Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project4801 Unit 10 Final Course Project.docx

Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project/4801 Unit 10 Final Course
Project.pdf
COURSE PROJECT
Course Project Overview
The study of ethics becomes a purely academic exercise unless
one can apply what is learned to
professional life. This project will help you make this type of
application.
To complete the project, you will:
Identify that an issue in a company has potential ethical
ramifications that you would like to see resolved
by a corporate policy.
Demonstrate why the issue is relevant and needs to be
addressed.
Examine the issue from all sides and from the perspective of all
stakeholders.
Evaluate different ethical decision-making models covered in
the course. You will be asked to choose one
model and apply it to the issue you identified.
Recommend a corporate policy that the company can implement
to addresses the chosen issue.
Ultimately, corporations are formed to make money. So, in your
course project, you will balance the
need to practice corporate social responsibility with the
corporation's prime directive of increasing
profits. Specifically, your project will weigh the impact of not
having a corporate policy for the issue you
have chosen against the cost of implementing one.

At the culmination of the project, you will recommend a policy
that addresses the ethical issue chosen
and that can be implemented by a company. The policy needs to
be specific and address all
stakeholders, as well as include provisions for monitoring the
effectiveness of the policy, for dealing with
employees who fail to comply, and for adapting the policy if it
needs changing in the future. In
recommending the policy, you will be expected to argue for
your policy with well-reasoned analysis and
specific examples. You are expected to synthesize much of the
work done for the assignments in Units 2
and 7 into a cohesive proposal, supporting the need for your
policy.
Project Objectives
To successfully complete this project, you will be expected to:
Assess the degree of social responsibility in a corporate
policy.1.
Develop a corporate policy for resolving ethical dilemmas.2.
Evaluate the parameters of ethical decision-making models as
they apply to the recommended policy.3.
Support recommendations with well-reasoned analysis and
specific examples.4.
Recommend a strategy for communicating the policy to the
organization in a manner that meets the needs
of the audience.
5.
Describe potential limitations of the policy and strategies for
monitoring and compliance.6.
Communicate your ideas in a style suitable to academic
readers.7.
Project Requirements

To achieve a successful project experience and outcome, you
are expected to meet the following requirements.
Written communication: Written communication is free of
errors that detract from the overall message.
APA formatting: References and citations are formatted
according to current APA style and formatting
guidelines.
Number of resources: Minimum of four resources.
Length of paper: 2,500 words, or 10 typed, double-spaced
pages. Note that the final paper includes the
project components completed in Units 2 and 7, as well as final
content completed in Unit 10.
Font and Font Size: Arial, 10-point.
Course Project – BUS4801 - Apr 11 2016 to Jun 17 2016 - ...
https://courserooma.capella.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/lis
tContent....
1 of 5 6/12/2016 10:38 AM
Please see the individual assignments for the requirements of
each.
Project Grading Criteria
project_grading.html
Project Components
Project Component Course Grade Weight Unit Due
Company Issue Identification 10% 2
Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility
Policy
10% 7

Addressing an Ethical Issue 20% 10
Total: 40%
[u02a1] Unit 2 Assignment 1
Company Issue Identification
This is the first component of your course
project.
Identify an Ethical Issue
In the Unit 1 assignment, you were asked to
discuss your personal ethical views. In this
assignment, you should consider what a
company-wide ethical dilemma looks like.
You will first need to identify a current or
potential ethical dilemma at a real company.
This could be a company where you are now employed, your
former employer, a friend's company, or
another company with which you are familiar. The issue should
also be something that needs to be
addressed with an organizational policy inside the company. In
other words, you believe that a policy
change would be better than other courses of action (such as
disciplinary action toward an individual
employee, or external action by the government or a nonprofit).
You do not have to create a policy at
this time, but be prepared to explain why implementing a policy
would be the right choice. Note: The
issue you select for this assignment will be used in the Unit 7
assignment and your final project in Unit
10.
For example, a company may choose to videotape the office and
read employee e-mails. The conflict
here may be that employees feel these practices are a violation
of privacy and feel they have a right to
a certain level of the privacy. However, stakeholders defend
these practices because their concerns are

whether the employees are getting their work done.
Assignment Instructions
Identify the ethical issue. Using best practices for academic
writing, write an essay that covers all of the
following:
Explain why you chose this particular issue and why you
believe it is important.
Resources
Company Issue Identification Scoring Guide.
APA Style and Format.
Capella Online Writing Center.
Smarthinking.
tContent....
2 of 5 6/12/2016 10:38 AM
Describe other stakeholders for this ethical issue, and what
concerns they are likely to have.
Explain why you believe that an organizational policy is the
right way to resolve the issue.
Describe how this particular issue might be related to larger
problems that affect your community, the
country, or the world. Is the issue currently in the media
spotlight? Are there any recent incidents or
reasons why this issue has come to the public's attention?
Support your choices with cited concepts from reliable
professional sources.
Review the Company Issue Identification Scoring Guide to learn

how to understand the grading criteria
for this assignment.
Submission Requirements
Your paper should meet the following requirements:
guidelines.
Length of paper: 750–1,250 words, or 3–5 typed, double-spaced
pages.
Font and Font Size: Arial, 10 point.
Once complete, submit your paper in the assignment area.
Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Policy
This is the second component of your course
project. In this assignment, you will return to
the company-wide dilemma that you wrote
about in the Unit 2 assignment. Please note
that you will incorporate this paper into your
final project, due in Unit 10.
For this assignment, consider how a
company's social responsibility can affect the
workplace, stakeholders, clients, and other
outside parties.
In your paper, complete the following:
Explain in general terms how a company's social responsibility
policy can complement its obligation to
maximize profits for shareholders. Where might these goals
conflict?
Explain how you think the ethical issue itself might be affecting
employees, considering the specific

company dilemma you discussed in the Unit 2 assignment. How
about shareholders? Clients? Outside
parties?
State the approaches to ethical decision making (as discussed in
Chapter 2 of your text) you would
recommend for creating a policy to solve the issue. Explain.
Write an overview of a company policy that could be created,
based on this decision-making approach, to
address the ethical dilemma.
Explain the effects your policy might have on employees, if the
company actually used the policy you just
described. What would be the effects on shareholders? On
clients? On other outside parties? Please
consider both the potential positive and negative outcomes.
Review the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Policy
Scoring Guide to understand the grading
Resources
Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Policy
Scoring Guide.
Smarthinking.
tContent....
3 of 5 6/12/2016 10:38 AM
criteria for this assignment.

guidelines.
Length of paper: 750–1,500 words, or 3–6 typed, double-spaced
pages.
Addressing an Ethical Issue
For this final project, imagine that the CEO
has asked human resources department to
review the company's policies. You have been
personally asked to identify an issue you feel
needs addressing, to evaluate different
parameters for ethically deciding on how to
address the issue, and then to evaluate
various polices and propose a policy that the
company can implement to addresses the
chosen issue.
In your paper:
Describe an ethical dilemma and its importance and relevance.
Identify the various stakeholders and their positions.
Evaluate an ethical decision-making model, apply it to the
chosen issue, and analyze options for resolving
this ethical dilemma.
Recommend a corporate policy for resolving the issue and
support the recommendation with well-reasoned
analysis and specific examples, including the impact on various
stakeholders.
Analyze and recommend a strategy for communicating the

policy to the organization in a manner that
meets the needs of the audience.
Specify potential limitations of the policy and strategies for
monitoring and compliance.
As you can see, you have already accomplished many of these
points in the previous components of the
project (in Units 2 and 7). In this assignment, consolidate those
pieces and add additional information
to complete the evaluation and recommendation to the CEO.
Review the Addressing an Ethical Issue Scoring Guide to
understand the grading criteria for this
assignment.
guidelines.
Number of resources: Minimum of four resources.
Resources
Addressing an Ethical Issue Scoring Guide.
Smarthinking.
tContent....
4 of 5 6/12/2016 10:38 AM

Length of paper: About 2,500 words, or 10 typed, double-spaced
pages.
tContent....
5 of 5 6/12/2016 10:38 AM
Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project/A Personal Code of
Ethics_Transcript.pdf
L i c e n s e d u n d e r a C r e a t i v e C o m m o n s A t t r i
b u t i o n 3 . 0 L i c e n s e .
Transcript
http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/2015_BreezeConversions
/BUS48...
1 of 1 6/12/2016 10:32 AM
Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project/Addressing an Ethical Issue
Scoring Guide.pdf
Due Date: End of Unit 10.
Percentage of Course Grade: 20%.
Addressing an Ethical Issue Scoring Guide Grading Rubric

Criteria Non-performance Basic Proficient Distinguished
Evaluate the parameters of
ethical decision-making
models as they apply to the
recommended policy.
15%
Does not engage the topic of
how parameters of ethical
decision-making models apply
to the recommended policy.
Offers some generalizations
about parameters of ethical
decision making, but does not
sufficiently apply them to the
recommended policy.
Evaluates parameters of
ethical decision-making
models as they apply to the
recommended policy.
Evaluates parameters of ethical
decision-making models as they apply
to the recommended policy, with
careful attention to multiple
stakeholders.
Assess degree of social
responsibility in a corporate
policy.

15%
Does not assess the level of
social responsibility in a
corporate policy.
Offers some generalizations
about social responsibility, but
does not use social
responsibility to assess a
corporate policy.
Assesses degree of social
responsibility in a corporate
policy.
Impartially assesses the degree of
social responsibility in a corporate
policy.
Develop a corporate policy for
resolving ethical dilemmas.
15%
Does not engage the topic of
corporate policy for resolving
ethical dilemmas.
Describes a corporate policy,
but does not explain how it will
resolve the ethical dilemma.
Develops a corporate policy
for resolving ethical
dilemmas.

Develops a corporate policy for
resolving ethical dilemmas, and uses
professionally validated criteria to
evaluate the possible benefits.
Support recommendations
with well-reasoned analysis
and specific examples.
15%
Does not support
recommendations with
analysis or examples.
Offers some examples in
connection to corporate policy
recommendation, but does not
indicate how these examples
support the policy.
Supports recommendations
with well-reasoned analysis
and specific examples.
Supports recommendations with
well-reasoned analysis and specific
examples, and also acknowledges
areas of uncertainty or knowledge
gaps that may affect results.
Recommend a strategy for
communicating the policy to
the organization in a manner

that meets the needs of the
audience.
15%
Does not offer a strategy for
the organization.
Offers a strategy for
the organization, but does not
explain why this will meet the
needs of that audience.
Recommends a strategy for
the organization in a manner
that meets the needs of the
audience.
Recommends a strategy for
communicating the policy to the
organization in a manner that meets
the needs of the audience, and
supports this with references to
professionally validated sources.
Describe potential limitations
of the policy and strategies for
15%
Does not describe potential
limitations of a policy or

strategies for monitoring and
compliance.
Describes potential limitations
of the policy, but does not offer
strategies for monitoring and
compliance.
Describes potential limitations
of a policy and strategies for
Describes potential limitations of a
policy and strategies for monitoring
and compliance, with careful attention
to how various stakeholders might
respond differently.
Communicate the ideas in a
style suitable to academic
readers.
10%
Communicates in a manner
that is not clear, concise,
well-organized, or
grammatically correct.
Communicates in a manner that
is not consistently clear,
concise, well-organized, and
grammatically correct.
Communicates the ideas in a
style suitable to academic

readers.
Communicates in an exemplary and
professional manner through clear,
concise, well-organized, and
grammatically correct writing, and
there are no style or formatting errors.
Print
Addressing an Ethical Issue Scoring Guide
Addressing an Ethical Issue Scoring Guide
https://courserooma.capella.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/BUS/B
US4801/...
1 of 1 6/12/2016 10:35 AM
Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project/BUSINESS_ETHICS.pdf
Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law
Issue 6/2014
139
BUSINESS ETHICS
Nelu BURCEA
“Athenaeum” University of Bucharest, Romania

[email protected]
Ion CROITORU
“Athenaeum” University of Bucharest, Romania
[email protected]
Abstract: Through this study we seek to explore the concept of
business ethics, in those aspects that we consider to
be essential and concrete. We started from a few questions:
Could the two concepts be compatible? If not, why not?
If yes, could they be complementary? How real is the use of
ethics in the profits of a business? How can be business
ethics be exemplified and what principles are essential in doing
business? How does the business environment react
to the concept? These are some of the elements that will form
the basis of this scientific study. Lately, business ethics
has been becoming an increasingly popular topic. Set against
the global economic crisis, the companies’ credibility
could become a major concern. Business ethics also becomes a
challenge for training and informing employees and
employers, in order to make not only economical, but also
ethical decisions regarding their profits. In the study we
shall also address the ethical standards required in a business
world interested in fundamental values that can make

the difference in 21
st
century business. Also, according to a study conducted by the
authors, we shall address the two
most important ethical values that prove to be essential to a
business.
Keywords: Ethics, morality, fundamental human values,
business, management, religion, loyalty, integrity.
1. BUSINESS, MORALITY AND THE INFLUENCE OF
RELIGION. DEFINITIONS
AND DELIMITATIONS
According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Humanities
(Enciclopedia de filosofie
si stiinte umane, 2004), the religious influence also contributes
to the development or limitation
of morality. Thus we have the “Buddhist morality”, defined as
the doctrine or the precepts on
good coming from the teachings of Buddha. Another approach
to morality is the “Confucian
morality”, representing “all ethical doctrines contained in
Confucius’ thought”. Another
perspective on morality is represented by the “Islamic

morality”, rooted in “the tradition derived
from the Qur’an and the tradition of Prophet Muhammad, which
formed the basis of the Islamic
civilization and was submitted to systematizations and critical
reflections in the medieval Arabic
philosophy.” The last discussed approach is the “Hebrew and
Christian morality”. It is “the
moral thinking related to the Hebrew and Christian religious
tradition, based on divine
revelation, and whose main object is salvation and the covenant
between God and His people,
and only then it contains moral prescriptions” (Craciun, 2005).
Through its influence, religion may limit or delineate morality.
In this way we can talk
about business ethical particularities in Christian countries and
specific behaviours in non-
Christian countries. Thus religion could at the most delineate
the moral profile of the individual
in a Christian or non-Christian country.
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]

Issue 6/2014
140
2. BUSINESS ETHICS. MORAL STANDARDS
On the other hand, ethics is the subject that examines the
personal moral standards of the
society (Velasquez, 2006). It answers the question on how these
standards can be applied in life
(Cheney, 2010). But what are these moral standards? According
to Manuel G. Velasquez, moral
standards are standards that deal with issues that have serious
consequences, consequences that
could be associated with feelings of shame and fear. Behind
these standards stands a good
reason, they are not based on authority, and they are not
reduced to a level of self-interest, nor
can they be accused of partiality (Cheney, 2010). This
definition is quite board and it creates
multiple options for making an accurate assessment of the idea
of standards. But involving the
feelings of “shame” and “fear” can bring into discussion
relativizing the terminology if one starts
from the multitude of applications. In other words, what causes

shame in an Eastern society
could be values in a European society and vice versa. Culture
(Dawson, 2010) is the engine that
creates particular values for each region. This, however, should
not lead to uniformity. I think,
however, that these possible confusions create the interest in
discovering different aspects of the
importance of diversity, which could otherwise remain
undiscovered. Far from diminishing the
importance of principles, this diversity provides value and
develops implementation strategies in
varied conditions.
In Ronald R. Sims conception on ethics (Sims, 2002), we should
clearly define the areas
of fundamental human values such as privacy violation, lying,
deception, sexual harassment,
unequal distribution of resources, threats, authoritarianism,
favouritism, conflict of interests, etc..
Defining all these areas brings to the attention of our study
values worth being discussed in an
economic and managerial context.
3. EVALUATION OF THE BUSINESS ETHICS STUDY

Before beginning an evaluation of the study, I would like to
mention several things about
it
1
. First, the study assessed the knowledge on the topic in general.
Then, the interest focused on
the way the Romanian manager reports to current ethics trends.
The study also sought to
determine whether a code of professional ethics exists, and to
stimulate the creation of such a
code that would regulate ethics in the company. Another goal of
the study was assessing the
manager’s opinion on the importance of ethics and morality in
two institutions, the university
and the church. The first one, given its involvement in this topic
through scientific research, and
the second one is designated by managers to be the promoter of
morality. One can notice
inconsistencies in understanding certain questions and topics. I
think this is due either to the
manager’s tendency of compressing the time for answers, either
to the relatively small space for
answers or to a lack of a deep understanding of the topic. It is a
fact that manager’s availability

for answers represents a current trend of focusing on ethics and
other social issues, other than
profit. Based on the answers given by the interviewed Romanian
managers, the illustrated
situation is quite positive. The answers seem quite objective,
and the issues in question seem
familiar. In Figure 1 we can observe Romanian managers’ trend
of ethical thinking.
1
The study was conducted by the author in 2010 on a sample of
45 Romanian managers
Issue 6/2014
141
0
10
20
30
40

50
44
6 5 3
37
1 1
ETHICAL VALUES
Num ber of respondents
Graphic 1
Looking at Graphic 1, we can get an overview of how managers
who participated in the
study see moral and ethical values. Clearly, we can distinguish
several fundamental moral
values, but two of them are mentioned by almost all the
respondents. The first one is shaped
around the expression honesty and, in few examples, fairness.
These two can be included in one
moral value, integrity. In the study, this is the most valued
moral value. The second moral and
ethical quality valued in the study is respect. It is presented as
respect towards employees and
respect towards collaborators and clients. This value becomes

important through the concern for
others, in order to create a social balance.
4. TWO FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN VALUES, IMPORTANT IN
DEVELOPING
BUSINESS ETHICS
4. 1. Business loyalty
A topic that could be considered important in the broad concept
of business ethics is
employee’s loyalty to the company. In a study conducted by
Mathew A. Foust and presented in
his book Loyalty to Loyalty: Josiah Royce and the Genuine
Moral Life, he debates the issue of
employees’ loyalty towards the philosophy of the company
where he works and towards their
employer. Two dilemmas are brought into the picture. The first
one is related to the ethical
perspective of the duty that the employees should have towards
the one who pays them and the
values of the company. The question at issue is related to the
limits of this loyalty. Another
dilemma is related to a requirement from the employer that can

be considered extremist or
illegal. As an extreme example, the author gives the case of the
US in September 11, 2001. The
two dilemmas are brought into picture in order to delineate the
need or the lack of need for
loyalty. Beyond these discussions, loyalty remains an important
element in running a business
and particular matters should be resolved separately. Our
conclusion is that loyalty becomes
essential in the business process and the employee must be loyal
to the company, except for
extreme situations, which are illegal or can be considered
unethical. The respect should also be
Issue 6/2014
142
mutual (Mattone, 2013), both from the employee and from the
employer. This way, employee’s
loyalty increases.
4. 2. Integrity

Another important element of business ethics is integrity.
According to the study
represented in Graphic 1, the interviewed managers considered
honesty to be an indispensable
value in business. In running a business, the primary phase of
evaluating it through classical
assessment methods like “good” or “bad” is long outdated. This
assessment method is simply a
“reactive” one, usable in a given situation. But there is a need
for a type of business
development that brings into picture the proactivity of the
manager or employee, becoming a
promoter of ethical values, not only a skilful character who
manages to figure things out without
being caught or without being accused of an illegal or immoral
crime.
Integrity is what reflects the individual’s concern for honour,
for moral values. In this
context, integrity becomes the opposite of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy
represents a false attitude in
interpersonal relations, the individual seeking to grab attention,
favours, etc. (Enachescu, 2005).
In the moral dimension of the individual, integrity represents

transparency, authenticity.
One could ask what motivates an individual in having integrity.
The danger of being
caught and punished for doing something wrong? The concern
for one’s image if the media
discovers the corruption case? What would his children or
grandchildren think about that
individual who lacks integrity? (Kennedy, 2005). Moral
integrity, as a fundamental value of
business ethics, is not about external motivation like fear of
punishment or tarnishing one’s
image in the society and family. Integrity is an intrinsic value, a
value that the individual does
not develop because of an outer primitive element, but because
of a culture of inner morality. It
is something like “I do this because I cannot do otherwise”,
because it's all about a personal set
of values, about education and accountability.
CONCLUSIONS
Business ethics, undeniably a current field, distinguishes itself
through its importance in
the beginning of the 21st century, after it started building its

academic way in the capitalist
countries. Ethics also materializes its importance for business
through the study conducted with
the participation of 45 managers. The most important ethical
issues highlighted by the answers to
the survey were: honesty, respect, fairness, transparency,
dignity, etc. The interest of the
Romanian managers in business ethics is reinforced by the
positive response regarding the
existence of an ethical code required for a proper management
of business relationships. The
profile of a businessman becomes positive, in the context on an
increasingly greater interest in
ethics and in accepting a goal that should have been considered
imperative and urgent from a
long time ago.
The two moral values discussed in this article are important in
the context of an important
business development endeavour and of creating a credible
economy. The two elements are also
important because the first one applies particularly to
employees, while the second one, integrity,
applies particularly to employers. The presentation and
development of the two values come to

balance the development of the managerial vision on business
ethics. I believe that the
Issue 6/2014
143
implementation of ethics can have a much boarder dynamic if
the politicians would place greater
emphasis on promoting ethical values, from personal example to
major decisions taken in an
institutional setting.
In conclusion, business ethics remains on an upward trend in
Romania and in
international business due to the influence of external factors
such as competitive political and
business environments in other countries, but also due to
internal competition and consumers, to
the general public, who becomes increasingly informed in the
field of business ethics. The
ethical need is required in order to create an external ethical
image, and to have a functional and

credible business environment. The development of business
ethics as an intrinsic value remains
a perspective worth imitating and developing.
References
[1] Cheney, G., Lair, D.J., Ritz D., Kendall, B.E. (2010). Just a
Job? Communication, Ethics, and Professional Life.
New York: Oxford University Press. p. 54.
[2] Costa, J.D., (1998). The Ethical Imperative: Why Moral
Leadership Is Good Business, Reading, MA: Perseus
Publishing. p. 37.
[3] Crăciun, D., (2005). Etica în afaceri: o scurtă introducere.
Bucureşti: Editura ASE, pag. 27
[4]Dawson, C.S., (2010). Leading Culture Change: What Every
CEO Needs to Know, Stanford, CA: Stanford
Business Books. p. 3.
[5] Enăchescu, C., (2005). Tratat de psihologie morală.
București: Editura Thehnică. pag.67.
[6] Enciclopedia de filosofie și ştiinţe umane, (2004).
Bucureşti: Editura All Educational, pag. 710-714.
[7] Kennedy-Glans, D., Schulz, B., (2005). Corporate integrity:
a toolkit for managing beyond compliance. Ontario:

John Wiley&Sons Canada LTD.
[8] Mattone, J., (2013). Powerful Performance Management.
New York: American Management Association. p. 34.
[9] Sims, R.R., (2002). Teaching Business Ethics for Effective
Learning, p. 124.
[10] Velasquez, G.M., (2006). Business Ethics – Concepts and
Cases, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc., p. 8.
Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project/Discussion Participation Scoring
Guide.pdf
Due Date: Weekly.
Percentage of Course Grade: 40%.
Discussion Participation Grading Rubric
Criteria Non-performance Basic Proficient Distinguished
Applies relevant course
concepts, theories, or materials
correctly.
Does not explain relevant course
concepts, theories, or materials.

Explains relevant course
concepts, theories, or materials.
Applies relevant course
concepts, theories, or materials
correctly.
Analyzes course concepts, theories, or
materials correctly, using examples or
supporting evidence.
Collaborates with fellow
learners, relating the
discussion to relevant course
concepts.
Does not collaborate with fellow
learners.
Collaborates with fellow learners
without relating discussion to the
relevant course concepts.
Collaborates with fellow
learners, relating the discussion
to relevant course concepts.
Collaborates with fellow learners,
relating the discussion to relevant
course concepts and extending the
dialogue.
Applies relevant professional,
personal, or other real-world

experiences.
Does not contribute professional,
experiences.
Contributes professional,
experiences, but lacks relevance.
Applies relevant professional,
experiences.
Applies relevant professional, personal,
or other real-world experiences to
extend the dialogue.
Participation Guidelines
Actively participate in discussions. To do this you should create
a substantive post for each of the discussion
topics. Each post should demonstrate your achievement of the
participation criteria. In addition, you should also
respond to the posts of at least two of your fellow learners for
each discussion question-unless the discussion
instructions state otherwise. These responses to other learners
should also be substantive posts that contribute to
the conversation by asking questions, respectfully debating
positions, and presenting supporting information
relevant to the topic. Also, respond to any follow-up questions
the instructor directs to you in the discussion
area.
To allow other learners time to respond, you are encouraged to
post your initial responses in the discussion area

by midweek. Comment to other learners' posts are due by
Sunday at 11:59 p.m. (Central time zone).
Print
Discussion Participation Scoring Guide
Discussion Participation Scoring Guide
https://courserooma.capella.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/BUS/B
US4801/...
1 of 1 6/12/2016 10:37 AM
Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project/ebook_login_access.docx
The below information will provide access to the ebook The
leadership challenge for course Bus 3012
BookShelf – Vital Source
Website https://www.vitalsource.com/
Website Signin https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/user/signin
Login ID [email protected]
PW CPU_2016_
Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project/Ethical Outcomes and Business
Ethics Toward Improving.pdf
Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics: Toward Improving
Business Ethics Education
Larry A. Floyd • Feng Xu • Ryan Atkins •
Cam Caldwell

Received: 25 May 2012 / Accepted: 5 April 2013 / Published
online: 7 May 2013
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Unethical conduct has reached crisis propor-
tions in business (Walker et al., Wall Str J East Edn,
258(37):A1–A10, 2011) and on today’s college campuses
(Burke et al., CPA J, 77(5):58–65, 2007). Despite the
evidence that suggests that more than half of business
students admit to dishonest practices (McCabe et al. 2006),
only about 5 % of business school deans surveyed believe
that dishonesty is a problem at their schools (Brown et al.,
Coll Stud J A, 44(2):299–308, 2010). In addition, the
AACSB which establishes standards for accredited busi-
ness schools has resisted the urging of deans and business
experts to require business schools to teach an ethics class,
and fewer than one-third of businesses schools now teach a
business ethics course at the graduate or undergraduate
levels (Swanson and Fisher, Advancing Business Ethics
Education, 2008). In this paper we briefly introduce the

status of business ethics education and report the results of
a survey of business students, deans of the top business
schools, and business ethics subject matter experts about
ten ethical outcomes. We then offer five specific
recommendations to encourage business ethics faculty and
decision makers to improve the teaching of business ethics.
Keywords Ethical outcome � Business ethics �
Improving business ethics educations �
Status of business ethics education
The reputation of business has been besmirched with a
continuous parade of financial scandals which have had
widespread economic repercussions (Friedman 2009),
created a worldwide recession (Reich 2011), and rocked
the world’s economic foundations (Lowenstein 2011). As a
result of a long parade of ethical misconduct, business is
now perceived by the public as both ‘‘a scourge’’ and as
‘‘ethically challenged’’ (Warnell 2011, p. 320). Cavanagh
(2009, p. 20) has noted that the leaders responsible for
these scandals ‘‘are graduates of our ‘‘best’’ business pro-

grams,’’ and has suggested that many of today’s most
highly regarded business schools have ‘‘failed to convey
ethics, social responsibility, and good moral habits to their
graduates.’’ In a society labeled ‘‘the cheating culture’’
(Callahan 2004), American business leaders have not only
lost the trust of their employees (Maritz 2010) but have
created a ‘‘global crisis of confidence’’ in society at large
(Walker et al. 2011, p. A1). An increasing number of
management scholars advocate that the accrediting bodies,
professional organizations, business schools, and faculties
who teach management courses need to rethink how
business ethics can be taught to influence future business
leaders but suggest that the prospects for meaningful
change with regard to business ethics education appear to
be unlikely (Swanson and Fisher 2008, 2011).
Although there are outstanding examples of universities
(Datar et al. 2010; Weber et al. 2008; Piper et al. 1993) and
L. A. Floyd (&)

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
F. Xu
Georgia South Western University, Americus, GA, USA
R. Atkins
University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
C. Caldwell
St. Thomas University, Miami Gardens, FL, USA
123
J Bus Ethics (2013) 117:753–776
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1717-z
academic scholars (Sims and Sauser 2011; Giacalone and
Thompson 2006; Koehn 2005) that have worked hard to
increase the effectiveness of business ethics education, it is
nonetheless true that some business schools focus their
classroom teaching on emphasizing ‘‘the short-term share

price… while neglecting research, development, the repu-
tation of the firm and the future of the business and the
community’’ (Cavanagh 2009, p. 20). Though business
ethics scholars have lobbied heavily to upgrade the quality
of business ethics education for many years (Evans and
Robertson 2003; Hosmer 1985, 1988), others have sug-
gested that little has yet been done to change the typical
business school’s approach to teaching business ethics
(Evans and Weiss 2008). Felton and Sims (2005, p. 378)
noted that, business schools periodically ‘‘find themselves
on the defensive as to why they are not doing more’’ and
scramble ‘‘to develop a response’’ to improving business
ethics education. Indicators suggest that historically inef-
fective models will continue to be used to teach business
ethics, despite the apparent failure of business schools to
have a positive impact on the behavior of business leaders
(Swanson and Fisher 2008). The purpose of this paper is to
examine the role of today’s business school in teaching its
students about ethical values and social responsibility and

to identify how business students, deans of the top US
business schools, and subject matter experts in business
ethics view the importance of ethical priorities within both
the business school and the broader business context.
We begin this paper by summarizing the current status of
business ethics education, briefly describing the most com-
mon approach of business schools in teaching students about
social responsibility, moral conduct, and students’ obliga-
tions as future leaders. We also summarize the current
position of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB), the Academy of Management, and
many business schools with regard to their focus on business
ethics education. We identify the importance of ten ethically
related outcomes associated with both the business school
environment and society at large which we have incorpo-
rated into a survey of business students, business school
deans, and business ethics subject matter experts. After
summarizing the process used to gather data from these three

groups about these ethically related outcomes, we identify
how each of these groups rates the relative importance of
these ten outcomes. Integrating our findings from this survey
with the research of other scholars, we then offer five rec-
ommendations for the academic community of business
school administrators, the AACSB and the Academy of
Management, and business school faculty members as they
consider how they might improve the teaching of business
ethics to tomorrow’s business leaders. We conclude our
paper by identifying three contributions of this paper and
suggest opportunities for related business ethics research.
Status of Business Ethics Education
In their examination of the status of business ethics edu-
cation, Swanson and Fisher (2008, p. 1) have opined that it
is ‘‘the common practice in business schools of marginal-
izing ethics by scattering ethics topics superficially and
incoherently across the curriculum.’’ Noting that less than
one-third of all accredited business schools offer a stand-

along course in business ethics to graduate or undergrad-
uate students, Swanson and Fisher (2008) argue for an
extensive revitalization of the teaching of business students
about proper ethical conduct. Other scholars (Sims 2002;
McCabe et al. 2006; Trevino and Nelson 2010) and busi-
ness leaders (Krehmeyer 2007) agree that current thinking
about ethics education needs an immediate upgrade and
have suggested ways to make teaching business ethics
more effective.
AACSB International, the most highly regarded busi-
ness school academic rating body in the world, currently
does not require business schools to offer a stand-alone
business ethics class as part of their curriculum (Swanson
and Fisher 2008), and has resisted efforts on the part of
business ethics subject matter experts, faculty, and deans to
upgrade business ethics education. Swanson and Fisher
(2008, p. 5) reported that the AACSB had initially pro-
posed that business schools offer a required course in

business ethics but diluted its requirements and ‘‘adopted
more flexible, mission-driven standards’’ that ‘‘allowed
stand-alone coursework to be dismantled in favor of flex-
ibility in distributing ethics across the curriculum.’’ The
AACSB’s (2012: Standard 15) current language asks
business schools to incorporate ‘‘(e)thical understanding
and reasoning ability’’ into their curriculum to include
‘‘(e)thical and legal responsibilities in organizations and
society.’’ Although the AACSB (2012a, b: Ethics/Sus-
tainability Resource Center) endorses creating ‘‘codes of
conduct, values statements, honor codes, procedures for
handling allegations of misconduct, and other mecha-
nisms’’ to sustain a supportive culture for ethical behavior,
the AACSB (2012a, b: Ethics/Sustainability Resource
Center) standards specifically avoid ‘‘particular courses or
treatments.’’ Instead, the language of the AACSB (2012a,
b: Ethics/Sustainability Resource Center) states that
‘‘schools should assume great flexibility in fashioning

curricula to meet their missions and to fit with the specific
circumstances of particular programs,’’ and each school is
free to determine how to best integrate teaching business
ethics to ‘‘meet the needs of the mission of the school and
the learning goals for each degree program.’’
AACSB’s action to reduce the requirements for at least
one ethics course as a condition for accreditation was taken
despite ‘‘petitions from hundreds of professors and prac-
ticing managers as well as two associations—the
754 L. A. Floyd et al.
123
Washington, DC-based Ethics Resource Officers and the
Social Issues in Management Division’’ of the Academy of
Management (Swanson and Fisher 2008, p. 6). Several
scholars (Klein 1998; Swanson and Frederick 2005; Mitr-
off and Swanson 2004) suggest that this downgrading of
ethics education requirements was crafted by deans as a

politically expedient means to ‘‘wiggle out of recurring
curriculum battles at their own schools’’ (Swanson and
Fisher 2008, p. 6). As reported in a survey conducted by
Evans and Weiss (2008) business school deans have also
opined that more emphasis should be placed on business
ethics education and that increasing the awareness of stu-
dents about ethical awareness would raise the ethical level
of business practice. Evans and Weiss (2008, p. 51)
reported that ‘‘(m)ore than 80 % of the CEOs, deans, and
faculty (surveyed) agree that more emphasis should be
placed on ethics education, with 1 % or less disagreeing.’’
Similarly, in responding to survey statements about the
impact of expanding business ethics education ‘‘(b)etween
73 and 81 % of the respondents (of CEOs, deans, and
faculty) agree to some extent with the statement ‘‘A con-
certed effort by business schools to improve the ethical
awareness of students eventually will raise the ethical level
of actual business practice’’ (Evans and Weiss 2008, p. 51).

As Vidaver-Cohen (2004, p. 213) clearly noted, business
school deans ‘‘must take the lead’’ if business schools are
to create a healthy moral climate for teaching business
ethics.
At the heart of the business ethics debate, however, is
the question ‘‘What is the most effective way to teach
business students about ethical behavior and moral deci-
sion-making?’’ Many business ethics experts have
emphasized that effectively teaching business ethics
requires that business schools develop a fully integrated
approach that involves a carefully developed stand-alone
business ethics class (Swanson and Fisher 2008), coupled
with extensive integration of ethics cases (Piper et al.
1993), service learning (Weber et al. 2008; Vega 2007),
and developing skills associated with resolving ethical
dilemmas (Trevino and Nelson 2010). Critics of an ‘‘ethics
across the curriculum’’ approach suggest that ethical issues
are often complex and that business faculty are often

unprepared to teach the nuances of ethical choices in their
disciplines (Swanson and Fisher 2008). Of the deans who
were surveyed about the qualifications of business faculty
to teach business ethics 46 % indicated that at the under-
graduate level there is a shortage of faculty expertise, with
44 % of the deans indicating that faculty lacked adequate
expertise at the graduate level (Evans and Weiss 2008,
p. 47).
In addition, business school faculty have been described
as frequently being resistant to adding a required course in
business ethics to their curriculum (Windsor 2002;
Swanson and Fisher 2011), and some business schools have
actually reduced or eliminated required business ethics
courses. However, many business ethics scholars strongly
oppose the AACSB standard that business ethics can be
integrated effectively across a curriculum without the
existence of a foundation course in business ethics. As Ray
Hilgert, an Emeritus Professor of Management and Indus-

trial Relations at the prestigious Washington University
School of Business wryly observed about the effectiveness
of the AACSB standard allowing the teaching of business
ethics piecemeal across a business school’s curriculum, ‘‘If
you believe it’s integrated in all the courses, then I’m
willing to offer you the Brooklyn Bridge’’ (Nicklaus 2002,
p. C10). It is our position in this paper that the many
scholars who have supported Hilgert’s position in calling
for requiring a stand-alone business class are correct,
although it is not the purpose of this paper to focus on that
argument. We do, however, believe that the evidence
against the current practice of teaching business ethics
across-the-curriculum is compelling and support the pre-
mise that business schools and those who make decisions
about them have a moral obligation to improve the teach-
ing of business ethics.
The argument frequently framed in opposition to
requiring a course in business ethics is whether ethical

behavior can be taught (cf. Ryan and Bisson 2011; Piper
et al. 1993). Ethics, many scholars believe, incorporates an
intrinsic set of values that are unlikely to change and that
make up a person’s basic identity or sense of self (Swanson
and Dahler-Larsen 2008; Albert et al. 2000; Caldwell
2009). At the same time, critics of current business edu-
cation practices strongly advocate the importance of re-
framing the traditional rational/analytical models that focus
MBA and undergraduate business students on becoming
analysts rather than managers (Mintzberg 2004), and for
many years business scholars have advocated an increased
emphasis on teaching business practitioners and business
students the underlying values factors of decision making
(Carroll 1977).
Other organizations of management scholars have a
mixed commitment to advocating changes in the teaching
of business ethics. The Academy of Management, the
scholarly organization of university business faculty who

teach business ethics or to incorporate ethics across the
curriculum within their classrooms, has an ‘‘Ethics Edu-
cation Committee.’’ Although the mission for that com-
mittee includes increasing commitment to ethical conduct,
raising awareness about ethical issues, responding to
questions and concerns about ethical standards, and
embedding the practice of professional ethics within the
culture of the Academy (Schminke 2011), over the past
several years the committee has focused almost entirely on
clarifying rules for academic publications and has not
Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 755
123
addressed its broader mission (Madsen 2011; Davis 2011;
Schminke 2009).
Swanson and Fisher (2008, 2011) have articulated the
concerns of many scholars about what ought to be done to
improve the ability of business schools to increase student

awareness of ethical issues and expand the focus of busi-
ness schools on positively influencing ethical conduct in
today’s complex world. The purpose of the survey asso-
ciated with this paper was to build upon the work of
business ethics scholars to obtain additional insights from
students, business school deans, and subject matter experts
about the importance of ethical outcomes within business
schools and in society. Both the business school context
and society at large were chosen as the topic of this survey
because many scholars have identified the importance of
both contexts (Datar et al. 2010; Trevino and Nelson 2010;
Karri et al. 2005), and scholarly organizations such as the
Academy of Management and the AACSB have recognized
that both contexts are vital for the effective teaching of
business ethics (Caldwell 2010; Swanson and Fisher 2011).
Description of Survey Outcomes
The purpose of this section of the paper is to provide a
scholarly basis for the ten ethical outcomes contained in the

survey. The outcomes included in this survey were devel-
oped after discussions with several highly regarded ethics
education scholars as well as a group of management
practitioners. The survey was then pretested with subject
matter experts and a group of university business students
to obtain feedback about the wording of outcomes and that
feedback was incorporated into the final list. The list of
outcomes was reviewed by those scholars, practitioners,
and students both before and after the survey was admin-
istered and the data was collected. Although the ten out-
comes contain some overlap in related content, all of the
scholars, practitioners, and students concurred that these
ethical outcomes were important factors at business
schools and in society at large. We acknowledge that these
ten ethical outcomes contain some redundancy across
factors, but note that this overlap was necessary to some
degree in order to identify the importance of each ethical
outcome category. The ten ethical outcomes are founda-

tions of decision making, clarifying rules for academic
publication, motivating others to understand values,
examining the pressures of the current business environ-
ment, identifying consequences of unethical behavior,
establishing a culture that reinforces integrity, creating
better monitoring systems, identifying the benefits of vir-
tuous conduct, fostering dialogue about ethics and values,
and increasing communication between academics and
practitioners. The survey asked respondents to identify the
importance of these ten ethically related outcomes both
within business schools and in society. The context of the
business school has a significant impact on the message
communicated to business students about the importance of
ethical conduct in their future careers (McCabe et al. 2002).
Creating a culture that reinforces the importance of ethical
conduct is widely acknowledged as important for preparing
business students to understand their ethical and moral
responsibilities as future business leaders (Trevino and

Nelson 2010; Swanson and Fisher 2011; Caldwell 2010), to
develop a moral imagination that enables students to be
aware of the consequences of moral dilemmas (Badaracco
1997), and to have the moral courage to make right choices
(Comer and Vega 2005). Each of the ten survey items is
reviewed below.
Foundations of Decision Making
Providing business students with information about theo-
ries and concepts of ethical decision making is widely
acknowledged to be a critical factor in teaching business
students to understand the moral and ethical duties that
businesses owe to stakeholders (Carroll and Buchholtz
2012). Although decision making is often thought to be a
product of ‘‘careful and deliberate cognition’’ (Martin and
Parmar 2012, p. 289), rational choice models are an
important, but incomplete part of ethical decision making.
Understanding key ethical concepts and their normative
and instrumental foundations is a key element of business

ethics education and enables students to recognize the
differing ethical perspectives and their impacts on decision
outcomes (Brady 1999; Hosmer 1995). Unfortunately,
Ghoshal (2003, p. 4) condemned the amoral ‘‘brutishness’’
of business ethics education—arguing that a failure to
provide a solid foundation for decision making led to such
moral disasters as the Enron debacle.
Dean Krehmeyer (2007, p. 4), Executive Director of
Business Roundtable, has criticized many business schools
for ‘‘not doing enough to build ethics into their curricula’’
and advocated that business schools provide this training
through ‘‘both a stand-alone course and the integration of
ethics into the other core disciplines.’’ The disadvantage of
attempting to teach business ethics across the curriculum
without a stand-alone ethics course is that there are a
multitude of ethical models that call for conflicting ethical
outcomes, and ethical decision making is dependent upon
understanding the principles and assumptions associated

with each of those models (Hosmer 1994, 1995, 2010;
Brady 1999).
Providing guidelines about ethical decision-making
theories, values, and concepts also has immense practical
value for practitioners and provides a touchstone for
guiding business decisions (Fulmer 2001). Collins and
123
Porras (2004, Chap. 3) emphasized that the core values of
businesses were critical factors that guided the most suc-
cessful businesses in their study of highly effective busi-
nesses. Covey (1992, 2003, 2004) has repeatedly
emphasized the fundamental importance of businesses
being value-based and principle-centered. McLean and
Elkind (2003) noted that it was this failure to put values
above profits that was at the core of Enron’s tragic demise.
Paine (2003) has emphasized that the ability to integrate

ethical organizational values with financial objectives was
a key priority to achieve superior results for the modern
organization.
Clarifying Rules for Academic Publications
The importance of meeting best practice for publishing
academic articles has an impact on the credibility of
scholars and academic institutions and the standards for
publishing business articles are set forth in the Academy of
Management’s Code of Ethics (Schminke 2009). Research
misconduct in academia is a ‘‘mounting concern within our
discipline’’ according to Bedeian et al. (2010, p. 716).
Bedeian et al. (2010, p. 716) reported that in a recent study
of 384 management scholars, nearly 80 % reported per-
sonal knowledge of the fabrication, falsification, or pla-
giarism of academic research and more than 90 % reported
cases of questionable research practices by their col-
leagues. Taylor and Stanton (2009, p. 94) have suggested
that the AACSB standards for becoming ‘‘academically

qualified’’ have resulted in ‘‘publishing for the sake of
publishing,’’ rather than for the more legitimate purpose of
creating and disseminating new knowledge.
Establishing standards for academic publication and
adhering to those standards is essential in ‘‘maintaining
public confidence and guarding the authority and auton-
omy’’ that academia enjoys in both the business world and
society (Bedeian et al. 2010, p. 723). Pfeffer and Sutton
(1999) have been strongly critical of the ‘‘knowing-doing’’
gap that exists between academia and the business world.
The need to bridge that gap by enhancing the credibility of
business research is important to both the business world
and academic institutions (Hughes et al. 2008). Lewis et al.
(2011) have documented that academic impropriety and the
incidence of plagiarism have severely impacted the integ-
rity of academic research and have become increasingly
common since 2000. Li (2010) found that one British
publisher found that 23 % of articles submitted to that

journal had been plagiarized. These findings suggest that
the ‘‘publish or perish’’ pressure that is placed on academic
scholars (Linton et al. 2011; Miller and Bedeian 2010) has
resulted in immoral behavior by some scholars that ulti-
mately will discredit academic institutions in the public eye
and among practitioners (Bedeian et al. 2010).
Motivating Others to Understand Values
Motivating others to understand their own value systems
was identified by Fink (2003) as an important element in
the academic learning process, and is widely acknowledged
to be critical to how one views ethical priorities (Badaracco
1997). Individual decision making is fundamentally tied to
one’s normative values and integrates rational and sub-
jective factors in arriving at decisions (Fishbein and Ajzen
1975; Goodchild 1986). In improving the effectiveness of
understanding values associated with business decision
making, Ravenscroft and Dillard (2008, pp. 183–186)
noted the importance of ‘‘moral imagining’’ which incor-

porates (1) prototypes or models, (2) the way in which
moral issues are framed, (3) the use of metaphors in
describing an ethical issue, and (4) the narrative or story
used to examine and construct an ethical context. Their
assessment clarified the importance of recognizing the
context of individual values and how one views the world
as key factors in determining moral duties (Ravenscroft
and Dillard 2008). Similarly, Swanson and Dahler-Larsen
(2008) identified the importance of understanding one’s
sense of self, one’s self-interests and biases, and one’s
relationships with others as key elements to achieving self-
awareness about decision making.
Although the articulation of organizational values is
acknowledged to be an important element in creating high
trust cultures and high performance work systems (Pfeffer
1998), the more common business focus is on economic
theories and rational decision models rather than on the
underlying values of business (Pfeffer 2005). Increasingly,

empirical evidence has identified the importance of high
involvement work practices and a focus on organizational
values as key elements to increasing business performance
(Huselid 1995; Cameron 2003; Ulrich et al. 2001; O’Neill
et al. 2011). Both academics and practitioners are recog-
nizing the importance of understanding the values of
individuals and the entire organization in making key
leadership decisions that affect organization success
(Caldwell et al. 2011).
Examining the Pressures of the Current Business
Environment
Examining the pressures of the current business environ-
ment that influence ethical decisions is important to busi-
ness schools in understanding the context of ethical
decision making (Carroll and Buchholtz 2012). Gioia
(1992) noted that the context of the business environment
and the ‘‘scripts’’ of an existing organizational culture have
a profound socialization effect on organization members.

He advocated the importance of focusing on those scripts
as part of the process of developing effective ethical
123
models (Gioia 1992). Trevino and Nelson (2010) were
strong advocates of using schemas, scripts, and decision-
making models within a business school context. Caldwell
(2010) emphasized the importance of not only incorporat-
ing an understanding of socialization pressures to teach
business ethics but recommended focusing on the under-
lying normative values and assumptions that make up the
business school environment which ultimately determine
its ethical standards.
The pressures that affect today’s business environment
have grown increasingly complex in a world that has been
besieged with increased competitiveness, pressures to
achieve short-term results, expanded global competitive-

ness, and a worldwide economic downturn (Friedman
2009). Today’s rational business model, based largely on
the pursuit of short-term economic returns, has created
financial havoc for much of the business world as it has
pursued paper entrepreneurism rather than the creation of
real added value (Lowenstein 2011; Reich 2011). The
failures of business to demonstrate that its values are
honorable and its leaders are trustworthy over the past
decade have led to a decline in confidence in today’s
business leaders (George 2009; Maritz 2010), a steady
decrease in the quality of life, a dismal long-term economic
prognosis, and a growing cynicism about the future
(Friedman 2009).
Identifying Consequences of Unethical Behavior
Despite the fact that unethical behavior has become almost
universal in today’s business school environment (Decoo
2002), many business schools have failed to address the
growing problem of academic misconduct and a large

percentage of faculty consistently ignore blatant dishonest
behaviors (Burke et al. 2007). McCabe et al. (2006, p. 299)
reported that 47 % of business undergraduates and 56 % of
graduate students ‘‘admitted to engaging in some form of
cheating or questionable behavior.’’ However, the Center
for Academic Integrity reported that 44 % of 10,000 fac-
ulty surveyed have never reported academic cheating about
which they have been aware (Burke et al. 2007, p. 59).
Naimi (2007) noted that for a business ethics education
program to be effective, business schools must create a
program that is consistently applied and that effectively
addresses and enforces academic integrity (Weber 2006,
p. 27). The fact that many business faculty and adminis-
trators appear to ignore academic dishonesty sends the
message that a business school does not give academic
integrity high priority (Caldwell 2010).
Although the consequences of unethical conduct for
Arthur Andersen were terminal to the life of that highly

respected firm as a result of their complicity in the Enron
debacle, McLean and Elkind (2003) noted that the ethical
misconduct that had occurred at Enron that led to its
undoing was well known within the firm and frequently
encouraged by firm leaders. Despite the fact that the ram-
ifications for managerial dishonesty and ethical misconduct
are often highly publicized, the haunting recurrence of
these missteps suggest that the bigger crime is in getting
caught rather than in failing to honor an ethical duty
(Lowenstein 2011). Friedman (2009, Chap. 1) recounted
that the dominant philosophy of many of the guilty parties
leading up to the 2008 mortgage crisis was ‘‘I’ll be gone.
You’ll be gone.’’ The profits will have been made. The risk
will have been passed on. We will have escaped unharmed.
Meanwhile, however, thousands of investors throughout
the world have paid the price of the ethical misconduct of
those who perpetuated the frauds and machinations that
created the mortgage crisis and the economies of many

countries may never fully recover (Lowenstein 2011;
Friedman 2009).
Establishing a Culture that Reinforces Integrity
Establishing a culture within a business school that rein-
forces integrity and honesty has been successfully imple-
mented at a few noteworthy institutions (Procario-Foley
and Bean 2002; Datar et al. 2010). At Duquesne Univer-
sity, their emphasis on business ethics is founded on an
organizational culture closely integrated with the univer-
sity’s mission (Weber 2006). Consistent with Schein’s
(2010) description of the importance of leadership in cre-
ating a strong organizational culture, Weber (2006,
pp. 35–36) emphasized the importance of leadership at the
administrative, faculty, and student levels in creating a
commitment to an organizational culture that reinforced the
importance of the Duquesne ethics initiative. Several uni-
versities have established centers for ethics within their
business schools which reinforce the focus and commit-

ment of those business schools in creating an environment
that reinforces the teaching of ethical values (Warren and
Rosenthal 2006; Heller and Heller 2011).
Within the larger context of business in society, estab-
lishing a culture that reinforces integrity and honesty is
viewed as a fundamental obligation of every organization
(Trevino and Nelson 2010). Often, however, the creation of
an organizational structure that emphasizes ethical com-
pliance and ethics education has come after firms have
been cited for ethics violations and are mandated as a
condition for maintaining eligibility for government con-
tracts (Collins 2009). Hoffman et al. (2001) stressed that
creating an organizational culture that reinforced ethical
values must begin at the executive level of an organization.
Whitney (2010, p. 36) noted that the Chief Learning
Officer’s job in many corporations includes creating an
integrated and transparent organization culture that helps

123
employees at all levels to be aware of the ‘‘often compli-
cated and culturally charged’’ ethical and legal issues
facing the modern organization.
Creating Better Monitoring Systems
Creating better systems that monitor conduct and the
consequences of dishonesty appear to be an important
priority in the establishment of an academic environment
that promotes integrity within a business school (Caldwell
2010, pp. 6–8). Several model programs have been estab-
lished in which both faculty and students play a major role
in monitoring student behavior and in imposing conse-
quences (Crown and Spiller 1997; Weber et al. 2008).
Warren and Rosenthal (2006, pp. 691–694) advocated the
involvement of students in the education of peers and the
enforcement of ethical conduct as a necessary requirement
of an effective academic integrity program—citing

numerous examples of efforts being made by many of the
top business schools to improve ethics education and
enforcement. In light of the fact that academic dishonesty
in business schools has been described as a ‘‘plague’’
(Embleton and Helfer 2007; Junion-Metz 2000) and a
‘‘crisis’’ (Burke et al. 2007), the current system of moni-
toring student academic honest clearly does not appear to
be working at many universities.
In response to the Enron and the Arthur Andersen
disasters, Congress passed the Sarbanes–Oxley Act to
increase the accountability of businesses (McLean and
Elkind 2003). The unending sequence of highly question-
able ethical missteps of recent years confirms the reality
that nimble minds can develop new ways of creating ways
to sidestep the current rules of business behavior faster than
those who attempt to protect the public interest—or collude
with those ‘‘protectors’’ to circumvent rules that are
established (Reich 2011; Lowenstein 2011; Friedman

2009). Although there are a multitude of ethical enforce-
ment mechanisms and transaction costs that can be created
to attempt to prevent misconduct, creating better monitor-
ing systems tend to be after-the-fact efforts to redress moral
lapses and illegal behaviors (Colwell et al. 2011; Callahan
2004).
Identify the Benefits of Virtuous Conduct
Identifying the benefits of virtuous conduct in creating
wealth is a concept that applies to business schools through
enhancing the reputation of those schools that are viewed
as high performing models (Piper et al. 1993). As highly
ethical and noteworthy leaders in creating an ethical
environment for business students, schools that adopt
innovative and effective ways to teach business ethics and
focus on the importance of ethical behavior are
acknowledged for their commitment to creating conditions
that promote ethical behavior (Warren and Rosenthal 2006;
Weber et al. 2008; Trevino and Nelson 2010). The repu-

tations of those schools helps to add to their prestige (Datar
et al. 2010), and universities that cheat lose prestige and
public confidence (Rawe 2007). For business schools, their
reputation and credibility is the basis of their ability to
create value in the minds of the public and the business
community and substantially impacts an organization’s
identity (Elsbach and Kramer 1996).
In the business sector a growing body of empirical
evidence has demonstrated that businesses can ‘‘do well by
doing good’’ (Paine 2003; Tichy and McGill 2003; Cam-
eron et al. 2003; Cameron and Spreitzer 2012). Cameron
(2003) noted that businesses which he studied that modeled
principles of virtuousness actually increase employee
commitment and trust, reduce turnover, increase quality,
improve customer satisfaction, and increased profitability.
Pfeffer (1998) and Huselid (1995) similarly document
examples of firms who create high trust cultures by treating
employees as valued partners rather than as commodities.

Caldwell et al. (2011) suggested that organizations led by
highly ethical ‘‘transformative leaders’’ were also more
likely to create high trust and commitment and increase
organizational wealth (cf. Caldwell and Hansen 2010).
Positive organizational ethics emphasizes those values
which are ‘‘morally excellent or praiseworthy in business’’
and assist a business in creating long-term wealth, devel-
oping increased sensitivity about moral issues, and earning
the trust of organizational members (Stansbury and Son-
enshein 2012, p. 340).
Foster Dialogue About Ethics and Values
Fostering dialogue about ethics and ethical values and their
importance to the business school environment is vital to
increasing understanding about ethical dilemmas, potential
conflicts in values, and the importance of understanding the
long-term implications of business decisions (Badaracco
1997, 2002). Weick (2009) emphasized the importance of
‘‘organizational mindfulness’’ in bringing key ideas out

into the open that are associated with difficult organiza-
tional decisions, and Ray et al. (2011) have advocated the
importance of the mindfulness concept within the business
school domain. Mindfulness incorporates the attentiveness
of individuals within an organization to its surroundings
and the capacity to effectively apply values on a timely
basis when unexpected circumstances arise (Levinthal and
Rerup 2006). This ability to address, discuss, and respond
on a timely basis to complex ethical problems is a critical
factor for business schools in the teaching of business
ethics and the resolving of ethical dilemmas (Carroll and
Buchholtz 2012; Badaracco 1997). Fink (2003) noted that
123
this ability to examine one’s values and the factors that
make up one’s identity was a key element in the learning
process and was critical for significant learning to occur

within the university context. In the ethical decision-mak-
ing process, Hosmer (2010) emphasized the importance of
clarifying the ethical values and assumptions upon which
decision making was based.
Within the larger business context, Senge (2006,
Chap. 4) noted that encouraging open dialogue was a
critical step in the organizational learning process. This
opportunity to encourage free and open discussion of eth-
ical principles and values is essential to meaningful ethical
decision making (cf. Trevino and Nelson 2010; Carroll and
Buchholtz 2012). Covey (2004) described the self-assess-
ment process and the ability to reflect on personal and
organizational values as essential to a principle-centered
life and to ethical decision making in a world where
complexity and rapid change make choices difficult. The
ability to incorporate both normative and rational per-
spectives in decision making is a critical factor for prac-
titioners in their role as effective leaders (Badaracco 1997,

2002; Kolb et al. 2005). Collins and Porras (2004, Chap. 3)
emphasized that it was this ability to clarify and commit to
a driving set of core values that differentiated great com-
panies from those that were second-tier in performance.
Increasing Communication Between Academics
and Practitioners
The relevance of academic theory and the exchange of
information between academics and practitioners have
been frequently addressed as essential elements in mea-
suring the contributing value of business schools (Mintz-
berg 2004; Pfeffer and Fong 2002). Birnik and Billsberry
2008, p. 985) note that there is currently ‘‘great uncertainty
about what management students should be taught and
what they should learn.’’ A number of highly regarded
business scholars have been sharply critical of the focus of
business schools on a purely scientific and economically
based model which discounts values and relationships (cf.
Bennis and O’Toole 2005; Cameron 2006; Giacalone and

Thompson 2006). Rubin and Dierdorff (2011, p. 148) have
drawn the chilling conclusion that ‘‘recent research sug-
gests that courses designed to inculcate human capital
competencies are wholly underrepresented in MBA cur-
ricula.’’ Brinkmann et al. (2011) advocate expanding the
partnership between business schools and practitioners by
having guest speaker practitioners involved in the class-
room to offer their practical perception of ethical
dilemmas.
Although increasing the dialogue between practitioners
and scholars is perceived as a valued means for improving
the practical value of that which is taught in business
schools, many scholars and practitioners lack confidence in
the ability of academics to add value to the private sector
(Bailey et al. 1999; Ghoshal 2005; Mintzberg 2004;
Caldwell and Jeane 2007, p. 3). Rubin and Dierdorff (2009)
noted that practitioner managers consistently rated MBA
curriculum topics lower in importance than did MBA

faculty or administrators. Syed et al. (2010, p. 71) have
suggested that scholars need to be far more practical in
their research design, pay more attention to practitioner
context, and broaden their awareness of ethical implica-
tions of business to become more relevant in bridging the
research–practice gap. In their thoughtful examination of
the practical value of business education, three Harvard
scholars surveyed business school deans and business
executives and concluded that business school curricula are
slow to change, fail to address key behavioral issues, and
need to expand coverage of international business issues
(Datar et al. 2010).
Although a case could have been made to have included
other ethical outcomes in this survey, this section addresses
the importance of the ten outcomes which we have chosen
to include, documenting the importance of each of those
outcomes by citing the scholarly and practitioner literature.
Survey Methodology and Results

A survey instrument was developed using the ten ethically
related business ethics outcomes identified herein, asking
respondents to indicate via a Likert-type scale the relative
level of importance of each item from Not Important to
Critically Important. Respondents were asked to indicate
both the level of importance of each of the ten ethical
outcomes ‘‘to business schools’’ and ‘‘to society.’’ The
survey was administered to subject matter experts who
attended the Eighteenth Annual International Conference
Promoting Business Ethics held at St. Johns University in
2011 (82 responses), to the business school deans of the top
100 US business schools as identified by US News (Morse
and Flanigan 2011) (44 responses), and business students at
a highly rated top 100 business school (466 responses) and
at a small regional business school in the southern United
States (114 responses). A copy of the survey instrument is
included in the Appendix of this paper in Table 14.
In the following tables, we provide the survey results of

each respondent group’s comparisons of the level of
importance of the ten survey items within the business
school environment and within society. In light of the
potential differences existing in business ethics education
at the different business schools, we do not pool data from
our sample schools but provide those results separately. For
the survey data collected, categorical variables are mea-
sured using ordinal scales. Given the limited levels of
123
quantified measurement, there is no justification for ana-
lyzing the data using either normal or symmetric distribu-
tion. Implementation of normality tests returned small
p values for the data collected. Therefore, a classical two
samples (or paired sample) t test cannot be applied to
compare the importance rating of survey items. Instead,
according to Hollander and Wolfe (1999) and Anderson

et al. (2011), the Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon (MWW)
nonparametric method is the appropriate statistical tool for
testing importance comparison for the ten ethical outcomes
in our study. For each respondent group, we applied the
nonparametric method to identify the outcomes which that
group considered to be the most important (1) within a
business school and (2) within society. In addition, we
examine each ethical outcome to identify whether it is
considered to be more important within a business context
or within society. In conducting this statistical analysis, we
used Minitab 16 statistical software. Tables for all of the
responses are included in Table 14 in Appendix.
Table 1 lists comparison results with p values of test
statistics on students’ ratings of the importance of the ten
ethical outcomes within business schools, based upon
survey responses from the 466 students attending the large
top-rated business school. These results suggest that the
business students considered Item 6 (SCH6: Establish a

culture that reinforces personal integrity and honesty) to be
the most important among the ten outcomes. This result is
consistent with the recommendations of several scholars
who have identified the importance of creating an ethical
culture to sustain an environment of academic integrity in
business schools (Trevino and Nelson 2010; Heller and
Heller 2011; Weber 2006). Item 5 (SCH5: Explain the
consequences of unethical behavior), and Item 4 (SCH4:
Examine the pressures of the current business environment
that influence ethical decisions) were considered to be the
second and the third most important in the rankings of
these business students and reflect students’ recognition of
the importance of understanding both the costs of unethical
behavior and the reasons for it occurring within a business
school context (cf. Caldwell 2010). As McCabe et al.
(2006) have noted, these three outcomes are important in
creating an integrated culture of academic integrity at a
university. Item 2 (SCH2: Clarify rules for publishing

academic articles) was rated by these students as the least
important item for business schools, which may reflect the
fact that business students are likely to obtain much of their
academic information from classroom lectures and text-
books, as opposed to academic publications (cf. Burke
et al. 2010), and may have minimal familiarity with stan-
dards for publishing academic articles.
Survey responses provided by the business school stu-
dents from the smaller regional business school reveal
similar results. According to the test statistics in Table 2,
both Item 5 (SCH5, Explaining the consequences of
unethical behavior) and Item 6 (SCH6: Establish a culture
that reinforces personal integrity and honesty) are
Table 1 Large university students: importance to business
schools
SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 SCH4 SCH5 SCH6 SCH7 SCH8 SCH9
SCH10
SCH1 [*** – *** *** *** – – [*** –
(0.000) (0.2233) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.9393) (0.5679)

(0.0012) (0.4347)
SCH2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.0098) (0.000)
SCH3 *** *** *** – – [** –
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.2854) (0.5201) (0.0848) (0.7035)
SCH4 ** *** [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.0253) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
SCH5 ** [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.0174) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
SCH6 [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
SCH7
– [*** –
(0.6572) (0.0025) (0.5138)
SCH8 [*** –
(0.0086) (0.8075)
SCH9 **
(0.0198)
–
p [ .1; * p 0.1; ** p 0.05; *** p 0.01. p value displayed
inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row
item is rated
significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘’’

indicates the opposite
123
perceived as the most important to business schools, with
Item 4 (SCH4: Examine the pressures of the current busi-
ness environment that influence ethical decisions) as the
third most important item. Item 2 (SCH2: Clarify rules for
publishing academic articles) was rated as the least
important ethical outcome for responding students at this
smaller school. The strong similarity of results from these
two student groups suggests that undergraduate students
share similar perspectives about the relative importance of
these ethical outcomes for the business school environ-
ment, regardless of their school size. Since the academic
requirements for grade average and ACT score from the
smaller regional school are significantly lower than the
larger school’s entry requirements, it appears that percep-

tions about ethical outcomes also do not vary significantly
based upon the incoming academic qualifications of busi-
ness students.
Ratings of the relative importance of the ten ethical
outcomes to business schools, from the 44 business school
deans are presented with statistics shown in Table 3. Based
upon these results, we note that business school deans also
rated Item 6 (SCH6: Establish a culture that reinforces
personal integrity and honesty) to be the most important
outcome for business schools, which is generally consistent
with the students’ rankings. For the deans, however, there
was no conclusive determination of the least important
item. Given p values of MWW test statistics, Item 2
(SCH2: Clarify rules for publishing academic articles),
Item 7 (SCH7: Create better systems that monitor conduct
and the consequences of dishonesty), Item 8 (SCH8:
Identify the benefits of virtuous conduct in creating wealth)
and Item 10 (SCH10: Increase communication between the

academic and business communities) were rated as less
important than other items, but were still rated somewhat
important. Given the fact that all of the business school
deans are from AACSB-accredited business schools and
are highly sensitive to the importance of academic integrity
in publishing in top journals, it is easy to understand why
these deans would rate Item 2 (SCH2: Clarify rules for
publishing academic articles) as more important than
business students rated this outcome. The comparatively
low rating given by deans to the importance of Item 7
(SCH7: Create better systems that monitor conduct and the
consequences of dishonesty) reflects the somewhat sur-
prising survey results of deans wherein ‘‘only about 5% of
deans believed dishonesty was a serious problem in their
school’’ (Brown et al. 2010, p. 299). Although a growing
body of research suggests that virtuous conduct creates
wealth, it is possible that business school deans either may
doubt the validity of that data as applied to the business

school with regard to their comparatively low rating of
Item 8 (SCH8: Identify the benefits of virtuous conduct in
creating wealth). It is also somewhat surprising that the
deans rate Item 10 (SCH10: Increase communication
between the academic and business communities) in the
group of outcomes considered less important than other
Table 2 Small university students: importance to business
schools
SCH10
SCH1 [*** – *** *** *** – – [*** –
(0.01) (0.2681) (0.0197) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.7602) (0.9400)
(0.0105) (0.1213)
SCH2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(0.0560) (0.0000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.0073) (0.0080) (0.8700)
(0.0001)
SCH3 *** *** *** – – [** –
(0.0051) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.3742) (0.4834) (0.0590) (0.0179)
SCH4 ** *** [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.0502) (0.0468) (0.0493) (0.0251) (0.0000) (0.6199)
SCH5 ** [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.9408) (0.0008) (0.0002) (0.0000) (0.0172)

SCH6 [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.0007) (0.0002) (0.0000) (0.0162)
SCH7
– [*** –
(0.8299) (0.0072) (0.2361)
SCH8 [*** –
(0.0088) (0.1452)
SCH9 **
(0.0001)
–
item is rated
123
factors, inasmuch as deans typically work extensively with
community and business leaders as external liaisons for
their universities (cf. Bailey et al. 2009; Thomas and Fra-

gueiro 2011).
As noted in Table 4, the 82 business ethics subject
matter experts agreed with students that Item 2 (SCH2:
Clarify rules for publishing academic articles) was the least
important of the ethical outcomes. We note with interest
that these 82 business ethics scholars rated all of these
ethical outcomes as generally important for the business
school environment. That fact suggests that these faculty
members and scholars may have a unique insight into the
interrelated nature of these ten ethical outcomes for busi-
ness schools, as compared to other faculty members, and
suggests that they place greater emphasis on the impor-
tance of an integrated system to create academic integrity
at business schools (cf. Datar et al. 2010; Weber et al.
2008; Caldwell 2010).
To compare perspectives about the importance of the ten
ethical outcomes in society, we conducted the same MWW
tests, with those results provided in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8 as

follows. Tables 5 and 6 indicate that both groups of busi-
ness school students rate Item 6 (SOC6: Establish a culture
that reinforces personal integrity and honesty) as the most
important ethical outcome for society. Consistent with
Callahan’s (2004) description of society as a ‘‘cheating
culture,’’ the decline in trust in today’s business leaders,
and the unending sequence of business events that have
reflected a culture of dishonesty, it seems clear that today’s
business students recognize the importance of creating a
business culture that reinforces integrity and honesty. Item
2 (SOC2: Clarify rules for publishing academic articles)
was not surprisingly indicated to be least important to
society, although it was nonetheless rated to be somewhat
important by these students. Although evidence-based
research and compliance with standards for research and
publication are of importance in creating academic credi-
bility (Schminke 2009), the nine other ethical outcomes
included in the survey are apparently perceived to be more

important to both student groups. Students from the smaller
regional business school listed Item 5 (SOC5: Explain the
consequences of unethical behavior) as important as Item 6
(SOC6: Establish a culture that reinforces personal integ-
rity and honesty) in society, suggesting that these students
believe that an increased focus needs to be placed on
consequences of unethical behavior within society and
supporting the importance of creating a culture that gives
greater emphasis to personal integrity. Both groups of
students consider Item 3 (SOC3: Motivate others to
understand their own value system) and Item 7 (SOC7:
Create better systems that monitor conduct and the con-
sequences of dishonesty) as closely following in impor-
tance for business society. These findings suggest that both
groups of business students recognize that greater self-
awareness (Swanson and Dahler-Larsen 2008; Caldwell
2009; Arbinger Institute 2002) and more effective systems
Table 3 Business school deans: importance to business schools

SCH10
SCH1 [** – – – *** [*** [** – –
(0.0153) (0.8413) (0.3877) (0.4678) (0.0011) (0.0010) (0.0308)
(0.4040) (0.5044)
SCH2 ** *** *** *** – – *** –
(00323) (0.0008) (0.002) (0.0000) (0.2061) (0.9202) (0.0017)
(0.1751)
SCH3
– – *** [*** [* [** –
(0.3145) (0.3674) (0.0009) (0.0035) (0.0660) (0.3207) (0.6613)
SCH4
– ** [*** [*** – [*
(0.9269) (0.0078) (0.0000) (0.0035) (0.9634) (0.0665)
SCH5 *** [*** [*** – [*
(0.0098) (0.0001) (0.0067) (0.9070) (0.0882)
SCH6 [*** [*** [** [**
(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0149) (0.0002)
SCH7
– *** **
(0.3126) (0.0001) (0.0107)
SCH8 *** –
(0.0065) (02529)

SCH9 [*
(0.0762)
–
item is rated
123
for monitoring ethical conduct (Lowenstein 2011; Fried-
man 2009) are necessary if ethical business standards are to
be achieved in tomorrow’s business world.
Tables 7 and 8 suggest somewhat similar results from
the ratings provided by business school deans and business
ethics subject matter experts about the importance of the
Table 4 Business experts: importance to business schools
SCH10
SCH1 [*** – – – – [*** [** – –

(0.0001) (0.4004) (0.5023) (0.4962) (0.7460) (0.0017) (0.0172)
(0.5331) (0.7398)
SCH2 *** *** *** *** – ** *** ***
(0.0006) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.2120) (0.0231) (0.0004)
(0.0003)
SCH3 * * – [** [* – –
(0.0585) (0.0591) (0.2410) (0.0116) (0.0832) (0.8551) (0.6644)
SCH4
– – [*** [*** [* –
(0.9934) (0.7200) (0.0001) (0.0019) (0.0698) (0.3035)
SCH5
– [*** [*** [* –
(0.7126) (0.0001) (0.0020) (0.0697) (0.3035)
SCH6 [*** [*** – –
(0.0005) (0.0064) (0.3361) (0.5002)
SCH7
– *** ***
(0.3983) (0.0089) (0.0070)
SCH8 * **
(0.0627) (0.0453)
SCH9
–
(0.8115)

–
item is rated
Table 5 Large university students: importance to business
society
SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9
SOC10
SOC1 [*** *** ** *** *** *** – – [***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.0171) (0.000) (0.000) (0.9393) (0.6990)
(0.3826) (0.0097)
SOC2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
SOC3 [*** *** *** – [*** [*** [***
(0.004) (0.000) (0.000) (0.7738) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
SOC4 *** *** *** [*** [*** [***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.0098) (0.0059) (0.0011) (0.000)
SOC5 *** [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.0002) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
SOC6 [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
SOC7 [*** [*** [***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SOC8
– [**
(0.6155) (0.0185)
SOC9 [*
(0.0574)
–
item is rated
123
ten ethical outcomes within society. Both groups rated Item
2 (SOC2: Clarify rules for publishing academic articles) as
the least important outcome to society. Although evidence-
based research is clearly important to society in establish-
ing the credibility of academic research (cf. Amos et al.
2011; Charlier et al. 2011), clarifying the rules for
Table 6 Small university students: importance to business
society

SOC10
SOC1 [*** ** – *** *** *** – [** –
(0.000) (0.0104) (0.34112) (0.0000) (0.000) (0.0011) (0.8026)
(0.0491) (0.6969)
SOC2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0041)
(0.0000)
SOC3 [* ** *** – [** [*** [**
(0.0919) (0.0106) (0.0050) (0.4878) (0.0201) (0.0001) (0.0362)
SOC4 *** *** ** – [*** –
(0.0005) (0.0001) (0.0202) (0.4791) (0.0057) (0.5877)
SOC5
– [** [*** [*** [***
(0.8732) (0.0413) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0002)
SOC6 [** [*** [*** [***
(0.0237) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000)
SOC7 [*** [*** [***
(0.0026) (0.0000) (0.0061)
SOC8 [** –
(0.0306) (0.8668)
SOC9 **
(0.0281)

–
item is rated
Table 7 Business school deans: importance to business society
SOC10
SOC1 [*** ** ** *** *** * – [** –
(0.0000) (0.0481) (0.0109) (0.0017) (0.0000) (0.0965) (0.6319)
(0.0338) (0.8022)
SOC2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000)
(0.0000)
SOC3
– – *** – – – [**
(0.5430) (0.1545) (0.0001) (0.6741) (0.2477) (0.847) (0.0242)
SOC4
– *** – [** – [***
(0.2976) (0.0002) (0.2771) (0.0383) (0.6571) (0.0039)
SOC5 *** [** [*** [*** [***
(0.0077) (0.0274) (0.0079) (0.0815) (0.0006)
SOC6 [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0001) (0.0000)

SOC7
– – –
(0.4315) (0.5471) (0.1049)
SOC8
– –
(0.1907) (0.4602)
SOC9 [**
(0.0152)
–
item is rated
123
publishing academic articles is not perceived by deans or
subject matter experts as being as important as the other
nine ethical outcomes. Deans and ethics experts also agreed
that Item 6 (SOC6: Establish a culture that reinforces

personal integrity and honesty) is the most important eth-
ical outcome for society—reinforcing the importance of
integrity in business articulated by a broad variety of
experts (Covey 2004; Hosmer 2010; Kouzes and Posner
2008a, b, 2011; Krehmeyer 2007).
For each group, we also conducted MWW tests to
determine whether a specific item is more important to
business schools than to business society. Test results are
provided in Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12. All four groups
agreed that Item 1 (Provide information about the theories
and concepts of ethical decision making), Item 2 (Clarify
rules for publishing academic articles), Item 4 (Examine
the pressures of the current business environment that
influence ethical decisions) and Item 10 (Increase com-
munication between the academic and business communi-
ties about ethical issues) are more important to business
schools than to the society. Although these topics were all
considered generally important to society, the focus of their

domain was perceived to be more business school-related
or should be emphasized more within a business school
context (cf. Swanson and Fisher 2008, 2011). In addition,
the students from both schools rated Item 8 (Identify the
benefits of virtuous business conduct in creating wealth) as
more important to business schools than to society,
apparently suggesting that business school students may
lack a clear understanding of how being ethical creates
wealth in society (cf. Caldwell and Hansen 2010; Cameron
and Spreitzer 2012). Both the larger schools business stu-
dents and the business school deans-rated Item 9 (Foster
dialogue about ethics and values and their importance) as
being more important to business schools than to society.
These responses suggest that the deans and the students
from the larger business school may both believe that the
business school setting is more appropriate or a more likely
setting for this discussion of ethics and values to occur. For
Item 7 (Create better systems that monitor conduct and the

consequences of dishonesty), both business school deans
and experts think that this outcome is more important to
society. Given the economic impact of dishonest behaviors
on the world economic system, this perspective is certainly
justifiable (Reich 2011; Friedman 2009; Lowenstein 2011).
Table 13 identifies the percentage of respondents within
each group that rated each ethical outcome as ‘‘Critically
Important.’’ Overall, Item 5 (Explaining the consequences
of unethical behavior) and Item 6 (Establish a culture that
reinforces personal integrity and honesty) received the
most ‘‘Critically Important’’ ratings for all groups, with
more than 80 % of the deans indicating that establishing a
culture that reinforces personal integrity and honesty
assigning that rating. In light of the fact that business
schools are known for their high levels of academic dis-
honesty (Trevino and Nelson 2010; Caldwell 2010), but
Table 8 Business experts: importance to business society
SOC10

SOC1 [*** ** ** *** *** ** – ** *
(0.0000) (0.0221) (0.0376) (0.0006) (0.0000) (0.0112) (0.4138)
(0.0130) (0.0904)
SOC2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000)
(0.0000)
SOC3
– – *** – [* – –
(0.7263) (0.1643) (0.0037) (0.7993) (0.0716) (0.9528) (0.4539)
SOC4 ** *** – – – [***
(0.0394) (0.0011) (0.5403) (0.2511) (0.6750) (0.6606)
SOC5
– – [*** [* [**
(0.2013) (0.2575) (0.0024) (0.0935) (0.0186)
SOC6 [*** [*** [*** [***
(0.0077) (0.0000) (0.0044) (0.0004)
SOC7 [** – –
(0.0417) (0.8447) (0.3090)
SOC8 * –
(0.0580) (0.5256)
SOC9
–
(0.3790)

-
item is rated
123
Table 9 Large university students: school versus society
SOC10
SCH1 [***
(0.000)
SCH2 [***
(0.000)
SCH3 **
(0.0257)
SCH4 [***
(0.000)
SCH5
–
(0.2136)

Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project4801 Unit 10 Final Course Project.docx

Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project4801 Unit 10 Final Course Project.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project4801 Unit 10 Final Course Project.docx

Similar to Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project4801 Unit 10 Final Course Project.docx (6)

More from RAHUL126667

More from RAHUL126667 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project4801 Unit 10 Final Course Project.docx