THE ETHICAL VIEWS BUSINESS LEADERS, UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES


image

SELECT YEARS 1983 - 2003


FINAL DRAFT


BY


Ellen Sutor, Kathleen Casey and Paul C. Thistlethwaite

Department of Marketing and Finance Western Illinois University Research Design Dynamics

Macomb, Il

DEVELOPED FOR THE AMERICAN NATIONAL BUSINESS HALL OF FAME BOARD

November 4, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS



SECTION 1:



EXECTUIVE SUMMARY

Contents

Page

iv

SECTION 2:


INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY


1

SECTION 3:


BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL THREE GROUPS


7

SECTION 4:


FOCUS ON ALL 3 GROUPS FOR 2003 ONLY


13

SECTION 5:


FOCUS ON ONLY THE BUSINESS LEADERS FOR 2003


32

SECTION 6:


FOCUS ON ONLY THE FACULTY FOR 2003


44

SECTION 7:


FOCUS ON ONLY THE STUDENTS FOR 2003


55

SECTION 8:


FOCUS ON ALL THREE GROUPS FOR ALL YEARS


67

SECTION 9:


FOCUS ON BUSINESS LEADERS FOR THREE YEARS


93

SECTION 10:


FOCUS ON FACULTY FOR TWO YEARS


109

SECTION 11:


FOCUS ON STUDENTS FOR TWO YEARS


123

SECTION 12:


APPENDICES


137


APPENDIX A:

FIRST PAGE OF THE EXCEL DATA FILE


138


APPENDIX B:

1983 BUSINESS LEADER QUESTIONS


141


APPENDIX C:

2003 BUSINESS LEADER QUESTIONNAIRE


148


APPENDIX D:

2003 FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE


151


APPENDIX E:

2003 STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE


157

List of Tables


Table

Page

TABLE 2A.

RESPONSE RATES FOR THE THREE BUSINESS LEADER STUDIES.

3

TABLE 2B.

RESPONSE RATES FOR THE TWO FACULTY STUDIES

3

TABLE 2C.

NUMBER OF STUDENTS FROM EACH UNIVERSITY

4

TABLE 2D.

RESPONSE RATES FOR THE TWO STUDENT STUDIES

4

TABLE 2E.

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ASKED IN EACH SURVEY

5

TABLE 3A.

PERCENT IN EACH GROUP HAVING TAKEN AN ETHICS OR MORAL

8


PHILOSOPHY COURSE


TABLE 3B.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDING BUSINESS LEADERS

9

TABLE 3C.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDING FACULTY

11

TABLE 3D.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDING STUDENTS

12

TABLE 4A.

PERCENT OF EACH OF THE THREE 2003 RESPONDING GROUPS AGREEING WITH EACH STATEMENT�� (1=SA;5=SD)

15

TABLE 4B.

FOR ALL SEVEN YEARS, PERCENT OF EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS PROVIDING THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT (1=SA;

25


5=SD)


TABLE 5A.

PERCENT OF THE BUSINESS LEADERS IN 2003 AGREEING WITH EACH STATEMENT (1 = SA , 5=SD)

34

TABLE 5B.

PERCENT OF THE BUSINESS LEADERS IN 2003 PROVIDING THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT (1=SA;5=SD)

39

TABLE 6A.

PERCENT OF THE FACULTY IN 2003 AGREEING WITH EACH STATEMENT(1 = SA , 5=SD)

46

TABLE 6B.

PERCENT OF THE FACULTY IN 2003 PROVIDING THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT (1=SA;5=SD)

50

TABLE 7A.

PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS IN 2003 AGREEING WITH EACH STATEMENT(1=SA;5=SD)

57

TABLE 7B.

PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS IN 2003 PROVIDING THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT (1=SA;5=SD)

62

TABLE 8A.

FOR ALL YEARS, PERCENT OF EACH OF THE RESPONDING GROUPS AGREEING WITH EACH STATEMENT(1=SA;5=SD)

69

TABLE 8B.

FOR ALL SEVEN YEARS, PERCENT OF EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS PROVIDING THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT��� (1=SA;5=SD)

81

TABLE 9A.

FOR EACH OF THE THREE STUDIES, PERCENT OF THE BUSINESS LEADERS AGREEING WITH EACH STATEMENT���� (1=SA;5=SD)

95

TABLE 9B.

FOR EACH OF THE THREE STUDIES, PERCENT OF THE BUSINESS LEADERS PROVIDING THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT (1=SA;5=SD)

102

TABLE 10A.

FOR EACH OF THE TWO STUDIES, PERCENT OF THE FACULTY AGREEING WITH EACH STATEMENT�� (1=SA;5=SD)

111

TABLE 10B.

FOR EACH OF THESTWO STUDIES, PERCENT OF THE FACULTY PROVIDING THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT (1=SA;5=SD)

117

TABLE 11A.

FOR EACH OF THE TWO STUDIES, PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS AGREEING WITH EACH STATEMENT�� (1=SA;5=SD)

125

TABLE 11B.

FOR EACH OF THE TWOSTUDIES, PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS PROVIDING THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT (1=SA;5=SD)

131


SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


BUSINESS LEADERS, FACULTY AND STUDENTSETHICAL VIEWS:


SELECTED YEARS


1983 2003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study of business professionals, university faculty and college students provides insights into their ethical beliefs.Not only can one compare the views of these three groups in late 2003, but the views can be compared to prior studies of the three groups.Consequently, a very large amount of information has been provided in this report for the reader.Trying to summarize the important findings will be left to the reader.People interested in this study will have different perspectives and different research needs.Please examine the information that you are interested in.Do write about it.Only one conference paper has been developed from the data thus far.The American National Business Hall of Fame board members have received a file copy of this report, the SPSS data file, and an excel file containing results from an additional 189 students from University of Louisiana at Monroe and 84 students from the University of Oregon.Other persons interested in the data may contact Richard Hattwick for the files at richardhattwick@bellsouth.net or (561) 676-8784


SECTION 2:

INTRODUCTION AND


METHODOLOGY


BUSINESS LEADERS, FACULTY AND STUDENTSETHICAL VIEWS: SELECTED YEARS, 1983 TO 2003


INTRODUCTION

The Illinois Hall of Fame began an intensive study of ethics in 1983 with a mail survey of randomly selected business leaders of Americas largest 10,000 corporations.Other studies of other business leaders, university faculty and students were conducted in 1988, 1989 and 1995.In order to obtain the views of these three groups in 2003, follow-up studies were commissioned by the Board of Directors of the American National Business Hall of Fame. Paul Thistlethwaite, president of Research Design Dynamics and Emeritus Professor of Marketing at WIU worked with two senior students in marketing, Ellen Sutor and Kathleen Casey to conduct the studies.Several objectives guided the research.In order to demonstrate these in this report, a strucu8tre was created that will facilitate the appropriate comparisons.

  1. To obtain updated information on each of the three groups.

  2. To compare the three groupsopinions in 2003.

  3. To compare the 2003 opinions with the earlier four studies.

  4. To compare the 2003 business leadersopinions with those of 1988 and 1983.

  5. To compare the 2003 faculty membersopinions with those of 1989.

  6. To compare the 2003 studentsopinions with those of 1995.

This report will be primarily a statistical report since so many different comparisons of groups are made.�� Different persons can use the information to develop professional articles.

METHODOLGY

In order to obtain the views of business leaders, faculty and students, three different methodologies were employed.The business leaders and faculty were surveyed using the methodologies of the earlier studies.The studentsopinions were gathered from several universities instead of just one; the methodology employed in the earlier studies.�� The following two sections discuss the actual data collection procedures including response rates and the differences in the questionnaires.

Business Leaders

The Hall of Fame has conducted three studies of business leaders.All three surveyed random selections of organizations from the 10,000 largest in the U.S.A mail survey was employed in each of these.�� The appropriate respondent was the chief executive officer or the president.Others were given the survey to respond to though.The response rates for these studies are presented in Table 1.


TABLE 2A. RESPONSE RATES FOR THE THREE BUSINESS LEADER STUDIES.


1983 *

1988**

2003

Population of interest




Number Sent out

700

864

1445

Number of good responses

119

138

66

Response Rate

17

16


Source: 2003 Study of Ethics





*Hattwick, Richard, Bong-Gon P. Shin and Larry C. Wall (1984).� �BusinessEthics- Findings of a Survey of Americas Business Leaders,Journal of Behavioral Economics, pp. 157-185.


**Prasad, Jyoti, Yunus Kathawala, Matthew Monippallil and Richard Hattwick ��� (1993).� �Business and Academe:A comparison of Perceptions on Business Ethics,�� The Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 22, Number 1, pp. 69-83.


The response rate in 2003 was much lower than the other two groups.In the intervening 15 years, chief executives and presidents have been receiving many more surveys than in the past. This might account for the lower response rate.The lack of a follow-up postcard might have contributed to it also.Twice as many surveys were sent out this time as in the past so a follow-up postcard would not be necessary. This was not an accurate assumption.A follow-up postcard would probably have been more effective.

Faculty

In both 1989 and 2003, university faculty were contacted by sending a letter to the Dean of a college of business and asking him or her to complete the survey and also ask three other faculty to respond.All of the selected colleges in 2003 were members of the AACSB.�� A follow-up postcard was sent out three weeks after the initial survey was mailed.This was too apparently too long of a time period to elapse to be effective.A problem also did arise with this survey that may have contributed to a lower response rate.Some of the faculty received questions that inadvertently had been printed with the student demographic questions rather than the faculty demographic ones.All of the deans received the correct version.


TABLE 2B.����� RESPONSE RATES FOR THE TWO FACULTY STUDIES


1989*

2003

Population of interest



Number Sent out

637 x 4

634 X 4

Number of good responses

445

269

Response Rate

17%

11%

Source:� ���������������

2003 Study of Ethics



*Monippallil, Matthew, Yunus Kathawala, Richard Hattwick, Larry Wall and Bong-Gon P. Shin, (1999).� �Business Ethics in America:A View From the Classroom,The Journal of Behavioral Economics, Volume 19, Number 1, pp.125-140.


Students

The students in the 1995 study were college of business students from Eastern Illinois University.In order to obtain a wider perspective of studentsethical attitudes, faculty from the American National Hall of Fame were invited to participate in the collection of student data at their university.A few other selected faculty were also invited to participate.By January 10, 2004, a total of 1009 good questionnaires were returned for processing and analysis.An additional 84 were provided by Simona Stan at the University of Oregon.Jerry Wall at University of Louisiana at Monroe collected 189 surveys from his university.They were received in February and could not be included in the first version of this report.Redoing the many, many tables to include their data was beyond the scope of this study.They, however, will be part of the database that faculty can use to develop professional articles.�� The students attended college at a private university, several regional universities and two flagship universities.�� Table 2C presents the listing of the universities that participated and the number of students surveyed at each.�� Table 2.E gives information about the number of students in each of the two studies.



TABLE 2C.���� NUMBER OF STUDENTS FROM EACH UNIVERSITY

University

Contact

Number Returned

Percent

Colorado State U.

John Olienyk&

O.C. Ferrell

79

8%

Eastern Illinois U.

Yunus Kathawala

186

18

Illinois Wesleyan U.

Fred Hoyt

45

4

Kennesaw State U.

Kamal Fatehi

198

20

Loyola Marymount U.

Edmund Gray

156

16

Southeast Mo State U.

Ken Heischmidt

57

6

Southwest Mo State U.

Charlie Pettijohn

58

6

U. of Akron

Mike dAmico

109

11

U. of Illinois Champaign

John Kindt

21

2

Western Illinois U.

Joe Dobson

100

10


101%

*U. of Louisiana at Monroe

Jerry Wall

189


*U. of Oregon

Simona Stan

84

Source:��� 2003 Study of Ethics


*Not included in this report.


TABLE 2D. NUMBER OF RESPONSES FOR THE TWO STUDENT

����� STUDIES


1995 *

2003

Population of interest

College of

Business students

Students taking classes in

the College of Business.

Number of good responses

191

1009

Source:� ��������������� 2003 Study of Ethic


* Prasad, Jyoti, Nancy Marlow and Richard Hattwick (1998).� ���

Gender-BasedDifferences in Perception of a Just Society, Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 17, pp. 219-228.


QUESTIONNAIRE


The researchers thought the questionnaire would be the easiest part of the research process.They were mistaken.This part of the research became a very complicated part.The studies from 1983 to 1995 did not include the same questions for all studies nor was the wording of the samequestion exactly the same.Some of the differences were unintentional.For example, the wording of the questions in the report for the 1983 study had slightly different wording for some of the questions that had been on the questionnaire.�� All questions from the studies were entered into an Excel spreadsheet so that a visual examination of the questions could be made. Anyone interested in looking

at this spreadsheet should contact Paul.The first page of the spreadsheet is given as Appendix A.Consequently,in most instances, the most recent wording was used.


Also, in doing all of the investigation of the wording of the questions, an error was made in the current study.In the previous studies, a five-point Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree scale had been utilized with No Opinion being the midpoint for most of the questions.In the 2003 survey, questions 30 to 38 were to have had the Influence set of answers.But the Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree set of answers was mistakenly used instead. The possible answers should have been Extensive Influence, Some Influence, No Opinion, Little Influence and No Influence.Therefore, the extent of influence can be gained by interpreting a questions such as To what extent are ethical standards of business executives influenced by peer group pressure?as Peer Group pressure influences the ethical standards of business executiveswith the degree of agreement being the possible answers.

Table 2.F gives the number of questions asked of each group for each survey.The first survey in 1983 had 93 questions.All three of the 2003 questionnaires had approximately 50 questions, instead of more questions, to try to increase response rate.


TABLE 2E.���� NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ASKED IN EACH SURVEY


Year of the Study


Group Surveyed

Number of Questions

Attitudinal

Demographic

1983

Business Leaders

85

9

1988

Business Leaders

48

5

1989

Faculty

48

5

1995

Students

51

4

2003

Business Leaders

47

7

2003

Faculty

47

5

2003

Students

47

4

Source:��� 2003 Study of Ethics


One of the major goals for the 2003 study was to keep the survey to no more than two pages, plus a cover letter.Also, the same attitudinal questions were to be asked of all three groups in 2003.Consequently, a review of the questions that had been asked ALL three groups from 1983 to 1995 revealed that only 29 had been asked of business leaders, faculty and students.These became the first 29 questions on the 2003 survey.Then, nine questions that had been asked of both the business leaders and the faculty were included.These were the infamous influencequestions that need to be reinterpreted from the original wording of the questions.The last nine questions had been asked of both business leaders and students.There were NO questions included on the 2003 questionnaires that had been asked of only one group.The demographic questions were changed for the three groups.Note that some of the faculty received a survey that had student demographics.For those instances, the information concerning having taken an ethics course and gender was still recorded for the faculty.


As indicated above, the seemingly relatively simple updating of the ethical views of three groups became complex since three different research designs had to be employed.Also, the original 84-attitudinal questions had to be analyzed for consistency in wording in subsequent surveys.Other ethical questions were added to the faculty survey.All subsequent surveys had no more than 48 attitudinal questions.Therefore deciding what to ask became a somewhat complex question.�� The research team consulted with Dick Hattwick concerning which form of the question should be used.The questionnaires for the business professionals, faculty and students are provided in Appendices B to E.


METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Given the complexity of the research design and the relatively few questions that had been asked of all three groups in earlier studies, the analysis therefore became a little more complex.�� Only 29 of the 47-attitudinal questions had been asked of all three groups in earlier studies. Therefore, the tables of analysis in this study had to accommodate the other 18 questions.The research team tried to make the tables of information as consistent and easy to use as possible.When a question was Not Asked of a particular group, then a NA was entered into the table.For the students in the 1995, some of the information asked on the survey was not presented in the journal article.Therefore, a NI for No Information (but asked) was included on the tables.�� For this current study, any nonresponse for the attitudinal questions was coded as a 3 for No Opinion.


Because there is so much information to be presented, the tables were segmented into logical sections.Also, within each section, where possible, a more summary like table with the question, the year, the group, the percent who agreed, the average response, the standard deviation and the number of respondents is presented.The second table, where possible, presents the percentage of respondents who gave each of the Agreement answers.


SECTION 3: BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF

ALL THREE GROUPS

BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUSINESS LEADERS, FACULTY AND STUDENTS


INTRODUCTION


The background characteristics of each of the three groups for 2003 will be presented.A comparison to the earlier respective demographics will also be given.The question on ethics is presented before the demographics.The characteristics of the business leaders, faculty and students will then be discussed.


Although not a demographic question, the question concerning haven taken an ethics class, its information is presented in this section.�� Table 3A reveals that business leaders were more likely to have taken the ethics course than the current college of business students.The students were the least likely to have had such a course.



TABLE 3A.��� PERCENT IN EACH GROUP HAVING TAKEN AN ETHICS

OR MORAL PHILOSOPHY COURSE


Percent Saying Yes

Business

Leaders


Faculty


Students

Have you ever taken an ethics or moral

philosophy course?

56%

51%

36%


(n=66)

(n=266)

(n=1003)

Source:����������� 2003 Study of Ethics


DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS


BUSINESS LEADERS


As shown in Table 3B, in 2003 an overwhelming percentage of the respondents were male, 92%.Even though Best Lists of Arizona randomly selected the sample of large companies, none of the respondents companies employed more than 900 persons.The average was in the 700 range.The two states with the largest number of respondents were California and Illinois, 14% and 11%.�� Almost half of the respondents were CEOs, in the service sector and had a management and marketing background.


The percentage of respondents in 1983 identifying themselves as CEOs was very close to the 2003 percentage.No information was reported in the 1988 article about business leaders.


TABLE 3B.���� DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ESPONDINGUSINESS LEADERS


Year of the Study

Demographic Characteristics

2003

1988

1983

Gender����������� :


Male

92%



Females

8%




100% (n=63)




Approximate Number of Employees

50

11%



500

22%



600

11%



700

11%



800

22%



900

22%




99%(n=9)




State in which you work

Alabama

2



CA

14



Colorado

2



Connecticut

2



Florida

3



Georgia

3



Illinois

11



Indiana

6



Iowa

2



Kentucky

2



Louisiana

3



MA

2



Maryland

2



MI

6



Minnesota

3



MO

2



Nebraska

2



New Jersey

3



New York

5



NC

3



Ohio

6



PA

5



SC

2



South Dakota

2



Tennessee

2



Texas

6




101% (n=66)




Job Title or Position


TABLE 3B.���� DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDING������������������������ USINESS LEADERS


Year of the Study

Demographic Characteristics

2003

1988

1983

CEO

47%


69%

President

20%



Vice President

20%


14%

Other

14%


17%


101% (n=64)


100% (n=119)


Largest General Area of Your Business

Services

44%



Manufacturing

30%



Agriculture/Construction

8%



Transportation

12%



US/Global/North America

5%




99% (n=61)




Functional Area in Which You Have Primarily Worked?

Management

33%



Marketing

18%



Finance

13%



Operations

27%



Other

8%




99% (n=58)



Source:������ 2003 Study of Ethics


FACULTY

In 2003, three fourths of the faculty respondents were male.The largest responding group was faculty.�� About half were from regional universities with masters programs.About 4 in 10 were in business administration or management.All of the respondents in 2003 were from AACSB accredited schools.Only 43% of the 1989 respondents were from AACSB schools.Note that there are many missing values in this data since not all faculty received a questionnaire with the correct demographic questions on it.In 1989, almost the same percentage of faculty responded as in 2003, 53% to 52%.


TABLE 3C.��� DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

RESPONDING FACULTY

Year of the Study

Demographic Characteristics

2003

1989

Gender

Male

75%


Female

25%



100%(n=264)



Title

Dean

39%

27%

Associate Dean

9%


Faculty

52%

53%

Chairpersons

0%

20%


100% (n=151)

100% (n=445)


General Nature of their Universities

Regional U.Undergraduate

Only

9%


Regional U. with Masters

52%


Doctoral Granting

40%



100% (n=90)



General Area of teaching

Accounting

11%


Business Administration

13%


Management

30%


Ethics and/or Law

6%


Management Information

6%


Economics

11%


Other

4%


Finance

7


Marketing

13%



100% (n=202)





AACSB Accredited

100%

43%





STUDENTS

Source:������ 2003 Study of Ethics


In 2003, over half of the students were male compared to 49% in 1995.�� There were a lower percentage of senior students in 2003 compared to 1995, 39% to 47%.�� The vast majority in both years was college ofbusiness majors.


TABLE 3D.��� DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDING STUDENTS


Year of the Study

Demographic Characteristics

2003

1995

Gender

Male

54%

49%

Female

46%

51%


100% (n=1002)

100% (n=191)


Year in School

Freshman/Sophomore

3%

8%

Junior/Senior

48%

45%

Senior/graduate school

39%

47%


100% (n=1009)

100% (n=191)


Major

College of Business

98%

90%

Other

2%

10%


100% (n=995)

100% (n=191)




Source:������ 2003 Study of Ethics


SECTION 4:

FOCUS ON ALL THREE GROUPS

FOR 2003 ONLY


SECTION 4:

FOCUS ON ALL THREE GROUPS FOR 2003 ONLY


INTRODUCTION

In this section, the focus is on the information concerning all three groups:business leaders, faculty and students.Table 4A presents a summary version of the information for each of the 47 attitudinal questions.For each question for each group, the percent that agreed with each statement is given.In addition, the average response (low is positive) and the standard deviation for each question are provided.The number of responses completes the information for each group for each question.Questions 30 to 38 are given at the end of the table since their answers should have reflected to what extentinstead of a SA to SD perspective.See Table 4B for a clearer understanding of these questions.


Table 4B gives the percentage of respondents who either Strongly Agreed, Agree, gave No Opinion, Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed for each question for each group.The discussion will focus on Table 4A.One can examine the differences in the actual responses in Table 4B depending upon his or her interest in the particular question and/or group.


ANALYSIS

Table 4A shows the percent of the three responding groups agreeing with each statement.Of the 47 questions on the 2003 questionnaire, 27 answers were positive from all of the respondents.Nine responses were negative from all of the respondents.The respondentsanswers were mixed on the other 11 questions.Of the 11 questions with mixed responses, faculty and students agreed 6 times, faculty and business people agreed 3 times, and business people and students agreed twice.Four out of the six times that faculty and students agreed their answers were positive.All three times that faculty agreed with business people their answers were negative.Business people and students agreed once positively and once negatively.Overall, business people gave positive answers 66 percent of the time; faculty gave positive answers 68 percent of the time; and students gave positive answers 72 percent of the time.



TABLE 4A.���� PERCENT OF EACH OF THE THREE 2003 RESPONDING

GROUPS AGREEINGWITH EACH STATEMENT(1=SA;5=SD)


Q#


QUESTION


Year


Type

%

Agree


Mean

Std.

Dev.


n=


1

The corporation has a responsibility

to take the

lead in solving major social problems such as

pollution, discrimination, and safety.


2003

Business

Leaders


76%


2.1


1.0


66

2003

Faculty

67%

2.4

1.2

269


2003


Students


77%


2.2


0.9


1009



2

The corporation has a responsibility to not become

involved in solving social problems unless doing so

becomes a cost of doing business or the opportunity

to earn a profit.


2003

Business

Leaders


11%


4.0


1.0


66

2003

Faculty

19%

3.8

1.1

269


2003


Students


25%


3.4


1.0


1009



3

The corporation has the responsibility to get involved in social responsibility projects because outside

pressures make suchan involvement a cost of doing business.


2003

Business

Leaders


35%


3.1


0.9


66

2003

Faculty

58%

2.7

1.0

269


2003


Students


60%


2.5


0.9


1009



4

The corporation has a responsibility to promote

equal opportunity in hiring and promotion.


2003

Business

Leaders


99%


1.3


0.5


66

2003

Faculty

95%

1.5

0.7

269









2003

Students

93%

1.5

0.8

1009



5

The corporation has a responsibility

to promote

conservation of energy even if doing so means a

reduction in profits.


2003

Business

Leaders


71%


2.4


1.0


66

2003

Faculty

68%

2.4

1.1

269

2003

Students

66%

2.3

1.0

1009



6

The corporation has a responsibility

to conserve

natural resources, even if doing so means a reduction

in profits.


2003

Business

Leaders


70%


2.4


1.0


66

2003

Faculty

73%

2.2

1.1

269

2003

Students

72%

2.2

0.9

1009



7

The corporation has a responsibility

to clean up or

avoid causing air, noise, and water pollution even if

doing so means a reduction in profits.


2003

Business

Leaders


92%


1.9


0.8


66

2003

Faculty

81%

2.0

1.0

269


2003


Students


83%


1.9


0.8


1009



8

The corporation has a responsibility

to contribute

money and management time to civic activities in

communities where the firm has plants or offices.


2003

Business

Leaders


88%


1.7


0.9


66

2003

Faculty

80%

2.0

0.9

269


2003


Students


73%


2.2


0.9


1009



9

The corporation has a responsibility to help minority

owned businesses.


2003

Business

Leaders


56%


2.6


1.1


66

2003

Faculty

42%

2.8

1.0

269

2003

Students

30%

3.0

1.0

1009



10


The corporation has a responsibility to be truthful in

advertising.


2003

Business

Leaders


99%


1.2


0.4


66

2003

Faculty

99%

1.2

0.5

269

2003

Students

94%

1.5

0.7

1009



11

The typical business executive has

two sets of ethical standards, one which he/she applies to business activities and another which is applied to his/her private life.


2003

Business

Leaders


12%


4.3


1.0


66

2003

Faculty

38%

3.2

1.2

269

2003

Students

60%

2.6

1.2

1009



12


Ethical standards in business are lower than in government.


2003

Business Leaders


11%


4.2


0.9


66

2003

Faculty

15%

3.7

1.0

269

2003

Students

20%

3.4

1.0

1009



13

Ethical standards in business are lower than in most religious organizations.


2003

Business

Leaders


28%


3.5


1.2


66

2003

Faculty

51%

2.9

1.2

269

2003

Students

55%

2.6

1.1

1009



14

Ethical standards in business are lower than in the typical American family.


2003

Business

Leaders


19%


3.8


1.1


66

2003

Faculty

36%

3.1

1.1

269

2003

Students

46%

2.8

1.0

1009



15

The ethical standards used in business are as high as those practiced with family and friends.


2003

Business

Leaders


67%


2.5


0.9


66

2003

Faculty

34%

3.2

1.0

269

2003

Students

24%

3.3

1.0

1009



16

Occasionally, business people make decisions that are right for business but which are inconsistent with their personal ethical principles.


2003

Business

Leaders


59%


2.8


1.1


66

2003

Faculty

85%

2.1

0.7

269

2003

Students

89%

2.0

0.6

1009



17


Much advertising done by business is misleading to the consumer.


2003

Business

Leaders


29%


3.3


1.0


66


2003


Faculty


53%


2.8


1.1


269


2003


Students


60%


2.5


1.0


1009



18


Effective advertising may have to be somewhat misleading.


2003

Business

Leaders


8%


4.1


0.8


66

2003

Faculty

7%

4.1

0.8

269

2003

Students

36%

3.2

1.1

1009



19


It is in the long run self-interest of business to protect the customer.


2003

Business

Leaders


91%


1.8


0.8


66

2003

Faculty

92%

1.6

0.8

269

2003

Students

76%

2.1

0.9

1009



20

The average customer is less ethical in dealing with business than the business is in dealing with that customer.


2003

Business

Leaders


31%


3.1


1.0


66

2003

Faculty

20%

3.3

0.9

269

2003

Students

31%

3.1

1.0

1009



21

No employee should be required to engage in business practices that employee considers unethical.


2003

Business

Leaders


87%


1.7


0.9


66

2003

Faculty

81%

1.9

1.0

269

2003

Students

84%

1.8

0.9

1009



22

In accepting an employment offer each employee implicitly agrees to abide by the ethical standards of the employer, even if the company

standards differ from those of the employee.


2003

Business

Leaders


53%


2.8


1.2


66

2003

Faculty

43%

3.1

1.2

269


2003


Students


55%


2.7


1.1


1009



23

Wages and salaries should vary according to an employees productivity.


2003

Business

Leaders


88%


1.8


0.8


66

2003

Faculty

91%

1.8

0.7

269

2003

Students

84%

1.9

0.8

1009



24

Wages and salaries should vary according to both the employees productivity and years of service with the firm.


2003

Business

Leaders


49%


2.9


1.1


66


2003


Faculty


54%


2.7


1.1


269

2003

Students

81%

2.1

0.9

1009



25

Wages and salaries should vary primarily with the employee's years of service with the firm.


2003

Business

Leaders


3%


4.2


0.7


66

2003

Faculty

3%

4.1

0.7

269

2003

Students

36%

3.1

1.1

1009



26

Labor unions serve a useful purpose by prodding a particular management into fulfilling its responsibilities to labor.


2003

Business

Leaders


29%


3.6


1.2


66

2003

Faculty

54%

2.8

1.1

269


Students

47%

2.8





2003




1.0

1009



27


The corporation should seek to maximize short run profits.


2003

Business

Leaders


29%


3.4


1.2


66

2003

Faculty

16%

3.9

1.1

269

2003

Students

34%

3.1

1.0

1009



28

The corporation should seek to earn a satisfactory rate of return for stockholders.


2003

Business

Leaders


99%


1.5


0.5


66

2003

Faculty

95%

1.8

0.6

269

2003

Students

83%

2.1

0.7

1009



29

The ethical standards in competition

are determined by the least ethical competitor.If one firm engages in unethical conduct, the others will have to follow to survive.


2003

Business

Leaders


0%


4.5


0.6


66

2003

Faculty

7%

4.0

0.8

269

2003

Students

20%

3.6

1.1

1009



39


All institutions in our society should seek to protect and promote the interests of individuals.


2003

Business Leaders


34%


3.1


1.0


65


2003


Faculty


43%


2.8


1.1


268

2003

Students

63%

2.4

1.0

1009


40

Individual freedom may have to be partly restricted in order for organizations to effectively function.


2003

Business

Leaders


56%


2.7


1.1


66

2003

Faculty

69%

2.6

1.1

269

2003

Students

50%

2.8

1.1

1009



41

Government should redistribute income in order to assure a minimum standard of living for all citizens.


2003

Business

Leaders


23%


3.7


1.1


66

2003

Faculty

35%

3.3

1.3

269

2003

Students

28%

3.4

1.2

1009



42

Government should provide incentives for business to get involved in solving social problems.


2003

Business

Leaders


55%


2.8


1.1


66

2003

Faculty

74%

2.4

1.1

269

2003

Students

71%

2.3

0.9

1009



43


Truth in lending regulations are needed to protect the customer.


2003

Business

Leaders


86%


2.0


0.8


66

2003

Faculty

88%

1.9

0.8

269

2003

Students

75%

2.1

0.7

1009



44


Antitrust laws prohibiting price fixing benefit the customer.


2003

Business

Leaders


85%


2.1


0.8


66

2003

Faculty

82%

2.0

0.9

269

2003

Students

67%

2.2

0.8

1009



45


Lazy or incompetent employees should be fired.


2003

Business

Leaders


86%


1.9


0.9


66

2003

Faculty

87%

1.8

0.8

269

2003

Students

82%

1.9

0.9

1009



46

A company should have formal

policies to guarantee that every employee has an equal opportunity for promotion, pay increases, and other rewards provided by the firm.


2003

Business

Leaders


86%


1.8


1.0


66

2003

Faculty

91%

1.7

0.8

269

2003

Students

88%

1.7

0.8

1009





Business





47

The corporation should seek to maximize long run profits.

2003

Leaders

93%

1.7

0.8

66

2003

Faculty

92%

1.6

0.8

269

2003

Students

88%

1.7

0.7

1009



30


To what extent are ethical standards influenced by peer group pressures?


2003

Business

Leaders


55%


2.8


1.0


64

2003

Faculty

87%

2.0

0.8

252

2003

Students

75%

2.2

0.9

1004



31


To what extent are ethical standards influenced by prevailing industry practice?


2003

Business

Leaders


66%


2.6


1.0


64

2003

Faculty

91%

1.9

0.6

252

2003

Students

87%

2.0

0.7

1004



32

To what extent are ethical standards influenced by perceived preference of top executives?


2003

Business Leaders


81%


2.2


0.9


64

2003

Faculty

89%

1.8

0.7

253

2003

Students

86%

1.9

0.8

1004



33


To what extent are ethical standards influenced by family experiences?


2003

Business Leaders


83%


2.2


0.8


64

2003

Faculty

72%

2.3

1.0

254

2003

Students

58%

2.6

1.0

1004



34


To what extent are ethical standards influenced by church experiences?


2003

Business

Leaders


74%


2.4


0.9


64

2003

Faculty

59%

2.6

1.0

254

2003

Students

43%

2.9

1.0

1004



35

To what extent are ethical standards influenced by your educational experiences?


2003

Business

Leaders


83%


2.2


0.7


64

2003

Faculty

73%

2.3

0.8

254

2003

Students

78%

2.2

0.8

1004



36

To what extent are ethical standards influenced by company's ethical code or policy?


2003

Business

Leaders


90%


1.9


0.8


64

2003

Faculty

75%

2.3

0.9

254

2003

Students

80%

2.1

0.8

1004



37

To what extent are ethical standards influenced by professional ethical code?


2003

Business Leaders


85%


2.0


0.8


64

2003

Faculty

78%

2.2

0.9

254

2003

Students

84%

2.1

0.8

1004



38

To what extent are ethical standards influenced by society's moral climate?


2003

Business Leaders


75%


2.3


0.9


64

2003

Faculty

80%

2.1

0.8

255

2003

Students

71%

2.3

0.9

1004



TABLE 4B.��FOR ALL SEVEN YEARS, PERCENT OF EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS PROVIDING

THEIR DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT (1=SA;5=SD)

Q#

QUESTION

Year

Type

%SA

%A

%NO

%D

%SD

n=


�� 1

The corporation has a responsibility to take the lead in solving major social problems such as pollution, discrimination, and safety.

2003

Bus. Leaders

29

47

12

9

3

66

2003

Faculty

23

44

9

20

4

269

2003

Students

23

54

11

11

1

1009



�� 2

The corporation has a responsibility to not become involved in solving social problems unless doing so becomes a cost of doing business or the opportunity to earn a profit.

2003

Bus. Leaders

3

8

8

52

30

66

2003

Faculty

3

16

7

52

23

269

2003

Students

3

22

20

45

10

1009



�� 3

The corporation has the responsibility to get involved in social responsibility projects because outside pressures make suchan involvement a cost of doing business.

2003

Bus. Leaders

2

33

21

42

2

66

2003

Faculty

7

51

15

23

5

269

2003

Students

7

53

25

13

1

1009



�� 4

The corporation has a responsibility to promote equal opportunity in hiring and promotion.

2003

Bus. Leaders

76

23

0

2

0

66

2003

Faculty

64

31

3

2

1

269

2003

Students

64

29

4

2

1

1009



�� 5

The corporation has a responsibility to promote conservation of energy even if doing so means a reduction in profits.

2003

Bus. Leaders

15

56

8

18

3

66

2003

Faculty

23

45

11

18

3

269

2003

Students

20

46

19

14

1

1009



�� 6

The corporation has a responsibility to conserve natural resources, even if doing so means a reduction in profits.

2003

Bus. Leaders

11

59

11

15

5

66

2003

Faculty

26

47

7

16

3

269

2003

Students

23

49

17

11

1

1009



�� 7

The corporation has a responsibility to clean up or avoid causing air, noise, and water pollution even if doing so means a reduction in profits.

2003

Bus. Leaders

26

66

2

5

2

66

2003

Faculty

35

46

5

12

2

269

2003

Students

30

53

10

6

1

1009



�� 8

The corporation has a responsibility to contribute money and management time to civic activities in communities where the firm has plants or offices.

2003

Bus. Leaders

53

35

6

5

2

66

2003

Faculty

31

49

9

9

1

269

2003

Students

19

54

17

8

1

1009



�� 9


The corporation has a responsibility to help minority owned businesses.

2003

Bus. Leaders

14

42

24

15

5

66

2003

Faculty

9

33

31

23

5

269

2003

Students

8

22

39

24

7

1009



10


The corporation has a responsibility to be truthful in advertising.

2003

Bus. Leaders

85

14

2

0

0

66

2003

Faculty

82

17

1

0

0

269

2003

Students

59

35

4

1

0

1009



11

The typical business executive has two sets of ethical standards, one which he/she applies to business activities and another which is applied to his/her private life.

2003

Bus. Leaders

0

12

2

33

53

66

2003

Faculty

8

30

12

35

16

269

2003

Students

16

44

13

21

6

1009



12


Ethical standards in business are lower than in government.

2003

Bus. Leaders

0

11

5

44

41

66

2003

Faculty

3

12

16

49

20

269

2003

Students

3

17

28

44

9

1009



13


Ethical standards in business are lower than in most religious organizations.

2003

Bus. Leaders

5

23

15

32

26

66

2003

Faculty

10

41

12

29

8

269

2003

Students

15

40

23

18

4

1009



14


Ethical standards in business are lower than in the typical American family.

2003

Bus. Leaders

2

17

11

45

26

66

2003

Faculty

6

30

22

35

7

269

2003

Students

8

38

28

24

3

1009



15

The ethical standards used in business are as high as those practiced with family and friends.

2003

Bus. Leaders

6

61

9

24

0

66

2003

Faculty

4

30

16

45

4

269

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image



2003

Students

5

19

24

46

7

1009



16

Occasionally, business people make decisions that are right for business but which are inconsistent with their personal ethical principles.

2003

Bus. Leaders

6

53

6

29

6

66

2003

Faculty

13

72

7

7

1

269

2003

Students

17

72

7

4

0

1009



17


Much advertising done by business is misleading to the consumer.

2003

Bus. Leaders

3

26

15

53

3

66

2003

Faculty

7

46

9

32

6

269

2003

Students

10

50

17

22

1

1009



18


Effective advertising may have to be somewhat misleading.

2003

Bus. Leaders

0

8

8

56

29

66

2003

Faculty

1

6

6

59

27

269

2003

Students

4

32

14

42

9

1009



19


It is in the long run self-interest of business to protect the customer.

2003

Bus. Leaders

35

56

3

6

0

66

2003

Faculty

50

42

5

3

0

269

2003

Students

26

50

13

10

1

1009



20

The average customer is less ethical in dealing with business than the business is in dealing with that customer.

2003

Bus. Leaders

5

26

30

33

6

66

2003

Faculty

3

17

34

43

3

269

2003

Students

5

26

29

37

4

1009



21

No employee should be required to engage in business practices that employee considers unethical.

2003

Bus. Leaders

55

32

5

9

0

66

2003

Faculty

42

39

6

13

0

269

2003

Students

41

43

8

7

1

1009



22

In accepting an employment offer each employee implicitly agrees to abide by the ethical standards of the employer, even if the company standards differ from those of the employee.

2003

Bus. Leaders

14

39

12

27

8

66

2003

Faculty

9

34

9

37

11

269

2003

Students

10

45

18

24

4

1009



23


Wages and salaries should vary according to an employees productivity.

2003

Bus. Leaders

36

52

6

6

0

66

2003

Faculty

39

52

6

3

1

269

2003

Students

30

54

9

6

1

1009



24

Wages and salaries should vary according to both the employees productivity and years of service with the firm.

2003

Bus. Leaders

8

41

11

35

6

66

2003

Faculty

8

46

16

25

5

269

2003

Students

25

56

9

9

1

1009



25

Wages and salaries should vary primarily with the employee's years of service with the firm.

2003

Bus. Leaders

0

3

6

61

30

66

2003

Faculty

1

2

8

62

27

269

2003

Students

6

30

18

40

7

1009



26

Labor unions serve a useful purpose by prodding a particular management into fulfilling its responsibilities to labor.

2003

Bus. Leaders

3

26

9

33

29

66

2003

Faculty

7

47

17

19

10

269

2003

Students

5

42

30

16

7

1009



27


The corporation should seek to maximize short run profits.

2003

Bus. Leaders

8

21

11

44

17

66

2003

Faculty

3

13

9

45

31

269

2003

Students

3

31

28

33

5

1009



28

The corporation should seek to earn a satisfactory rate of return for stockholders.

2003

Bus. Leaders

52

47

2

0

0

66

2003

Faculty

30

65

2

2

0

269

2003

Students

14

69

12

4

0

1009



29

The ethical standards in competition are determined by the least ethical competitor.If one firm engages in unethical conduct, the others will have

2003

Bus. Leaders

0

0

3

49

49

66

2003

Faculty

1

6

6

62

25

269


to follow to survive.

2003

Students

4

16

17

43

19

1009



39

All institutions in our society should seek to protect and promote the interests of individuals.

2003

Bus. Leaders

2

32

25

37

5

65

2003

Faculty

12

31

27

27

3

268

2003

Students

15

48

18

18

1

1009



40

Individual freedom may have to be partly restricted in order for organizations to effectively function.

2003

Bus. Leaders

6

50

14

24

6

66

2003

Faculty

7

62

10

13

9

269

2003

Students

6

44

18

26

6

1009



41

Government should redistribute income in order to assure a minimum standard of living for all citizens.

2003

Bus. Leaders

2

21

11

38

29

66

2003

Faculty

7

28

14

30

21

269

2003

Students

6

22

22

30

20

1009



42

Government should provide incentives for business to get involved in solving social problems.

2003

Bus. Leaders

8

47

14

26

6

66

2003

Faculty

15

59

7

14

5

269

2003

Students

16

55

15

11

3

1009



43


Truth in lending regulations is needed to protect the customer.

2003

Bus. Leaders

21

65

6

6

2

66

2003

Faculty

33

55

8

3

2

269

2003

Students

17

58

22

3

0

1009



44


Antitrust laws prohibiting price fixing benefit the customer.

2003

Bus. Leaders

20

65

8

6

2

66

2003

Faculty

26

56

12

3

3

269

2003

Students

19

48

26

5

1

1009



45


Lazy or incompetent employees should be fired.

2003

Bus. Leaders

33

53

5

9

0

66

2003

Faculty

39

48

8

5

1

269

2003

Students

39

43

12

5

1

1009



46

A company should have formal policies to guarantee that every employee has an equal opportunity for promotion, pay increases, and other rewards provided by the firm.

2003

Bus. Leaders

44

42

8

2

5

66

2003

Faculty

49

42

5

1

3

269

2003

Students

44

44

8

3

1

1009



47


The corporation should seek to maximize long run profits.

2003

Bus. Leaders

46

47

3

5

0

66

2003

Faculty

51

41

5

3

1

269

2003

Students

45

43

10

1

0

1009



30


* Ethical standards are influenced by peer group pressures.

2003

Bus. Leaders

2

53

13

28

5

64

2003

Faculty

23

64

8

5

1

252

2003

Students

13

62

14

10

2

1004



31


* Ethical standards are influenced by prevailing industry practice.

2003

Bus. Leaders

3

63

8

25

2

64

2003

Faculty

26

65

6

3

0

252

2003

Students

20

67

9

4

0

1004



32

* Ethical standards are influenced by perceived preference of top executives.

2003

Bus. Leaders

17

64

6

9

3

64

2003

Faculty

33

56

8

3

0

253

2003

Students

29

57

10

4

1

1004



33


* Ethical standards are influenced by family experiences.

2003

Bus. Leaders

8

75

6

9

2

64

2003

Faculty

11

61

14

12

1

254

2003

Students

11

47

20

21

1

1004



34


* Ethical standards are influenced by church experiences.

2003

Bus. Leaders

8

66

10

14

2

64

2003

Faculty

8

51

21

17

3

254



2003

Students

8

35

26

27

4

1004



35


* Ethical standards are influenced by your educational experiences?.

2003

Bus. Leaders

8

75

9

6

2

64

2003

Faculty

8

65

14

12

1

254

2003

Students

14

64

12

9

1

1004



36


* Ethical standards are influenced by company's ethical code or policy.

2003

Bus. Leaders

27

63

3

6

2

64

2003

Faculty

11

64

13

10

2

254

2003

Students

19

61

12

7

1

1004



37


* Ethical standards are influenced by professional ethical code.

2003

Bus. Leaders

27

58

8

8

0

64

2003

Faculty

15

63

11

10

2

254

2003

Students

19

65

9

6

1

1004



38


* Ethical standards are influenced by society's moral climate.

2003

Bus. Leaders

8

67

9

14

2

64

2003

Faculty

20

60

11

8

1

255

2003

Students

14

57

16

12

2

1004

Source:������ 2003 Study of Ethics


* The actual question on the questionnaire was To what extent are ethical standards influenced by"


SECTION 5

FOCUS ON ONLY THE BUSINESS

LEADERSFOR 2003


SECTION 5

FOCUS ON ONLY THE BUSINESS LEADERS FOR 2003

INTRODUCTION

In this section, the focus is only on the business leaders for the 2003 study.Table 5A presents a summary version of the information for each of the 47 attitudinal questions.For each question, the percent that agreed with each statement is given.In addition, the average response (low is positive) and the standard deviation for each question are provided.The number of responses completes the information for each group for each question.Questions 30 to 38 are given at the end of the table since their answers should have reflected to what extentinstead of a SA to SD perspective.See Table 5B for a clearer understanding of these questions.Table 5B gives the percentage of respondents who either Strongly Agreed, Agree, gave No Opinion, Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed for each question.


ANALYSIS


image

image

image

image

image

One can examine the differences in the actual responses in these two tables depending upon his or her interest in the particular question and/or group.A detailed analysis of the information in this section is beyond the scope of the project.


TABLE 5A.���� PERCENT OF THE BUSINESS LEADERS IN 2003 AGREEING

WITH

EACH STATEMENT (1 = SA; 5=SD)


Q#


QUESTION


Year


Type

%

Agree


Mean

Std.

Dev.


n=


1

The corporation has a

responsibility to take the lead in solving major social problems such as pollution, discrimination, and safety.


2003


Business Leaders


76%


2.1


1.0


66


2

The corporation has a

responsibility to not become involved in solving social problems unless doing so becomes a cost of doing business or the opportunity to earn a profit.


2003


Business Leaders


11%


4.0


1.0


66


3

The corporation has the

responsibility to get involved in social responsibility projects because outside pressures make suchan involvement a cost of doing business.


2003


Business Leaders


35%


3.1


0.9


66


4

The corporation has a

responsibility to promote equal opportunity in hiring and promotion.


2003


Business Leaders


99%


1.3


0.5


66


5

The corporation has a

responsibility to promote conservation of energy even if doing so means a reduction in profits.