everywhere = regardless of=20 the circumstances.
Machiavellianism is the only clearly relativistic ethic examined here = since=20 its notion of right is based on whatever=92s necessary to facilitate = control.=20 Social Darwinism might also be considered Relativistic because it allows = the=20 notion of right to evolve over time.
I am tempted to call Virtue Ethics Relativistic given its reliance on = the=20 individual character of the actor, but I believe that various schools of = Virtue=20 Ethics provide enough specificity within themselves to avoid the = Relativist=20 label; Aristotle=92s Nicomachean Ethics certainly leaves little = room for=20 doubt as to his views on the absoluteness of right and wrong.
I consider the rest of the ethics presented to be Absolutist since = they=20 provide clear rules for determining the right. One may argue that=20 Utilitarianism=92s various ways of measuring the good make it = relativistic, but=20 this is more of a weakness in the ethic rather than a sign of = relativism;=20 Utilitarianism=92s intent, regardless of its practical = achievement, is to=20 define an absolute good.
So if Relativism and Absolutism are already covered by other ethical = systems=20 in the survey, why include them? Because the other systems in the survey = add=20 many layers of reasoning to the pure notions of Absolutism and = Relativism that I=20 want to test for, as demonstrated by the explanation of Absolutism. = Similarly,=20 the Ethical Relativist quandary solutions strip the concept down to a = minimum,=20 removing Machiavelli=92s power telos and allowing the respondent to base = his=20 answer solely on cultural norms=97a common way of ethical reasoning = among people=20 in the typical MBA age and education brackets.
The Ethical Relativist answers were simple to model; they generally = reasoned=20 that if the issue in question was okay in the local culture, it was=20 right.
Now that I=92ve (hopefully) justified my choice of ethical systems to = examine,=20 let=92s look at the actual survey that examined them. While specific = questions=20 will be examined in the Method section which follows, the entire = survey=20 is attached for reference as = Exhibit=20 2. This copy includes key data indicating which answers map to which = ethical=20 systems.
As previously stated, the survey=92s main goal was to measure ethical = consistency among the respondents. Specific characteristics I = hoped to=20 measure were:
This project had personal learning goals as well as the primary = academic=20 goals outlined above. One was to pursue publication, but given the = problems=20 encountered, I have abandoned that unless I can somehow retrieve the = lost data=20 at some point in the future.
Another was to gain experience in independent survey-based research.=20 Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I = did=20 learn a lot about the challenges of successfully completing a project = like this,=20 especially the importance of performing regular backups!
This experience also gave me a new respect for the importance of = careful,=20 deliberate survey design and testing, and for the complexity of doing a = thorough=20 job on a project like this. This in itself was probably worth as much as = what I=20 learned about ethics and MBA students.
My construction of the survey began with research into ethical = systems, and I=20 went through a distillation process similar to (though not as polished = as) that=20 presented in the Ethics theories section. I had the rather = arbitrary goal=20 of testing for five different ethical systems; when I had culled the = short list=20 to the six actually used, none seemed a better candidate to eliminate = than any=20 other, so I included all six.
Quandary/response = construction
When I had decided on the six systems I wanted to model, I set about=20 constructing the quandaries and their answers. In doing so, I found that = for=20 some quandaries it was impossible to model the Objectivist and = Contractarian=20 responses separately (refer to = exhibit=20 2, numbers 7 and 8). This is not surprising, since Objectivism=92s = regard for=20 rationality, integrity and individual rights cause it to take contracts = very=20 seriously. Though I had hoped to avoid it, I was not particularly = disturbed by=20 the overlap, since there were enough other questions to allow = respondents to=20 clearly show a preference for one of these ethical systems over the = other.=20 Ideally, I would have replaced these quandaries with ones that allowed = clearly=20 separate Objectivist and Contractarian answers, but given time = constraints, this=20 was impossible.
The actual process of constructing the quandaries and responses was = more=20 challenging than I had imagined. Aside from requiring me to understand 5 = ethical=20 systems I had never formally studied before, it required me to provide = enough=20 detail to ensure that respondents=92 choices weren=92t complicated by = confusion over=20 the facts, and to do all this using fairly simple language (since the = survey=20 would be taken by some non-native English speakers) while keeping the = physical=20 size small to avoid scaring off potential respondents who were concerned = with=20 time commitment.
Despite my efforts, from the beginning it was evident that this was = going to=20 be a difficult and time-consuming survey for respondents to complete; I=20 initially set 15 minutes as an average completion time goal, but after = tests=20 revised this to 30 minutes. This time limit would be the ultimate factor = determining the number of survey questions.
After developing the quandaries and responses, I added the background = information questions, basically probing for any respondent attribute = that I=20 thought might have some impact on ethical consistency (as outlined under = Goals above and shown in = Exhibit=20 2). I then sent this rough draft survey (attached as = Exhibit=20 4) to three friends at the University of Texas who I knew shared my = interest=20 in ethics. In addition to pointing out that it took too long to = complete, they=20 made many useful observations on the clarity of survey questions. = Furthermore, I=20 was encouraged by the fact that one of them scored as I would have = expected him=20 to, given my knowledge of his philosophical background. (Another one, an = argumentative and militant Marxist, inserted her own answers for most of = the=20 quandaries, and while I admired her commitment, I didn=92t expect such a = response=20 to be typical of the average MBA student.)
I originally developed ten quandaries: the eight actually used (refer = to = Exhibit=20 2), and the two presented in = Exhibit=20 3, which were cut by process of elimination after most test = respondents took=20 more than 30 minutes to complete the ten question survey. I=92m not sure = there=92s a=20 "magic number" of questions for a survey like this, but by using eight, = I at=20 least required respondents to choose the same ethic a minimum of = twice!
A brief explanation of the quandaries used follows.
Given my position (lacking the authority, expertise, time and money = to=20 arrange for a scientific sample), I had no choice but to use accidental = sampling=20 (Fink, 1985). This means I simply sent the survey out via email to as = many=20 students (about 1500) as I could get access to through my personal = network, and=20 hoped for a representative response. As discussed under General=20 statistics, it appears as though I actually got one.
Known Biases/problems with quandaries and = response=20 modeling
The following structural problems with the survey became apparent as = I=20 tallied responses:
The survey contained the following potential biases:
While this looks like a long list of biases and problems, given the=20 constraints of the survey, I=92m actually quite pleased that it turned = out as well=20 as it did.
As discussed in the Preface, all original responses and analyses were = lost.=20 All data given here was collected as a result of the second request.
I received a total of 73 responses from 13 schools, as detailed in = Exhibit=20 1. Fifteen of the responses came from six schools outside of North = America,=20 including three in Europe, one in South America, one in Asia and one in=20 Australia [7].=20 Unsurprisingly, the highest return rate came from UT, followed by = Cornell,=20 McGill, and a relatively high 6 responses from AIM.
Also unsurprisingly, the vast majority of respondents were U.S. = citizens and=20 had work experience in the U.S.; no other countries yielded significant = numbers=20 of responses in either of these categories. Refer to = Exhibit=20 5 for summary country statistics.
Other background data statistics are presented in = Exhibit=20 6. Overall, they indicate that my average respondent was virtually = identical=20 to the average MBA student: between 26 and 30, male, not subject to a = Business=20 Ethics core requirement in his program, and had never studied much = ethics or=20 philosophy. The only indications of sample bias are:
I had to figure out what I wanted "ethical consistency" to mean, = since=20 measuring it was my primary goal. Upon looking at some early responses, = I was=20 rather surprised to find that they were less consistent than even = I had=20 thought they would be; the average number of times a given respondent = chose=20 Utilitarian, Objectivist or Moral Absolutist reasoning was around twice; = for the=20 remaining ethics, the average was around once. Overall, each ethic was = chosen an=20 average of 1.3 times. One respondent actually chose every system at = least=20 once.
Was this a reflection on my survey questions or on the ethical = consistency of=20 the respondents? This question will come up again and again in this = analysis,=20 and unfortunately it=92s practically impossible to answer definitively; = to do so=20 would require perfectly unbiased response choices and a scientific = sampling=20 method.
However, it is reasonable to expect that even a=20 highly-ethically-contemplative MBA student isn=92t going to apply the = same=20 reasoning to every ethical decision. When I considered this along with = the=20 possibility that there was bias present in my response models, I decided = to=20 define "ethical consistency" as having chosen the same ethical system in = response to at least 4 quandaries. While I could find no literature on = ethical=20 consistency, intuitively speaking, a person who naturally made 50% or = more of=20 her decisions based on principle would be more ethical than = average.
Summary individual consistency statistics are given in = Exhibit=20 6.
How many MBAs are ethically=20 consistent?
By my consistency criteria, 29% of the respondents qualified as = ethically=20 consistent. At first glance, I found myself rather pleased with this; = one out of=20 three ain=92t bad. However, it becomes less attractive when placed in = the context=20 of other MBA skills; if over two thirds of a class couldn=92t even score = 50% on a=20 simple test of basic marketing or accounting concepts, I think the = typical=20 observer would be shocked. And what if the class average on the same = test was=20 16%? That=92s what it was on my survey. Sixteen percent!!
Of course, Business Ethics is not marketing; most of the respondents = didn=92t=20 even take an MBA class in it (those few that did did not provide a = significant=20 enough sample to assign any meaning to their level of consistency, which = was=20 lower than those that did not take a class). Still, when you consider = that that=20 16% overall average includes the 1/3 of the class that scored 50% or = higher, the=20 two thirds that I classify as "inconsistent" must have been = extremely=20 inconsistent. So inconsistent, in fact, that I think it=92s fair to = conclude from=20 this that they are not equipped with the skills necessary to rationally = evaluate=20 ethical dilemmas, which is a rather disturbing thing to think about the = future=20 business leaders of the world.
What ethical systems do MBAs = favor?
This is the section in which the potential for bias in my ethical = models=20 begins to look suspiciously fulfilled. Refer to = Exhibit=20 7 for summary statistics.
57% of consistent respondents chose Objectivism; 24% chose Moral = Absolutism,=20 and 14% chose Utilitarianism. Overall responses=97the total number of = times an=20 ethics was chosen, ignoring to consistency=97were similar, but the curve = was=20 flatter. 27% of all responses tallied were Objectivist, 22%, = Utilitarian, and=20 20% Moral Absolutist.
While I believe that this does suggest some bias in my models, it = also rather=20 makes sense. More of Meising=92s (1985) respondents exhibited Moral = Absolutist and=20 Objectivist characteristics than the other ethics he tested for, = although in his=20 study Moral Absolutism came out on ahead.
The three most common overall ethics in my survey might be partially=20 explained by familiarity. Moral Absolutism is the ethics of law and of = religion;=20 everyone has experience with the law, and most of us have some = experience with=20 religion as well. Utilitarianism is probably the most intuitive = approach, and=20 may be more intuitive for business students, who are still generally = taught to=20 maximize things like shareholder value, profit, and market share. While = I don=92t=20 think intuition alone accounts for Objectivism=92s popularity, I would = say that=20 many business students find notions of integrity and respect for = property=20 appealing.
Looking at the breakdown of consistent respondents, survey bias again = probably has something to do with Objectivism=92s high rating, but I = would also=20 contend that the logic and intuitiveness of the top three consistent = ethics=20 appeals to ethically consistent people.
Correlations between consistent responses and = other=20 attributes
Now let=92s take a look at the potential correlations for the = characteristics=20 enumerated in the Goals section.
Correlation between academic background and consistency
At first glance, = Exhibit=20 6 gives us some hope that there is a correlation between ethical = consistency=20 and an academic background in philosophy or business ethics: far greater = percentages of respondents that had taken 3-5 Philosophy or BE classes = were=20 consistent than those who had taken 2 or fewer classes. However, the = tiny=20 absolute numbers of respondents that fit into these groups cannot be = considered=20 significant samples, especially considering that the numbers of = respondents with=20 2 or fewer classes were so dominantly higher. Also, that respondents = with more=20 than 5 classes scored worst of all brings into question the integrity of = this=20 measure.
How about undergraduate major? As shown in = Exhibit=20 6, the percentage of students of each major that are consistent are=20 virtually identical.
As shown in = Exhibit=20 8, MBA concentration doesn=92t help us either; the numbers of = respondents in=20 each concentration are not high enough to allow us to form a judgement, = but even=20 so, the consistent percentages are pretty much in line with what we=92ve = seen=20 elsewhere.
Correlation between nationality and ethical consistency
Unfortunately, the number of respondents with foreign work experience = or=20 citizenship was not significant enough from any single country to make=20 judgements about a correlation between these factors and consistency, = although=20 the Philippinos that responded appear to be a highly ethical bunch = anyway.=20 Aggregating foreign responses, we still don=92t find a significant = difference from=20 those of the U.S.
However, given the general stereotype in North America that assumes = that Less=20 (industrially) Developed Countries are also Less (morally) Developed = Countries,=20 I think it=92s appropriate to note here that the respondent with the = highest level=20 of consistency=97six Objectivist responses=97was born in an LDC and had = most of his=20 work experience there.
Correlation between age/experience and ethical consistency
Looking at = Exhibit=20 6, we find perhaps our first significant correlation. 30-35 year = olds, it=20 appears, are measurably more consistent than their younger classmates = (the=20 over-35 group=92s response rate was not high enough to judge). This = makes=20 intuitive sense, and also agrees with Meising=92s finding that concern = for ethics=20 seems to increase with age, and with my own mentioned observation of a = higher=20 than average response rate from respondents with more than five = years of=20 work experience.
It doesn=92t, however, do much to mitigate the overall lack of = consistency my=20 survey exposes among MBAs in general, since their average age (at UT, = and most=20 top 20 U.S. business schools) is 28. In Europe, the average age is much=20 younger=97around 23.
Perhaps work experience has something to do with it. Looking at the=20 statistics for years of total and management work experience, we find=20 encouragement=97and another aberration. The encouragement comes from = respondents=20 with 3-5 years of management experience, who were significantly more = consistent=20 than any other work experience group. We can disregard those with more = than 5=20 years of management experience due to the small number of = respondents.
The aberration shows up in the Total work experience table. If = consistency=20 should increase with experience, why does it decrease among these = respondents?=20 Unlike with the managers, the >5 year sample is sizable, so it = shouldn=92t be=20 disregarded.
Our last potential correlation=97between consistency and work = experience=20 industry=97is shown in = Exhibit=20 8. It suffers from the same problems as many of the others: = insignificant=20 numbers of respondents. We can=92t draw any conclusions from this = either.
Unfortunately, in light of these problems, all the age/experience=20 characteristics allow us to conclude is that ethical consistency does = seem to=20 improve with age.
While it=92s true that I often have thinly-veiled ulterior motives, I = think=20 this survey had more positive effects than my devious mind had = envisioned when I=20 sent it out.
I received a lot of positive feedback from respondents. Several made=20 statements to the affect "this makes me want to take a Business Ethics = class."=20 One respondent from AIM praised it as a "worthwhile activity." Many = respondents=20 expressed an interest in seeing the results. I carried on lengthy email=20 conversations with some of them.
This all points to a happy side effect that I can=92t believe I = didn=92t=20 anticipate (and do more to foster)=97the survey actually motivated = interest in=20 Business Ethics amongst the respondents.
So, have I proved my = hypothesis?
Despite the problems that plagued this project and the indeterminate = nature=20 of most of the results, I would say that it offers some compelling = evidence in=20 support of my basic hypothesis that MBA students are ill-equipped to = deal with=20 ethical issues, along with some hope for their capacity and desire to = address=20 the shortcoming. Unfortunately, I=92m not sure anymore that a core MBA = class is=20 all that is needed.
Looking at the inconsistency of the limited data I had relating = academic work=20 in philosophy and ethics to survey results, coupled with the equally = limited but=20 more consistent data that showed a correlation between age and ethical=20 consistency, I might be tempted to say that ethical development is = something=20 that can=92t be taught, but rather develops organically as we mature. =
However, two things prevent me from acting on that temptation: 1. = reflection=20 on my own ethical development and 2. the significant interest in ethics = that=20 this survey generated among its respondents.
I believe that ethics can be learned when there=92s an interest = because that=92s=20 how I learned it. I=92ve been informally studying ethics for many years, = but only=20 developed a serious interest during graduate school. This interest = developed as=20 I observed the ethical behavior of my classmates and teachers over the = course of=20 my first year, and as this observation caused me to think hard about my = own=20 ethics. By the end of that first year I was hell-bent on undertaking a = more=20 formal course of study in ethics, and I enrolled in a Virtue Ethics = class=20 offered by UT=92s philosophy department in the Fall of my second year. = While this=20 class wasn=92t about business or even general ethics, it equipped me = with the=20 background knowledge and deepened interest necessary to continue = studying on my=20 own, and here I am.
Passing interest led to observation, which led to deeper interest, = which led=20 to formal study, and the end result of all this is that I=92m a much = more=20 ethically consistent person now than I was just a year ago.
Of course, all this happened to a guy in his early thirties, so = perhaps age=20 does have something to do with it.
But I don=92t think so. Nearly every respondent that wanted more = information as=20 a result of doing the survey was in their mid-20=92s. This leads me to = believe=20 that if there are maturity prerequisites for learning ethics, they = mainly=20 encompass an educated mind, some experience with life, and the ability = to think=20 analytically about difficult problems. These sound suspiciously like the = prerequisites for entry into every good North American business = school.
I believe that the sincere interest I described above is the seed = that, when=20 planted in the soil of these prerequisites, grows into ethical = development=97in a=20 business school or any other setting. This should not be a revelation; = interest=20 in a topic always makes it easier to learn. We all have stories about = the high=20 school or college history or chemistry or whatever teacher that "turned = us on"=20 to the discipline with his infectious passion for it.
Such inspiring passion seems to become rarer as we climb higher up = the=20 educational ladder, especially in business school, where too often the=20 professors are caught up in research or the politics of pursuing tenure, = and we=20 are left to either develop our own interest or, as is far more often the = case,=20 memorize the minimum number of facts required to maintain our desired = GPA before=20 heading off to the weekly drinking event.
And maybe this is the fundamental problem with trying to teach ethics = to=20 business students: it does not lend itself to memorization. By = definition,=20 ethics=97regardless of whose system you embrace=97are personal. They = guide=97or should=20 guide=97much of your interaction with the world. You can=92t memorize = the way you=92re=20 supposed to act like you can memorize Porter=92s five forces or the = CAPM. This is=20 not to belittle the analytical tools that most of us learn by = memorization in=20 business school, just to point out the fundamental differences between = these=20 tools and their analogs in ethics.
And where do we go from = here?
If my above theory on why teaching ethics in business school = doesn=92t work is=20 correct, it seems like an almost insurmountable problem.
However, as you might by now have come to expect, I have some = suggestions for=20 surmounting it. Their overall theme is one of a concerted, integrated = approach=20 to the furtherance of ethical development in MBAs.
As much as I loathe UT=92s half-day orientation-week ethics seminar = for its=20 woeful inadequacy, in the context of a more comprehensive program I = think it=20 would be a crucial component. Interactive debate on controversial = ethical=20 quandaries is very effective at generating interest, and doing it during = students=92 first week on campus assigns it an appropriate degree of = importance.=20 The key is to continue feeding that interest over the course of the MBA. = The=20 first semester is a crazy, hectic time for MBA students, and given the = nature=20 and volume of the standard coursework they are expected to learn during = it, I=20 wouldn=92t advocate an ethics class at this time. However, I would = advocate=20 integrating an ethics module, related to the course material, into 3 or = 4=20 first-semester core classes, spaced out over the term. Such modules are = frankly=20 going to teach students very little about ethics; rather, they are = intended to=20 keep the initial interest alive.
Require an ethics core = course
...and don=92t let business professors teach it. In my limited = experience, having a business prof=97even a business ethics prof=97teach = ethics is a=20 recipe for disaster. Such a course should be designed by a team of = business and=20 philosophy faculty, and if possible, taught entirely by a philosophy = professor;=20 if not, it should be team taught. At least half the syllabus should = concentrate=20 on a rigorous course in the fundamentals of philosophical ethics; = business cases=20 might be used for illustration, but the focus should be on the = underlying=20 ethical theories. This portion of the course (at least) should be taught = as a=20 philosophy seminar, rather than in a standard business class format; = that means=20 lots of "thinking assignments" that will be interactively and thoroughly = discussed in the next class. Long, carefully thought-through, highly = focused=20 papers should be required too; they are essential to the process of = discovery.=20 This teaching style should be a welcome departure from the standard = business=20 course format, which, especially in the core, becomes so standard that = students=20 are often not sure which class they=92re sitting through at the moment. = The=20 seminar style will also introduce them to a new way of thinking, = providing the=20 fringe benefit of enhancing their creativity. After the fundamentals are = covered, focus on using them to analyze general issues of right and = wrong;=20 how much to pay the peasants sewing your sweaters in Timbuktu can = wait,=20 along with Ben and Jerry=92s 7-to-1 rule and animal testing. This is = about=20 building fundamental tools. If the class format is going to change after = the=20 fundamentals are covered, I would advocate moving to a pure case method, = which=20 is, ironically, based on the Socratic method. This ethics core class = should be=20 required during the second semester of the first year.
ethicsAccept that ethics is a more fundamentally important business=20 discipline than accounting, marketing, etc. and convince the students of = this.=20 Sponsor joint conferences and seminars with the philosophy department. = Initiate=20 an all-night "ethics challenge" to go along with the finance, marketing = and=20 other case competitions that typically take place at good business = schools.=20 Institute ethics course requirements to follow up the core in = concentrations=20 where they are needed most, like investment banking and marketing. Let = the best=20 faculty from the business school and philosophy school team-teach higher = level=20 electives on topics suggested by students. Establish business ethics=20 fellowships. Create research assistant positions in business ethics. In = a=20 nutshell, assign ethics a status equal to that of all the other business = disciplines.
"Interesting ideas, Vince," I hear you say, "but don=92t you think = they=92re a=20 little extreme?"
And I reply:
"SIXTEEN PERCENT!!"
[1] Note that the fact that this sentence has = utilitarian=20 overtones has not escaped me.
[2] The kind of instruction I believe is a = necessary=20 prerequisite to discussing pet "social impact" cases like Bhopal, the = Ford=20 Pinto, Love Canal, etc. would entail at least a cursory overview of the = ethics=20 discussed in this paper. For examples of BE course syllabi that seem to = eschew=20 such fundamentals, see
http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/curriculum/coursedesc/564/= , http://www.bus.utexas.edu/programs/msis/leb/course1.htm= A>, http://www.bus.umich.edu/prostudents/mbaeve/academics/courses/ba= dmin.html.For examples of a course that appears to teach these fundamentals,=20 see
http://www.darden.virginia.edu/mba/mba_prog_curr.htm<= FONT=20 size=3D2>.
[3] Because of shortcomings in the survey = explained in the=20 preface, I have placed more emphasis on this background portion, in = hopes that a=20 web-published version of this paper might serve as a "crash course" in = business=20 ethics, helping to facilitate my lifelong ulterior motive of educating = the poor,=20 depraved, unethical, unwashed masses.
[4] Perhaps ironically, Aristotle considered trade = exploitative (Solomon, 1988).
[5] But differing from Utilitarian Ethics in its = focus on=20 character and intent.
[6] Sorry, I always wanted to reference myself, and = I just=20 couldn=92t resist. Nyuck nyuck nyuck!!!
[7] You should have seen these numbers before the = crash.=20 DAMNIT!!!!!
Bibliography
[Includes works consulted in research as well as those actually cited = in the=20 paper]
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Martin Ostwald. = New York:=20 Macmillan, 1962.
Badaracco, Joseph L. Jr. and Allen P. Webb. "Business ethics: A view = from the=20 trenches." California Management Review, v37, n2, Winter, 1995: = 8-28.
Baum, Lynne. "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Thirteenth Survey of = White=20 Collar Crime)." American Criminal Law Review, Spring 1998 v35 n3 = p823.
Bazerman, Max H. and Margaret A. Neale. Negotiating = Rationally. New=20 York: The Free Press, 1992.
Bentham, Jeremy. An introduction to the principles of morals and=20 legislation. Edited by J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart. New York: = Methuen,=20 1982.
"The Bhopal Tragedy: Flaws That Led to the Disaster in India." The = New=20 York Times, Monday, January 28, 1985.
Calhoun, Cheshire. "Standing for something." The Journal of = Philosophy,=20 Volume 92, Number 5, May, 1995: 235-260.
Carr, Alfred. "Is business bluffing ethical?" Harvard Business = Review.=20 Jan-Feb, 1968.
Cavasin, Vince. A Businessperson=92s Guide to the Virtue of =
Integrity.=20
Copp, David and David Zimmerman, eds. Morality, reason, and truth = : new=20 essays on the foundations of ethics. Totowa, N.J. 1985
"Cypress CEO takes on the Sisters of St. Francis." Business and = Society=20 Review, Spring, 1996: 4.
DeBow, Michael E. and Dwight R. Lee. " Shareholders, nonshareholders = and=20 corporate law: communitarianism and resource allocation." Delaware = Journal of=20 Corporate Law, Spring 1993 18 n2 p393-424.
DeGeorge, Richard T. Business Ethics. New York: MacMillan = Publishing=20 Company, 1986.
Dobson, John. "Ethics in finance II." Financial Analysts = Journal,=20 Volume 53, Number 1, Jan/Feb., 1997: 15-25.
Drucker, Peter. " The New Meaning of Corporate Social = Responsibility."=20 California Management Review, Winter 1984 v26 p53-63.
Dunfee, Thomas W. and Thomas Donaldson. "Contractarian business = ethics:=20 current status and next steps." Business Ethics Quarterly, April = 1995 v5=20 n2 p174.
Etzioni, Amitai. "Communitarian Solutions/What communicarians = think."=20 Journal of State Government, Volume 65, Number 1, Jan-Mar, 1992:=20 9-11.
Fink, Arlene and Jacqueline Kosecoff. How to conduct surveys. = Newbury=20 Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1985.
Flew, Anthony. "The Profit Motive." Ethics, Volume 86, July = 1976:=20 312-322.
Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business is to = Increase its=20 Profits." The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970: = 32.
Halbert, Debora. "Intellectual property law, technology and our = probable=20 future." Technological Forecasting & Social Change, June-July = 1996=20 v52 n2-3 p149(14).
Hampshire, Stuart, ed. Public and Private Morality. Cambridge: = Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Hasnas, John. "The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for = the=20 perplexed." Business Ethics Quarterly, January 1998, v8 n1 = p19.
Hosmer, Larue Tone. "Trust: The connecting link between = organizational theory=20 and philosophical ethics." Academy of Management Review, Volume = 20,=20 Number 2, April 1995: 379-403.
Kaltenheuser, Skip. "The real cost of doing business." World = Trade,=20 Volume 10 Number 6, June 1997: p80.
Kirkpatrick, Shelley A. and Edwin A. Locke. "Leadership: Do Traits = Matter?"=20 Academy of Management Executive, Volume 5, Number 2, May, 1991:=20 48-60.
Koehn, Daryl. "Virtue ethics, the firm, and moral psychology." = Business=20 Ethics Quarterly, July 1998, v8 n3 p497.
Ma, Yulong and Huey-Lian Sun. "Where should the line be drawn on = insider=20 trading ethics?" Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 17, Number 1: = p67.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, in A World of Ideas: = Essential=20 Reading for College Writers, compiled by Lee A. Jacobus. New York: = St.=20 Martin's Press, 1983.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: a study in moral theory. = Notre=20 Dame, Ind. : University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
McCracken, Janet and Bill Shaw. " Virtue ethics and contractarianism: = towards=20 a reconciliation." Business Ethics Quarterly, April 1995 v5 n2 = p297.
McFall, Lynne. "Integrity." Ethics, Volume 98, October, 1987: = 5-20.
Microsoft Encarta 97 Encyclopedia. "Ethics." CD ROM: 1996.
Miesing, Paul and John F. Preble. "A comparison of Five Business=20 Philosophies." Journal of Business Ethics 4, Volume 4, 1985: = 465-476.
Mintz, Steven M. "Aristotelian virtue and business ethics education." = Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 15, Number 8, August, 1996:=20 827-838.
Morris, Christopher W. "A Contractarian Account of Moral = Justification." In=20 Moral Knowledge? new readings in moral epistemology, edited by = Walter=20 Sinnott-Armstrong and Mark Timmons. New York: Oxford University Press, = 1996.
Nilsson, Michael D. "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Eleventh Survey = of White=20 Collar Crime)." American Criminal Law Review, Spring 1996 33 n3 = p803.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic = Books,=20 Inc., 1974.
Orlik, Deborah K. "Can you bill two clients for the same hour's = work?"=20 Legal Assistant Today, v11, n5, May/June 1994: 26-27.
Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New = York:=20 Penguin Books, 1991.
Piper, T. R., Gentile, M., and Park, S., eds. Can Ethics Be = Taught?=20 Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1993.
Pincoffs, Edmund. Quandaries and Virtues. Lawrence: University = Press=20 of Kansas, 1986.
Podgor, Ellen. "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Twelfth Survey of = White Collar=20 Crime)." American Criminal Law Review, Wntr 1997 34 n2 p325.
"Psssst. (TRB - insider trading ethics)." The New Republic, = June 23,=20 1986, v194 p4.
Rand, Ayn, Atlas Shrugged. New York: Signet, 1957.
Rand, Ayn. The virtue of selfishness. New York: Penguin Books, = 1964.
Rand, Ayn. The Fountainhead. New York: New American Library, = 1971.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard = University Press,=20 1971.
Salem, Mahmoud and Opal-Dawn Martin. "The ethics of using Chapter XI = as a=20 management strategy." Journal of Business Ethics, v13, n2, = February=20 1994:95-104.
Schanze, Erich. "Communitarian attitudes and economic success: A=20 mismatch?" Journal of Institutional & Theoretical Economics, = March=20 1997 v153 n1 p76(4).
Scheppele, Kim Lane. " 'It's just not right: the ethics of insider = trading."=20 Law and Contemporary Problems, Summer 1993 v56 n3 p123.
Shaffer, Mark and Anna Welch. "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Twelfth = Survey=20 of White Collar Crime)." American Criminal Law Review, Winter = 1997 34 n2=20 p697.
Solomon, Robert C. Ethics and Excellence: cooperation and = integrity in=20 business. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Solomon, Robert C. "Corporate roles, personal virtues: an = aristotelean=20 approach to business ethics." Business Ethics Quarterly. Volume = 2, Issue=20 3, 1992: 317-339.
Stauber, John and Sheldon Rampton. Toxic sludge is good for = you.=20 Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995.
Stocker, Michael. Plural and Conflicting Values. Oxford: = Oxford=20 University Press, 1990.
Taylor, Gabriele. "Integrity." The Aristotelian Society, = Supplementary Volume=20 55, 10-12 July, 1981: 143-159.
Velasquez, Manuel G. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. = Englewood=20 Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.
Walker, Martin. " Community spirit: (interview of American thinker = Amitai=20 Etzioni)." The Guardian, March 13, 1995 = p2.10(2).
Ah, to acknowledge or not to acknowledge. That is the question.
On the one hand, I had an enormous amount of help and inspiration = over the=20 course of this project; on the other, considering its scale and = importance,=20 having an "Acknowledgements" section seems almost pretentious. I can = hear the=20 cynical reader saying "who cares?" But then, no one is holding a gun to = the head=20 of the cynical reader forcing him to read this...so I think I=92ll go = ahead and=20 thank the people that I feel indebted to, anyway. If nothing else, it = will serve=20 as a personal reminder when I laughingly look back on this in 10 = years.
My most sincere thanks to Louis Chauvin, business ethics lecturer at = McGill,=20 for agreeing to sponsor this project with almost no knowledge of my = prior work=20 and despite his own hectic schedule, and also for his infinite patience = during=20 the course of the winter 1999 semester, which turned out to be the most=20 difficult four months of my life. Of course, his guidance on the content = of the=20 project and his thorough and objective criticism of early survey = versions was=20 also deeply appreciated, as was his willingness to engage in spirited = debate on=20 broad ranging philosophical topics that usually weren=92t remotely = related to this=20 paper.
I thank my parents; my Mother=92s death during the course of this = project=20 served to remind me of how great an influence she was on my life. By = instilling=20 in me at a very young age a deep respect for morality she unwittingly = planted=20 the seed of interest and passion that would lead me to pursue projects = like=20 this. Likewise, by teaching me to think critically and objectively and = by=20 instilling a respect for knowledge and wisdom, my Dad created the = motivation and=20 ability to take on projects like this.
I would like to thank University of Texas Entrepreneurship professor = Jeff=20 Sandefer and Philosophy professor Tara Smith, whose influence in classes = taken=20 in the fall of 1998 caused me to think very seriously about ethics and = motivated=20 me to do further academic work, of which this paper is hopefully only a = start,=20 in the field. Along with Jeff and Tara, I thank UT Philosophy professor = Robert=20 Solomon for valuable comments on early survey questions.
Crucial to the success of this project were early test survey results = provided by UT classmates Robert Cavin, Tim Jesser and Marion Greene, as = well as=20 feedback on the final survey from Kristen Kitchline and Chris = Seifert.
Of course, getting the survey out in front of students was the = biggest=20 logistical challenge. For help with this I would like to thank friends = and=20 colleagues at the many business schools that participated: Nick = Christoffersen=20 at FGV-S=E3o Paulo, Martha Draayer at Vanderbilt, David Grasch at = Cornell, Maria=20 Grogan at London Business School, Wendy Parish at Wharton, Vincent = Robinson at=20 Stanford, and Andrew Tsang at MIT.
Perhaps my biggest debt of gratitude is owed to the large group of=20 respondents, which initially numbered about 250 from about 10 different=20 worldwide MBA programs; I was pleasantly shocked at the help I received = from MBA=20 students around the world who, despite having no idea who I was, took = the 30 or=20 so minutes required to help a fellow MBA out by responding to my survey. = That=20 about 70 of these people took even more time to resend their responses = after my=20 hard drive crashed was even more inspiring.
Exhibit 1: BE core requirements and response rates = per school=20 surveyed

Exhibit 2: The survey, with = key
Key:
[E] Ethical Relativist
[A] Moral Absolutist
[O] Objectivist
[C] Contractarian
[M] Machiavellian
[U] Utilitarian
RESPONDENT INFORMATION
Please place a capital "X" to the left of the appropriate answer, =
or fill in text in the space provided.
Do you wish to remain anonymous?
__Yes
__No
Age range:
__25 or under
__26-30
__30-35
__over 35
Please indicate the school from which you will receive/have
received your master's degree.
__Australian GSM
__Copenhagen Business School
__Cornell
__EM-Lyon
__FGV--S=E3o Paulo
__Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration
__London Business School
__McGill
__MIT
__Stanford
__University of Maine
__University of Texas
__Vanderbilt
__Wharton
__OTHER (please specify):________________
Citizen of what country?______________
Primary work experience in what country?_____________
Total years of work experience:
__2 or fewer
__3-5
__>5
Of which were in management:
__2 or fewer
__3-5
__>5
Primary work experience in what industry?
__Academia
__Banking/Financial Services
__Computer/Software Development
__Construction/Skilled Trades
__Consulting
__Health/Medical/Pharmaceutical
__Law/Law Enforcement/Legal Services/Security
__Manufacturing
__Military/Government
__Non-profit
__Retail
__Telecommunications
__Travel/Tourism/Transportation/Entertainment/Lodging/Restaurant
__OTHER (please specify):_____________
Gender:
__Male
__Female
Undergrad major:
__Engineering/technical/science
__Education
__Liberal arts excluding philosophy
__Philosophy
__Business
__OTHER (please specify):_____________
Number of PHILOSOPHY (NON-BUSINESS ETHICS) courses taken (include =
both graduate and undergrad):
__2 or fewer
__3-5
__more than 5
Number of BUSINESS ETHICS (NON-PHILOSOPHY) courses taken
(include both graduate and undergrad):
__2 or fewer
__3-5
__more than 5
Does your MBA program require you to take any kind of ethics
course in order to graduate?
__Yes
__No
Please indicate your MBA concentration:
__Accounting/MPA
__Engineering/Manufacturing Management
__Entrepreneurship
__Finance
__General Management/No concentration
__Information Management/Management Science
__International business
__Marketing
__Operations
__Organizational Behavior/Human Resources
__OTHER (please specify):______________
ETHICAL QUANDARIES
Instructions:
* These are all very highly contrived questions; unfortunately,
they have to be in order to facilitate the goals of the survey.
* Please read every possible solution *first* and then pick the
one that *best* describes what you would do. Many of the
solutions are similar; it is important that you choose the one
that most closely models the thought process you go through in
determining your answer. If your thought process is not modeled,
pick the answer that is closest to modeling it; if one of the
answers models your thought process but reaches a different
conclusion, pick that answer.
* Please do *not* go back and change answers based on insights
acquired as you proceed. I'm interested in how you'd think about
each circumstance if you encountered it in isolation.
* If you believe that a question or solution lacks enough detail
to make a choice, please make reasonable assumptions. Also,
assume all companies are based in the U.S. and subject to U.S.
law unless otherwise stated. If you don't know applicable U.S.
law, please make reasonable assumptions.
* Indicate your answer by placing a capital "X" to the left of
the appropriate response.
* Please be sure to answer all eight questions.
Questions:
1. Your company wishes to start doing business in a country where =
bribery is common despite being illegal. If you pay a one-time
$1000 bribe, you can start immediately and be guaranteed a
$1,000,000 *profit* on your investment within the next year, as
well as a significant promotion for yourself. If you do not pay
the bribe, it will probably take so long to get the business
going that most profit potential will disappear. No one within
your company will know if you pay the bribe, and the $1000 amount =
can be taken from the project budget's "Miscellaneous" line item. =
What would you do?
[E]__It's not my responsibility to judge business practices in other =
countries; if paying bribes is how they get things done, I would
pay the bribe.
[M]__In this case, expediency must rule; if I don't pay the bribe my =
competitor will. Since paying the bribe is best for both me and
my company, I'd pay it, even if I normally have a problem with
bribes.
[A]__Bribes are wrong. I would rather walk away from the business =
than pay the bribe. I wouldn't pay it.
[C]__The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits me from
bribing foreign officials, so regardless of what my personal
attitude toward the situation may be, and regardless of the end
result, I must not pay the bribe.
[O]__My personal value system requires that I treat others fairly, =
and expect them to treat me fairly in return. By demanding
secret, personal remuneration that is not officially part of the
deal, the official is asking me to join him in deceit. To condone =
such behavior by paying the bribe would be a violation of my own
integrity, so I wouldn't pay.
[U]__Paying the bribe costs $1000, but the benefit to my
stakeholders is virtually immeasurable: stockholders gain from
the increased profits; my community gains from higher employment
due to increased demand for the product; the foreign community
gains from having access to products that they want to buy; etc.
I would pay the bribe.
2. As a student, you frequently photocopy magazine articles in
order to share them with other students for educational purposes. =
If you didn't do this, the students would never see the material
in question. The amount of material copied varies from a single
page to the majority of the work. All the material in question is =
covered by U.S. copyright law, which basically prohibits copying
without explicit permission from the copyright owner, but allows
limited exceptions for educational use. You have never obtained
permission to copy anything, and never intend to. Is your action
right or wrong?
[A]__Copying is equivalent to theft; it's always wrong, even for
educational purposes. My action is wrong.
[E]__In the context of educational use, the copies don't harm anyone =
and in fact provide benefits to the recipients, so my action is
right.
[U]__If I photocopy and distribute the materials to my friends in =
order to help educate them, it will enrich their lives and help
make them more productive members of society, while the copyright =
holder loses at most the income from a reprint, which is trivial. =
If I don't distribute the copies and as a result my friends never =
see the material, society loses this productivity and the
copyright holder gains nothing. Multiply either case by the
number of articles and the benefits of copying become much
greater. Therefore, my action is right.
[C]__Assuming I'm staying within the bounds of the copyright law's =
educational exception, or if the exception is not sufficiently
precise to dictate my decision, my action is right.
[O]__Sharing the articles with my friends allows us to discuss them =
and to learn as a group, which makes me a better person. Since
the copyright holder secured the copyright with knowledge of the
educational exception, she is not being harmed by my action.
Therefore my action is right.
[M]__My friends and I need these articles to further our education. =
The rights of the copyright holder are irrelevant. My action is
right.
3. In your new job as a technical manager for a major chemical
company, you discover that some children have been burned by
chemicals leaking from containers buried on a site that your
company sold to the city 20 years ago (and which the city had
subsequently turned into a playground). When the containers were
buried, all environmental laws were followed, and the city was
informed about the site's history. However, you know that the
chemicals are highly toxic and if they are leaking could cause
significant long-term harm to local residents, including cancer
and birth defects. The company lawyer strongly advises you that
any action on your part may expose your company to significant
legal liability, and that you should therefore not act on the
information. Your boss agrees with the lawyer and cautions you
against telling anyone, even your family, implying that loyal
employees are taken care of, and disloyal ones aren't. Do you act =
on the information?
[U]__If I act, my company and its stakeholders may lose a
substantial amount of money to lawsuits. If I don't act, people
will likely die. Clearly, the greater good is served by my
acting, so I act.
[M]__My company did everything it was supposed to; if the city
chooses to ignore toxic waste--that they knew all along was
there--as it oozes out onto a playground, that's their problem. I =
don't act.
[O]__I can live with myself if I don't get promoted, but I can't
live with myself if people die when I could have prevented it. I
act.
[E]__If this turns into a big problem, and it seems likely that it =
will, society is going to judge me harshly. I act.
[A]__Letting kids play near toxic waste is just plain wrong. I = act.
[C]__By purchasing the site with full knowledge of its history, the =
city assumed responsibility for any problems that arise, and
simultaneously released my company from those responsibilities.
My primary contractual obligation is to my shareholders, and
since this is reinforced by the duties implicit with the city's
acquisition of the land, I don't act.
4. You are an executive at a profitable U.S. company that heavily =
relies upon labor unions. Due to recent changes in the industry,
you cannot remain competitive if you have to honor current union
contracts, and the unions refuse to renegotiate. In fact, you can =
show that honoring the contracts would threaten the viability of
your operations, and this entitles you to file for bankruptcy
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, even though you are =
currently profitable. Bankruptcy would allow you to legally
terminate the union contracts and reorganize into a more
competitive company going forward. Do you file for bankruptcy?
[M]__It's not my problem the unions refuse to renegotiate; I have a =
business to run. Chapter 11 is clearly the best choice for my
business, so I would file.
[O]__Exploiting what amounts to a legal loophole in order to get out =
of a contract violates my sense of integrity and requires me to
initiate unilateral dissolution of an agreement made good faith.
Therefore, regardless of the consequences, and despite the
unions' unreasonableness, I cannot file for bankruptcy.
[C]__The most explicit contract in question here is that with the =
union, and it should be honored; I wouldn't file.
[U]__Filing will allow me to continue to 1. honor my commitment to =
my shareholders 2. employ at least some people and 3. provide the =
market with another choice. If I don't file, I will likely be
forced into real bankruptcy after a slow, painful decline, and
then I may actually face liquidation, which hurts everyone
involved. Chapter 11 would be the best choice for the most people =
in the long term, so I would file.
[A]__Filing for bankruptcy would amount to breaking my word to the =
union, which is fundamentally wrong. I wouldn't file.
[E]__Filing for bankruptcy would go against the sense of justice
that is common in American culture, so I wouldn't file.
5. Your job (with a small public company) requires you to collect =
data on competitive products for use in formulating company
strategy. You are having a few drinks with Chris, a college
friend that now works for your main competitor, a much larger
public company. He starts discussing--without any prompting from
you--proprietary information about his company's future products. =
This information could allow you to significantly improve your
competitive position against Chris's company. What do you do?
[E]__People discuss work all the time, and sometimes these
conversations result in the sharing of information that helps
someone do their job more efficiently. Chris's information helps
me do my job more efficiently, so I would continue the
conversation, getting as much out of it as I could.
[C]__According to U.S. intellectual property law, a company must
take reasonable precautions to protect trade secrets, and if they =
don't, the law doesn't protect the secret. Obviously, Chris's
company isn't taking appropriate precautions in this case, so it
is within my rights to listen to him. However, U.S. law also
forbids using excessive measures to obtain trade secrets, so I'm
not entitled to encourage Chris to tell me more than he
volunteers.
[O]__The information Chris is sharing is his company's intellectual =
property, analogous to the corporate credit card he carries,
which is his company's physical property. I could benefit if
Chris drunkenly dropped his credit card in my house and I used it =
to charge a trip to Hawaii, but such action would be theft (not
to mention a lousy thing to do to a friend). Chris's company's
intellectual property is different only in that it's not as easy
to "give back" after we sober up, so I would tell him to stop
talking about the products.
[A]__To let Chris continue would be taking advantage of his
intoxicated state, which I think is wrong. I would tell him to
stop.
[M]__My primary allegiance lies with my own company; it is not to =
act as a policeman for Chris's company. If he's going to provide
information I can use to benefit my own business, I'm going to
try to get as much out of him as I can. I would continue the
conversation, getting as much out of it as I could.
[U]__Given the relative size of our companies, the competitive
advantage Chris's information provides his own (larger) company
will benefit a larger number of stakeholders than it would if I
used it to benefit my (smaller) company. Under these
circumstances, I would tell Chris to stop.
6. You are an executive with Remchester, a major ammunition
manufacturer which about a year ago introduced "Black Claws", a
brand of ammunition that is no more deadly than comparable ammo,
but that has an especially sinister appearance. Black Claws have
been a tremendously profitable product for Remchester; there are
currently no special restrictions on sale of the bullets.
However, they are creating a growing public relations problem as
special interest groups demonize them in the media as "cop
killers" (in reality, police fire Black Claws 100 times more
often than non-police). If you take no action, it is likely that
these groups will succeed in getting legislation passed that
restricts sale of the ammo in about a year-when you expected
competitive products to start substantially decreasing the Black
Claws' market share anyway. Assume that liability lawsuits are
not an issue. Your choices are 1. completely pull the bullets
from the market, yielding to the special interest groups; 2. use
your dealer network to restrict sales to law enforcement, which
would effectively silence the special interest groups; or 3. do
nothing.
[U]__Restrictive legislation could have an enormous impact on
Remchester's future profitability, and therefore should be
prevented. Pulling the bullets completely might make for good PR, =
but would have a significant immediate impact on our
profitability, and might create another PR problem with ammo
consumers. Restricting sales to law enforcement would have the
minimal impact on our long-term profitability, and therefore
provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people, so I =
would voluntarily restrict ammo sales.
[M]__I don't care what the special interests say, and I don't care =
what the ammo buyers say; I just want to do what's best for my
business. Voluntary restrictions on ammo sales seem to be the
best way to do that.
[E]__Generally speaking, Americans are fascinated with guns. In this =
cultural context, our main consumers would probably be offended
(and possibly desert us long-term) if we did anything but
continue selling the ammo with no restrictions; legislative
repercussions are not for me to deal with. I would continue to
sell the ammo with no restrictions.
[O]__Consumers have the right to buy what they want, even if it is =
nasty-looking ammunition; I have no right to artificially limit
their choices, especially due to irrational political responses
from special interest groups. I would continue to sell the ammo
with no restrictions.
[A]__Guns and ammo just facilitate killing, which is absolutely
wrong, no matter who's doing it. I would pull the ammo from the
market immediately.
[C]__There's no law against selling the bullets, and until there is, =
selling them is the best way to maximize my profits. I would
continue to sell the ammo without restrictions.
7. You are an executive with a company that is opening an office
in a less developed country in which women have lower status than =
men and are almost never encountered in business. You must send a =
manager to open the office in this country. Your absolute best
candidate for the manager is a woman, Edith, and she is willing
to give it a try despite the harsh environment (which includes
some level of physical danger). Your next best candidate is a
man, Archie, whose performance is far inferior to Edith's. You
could send Archie alone, but you would have to send a male
assistant with Edith, since the culture would require her to work =
extensively through the assistant in order to accomplish
anything. The profitability of the office would probably be the
same whether you sent Edith with an assistant or the inferior
Archie alone. Also, sending a woman would be seen as an insult by =
many of the local business leaders, even if they didn't deal
directly with her. Should you send Archie alone, or Edith and the =
assistant?
[M]__I have no social agenda. There is something to be gained by not =
alienating the locals, so there is some advantage for my business =
if I send Archie, and that's what I'd do.
[U]__Sending Edith does no one any practical good; she's not going =
to liberate the women of the country, she is going to alienate
many potential customers, and I'd be giving up two domestic
resources instead of one. Plus, the physical danger aspect
exposes us to a legal liability. Therefore sending Archie would
do the most good for the most people, and I'd send him.
[A]__The local culture that represses women is absolutely wrong and =
I would not accommodate it by sending an inferior candidate. I'd
send Edith.
[E]__What's right in the foreign countries in which my company does =
business is not necessarily the same as what's right in the U.S.
I must respect the local culture and send Archie.
[O/C]__While I don't agree with the local culture and I respect
Edith's right to advance her career, in this case I must fall
back to my obligation to shareholders and send Archie, since
doing so would minimize the legal liability risk and also do less =
damage to customer relations, which would create more opportunity =
for long-term gain.
8. You are a management consultant at a small private firm.
Several months ago your firm completed a 6 month, $1 million
study on the competitive situation in client ABC's industry. The
report contained information on all competitors in the industry,
but no confidential client data. According to standard procedure, =
a copy of this report was archived in your firm's knowledge base, =
and neither the firm nor the client made any statements about the =
potential reusability of the report. You have just been staffed
on an engagement for XYZ, one of ABC's competitors; the
deliverable, timeframe (number of billable hours), and fees are
basically identical. XYZ, a public company, has no knowledge of
the previous engagement, and there is no prohibition in its
contract against recycled information. Your team is instructed to =
revise the report for XYZ, which will take about a month; your
boss then intends to wait until the end of the engagement
timeframe before delivering it to XYZ, and to collect the entire
contracted fee. Protesting has a high likelihood of limiting your =
advancement in the firm. Do you protest?
[U]__The $833,000 differential between the cost of 1 month and the =
cost of 6 months would have a positive impact on more people if
it stayed with the public XYZ corporation than if it went to my
private firm, and my career is insignificant compared to that
impact. I would protest.
[E]__Recycling information is common in consulting; in fact, part of =
a firm's reputation is often built on how good it is at managing
knowledge acquired over many projects. Also, consulting firms
typically work their employees more hours per day than they
actually bill; why shouldn't they take the opportunity to bill
for more hours than actually worked? I wouldn't protest.
[M]__The client is getting what he paid for. Besides, why should the =
new client benefit from money spent by the previous client? And
why should I sacrifice my career for their lack of foresight in
setting up the contract? I wouldn't protest.
[A]__There are many ethical problems with this: working for two
competitors on what amounts to the same project, leveraging work
one company paid for in order to benefit one of its competitors,
fraudulently billing the new company for more than the actual
hours worked. I would protest.
[O/C]__Only 1/6 of the billable hours specified in the new contract =
will actually be used to produce the deliverable; this is
fraudulent and therefore wrong. I would protest regardless of any =
consequences on my career.
Exhibit 3: Rejected survey=20 questions
Exhibit 4: Rough draft=20 survey
Directions:
=B7 These are all very highly contrived and unrealistic =
questions;
unfortunately, they have to be in order to provide the level of =
detail
necessary to facilitate the goals of the survey.
=B7 Please read every possible solution *first* and then pick the one =
that
*best* describes what you would do. Many of the solutions are very=20
similar;
it is important that you choose the one that most closely models =
the
thought process you go through in determining your answer. If your=20
thought
process is not modeled, pick the answer that is closest to modeling =
it;=20
if
one of the answers models your thought process but reaches a =
different
conclusion, pick that answer.
=B7 Indicate your answer by placing a capital "X" to the left of =
the
appropriate response.
=B7 Please do *not* go back and change answers based on insights =
acquired=20
as
you proceed. I'm interested in how you'd think about each =
circumstance if
you encountered it by itself.
=B7 Assume that all companies are based in the U.S. and are subject =
to U.S.
law unless otherwise stated. If you don't know applicable U.S. law,=20
please
make reasonable assumptions.
=B7 Each question should provide all the information you need to make =
a
choice from the possible solutions; if you believe that a question =
is
missing necessary information, make any logical assumptions necessary =
to
answer the question.
=B7 Please be sure to answer all of the questions.
Respondent data:
Wish to remain anonymous? Y/N (if you answer "no" I may contact you =
for
further research or clarification in the future; the confidentiality =
of
your answers will still be maintained) No
Age range:
=B7 25 or under
=B7 26-30
=B7 30-35
=B7 over 35
School? UT-Austin
Citizen of what country? US
Primary work experience in what country? US
Years of work experience:
=B7 2 or fewer
=B7 3-5
=B7 5
Years of management experience:
=B7 2 or fewer
=B7 3-5
=B7 5
Primary work experience in what industry?
=B7 Academia
=B7 Banking/Financial Services
=B7 Computer/Software Development
=B7 Construction/Skilled Trades
=B7 Consulting
=B7 Health/Medical/Pharmaceutical
=B7 Law/Law Enforcement/Legal Services/Security
=B7 Manufacturing
=B7 Military/Government
=B7 Retail
=B7 Telecommunications
=B7 =
Travel/Tourism/Transportation/Entertainment/Lodging/Restaurant
=B7 Gender: M/F
Undergrad major:
=B7 engineering/technical/natural science
=B7 education
=B7 liberal arts excluding philosophy
=B7 philosophy (What kind of bullshit distinction is this!!!)
=B7 business
=B7 other (specify)
Number of philosophy (non-business ethics) courses taken (include =
both
graduate and undergrad):
=B7 2 or fewer
=B7 3-5
=B7 more than 5
Number of business ethics (non-philosophy) courses taken (include =
both
graduate and undergrad):
=B7 2 or fewer
=B7 3-5
=B7 more than 5
Does your MBA program require you to take any kind of ethics course =
in
order to graduate? No
Please indicate your concentration:
=B7 Accounting/MPA
=B7 Engineering/Manufacturing Management
=B7 Entrepreneurship
=B7 Finance
=B7 General Management/No concentration
=B7 Information Management/Management Science
=B7 International business
=B7 Marketing
=B7 Operations
=B7 Organizational Behavior/Human Resources
=B7 Other (specify)
Questions:
1. Your company wishes to start doing business in a country where =
bribery
is common despite being illegal. If you pay a one-time $1000 bribe, =
you=20
can
start immediately and be guaranteed a $1,000,000 return on your=20
investment
within the next year, as well as a significant promotion yourself. If =
you
do not pay the bribe, it will probably take so long to get the =
business
going that most profit potential will disappear. No one within your=20
company
will know if you pay the bribe, and the $1000 amount can be taken =
from=20
the
project's "Miscellaneous" line item. What would you do?
[E]=B7 It's not my responsibility to judge business practices in =
other
countries; if paying bribes is how they get things done, I'd pay the=20
bribe.
[M]=B7 In this case, expediency must rule; if I don't pay the bribe =
my
competitor will. Since paying the bribe is best for both me and my=20
company,
I'd pay it, even if I normally have a problem with bribes.
[A]=B7 Bribes are wrong. I would rather walk away from the business =
than pay=20
the bribe.
[C]=B7 The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits me from =
bribing=20
foreign
officials, so regardless of what my personal attitude toward the=20
situation
may be, and regardless of the end result, I must not pay the =
bribe.
[O]=B7 My personal value system requires that I treat others fairly, =
and=20
expect
them to treat me fairly in return. By demanding secret, personal
remuneration that is not officially part of the deal, the official =
is
asking me to join him in deceit. To condone such behavior by paying =
the
bribe would be a violation of my own integrity, so I wouldn't =
pay.
[U]=B7 Paying the bribe costs $1000, but the benefit to my =
stakeholders is
virtually immeasurable: stockholders gain from the increased profits; =
the
local community gains from higher employment due to increased demand =
for
the product; the foreign community gains from having access to =
products
that they want to buy; etc. I'd pay the bribe.
2. As a student, you frequently photocopy magazine articles in order =
to
share them with other students for educational purposes. If you =
didn't do
this, the students would never see the material in question. The =
amount=20
of
material copied varies from a single page to the majority of the =
work.=20
All
the material in question is covered by U.S. copyright law, which=20
basically
prohibits copying without explicit permission from the copyright =
owner,=20
but
allows limited exceptions for educational use. You have never =
obtained
permission to copy anything, and never intend to. Is your action =
right or
wrong?
[A]=B7 Copying is equivalent to theft; it's always wrong, even for=20
educational
purposes.
[E]=B7 In the context of educational use, the copies don't harm =
anyone and=20
in
fact provide benefits to the recipients, so the action is right.
[U]=B7 If I photocopy and distribute the materials to my friends in =
order=20
to
help educate them, it is likely to enrich their lives and contribute =
to
making them more productive members of society, while the copyright=20
holder
loses at most the income from a reprint, which is typically trivial. =
If I
don't distribute the copies and as a result my friends never see =
the
material, society loses this productivity and the copyright holder =
gains
nothing. Multiply either case by the number of articles I copy and =
the
benefits of copying become much greater. Therefore, my action is =
right.
[C]=B7 Assuming I'm staying within the bounds of the copyright law's=20
educational exception, or if the exception is not sufficiently precise =
to=20
dictate my decision, my action is right.
[O]=B7 Sharing the articles with my friends allows us to discuss them =
and=20
to
learn as a group, which makes me a better person. Since the =
copyright
holder secured the copyright with knowledge of the educational =
exception,
she is not being harmed by my action. Therefore my action is =
right.
[M]=B7 My friends and I need these articles to further our education. =
The=20
rights of the copyright holder are irrelevant. My action is right.
3. You are a management consultant at a private firm. Several months =
ago
your firm completed a 6 month, $1 million study on the =
competitive
situation in a client ABC's industry. The report contained =
information on
all competitors in the industry, but no confidential client data.=20
According
to standard procedure, a copy of this report was archived in your =
firm's
knowledge base, and neither the firm nor the client made any =
statements
about the potential reusability of the report. You have just been =
staffed
on an engagement for XYZ, one of ABC's competitors; the =
deliverable,
timeframe (number of billable hours), and fees are basically =
identical.
XYZ, a public company, has no knowledge of the previous engagement, =
and
there is no prohibition in its contract against recycled information. =
Your
team is instructed to revise the report for XYZ, which will take =
about a
month; your boss then intends to wait until the end of the =
engagement
timeframe before delivering it to XYZ, and to collect the entire=20
contracted
fee. Protesting has a high likelihood of limiting your advancement in =
the
firm. Do you protest?
[U]=B7 The $833,000 differential between the cost of 1 month and the =
cost of=20
6
months would have a positive impact on more people if it went to the=20
public
corporation than the private firm, and my career is insignificant=20
compared
to that impact. I would protest.
[M]=B7 The client is getting what he paid for. Besides, why should =
the new
client benefit from money spent by the previous client? And why =
should I
sacrifice my career for their lack of foresight in setting up the=20
contract?
I wouldn't protest.
[A]=B7 There are many ethical problems with this: working for two =
competitors=20
on what amounts to the same project, leveraging work one company paid =
for in
order to benefit one of its competitors, fraudulently billing the =
new
company for more than the actual hours worked. I would protest.
[O/C]=B7 Only 1/6 of the billable hours specified in the new contract =
will
actually be used to produce the deliverable; this is fraudulent. I =
would
protest regardless of any consequences on my career.
[E]=B7 Recycling information is common in consulting; in fact, part =
of a=20
firm's
reputation is often built on how good they are at managing =
knowledge
acquired over many projects. Also, consulting firms typically work =
their
employees more hours per day than they actually bill; why shouldn't =
they
take the opportunity to bill for more hours than actually worked? =
I
wouldn't protest.
4. In your new job as a technical manager for a major chemical =
company,=20
you
discover that some children have been burned by chemicals leaking =
from
containers buried on a site that your company sold to the city 20 =
years=20
ago
(and which the city had subsequently turned into a playground). When =
the
containers were buried, all environmental laws were followed, and the =
city
was informed about the site's history. However, you know that the=20
chemicals
are highly toxic and if they are leaking could cause significant=20
long-term
harm to local residents, including cancer and birth defects. The =
company
lawyer strongly advises you that any action on your part may expose =
your
company to significant legal liability, and that you should therefore =
not
act on the information. Your boss agrees with the lawyer and cautions =
you
against telling anyone, even your family, implying that loyal =
employees=20
are
taken care of, and disloyal ones aren't. Do you act on the =
information?
[U]=B7 If I act, my company and its stakeholders may lose a =
substantial=20
amount
of money to lawsuits. If I don't act, people will likely die. =
Clearly,=20
the
greater good is served by my acting.
[M]=B7 My company did everything it was supposed to; if the city =
chooses to
ignore toxic waste-that they knew all along was there-as it oozes out =
onto
a playground, that's their problem. I don't act.
[O]=B7 I can live with myself if I don't get promoted, but I can't =
live=20
with
myself if people die when I could have prevented it. I act.
[E]=B7 If this turns into a big problem, and it seems likely that it =
will,
society is going to judge me harshly. I act.
[A]=B7 Letting kids play near toxic waste is just plain wrong. I =
act.
[C]=B7 By purchasing the site with full knowledge of its history, the =
city
assumed responsibility for any problems that arise, and =
simultaneously
releases my company from those responsibilities. My primary =
contractual
obligation is to my shareholders, and since this is reinforced by =
the
duties implicit with the city's acquisition of the land, I don't =
act.
5. Your company has requested proposals from several consulting firms =
for
an upcoming project. On the morning of the deadline day, all the =
firms'
proposals have arrived except that of DEF consulting. Your boss is=20
friends
with a partner at DEF, and tells you that they are behind on the =
proposal
due to a personal emergency suffered by his friend. Since your boss =
can't
extend the deadline, to help his friend out, he instructs you to fax =
a=20
copy
of UVW consulting's proposal (which is marked "confidential") to DEF, =
as
this would help them get their bid in by the 5 p.m. the deadline. Do =
you
send the fax?
[E]=B7 Who am I to judge my boss's choice? I'd send the fax.
[C]=B7 There is an implicit contract in my company's accepting =
proposals=20
marked
"confidential" from the other firms. I wouldn't violate this by =
sending=20
the
fax.
[O]=B7 A number of issues here all point to the same conclusion: 1. =
sending=20
the
fax would be effectively defrauding the implicit promise of=20
confidentiality
my company made to UVW; 2. it would upset the free-market system that =
is
inherent in bidding, and in so doing might cause our company to chose =
a
nonoptimal proposal; 3. while complying may further my short-term
self-interest, it will set a precedent that may encourage my boss to =
use=20
me
for future unethical tasks, which will run counter to both my values =
and
the best long-term interests of the company. Given all this, I would =
not
send the fax.
[M]=B7 The ultimate outcome of this for my company will likely be =
that DEF=20
will
come in with the most attractive offer and that they will get the=20
business,
furthering both my boss's relationship with his friend there and my =
own
relationship with my boss, not to mention getting my firm the best =
deal.=20
I
would definitely send the fax.
[U]=B7 If I send the fax, DEF is likely to come back with the most=20
financially
attractive offer. Assuming that all the consulting firms considered =
are
equally capable, this would provide more benefit to my company's
shareholders than taking a more expensive option. I would send the =
fax.
[A]=B7 Sending the fax is unfair to the other bidders. I wouldn't =
send it.
6. You are an executive at a profitable U.S. company that heavily =
relies
upon labor unions. Due to recent changes in the industry, you cannot=20
remain
competitive if you have to honor current union contracts, and the =
unions
refuse to renegotiate. In fact, you can show that honoring the =
contracts
would threaten the viability of your operations, and this entitles =
you to
file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, =
even
though you are currently profitable. Bankruptcy would allow you to=20
legally
terminate the union contracts and reorganize into a more =
competitive
company going forward. Do you file for bankruptcy?
[M]=B7 It's not my problem the unions refuse to renegotiate; I have a =
business
to run. Chapter 11 is clearly the best choice for my business, so =
I'll=20
file.
[O]=B7 Exploiting what amounts to a legal loophole in order to get =
out of a
contract violates my sense of integrity and requires me to =
initiate
unilateral dissolution of an agreement made good faith. =
Therefore,
regardless of the consequences, and despite the unions' =
unreasonableness,=20
I
cannot file Chapter 11.
[C]=B7 The most explicit contract in question here is that with the =
union,=20
and
it should be honored; I wouldn't file.
[U]=B7 Filing will allow me to continue to 1. supply profits to my=20
shareholders
2. employ at least some people and 3. provide the market with =
another
choice. If I don't file, I will likely be forced into real bankruptcy =
after
a slow, painful decline, and then I may actually face liquidation, =
which
hurts everyone involved. Chapter 11 would be the best choice for =
everyone
involved in the long term, so I'll file.
[A]=B7 Filing for bankruptcy would amount to breaking my word to the =
union,
which is fundamentally wrong. I won't file.
[E]=B7 Filing for bankruptcy would go against the sense of justice =
that is
common in American culture, so I wouldn't file.
7. As an entry-level management consultant, you are instructed to =
always
record eight hours a day, five days a week on your timesheets despite =
the
fact that you routinely work over twelve hours per day. You are told =
that
this is just an accounting formality, and that since your salary is =
far
above what you could make in industry, it shouldn't matter. Written=20
company
policy says to record the actual number of hours worked, but you were =
told
before you took the job that this is just a formality, and that =
your
workweeks would often exceed 60 hours. Do you protest, even though =
doing=20
so
is likely to hamper your advancement?
[C]=B7 The written policy takes precedence over any verbal agreement. =
I=20
would
protest.
[O]=B7 I entered the situation fully aware of what was expected of =
me; the
numbers I mechanically enter into a spreadsheet every week are=20
irrelevant.
I would not protest.
[M]=B7 There's no way I'm going to jeopardize my career over =
something so=20
silly. I would not protest.
[E]=B7 If that's the way the company does things, who am I to judge? =
I=20
wouldn't
protest.
[A]=B7 Recording 8 hours a day when I worked a different number of =
hours is
lying, which is wrong. I would protest.
[U]=B7 Protesting is going to waste my time and the people's time to =
whom=20
I'm
protesting, whereas not protesting wastes no one's time. I wouldn't =
protest.=20
8. Your job (with a small public company) requires you to collect =
data on
competitive products for use in formulating company strategy. You =
are
having a few drinks with Chris, a college friend that now works for =
your
main competitor, a much larger public company. He starts=20
discussing-without
any prompting from you-proprietary information about his company's =
future
products. This information could allow you to significantly improve =
your
competitive position against Chris's company. What do you do?
[E]=B7 People discuss work all the time, and sometimes these =
conversations
result in the sharing of information that helps someone do their job =
more
efficiently. Chris's information helps me do my job more efficiently, =
so=20
I
would continue the conversation, getting as much out of it as I =
could.
[C]=B7 According to U.S. intellectual property law, a company must =
take
reasonable precautions to protect trade secrets, and if they don't, =
the=20
law
doesn't protect the secret. Obviously, Chris's company isn't =
taking
appropriate precautions in this case, so it is within my rights to =
listen
to him. However, U.S. law also forbids using excessive measures to =
obtain
trade secrets, so I'm not entitled to encourage Chris to tell me more =
than
he volunteers.
[O]=B7 The information Chris is sharing is his company's intellectual =
property,
analogous to the corporate credit card he carries, which is his =
company's
physical property. I could benefit if Chris drunkenly dropped his =
credit
card in my house and I used it to charge a trip to Hawaii, but such=20
action
would be theft (not to mention a lousy thing to do to a friend). =
Chris's
company's intellectual property is different only in that it's not as =
easy
to "give back" after we sober up, so I should tell him to stop =
talking
about the products.
[A]=B7 To let Chris continue would be taking advantage of his =
intoxicated=20
state, which I think is wrong. I'd tell him to stop.
[M]=B7 My primary allegiance lies with my own company; it is not to =
act as=20
a
policeman for Chris's company. If he's going to provide information I =
can
use to benefit my own business, I'm going to try to get as much out =
of=20
him
as I can.
[U]=B7 Given the relative size of our companies, the competitive =
advantage
Chris's information provides his own company will benefit a larger =
number
of stakeholders than it would if I used it to benefit my (smaller)=20
company.
Under these circumstances, I would tell Chris to stop.
9. You are an executive with Remchester, a major ammunition =
manufacturer
which about a year ago introduced "Black Claws", a brand of =
ammunition=20
that
is no more deadly than comparable ammo, but that has an especially=20
sinister
appearance. Black Claws have been a tremendously profitable product =
for
Remchester. There are no special restrictions on sale of the bullets, =
but
they are creating a growing public relations problem as special =
interest
groups demonize them in the media as "cop killers" (in reality, =
police=20
fire
Black Claws 100 times more often than non-police). If you take no =
action,
it is likely that these groups will succeed in getting legislation =
passed
that restricts sale of the ammo in about a year-when you expected
competitive products to start substantially decreasing the Black =
Claws'
market share anyway. Assume that liability lawsuits are not an issue. =
Your
choices are 1. completely pull the bullets from the market, yielding =
to=20
the
special interest groups; 2. use your dealer network to restrict sales =
to
law enforcement, which would effectively silence the special =
interest
groups; or 3. do nothing.
[U]=B7 Restrictive legislation could have an enormous impact on=20
Remchester's
future profitability, and therefore should be prevented. Pulling =
the
bullets completely might make for good PR, but would have a =
significant
immediate impact on our profitability, and might create another PR=20
problem
with ammo consumers. Restricting sales to law enforcement would have =
the
minimal impact on our long-term profitability, and therefore provide =
the
greatest good for the greatest number of people, so I would simply=20
restrict
sales.
[E]=B7 Generally speaking, Americans are fascinated with guns. In =
this=20
cultural
context, our main consumers would probably be offended if we did =
anything
but continue selling the ammo with no restrictions; legislative
repercussions are not for me to deal with.
[O]=B7 Consumers have the right to buy what they want, even if it =
is
nasty-looking ammunition; I have no right to artificially limit =
their
choices, especially due to irrational political responses from =
special
interest groups. I would continue to sell the bullets with no=20
restrictions.
[A]=B7 Killing people is wrong, no matter who's doing it. I would =
pull the
bullets from the market immediately.
[M]=B7 I don't care what the special interests say, and I don't care =
what=20
the
ammo buyers say; I just want to do what's best for my business. =
Voluntary
restrictions on sales seem to be the best way to do that.
[C]=B7 There's no law against selling the bullets, and until there =
is,=20
selling
them is the best way to maximize my profits. I would continue to =
sell
without restrictions.
10. You are an executive with a company that is opening an office in =
a=20
less
developed country in which women have lower status than men and are=20
almost
never encountered in business. You must send a manager to open the =
office
in this country. Your absolute best candidate for the manager is a =
woman,
and she is willing to give it a try despite the harsh environment =
(which
includes some level of physical danger). Your next best candidate is =
a=20
man
whose performance is far inferior to the woman's. You could send the =
male
manager alone, but you would have to send a mail assistant with the=20
female
manager, since the culture would require her to work extensively =
through
the assistant in order to accomplish anything. The profitability of =
the
office would probably be the same whether you sent the woman with =
an
assistant or the inferior male manager alone. Also, sending a woman =
would
be seen as an insult by many of the local business leaders, even if =
they
didn't deal directly with her. Should you send the male manager =
alone, or
the woman and the assistant?
[U]=B7 Sending the woman does no one any practical good; she's not =
going to
liberate the women of the country, she is going to alienate many=20
potential
customers, and I'm going to have to give up two domestic resources=20
instead
of one. Plus, the physical danger aspect exposes us to a legal =
liability.
Therefore sending the man would do the most good for the most people, =
and
I'd send him.
[A]=B7 The local culture that represses women is absolutely wrong and =
I=20
would
not accommodate it by sending an inferior candidate. I'd send the =
woman.
[M]=B7 I have no social agenda. There is something to be gained by =
not
alienating the locals, so there is some advantage for my business if =
I=20
send
the man, and that's what I'd do.
[E]=B7 What's right in the foreign countries in which my company does =
business
is not necessarily the same as what's right in the U.S. I must =
respect=20
the
local culture and send the man.
[O/C]=B7 While I don't agree with the local culture and I respect the =
woman's
right to advance her career, in this case I must fall back to my=20
obligation
to shareholders and send the man, since doing so would do less damage =
to
customer relations and therefore create more opportunity for =
long-term=20
gain.
Exhibit 5: Summary country=20 statistics

Exhibit 6: Summary = individual=20 consistency statistics

Exhibit 7: Breakdown of = ethical system=20 choices

Exhibit 8: Consistency by = industry and=20 MBA concentration
