An exploratory study of ethical philosophies among graduate and undergraduate business students

Journal of the Academy of Business and Economics, April, 2003 by Stephen L. Baglione, Thomas W. Zimmerer

ABSTRACT

The growing cascade of unethical business practices led us to examine whether business students prescribe to specific ethical philosophies, and how those ethical philosophies affect their view of general morality, business ethics, environmental concerns, individual rights, global economics, government, culture, international organizations, and the future. Two distinct segments are identified that prescribe to different philosophies and ideas about business practices. And, not surprisingly, these segments also differ demographically.

1. INTRODUCTION

In an era where the U.S. economic cycle has dipped to a decade low due to a conversion of multiple economic, social and political forces, and trends, the economic decline was made worse by the revelations that corporate executives and professional accounting firms had blatantly lied, cheated, and stolen from those to whom they had a fiduciary responsibility. As with scandals in our past, a general public quickly leaps to the conclusion that the U.S. business community is led by self-serving, amoral opportunists who, due to their wealth and power, believe themselves above the law and totally lacking in their responsibilities to shareholders, employees, the public and the entire array of stakeholders. Have the business leaders of our nation, and possibly the world, become void of any moral compass guiding their behaviors? The answer to this question is deeply rooted in the basic philosophical values and beliefs held by business decision makers. If there is no moral code directing decision makers, the assumptions of the masses about the amoral behaviors of corporate leaders may have some validity. However, if we can capture the existence of a value system or philosophical orientation, we can next explore the consistency, or inconsistency, between the orientation and their responses to challenging and controversial questions. The issue is whether the individuals studied have tough decisions rooted in a deep moral framework.

Business schools have addressed this crisis with increased teaching of ethics. Yet a potential problem is the instructor's training: one study found business faculty "have a slightly higher tolerance for questionable business practices than do faculty in other disciplines" (Stevens and Harris, 1994); however, another study found no difference between business faculty and their "counterparts in the humanities" (Curren and Harich, 1996). Business faculty were found to have higher personal ethics than students. In general, students who have taken a business ethics course placed greater import on teaching business ethics than those who did not take the class (Stewart and Felicetti, 1996).

Differences were found between MBA students and graduate students in law, medicine, nursing, liberal arts, and theology (Davis, 1987). MBA students, on average, scored lower on moral reasoning development than other graduate students, and that scores for beginning MBA students were higher than those nearing graduation. In comparing graduate and undergraduate business students, undergraduates were more ethical (Parsa and Lankford, 1999). After graduation, marketing managers were more ethical as their formal education and the size of their firm employing them increased (Bass and Hebert, 1995). In the same study, marital status, number of subordinates, income, age, years of experience, and gender were not statistically significant. Lane (1995) found business students more unethical than practitioners. This was confirmed in another study (Cole and Smith, 1995). Students also had a more "negative view of ethics in the business world than businesspeople."

Kreie and Cronan (1998) did found ethical differences between gender. Men were influenced by the legal environment, moral obligation, awareness of consequences, and the authors' scenarios. For women, societal environment, belief system, personal values, legal environment, moral obligation, and the scenario were statistically significant. The consequences of their actions altered how both act. Women, in general, were found to be more ethical than men (Cole and Smith, 1995). (Student major, grade point average and age were not statistically significant.)

Income and type of job are additional factor found to influence ethics (Grant and Bloom, 1998). Students from lower-income families viewed ethics as black and white, while monetary return influenced higher-income families. A compromise between the two existed among middle-income families. Students with fathers employed in blue-collar jobs were more ethical than those with fathers in managerial or professional jobs. Religion also influences ethics, although the same study found no influence from gender or academic study (Nichols and Zimmerer, 1985).

Culture also influences ethical behavior. Taiwan, a country founded by defeated Chinese nationalists on an island with few natural resources, became an economic success in its brief history through hard work and perseverance. This, according to one author, who surveyed Taiwanese students, accounts for their utilitarian approach to ethics: maximize benefit and minimize harm (Lin, 1999). Hong Kong students were found to be less ethical than students from other countries (Cheung, 1999).