Moving Forward on Ethics Education in One School’s MBA … E. Olson, Chester … · Web...

10th Global Conference on Business & Economics ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2

Moving Forward on Ethics Education in One School’s MBA Program

David E. Olson

Chester Bryniarski

Cuiping Wang

Silver Arias

California State University – Bakersfield

9001 Stockdale Hwy

Bakersfield CA USA 93311

661-654-2284 or 805-646-1596

[email protected],

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

October 15-16, 2010Rome, Italy

1

mailto:[email protected]





Moving Forward on Ethics Education in One School’s MBA Program

ABSTRACT

Recent events in the financial industry, the BP oil spill, and HP point out the clear and

present need to address business ethics within MBA programs. It remains, however, a

marginalized discipline. In this work, we take a brief look at business ethics education in U.S.

MBA programs and follow one program as it attempts to address the need to review and expand

business ethics in their curriculum. In a survey given in the capstone course, it was found that

most students want business ethics to be part of the curriculum. While most feel that ethics

should be an integral part of the capstone course (and, perhaps other courses as well),

approximately half also feel that a stand-alone course should be a requirement of the program.

When looking at how business ethics should be taught, most feel that a variety of methods

should be used but the order of preference was discussion, lecture, and lab or field study. While

this is just a preliminary study that has a small sample size and only obtains feedback from

students, it provides clear support for inclusion of business ethics into an MBA curriculum.

INTRODUCTION

The discipline of ethics is both vital and one of the oldest fields of study. However, in

our modern academy, it is often simply ignored or relegated to an afterthought. Its importance,

as well as its low priority, is nowhere more true than in business education. With a growing

focus on science, MBA programs are often slow to find the need to train their students in the way

of right and wrong, (Porter and McKibbin, 1988). This paper takes a look at one such school

that is currently working to make business ethics an integral part of its curriculum.


2


LITERATURE REVIEW

The quest for business ethics spans centuries and civilizations. In early Western

civilization its beginnings grew out of the concept of arête, which could be translated to mean

excellence. In the East, the Mongols were guided by three tasks to perform in life—to ride well,

shoot straight, and speak the truth (600 BCE). By 350BCE, Aristotle was teaching prescriptions

about how commerce, wealth accumulation, and money should be conducted and treated. He

writes that, “the trade of the petty usurer is hated,”. Ever since, religious leaders, philosophers,

and politicians from Luther and Calvin to Adam Smith and Karl Marx and from Machiavelli to

Obama have all had much to say about how business ethics should and should not be conducted

and promulgated. Most often, these stories tell of woeful deficiencies that harm customers,

employees, shareholders, the environment, or any number of negatively-affected parties.

Marking its continued interest, a cursory look at the current best-selling books will find

everything from insights on current evil behavior in titles such as, The Big Short: Inside the

Doomsday Machine by Michael Lewis, which is about how behavior on Wall Street led to the

recent economic collapse, to others that show how companies can do well by doing good such as

Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s recent work, SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation,

Profits, Growth, and Social Good. All this is, of course, for good reason. There is a never

ending interest in examples where businesses and their leaders rise or fall as they deviate from

ethical expectations. There will be, then, a never ending sequence of stories where businesses

and their leaders do so.

Recently, it seems as though the trend is more focused on the negative deviations. A

survey done by Pomeroy (2007) about American employees found that 73% have witnessed

ethical misconduct at work. Unethical behavior by employees may include things such as


3


wasting company/working time, using company supplies for personal use, property theft, failing

to whistle blow, illegitimately exchanging company resources for personal gain, and deceiving

customers or clients (Luna-Arocas and Tang, 2004). Business ethics has become an increasingly

important part of the global conscience (Freyne, 2009; Gilmartin, 2008). Businesses quickly

recognized that damage can be done by unethical behavior. We have all experienced the recent

collapses in the economy, and we have all read about how various parties have been at fault. In a

survey taken in January 2009 by the Harvard Business Review Advisory Council, it was found

that 76% of respondents had lowered their level of trust in the senior management of U.S.

corporations just since June 2008. It is noteworthy that this survey took place before the oil spill

debacle with British Petroleum or Mark Hurd’s recent allegations of expense report

manipulations at Hewlett-Packard.

So, it should come as no surprise that, “leading businesses no longer debate the

legitimacy of the role and importance of ethics, rather, they are forging ahead, finding new ways

to put ethics into practice” (Krehmeyer, 2007). Some businesses even state that sustainable

success can be achieved only through ethical behavior (Veiga, 2004).

Ethics in Business Schools

In response, Swanson and Frederick (2003) believed business ethics should be an

essential part of the curriculum of schools of business. Every year, American companies hire

employees from schools of business. If these graduates bear unethical minds, American business

and society will suffer eventually. Business schools should have the responsibility to prepare

business students with ethical challenges, and equip them with tools so that they can combat with

ethical armament in the business world.


4


Research has shown that one way to establish an ethical climate and to reduce unethical

employee behavior is through ethics training or corporate ethics programs (Greenberg, 2002,

Tang and Chen, 2008). Ethics training can be integrated with education. Wright says that,

“Education is the best means to develop good ethical behavior in the modern business

environment” (1995). Giacalone (2008) suggests that business schools need to ensure that

students are equipped with ethical integrity to meet challenges in the real business world.

Business ethics in academia has followed a mixed path. Around fifty years ago, separate

studies by the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation concluded that the quality of

business schools must be improved through an increased focus on hard sciences like economics,

statistics and research. At a time when many business schools were still struggling for

legitimacy, this position was taken to heart. So, while subjective disciplines such as ethics have

remained as important as ever to the world, they continually struggle for respect and for

important resources. (Podolny, 2006).

As a formal discipline, business ethics can be traced to its first academic conference

which was held at the University of Kansas in 1974 (N. Bowie, 1986). In the academic world,

we have come a long way from that first conference 36 years ago. There are now several

journals that devote themselves entirely to the study of business ethics. These include Journal of

Business Ethics, The Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, and Business Ethics Quarterly.

Other mainstream journals feature articles and even entire issues to the subject. One such issue,

Academy of Management Learning & Education, September 2006, is devoted to the topic of how

ethics might be brought to business students in higher education. Some of these issues are

whether ethics can and should be taught at all, whether it should be taught as a stand-alone

course, integrated into existing courses, or both, and how it might best be delivered.


5


The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the leading

international body for accreditation of business schools, started requiring inclusion of ethics in

business school curricula in the mid 1980s (McWilliams and Nahavandi, 2006). In the 1990s,

ethics and social responsibility were de-emphasized in many business schools (Evans and Marcal

2005). In 2004, AACSB created an Ethics Education Task Force that culminated in a white

paper to “renew and revitalize their commitment to teaching ethical responsibility at both the

individual and corporate level”. In response to the call from AACSB, Standard 15 now calls for

business undergraduate degree programs to include learning experiences in ethical

understanding, and for undergraduate and master’s degree programs to include ethical

responsibilities in organizations and society (Sleeper, Schneider, Weber, and Weber, 2006).

These standards illustrate the increasing importance of including business ethics education in the

curricula of its member institutions by stating that, “Although AACSB has insisted on the

inclusion of ethics in business curricula for many years, it has responded to recent revelations of

corporate malfeasance by searching for ways to strengthen its role in preparing socially

responsible graduates for management careers” (Sleeper, Schneider, Weber, and Weber, 2006).

Research provides mixed results on how business students view ethics education. Most

students report that there should be ethical standards in business (Crane, 2004), that studying

ethics is valuable (Power and Lundsten, 2001), and that they are interested in having meaningful

discussions on ethics as part of their education (Adkins and Radtke, 2004). At the same time,

one recent study found that less than 5% of perspective MBA students felt that ethics education

was an important part of an MBA education (Dobie, 10). MBA programs are caught in between.

Just the title of a recent article, “Business Schools: A Failing Grade on Ethics” (Business Week,

Feb 6, 2009), expresses the problem that programs have in providing adequate ethics education.


6


Too often, the article suggests, it is done by either focusing on studying a recent scandal in a 90

minute case study or by simply recognizing the difficulty of teaching ethics and avoiding the

subject area altogether. In response, it has been suggested that programs need to make a

concerted effort to make corporate social responsibility and ethics integral to curriculum (Gioia,

2002).

While the need for ethics in business education is continuous and great, the degree to

which it takes place, how it is implemented, and its level of formality, vary greatly. Just 16% of

reporting universities noted that they required completion of a stand-alone business ethics course

from their graduates (Stewart, Felicetti, and Kuehn, 1996). Meanwhile, 83% of the schools

report that they had chosen to integrate business ethics into each functional area of their program

(Evans and Robertson, 2003). In a 1988 nationwide survey of AACSB member schools, it was

reported that 91% of responding institutions had at least one course where the professor had

devoted at least 10% of class time to the teaching of ethics (Schoenfeldt et al., 1991). More

recently, we find that many AACSB accredited schools, such as Mendoza College of Business at

the University of Notre Dame and the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern

University included new ethics coverage in their MBA curricula (Beggs and Dean, 2007).

Evans and Marcal (2005) note that if students are not exposed to ethically challenging

situations in school, they will be unprepared for and more likely to fail in providing needed

ethical leadership when they enter business. Those who support teaching business ethics

advocate that ethics education can help students acquire the knowledge and skills to make proper

judgments about the ethical dimensions of economic activities. The emphasis is on building

competences to help students identify, analyze, judge, and evaluate ethical matters in business,

and to help them apply ethics to real-life business decisions (Rossouw, 2002; Sims, 2002).


7


Many studies indicate the uses that may accrue from ethics education. Besides the more

obvious benefits of reinforcing values and teaching ethical reasoning (Menzell, 1997), and

raising awareness of moral issues, McWilliams and Nahavandi (2006), ethics education can lead

to more complex and flexible thinking and can help students to identify, analyze, judge, and

evaluate complex issues (Sims, 2002; Carlson and Burke, 1998). So, by exposing students to

ethical concepts and applications, business schools can better prepare students to make non-

programmed decisions of any kind.

How can ethics education be integrated in the curriculum?

Some say that the problem with business ethics education is that we do not teach it well

(Gioia, 2002). Sims (2004) suggests that business schools should take on a strong and more

focused role in teaching ethics through carefully designed curricula and use of a variety of

methods (Felton and Sims, 2005; Sims and Felton, 2006). In a survey of AACSB deans, the

majority responded that their business school infuses ethics through integration in the core

curriculum of their MBA programs. A much smaller number also require a stand-alone course,

and less than 10% rely exclusively on a stand-alone course on ethics. In another survey, most

MBA faculty recommended integration into core courses to increase effectiveness of ethics

education (McDonald, 2004). When asked to recommend one change to improve ethics and

social responsibility in their school, 28% indicated that the most effective change is the further

integration of ethics topics into core courses (Woo, 2003). However, in a study among Business

Week readers on how ethics should be taught, the majority of respondents (64%) thought ethics

should be taught as a stand-alone course for MBA students, with fewer respondents (27%)

favoring an integrated approach (Business Week Online, 2003).


8


What is the effect of business ethics education?

Some ethics education has reported remarkable success. Researchers have found that

business students that took an ethics course will be better at recognizing ethical issues (Gautschi

III and Jones, 1998), will have better ethical decision-making skills (Wu, 2003), while

Desplaces, et al. (2007) found that simply adding ethics related discussions improved ethical

issue recognition.

Looking at it from another angle, it is informative to see what the top business schools

do. While we saw before that just 16% of all reporting business schools require an ethics course,

that number jumps to 27% (32% when also counting corporate social responsibility as an ethics

course) when isolating just the top 50 programs as reported by The Financial Times (2006) and

to 40% when using standards set by Navarro (2008). While it is obvious that there is a positive

association between requiring ethics education and program excellence, it remains unclear which

is the cause and which the effect.

Pedagogy

One last issue to consider here is methodology. It should come as no surprise that choice

of pedagogy can affect the level of student interest and excitement in the material (Sleeper,

Schneider, Weber, and Weber, 2006), as well as their understanding and memory (Jayabal &

Babu, 2005). In a seminal work on teaching methods, Wilkinson (1984) suggests that the three

primary tools are lecture, lab session or field trip, and discussion session. While recognizing

other methods, he explains that like the three primary colors can be used to make any color, so a

combination of lecture, lab or field trip, and discussion are at the core of any teaching

methodology. He goes on to say that lecture has an advantage when disseminating information


9


and providing examples but not in stimulating responses. Labs and field trips are beneficial for

direct contact and illustrative vividness but have no foundation. Discussion can provide a depth

of insight from a multitude of perspectives but can lack structure and predictability. In

pedagogical studies, Morgan et. al. (2000) found that lecture combined with discussion produced

a higher level of retention than cooperative learning but this advantage did not last over the

longer term and Armbruster et. al: (2009), found that students perceived their engagement and

their performance improved when active learning techniques were added to their courses.

In a study conducted to ascertain the weighting of various pedagogies utilized in the 25

top-ranked U.S. MBA business schools, it was found that the primary tools are case studies

(42.6%), lecture (37.2%), experiential learning (16.2%), and simulation (12.5%). Smaller

weightings were allocated to projects and to discussions. (Jayabal & Babu, 2005). When

isolating out ethics, the top schools tend to teach ethics with a combination of lecture and

discussion (Freehafer, 2005). Overall, there is little to conclude from these studies except that

there are a variety of teaching methods available, each of them have limitations and strengths,

and some types of courses may be more suited toward one method or combination of methods

while other courses may do better with a different palate of methods.

METHOD

The school under study here was recently encouraged by AACSB to make a concerted

effort to evaluate, implement, and assess business ethics as a part of its MBA program. This

process began in fall 2009 with the program’s fall retreat. The professor in charge of the

capstone course was given responsibility to review current practices and views, test market some

techniques, and report back to faculty at the fall 2011 meeting. To begin, an AACSB seminar on


10


business ethics education was attended. The essentials from the seminar were then condensed

and set into the framework of the existing capstone course to be tested on the twenty-four

students taking the course in spring quarter 2010.

Students were informed at the beginning of the term about the objectives of the professor

and school. They were also told that their course would be used as a test case and that they

would be consulted for input. The course has always been focused around the business

simulation, “The Business Strategy Game”. The students participate in this simulation by

running their own fictitious athletic shoe company in a competitive environment against the

other students in the course. At the end of the course, they are required to create a

comprehensive annual report that illustrates their mastery of each discipline including

accounting, finance, management, and marketing. In the revamped course, course credit was

increased from 3 quarter units to 5 quarter units. In addition to the earlier assignments, students

were also exposed to lecture material on business ethics in both theory and application. Next,

they were tested on the material with a multiple choice and short answer quiz. Following the

quiz was a case study – British Petroleum (BP) and the oil spill – that required each student to

review the case, its issues, and discuss the descriptive and prescriptive aspects of the situation in

regards to business ethics. A third addition to the course was the requirement that each student

create a corporate social responsibility report for their fictitious corporation. This assignment

called for a comprehensive social audit to address the needs of each important stakeholder group.

Finally, students were asked to complete a survey that asked about their views on

business ethics education in the course and program. This survey consisted of twenty-one

questions that called for a response on a 5-point likert scale with the range of possible responses

going from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The first nine questions asked students


11


the degree to which they felt more of the course should be devoted to business ethics. This was

broken into options of in general, lecture, discussion, debate, case study, experiential exercise,

service project, simulation, and other. The next nine questions were the same but asked about

the program instead of just the course. The final three questions asked whether the course and

the program effectively provided a working understanding of business ethics and whether the

program should offer a stand-alone business ethics course. An analysis was also conducted on

the results of a survey on the methods used in providing business ethics education at the twenty-

five top rated MBA programs in the U.S. (Jayabal & Babu, 2005).

Toward the end of the course, students were offered the opportunity to assist in a

research project taken from the course. The offer came with no stated hurdle of commitment and

no opportunity for course credit of any kind. The offer was publicly announced in class and

responses were solicited by email. Of the twenty-four students in the course, three responded.

These three have been very active in all stages of the research project from literature review to

the final product. Two of the three are also presenting the paper, with the third unable to attend

because of visa issues.

RESULTS

In Jayabal and Babu’s work (2005) on the evaluation of business ethics teaching methods

used at the top twenty-five U.S. business programs, there is a chart that breaks out the percentage

of efforts that each school devotes to case study, lecture, experiential learning, simulation, and

other pedagogy. In our work, we recombine their categories into the three provided by

Wilkinson (1984); discussion, lecture, and lab study or field trip. In these schools, the mean time


12


devoted to discussion, lecture and lab or field was 41.8%, 37.2%, and 21.0%, respectively (see

Table 1). Looking at correlations, we found that there was a positive relationship between the

devotion to discussion and school ranking and a negative correlation between both lecture and

lab or field study and ranking. With such a small sample size, it is not surprising that none of

these relationships were significant at the 95% confidence level.

In the survey taken in our course, students were asked to rate their views on a 5-point

likert scale where 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. In questions regarding whether

more time should be devoted to teaching business ethics, the program mean was 1.8 while the

course mean was 2.0. Looking more carefully at this last question mean responses for

pedagogical alternatives were 2.5 for lecture, 1.4 for discussion, 2.2 for debate, 2.4 for case

study, 2.1 for experiential exercise, 2.9 for service project, and 2.2 for simulation. While

pedagogical scores were all lower for the program, the largest deviations came from lecture and

service project, which were 2.0 and 2.4, respectively (see Table 2).

When asked whether the course effectively provided a working understanding of business

ethics, the mean response was 2.3. The same question about the total program yielded 2.4, and

there was a strong positive correlation between these two. The average score for whether there

should be a stand-alone business ethics requirement was 2.7. This question had a significant and

negative correlation between the two prior questions. When asked whether more of the course

should be devoted to business ethics, the mean response was 2.0. More specifically, when asked

what method they would most agree for providing ethics in the course, the responses varied from

1.4 for discussion to 2.4 for case study, 2.5 for lecture and 2.9 for service project. When asked

the same question about the program, the score was 1.7 for agreement that more of the program

should be devoted to business ethics. Compared with the course responses, the largest changes


13


came from greater agreement for the case study approach (1.9) and with service projects (2.4).

Looking at correlations between methods, we find that all significant relationships have strong

positive relationships. Looking strictly at the course, these relationships hold between discussion

and lecture (.645) (see Table 3), between experiential and debate (.718), between simulation and

debate (.784), and between simulation and experiential (.660). There are similar findings

between pedagogies when looking program-wide.

DISCUSSION

In our survey, it is important to remember that for any question, a lower score means a

stronger affirmative agreement. In every question, students mean score is less than 2.9 (see

Table 2). This seems to indicate an overall interest in the study of business ethics for these

students. Recall that students self-reported means scores of 2.3 and 2.2, respectively, when

asked whether the program and the course provided a working understanding of business ethics.

Since this course was designated as the venue for formal integration of business ethics into the

program, it is not surprising that it would score lower than the program as a whole. It is also

consistent that since the course score is fairly low, so is the program score. However, a great

many students still think there is ample room for improvement. When looking carefully at the

data, we find that 33% agreed that more of the course should be devoted to the topic of business

ethics and that 39% said the same about the program (see Table 4). Meanwhile, 50% felt that a

stand-alone ethics course should be part of the core curriculum. Therefore, it appears that while

about half of the students are satisfied or very satisfied, between about a third and one half think

that there should be one or more modifications to the curricula to add more ethics material. Of


14


note here, though, is that because there is a significant and strong negative correlation between

the desire for a stand-alone course and the desire for additional integration, there are distinct

views about how and what additional material should be included in the program. Apparently

students can be just as conflicted as professors, employers, and philosophers when it comes to

such matters.

Looking further into pedagogy, it is interesting to note that by far the most agreed upon

technique was discussion at 1.44. This was followed by lecture at 2.50 and service project at

2.89. Remember that in the evaluation of techniques used by the top 25 programs, discussion

was the most prevalent at 41.8%, lecture at 37.2% and lab and field work was the least used at

21.0%. While there is no scientific significance between these numbers, it is noteworthy that the

students would choose the same ordering that the top 25 schools already provide. Still, these

relationships must be tempered when looking at the high degree of positive correlation between

the pedagogies. What the full analysis of this data is telling us is that the students who desire

additional ethics training in the capstone course want to receive it through more than one method

and those who don’t want any more ethics don’t want it in any of them. While this last point is

true for the course, it is accentuated for the program as a whole. We propose that the reason for

this is that students’ view that there is more opportunities that can take place within the program

than there is in just the capstone course. This would be especially true for service projects.

Given that the pedagogy showed the largest deviation between course and program, it is logical

to assume that students are comparatively interested in completing a service project that could

take place over the course of many terms or even the entire program.


15


CONCLUSION

Recent events such as the financial crisis and BP oil spill point out the widespread

devastation that can occur when ethics is left out of the equation for business. Most recently, the

revelation that Mark Hurd, the CEO at Hewlett-Packard, had simply shown a brief and somewhat

questionable lapse in moral judgment has had the effect of Mr. Hurd losing his job and HP losing

$10 billion in market value in just one day and $14.5 billion in a week (Reinhardt, 2010) (it took

Mr. Hurd more than five years as CEO to add $44.6 billion of value to the company) (Ogg,

2010). These events point out that having both an understanding of moral issues and the

fortitude to serve above reproach are essential for the successful business executive. Therefore,

business ethics, rather than being an afterthought, should be a critical component of any MBA

program. It is, however, a tricky one to implement. Views are not consistent across students as

to how business ethics should be taught, where it should be taught, or even whether it should be

taught. What can be identified from this study is that there is definitely a place for business

ethics in a capstone course as well as in other core courses. Furthermore, it is wise to consider

having a stand-alone business course as an elective or even as part of the required core. Finally,

it is important to address the topic from an array of pedagogies that should deliberately include a

combination of discussion, lecture, and lab or field study techniques.


16


REFERENCES

Adkins, N., & Radtke, R. R. (2004). Student and faculty members’ perception of the importance

of business ethics and accounting ethics education: Is there an expectations gap? Journal of

Business Ethics, 51(3), 279-300.

Armbruster, P. et. al. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve

student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. Life Sciences Education, 8, 203-213.

Beggs, J.M., & Dean, K. L. (2007). Legislated ethics or ethics education?: Faculty views in the

post-Enron era. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 15-37.

Bowie, N.E. (1986). New directions in ethics. In J. P. DeMarco, & R. M. For (Ed.), Business

ethics. Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York:, 158-172.

Business Week Online. (2003). Institutionalizing ethical training, accessed July 17, 2010,

[available at http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2003/nf20030117_3119.htm]

Carlson, P.J., & Burke, F. (1998). Lessons learned from ethics in the classroom: Exploring

student growth in flexibility, complexity, and comprehension. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11),

1179-1187.

Crane, F.G. (2004). The teaching of business ethics: An imperative at business school. Journal of

Education for Business, 79(3), 149-151.

Desplaces, D. E., Melchar, D. E., Beauvais, L. L., & Bosco, S. M. (2007). The impact of

business education on moral judgment competence: An empirical study. Journal of Business

Ethics, 74, 73-87.


17


Dobie, C. (2010). Ethics Not a Priority for MBA Students. University World News, 132.

Evans, F.J., & Marcal, L. E. (2005). Educating for ethics: Business deans’ perspectives’.

Business and Society Review, 110 (3), 233-248.

Evans, F. J., & Robertson, J. (2003). “Business school deans andbusiness ethics.” AACSB Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 2003.

Felton, E. L., & Sims, R. R. (2005). Teaching business ethics: Targeted outputs. Journal of

Business Ethics, 60 (4), 377-391.

Freehafer, S. (2005). Business ethics and the undergraduate business school curriculum: A

comparative study of business deans' attitudes, school practices, and school plans amoung

ACBSP and AACSB accredited institutions. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Information and

Learning Company, MI.

Freyne, P. (2009). Are ethics back in business? Business & Finance, 156, 46-47.

Gautschi, F. H. III, & Jones, T. M. (1998). Enhancing the ability if business students to recognize

ethical issues: An empirical assessment of the effectiveness of a course in business ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 205-216.

Giacalone, R. A. (2008). Taking a red pill to disempower unethical student. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 534-542.

Gilmartin, S. (2008). Give as good as you get. Business & Finance, 11, 60.

Gioia, D.A. (2002). Business education’s role in the crisis of corporate confidence. Academy of

Management Executive, 16(3), 142-145.


18


Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money and when? Individual and situational determinants of

employee Theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985-1003.

Jayabal, G., & Babu, T. D. (2005). An analytical study of the teaching methods at affiliated B -

schools in hyderabad and secunderabad. Journal of Services Research, 5(1), 101-122.

Krehmeyer (2007). Teaching business ethics: A critical need. Business, accessed July 18, 2010,

[available at http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/oct2007/bs20071025_096141.htm].

Luna-Arocas, R., & Tang, L. P. (2004). The love of money, satisfaction, and the protestant work

ethic: Money profiles among university professors in the U.S.A. and Spain. Journal of Business

Ethics, 50, 329-354.

McDonald, G.M. (2004). A case example: Integrating ethics into the academic business

curriculum. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 371-384.

McWilliams, V., & Nahavandi, A. (2006). Using live cases to teach ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 421-433.

Menzel, D. C. (1997). Teaching ethics and values in public administration: Are we making a

difference? Public Administration Review, 57(3), 224-230.

Morgan, R.L., et al. (2000). A comparison of short term and long term retention: Lecture

combined with discussion versus cooperative learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology,

27(1), 53-58.

Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools: A study in

failrue? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 108-123.


19

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/oct2007/bs20071025_096141.htm


Ogg, E. (2010). What’s next for HP after Hurd. Circuit Breaker in CNET News On-line, August 6, 200.

Podolny, J. M. (2006). The buck stops (and starts) at business school. Harvard Business Review, June.

Pomeroy, A. (2007). Corporate ethics affect employee productivity. HRMagazine, 52(7), 16.

Porter, L., & McKibbin, L. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into

the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill.

Power, S. J., & Lundsten, L. L. (2001). MBA student opinion about the teaching of business

ethics: Preference for inclusion and perceived benefit. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(1), 59-70.

Rossouw, G. J. (2002). Three approaches to teaching business ethics. Teaching Business Ethics,

6(4), 411-433.

Reinhardt, U. E., (2010). Where All That Money Went: The H.P. Case. Economix in The New

York Times On-line, August 16, 2010.

Schoenfeldt, L.F., et. al. (1991). The teaching of business ethics: a survey of AACSB member

schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 237-241.

Sims, R.R. (2002). Business ethics teaching for effective learning. Teaching Business Ethics,

6(4), 393-410.

Sims, R. R., & Felton, E. L. Jr. (2006). Designing and delivering business ethics teaching and

learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 297-312.

Sims, R. R. (2004). Business ethics curriculum design: Suggestions and illustrations. Teaching

Business Ethics, 7(1), 69-86.


20


Sleeper, B. J., Schneider, K. C., Weber, P. S., & Weber, J. E. (2006). Scale and study of student

attitudes toward business education's role in addressing social issues. Journal of Business Ethics,

68, 381-391.

Stewart, K., Felicetti, L., & Kuehn, S. (1996). The attitudes of business majors toward the

teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(8), 913-918.

Swanson, D. L., & Frederick, W. C. ( 2003). Campaign AACSB: Are business schools complicit

in corporate corruption? Journal of Individual Employment Rights, November.

Tang, T.L., & Chen, Y. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: the love of money, Machiavellianism,

and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 1-26.

Veiga, J.E. (2004). Special topic: Ethical behavior in management. Academy of Management

Executive, 18(2), 37-39.

Wilkinson, J. (1984). Varieties of teaching. In M.M. Gullette (Ed.), The art and craft of teaching.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1-9.

Woo, C. Y. (2003). Personally responsible: The basis of an ethics education revolves around

teaching business students a sense of individual responsibility. BizEd, 2(4), 22-27.

Wright, M. (1995). Can moral judgment and ethical behavior be learned. Management Decision,

33(10), 17-28.

Wu, C. F. (2003). A study of ethical recognition and ethical decision-making of managers-to-be

across the Taiwan Strait before and after receiving a business ethics education. Journal of

Business Ethics, 45, 291-307.


21


APPENDICESTable 1: Teaching methods – use (%) (original data collected by Jayabal & Babu, 2005).

Rank B-school Discussion Lecture Lab/Field1 U of Penn (Wharton) 55 30 152 North Western (Kellogg) 33 33 343 Harvard 80 15 54 MIT (Sloan) 45 30 255 Duke (Fuqua) 40 45 156 Michigan 40 40 207 Columbia 40 40 208 Cornell (Johnson) 40 25 359 Virginia (Darden) 70 15 1510 Chicago 25 50 2511 Stanford 55 30 1512 UCLA (Anderson) 30 50 2013 NYU (Stern) 37 38 2514 Carnegie Mellon 30 60 1015 UNC - Chapel Hill 40 35 2516 Dartmouth (Tuck) 40 30 3017 Texas (Austin Mc-Lombs) 35 45 2018 UC - Berkely (Hass) 50 30 2019 Yale 35 60 520 Indiana (Kelley) 40 30 3021 Rochester (Simon) 30 50 2022 Vanderbilt (Owen) 30 50 2023 Washington U (Olin) 45 25 3024 USC (Marshall) 30 50 2025 Purdue (Krannert) 50 25 25

ANALYSISMean 41.8 37.2 21.0

S. Dev. 12.8 12.5 7.8Coef. of Variation (%) 30.7% 33.6% 37.4%

N 25 25 25

Pearson's Correlations

Rank Discussion Lecture Lab/FieldRank 1

Discussion - correl. -.337 1 signif (2-tailed) .100 Lecture - correl. .272 -.809** 1 signif (2-tailed) .188 .000 Lab/Field - correl. .116 -.345 -.273 1signif (2-tailed) .580 .092 .187**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


22


Table 2: Business Ethics Survey – Scale is 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree

Question Mean Mode Std Dev

More of program should be devoted to ethics 1

.8 2 0.

71

More of capstone should be devoted to ethics 2

.0 2 0.

76

Capstone provides working understanding of ethics 2

.3 2 0.

91

Program provides working understanding of ethics 2

.4 2 1.

10

Program should have stand-alone ethics 2

.7 2 1.

08

Capstone through discussion 1

.4 1 0.

98

Capstone through experiential exercise 2

.1 1 1.

18

Capstone through debate 2

.2 1 1.

35

Capstone through simulation 2

.2 2 1.

19

Capstone through case study 2

.4 3 1.

25

Capstone through lecture 2

.5 1 1.

29

Capstone through service project 2

.9 3 1.

41

Program through discussion 1

.6 1 0.

98

Program through case study 1

.9 1 1.

08

Program through experiential exercise 2

.0 1 1.

33

Program through lecture 2

.0 2 1.

08

Program through simulation 2

.1 2 1.

26

Program through debate 2

.2 1 1.

34

Program through service project 2

.4 1 1.

33


23

Nonp

aram

etric

Cor

relat

ions

Spe

arm

an's

rho

(1-ta

iled)

Que

stio

nV

aria

ble

Mod

eM

ean

S. D

ev.

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

22.

11.

011.

000 .

22.

30.

91.6

22**

1.00

0.0

03.

22.

41.

10.3

89.5

44**

1.00

0.0

56.0

10.

22.

71.

08-.2

21-.4

39*

-.627

**1.

000

.189

.034

.003

.2

20.

76-.1

01-.1

69.4

65-.2

801.

000

.406

.345

.123

.251

.1

2.5

1.29

.289

.072

-.086

.148

.320

1.00

0.1

22.3

88.3

68.2

80.2

20.

11.

40.

98.1

44-.1

12-.3

03.3

04.3

65.6

45**

1.00

0.2

84.3

29.1

11.1

10.1

87.0

02.

12.

21.

35.1

99-.0

10.0

01-.0

47-.4

08.2

08.3

891.

000

.214

.485

.498

.426

.158

.204

.055

.3

2.4

1.25

-.082

-.156

-.421

*-.0

38-.4

14-.0

27.0

06.4

19*

1.00

0.3

74.2

68.0

41.4

41.1

54.4

58.4

91.0

42.

12.

11.

18.1

34.1

16-.0

32.0

89-.4

06.2

37.1

64.7

18**

.351

1.00

0.2

98.3

23.4

49.3

63.1

59.1

72.2

58.0

00.0

76.

32.

91.

41.1

80.0

60-.3

40.4

99*

-.649

*.1

75.3

60.4

60*

.482

*.6

13**

1.00

0.2

37.4

06.0

84.0

18.0

41.2

44.0

71.0

27.0

21.0

03.

22.

21.

19.2

35-.1

58-.1

02.0

91-.5

57.2

56.2

24.7

84**

.207

.660

**.4

19*

1.00

0.1

82.2

73.3

48.3

64.0

76.1

60.1

93.0

00.2

13.0

02.0

47.

21.

80.

71-.2

99-.3

04-.1

73.2

52.6

45.3

92.2

76-.6

68*

-.137

-.077

-.056

-.507

1.00

0.2

36.2

32.3

41.2

74.0

83.1

68.2

54.0

35.3

73.4

28.4

48.1

00.

22

1.08

-.098

-.160

.062

.252

.497

.615

**.5

01*

.174

-.165

.130

.016

-.092

.617

1.00

0.3

49.2

63.4

04.1

56.1

05.0

03.0

17.2

45.2

56.3

03.4

76.3

62.0

51.

11.

60.

98-.1

03-.3

27-.2

51.4

06*

.365

.463

*.3

65.2

26.1

30.3

85.2

11.0

93.6

79*

.714

**1.

000

.343

.092

.157

.047

.187

.027

.068

.183

.304

.057

.201

.361

.032

.000

.1

2.2

1.34

-.045

-.190

-.030

.152

.120

.213

.413

*.7

95**

.191

.605

**.2

47.5

96**

-.264

.370

.431

*1.

000

.429

.226

.452

.273

.388

.198

.044

.000

.224

.004

.162

.006

.264

.065

.037

.1

1.9

1.08

-.097

-.291

-.232

.026

.592

.550

**.4

17*

.324

.353

.287

.006

.220

.679

*.5

58**

.622

**.5

46**

1.00

0.3

50.1

21.1

78.4

59.0

61.0

09.0

42.0

95.0

75.1

24.4

91.1

98.0

32.0

08.0

03.0

10.

12

1.33

-.235

-.154

-.182

.261

-.248

.219

.296

.580

**.0

99.6

90**

.362

.630

**-.1

13.2

28.3

83.7

78**

.370

1.00

0.1

74.2

71.2

34.1

47.2

77.1

91.1

16.0

06.3

48.0

01.0

70.0

03.3

95.1

82.0

58.0

00.0

66.

12.

41.

33.2

79-.0

97-.0

90.5

45**

-.088

.449

*.5

30*

.384

-.094

.571

**.5

68**

.462

*.3

15.4

65*

.546

**.5

45**

.350

.562

**1.

000

.131

.351

.362

.010

.418

.031

.012

.058

.355

.007

.007

.031

.224

.026

.010

.010

.077

.008

.2

2.1

1.26

.041

-.126

-.289

.334

-.041

.381

.437

*.5

90**

.224

.701

**.4

58*

.640

**.2

21.2

71.3

87.7

75**

.604

**.8

17**

.731

**1.

000

.436

.309

.122

.088

.461

.059

.035

.005

.186

.001

.028

.003

.299

.138

.056

.000

.004

.000

.000

.*.

Cor

rela

tion

is s

igni

fican

t at t

he 0

.05

leve

l (1-

taile

d).

**. C

orre

latio

n is

sig

nific

ant a

t the

0.0

1 le

vel (

1-ta

iled)

.

1C

apst

one

Mod

e

2C

apst

one

Pro

vide

s B

E

3P

rogr

am P

rovi

des

BE

4P

rogr

am S

tand

-Alo

ne

5D

evot

e M

ore

Cap

ston

e to

BE

6C

apst

one

Thru

Lec

ture

7C

apst

one

Thru

Dis

cuss

ion

8C

apst

one

Thru

Deb

ate

9C

apst

one

Thru

Cas

e S

tudy

10C

apst

one

Thru

Exp

erie

ntia

l

11C

apst

one

Thru

Ser

vice

Pro

j.

12C

apst

one

Thru

Sim

ulat

ion

13D

evot

e M

ore

Pro

gram

to B

E

14P

rogr

am T

hru

Lect

ure

15P

rogr

am T

hru

Dis

cuss

ion

19P

rogr

am T

hru

Ser

vice

Pro

j.

20P

rogr

am T

hru

Sim

ulat

ion

16P

rogr

am T

hru

Deb

ate

17P

rogr

am T

hru

Cas

e S

tudy

18P

rogr

am T

hru

Exp

erie

ntia

l


Table 3: Business Ethics Survey – Correlations by Pedagogy for Capstone & Program


24


Table 4: Business Ethics Survey – Agreement by Pedagogy for Capstone & Program

More capstone should be devoted to the topic of BE

More program should be devoted to the topic of BE

Capstone through Service Project

Capstone through Case Study

Program through Service Project

Capstone through Lecture

Capstone through Debate

Program through Experiential Exercise

Capstone through Experiential Exercise

Program through Debate

Capstone through Simulation

Program through Simulation

Program through Lecture

Program through Case Study

Program through Discussion

Capstone through Discussion

Program should have stand-alone course requirement

Program eff. provides a working understanding of BE

Capstone eff. provides a working understanding of BE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

33%

39%

39%

44%

56%

56%

61%

67%

67%

67%

72%

78%

83%

83%

94%

94%

50%

56%

61%(1,2) Agree %


25

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vohuong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Moving Forward on Ethics Education in One School’s MBA … E. Olson, Chester … · Web...

Documents