13 An Ethical Decision-Making Exercise

http://jme.sagepub.
com/
Education
Journal of Management
http://jme.sagepub.com/content/31/5/696
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1052562907304327
August 2007
2007 31: 696 originally published online 23 Journal of Management Education
Constance 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 Education Additional services and information for
http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jme.sagepub.com/content/31/5/696.refs.html Citations:
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014 jme.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014 jme.sagepub.com Downloaded from
What is This?
- Aug 23, 2007 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Oct 2, 2007 Version of Record >>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014 jme.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014 jme.sagepub.com Downloaded from
696
GEORGE WILLIAMS IN THAILAND: AN
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING EXERCISE
Constance R. James
Pepperdine University
J. Goosby Smith
California State University, Channel Islands
This article presents a classroom ethical decision-making exercise designed
to help students make reasoned ethical decisions while gaining insight into
their own and others ethical decision-making strategies. During the exercise,
students individually analyze an original mini-case, then meet in small
groups to reach consensus on the advice and ethical decision-making strat-
egy to offer the entrepreneur in the case. The exercise satisfies three learning
objectives for students: understanding ethical decision-making strategies,
increasing awareness of ones own ethical decision-making criteria, and
understanding the bases for diverse group members (often different) ethical
decision-making strategies. Evidence of student learning shows that these
three learning objectives are exceeded in that the exercise also spurs students
to integrate their learning of ethical decision making with their learning of
the 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 Faculty
Research and Summer Research Grants. We would like to thank Dr. Jane Schmidt-Wilk and
the anonymous reviewers who gave invaluable feedback and developmental comments. A version
of this article was presented at the 2005 Academy of Management Meetings, Honolulu,
Hawaii. Address correspondence to J. Goosby Smith, Martin V. Smith College of Business
and Economics, California State University, Channel Islands, One University Drive, Camarillo,
CA 93012; e-mail: jgoosby1@earthlink.net.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 31 No. 5, October 2007 696-712
DOI: 10.1177/1052562907304327
2007 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on March 31, 2014 jme.sagepub.com Downloaded 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 requires
management 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 best
taught 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 business
professors may feel uncomfortable teaching ethical theories that are out of
their areas of discipline expertise and beyond their training (Oddo, 1997).
This discomfort is exacerbated by insufficient teaching resources for business
faculty 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 have
little impact on students ethical behaviors; though ethics is a values-driven
internal 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 education
across the professional education curriculum. There are several reasons.
First, if ethics is taught as a separate course, students often do not incorporate
what they have learned across the business curriculum (Oddo, 1997).
Second, since most of the leading accreditation agencies require various
disciplines to address ethics, it makes increasing sense to integrate ethics
across the disciplines and across the curriculum.
We agree that ethics should be integrated across the curriculum because
it provides multiple opportunities to reinforce the importance of acting with
ethical integrity to students. Furthermore, it provides repeated opportunities
for students to understand and refine their own decision-making strategies
and those of diverse groups of classmates from multiple disciplines. The
institutional context within which this exercise was designed also supports
this integrative approach by encouraging moral development across disci-
plines. Thus we address ethics in our management and organizational
behavior courses.
Our exercise requires students to understand six ethical decision-making
strategies and individually and collectively analyze an ethical dilemma pre-
sented in an international business case (Appendix A). By engaging in the
exercise, students have a better chance of understanding their own and their
classmates ethical decision-making strategies, while making their ethical
decision making explicit.
Though they do not determine real-life behavior, case studies are useful
to improve students learning. Research shows that student evaluation of cases
and scenarios is a useful tool in ethics education, particularly in situations
involving bribery or grease payments (Longnecker, McKinney, & Moore,
1988; Mallinger, 1997; Tsalikis & LaTour, 1995). Management educators
agree. Dahl et al. (1987) used a case and questionnaire to evaluate ethical
decision-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 students
with a one-page-long mini-case that requires their advice on whether or not
to 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 ethical
decision-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 of
ethical decision-making values and strategies employed by our increasingly
international student body.
This exercise is useful to individuals seeking to understand why people
have different reactions to ethical dilemmas. We regularly use this exercise
within the second month of the semester of required management classes
taught to undergraduate sophomores, juniors, and seniors and to graduate
master of business administration students. The exercise can also be used to
explore communication and group dynamics within a team, particularly a
team 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-making
criteria, and understanding the bases for diverse group members ethical
decision-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. Thus
students leave the exercise with factual or declarative knowledge about ethical
decision-making strategies. Specifically, they are able to name and describe
the six strategies.
We address the second learning objective by providing two opportunities
for students to reflect on the case and on their own responses (see Appendix B
for facilitator instructions). Before presenting the six ethical decision-making
approaches, 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 present
the ethical decision-making approaches, we encourage them to reflect on
which ethical decision-making strategy they prefer, their rationale for that
strategy, and the advice it leads them to give regarding the case (Appendix D).
These two guided reflections result in students being able not only to articulate
their preferred ethical decision-making strategies, but also to provide a reasoned
rationale for that choice.
Finally, we address the third objective of increasing their understand-
ing of classmatesoften divergentethical decision-making strategies
by requiring small group discussion and consensus building. In teams that
we prearrange for diversity of learning style, gender, and racioethnicity,
students are charged with two tasks. First, they are to explore each group
members ethical decision-making strategy and advice for the entrepreneur
in the case. During this process, they often question and challenge each
others reasoning. Second, they are to reach and document (Appendix E) a
mutually accepted group recommendation on what advice and what ethical
decision-making strategy to offer the entrepreneur in the case.
This article presents instructions needed to facilitate and debrief the
George Williams in Thailand Ethical Decision-Making Exercise, including
templates for students individual and collective reflection and discussion.
After presenting facilitation tips, we provide evidence of ethics-related and
integrative student learning from this exercise. We conclude with observa-
tions from our repeated facilitation of this exercise and share some general
patterns in student responses.
Facilitator Background Information
In this section, we summarize the knowledge that we use to introduce the
exercise, explain the ethical decision-making framework, and address student
questions 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 and
wrong 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 making
decisions about dilemmas with an ethical (i.e., right or wrong) dimension
to 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 individuals
use to resolve ethical dilemmas. In this exercise, we present six such
approaches.
4. What are the ethical decision-making approaches we use in this exercise? We
use six approaches (see Appendix F). The first three ethical decision-making
approaches reflect behavioral rules of thumb or principles that guide behavior
and intentions: categorical imperative (absolute principles), legalism (laws or
policies), and cultural relativism(cultural norms). The second three approaches
are enlightened self-interest, utilitarianism, and light-of-day. These approaches
are rooted in outcomes of costbenefittype analyses, in which individuals ask
themselves, How can this decision yield optimal results?
5. What is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? The FCPA provides
detailed 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, the
U.S. Department of Justice (n.d.) produced a seven-page document titled
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Antibribery Provisions, which we advise
facilitators to digest prior to facilitating the exercise.
6. How did the real case end? The entrepreneur paid the extra cost. General
Motors (GM) found out. Consequently, the entrepreneur lost GMs business
and 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 business
from other Fortune 500 companies.
TIPS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EXERCISE
In this section, we share some tips and anecdotes relevant to facilitating
this exercise, including time and resource requirements needed to facilitate
the exercise.
The exercise requires between 75 and 90 min. We facilitate the small
group discussions in groups of four to seven members. Both preexisting and
ad hoc groupings work for this exercise. We have used this exercise with
course enrollments for each section between 8 and 30 students. We only
facilitate this exercise in classrooms with moveable desks or tables because
stationary chairs or tiered classrooms make small group discussion difficult.
We bring the following materials to class: 1 copy of all appendices, 1 copy
per 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 the
whiteboard in the classroom. Absent a whiteboard, flip chart paper and
markers can be used. Sometimes we utilize PowerPoint and an overhead
projector 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 discussions
and choose spokespersons to report on their groups recommendations at
the end of the exercise. As instructors, we do not interfere with the group
discussions 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 the
entrepreneur, 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 listed
on the board, we facilitate a discussion of the impact of group dynamics and
cultural diversity on decision making. We ask questions such as, Did your
group have difficulty coming to a consensus? and In what ways did your group
members differ in terms of their opinions? We also inform students about
cultural diversity implications and ask if they experienced any differences of
opinion due to group members differences in national origin, multicultural
experience, racioethnicity, or gender.
If time permits, we facilitate tangential discussions that occur. For
example, some students note that choosing to pay may require future bribes,
known as the ratchet effect. Sometimes we ask, Are there other alternatives
than pay or dont pay? The class then responds with alternatives such as
finding another supplier, selling the parts to someone with more influence,
or moving to another country. Students sometimes discuss ways to make
ethical decision making easier, including determining their values or dis-
cussing the issue with a trusted colleague. They explore ways to distance
themselves from tough situations long enough to avoid in-the-box thinking,
which is characterized by viewing the decision solely in terms of pay or
dont pay.
If time is running short, we encourage out-of-class reflection on the
exercise. If time does not permit such a discussion, we may ask students to
write a reflection paper on the exercise. The reflection papers often show
how well students understand ethical choices and approaches as well as
how they interacted with their groups.
General Patterns in Student Responses
After collecting data from 292 students in 50 groups, we have noticed
the following general patterns in how students respond to the case. Our U.S.
native students more frequently choose legalism and categorical imperative
than do their international classmates, who usually choose cultural rela-
tivism. We also find that female students are generally less willing to
pay the extra $300 than males. Males (regardless of nationality) more fre-
quently choose cultural relativism. We found no noteworthy differences in
the responses of U.S. students from different racioethnic groups. Finally, in
our experience, students from the country in the case (Thailand) and nearby
countries tended to participate more than usual during the discussion. As
a result, unlike some group discussions in which the U.S. students domi-
nated, international students, whose direct experiences countered that of the
U.S. student, strongly impacted the groups decision to either pay the bribe
or make an undecided or combined-approach decision.
Evidence of Student Learning
Student responses on the Postethical Decision-Making Exercise Learning
and Reflection Form (Appendix G) provided evidence of the ethics-related
learning that we expected. Three categories of knowledge typified students
postexercise comments: knowledge of facts, knowledge of self, and knowl-
edge of others, which correspond to our three learning objectives. Learning
Objective (LO) 1 was to increase students understanding 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 3
was to increase students understanding of the bases for diverse group members
different 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 which
they were asked to share some of their meaningful learning in our courses.
We view this as evidence of integrated student learning. Next, we share
comments from students ethics-related and integrated learning.
ETHICS-RELATED LEARNING
Students gained a better understanding of the six ethical decision-making
strategies (LO 1). According to some students, they had not examined their
responses to ethical dilemmas analytically. Thus they left the exercise with an
increased 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 a
good way to compare ethical choices and then deduce what you ethically
want to do.
I was not familiar with these [ethical decision-making strategies].
Different processes to consider when making an ethical decision. Allows you
to consider multiple reactions.
Students also reported increased awareness of their own ethical deci-
sion-making criteria (knowledge of self). The following student comments
are examples of increased knowledge of self:
[The decision-making approaches] allowed me to look at the case from a variety
of 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 able
to view different options.
I would have expected legalism to be my top choice; however, I usually try
to 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 group
members ethical decision-making strategies. Following are comments in
which 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 to
not 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 had
such a different perspective. Some of the solutions I would have never
thought of otherwise.
I did learn a lot while discussing the case with my group. Everyone shared a
different vision on the case, and this enlightened my overall view.
INTEGRATED LEARNING
We were pleasantly surprised that student learning exceeded the three
intended LOs. The students in the organizational behavior course had an
end-of-semester conceptual application assignment. Their task was to recall
experiences from their classroom groups and apply organizational behavior
concepts to explain them. Although we conducted this exercise early in the
semester (usually during Week 4), students often chose this experience on
which to reflect. The following excerpts from their conceptual application
papers demonstrate student sense making of their own and their group
members behavior during the exercise. Many of their comments addressed the
group dynamics, conflict management, and personality issues that emerged in
their diverse groups as they sought consensus.
Group dynamics. Students referenced the group dynamics chapter in the
organizational 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 say
what he thought to the group, then have K share her opinion and then invite
other group members to finish their thoughts. These maintenance-oriented
roles 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 the
class discussed the George Williams in Thailand ethics case. He was very
good about inviting A and M to share their perspectives as students from
Syria and Italy, ensuring that they knew he was genuinely interested in their
outlook and that it was safe to disclose their honest thoughts. P brought a
light-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 in
an articulate and intelligent manner that spurred other ideas. He was an
encourager by affirming other peoples contributions.
A great example of all these dynamics working together is the assignment
we had on George Williams, who owned an automotive parts supply company.
He was having trouble with a distribution center in Thailand, and we had to
decide what he should do. After reading the story, I immediately gave my
initial reaction to the conflict to provoke discussion. A volunteered to
take notes on our thoughts. We had many disagreements on the best remedy
for the problem. R constantly asked the difficult questions of morality.
B told us how he would solve the problem and explained how it would
be handled in his country. J gave her input and stressed that we need to
work together and not argue. L brought many relevant perspectives to the
discussion and made sure that we ended up with some sort of conclusion
when the time was up.
Conflict management. The following excerpts demonstrate how students
applied their knowledge of their (and others) modes of handling conflict:
Im a compromiser under the Thomas-Kilmann conflict management style. It
describes me quite accurately because I value stability, harmony and rela-
tionships too much that I am not assertive in conflicts and seldom contribute
to a good solution that pleases both sides fully. For instance, in the earlier
class activity on ethics, when our group had to agree on decision-making
method, I compromised with using light-of-day, despite my strong prefer-
ence for categorical imperative after presenting my points in a very mild
manner. 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 my
team members and I had totally opposing views on what George should
do. He insisted that my way was wrong and that George would not get
anywhere. However, ethics and morals are things that I strongly believe
should not be compromised. I did not raise my voice, nor did I get upset
over my team members ideas. I just tried to get him to see my point, and
then I tried to collaborate with him and come up with a consensus of what
George should do.
Personality (Myers-Briggs). Students often saw links between Myers-Briggs
personality 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 the
difference 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. Even
though 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 the
risk 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 really
against allowing the guy to give the bribe. Her personality type I believe is
thinking and judging, which would explain that. I think she is more on the
lawful side of things. Thus she offered the other side that we as a group didnt
see because we were for the bribe itself. Nevertheless, we heard her out, and
she put another dimension into our decision making with the case.
Our idealism and lack of logic showed itself again during the Thailand case
where we said we would not comply with paying the bribe because it is
morally wrong. Once again, this decision showed extreme idealism with rel-
atively no concern for the logical implications of this choice such as losing
the business altogether because of lack of revenue. Had our group been more
balanced in our strengths and weaknesses, I believe that we would have
lacked the consensus we often had, but our decisions would have reflected
logical, more complex thinking.
Conclusion
Within our classrooms, students engaged in an ethical decision-making
exercise. This exercise involved individual reflection and discussions in both
small groups and the wider class. During the small group discussions, they
reflected on the case in diverse teams with the goal of reaching consensus.
Many of our international students who were often quiet in class became
more vocal. Evidence showed that students improved their factual under-
standing of ethical decision-making approaches, increased their knowledge
of their own ethical decision-making criteria, and better understood the
differing ethical decision-making strategies of their classmates. Furthermore,
they demonstrated integrated learning by accurately applying organizational
behavior concepts to explain their experience of the exercise. Given that
students' individual and group opinions differed, we intend to ask students
in future iterations of the exercise if they changed their individual opinion or
decision-making approach based on the small group and class discussions.
The George Williams in Thailand classroom exercise can be used to
improve students ability to make sound ethical decisions and work within
diverse groups to reach consensus. As evidenced by the integrated learning
reflections, we believe that these abilities last beyond the exercise and
expand students capacity to make complex decisions that require weighing
evidence, providing sound justification for ideas, understanding multiple
points of view, and considering consequences. Improving students aware-
ness and understanding of ethical decision making among diverse groups is
a crucial ingredient for developing stronger ethical decision makers in an
increasingly diverse and complex business world.
Appendix A
The Case: George Williams in Thailand
1
George Williams owns an automotive parts supply company in Southfield,
Michigan. For the past 10 years, he has grown the company, Williams Supply, from
a small operation to one with over $50 million in sales and 200 employees. His
largest customer is General Motors, with approximately 60% of his sales. As one of
a handful of new parts suppliers to GM, he prides himself on delivering outstanding
value to his customers based on the highest standards of excellence.
Several U.S. automotive companies, including General Motors, are trying to expand
their operations in Asia. In response to this, George has set up a parts distribution center
in Thailand due to cheap labor, a highly skilled workforce, and central access to a
shipping port. He has hired a local consultant, Mr. Sumardi, to help him set up his
operations in Thailand. Sumardi is fluent in several Asian languages, none of which
George speaks.
On arrival, George is struck by the workers sitting around and the virtually
empty shelves in the warehouse. George comments, Why am I paying these men
to sit around and do nothing. Sumardi replies, I am sorry, Mr. Williams, but I did
not have enough resources to get the parts moved from the docks. George is puzzled
by his response and asks him to explain.
The parts are at the dock, said Sumardi. He continues, It is partly owned by
the government and a private company, Sati Shipping. OK, then lets talk to Sati
and get my parts, replies George.
George and Sumardi go to Sati Shipping at the dock. Sumardi speaks to a man
who 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 shipment
unless 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 and
deliver my parts! Sumardi speaks to Mr. Chen and turns back to George. Im
sorry, but the parts cannot be moved today.
While Sumardi speaks, George is considering his options. He has never failed
before, and he is not planning to do so now. He wonders what General Motors
would 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 a
successful and principled businessman.
Appendix B
Facilitator Instructions
The following section explains how we facilitate this exercise in our classes. As
stated earlier, the exercise George Williams in Thailand has three learning objec-
tives: (a) understanding ethical decision-making strategies, (b) increasing awareness
of ones own ethical decision-making criteria, and (c) understanding the bases for
diverse group members different ethical decision-making strategies.
At the start of class, we post the following agenda on the whiteboard at the front
of 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 case
aloud increases the comprehension of our students for whom English is not
their 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 of
Individual Form 1 (Appendix C).
3. Instruct students to complete the form silently. Inform them that they will
have 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 can
use 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; for
example, ask, If you choose approach A, what advice would that
approach lead you to give George Williams?
Remind students again to silently complete this form without talking to
each 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 SHORTEN
ACCORDING TO TIME CONSTRAINTS)
1. Record the group names down the left of the board and the six approaches
across the top of the board, making a matrix of group names and approaches.
2. Review actions proposed by students. Did they recommend actions beyond
paying 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 and
Reflection 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 ethical
decision making. In essence, you are asking a few students to share ver-
bally their learning from the exercise.
Appendix C
Individual 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 D
Individual 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 E
Group Consensus Form
GROUP MEMBERS PARTICIPATING:
______________________________ ____________________________
______________________________ ____________________________
______________________________ ____________________________
______________________________ ____________________________
Which would you choose and why? Indicate whether or not this approach leads
your group to pay or not to pay the bribe.
Categorical Imperative
Cultural Relativism
Enlightened Self Interest
Legalism
Light-of-Day
Utilitarianism
Appendix F
Ethical Decision-Making Approaches
Categorical imperative relies on absolute rules and universal laws that must be
followed, regardless of the situation at hand. Their veracity unquestioned, these
rules are assumed to govern everyones behavior. This view was first attributed to
German philosopher Immanuel Kant (17241804). Kants categorical imperative
requires individuals to make decisions based on rules that they want themselves
and others to follow (Hunt, 1991). An example of using this strategy would be a
salespersons refusal to be dishonest with a customer because the Ten Commandments
advise Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (Exodus 20:16), which
is 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 decisions
are 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. An
example of using this strategy may be a U.S. citizen citing the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act 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 norms
are 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 decision
making 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. This
mantra becomes a rule of thumb for guiding behavior. An example of this approach
would be following another countrys custom of paying a theater attendant to move
one 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 on
prudence as the highest virtue, which would argue for the most reasoned decision.
Modern philosophers who view logical reason and acting in ones own interest as
the highest form of morality (Locke, 2002; Rand, 1982) modified this approach.
They proposed that enlightened self-interest requires decision makers to analyze the
facts 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 needs
money to buy food until the next payday.
Utilitarianism uses costbenefit analyses to determine how various options
impact others. Decision makers seek to optimize the number of people that would
benefit from the decision at hand. However, to determine this, decision makers first
determine which individuals or stakeholders are impacted by the decision. They then
seek to maximize the happiness, welfare, or pleasure of those affected by the deci-
sion. Attributed to Jeremy Bentham (17481832) and later modified by John Stuart
Mill (18061873), this approach is often based on seeking the greatest good for the
greatest number (Hunt, 1991; Mallinger, 1997). An example of this approach would
be terminating the most expensive employees to maximize shareholder wealth.
Light-of-day weighs costs and benefits according to the opinions of others. Using
the light-of-day approach, the decision maker determines rightness by calculating the
costs and benefits that occur if the decision becomes public knowledgeparticularly
to those whose opinions the decision maker values. Thus others views matter most
in determining whether the decision is ethically right or wrong. Popularly nicknamed
the newspaper standard (Mallinger, 1997; Steiner & Steiner, 1985), the decision
maker asks, Would I make the decision if it were printed on the front page of the
newspaper? 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 G
Postethical Decision-Making Exercise
Learning and Reflection Form
Did you learn anything new as a result of the following? If so, please note it
under the element of the exercise to which youre referring. Please be as detailed
as possible. Use the reverse side if needed.
The mini-case
The ethical decision-making strategies
Your choice of ethical decision-making strategy
Your groups discussion regarding the strategy
Other?
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 modified
to 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 and
planning 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 engineering
education. 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 of
Management Education, 22, 472483.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust
for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123136.
Messick D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision
making. Sloan Management Review, 37, 922.
Miesing, P., & Preble, J. F. (1985). A comparison of five business philosophies. Journal of
Business Ethics, 4, 465476.
Nill, A. L., & Shultz, C. J., II (1997). Making ethics across cultures: Decision-making guidelines
and 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 the
annual 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 for
tomorrows 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: Ethical
perceptions 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 Act
antibribery 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 social
responsibility: 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 research
agenda. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 109120.
Woo, C. Y. (2003). Personally responsible. BizEd, 11, 2227.

13 An Ethical Decision-Making Exercise

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

13 An Ethical Decision-Making Exercise

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://jme.sagepub.

OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators

http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Aug 23, 2007 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 2, 2007 Version of Record >>

S-ar putea să vă placă și