New Workload 2 Sets

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics: Toward Improving Business Ethics Education

Larry A. Floyd • Feng Xu • Ryan Atkins •

Cam Caldwell

Received: 25 May 2012 / Accepted: 5 April 2013 / Published online: 7 May 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Unethical conduct has reached crisis propor-

tions in business (Walker et al., Wall Str J East Edn,

258(37):A1–A10, 2011) and on today’s college campuses

(Burke et al., CPA J, 77(5):58–65, 2007). Despite the

evidence that suggests that more than half of business

students admit to dishonest practices (McCabe et al. 2006),

only about 5 % of business school deans surveyed believe

that dishonesty is a problem at their schools (Brown et al.,

Coll Stud J A, 44(2):299–308, 2010). In addition, the

AACSB which establishes standards for accredited busi-

ness schools has resisted the urging of deans and business

experts to require business schools to teach an ethics class,

and fewer than one-third of businesses schools now teach a

business ethics course at the graduate or undergraduate

levels (Swanson and Fisher, Advancing Business Ethics

Education, 2008). In this paper we briefly introduce the

status of business ethics education and report the results of

a survey of business students, deans of the top business

schools, and business ethics subject matter experts about

ten ethical outcomes. We then offer five specific

recommendations to encourage business ethics faculty and

decision makers to improve the teaching of business ethics.

Keywords Ethical outcome � Business ethics � Improving business ethics educations � Status of business ethics education

The reputation of business has been besmirched with a

continuous parade of financial scandals which have had

widespread economic repercussions (Friedman 2009),

created a worldwide recession (Reich 2011), and rocked

the world’s economic foundations (Lowenstein 2011). As a

result of a long parade of ethical misconduct, business is

now perceived by the public as both ‘‘a scourge’’ and as

‘‘ethically challenged’’ (Warnell 2011, p. 320). Cavanagh

(2009, p. 20) has noted that the leaders responsible for

these scandals ‘‘are graduates of our ‘‘best’’ business pro-

grams,’’ and has suggested that many of today’s most

highly regarded business schools have ‘‘failed to convey

ethics, social responsibility, and good moral habits to their

graduates.’’ In a society labeled ‘‘the cheating culture’’

(Callahan 2004), American business leaders have not only

lost the trust of their employees (Maritz 2010) but have

created a ‘‘global crisis of confidence’’ in society at large

(Walker et al. 2011, p. A1). An increasing number of

management scholars advocate that the accrediting bodies,

professional organizations, business schools, and faculties

who teach management courses need to rethink how

business ethics can be taught to influence future business

leaders but suggest that the prospects for meaningful

change with regard to business ethics education appear to

be unlikely (Swanson and Fisher 2008, 2011).

Although there are outstanding examples of universities

(Datar et al. 2010; Weber et al. 2008; Piper et al. 1993) and

L. A. Floyd (&)

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

F. Xu

Georgia South Western University, Americus, GA, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

R. Atkins

University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

C. Caldwell

St. Thomas University, Miami Gardens, FL, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2013) 117:753–776

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1717-z

academic scholars (Sims and Sauser 2011; Giacalone and

Thompson 2006; Koehn 2005) that have worked hard to

increase the effectiveness of business ethics education, it is

nonetheless true that some business schools focus their

classroom teaching on emphasizing ‘‘the short-term share

price… while neglecting research, development, the repu-

tation of the firm and the future of the business and the

community’’ (Cavanagh 2009, p. 20). Though business

ethics scholars have lobbied heavily to upgrade the quality

of business ethics education for many years (Evans and

Robertson 2003; Hosmer 1985, 1988), others have sug-

gested that little has yet been done to change the typical

business school’s approach to teaching business ethics

(Evans and Weiss 2008). Felton and Sims (2005, p. 378)

noted that, business schools periodically ‘‘find themselves

on the defensive as to why they are not doing more’’ and

scramble ‘‘to develop a response’’ to improving business

ethics education. Indicators suggest that historically inef-

fective models will continue to be used to teach business

ethics, despite the apparent failure of business schools to

have a positive impact on the behavior of business leaders

(Swanson and Fisher 2008). The purpose of this paper is to

examine the role of today’s business school in teaching its

students about ethical values and social responsibility and

to identify how business students, deans of the top US

business schools, and subject matter experts in business

ethics view the importance of ethical priorities within both

the business school and the broader business context.

We begin this paper by summarizing the current status of

business ethics education, briefly describing the most com-

mon approach of business schools in teaching students about

social responsibility, moral conduct, and students’ obliga-

tions as future leaders. We also summarize the current

position of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of

Business (AACSB), the Academy of Management, and

many business schools with regard to their focus on business

ethics education. We identify the importance of ten ethically

related outcomes associated with both the business school

environment and society at large which we have incorpo-

rated into a survey of business students, business school

deans, and business ethics subject matter experts. After

summarizing the process used to gather data from these three

groups about these ethically related outcomes, we identify

how each of these groups rates the relative importance of

these ten outcomes. Integrating our findings from this survey

with the research of other scholars, we then offer five rec-

ommendations for the academic community of business

school administrators, the AACSB and the Academy of

Management, and business school faculty members as they

consider how they might improve the teaching of business

ethics to tomorrow’s business leaders. We conclude our

paper by identifying three contributions of this paper and

suggest opportunities for related business ethics research.

Status of Business Ethics Education

In their examination of the status of business ethics edu-

cation, Swanson and Fisher (2008, p. 1) have opined that it

is ‘‘the common practice in business schools of marginal-

izing ethics by scattering ethics topics superficially and

incoherently across the curriculum.’’ Noting that less than

one-third of all accredited business schools offer a stand-

along course in business ethics to graduate or undergrad-

uate students, Swanson and Fisher (2008) argue for an

extensive revitalization of the teaching of business students

about proper ethical conduct. Other scholars (Sims 2002;

McCabe et al. 2006; Trevino and Nelson 2010) and busi-

ness leaders (Krehmeyer 2007) agree that current thinking

about ethics education needs an immediate upgrade and

have suggested ways to make teaching business ethics

more effective.

AACSB International, the most highly regarded busi-

ness school academic rating body in the world, currently

does not require business schools to offer a stand-alone

business ethics class as part of their curriculum (Swanson

and Fisher 2008), and has resisted efforts on the part of

business ethics subject matter experts, faculty, and deans to

upgrade business ethics education. Swanson and Fisher

(2008, p. 5) reported that the AACSB had initially pro-

posed that business schools offer a required course in

business ethics but diluted its requirements and ‘‘adopted

more flexible, mission-driven standards’’ that ‘‘allowed

stand-alone coursework to be dismantled in favor of flex-

ibility in distributing ethics across the curriculum.’’ The

AACSB’s (2012: Standard 15) current language asks

business schools to incorporate ‘‘(e)thical understanding

and reasoning ability’’ into their curriculum to include

‘‘(e)thical and legal responsibilities in organizations and

society.’’ Although the AACSB (2012a, b: Ethics/Sus-

tainability Resource Center) endorses creating ‘‘codes of

conduct, values statements, honor codes, procedures for

handling allegations of misconduct, and other mecha-

nisms’’ to sustain a supportive culture for ethical behavior,

the AACSB (2012a, b: Ethics/Sustainability Resource

Center) standards specifically avoid ‘‘particular courses or

treatments.’’ Instead, the language of the AACSB (2012a,

b: Ethics/Sustainability Resource Center) states that

‘‘schools should assume great flexibility in fashioning

curricula to meet their missions and to fit with the specific

circumstances of particular programs,’’ and each school is

free to determine how to best integrate teaching business

ethics to ‘‘meet the needs of the mission of the school and

the learning goals for each degree program.’’

AACSB’s action to reduce the requirements for at least

one ethics course as a condition for accreditation was taken

despite ‘‘petitions from hundreds of professors and prac-

ticing managers as well as two associations—the

754 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

Washington, DC-based Ethics Resource Officers and the

Social Issues in Management Division’’ of the Academy of

Management (Swanson and Fisher 2008, p. 6). Several

scholars (Klein 1998; Swanson and Frederick 2005; Mitr-

off and Swanson 2004) suggest that this downgrading of

ethics education requirements was crafted by deans as a

politically expedient means to ‘‘wiggle out of recurring

curriculum battles at their own schools’’ (Swanson and

Fisher 2008, p. 6). As reported in a survey conducted by

Evans and Weiss (2008) business school deans have also

opined that more emphasis should be placed on business

ethics education and that increasing the awareness of stu-

dents about ethical awareness would raise the ethical level

of business practice. Evans and Weiss (2008, p. 51)

reported that ‘‘(m)ore than 80 % of the CEOs, deans, and

faculty (surveyed) agree that more emphasis should be

placed on ethics education, with 1 % or less disagreeing.’’

Similarly, in responding to survey statements about the

impact of expanding business ethics education ‘‘(b)etween

73 and 81 % of the respondents (of CEOs, deans, and

faculty) agree to some extent with the statement ‘‘A con-

certed effort by business schools to improve the ethical

awareness of students eventually will raise the ethical level

of actual business practice’’ (Evans and Weiss 2008, p. 51).

As Vidaver-Cohen (2004, p. 213) clearly noted, business

school deans ‘‘must take the lead’’ if business schools are

to create a healthy moral climate for teaching business

ethics.

At the heart of the business ethics debate, however, is

the question ‘‘What is the most effective way to teach

business students about ethical behavior and moral deci-

sion-making?’’ Many business ethics experts have

emphasized that effectively teaching business ethics

requires that business schools develop a fully integrated

approach that involves a carefully developed stand-alone

business ethics class (Swanson and Fisher 2008), coupled

with extensive integration of ethics cases (Piper et al.

1993), service learning (Weber et al. 2008; Vega 2007),

and developing skills associated with resolving ethical

dilemmas (Trevino and Nelson 2010). Critics of an ‘‘ethics

across the curriculum’’ approach suggest that ethical issues

are often complex and that business faculty are often

unprepared to teach the nuances of ethical choices in their

disciplines (Swanson and Fisher 2008). Of the deans who

were surveyed about the qualifications of business faculty

to teach business ethics 46 % indicated that at the under-

graduate level there is a shortage of faculty expertise, with

44 % of the deans indicating that faculty lacked adequate

expertise at the graduate level (Evans and Weiss 2008,

p. 47).

In addition, business school faculty have been described

as frequently being resistant to adding a required course in

business ethics to their curriculum (Windsor 2002;

Swanson and Fisher 2011), and some business schools have

actually reduced or eliminated required business ethics

courses. However, many business ethics scholars strongly

oppose the AACSB standard that business ethics can be

integrated effectively across a curriculum without the

existence of a foundation course in business ethics. As Ray

Hilgert, an Emeritus Professor of Management and Indus-

trial Relations at the prestigious Washington University

School of Business wryly observed about the effectiveness

of the AACSB standard allowing the teaching of business

ethics piecemeal across a business school’s curriculum, ‘‘If

you believe it’s integrated in all the courses, then I’m

willing to offer you the Brooklyn Bridge’’ (Nicklaus 2002,

p. C10). It is our position in this paper that the many

scholars who have supported Hilgert’s position in calling

for requiring a stand-alone business class are correct,

although it is not the purpose of this paper to focus on that

argument. We do, however, believe that the evidence

against the current practice of teaching business ethics

across-the-curriculum is compelling and support the pre-

mise that business schools and those who make decisions

about them have a moral obligation to improve the teach-

ing of business ethics.

The argument frequently framed in opposition to

requiring a course in business ethics is whether ethical

behavior can be taught (cf. Ryan and Bisson 2011; Piper

et al. 1993). Ethics, many scholars believe, incorporates an

intrinsic set of values that are unlikely to change and that

make up a person’s basic identity or sense of self (Swanson

and Dahler-Larsen 2008; Albert et al. 2000; Caldwell

2009). At the same time, critics of current business edu-

cation practices strongly advocate the importance of re-

framing the traditional rational/analytical models that focus

MBA and undergraduate business students on becoming

analysts rather than managers (Mintzberg 2004), and for

many years business scholars have advocated an increased

emphasis on teaching business practitioners and business

students the underlying values factors of decision making

(Carroll 1977).

Other organizations of management scholars have a

mixed commitment to advocating changes in the teaching

of business ethics. The Academy of Management, the

scholarly organization of university business faculty who

teach business ethics or to incorporate ethics across the

curriculum within their classrooms, has an ‘‘Ethics Edu-

cation Committee.’’ Although the mission for that com-

mittee includes increasing commitment to ethical conduct,

raising awareness about ethical issues, responding to

questions and concerns about ethical standards, and

embedding the practice of professional ethics within the

culture of the Academy (Schminke 2011), over the past

several years the committee has focused almost entirely on

clarifying rules for academic publications and has not

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 755

123

addressed its broader mission (Madsen 2011; Davis 2011;

Schminke 2009).

Swanson and Fisher (2008, 2011) have articulated the

concerns of many scholars about what ought to be done to

improve the ability of business schools to increase student

awareness of ethical issues and expand the focus of busi-

ness schools on positively influencing ethical conduct in

today’s complex world. The purpose of the survey asso-

ciated with this paper was to build upon the work of

business ethics scholars to obtain additional insights from

students, business school deans, and subject matter experts

about the importance of ethical outcomes within business

schools and in society. Both the business school context

and society at large were chosen as the topic of this survey

because many scholars have identified the importance of

both contexts (Datar et al. 2010; Trevino and Nelson 2010;

Karri et al. 2005), and scholarly organizations such as the

Academy of Management and the AACSB have recognized

that both contexts are vital for the effective teaching of

business ethics (Caldwell 2010; Swanson and Fisher 2011).

Description of Survey Outcomes

The purpose of this section of the paper is to provide a

scholarly basis for the ten ethical outcomes contained in the

survey. The outcomes included in this survey were devel-

oped after discussions with several highly regarded ethics

education scholars as well as a group of management

practitioners. The survey was then pretested with subject

matter experts and a group of university business students

to obtain feedback about the wording of outcomes and that

feedback was incorporated into the final list. The list of

outcomes was reviewed by those scholars, practitioners,

and students both before and after the survey was admin-

istered and the data was collected. Although the ten out-

comes contain some overlap in related content, all of the

scholars, practitioners, and students concurred that these

ethical outcomes were important factors at business

schools and in society at large. We acknowledge that these

ten ethical outcomes contain some redundancy across

factors, but note that this overlap was necessary to some

degree in order to identify the importance of each ethical

outcome category. The ten ethical outcomes are founda-

tions of decision making, clarifying rules for academic

publication, motivating others to understand values,

examining the pressures of the current business environ-

ment, identifying consequences of unethical behavior,

establishing a culture that reinforces integrity, creating

better monitoring systems, identifying the benefits of vir-

tuous conduct, fostering dialogue about ethics and values,

and increasing communication between academics and

practitioners. The survey asked respondents to identify the

importance of these ten ethically related outcomes both

within business schools and in society. The context of the

business school has a significant impact on the message

communicated to business students about the importance of

ethical conduct in their future careers (McCabe et al. 2002).

Creating a culture that reinforces the importance of ethical

conduct is widely acknowledged as important for preparing

business students to understand their ethical and moral

responsibilities as future business leaders (Trevino and

Nelson 2010; Swanson and Fisher 2011; Caldwell 2010), to

develop a moral imagination that enables students to be

aware of the consequences of moral dilemmas (Badaracco

1997), and to have the moral courage to make right choices

(Comer and Vega 2005). Each of the ten survey items is

reviewed below.

Foundations of Decision Making

Providing business students with information about theo-

ries and concepts of ethical decision making is widely

acknowledged to be a critical factor in teaching business

students to understand the moral and ethical duties that

businesses owe to stakeholders (Carroll and Buchholtz

2012). Although decision making is often thought to be a

product of ‘‘careful and deliberate cognition’’ (Martin and

Parmar 2012, p. 289), rational choice models are an

important, but incomplete part of ethical decision making.

Understanding key ethical concepts and their normative

and instrumental foundations is a key element of business

ethics education and enables students to recognize the

differing ethical perspectives and their impacts on decision

outcomes (Brady 1999; Hosmer 1995). Unfortunately,

Ghoshal (2003, p. 4) condemned the amoral ‘‘brutishness’’

of business ethics education—arguing that a failure to

provide a solid foundation for decision making led to such

moral disasters as the Enron debacle.

Dean Krehmeyer (2007, p. 4), Executive Director of

Business Roundtable, has criticized many business schools

for ‘‘not doing enough to build ethics into their curricula’’

and advocated that business schools provide this training

through ‘‘both a stand-alone course and the integration of

ethics into the other core disciplines.’’ The disadvantage of

attempting to teach business ethics across the curriculum

without a stand-alone ethics course is that there are a

multitude of ethical models that call for conflicting ethical

outcomes, and ethical decision making is dependent upon

understanding the principles and assumptions associated

with each of those models (Hosmer 1994, 1995, 2010;

Brady 1999).

Providing guidelines about ethical decision-making

theories, values, and concepts also has immense practical

value for practitioners and provides a touchstone for

guiding business decisions (Fulmer 2001). Collins and

756 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

Porras (2004, Chap. 3) emphasized that the core values of

businesses were critical factors that guided the most suc-

cessful businesses in their study of highly effective busi-

nesses. Covey (1992, 2003, 2004) has repeatedly

emphasized the fundamental importance of businesses

being value-based and principle-centered. McLean and

Elkind (2003) noted that it was this failure to put values

above profits that was at the core of Enron’s tragic demise.

Paine (2003) has emphasized that the ability to integrate

ethical organizational values with financial objectives was

a key priority to achieve superior results for the modern

organization.

Clarifying Rules for Academic Publications

The importance of meeting best practice for publishing

academic articles has an impact on the credibility of

scholars and academic institutions and the standards for

publishing business articles are set forth in the Academy of

Management’s Code of Ethics (Schminke 2009). Research

misconduct in academia is a ‘‘mounting concern within our

discipline’’ according to Bedeian et al. (2010, p. 716).

Bedeian et al. (2010, p. 716) reported that in a recent study

of 384 management scholars, nearly 80 % reported per-

sonal knowledge of the fabrication, falsification, or pla-

giarism of academic research and more than 90 % reported

cases of questionable research practices by their col-

leagues. Taylor and Stanton (2009, p. 94) have suggested

that the AACSB standards for becoming ‘‘academically

qualified’’ have resulted in ‘‘publishing for the sake of

publishing,’’ rather than for the more legitimate purpose of

creating and disseminating new knowledge.

Establishing standards for academic publication and

adhering to those standards is essential in ‘‘maintaining

public confidence and guarding the authority and auton-

omy’’ that academia enjoys in both the business world and

society (Bedeian et al. 2010, p. 723). Pfeffer and Sutton

(1999) have been strongly critical of the ‘‘knowing-doing’’

gap that exists between academia and the business world.

The need to bridge that gap by enhancing the credibility of

business research is important to both the business world

and academic institutions (Hughes et al. 2008). Lewis et al.

(2011) have documented that academic impropriety and the

incidence of plagiarism have severely impacted the integ-

rity of academic research and have become increasingly

common since 2000. Li (2010) found that one British

publisher found that 23 % of articles submitted to that

journal had been plagiarized. These findings suggest that

the ‘‘publish or perish’’ pressure that is placed on academic

scholars (Linton et al. 2011; Miller and Bedeian 2010) has

resulted in immoral behavior by some scholars that ulti-

mately will discredit academic institutions in the public eye

and among practitioners (Bedeian et al. 2010).

Motivating Others to Understand Values

Motivating others to understand their own value systems

was identified by Fink (2003) as an important element in

the academic learning process, and is widely acknowledged

to be critical to how one views ethical priorities (Badaracco

1997). Individual decision making is fundamentally tied to

one’s normative values and integrates rational and sub-

jective factors in arriving at decisions (Fishbein and Ajzen

1975; Goodchild 1986). In improving the effectiveness of

understanding values associated with business decision

making, Ravenscroft and Dillard (2008, pp. 183–186)

noted the importance of ‘‘moral imagining’’ which incor-

porates (1) prototypes or models, (2) the way in which

moral issues are framed, (3) the use of metaphors in

describing an ethical issue, and (4) the narrative or story

used to examine and construct an ethical context. Their

assessment clarified the importance of recognizing the

context of individual values and how one views the world

as key factors in determining moral duties (Ravenscroft

and Dillard 2008). Similarly, Swanson and Dahler-Larsen

(2008) identified the importance of understanding one’s

sense of self, one’s self-interests and biases, and one’s

relationships with others as key elements to achieving self-

awareness about decision making.

Although the articulation of organizational values is

acknowledged to be an important element in creating high

trust cultures and high performance work systems (Pfeffer

1998), the more common business focus is on economic

theories and rational decision models rather than on the

underlying values of business (Pfeffer 2005). Increasingly,

empirical evidence has identified the importance of high

involvement work practices and a focus on organizational

values as key elements to increasing business performance

(Huselid 1995; Cameron 2003; Ulrich et al. 2001; O’Neill

et al. 2011). Both academics and practitioners are recog-

nizing the importance of understanding the values of

individuals and the entire organization in making key

leadership decisions that affect organization success

(Caldwell et al. 2011).

Examining the Pressures of the Current Business

Environment

Examining the pressures of the current business environ-

ment that influence ethical decisions is important to busi-

ness schools in understanding the context of ethical

decision making (Carroll and Buchholtz 2012). Gioia

(1992) noted that the context of the business environment

and the ‘‘scripts’’ of an existing organizational culture have

a profound socialization effect on organization members.

He advocated the importance of focusing on those scripts

as part of the process of developing effective ethical

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 757

123

models (Gioia 1992). Trevino and Nelson (2010) were

strong advocates of using schemas, scripts, and decision-

making models within a business school context. Caldwell

(2010) emphasized the importance of not only incorporat-

ing an understanding of socialization pressures to teach

business ethics but recommended focusing on the under-

lying normative values and assumptions that make up the

business school environment which ultimately determine

its ethical standards.

The pressures that affect today’s business environment

have grown increasingly complex in a world that has been

besieged with increased competitiveness, pressures to

achieve short-term results, expanded global competitive-

ness, and a worldwide economic downturn (Friedman

2009). Today’s rational business model, based largely on

the pursuit of short-term economic returns, has created

financial havoc for much of the business world as it has

pursued paper entrepreneurism rather than the creation of

real added value (Lowenstein 2011; Reich 2011). The

failures of business to demonstrate that its values are

honorable and its leaders are trustworthy over the past

decade have led to a decline in confidence in today’s

business leaders (George 2009; Maritz 2010), a steady

decrease in the quality of life, a dismal long-term economic

prognosis, and a growing cynicism about the future

(Friedman 2009).

Identifying Consequences of Unethical Behavior

Despite the fact that unethical behavior has become almost

universal in today’s business school environment (Decoo

2002), many business schools have failed to address the

growing problem of academic misconduct and a large

percentage of faculty consistently ignore blatant dishonest

behaviors (Burke et al. 2007). McCabe et al. (2006, p. 299)

reported that 47 % of business undergraduates and 56 % of

graduate students ‘‘admitted to engaging in some form of

cheating or questionable behavior.’’ However, the Center

for Academic Integrity reported that 44 % of 10,000 fac-

ulty surveyed have never reported academic cheating about

which they have been aware (Burke et al. 2007, p. 59).

Naimi (2007) noted that for a business ethics education

program to be effective, business schools must create a

program that is consistently applied and that effectively

addresses and enforces academic integrity (Weber 2006,

p. 27). The fact that many business faculty and adminis-

trators appear to ignore academic dishonesty sends the

message that a business school does not give academic

integrity high priority (Caldwell 2010).

Although the consequences of unethical conduct for

Arthur Andersen were terminal to the life of that highly

respected firm as a result of their complicity in the Enron

debacle, McLean and Elkind (2003) noted that the ethical

misconduct that had occurred at Enron that led to its

undoing was well known within the firm and frequently

encouraged by firm leaders. Despite the fact that the ram-

ifications for managerial dishonesty and ethical misconduct

are often highly publicized, the haunting recurrence of

these missteps suggest that the bigger crime is in getting

caught rather than in failing to honor an ethical duty

(Lowenstein 2011). Friedman (2009, Chap. 1) recounted

that the dominant philosophy of many of the guilty parties

leading up to the 2008 mortgage crisis was ‘‘I’ll be gone.

You’ll be gone.’’ The profits will have been made. The risk

will have been passed on. We will have escaped unharmed.

Meanwhile, however, thousands of investors throughout

the world have paid the price of the ethical misconduct of

those who perpetuated the frauds and machinations that

created the mortgage crisis and the economies of many

countries may never fully recover (Lowenstein 2011;

Friedman 2009).

Establishing a Culture that Reinforces Integrity

Establishing a culture within a business school that rein-

forces integrity and honesty has been successfully imple-

mented at a few noteworthy institutions (Procario-Foley

and Bean 2002; Datar et al. 2010). At Duquesne Univer-

sity, their emphasis on business ethics is founded on an

organizational culture closely integrated with the univer-

sity’s mission (Weber 2006). Consistent with Schein’s

(2010) description of the importance of leadership in cre-

ating a strong organizational culture, Weber (2006,

pp. 35–36) emphasized the importance of leadership at the

administrative, faculty, and student levels in creating a

commitment to an organizational culture that reinforced the

importance of the Duquesne ethics initiative. Several uni-

versities have established centers for ethics within their

business schools which reinforce the focus and commit-

ment of those business schools in creating an environment

that reinforces the teaching of ethical values (Warren and

Rosenthal 2006; Heller and Heller 2011).

Within the larger context of business in society, estab-

lishing a culture that reinforces integrity and honesty is

viewed as a fundamental obligation of every organization

(Trevino and Nelson 2010). Often, however, the creation of

an organizational structure that emphasizes ethical com-

pliance and ethics education has come after firms have

been cited for ethics violations and are mandated as a

condition for maintaining eligibility for government con-

tracts (Collins 2009). Hoffman et al. (2001) stressed that

creating an organizational culture that reinforced ethical

values must begin at the executive level of an organization.

Whitney (2010, p. 36) noted that the Chief Learning

Officer’s job in many corporations includes creating an

integrated and transparent organization culture that helps

758 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

employees at all levels to be aware of the ‘‘often compli-

cated and culturally charged’’ ethical and legal issues

facing the modern organization.

Creating Better Monitoring Systems

Creating better systems that monitor conduct and the

consequences of dishonesty appear to be an important

priority in the establishment of an academic environment

that promotes integrity within a business school (Caldwell

2010, pp. 6–8). Several model programs have been estab-

lished in which both faculty and students play a major role

in monitoring student behavior and in imposing conse-

quences (Crown and Spiller 1997; Weber et al. 2008).

Warren and Rosenthal (2006, pp. 691–694) advocated the

involvement of students in the education of peers and the

enforcement of ethical conduct as a necessary requirement

of an effective academic integrity program—citing

numerous examples of efforts being made by many of the

top business schools to improve ethics education and

enforcement. In light of the fact that academic dishonesty

in business schools has been described as a ‘‘plague’’

(Embleton and Helfer 2007; Junion-Metz 2000) and a

‘‘crisis’’ (Burke et al. 2007), the current system of moni-

toring student academic honest clearly does not appear to

be working at many universities.

In response to the Enron and the Arthur Andersen

disasters, Congress passed the Sarbanes–Oxley Act to

increase the accountability of businesses (McLean and

Elkind 2003). The unending sequence of highly question-

able ethical missteps of recent years confirms the reality

that nimble minds can develop new ways of creating ways

to sidestep the current rules of business behavior faster than

those who attempt to protect the public interest—or collude

with those ‘‘protectors’’ to circumvent rules that are

established (Reich 2011; Lowenstein 2011; Friedman

2009). Although there are a multitude of ethical enforce-

ment mechanisms and transaction costs that can be created

to attempt to prevent misconduct, creating better monitor-

ing systems tend to be after-the-fact efforts to redress moral

lapses and illegal behaviors (Colwell et al. 2011; Callahan

2004).

Identify the Benefits of Virtuous Conduct

Identifying the benefits of virtuous conduct in creating

wealth is a concept that applies to business schools through

enhancing the reputation of those schools that are viewed

as high performing models (Piper et al. 1993). As highly

ethical and noteworthy leaders in creating an ethical

environment for business students, schools that adopt

innovative and effective ways to teach business ethics and

focus on the importance of ethical behavior are

acknowledged for their commitment to creating conditions

that promote ethical behavior (Warren and Rosenthal 2006;

Weber et al. 2008; Trevino and Nelson 2010). The repu-

tations of those schools helps to add to their prestige (Datar

et al. 2010), and universities that cheat lose prestige and

public confidence (Rawe 2007). For business schools, their

reputation and credibility is the basis of their ability to

create value in the minds of the public and the business

community and substantially impacts an organization’s

identity (Elsbach and Kramer 1996).

In the business sector a growing body of empirical

evidence has demonstrated that businesses can ‘‘do well by

doing good’’ (Paine 2003; Tichy and McGill 2003; Cam-

eron et al. 2003; Cameron and Spreitzer 2012). Cameron

(2003) noted that businesses which he studied that modeled

principles of virtuousness actually increase employee

commitment and trust, reduce turnover, increase quality,

improve customer satisfaction, and increased profitability.

Pfeffer (1998) and Huselid (1995) similarly document

examples of firms who create high trust cultures by treating

employees as valued partners rather than as commodities.

Caldwell et al. (2011) suggested that organizations led by

highly ethical ‘‘transformative leaders’’ were also more

likely to create high trust and commitment and increase

organizational wealth (cf. Caldwell and Hansen 2010).

Positive organizational ethics emphasizes those values

which are ‘‘morally excellent or praiseworthy in business’’

and assist a business in creating long-term wealth, devel-

oping increased sensitivity about moral issues, and earning

the trust of organizational members (Stansbury and Son-

enshein 2012, p. 340).

Foster Dialogue About Ethics and Values

Fostering dialogue about ethics and ethical values and their

importance to the business school environment is vital to

increasing understanding about ethical dilemmas, potential

conflicts in values, and the importance of understanding the

long-term implications of business decisions (Badaracco

1997, 2002). Weick (2009) emphasized the importance of

‘‘organizational mindfulness’’ in bringing key ideas out

into the open that are associated with difficult organiza-

tional decisions, and Ray et al. (2011) have advocated the

importance of the mindfulness concept within the business

school domain. Mindfulness incorporates the attentiveness

of individuals within an organization to its surroundings

and the capacity to effectively apply values on a timely

basis when unexpected circumstances arise (Levinthal and

Rerup 2006). This ability to address, discuss, and respond

on a timely basis to complex ethical problems is a critical

factor for business schools in the teaching of business

ethics and the resolving of ethical dilemmas (Carroll and

Buchholtz 2012; Badaracco 1997). Fink (2003) noted that

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 759

123

this ability to examine one’s values and the factors that

make up one’s identity was a key element in the learning

process and was critical for significant learning to occur

within the university context. In the ethical decision-mak-

ing process, Hosmer (2010) emphasized the importance of

clarifying the ethical values and assumptions upon which

decision making was based.

Within the larger business context, Senge (2006,

Chap. 4) noted that encouraging open dialogue was a

critical step in the organizational learning process. This

opportunity to encourage free and open discussion of eth-

ical principles and values is essential to meaningful ethical

decision making (cf. Trevino and Nelson 2010; Carroll and

Buchholtz 2012). Covey (2004) described the self-assess-

ment process and the ability to reflect on personal and

organizational values as essential to a principle-centered

life and to ethical decision making in a world where

complexity and rapid change make choices difficult. The

ability to incorporate both normative and rational per-

spectives in decision making is a critical factor for prac-

titioners in their role as effective leaders (Badaracco 1997,

2002; Kolb et al. 2005). Collins and Porras (2004, Chap. 3)

emphasized that it was this ability to clarify and commit to

a driving set of core values that differentiated great com-

panies from those that were second-tier in performance.

Increasing Communication Between Academics

and Practitioners

The relevance of academic theory and the exchange of

information between academics and practitioners have

been frequently addressed as essential elements in mea-

suring the contributing value of business schools (Mintz-

berg 2004; Pfeffer and Fong 2002). Birnik and Billsberry

2008, p. 985) note that there is currently ‘‘great uncertainty

about what management students should be taught and

what they should learn.’’ A number of highly regarded

business scholars have been sharply critical of the focus of

business schools on a purely scientific and economically

based model which discounts values and relationships (cf.

Bennis and O’Toole 2005; Cameron 2006; Giacalone and

Thompson 2006). Rubin and Dierdorff (2011, p. 148) have

drawn the chilling conclusion that ‘‘recent research sug-

gests that courses designed to inculcate human capital

competencies are wholly underrepresented in MBA cur-

ricula.’’ Brinkmann et al. (2011) advocate expanding the

partnership between business schools and practitioners by

having guest speaker practitioners involved in the class-

room to offer their practical perception of ethical

dilemmas.

Although increasing the dialogue between practitioners

and scholars is perceived as a valued means for improving

the practical value of that which is taught in business

schools, many scholars and practitioners lack confidence in

the ability of academics to add value to the private sector

(Bailey et al. 1999; Ghoshal 2005; Mintzberg 2004;

Caldwell and Jeane 2007, p. 3). Rubin and Dierdorff (2009)

noted that practitioner managers consistently rated MBA

curriculum topics lower in importance than did MBA

faculty or administrators. Syed et al. (2010, p. 71) have

suggested that scholars need to be far more practical in

their research design, pay more attention to practitioner

context, and broaden their awareness of ethical implica-

tions of business to become more relevant in bridging the

research–practice gap. In their thoughtful examination of

the practical value of business education, three Harvard

scholars surveyed business school deans and business

executives and concluded that business school curricula are

slow to change, fail to address key behavioral issues, and

need to expand coverage of international business issues

(Datar et al. 2010).

Although a case could have been made to have included

other ethical outcomes in this survey, this section addresses

the importance of the ten outcomes which we have chosen

to include, documenting the importance of each of those

outcomes by citing the scholarly and practitioner literature.

Survey Methodology and Results

A survey instrument was developed using the ten ethically

related business ethics outcomes identified herein, asking

respondents to indicate via a Likert-type scale the relative

level of importance of each item from Not Important to

Critically Important. Respondents were asked to indicate

both the level of importance of each of the ten ethical

outcomes ‘‘to business schools’’ and ‘‘to society.’’ The

survey was administered to subject matter experts who

attended the Eighteenth Annual International Conference

Promoting Business Ethics held at St. Johns University in

2011 (82 responses), to the business school deans of the top

100 US business schools as identified by US News (Morse

and Flanigan 2011) (44 responses), and business students at

a highly rated top 100 business school (466 responses) and

at a small regional business school in the southern United

States (114 responses). A copy of the survey instrument is

included in the Appendix of this paper in Table 14.

In the following tables, we provide the survey results of

each respondent group’s comparisons of the level of

importance of the ten survey items within the business

school environment and within society. In light of the

potential differences existing in business ethics education

at the different business schools, we do not pool data from

our sample schools but provide those results separately. For

the survey data collected, categorical variables are mea-

sured using ordinal scales. Given the limited levels of

760 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

quantified measurement, there is no justification for ana-

lyzing the data using either normal or symmetric distribu-

tion. Implementation of normality tests returned small

p values for the data collected. Therefore, a classical two

samples (or paired sample) t test cannot be applied to

compare the importance rating of survey items. Instead,

according to Hollander and Wolfe (1999) and Anderson

et al. (2011), the Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon (MWW)

nonparametric method is the appropriate statistical tool for

testing importance comparison for the ten ethical outcomes

in our study. For each respondent group, we applied the

nonparametric method to identify the outcomes which that

group considered to be the most important (1) within a

business school and (2) within society. In addition, we

examine each ethical outcome to identify whether it is

considered to be more important within a business context

or within society. In conducting this statistical analysis, we

used Minitab 16 statistical software. Tables for all of the

responses are included in Table 14 in Appendix.

Table 1 lists comparison results with p values of test

statistics on students’ ratings of the importance of the ten

ethical outcomes within business schools, based upon

survey responses from the 466 students attending the large

top-rated business school. These results suggest that the

business students considered Item 6 (SCH6: Establish a

culture that reinforces personal integrity and honesty) to be

the most important among the ten outcomes. This result is

consistent with the recommendations of several scholars

who have identified the importance of creating an ethical

culture to sustain an environment of academic integrity in

business schools (Trevino and Nelson 2010; Heller and

Heller 2011; Weber 2006). Item 5 (SCH5: Explain the

consequences of unethical behavior), and Item 4 (SCH4:

Examine the pressures of the current business environment

that influence ethical decisions) were considered to be the

second and the third most important in the rankings of

these business students and reflect students’ recognition of

the importance of understanding both the costs of unethical

behavior and the reasons for it occurring within a business

school context (cf. Caldwell 2010). As McCabe et al.

(2006) have noted, these three outcomes are important in

creating an integrated culture of academic integrity at a

university. Item 2 (SCH2: Clarify rules for publishing

academic articles) was rated by these students as the least

important item for business schools, which may reflect the

fact that business students are likely to obtain much of their

academic information from classroom lectures and text-

books, as opposed to academic publications (cf. Burke

et al. 2010), and may have minimal familiarity with stan-

dards for publishing academic articles.

Survey responses provided by the business school stu-

dents from the smaller regional business school reveal

similar results. According to the test statistics in Table 2,

both Item 5 (SCH5, Explaining the consequences of

unethical behavior) and Item 6 (SCH6: Establish a culture

that reinforces personal integrity and honesty) are

Table 1 Large university students: importance to business schools

SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 SCH4 SCH5 SCH6 SCH7 SCH8 SCH9 SCH10

SCH1 [*** – \*** \*** \*** – – [*** –

(0.000) (0.2233) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.9393) (0.5679) (0.0012) (0.4347)

SCH2 \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.0098) (0.000)

SCH3 \*** \*** \*** – – [** –

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.2854) (0.5201) (0.0848) (0.7035)

SCH4 \** \*** [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.0253) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SCH5 \** [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.0174) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SCH6 [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SCH7 – [*** –

(0.6572) (0.0025) (0.5138)

SCH8 [*** –

(0.0086) (0.8075)

SCH9 \**

(0.0198)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 761

123

perceived as the most important to business schools, with

Item 4 (SCH4: Examine the pressures of the current busi-

ness environment that influence ethical decisions) as the

third most important item. Item 2 (SCH2: Clarify rules for

publishing academic articles) was rated as the least

important ethical outcome for responding students at this

smaller school. The strong similarity of results from these

two student groups suggests that undergraduate students

share similar perspectives about the relative importance of

these ethical outcomes for the business school environ-

ment, regardless of their school size. Since the academic

requirements for grade average and ACT score from the

smaller regional school are significantly lower than the

larger school’s entry requirements, it appears that percep-

tions about ethical outcomes also do not vary significantly

based upon the incoming academic qualifications of busi-

ness students.

Ratings of the relative importance of the ten ethical

outcomes to business schools, from the 44 business school

deans are presented with statistics shown in Table 3. Based

upon these results, we note that business school deans also

rated Item 6 (SCH6: Establish a culture that reinforces

personal integrity and honesty) to be the most important

outcome for business schools, which is generally consistent

with the students’ rankings. For the deans, however, there

was no conclusive determination of the least important

item. Given p values of MWW test statistics, Item 2

(SCH2: Clarify rules for publishing academic articles),

Item 7 (SCH7: Create better systems that monitor conduct

and the consequences of dishonesty), Item 8 (SCH8:

Identify the benefits of virtuous conduct in creating wealth)

and Item 10 (SCH10: Increase communication between the

academic and business communities) were rated as less

important than other items, but were still rated somewhat

important. Given the fact that all of the business school

deans are from AACSB-accredited business schools and

are highly sensitive to the importance of academic integrity

in publishing in top journals, it is easy to understand why

these deans would rate Item 2 (SCH2: Clarify rules for

publishing academic articles) as more important than

business students rated this outcome. The comparatively

low rating given by deans to the importance of Item 7

(SCH7: Create better systems that monitor conduct and the

consequences of dishonesty) reflects the somewhat sur-

prising survey results of deans wherein ‘‘only about 5% of

deans believed dishonesty was a serious problem in their

school’’ (Brown et al. 2010, p. 299). Although a growing

body of research suggests that virtuous conduct creates

wealth, it is possible that business school deans either may

doubt the validity of that data as applied to the business

school with regard to their comparatively low rating of

Item 8 (SCH8: Identify the benefits of virtuous conduct in

creating wealth). It is also somewhat surprising that the

deans rate Item 10 (SCH10: Increase communication

between the academic and business communities) in the

group of outcomes considered less important than other

Table 2 Small university students: importance to business schools

SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 SCH4 SCH5 SCH6 SCH7 SCH8 SCH9 SCH10

SCH1 [*** – \*** \*** \*** – – [*** –

(0.01) (0.2681) (0.0197) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.7602) (0.9400) (0.0105) (0.1213)

SCH2 \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \***

(0.0560) (0.0000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.0073) (0.0080) (0.8700) (0.0001)

SCH3 \*** \*** \*** – – [** –

(0.0051) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.3742) (0.4834) (0.0590) (0.0179)

SCH4 \** \*** [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.0502) (0.0468) (0.0493) (0.0251) (0.0000) (0.6199)

SCH5 \** [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.9408) (0.0008) (0.0002) (0.0000) (0.0172)

SCH6 [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.0007) (0.0002) (0.0000) (0.0162)

SCH7 – [*** –

(0.8299) (0.0072) (0.2361)

SCH8 [*** –

(0.0088) (0.1452)

SCH9 \**

(0.0001)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

762 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

factors, inasmuch as deans typically work extensively with

community and business leaders as external liaisons for

their universities (cf. Bailey et al. 2009; Thomas and Fra-

gueiro 2011).

As noted in Table 4, the 82 business ethics subject

matter experts agreed with students that Item 2 (SCH2:

Clarify rules for publishing academic articles) was the least

important of the ethical outcomes. We note with interest

that these 82 business ethics scholars rated all of these

ethical outcomes as generally important for the business

school environment. That fact suggests that these faculty

members and scholars may have a unique insight into the

interrelated nature of these ten ethical outcomes for busi-

ness schools, as compared to other faculty members, and

suggests that they place greater emphasis on the impor-

tance of an integrated system to create academic integrity

at business schools (cf. Datar et al. 2010; Weber et al.

2008; Caldwell 2010).

To compare perspectives about the importance of the ten

ethical outcomes in society, we conducted the same MWW

tests, with those results provided in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8 as

follows. Tables 5 and 6 indicate that both groups of busi-

ness school students rate Item 6 (SOC6: Establish a culture

that reinforces personal integrity and honesty) as the most

important ethical outcome for society. Consistent with

Callahan’s (2004) description of society as a ‘‘cheating

culture,’’ the decline in trust in today’s business leaders,

and the unending sequence of business events that have

reflected a culture of dishonesty, it seems clear that today’s

business students recognize the importance of creating a

business culture that reinforces integrity and honesty. Item

2 (SOC2: Clarify rules for publishing academic articles)

was not surprisingly indicated to be least important to

society, although it was nonetheless rated to be somewhat

important by these students. Although evidence-based

research and compliance with standards for research and

publication are of importance in creating academic credi-

bility (Schminke 2009), the nine other ethical outcomes

included in the survey are apparently perceived to be more

important to both student groups. Students from the smaller

regional business school listed Item 5 (SOC5: Explain the

consequences of unethical behavior) as important as Item 6

(SOC6: Establish a culture that reinforces personal integ-

rity and honesty) in society, suggesting that these students

believe that an increased focus needs to be placed on

consequences of unethical behavior within society and

supporting the importance of creating a culture that gives

greater emphasis to personal integrity. Both groups of

students consider Item 3 (SOC3: Motivate others to

understand their own value system) and Item 7 (SOC7:

Create better systems that monitor conduct and the con-

sequences of dishonesty) as closely following in impor-

tance for business society. These findings suggest that both

groups of business students recognize that greater self-

awareness (Swanson and Dahler-Larsen 2008; Caldwell

2009; Arbinger Institute 2002) and more effective systems

Table 3 Business school deans: importance to business schools

SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 SCH4 SCH5 SCH6 SCH7 SCH8 SCH9 SCH10

SCH1 [** – – – \*** [*** [** – –

(0.0153) (0.8413) (0.3877) (0.4678) (0.0011) (0.0010) (0.0308) (0.4040) (0.5044)

SCH2 \** \*** \*** \*** – – \*** –

(00323) (0.0008) (0.002) (0.0000) (0.2061) (0.9202) (0.0017) (0.1751)

SCH3 – – \*** [*** [* [** –

(0.3145) (0.3674) (0.0009) (0.0035) (0.0660) (0.3207) (0.6613)

SCH4 – \** [*** [*** – [*

(0.9269) (0.0078) (0.0000) (0.0035) (0.9634) (0.0665)

SCH5 \*** [*** [*** – [*

(0.0098) (0.0001) (0.0067) (0.9070) (0.0882)

SCH6 [*** [*** [** [**

(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0149) (0.0002)

SCH7 – \*** \**

(0.3126) (0.0001) (0.0107)

SCH8 \*** –

(0.0065) (02529)

SCH9 [*

(0.0762)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 763

123

for monitoring ethical conduct (Lowenstein 2011; Fried-

man 2009) are necessary if ethical business standards are to

be achieved in tomorrow’s business world.

Tables 7 and 8 suggest somewhat similar results from

the ratings provided by business school deans and business

ethics subject matter experts about the importance of the

Table 4 Business experts: importance to business schools

SCH1 SCH2 SCH3 SCH4 SCH5 SCH6 SCH7 SCH8 SCH9 SCH10

SCH1 [*** – – – – [*** [** – –

(0.0001) (0.4004) (0.5023) (0.4962) (0.7460) (0.0017) (0.0172) (0.5331) (0.7398)

SCH2 \*** \*** \*** \*** – \** \*** \***

(0.0006) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.2120) (0.0231) (0.0004) (0.0003)

SCH3 \* \* – [** [* – –

(0.0585) (0.0591) (0.2410) (0.0116) (0.0832) (0.8551) (0.6644)

SCH4 – – [*** [*** [* –

(0.9934) (0.7200) (0.0001) (0.0019) (0.0698) (0.3035)

SCH5 – [*** [*** [* –

(0.7126) (0.0001) (0.0020) (0.0697) (0.3035)

SCH6 [*** [*** – –

(0.0005) (0.0064) (0.3361) (0.5002)

SCH7 – \*** \***

(0.3983) (0.0089) (0.0070)

SCH8 \* \**

(0.0627) (0.0453)

SCH9 –

(0.8115)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

Table 5 Large university students: importance to business society

SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9 SOC10

SOC1 [*** \*** \** \*** \*** \*** – – [***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.0171) (0.000) (0.000) (0.9393) (0.6990) (0.3826) (0.0097)

SOC2 \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SOC3 [*** \*** \*** – [*** [*** [***

(0.004) (0.000) (0.000) (0.7738) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SOC4 \*** \*** \*** [*** [*** [***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.0098) (0.0059) (0.0011) (0.000)

SOC5 \*** [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.0002) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SOC6 [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SOC7 [*** [*** [***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

SOC8 – [**

(0.6155) (0.0185)

SOC9 [*

(0.0574)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

764 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

ten ethical outcomes within society. Both groups rated Item

2 (SOC2: Clarify rules for publishing academic articles) as

the least important outcome to society. Although evidence-

based research is clearly important to society in establish-

ing the credibility of academic research (cf. Amos et al.

2011; Charlier et al. 2011), clarifying the rules for

Table 6 Small university students: importance to business society

SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9 SOC10

SOC1 [*** \** – \*** \*** \*** – [** –

(0.000) (0.0104) (0.34112) (0.0000) (0.000) (0.0011) (0.8026) (0.0491) (0.6969)

SOC2 \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \***

(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0041) (0.0000)

SOC3 [* \** \*** – [** [*** [**

(0.0919) (0.0106) (0.0050) (0.4878) (0.0201) (0.0001) (0.0362)

SOC4 \*** \*** \** – [*** –

(0.0005) (0.0001) (0.0202) (0.4791) (0.0057) (0.5877)

SOC5 – [** [*** [*** [***

(0.8732) (0.0413) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0002)

SOC6 [** [*** [*** [***

(0.0237) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000)

SOC7 [*** [*** [***

(0.0026) (0.0000) (0.0061)

SOC8 [** –

(0.0306) (0.8668)

SOC9 \**

(0.0281)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

Table 7 Business school deans: importance to business society

SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9 SOC10

SOC1 [*** \** \** \*** \*** \* – [** –

(0.0000) (0.0481) (0.0109) (0.0017) (0.0000) (0.0965) (0.6319) (0.0338) (0.8022)

SOC2 \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \***

(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000)

SOC3 – – \*** – – – [**

(0.5430) (0.1545) (0.0001) (0.6741) (0.2477) (0.847) (0.0242)

SOC4 – \*** – [** – [***

(0.2976) (0.0002) (0.2771) (0.0383) (0.6571) (0.0039)

SOC5 \*** [** [*** [*** [***

(0.0077) (0.0274) (0.0079) (0.0815) (0.0006)

SOC6 [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0001) (0.0000)

SOC7 – – –

(0.4315) (0.5471) (0.1049)

SOC8 – –

(0.1907) (0.4602)

SOC9 [**

(0.0152)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 765

123

publishing academic articles is not perceived by deans or

subject matter experts as being as important as the other

nine ethical outcomes. Deans and ethics experts also agreed

that Item 6 (SOC6: Establish a culture that reinforces

personal integrity and honesty) is the most important eth-

ical outcome for society—reinforcing the importance of

integrity in business articulated by a broad variety of

experts (Covey 2004; Hosmer 2010; Kouzes and Posner

2008a, b, 2011; Krehmeyer 2007).

For each group, we also conducted MWW tests to

determine whether a specific item is more important to

business schools than to business society. Test results are

provided in Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12. All four groups

agreed that Item 1 (Provide information about the theories

and concepts of ethical decision making), Item 2 (Clarify

rules for publishing academic articles), Item 4 (Examine

the pressures of the current business environment that

influence ethical decisions) and Item 10 (Increase com-

munication between the academic and business communi-

ties about ethical issues) are more important to business

schools than to the society. Although these topics were all

considered generally important to society, the focus of their

domain was perceived to be more business school-related

or should be emphasized more within a business school

context (cf. Swanson and Fisher 2008, 2011). In addition,

the students from both schools rated Item 8 (Identify the

benefits of virtuous business conduct in creating wealth) as

more important to business schools than to society,

apparently suggesting that business school students may

lack a clear understanding of how being ethical creates

wealth in society (cf. Caldwell and Hansen 2010; Cameron

and Spreitzer 2012). Both the larger schools business stu-

dents and the business school deans-rated Item 9 (Foster

dialogue about ethics and values and their importance) as

being more important to business schools than to society.

These responses suggest that the deans and the students

from the larger business school may both believe that the

business school setting is more appropriate or a more likely

setting for this discussion of ethics and values to occur. For

Item 7 (Create better systems that monitor conduct and the

consequences of dishonesty), both business school deans

and experts think that this outcome is more important to

society. Given the economic impact of dishonest behaviors

on the world economic system, this perspective is certainly

justifiable (Reich 2011; Friedman 2009; Lowenstein 2011).

Table 13 identifies the percentage of respondents within

each group that rated each ethical outcome as ‘‘Critically

Important.’’ Overall, Item 5 (Explaining the consequences

of unethical behavior) and Item 6 (Establish a culture that

reinforces personal integrity and honesty) received the

most ‘‘Critically Important’’ ratings for all groups, with

more than 80 % of the deans indicating that establishing a

culture that reinforces personal integrity and honesty

assigning that rating. In light of the fact that business

schools are known for their high levels of academic dis-

honesty (Trevino and Nelson 2010; Caldwell 2010), but

Table 8 Business experts: importance to business society

SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9 SOC10

SOC1 [*** \** \** \*** \*** \** – \** \*

(0.0000) (0.0221) (0.0376) (0.0006) (0.0000) (0.0112) (0.4138) (0.0130) (0.0904)

SOC2 \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \*** \***

(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000)

SOC3 – – \*** – [* – –

(0.7263) (0.1643) (0.0037) (0.7993) (0.0716) (0.9528) (0.4539)

SOC4 \** \*** – – – [***

(0.0394) (0.0011) (0.5403) (0.2511) (0.6750) (0.6606)

SOC5 – – [*** [* [**

(0.2013) (0.2575) (0.0024) (0.0935) (0.0186)

SOC6 [*** [*** [*** [***

(0.0077) (0.0000) (0.0044) (0.0004)

SOC7 [** – –

(0.0417) (0.8447) (0.3090)

SOC8 \* –

(0.0580) (0.5256)

SOC9 –

(0.3790)

- p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

766 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

Table 9 Large university students: school versus society

SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9 SOC10

SCH1 [***

(0.000)

SCH2 [***

(0.000)

SCH3 \**

(0.0257)

SCH4 [***

(0.000)

SCH5 –

(0.2136)

SCH6 –

(0.6867)

SCH7 –

(0.5726)

SCH8 [***

(0.00001)

SCH9 [**

(0.0117)

SCH10 [***

(0.000)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

Table 10 Small university students: school versus society

SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9 SOC10

SCH1 [**

(0.0389)

SCH2 [***

(0.0003)

SCH3 –

(0.2294)

SCH4 [***

(0.0037)

SCH5 –

(0.6880)

SCH6 –

(0.7223)

SCH7 –

(0.3256)

SCH8 [**

(0.0585)

SCH9 –

(0.2470)

SCH10 [***

(0.0038)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p-value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 767

123

Table 11 business school deans: school versus society

SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9 SOC10

SCH1 [***

(0.0024)

SCH2 [***

(0.0000)

SCH3 –

(0.3553)

SCH4 [**

(0.0454)

SCH5 –

(0.6993)

SCH6 –

(0.8189)

SCH7 \*

(0.0931)

SCH8 –

(0.0086)

SCH9 [**

(0.0289)

SCH10 [***

(0.0078)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p-value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

Table 12 Business experts: school versus society

SOC1 SOC2 SOC3 SOC4 SOC5 SOC6 SOC7 SOC8 SOC9 SOC10

SCH1 [***

(0.0012)

SCH2 \***

(0.0000)

SCH3 –

(0.6618)

SCH4 [***

(0.0096)

SCH5 –

(0.6189)

SCH6 –

(0.2454)

SCH7 \**

(0.0239)

SCH8 –

(0.5418)

SCH9 –

(0.5750)

SCH10 [*

(0.0611)

– p [ .1; * p \ 0.1; ** p \ 0.05; *** p \ 0.01. p-value displayed inside the parentheses. ‘‘[’’ indicates that corresponding row item is rated

significantly more important than the column item. ‘‘\’’ indicates the opposite

768 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

only 5 % of deans feel that academic dishonesty is a

problem on their campuses, (Brown et al. 2010, p. 299),

there appears to be a significant inconsistency between the

deans’ responses and the empirical evidence. Item 2

(Clarify rules for publishing academic articles) received the

fewest ‘‘Critically Important’’ ratings, but actually received

fewer such ratings than Item 9 (Foster dialogue about

ethics and values and their importance) within the business

school context. We note that business school students from

both schools rated Item 2 (Clarify rules for publishing

academic articles) as ‘‘Critically Important’’ more fre-

quently than either the deans or the ethics experts—both

within a business school environment and within society.

We note that none of the deans responding rated clarifying

rules for publishing academic articles as ‘‘Critically

Important’’ within society.

Although there are limitations to any data collection

effort from a survey of this type, the results of this survey

suggest that respondents agree that the ten ethical outcomes

identified in this survey are all important, that creating a

culture that reinforces integrity and honesty and identifying

the consequences of unethical behavior are most important,

and that clarifying the rules for publishing academic arti-

cles is least important.

Recommendations

In order to effectively address the important issues and

outcomes identified as important in teaching business eth-

ics at today’s business schools, we have sought to frame the

current status of the dialogue that has evolved in recent

years while adding important new insights from students,

business school deans, and business ethics subject matter

experts. Incorporating this information together, we offer

five recommendations.

(1) Decision makers about business curricula associated

with business ethics should revisit the implications of

the current practice of teaching business ethics to

insure that the priorities indicated in the survey results

are adequately addressed. The substantial agreement

from respondents about the importance of the appli-

cation of business ethics both on the college campus

Table 13 Summary recap: percent rating critically important

Item Large

university

students

(school) (%)

Small

university

students

(school) (%)

Business

deans

(school)

(%)

Ethics

SME

(school)

(%)

Large

university

students

(society) (%)

Small

university

students

(society) (%)

Business

deans

(society)

(%)

Ethics

SME

(society)

(%)

Provide information about

theories and concepts of

ethical decision making

27.5 27.2 43.2 48.8 24.2 21.1 22.7 31.7

Clarify rules for publishing

academic articles

21.4 23.7 18.2 24.4 7.1 14.9 0.0 6.1

Motivate others to understand

their own value systems

28.5 27.2 43.2 39.0 32.8 33.3 34.1 37.8

Examine the pressures of the

current business environment

that influence ethical decisions

42.9 41.2 50.0 52.4 26.6 28.9 31.8 36.6

Explain the consequences of

unethical behavior

51.0 52.6 52.3 52.4 47.4 53.5 47.7 50.0

Establish a culture that

reinforces personal integrity

and honesty

57.1 52.6 81.8 51.2 59.9 52.6 75.0 59.8

Create better systems that

monitor conduct and the

consequences of dishonesty

30.0 33.3 15.9 28.0 33.5 36.0 27.3 41.5

Identify the benefits of virtuous

business conduct in creating

wealth

29.4 28.9 31.8 33.0 21.5 21.9 29.5 30.5

Foster dialogue about ethics and

values and their importance

22.7 19.3 54.5 43.9 19.3 19.3 31.8 41.5

Increase communication

between the academic and

business communities about

ethics issues

31.1 38.6 38.6 48.8 18.7 28.9 20.5 36.6

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 769

123

and in society at large reinforces the importance of

addressing the need to make business ethics education

more important. Those who make decisions about

curriculum requirements, including the AACSB, have

the opportunity to rethink current policies about

business ethics education. For example, a required

business ethics course, offered early in the academic

training of business students, could better prepare

business students to understand key business ethics

issues addressed in the remaining courses in their

business curriculum (Swanson and Fisher 2008;

Weber et al. 2008). This recommendation is not

new. Nearly 95 years ago, Hosmer (1988, p. 9)

recommended that the business school curriculum

begin with an ethics class that included ‘‘the first

principles and essential values of normative philos-

ophy, the processes of application, and the relation-

ships of those principles and values to economic

theory and the law.’’ The net impact of the current

AACSB policy to let business schools adopt a flexible

approach to teaching business ethics has resulted in

fewer than one-third of all business schools even

offering a business ethics course (Cavanagh 2009). In

light of the deteriorating condition of ethical business

behavior and the crisis conditions of plagiarism and

academic dishonesty at business schools (McCable

et al. 2006; Trevino and Nelson 2010), the AACSB

should carefully reconsider its responsibility in

establishing ethics education standards associated

with earning the AACSB accreditation endorsement.

(2) The Academy of Management should expand the

current scope of responsibilities of its Ethics Educa-

tion Committee. The feedback from this survey

suggests that the Academy of Management’s Ethics

Education Committee has the opportunity to expand

its scope from focusing entirely on publication-

related ethical standards to address broader ethical

issues deemed important by deans, ethics experts, and

students. Although clarifying rules for publishing

academic articles has value for Academy members

and is a necessary purpose for the Ethics Education

Committee, that ethical outcome is far from sufficient

to address the needs of Academy members, business

students, business schools, future employers, or

society at large. The evidence from the survey of

students, deans, and ethics subject matter experts

indicates that this ethical outcome is considered least

important overall by each of these parties—including

business school deans. Furthermore, as Schminke

(2011) has noted, the goals outlined by the Acad-

emy’s governing board for this important committee

extend far beyond simply addressing rules for pub-

lishing academic articles. The Academy’s governing

board should send a clear message to the Ethics

Education Committee that it should play a major role

in conducting additional research regarding improv-

ing the effectiveness of business ethics education

programs at colleges and universities, including

studying in-depth those ‘‘model programs’’ that are

most highly regarded (cf. Piper et al. 1993; Weber

et al. 2008; Caldwell 2010).

(3) Business school deans should examine how their

schools can create a more effective culture of academic

integrity on their business school campuses. Over-

whelmingly, responses from respondents to our survey

indicated that creating a culture of integrity was

considered to be a ‘‘Critically Important’’ outcome by

all of the survey groups. By adopting Codes of Ethics,

creating Centers for Ethics, increasing the involvement

of faculty and students in ethics monitoring and

enforcement, and other similar activities, business

school deans can play a major role in creating a culture

of academic integrity (Caldwell 2010; Weber et al.

2008; Swanson and Fisher 2011). Although Christen-

sen et al. (2007) note that some of the top fifty

international business schools have been successful in

creating such a culture, the weight of the evidence

suggests that most business schools fall far below the

standard required to build a meaningful culture of

honesty and integrity. For example, Brown et al. (2010,

p. 299) reported that in their survey of business school

deans ‘‘only about 5 % of deans believed dishonesty

was a serious problem in their school.’’ Apparently,

deans are either denying the clear message about the

problems of academic dishonesty that are admitted by

business school students (McCabe et al. 2006) and that

are going unreported according to the Center for

Academic Integrity (Burke et al. 2007) or believe that

their schools are all an exception to a common trend.

Swanson and Fisher (2008) have suggested that

business school deans are reluctant to push for ethics

courses due to resistance from faculty members.

According to the AACSB, the average tenure of a

business school dean is only 3 years (Thomas and

Fragueiro 2011, p. 54), and apparently deans have been

unwilling to confront the business ethics issue and the

need for expanded ethics education as a priority for

their business school curricula.

(4) Business schools should consider opportunities to

raise the focus of business students on applying the

principles and values taught in order to increase

students’ understanding of the application of those

principles and values. The results from this survey

suggest that the respondents perceive these outcomes

and the application of ethics principles to be impor-

tant both in business schools and in society.

770 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

Accordingly, the opportunity to focus on the teaching

of business ethics education as an application-ori-

ented learning experience appears to be warranted.

For example, involving students in service learning

projects is likely to help students to recognize the

importance of serving the communities in which they

will live and work as future business leaders (Man-

ville and Ober 2003; Seider et al. 2011). Teaching

future business leaders to more fully understand the

importance of good corporate citizenship (Carroll and

Buchholtz 2012; Pless et al. 2011; Godfrey et al.

2005) by actually adding value to society and

addressing community needs can also help to create

the culture of ethical commitment that business deans

and others recognize as so important for business

students (Weber et al. 2008; Swanson and Fisher

2008, 2011). As noted by Buddensick and Lo Re

(2010, p. 101) ‘‘participation in service learning

promotes inquiry of broader global and social issues’’

and ‘‘promotes an enhanced awareness of themselves

and their communities.’’ Hoivik (2004, pp. 239–240)

has noted that application-based approaches to teach-

ing business ethics have resulted in measurable

improvement in ethical awareness, moral reasoning,

and ethical judgment.

(5) Subject matter experts and faculty who teach and

conduct research in business ethics should expand

their research, particularly in applied research fields,

that address how important ethical outcomes can be

more effectively achieved on business school cam-

puses and in society. Examining the survey outcomes

suggests that the focus of those who teach in business

schools may be enhanced by understanding more

fully how the bridging of teaching and application can

change students’ perceptions and behaviors. Addi-

tional research in business ethics may provide

important insights to address the most effective ways

to impact student perceptions and behaviors. For

example, we note that the differences between

responses of large school and small school business

ethics students may suggest that differences in

respondent background or how ethics is taught may

impact the perceptions of students from the respective

schools. The overall results of responses suggest that

current methods of teaching business ethics need to

be studied more carefully to improve their effective-

ness (cf. Mitroff and Swanson 2004; Swanson and

Fisher 2011). We agree with those who suggest that

an evidence-based approach to business decision

making is the best means of changing the minds of

key decision makers (Pfeffer and Sutton 2006, 2007;

Pfeffer 1998), and encourage the expansion of applied

research about business ethics education.

Although we think that these recommendations are

soundly based in evidence and research, we agree with

other scholars (Swanson and Fisher 2008, 2011) that those

who actually make decisions about teaching business eth-

ics, researching business ethics education, and influencing

students in the classroom must ultimately be committed to

changing the behaviors of tomorrow’s future business

leaders. Without that commitment, change is unlikely—but

that change seems to be a clear need in today’s business

school environment and in society at large (Cavanagh

2009; Tichy and McGill 2003). Decision makers and fac-

ulty must have the moral courage (Sekerka et al. 2009;

Secretan 2009; Kouzes and Posner 2008a, b) to make tough

decisions in changing the status quo in business ethics

education (Swanson and Fisher 2008, 2011).

Contributions of Our Paper

This paper is heavily dependent upon the outstanding

research efforts of many business ethics scholars, practi-

tioners, and journalists who have identified the critical

importance of changing the culture in today’s business

environment—both in society at large and in today’s

business schools on campuses throughout the United States

(and throughout the world). Building upon that research,

we have summarized the status of decision makers’ per-

ceptions and actions associated with business ethics edu-

cation. We have added to past research by presenting

additional empirically based insights from business stu-

dents, the deans of the top US business schools, and subject

matter experts who research business ethics. Our paper

adds value to the academic and practitioner ethics literature

in three important ways.

(1) We contribute to the growing body of evidence that

suggests that business schools and their faculties

would more effectively change student behaviors by

recognizing the importance of the ethical outcomes

identified by our respondents as highly important.

Faculty and administrative decision makers may

profit by reconsidering current methods of teaching

business ethics and by creating an environment that

promotes thoughtful ethical analysis in a world where

ethical conduct in business and on campus have been

identified as a major problem (Carroll and Buchholtz

2012; Trevino and Nelson 2010; Callahan 2004). The

results of our survey confirm that students, deans, and

subject matter experts in ethics consider ethical

outcomes as important for both business schools

and society at large.

(2) We provide empirical evidence that affirms that

ethical issues are perceived by business students,

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 771

123

deans, and business ethics subject matter experts as

complex contextual issues with broad ramifications.

In context with other research about the likelihood

that business faculty who teach ethics ‘‘across the

curriculum’’ are perceived as often lacking adequate

knowledge about ethics (Evans and Weiss 2008),

business school administrators and other academic

bodies, including the AACSB, may wish to conduct

extensive research about the most effective way to

teach these complex issues—especially in terms of

how different teaching modalities affect student

perceptions, values, and intentions.

(3) We encourage ethics decision makers to reexamine

how they can more effectively establish standards to

teach business ethics to address the critical problem

of preparing future business leaders to be more

effective at analyzing ethical issues. Swanson and

Frederick (2005) have suggested that those who are

responsible for making key decisions about the

teaching of business ethics are not fully appreciating

the logical consequences of their failure to make

appropriate changes in the status quo. We concur with

that opinion and urge decision makers to take prompt

action to address the ‘‘cheating culture’’ that typifies

today’s society (Callahan 2004). The research from

our study contributes to the extensive research that

affirms that teaching business ethics merits more

study and more empirical measurement (cf. Swanson

and Fisher 2011). Many outstanding universities have

made a concerted effort to improve the quality of

business ethics education, but much more research is

needed. (cf. Piper et al. 1993; Datar et al. 2010;

Weber et al. 2008).

Cavanagh (2009, p. 20) observed that ‘‘(M)ost business

schools would claim that that is not their purpose, nor do

they have the skills’’ to teach their students how to improve

their moral conduct. Other scholars, and the empirical

evidence that they present, suggest that such a change is

not only possible but required to create a healthier and

more productive economy (McCabe et al. 2006). Not-

withstanding, the failure of business schools to ‘‘reduce the

incongruity between doing what is right and doing what it

takes to get ahead’’ (Schwartz et al. 1991, p. 466) business

schools are now being blamed for failing to give adequate

attention to teaching business ethics and for those students

to be accused of being insensitive to issues of ethical

misconduct (Cabral-Cardoso 2004, p. 75).

We note with interest that the Institute for Global Ethics

UK Trust and the Institute of Business Ethics (2011) have

recently identified six key issues associated with the

teaching of business ethics. These subject matter experts

have noted that business ethics education could profit from

(1) Improved clarity about ethics nomenclature and

definitions.

(2) Increased interest and concern for ethics-related

teaching and research.

(3) The embedding of meaningful ethics-related sub-

stance of all business courses.

(4) The articulation of ethics-related criteria for business

schools by accrediting bodies and ranking institu-

tions, such as the Financial Times.

(5) Increased debate and dialogue by universities and

business schools about what it means to actually be an

ethical institution; and

(6) Identifying key stakeholders of business schools and a

mechanism for them to provide feedback about

ethics-related issues (Institute of Global Ethics UK

Trust 2011, p. 4).

Our research described herein provides empirical evidence

that closely parallels the important work done by these two

bodies and affirms the international significance of

addressing the need to improve the teaching of business

ethics.

Conclusion

According to the Washington Post Pulitzer Prize winner,

Kathleen Parker (2012), ‘‘students are not learning what

they need to compete for the jobs that do exist’’ and

numerous studies suggest that universities have not ade-

quately prepared students for careers. A 2009 survey of US

employers conducted for the Association of American

Colleges and Universities also found that 75 % of those

surveyed felt that colleges and universities needed to place

greater emphasis on teaching students skills associated

with the ability to connect choices and actions to ethical

decisions’’ (Hart Research Associates 2010, p. 2). As

Brinkmann and Peattie (2005, p. 151) have observed, the

ability of business schools to self-reflect and self-criticize

with regard to how they teach their students moral values is

more important in the post-Enron era than it has ever been.

In 2004, Ian Mitroff (2004), Distinguished Professor

Emeritus at the USC Marshall School of Business,

expressed his outrage at the state of business ethics edu-

cation. Mitroff (2004, p. 185) wrote that that the ‘‘man-

agement of truth’’ suggests that ‘‘one is willing to do

everything in one’s power to twist and distort numbers,

facts, and conclusions in order to support one’s predeter-

mined purposes.’’ Mitroff (2004, p. 188) closed his letter,

urging that key decision makers and faculty shed the false

notion that they had neither the power nor the responsi-

bility to change the status quo, with regard to business

ethics education and other critical issues facing academia.

772 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

With Mitroff (2004) and other noted scholars, we hope that

those who have the power to improve business ethics

education reflect on their obligations to business schools

and society in using that power.

Appendix

See Table 14.

References

AACSB. (2012). Business Accreditation Standards, Standard 15

Management of Curricula. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/

business/standards/aol/standard15.asp.

AACSB. (2012). Ethics/Sustainability Resource Center, Frequently

Asked Questions. http://www.aacsb.edu/resources/ethics-

sustainability/faq.asp.

Albert, S., Ashforth, B., & Dutton, J. (2000). Organizational identity

and identification: Charting new waters and building new

bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25, 13–17.

Amos, B., Klimoski, R., & Marks, M. (2011). The challenges of

leadership development: Are business schools exhibiting evi-

dence based practice? In Academy of management annual

proceedings (pp. 1–6).

Anderson, D. R., Sweeney, D. J., & Williams, T. A. (2011). Statistics

for business and economics (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-

Western.

Arbinger Institute. (2002). Leadership and self deception: Getting out

of the box. Berkeley, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Badaracco, J. L., Jr. (1997). Defining moments: When managers must

choose between right and right. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Badaracco, J. L., Jr. (2002). Leading quietly. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Bailey, A. R., Chow, C. W., & Haddad, K. M. (2009). Continuous

improvement in business education: Insights from the for-profit

sector and business school deans. Journal of Education for

Business, 74(3), 165–180.

Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management

science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various

misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education,

9(4), 715–725.

Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their

way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.

Birnik, A., & Billsberry, J. (2008). Reorienting the business school

agenda: The case for relevance, rigor, and righteousness. Journal

of Business Ethics, 82(4), 985–999.

Brady, F. N. (1999). A systematic approach to teaching ethics in

business. Journal of Business Ethics, Part 2, 19(3), 309–318.

Brinkmann, J., & Peattie, K. (2005). Exploring business school ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics Education, 2(2), 151–169.

Brinkmann, J., Sims, R. R., & Nelson, L. J. (2011). Business ethics across

the curriculum? Journal of Business Ethics Education, 8, 83–104.

Brown, B. S., Weible, R. J., & Olmosk, K. E. (2010). Business school

deans on student academic dishonesty: A survey. College

Student Journal Part A, 44(2), 299–308.

Buddensick, J. C., & Lo Re, M. L. (2010). Measuring the effect of

service learning on civic awareness. Business Research, 10(5),

101–107.

Burke, D. D., Johnson, R. A., & Kemp, D. J. (2010). The twenty-first

century and legal studies in business: Preparing students to

perform in a globally competitive environment. Journal of Legal

Studies Education, 27(1), 1–33.

Burke, J. A., Polimeni, R. S., & Slavin, N. S. (2007). Academic

dishonesty: A crisis on campus. CPA Journal, 77(5), 58–65.

Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2004). Ethical misconduct in the business school:

A case of plagiarism that turned bitter. Journal of Business

Ethics, Part 1, 49(1), 75–89.

Caldwell, C. (2009). Identity, self-awareness, and self-deception:

Ethical implications for leaders and organizations. Journal of

Business Ethics, 90(3), 393–406.

Caldwell, C. (2010). A ten-step model for academic integrity: A

positive approach for business schools. Journal of Business

Ethics, 92(1), 1–13.

Table 14 Survey instrument

Item Description

SCH1 Importance to business schools: provide information about

theories and concepts of ethical decision making

SOC1 Importance to business society: provide information about

theories and concepts of ethical decision making

SCH2 Importance to business schools: clarify rules for publishing

academic articles

SOC2 Importance to business society: clarify rules for publishing

academic articles

SCH3 Importance to business schools: motivate others to

understand their own value systems

SOC3 Importance to business society: motivate others to

understand their own value systems

SCH4 Importance to business schools: examine the pressures of

the current business environment that influence ethical

decisions

SOC4 Importance to business society: examine the pressures of the

current business environment that influence ethical

decisions

SCH5 Importance to business schools: explain the consequences

of unethical behavior

SOC5 Importance to business society: explain the consequences of

unethical behavior

SCH6 Importance to business schools: establish a culture that

reinforces personal integrity and honesty

SOC6 Importance to business society: establish a culture that

reinforces personal integrity and honesty

SCH7 Importance to business schools: create better systems that

monitor conduct and the consequences of dishonesty

SOC7 Importance to business society: create better systems that

monitor conduct and the consequences of dishonesty

SCH8 Importance to business schools: identify the benefits of

virtuous business conduct in creating wealth

SOC8 Importance to business society: identify the benefits of

virtuous business conduct in creating wealth

SCH9 Importance to business schools: foster dialogue about ethics

and values and their importance

SOC9 Importance to business society: foster dialogue about ethics

and values and their importance

SCH10 Importance to business schools: increase communication

between the academic and business communities about

ethics issues

SOC10 Importance to business schools: increase communication

between the academic and business communities about

ethics issues

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 773

123

Caldwell, C., & Hansen, M. (2010). Trustworthiness, governance, and

wealth creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 173–188.

Caldwell, C., & Jeane, L. (2007). Ethical leadership and building

trust—Raising the bar for business. Journal of Academic Ethics,

5(1), 1–4.

Caldwell, C., Truong, D., Linh, P., & Tuan, A. (2011). Strategic

human resource management as ethical stewardship. Journal of

Business Ethics, 98(1), 171–182.

Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are

doing wrong to get ahead. Orlando, FL: Mariner Books.

Cameron, K. S. (2003). Ethics, virtuousness, and constant change. In

N. M. Tichy & A. R. McGill (Eds.), The ethical challenge: How

to lead with unyielding integrity (pp. 185–194). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron, K. S. (2006). Good or not bad: Standards and ethics in

managing change. Academy of Management Learning & Edu-

cation, 5(3), 317–323.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive

organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2012). The oxford handbook of

positive organizational scholarship. New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Carroll, A. B. (1977). Managing corporate social responsibility.

Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Company.

Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2012). Business and society:

Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management (8th ed.).

Mason, OH: South-Western.

Cavanagh, G. F. (2009). What’s good for business? America, 20(4),

20–22.

Charlier, S. D., Brown, K. G., & Rynes, S. L. (2011). Teaching

evidence-based management in MBA programs: What evidence

is there? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2),

222–236.

Christensen, L. J., Pierce, E., Hartman, L. P., Hoffman, W. M., &

Carter, J. (2007). Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the

financial times top 50 global business schools: Baseline data and

future research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4),

347–368.

Collins, D. (2009). Essentials of business ethics: Creating an

organization of integrity and superior performance. Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.

Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of

visionary companies. New York: HarperCollins Publishing.

Colwell, S., Zyphur, M., & Schminke, M. (2011). When does ethical

code enforcement matter in the inter-organizational context? The

moderating role of switching costs. Journal of Business Ethics,

104(1), 47–58.

Comer, D. R., & Vega, G. (2005). An experiential exercise that

introduces the concept of personal ethical threshold to develop

moral courage. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 2(2),

171–197.

Covey, S. R. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Covey, S. R. (2003). The seven habits of highly effective people:

Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness.

New York: Free Press.

Crown, D., & Spiller, M. (1997). Faculty responsibilities in dealing

with collegiate cheating: A student development perspective.

Teaching Business Ethics, 1, 117–130.

Datar, S. M., Garvin, D. A., & Cullen, P. G. (2010). Rethinking the

MBA: Business education at a crossroads. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Publishing.

Davis, J. H. (February 8, 2011). E-mail communication from Jim

Davis, Co-chair of the Ethics Education Committee to Cam

Caldwell.

Decoo, W. (2002). Crisis on campus: Confronting academic miscon-

duct. Hong Kong: The MIT Press.

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to

organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the

business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly,

41(3), 442–476.

Embleton, K., & Helfer, D. S. (2007). The plague of plagiarism and

academic dishonesty. Searcher, 15(6), 23–26.

Evans, F. J., & Robertson, J. W. (2003). Teaching ethics in the

business school: Deans’ perceptions. In AACSB dean’s confer-

ence, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

Evans, F. J., & Weiss, E. J. (2008). Views on the importance of ethics

in business education: Survey results from AACSB Deans,

CEOs, and Faculty. In D. L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.),

Advancing business ethics education (pp. 43–56). Charlotte, NC:

Information Age Publishing.

Felton, E. L., & Sims, R. R. (2005). Teaching business ethics:

Targeted outputs. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(4), 377–391.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An

integrated approach to designing college courses. San Fran-

cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and

behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Indianapolois,

IN: Addison-Wesley.

Friedman, T. L. (2009). Hot, flat, and crowded: Why we need a green

revolution—And how it can renew America (Release 2.0). New

York: Picador.

Fulmer, R. M. (2001). Johnson & Johnson: Frameworks for leader-

ship. Organizational Dynamics, 29(3), 211–220.

George, B. (2009, 11, 25). After the crisis: Restoring trust in U.S.

leaders. Business Week Online, 11/25/2009, p. 16.

Ghoshal, S. (2003, July, 17). Business schools share the blame for

enron. Financial Times (FT.com), pp. 1–4.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good

management practices. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 4, 75–91.

Giacalone, R., & Thompson, K. (2006). Business ethics and social

responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 266–277.

Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis

of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6),

379–389.

Godfrey, P. C., Illes, L. M., & Berry, G. R. (2005). Creating breadth

in business education through service-learning. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 4(3), 309–323.

Goodchild, L. F. (1986). Toward a foundational normative method in

business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(6), 485–498.

Hart Research Associates. (2010). Raising the bar-employers’ views

on college learning in the wake of the economic downturn.

Conducted for the Association of American Colleges and

Universities. http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/2009_Emplo

yerSurvey.pdf.

Heller, N. A., & Heller, V. L. (2011). Business ethics education: Are

business schools teaching to the AACSB ethics education task

force recommendations?’’. International Journal of Business &

Social Science, 2(20), 30–38.

Hoffman, W. M., Driscoll, D., & Painter-Morland, M. (2001). Integrating ethics. In C. Moon & C. Bonny (Eds.), Business

ethics: Facing up to the issues (pp. 38–54). London: The

Economist Books.

Hoivik, H. v. W. (2004). Learning experiences from designing and

teaching a mandatory MBA course on ethics and leadership.

774 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

Journal of Business Ethics Education, 1(2), 239–255. Supp.

2004 Special Issue.

Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Nonparametric statistical

methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Hosmer, L. T. (1985). The other 338. Why a majority of our schools

of business administration do not offer a course in business

ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 17–22.

Hosmer, L. T. (1988). Adding ethics to the business curriculum.

Business Horizons, 31(4), 9–15.

Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered.

Strategic Management Journal, 15, 17–34.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organi-

zational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 20(2), 379–403.

Hosmer, L. T. (2010). The ethics of management (7th ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Hughes, T., O’Regan, N., & Wornham, D. (2008). The credibility

issue: Closing the academic/practitioner gap. Strategic Choice,

17(7/8), 215–233.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management

practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672.

Institute for Global Ethics UK Trust in collaboration with the Institute

of Business Ethics (2011). Promoting cultures of integrity: Six

ethical issues for business education. Report of a consultation

held at St. George’s House, Windsor Castle, June 7–8, 2011.

Junion-Metz, G. (2000). The E-plagiarism plague. School Library

Journal, 56, 43–44.

Karri, R., Caldwell, C., Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Naegle, D. (2005).

Building trust in schools of business—Opportunities for ethical

governance. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3(2–4), 159–182.

Klein, W. H. (1998). Recollections on implementing the ideas of

Conceptual Foundations. In R. F. Duska (Ed.), Education,

leadership, and business ethics: Essays on the work of Clarence

Walton (pp. 91–109). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Koehn, D. (2005). Transforming our students: Teaching business

ethics post-Enron. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 137–151.

Kolb, R., LeClair, D., Pelton, L., Swanson, D., & Windsor, D. (2005).

Panel: The role of ethics in business curricula. Journal of

Business Ethics Education, 2(1), 5–12.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008a). Credibility: How leaders gain

and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008b). The leadership challenge (4th

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Krehmeyer, D. (2007, October, 26). Teaching business ethics: A

critical need. Business Week Online, p. 4.

Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm:

Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organiza-

tional learning. Organization Science, 17, 502–513.

Lewis, B., Duchac, J., & Beets, D. S. (2011). An academic publisher’s

response to plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3),

489–506.

Li, S. (2010, July, 9). Journal review process increasingly includes

check for plagiarism. The Chronicle of Higher Education

Website.

Linton, J. D., Tierney, R., & Walsh, S. T. (2011). Publish or perish: How

are research and reputation related? Serials Review, 37(4),

244–257.

Lowenstein, R. (2011). The end of wall street. New York: The

Penguin Press.

Madsen, S. R. (2011). Communications between Cam Caldwell and

Susan Madsen, Co-Chair of the Academy of Management Ethics

Education Committee, regarding the role of the Ethics Education

Committee in a series of phone calls and e-mails in January and

February, 2011.

Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2003). A company of citizens: What the

world’s first democracy teaches leaders about creating great

organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Maritz Research. (2010, April, 14). Managing in an era of distrust:

Maritz Poll reveals employees lack trust in their workplace.

Martin, K., & Parmar, B. (2012). Assumptions in decision making

scholarship: Implications for business ethics research. Journal of

Business Ethics, 105(3), 289–306.

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic

dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes,

and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 5(3), 294–305.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor

codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A

replication and extension to modified honor code settings.

Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357–378.

McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room: The

amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. New York: Penguin.

Miller, A. N., & Bedeian, A. G. (2010). Publish or perish: Academic

life as we live it (pp. 1–6). In Academy of management annual

meeting proceedings.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft

practice of managing and management development. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Mitroff, I. I. (2004). An open letter to the deans and faculties of

American business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2),

185–189.

Mitroff, I. I., & Swanson, D. L. (2004, June). An open letter to the

deans and faculties of american business schools: A call for

action. Academy of Management Newsletter.

Morse, R., & Flanigan, S. (2011, March 14). Business schools ranking

methodology. US News—Education. http://www.usnews.com/

education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2011/03/14/business-

school-rankings-methodology-2012.

Naimi, L. (2007). Strategies for teaching research ethics in business,

management and organizational studies. Electronic Journal of

Business Research Methods, 5(1), 26–39.

Nicklaus, D. (2002). Is a bigger dose of ethics needed in business

schools? St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. C10.

O’Neill, O. A., Feldman, D. C., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., &

Wilson, M. G. (2011). Organizational achievement values, high-

involvement work practices, and business unit performance.

Human Resource Management, 50(4), 541–558.

Paine, L. S. (2003). Value shift: Why companies must merge social

and financial imperatives to achieve superior performance. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Parker, K. (2012, January, 9). U.S. higher education failing to focus

on basic skills. The News Tribune. http://www.thenewstribune.

com/2011/10/04/1850686/us-higher-education-failing-to.html.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting

people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A

comment on Ghoshal’’. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 4(1), 96–100.

Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less

success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning

& Education, 1(1), 78–95.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (1999). Management half-truths and

nonsense: How to practice evidence-based management. Cali-

fornia Management Review, 48(3), 77–100.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Evidence-based management.

Harvard Business Review, 84(7/8), 184–190.

Piper, T. R., Gentile, M. C., & Parks, S. D. (1993). Can ethics be

taught? Perspectives, challenges, and approaches at the Har-

vard Business School. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.

Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics 775

123

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible

global leaders through international service-learning programs:

The ulysses experience. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 10(2), 237–260.

Procario-Foley, E. G., & Bean, D. F. (2002). Institutions of higher

education: Cornerstones in building ethical organizations.

Teaching Business Ethics, 6, 101–116.

Ravenscroft, S., & Dillard, J. (2008). Moral imagining: Toward using

cognitive science in teaching business ethics. In D. L. Swanson

& D. G. Fisher (Eds.), Advancing business ethics education (pp.

167–189). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Rawe, J. (2007). A question of honor. Time, 169(22), 59–60.

Ray, J. L., Baker, L. T., & Plowman, D. A. (2011). Organizational

mindfulness in business schools. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 10(2), 188–203.

Reich, R. B. (2011). Aftershock: The next economy and America’s

future. New York: Picador.

Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA?

Assessing the alignment of required MBA curricula and required

managerial competencies. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 8, 208–224.

Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2011). On the road to Abilene: Time

to manage agreement about curricular relevance. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 148–161.

Ryan, T. G., & Bisson, J. (2011). Can ethics be taught? International

Journal of Business & Social Science, 2(12), 44–52.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schminke, M. (2009). Editor’s comments: The better angels of our

nature—Ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy

of Management Review, 34(4), 586–591.

Schminke, M. (2011). E-mail communication from Marshall Schm-

inke, former Chair of the Academy of Management Ethics

Education Committee, to Cam Caldwell on February 10, 2011,

summarizing the role of the committee.

Schwartz, R. H., Kassem, S., & Ludwig, D. (1991). The role of

business schools in managing the incongruence between doing

what is right and doing what it takes to get ahead. Journal of

Business Ethics, 10(6), 465–469.

Secretan, L. (2009). Moral courage. Leadership Excellence, 26(1),

18–20.

Seider, S., Gillmor, S., & Rabinowicz, S. (2011). The impact of

community service learning upon the worldviews of business

majors versus non-business majors at an American University.

Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 485–503.

Sekerka, L., Bagozzi, R., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Facing ethical

challenges in the workplace: Conceptualizing and measuring

professional moral courage. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4),

565–579.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the

learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Sims, R. R. (2002). Teaching business ethics for effective learning.

Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Sims, R. R., & Sauser, W. I., Jr (Eds.). (2011). Experiences in

teaching business ethics. Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing.

Stansbury, J. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2012). Positive business ethics:

Grounding and elaborating a theory of good works. In K.

S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The oxford handbook of

positive organizational scholarship (pp. 340–352). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Swanson, D. L., & Dahler-Larsen, P. (2008). Toward an ethical sense

of self for business education. In D. L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher

(Eds.), Advancing business ethics education (pp. 191–220).

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Swanson, D. L., & Fisher, D. G. (2008). Business ethics education: If

we don’t know where we’re going, any road will take us there. In

D. L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.), Advancing business ethics

education (pp. 1–23). Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing.

Swanson, D. L., & Fisher. D. G. (2011). Assessing business ethics

education: Starting the conversation in earnest. In D. L. Swanson

& D. G. Fisher (Eds.), Toward assessing business ethics

education. Advancing business ethics education (pp. 1–21).

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Swanson, D. L., & Frederick, W. C. (2005). Denial and leadership in

business ethics education. In R. A. Petersen & O. C. Ferrell

(Eds.), Business ethics: New challenges for business schools and

corporate leaders (pp. 222–240). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Syed, J., Mingers, J., & Murray, P. A. (2010). Beyond rigour and

relevance: A critical realist approach to business education.

Management Learning, 41(1), 71–85.

Taylor, R. L., & Stanton, A. D. (2009). Academic publishing and

teaching effectiveness: An attitudinal study of AACSB accred-

ited business school faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership

Journal, 13(2), 93–106.

Thomas, H., & Fragueiro, F. (2011). The dean’s many roles. BizEd,

10(3), 54–59.

Tichy, N. M., & McGill, A. (Eds.). (2003). The ethical challenge:

How to lead with unyielding integrity. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2010). Managing business ethics:

Straight talk about how to do it right (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Ulrich, D., Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (2001). The HR

scorecard: Linking people, strategy, and performance. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Vega, G. (2007). Teaching business ethics through service learning

metaprojects. Journal of Management Education, 31(5), 647–678.

Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2004). Fish starts to rot from head: The role of

business school deans in curriculum planning for ethics. Journal

of Business Ethics Education, 1(2), 213–228.

Walker, M., Paletta, D., Blackstone, B., Gongloff, M., & Vieira, P.

(2011). Global crisis of confidence. Wall Street Journal, 258(37),

A1–A10.

Warnell, J. M. (2011). Ask more of business education: Giving voice

to values for emerging leaders. Journal of Business Ethics

Education, 8, 3210–3325.

Warren, B. W., & Rosenthal, D. (2006). Teaching business ethics—Is

it a lost cause?’’. International Journal of Management, Part 2,

23(3), 679–698.

Weber, J. (2006). Implementing an organizational ethics program in

an academic environment: The challenges and opportunities for

the Duquesne University Schools of Business. Journal of

Business Ethics, 65(1), 23–42.

Weber, J., Gerde, V. W., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2008). A blueprint for

designing an ethics program in an academic setting. In D.

L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.), Advancing business ethics

education (pp. 85–101). Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing.

Weick, K. E. (2009). Making sense of the organization (Vol. 2). West

Sussex: Wiley.

Whitney, K. (2010). Teaching right and wrong. Chief Learning

Officer, 9(6), 36–39.

Windsor, D. (2002). Moral activism and value harmonization in an

integrating global economy. Research in Ethical Issues in

Organizations, 4, 85–105.

776 L. A. Floyd et al.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Bus 4801 Unit 10 Final Project/Unit 10 Personal Code of Ethics.pdf