13 an ethical decision-making exercise

http://jme.sagepub.com/Education

Journal of Management

http://jme.sagepub.com/content/31/5/696The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1052562907304327August 2007

2007 31: 696 originally published online 23Journal of Management EducationConstance R. James and J. Goosby Smith

George Williams in Thailand: an Ethical Decision-Making Exercise

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators

can be found at:Journal of Management EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jme.sagepub.com/content/31/5/696.refs.htmlCitations:

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from

What is This?

- Aug 23, 2007 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 2, 2007Version of Record >>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from

696

GEORGE WILLIAMS IN THAILAND: ANETHICAL DECISION-MAKING EXERCISE

Constance R. JamesPepperdine UniversityJ. Goosby SmithCalifornia State University, Channel Islands

This article presents a classroom ethical decision-making exercise designedto help students make reasoned ethical decisions while gaining insight intotheir own and othersethical decision-making strategies. During the exercise,students individually analyze an original mini-case, then meet in smallgroups to reach consensus on the advice and ethical decision-making strat-egy to offer the entrepreneur in the case. The exercise satisfies three learningobjectives for students: understanding ethical decision-making strategies,increasing awareness of ones own ethical decision-making criteria, andunderstanding the bases for diverse group members (often different) ethicaldecision-making strategies. Evidence of student learning shows that thesethree learning objectives are exceeded in that the exercise also spurs studentsto integrate their learning of ethical decision making with their learning ofthe organizational behavior concepts of group dynamics, conflict manage-ment, and personality.

Keywords: ethics; ethical decision making; teaching ethics; class exercise;business ethics

The study of ethics has received renewed attention in management edu-cation with the collapse of major corporations (Hartman, 2006). Todays

Authors Note: This research was supported by Pepperdine University, Seaver College FacultyResearch and Summer Research Grants. We would like to thank Dr. Jane Schmidt-Wilk andthe anonymous reviewers who gave invaluable feedback and developmental comments. A versionof this article was presented at the 2005 Academy of Management Meetings, Honolulu,Hawaii. Address correspondence to J. Goosby Smith, Martin V. Smith College of Businessand Economics, California State University, Channel Islands, One University Drive, Camarillo,CA 93012; e-mail: [email protected] OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 31 No. 5, October 2007 696-712DOI: 10.1177/1052562907304327 2007 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from

James, Smith / GEORGE WILLIAMS IN THAILAND 697

business leaders are expected to work effectively with diverse people(Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1998), make decisions with managerial integrity(Mayer & Davis, 1999), and make reasoned ethical decisions (Dahl, Mandell,& Barton, 1987; Mallinger, 1997). Meeting these expectations requiresmanagement education to encourage students moral development and pro-mote their ability to handle complex ethical decision making (Garten, 2005;Williams & Dewitt, 2005).

Business school educators have long debated whether ethics is besttaught in ethics courses within the professional education curriculum(Sachdev, 2003), integrated across the professional education curriculum(Lund Dean & Beggs, 2006; Magun-Jackson, 2004; Oddo, 1997; Woo, 2003),or both (Garten, 2005). Some advocate stand-alone courses because businessprofessors may feel uncomfortable teaching ethical theories that are out oftheir areas of discipline expertise and beyond their training (Oddo, 1997).This discomfort is exacerbated by insufficient teaching resources for businessfaculty who adopt ethics as a new teaching area (Baetz & Sharp, 2004).Finally, in an exploration of business facultys opinions on teaching ethics,Lund Dean and Beggs (2006) found that faculty believed they could havelittle impact on students ethical behaviors; though ethics is a values-driveninternal construct, they taught it using compliance-driven external methods.As a result, there is not only discomfort, but also pedagogical inconsistency.

Despite these challenges, many advocate integrating ethics educationacross the professional education curriculum. There are several reasons.First, if ethics is taught as a separate course, students often do not incorporatewhat they have learned across the business curriculum (Oddo, 1997).Second, since most of the leading accreditation agencies require variousdisciplines to address ethics, it makes increasing sense to integrate ethicsacross the disciplines and across the curriculum.

We agree that ethics should be integrated across the curriculum becauseit provides multiple opportunities to reinforce the importance of acting withethical integrity to students. Furthermore, it provides repeated opportunitiesfor students to understand and refine their own decision-making strategiesand those of diverse groups of classmates from multiple disciplines. Theinstitutional context within which this exercise was designed also supportsthis integrative approach by encouraging moral development across disci-plines. Thus we address ethics in our management and organizationalbehavior courses.

Our exercise requires students to understand six ethical decision-makingstrategies and individually and collectively analyze an ethical dilemma pre-sented in an international business case (Appendix A). By engaging in theexercise, students have a better chance of understanding their own and theirclassmates ethical decision-making strategies, while making their ethicaldecision making explicit.


Though they do not determine real-life behavior, case studies are usefulto improve students learning. Research shows that student evaluation of casesand scenarios is a useful tool in ethics education, particularly in situationsinvolving bribery or grease payments (Longnecker, McKinney, & Moore,1988; Mallinger, 1997; Tsalikis & LaTour, 1995). Management educatorsagree. Dahl et al. (1987) used a case and questionnaire to evaluate ethicaldecision-making approaches of business students. Similarly, Mallinger (1997)used an ethical decision-making case to test differences in ethical decision-making approaches by American and German students. We present studentswith a one-page-long mini-case that requires their advice on whether or notto pay a bribe and which ethical decision-making approach to use.

Similar to other management educators, we built this ethical decision-making exercise on the work of others. Specifically, we extended the ethicaldecision-making approaches of Dahl et al. (1987) and Mallinger (1997),who developed their classroom exercises based on the work of Pegano(1987). We built on their exercises by adding cultural relativism, a fre-quently used ethical decision-making approach (Miesing & Preble, 1985;Nill & Shultz, 1997; Phatak & Habib, 1998; Vitell, Paolillo, & Thomas, 2003).We believed this addition would more accurately capture the diversity ofethical decision-making values and strategies employed by our increasinglyinternational student body.

This exercise is useful to individuals seeking to understand why peoplehave different reactions to ethical dilemmas. We regularly use this exercisewithin the second month of the semester of required management classestaught to undergraduate sophomores, juniors, and seniors and to graduatemaster of business administration students. The exercise can also be used toexplore communication and group dynamics within a team, particularly ateam consisting of both domestic and international students.

This exercise has three learning objectives: understanding ethical decision-making strategies, increasing awareness of ones own ethical decision-makingcriteria, and understanding the bases for diverse group members ethicaldecision-making strategies. The last objective is important because individ-uals often assume that others share their ethical decision-making processes(Lyndale, 2004).

We address the first learning objective by discussing six ethical decision-making strategies with students after they have reflected on the case. Thusstudents leave the exercise with factual or declarative knowledge about ethicaldecision-making strategies. Specifically, they are able to name and describethe six strategies.

We address the second learning objective by providing two opportunitiesfor students to reflect on the case and on their own responses (see Appendix Bfor facilitator instructions). Before presenting the six ethical decision-makingapproaches, we give students the opportunity to develop and capture their

698 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / October 2007



individual opinions on the case (Appendix C). Then, again, after we presentthe ethical decision-making approaches, we encourage them to reflect onwhich ethical decision-making strategy they prefer, their rationale for thatstrategy, and the advice it leads them to give regarding the case (Appendix D).These two guided reflections result in studentsbeing able not only to articulatetheir preferred ethical decision-making strategies, but also to provide a reasonedrationale for that choice.

Finally, we address the third objective of increasing their understand-ing of classmatesoften divergentethical decision-making strategiesby requiring small group discussion and consensus building. In teams thatwe prearrange for diversity of learning style, gender, and racioethnicity,students are charged with two tasks. First, they are to explore each groupmembers ethical decision-making strategy and advice for the entrepreneurin the case. During this process, they often question and challenge eachothers reasoning. Second, they are to reach and document (Appendix E) amutually accepted group recommendation on what advice and what ethicaldecision-making strategy to offer the entrepreneur in the case.

This article presents instructions needed to facilitate and debrief theGeorge Williams in Thailand Ethical Decision-Making Exercise, includingtemplates for students individual and collective reflection and discussion.After presenting facilitation tips, we provide evidence of ethics-related andintegrative student learning from this exercise. We conclude with observa-tions from our repeated facilitation of this exercise and share some generalpatterns in student responses.

Facilitator Background Information

In this section, we summarize the knowledge that we use to introduce theexercise, explain the ethical decision-making framework, and address studentquestions during the debriefing of the exercise. Before facilitating the exer-cise, the instructor should be able to answer the following six questions:

1. What do we mean by ethics? Ethics are the moral principles of right andwrong that guide a group of people and affect individual behavior (Daft &Marcic, 2001; Messick & Bazerman, 1996).

2. What do we mean by ethical decision making? This phrase refers to makingdecisions about dilemmas with an ethical (i.e., right or wrong) dimensionto them.

3. What do we mean by an ethical decision-making approach?An ethical decision-making approach refers to the thought processes and rationales that individualsuse to resolve ethical dilemmas. In this exercise, we present six suchapproaches.

4. What are the ethical decision-making approaches we use in this exercise? Weuse six approaches (see Appendix F). The first three ethical decision-making



approaches reflect behavioral rules of thumb or principles that guide behaviorand intentions: categorical imperative (absolute principles), legalism (laws orpolicies), and cultural relativism (cultural norms). The second three approachesare enlightened self-interest, utilitarianism, and light-of-day. These approachesare rooted in outcomes of costbenefittype analyses, in which individuals askthemselves, How can this decision yield optimal results?

5. What is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? The FCPA providesdetailed guidelines on what is legal and what is illegal in international com-merce. While the details of this act are beyond the scope of this article, theU.S. Department of Justice (n.d.) produced a seven-page document titledForeign Corrupt Practices Act Antibribery Provisions, which we advisefacilitators to digest prior to facilitating the exercise.

6. How did the real case end? The entrepreneur paid the extra cost. GeneralMotors (GM) found out. Consequently, the entrepreneur lost GMs businessand suffered financially. The entrepreneur lost the business for two reasons:First, this incident occurred prior to the 1998 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,which made such a so-called grease payment legal; second, and most impor-tant, GM had a policy of not paying such fees at the time. After a decade,the entrepreneur recuperated from this major setback and gained businessfrom other Fortune 500 companies.

TIPS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EXERCISE

In this section, we share some tips and anecdotes relevant to facilitatingthis exercise, including time and resource requirements needed to facilitatethe exercise.

The exercise requires between 75 and 90 min. We facilitate the smallgroup discussions in groups of four to seven members. Both preexisting andad hoc groupings work for this exercise. We have used this exercise withcourse enrollments for each section between 8 and 30 students. We onlyfacilitate this exercise in classrooms with moveable desks or tables becausestationary chairs or tiered classrooms make small group discussion difficult.

We bring the following materials to class: 1 copy of all appendices, 1 copyper student of appendices A, C, D, F, and G, and 1 copy per group of appen-dix E. The materials we use during the exercise are dry erase markers and thewhiteboard in the classroom. Absent a whiteboard, flip chart paper andmarkers can be used. Sometimes we utilize PowerPoint and an overheadprojector to introduce the ethical decision-making approaches.

We encourage the groups to be self-directed. Consistent with a collabo-rative model of learning (Mallinger, 1998), students lead the discussionsand choose spokespersons to report on their groups recommendations atthe end of the exercise. As instructors, we do not interfere with the groupdiscussions unless students ask questions. If a question is relevant to every-one, we share the question and answer with the entire class.

As groups share their chosen approaches and explain their advice to theentrepreneur, we record the approach and whether it leads them to a pay or



dont pay decision on the white board. Once the group results are listedon the board, we facilitate a discussion of the impact of group dynamics andcultural diversity on decision making. We ask questions such as, Did yourgroup have difficulty coming to a consensus? and In what ways did your groupmembers differ in terms of their opinions? We also inform students aboutcultural diversity implications and ask if they experienced any differences ofopinion due to group members differences in national origin, multiculturalexperience, racioethnicity, or gender.

If time permits, we facilitate tangential discussions that occur. Forexample, some students note that choosing to pay may require future bribes,known as the ratchet effect. Sometimes we ask, Are there other alternativesthan pay or dont pay? The class then responds with alternatives such asfinding another supplier, selling the parts to someone with more influence,or moving to another country. Students sometimes discuss ways to makeethical decision making easier, including determining their values or dis-cussing the issue with a trusted colleague. They explore ways to distancethemselves from tough situations long enough to avoid in-the-box thinking,which is characterized by viewing the decision solely in terms of pay ordont pay.

If time is running short, we encourage out-of-class reflection on theexercise. If time does not permit such a discussion, we may ask students towrite a reflection paper on the exercise. The reflection papers often showhow well students understand ethical choices and approaches as well ashow they interacted with their groups.

General Patterns in Student Responses

After collecting data from 292 students in 50 groups, we have noticedthe following general patterns in how students respond to the case. Our U.S.native students more frequently choose legalism and categorical imperativethan do their international classmates, who usually choose cultural rela-tivism. We also find that female students are generally less willing topay the extra $300 than males. Males (regardless of nationality) more fre-quently choose cultural relativism. We found no noteworthy differences inthe responses of U.S. students from different racioethnic groups. Finally, inour experience, students from the country in the case (Thailand) and nearbycountries tended to participate more than usual during the discussion. Asa result, unlike some group discussions in which the U.S. students domi-nated, international students, whose direct experiences countered that of theU.S. student, strongly impacted the groups decision to either pay the bribeor make an undecided or combined-approach decision.



Evidence of Student Learning

Student responses on the Postethical Decision-Making Exercise Learningand Reflection Form (Appendix G) provided evidence of the ethics-relatedlearning that we expected. Three categories of knowledge typified studentspostexercise comments: knowledge of facts, knowledge of self, and knowl-edge of others, which correspond to our three learning objectives. LearningObjective (LO) 1 was to increase studentsunderstanding of six ethical decision-making strategies (knowledge of facts). LO 2 was to increase students aware-ness of their own ethical decision-making criteria (knowledge of self). LO 3was to increase studentsunderstanding of the bases for diverse group membersdifferent ethical decision-making strategies (knowledge of others).

In addition, the exercise had an unexpected impact: Students indepen-dently recalled the exercise 2 months later in reflective papers, in whichthey were asked to share some of their meaningful learning in our courses.We view this as evidence of integrated student learning. Next, we sharecomments from students ethics-related and integrated learning.

ETHICS-RELATED LEARNING

Students gained a better understanding of the six ethical decision-makingstrategies (LO 1). According to some students, they had not examined theirresponses to ethical dilemmas analytically. Thus they left the exercise with anincreased understanding of the conceptual facts of the exercise. The follow-ing student comments demonstrate increased factual knowledge:

I did not realize these [the decision-making approaches] even existed! It is agood way to compare ethical choices and then deduce what you ethicallywant to do.

I was not familiar with these [ethical decision-making strategies].Different processes to consider when making an ethical decision. Allows youto consider multiple reactions.

Students also reported increased awareness of their own ethical deci-sion-making criteria (knowledge of self). The following student commentsare examples of increased knowledge of self:

[The decision-making approaches] allowed me to look at the case from a varietyof angles other than my initial gut reaction strategy (light-of-day/legalism).I typically go w/ legalism but by seeing all of the diff. perspectives, Im ableto view different options.

I would have expected legalism to be my top choice; however, I usually tryto put customer first.



Our third LO was to increase students knowledge of others. Specifically,we sought to help students better understand the bases for diverse groupmembers ethical decision-making strategies. Following are comments inwhich students reported gaining a better knowledge of others decision-making strategies:

I chose cultural relativism and chose to pay the man. My group voted 3-2 tonot pay the bribe because they followed the light-of-day strategy.

It was nice to see what others thought about the case and how everyone hadsuch a different perspective. Some of the solutions I would have neverthought of otherwise.

I did learn a lot while discussing the case with my group. Everyone shared adifferent vision on the case, and this enlightened my overall view.

INTEGRATED LEARNING

We were pleasantly surprised that student learning exceeded the threeintended LOs. The students in the organizational behavior course had anend-of-semester conceptual application assignment. Their task was to recallexperiences from their classroom groups and apply organizational behaviorconcepts to explain them. Although we conducted this exercise early in thesemester (usually during Week 4), students often chose this experience onwhich to reflect. The following excerpts from their conceptual applicationpapers demonstrate student sense making of their own and their groupmembers behavior during the exercise. Many of their comments addressed thegroup dynamics, conflict management, and personality issues that emerged intheir diverse groups as they sought consensus.

Group dynamics. Students referenced the group dynamics chapter in theorganizational behavior text, which described various task, maintenance,and self-oriented roles that individuals in groups fulfill:

For example, B and K got into a heated discussion between the two of them(pairing) in the George Thailand case. I was the one to step in, have B saywhat he thought to the group, then have K share her opinion and then inviteother group members to finish their thoughts. These maintenance-orientedroles I play within my group can also be extended to situations with my work,family, and friends.

R also took on the role of encourager on a few occasions such as when theclass discussed the George Williams in Thailand ethics case. He was verygood about inviting A and M to share their perspectives as students fromSyria and Italy, ensuring that they knew he was genuinely interested in theiroutlook and that it was safe to disclose their honest thoughts. P brought alight-hearted humor and a different perspective to the group. He didnt



always speak up right away, but he was always ready to offer his thoughts inan articulate and intelligent manner that spurred other ideas. He was anencourager by affirming other peoples contributions.

A great example of all these dynamics working together is the assignmentwe had on George Williams, who owned an automotive parts supply company.He was having trouble with a distribution center in Thailand, and we had todecide what he should do. After reading the story, I immediately gave myinitial reaction to the conflict to provoke discussion. A volunteered totake notes on our thoughts. We had many disagreements on the best remedyfor the problem. R constantly asked the difficult questions of morality.B told us how he would solve the problem and explained how it wouldbe handled in his country. J gave her input and stressed that we need towork together and not argue. L brought many relevant perspectives to thediscussion and made sure that we ended up with some sort of conclusionwhen the time was up.

Conflict management. The following excerpts demonstrate how studentsapplied their knowledge of their (and others) modes of handling conflict:

Im a compromiser under the Thomas-Kilmann conflict management style. Itdescribes me quite accurately because I value stability, harmony and rela-tionships too much that I am not assertive in conflicts and seldom contributeto a good solution that pleases both sides fully. For instance, in the earlierclass activity on ethics, when our group had to agree on decision-makingmethod, I compromised with using light-of-day, despite my strong prefer-ence for categorical imperative after presenting my points in a very mildmanner. I should learn to be more assertive and cooperative to reach collab-oration, the win-win solution.

When we were discussing the George Williams case in class, one of myteam members and I had totally opposing views on what George shoulddo. He insisted that my way was wrong and that George would not getanywhere. However, ethics and morals are things that I strongly believeshould not be compromised. I did not raise my voice, nor did I get upsetover my team members ideas. I just tried to get him to see my point, andthen I tried to collaborate with him and come up with a consensus of whatGeorge should do.

Personality (Myers-Briggs). Students often saw links between Myers-Briggspersonality type and the ethical decision-making strategy chosen. Particularly,they focused on the Deciding dimension of the Myers-Briggs which classi-fies one as either Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).

When we were doing the George William case, I could clearly observe thedifference between T- and F-type personalities. F-type personalities empha-sized values and would not use bribery as an option. T-type personalities cal-culated the risk of getting caught and were more willing to use bribery. Eventhough I am identified as an F-type, I was willing to use bribery. First, this



decision didnt interfere with my personal values (F-type thinking), and therisk of getting caught seemed to be very minimal (T-type thinking).In this scenario, it was the one with the bribe in Southeast Asia. XX was reallyagainst allowing the guy to give the bribe. Her personality type I believe isthinking and judging, which would explain that. I think she is more on thelawful side of things. Thus she offered the other side that we as a group didntsee because we were for the bribe itself. Nevertheless, we heard her out, andshe put another dimension into our decision making with the case.

Our idealism and lack of logic showed itself again during the Thailand casewhere we said we would not comply with paying the bribe because it ismorally wrong. Once again, this decision showed extreme idealism with rel-atively no concern for the logical implications of this choice such as losingthe business altogether because of lack of revenue. Had our group been morebalanced in our strengths and weaknesses, I believe that we would havelacked the consensus we often had, but our decisions would have reflectedlogical, more complex thinking.

Conclusion

Within our classrooms, students engaged in an ethical decision-makingexercise. This exercise involved individual reflection and discussions in bothsmall groups and the wider class. During the small group discussions, theyreflected on the case in diverse teams with the goal of reaching consensus.Many of our international students who were often quiet in class becamemore vocal. Evidence showed that students improved their factual under-standing of ethical decision-making approaches, increased their knowledgeof their own ethical decision-making criteria, and better understood thediffering ethical decision-making strategies of their classmates. Furthermore,they demonstrated integrated learning by accurately applying organizationalbehavior concepts to explain their experience of the exercise. Given thatstudents' individual and group opinions differed, we intend to ask studentsin future iterations of the exercise if they changed their individual opinion ordecision-making approach based on the small group and class discussions.

The George Williams in Thailand classroom exercise can be used toimprove students ability to make sound ethical decisions and work withindiverse groups to reach consensus. As evidenced by the integrated learningreflections, we believe that these abilities last beyond the exercise andexpand students capacity to make complex decisions that require weighingevidence, providing sound justification for ideas, understanding multiplepoints of view, and considering consequences. Improving students aware-ness and understanding of ethical decision making among diverse groups isa crucial ingredient for developing stronger ethical decision makers in anincreasingly diverse and complex business world.



Appendix AThe Case: George Williams in Thailand1

George Williams owns an automotive parts supply company in Southfield,Michigan. For the past 10 years, he has grown the company, Williams Supply, froma small operation to one with over $50 million in sales and 200 employees. Hislargest customer is General Motors, with approximately 60% of his sales. As one ofa handful of new parts suppliers to GM, he prides himself on delivering outstandingvalue to his customers based on the highest standards of excellence.

Several U.S. automotive companies, including General Motors, are trying to expandtheir operations in Asia. In response to this, George has set up a parts distribution centerin Thailand due to cheap labor, a highly skilled workforce, and central access to ashipping port. He has hired a local consultant, Mr. Sumardi, to help him set up hisoperations in Thailand. Sumardi is fluent in several Asian languages, none of whichGeorge speaks.

On arrival, George is struck by the workers sitting around and the virtuallyempty shelves in the warehouse. George comments, Why am I paying these mento sit around and do nothing. Sumardi replies, I am sorry, Mr. Williams, but I didnot have enough resources to get the parts moved from the docks. George is puzzledby his response and asks him to explain.

The parts are at the dock, said Sumardi. He continues, It is partly owned bythe government and a private company, Sati Shipping. OK, then lets talk to Satiand get my parts, replies George.

George and Sumardi go to Sati Shipping at the dock. Sumardi speaks to a manwho is supervising the dockworkers. He then finishes and turns to George.Mr. Chen says that they are very busy today and that they cannot get to your shipmentunless you can pay him $300. I did not have the resources to pay him before.George replies, Tell him that I already paid his company $10,000 to ship anddeliver my parts! Sumardi speaks to Mr. Chen and turns back to George. Imsorry, but the parts cannot be moved today.

While Sumardi speaks, George is considering his options. He has never failedbefore, and he is not planning to do so now. He wonders what General Motorswould think because it has a policy of not paying bribes to foreign officials in com-pliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Moreover, he takes pride in being asuccessful and principled businessman.

Appendix BFacilitator Instructions

The following section explains how we facilitate this exercise in our classes. Asstated earlier, the exercise George Williams in Thailand has three learning objec-tives: (a) understanding ethical decision-making strategies, (b) increasing awarenessof ones own ethical decision-making criteria, and (c) understanding the bases fordiverse group members different ethical decision-making strategies.

At the start of class, we post the following agenda on the whiteboard at the frontof the classroom. Then we proceed to the three steps.

(continued)



Appendix B (continued)

AGENDA

Check-in (welcome, questions on assignments, housekeeping, etc.) George Williams in Thailand Individual opinions (Individual Form 1) Lecturette and discussion: Ethical decision-making strategies Individual conceptual choice (Individual Form 2) Small group discussion (Group Decision Form) Class discussion So what?

STEP 1: GENERATING AND COLLECTING INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS

1. Read the case (Appendix A) aloud to students. We find that reading the casealoud increases the comprehension of our students for whom English is nottheir first language. However, do not answer questions about the case.

2. Give each student one hard copy of the case (Appendix A) and one copy ofIndividual Form 1 (Appendix C).

3. Instruct students to complete the form silently. Inform them that they willhave time to discuss it with each other shortly. Give students 1015 min to reread and record their opinions on the open-

ended Individual Form 1. After students complete the forms, remind them to write their names on

the forms. Collect the forms.

4. Introduce the six ethical decision-making approaches (Appendix F).5. List the six ethical decision-making approaches across the top of the whiteboard.6. Explain each approach. You and students may use examples to facilitate

explanation as long as examples do not come from the case you just distrib-uted. The goal of this step is to explain each approach so that students canuse them in making an ethical decision.

7. Distribute the second individually completed handout Individual Form 2(Appendix D). Instruct students to choose an ethical decision-making approach, and

then record the conclusion to which the chosen approach leads; forexample, ask, If you choose approach A, what advice would thatapproach lead you to give George Williams?

Remind students again to silently complete this form without talking toeach other.

Tell students to write their names on the forms. Collect Individual Form 2.

STEP 2: GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND CONSENSUS BUILDING

1. Give students the following assignment to complete in their small groups(47 students).



Talk through each ethical decision strategy. Determine what advice it leads each of you to give George Williams. Reach consensus on which approach you recommend for this case. Reach consensus on what advice to give George. Record your choice of approach and advice to George on the Group

Consensus Form (Appendix E).2. Tell students to put the group name (if they have one) or list individual

members names on the form.3. Collect these group forms.

STEP 3: DEBRIEFING THE EXERCISE (LENGTHEN OR SHORTENACCORDING TO TIME CONSTRAINTS)

1. Record the group names down the left of the board and the six approachesacross the top of the board, making a matrix of group names and approaches.

2. Review actions proposed by students. Did they recommend actions beyondpaying or not paying the $300?

3. Ask the students, What other alternatives might you propose to George?Encourage them to think outside of the box.

4. Ask how many students feel that paying the $300 in the case is wrong.5. Ask how many recommend paying the $300 anyway. Why?6. Ask if the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1998 was relevant in this case.

Ask for reasons to support their answers.7. At this point, students often ask what happened in the real-life case, and we

respond.8. Ask students to discuss the following:

How well did they utilize the views of members of the group? How can you improve your ethical decision-making ability? What are the implications for individual decision-making and integrity?

9. Distribute the Postethical Decision-Making Exercise Learning andReflection Form (Appendix G). Give students 510 min to reflect on their learning. Ask them to put their names on the form and collect the forms. Close the class by soliciting so whats of the exercise. Ask them what use-

ful ideas they learned about themselves, about others, or about ethicaldecision making. In essence, you are asking a few students to share ver-bally their learning from the exercise.

Appendix CIndividual Form 1

Individual opinion: George Williams in Thailand scenario

Name:____________________________What advice would you give George Williams? Please give details.How did you decide on this advice?Is your advice correct? How will you know if the advice is correct?



Appendix DIndividual Form 2

Name:____________________________Which ethical decision-making approach would you choose? Please circle your

choice. Categorical Imperative Cultural Relativism Enlightened Self-Interest Legalism Light-of-Day Utilitarianism

Why did you choose this approach? Please explain.Does your choice indicate paying the bribe? Please explain.

Appendix EGroup Consensus Form

GROUP MEMBERS PARTICIPATING:

______________________________ ____________________________

______________________________ ____________________________

______________________________ ____________________________

______________________________ ____________________________

Which would you choose and why? Indicate whether or not this approach leadsyour group to pay or not to pay the bribe. Categorical Imperative Cultural Relativism Enlightened Self Interest Legalism Light-of-Day Utilitarianism

Appendix FEthical Decision-Making Approaches

Categorical imperative relies on absolute rules and universal laws that must befollowed, regardless of the situation at hand. Their veracity unquestioned, theserules are assumed to govern everyones behavior. This view was first attributed toGerman philosopher Immanuel Kant (17241804). Kants categorical imperativerequires individuals to make decisions based on rules that they want themselvesand others to follow (Hunt, 1991). An example of using this strategy would be asalespersons refusal to be dishonest with a customer because the Ten Commandments



advise Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (Exodus 20:16), whichis taken to apply absolutely to everyone in every circumstance.

Legalism bases ethical decisions on societys laws or policies (Kolb, Osland, &Rubin, 1995; Pegano, 1987). These laws form an objective standard by which decisionsare evaluated. Thus if a decision is prohibited by law or policy, then it is unethical.Conversely, any decision not expressly prohibited is considered to be ethical. Anexample of using this strategy may be a U.S. citizen citing the Foreign Corrupt PracticesAct to determine what is legal and therefore ethical to pay a foreign enterprise.

Cultural relativism determines what is ethical based on operating cultural norms,not on absolute truth (Herskovits, 1947, 1972; Nill & Shultz, 1997). Cultural normsare determined by social groups. This philosophy has its roots in social anthropology(Hollis & Lukes, 1982; Hunt, 1991) and is tied to the early work of Herskovits (1947,1972). In studies of American colonists, cultural relativism is used to counter the eth-nocentric views of the British (Hunt, 1991). This approach adapts ethical decisionmaking to the current cultural milieu. On the basis of adapting to cultural differences,this approach advises that within reason, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Thismantra becomes a rule of thumb for guiding behavior. An example of this approachwould be following another countrys custom of paying a theater attendant to moveone to the front of a queue ahead of other patrons who had waited longer.

Enlightened self-interest determines the costs and benefits to the decision maker.Some attribute this approach to Aristotle, though others note Aristotles emphasis onprudence as the highest virtue, which would argue for the most reasoned decision.Modern philosophers who view logical reason and acting in ones own interest asthe highest form of morality (Locke, 2002; Rand, 1982) modified this approach.They proposed that enlightened self-interest requires decision makers to analyze thefacts logically, to determine the effects of alternatives and consequences on them-selves, and to choose the option with the most favorable consequences for them-selves. An example of this approach is padding an expense report because one needsmoney to buy food until the next payday.

Utilitarianism uses costbenefit analyses to determine how various optionsimpact others. Decision makers seek to optimize the number of people that wouldbenefit from the decision at hand. However, to determine this, decision makers firstdetermine which individuals or stakeholders are impacted by the decision. They thenseek to maximize the happiness, welfare, or pleasure of those affected by the deci-sion. Attributed to Jeremy Bentham (17481832) and later modified by John StuartMill (18061873), this approach is often based on seeking the greatest good for thegreatest number (Hunt, 1991; Mallinger, 1997). An example of this approach wouldbe terminating the most expensive employees to maximize shareholder wealth.

Light-of-day weighs costs and benefits according to the opinions of others. Usingthe light-of-day approach, the decision maker determines rightness by calculating thecosts and benefits that occur if the decision becomes public knowledgeparticularlyto those whose opinions the decision maker values. Thus others views matter mostin determining whether the decision is ethically right or wrong. Popularly nicknamedthe newspaper standard (Mallinger, 1997; Steiner & Steiner, 1985), the decisionmaker asks, Would I make the decision if it were printed on the front page of thenewspaper? Public opinion thus dictates decisions. An example of this might be refus-ing to take a bribe out of concern that one would lose customers if they found out.


Appendix GPostethical Decision-Making Exercise

Learning and Reflection Form

Did you learn anything new as a result of the following? If so, please note itunder the element of the exercise to which youre referring. Please be as detailedas possible. Use the reverse side if needed.

The mini-caseThe ethical decision-making strategiesYour choice of ethical decision-making strategyYour groups discussion regarding the strategyOther?What could have further enhanced your learning from this exercise?

Note

1. While the events are based on a true story, the names and places have been modifiedto protect the individuals and companies involved.

References

Baetz, M. C., & Sharp, D. J. (2004). Integrating ethics content into the core business curriculum:Do core teaching materials do the job? Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 5362.

Daft, R., & Marcic, D. (2001). Understanding management (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thompson.Dahl, J., Mandell, M., & Barton, M. (1987, March). Ethics and the undergraduate business

student. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Academy of Management,Big Sky, MT.

Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (1998). Managing diversity: A complete desk reference andplanning guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Garten, J. E. (2005, September 5). B-schools: Only a C+ in ethics. Business Week, p. 110.Hartman, E. M. (2006). Can we teach character? An Aristotelian answer. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 5, 6881.Herskovits, M. J. (1947). Man and his works. New York: Knopf.Herskovits, M. J. (1972). Cultural relativism. New York: Random House.Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (1982). Rationality and relativism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Hunt, S. D. (1991). Modern marketing theory: Critical issues in the philosophy of marketing

science. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.Kolb, D. A., Osland, J. S., & Rubin, I. M. (1995). Organizational behavior: An experiential

approach (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Locke, E. A. (2002). The epistemological side of teaching management: Teaching through

principles. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 195205.Longnecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (1988). The ethical issue of international

bribery: A study of attitudes among US business professionals. Journal of Business Ethics,7, 341346.

Lund Dean, K., & Beggs, J. M. (2006). University professors and teaching ethics:Conceptualizations and expectations. Journal of Management Education, 30, 1544.

Lyndale, P. J. (2004). Ethics education and ethical behavior. Chronicle of Higher Education,50, B21B22.



Magun-Jackson, S. (2004). A psychological model that integrates ethics in engineeringeducation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 219224.

Mallinger, M. (1997). Decisive decision-making: An exercise using ethical frameworks.Journal of Management Education, 21, 411417.

Mallinger, M. (1998). Maintaining control in the classroom by giving up control. Journal ofManagement Education, 22, 472483.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trustfor management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123136.

Messick D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decisionmaking. Sloan Management Review, 37, 922.

Miesing, P., & Preble, J. F. (1985). A comparison of five business philosophies. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 4, 465476.

Nill, A. L., & Shultz, C. J., II (1997). Making ethics across cultures: Decision-making guidelinesand the emergence of diologic idealism. Journal of Macromarketing, 17, 419.

Oddo, A. R. (1997). A framework for teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 16,293297.

Pegano, A. M. (1987, August). Criteria for ethical decision-making. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.

Phatak, A., & Habib, M. (1998). How should managers treat ethics in international business?Thunderbird International Business Review, 40, 101117.

Rand, A. (1982). Philosophy: Who needs it. New York: Signet.Sachdev, A. (2003, February 14). Ethics moves to the head of the class: In the wake of recent

corporate scandals, educators are taking a hard look at values and leadership training fortomorrows business leaders. Chicago Tribune, p. 3.1.

Steiner, G. A., & Steiner, J. F. (1985). Business government and society (4th ed.). New York:Random House.

Tsalikis, J., & LaTour, M. S. (1995). Bribery and extortion in international business: Ethicalperceptions of Greeks compared to Americans. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 249264.

U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Lay-persons guide to FCPA: Foreign Corrupt Practices Actantibribery provisions. Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/docs/dojdocb.html

Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). The perceived role of ethics and socialresponsibility: A study of marketing professionals. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 6386.

Williams, S. D., & Dewitt, T. (2005). Yes, you can teach business ethics: A review and researchagenda. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 109120.

Woo, C. Y. (2003). Personally responsible. BizEd, 11, 2227.


/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

13 an ethical decision-making exercise

Documents