Chapter 1



Chapter 1

Introduction

BACKGROUND

Business ethics is an extremely broad and varied field of study. The author has chosen to focus on codes of ethics; and in particular the principles upon which such codes are founded and the impact that knowledge of this foundation may have on the internalization of the code by employees.

While there is a significant body of research pertaining to the nature of codes of ethics and their structure and implementation; the author could not locate any literature or studies addressing the impact of the knowledge of code foundational principles, or the lack thereof, on the fidelity of employees to the code.

This presented an opportunity for original research. The author designed and implemented a survey to probe the working population for understanding and attitudes related to moral decision-making in general; and codes of ethics in particular. It is the intention of the author to make some small, but meaningful, contribution to a seemingly neglected facet of the formulation and implementation of business codes of ethics.

ISSUE

Codes of ethics appear to be a formality, or pretense of moral standards, with little or no discernable influence on employee conduct. The hope of great financial gain, albeit fraudulent, outweighs the fear of criminal prosecution and/or personal and professional embarrassment.

Highly educated and professionally competent leaders of corporate enterprises, regardless of well publicized accounts of the ethical lapses and resulting downfall of their peers, continue to choose unethical shortcuts to quick personal profits. They violate the very ethical principles they have officially promoted by committing acts of fraud and deception which they themselves have roundly condemned as immoral and irresponsible conduct.

Were these former pillars of the business community overcome by temptation? Did they truly believe in the ethical principles they so passionately espoused; but simply did not have the strength of character to hold fast when buffeted by the allure of the almighty dollar? Or, could it be that they were hypocrites all along – never truly accepting their ethical code as a moral guide – ever vigilant for an opportunity to make the bold move to acquire a quick and easy ill-gotten windfall?

The latter are probably beyond the reach of any code of ethics. Perhaps such persons are totally immune to any moral influences of any kind. An examination of amoral behavior, even when limited to the business world, is certainly not within the scope of this paper. However, those who fall within the former category may be susceptible to the inculcation of ethical principles for business operations. It is the intent of the author to at least open the door to the exploration of the concept that educating employees as to the source of the foundational principles upon which their code of ethics is based may in some way assist in the internalization of code precepts; and thus enhance the likelihood that the code will be embraced, respected and honored with conformance.

RELEVANCE

Regardless of the proliferation of codes of ethics in recent decades, flagrant breaches continue to occur with devastating economic consequences for stakeholders. The loss of confidence in our free market economy can have a chilling effect on investor willingness to commit their assets when the threat of malfeasance on the part of top corporate officers looms large.

It appears that codes of ethics have no edifying influence on employees with the opportunity and the will to abuse their positions of authority or access. The old saw “every man has his price” seems to receive periodic confirmation in fact. Cumbersome new laws are generated with their associated costs of compliance and reporting. The effectiveness of these laws is dubious. Our free market system may not endure if subjected to a continuing decline in ethical conduct by corporate leaders.

Trust enables transaction. Could our economy, or perhaps even the entire world system of economic exchange, collapse under the weight of moral degeneration? Is it possible that the cost of policing transactions could cause these transactions to lose their economic feasibility? Is it within the realm of possibility that electronic exchange may become so corrupted as to become extinct? Is it conceivable that we could be reduced to face-to-face transactions; perhaps even to the point that paper money becomes totally worthless – an apocalyptic resurrection of the gold standard by default?

This may seem quite melodramatic to some. However, the author sees great drama in history. Civilizations come and go. Business cycles, recessions, economic depressions and the arrival and departure of new technologies not only affect our lives economically; but also politically and culturally. These challenges can be overwhelming even when full trust between parties is present. Without that trust, the likelihood of the catastrophic failure of business systems is greatly increased.

Trust enables trade – ethics enables trust – internalization of moral principles enables the functioning of ethics in the business world. The author proposes that employee understanding of the code of ethics source principles will engender the internalization and subsequent adherence to these principles and the ensuing conformance to the code of ethics.

PROBLEM

Codes of ethics appear to be ineffectual. Gross violations of these codes at the highest levels of corporate structures continue to occur. Would an understanding of the foundational principles of a code of ethics motivate employees subject to the code such that they internalize its principles and conform to its precepts when making decisions?

While conducting the literature review, the author did not find a single research paper or study devoted specifically to this subject. Nor was this subject directly referenced in any papers or studies on matters related to the formulation of codes of ethics that were reviewed by the author. However, in the course of this review, it was noted that certain themes pertaining to the nature of codes were repeatedly discussed. These themes are law, culture, psychology, philosophy and spirit – all in an economic context or universe.

Therefore, based upon the literature review, the author observed overwhelming anecdotal evidence that these themes are the vectors (individually or in combination) that influence decision-making of an ethical nature in the business world.

DEFINITIONS

Code of Conduct: Specific instructions for employee behavior – leeway for individual interpretation nil – rote obedience expected.

Code of Ethics: General guidelines provided to employees for the purpose of enhancing their capacity for ethical decision-making.

Vector: A force or influence.

Internalization: The acceptance of a particular principle as true and binding upon one’s character to the extent that noncompliance is not considered an option – even under conditions that present an opportunity for the undetected violation of the principle for purposes of financial gain, or any other incentive.

LIMITATIONS

This is an unfunded exploratory study of extremely limited scope: fifty four (54) responses to a twenty (20) question web-based survey. The author worked alone on the project (excluding advice and counsel from the chair and reader).

SUMMARY

Motivation (internalization) is an elusive subject. Are employees primarily influenced by economics, the law, their culture, psychological functions, their philosophies or religious/spiritual beliefs? Are they influenced by all of these factors; some of these factors; which factors dominate – if any; under what circumstances?

These are large, complex issues far beyond the scope of this very limited effort. However, it is the contention of the author that the related literature supports careful consideration of all these factors when exploring the relevance of employee understanding of foundational principles to the efficacy of the resulting code of ethics.

The author designed the aforementioned questionnaire with a view toward discerning the importance employees attach to their understanding of foundational principles. Great care was exercised in the wording of questions to avoid instilling any biases in the respondents. The results of the survey appear to be valid, within the limited context; and would seem to support further serious research guided by the author’s framework which is illustrated as follows:

Illustration 1

Original Drawing “The Vitruvian Man” by Leonardo

da Vinci (1490)

Adapted by the Author to Illustrate the “Ethical Man” Framework

[pic]

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

INTRODUCTION

It is prudent to begin by differentiating between “codes of ethics” and “codes of conduct”. Wood and Rimmer (2003) quote The St. James Ethics Centre (1993, p.4):

“A Code of Ethics expresses fundamental principles that provide guidance in cases where no specific rule is in place or where matters are genuinely unclear … In comparison to a Code of Conduct, a Code of Ethics will tend to:

• be more general,

• contain fewer principles,

• be expressed in terms of ‘ought’ or ‘should’ (and not ‘must’),

• be directed to all persons affected (and not just to ‘employees’), and

• provide general guidance in those cases where a Code of Conduct is silent, ambiguous or unclear.”

A code of conduct is prescriptive as it provides specific instructions, or rules, for taking action, or not taking action, under specific circumstances. A code of ethics outlines general principles, standards and values that an employer expects their employees to use as a framework within which to make their own decisions. Codes of ethics empower employees with decision-making agency. Personal responsibility comes attached to this agency.

The initial thrust of this literature review was directed at the collection and examination of prior research pertaining to the foundational principles supporting codes of ethics. No studies devoted to this specific focus of intellectual investigation were found. The great preponderance of research is directed at the implementation of codes of ethics and the attempted measurement of any effects on behavior. The origin of foundational principles and any logical and/or moral support they provide to the legitimacy of the code of ethics is largely overlooked – or perhaps avoided.

As Wood and Rimmer warn:

“A relatively low priority is given to the actual moral content of the codes. Rather researchers have focused on procedural aspects of codes (how are they formed, and reinforced) and the attendant socialization processes (how are stakeholders informed, trained, or brought towards acceptance of codes).”

Given the hostility in modern academia for all things religious, it is not surprising that scholars would choose to avoid any reference to origins of moral precepts from religion sources. The musings of acclaimed philosophers on moral theory are given somewhat more credence.

Therefore, bereft of scholarly examinations focused specifically on the source principles upon which codes of ethics are founded and any resulting impact that an individual’s knowledge of these principles would have upon compliance; the author was compelled to search for references to such principles and their perceived ramifications in academic literature of a more general nature.

In the course of this search, the author observed overwhelming anecdotal evidence that there are six broad vectors (containing an indeterminate number of sub-vectors) that individually or collectively influence decision-making of an ethical nature. These broad vectors can be generally categorized as: legal, cultural, psychological, philosophical and spiritual – all in an economic context or universe. The fundamental values upon which a code of ethics is constructed, and the impact knowledge of these values could have on employee attitude regarding the validity of the code and motivation to comply with same, are intimately intertwined with these vectors.

ECONOMICS

The well-known “invisible hand” (Adam Smith 1776: 351), for over two hundred years, has been given much credit for the generation of prosperity. Smith noted that the individual pursuit of wealth had a great tendency to indirectly assist others in that same pursuit; and thereby provide society in general with the benefits of a thriving economy. Indeed, Smith showed his disdain for other-directed business activities when he stated, “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

Mackenzie (2004) provides his interpretation of Smith’s position:

“ … through the invisible hand of the price mechanism, well-functioning markets can be effective at aligning public and private interests, and thereby eliminate society’s corporate governance problem.”

However, Smith was not burdened with the great complexities of financial transactions as they exist in the modern era. Intense competition for limited resources complicated by a host of labyrinthine laws and abstruse financial instruments create a business environment rife with opportunities for unethical machinations.

Mackenzie does note that, for many reasons, usually related to conflicting financial interests; the alignment of public and private interests frequently does not occur. Conventional solutions to these conflicts have consisted primarily of government interventions and shareholder voting and litigation activities. Again, due to the complex nature of modern business, these solutions are themselves complicated and costly.

Furthermore, according to Mackenzie, “What is striking … is how little use these conventional approaches have made of ethics.” He surmises that ethical considerations pale into insignificance in the presence of opportunities for financial gain. Economic theories, focused as they are on the creation of wealth, tend to solidify the preeminence of personal financial enrichment over all other considerations. Ethics is an afterthought, given place out of legal necessity and propaganda for stakeholder consumption.

Nonetheless, Mackenzie notes that recent empirical work has revealed that ethical standards and emotional factors can operate jointly to drive rational decision-making toward advancing both individual interests and the common good. Specifically, studies in evolutionary game theory have even shown that the inclusion of ethical norms have permitted individual players to maximize their positions as a collective; whereas their gains would not be as great if they had operated on a solely compartmented basis. The sense is that organizational moral sanctions can motivate compliance with adopted ethical parameters while enhancing financial performance.

According to Sen (1997), the exercise of business principles has effects far beyond the accumulation of wealth. It is commonly accepted that business principles are very basic and almost exclusively restricted to profit maximization; but nonetheless have a very broad impact on the economy. Whereas moral precepts are viewed as being very complicated and esoteric; yet they have little impact on the economy. Sen argues that in fact business principles are quite complex and influential; not only with reference to economies, but also in regard to social and political activities. He also takes the position that moral values have influence throughout the economic infrastructure. Sen notes that trust is crucial to efficient business relations and that corruption can have a severe chilling effect on economic activity.

Quinn et al (1997) ruminate on neoclassical economics. They see these economists as promulgating a view of individual choice as an exercise of the will to select the most efficient methods to attain their goals; with moral reasoning being employed only as an instrument to further this attainment. Again, self-interest is the key factor and considerations of morality, or other-directed preferences, are only inserted into the equation to facilitate the economic pursuit. Therefore, moral reasoning is an instrument only – never an end in itself; and thus subservient to purely financial decision factors.

This instrumental view of economic morality is another example of situational ethics. It does not allow for the inclusion of decision-making options that value personal honor and integrity over any financial reward; no matter how great.

“It is not sufficient (and maybe not even possible) to integrate ethics in an impersonal, rational system, neither in business organizations nor in the world economy. There can be no ethics in a pure system of formal institutions. Ethics has its source not in rationality, but in the human, in the personal.” (Aasland, 2004)

Ethical behavior, defined as responsibility toward the other, even to the extent of placing the interests of the other before the self, can create the paradox of business decisions not calculated for profit maximization. This lack of economic logic is so alien to for-profit organizations that it can engender increasingly sophisticated efforts to appear ethical; without making the necessary sacrifices to actually be ethical.

The antithetical nature of this charade is not lost on employees; damaging their esteem for the organization and possibly inspiring some to engage in deceptive acts for their own personal gain. The collapse of this ethical house-of-cards can be devastating to stakeholders.

“Rather than devote our energies to seeking to make a reality of the imaginary projects we establish for the self and corporation, we could more usefully employ our imagination to the service of learning and anticipating the consequences of our actions for others.” (Roberts, 2001, p. 125)

Contact between the “I” and the “Other” is a necessary precondition for any economic intercourse; therefore, the ethical mode is activated prior to the economic mode. This other-directedness is consistent with our contemporary widespread focus on customer service relations strategies. (Aasland, 2004)

Contemplating the economy as a totality (defined by Aasland as a “closed, self-sustained structure of meaning, containable in a single mind”), one must acknowledge that profit maximization, the bottom line, is the common theme which runs through all business systems. The very existence of a business enterprise is based upon this theme. As stated by Aasland, “The totality of economics is an economy without ethics, just as the totality, or the logic, of war is a war without ethics.”

An analogy: When an alien object is grafted onto or into the human body (such as in the case of a heart transplant), the body will sense the object as a threat to its well-being and immediately begin to reject it. An ethics program, if for no other reason than the cost of its implementation – irrespective of any foregone profits due to required changes in operations - will encounter reflexive resistance. Only continued inoculation with anti-rejection efforts (reminders from upper management, periodic training, etc.) can fend off the corporate body’s natural rejection of the unnatural concern for “the other”.

This conundrum appears to be universal. The seemingly inexorable trend of globalization will not attain its full potential unless nations adopt an other-directed approach to business. Standardization of policies and procedures internationally creates greater predictability and less risk for business ventures. Trans-border compliance regimes must be based upon agreed fundamental ethical principles in order for accounting practices, anti-corruption policies, privacy rights and intellectual property protections to be uniformly enforced. (Berenbeim, 2005)

If there is any hope that there may be at least one issue upon which all of the nations of earth can agree, it would seem to be economics. The history of mankind is not only the history of war; but also the history of trade. All governments, from the egalitarian to the authoritarian, engage in trade and do so with a keen eye to profit. Even the most strident of socialists will play the capitalist for the sake of their nation’s economic health; especially as it tends to have an impact upon their personal lifestyle. Ethics in trade can be universalized and an adequate level of transparency can be achieved. (Robin, 2004)

LAW

Baley (2004) quoting Friedman (1962):

“there is one social responsibility of business … to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules … engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

Friedman, the quintessential capitalist, equated ethics with legality – period. Social responsibility issues such as child labor and environmental concerns would be under the strict purview of political authorities. The sole business of Business is the maximization of shareholder return within the limits of the law. This begs the question: Can ethics be legislated?

This laze fare system has produced excesses and misconduct on the same scale as its economic achievements. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOA) of 2002 (70 pages of legislative change) exemplifies recent attempts to instill ethical conduct in corporate operations. The act mandates a lead independent director where the CEO also serves as the board chairperson. For the great preponderance of corporations in the United States, these positions are indeed filled by the same person.

Daily and Dalton ask the rhetorical question, “Can a board beholden for its financial wherewithal to the very management it is charged with overseeing ever truly be independent?” They recommend budgetary independence as a mechanism to create separate spheres of nonaligned priorities. However, they also warn that apathy and poor judgment are not strictly subject to any written rules of conduct. Nonetheless, they recommend that a code of ethics be included as a corporate governance principle. This is suggested in the hope that a code of ethics will have an edifying effect on board members; and thereby result in more ethical decision-making by the board as a whole.

Ewing and Lee (2004) note that the “atrocities of corporate management” have created a “renewed and vibrant interest in the field of corporate governance” – the Sarbanes-Oxley Act being one of the most dramatic results. They view this raising of the bar as an opportunity for the creation of ethical risk management (EthRM); which they consider “the next natural evolutionary advancement” from enterprise risk management (ERM). EthRM is concerned with all stakeholders. It views all stakeholders as a unified portfolio. Ewing and Lee propose that risk management professionals are good candidates to lead this effort.

Ewing and Lee have formulated the six C’s of EthRM: champions, commitment, consistency, correlations, communication and code of ethics. They view the code as motivation to create and put into practice standards of business conduct that exceed those mandated by law. It would be the mission of the EthRM champion(s), in conjunction with the board, to promote an almost tangible aura of ethical reasoning that would permeate every function and agent of the corporation. In most cases, a paradigm shift in ethics appreciation would be required to condition an organization to recoil at even the appearance of an unethical practice. Adherence to the letter and spirit of the law would be reflexive. A deliberate violation of the law would be individually and collectively unthinkable.

Interestingly, SOA requires the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to “examine a move toward a principles-based approach for the U.S. accounting standard setting process.” A rule-based approach has generated accounting principles that are extremely detailed and complicated; and, therefore, difficult and expensive to employ. Also, clever and devious minds navigate these volumes of convoluted instructions carefully choosing those passages required to meet the letter of the law while skillfully avoiding the spirit. The intent of the law is quite legally circumvented while progress in ethical decision-making is thwarted. (Grant, 2003)

As most corporate bankruptcies and scandals involve questionable, if not clearly improper, accounting practices; even the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) has publicly solicited suggestions regarding the principles-based method for setting accounting standards. This is an extremely significant cultural shift driven by changes in corporate legal requirements.

While noting that SOA now mandates a code of ethics (specifically for senior corporate financial officers), Tipgos and Keefe (2004), argue that the principle weakness of corporate governance is the “excessive concentration of power in the hands of top management.” They have no illusions regarding the effectiveness of SOA. They postulate that the SOA requirement for independent boards of directors and independent audit committees actually has no effect on the power of upper management. Laws can only be expected to deter violations; they cannot guarantee compliance. This is not a revelation. The law itself has never prevented its own violation. Law is primarily empowered by free-will obedience; only weakly supported by enforcement of penalty.

Nonetheless, Tipgos and Keefe recommend a new corporate structure to create a balance of power between: board of directors, management and employees. In their model, management would still have the responsibility for the formulation and implementation of the code of ethics. However, employee groups would be empowered to participate in the process as a check and balance to the hierarchal power of management. Top management would be expected to take a leadership role, though closely monitored by an independent board of directors and employee watch groups, rather than a strictly enforcement role.

Verschoor (2004), addressing compliance with codes of ethics, notes that an “off-the-shelf statement of generalized principles” will not suffice as the foundation for an effective ethics program. It is illuminating to ponder that corporations are legally defined as “persons”, and like flesh and blood persons, have unique personalities. It then follows that the core values of an ethics program should be congruent with the organization’s character. In this manner, employees will more easily identify with the spirit of the program and therefore more naturally comply with its precepts as a normal aspect of their job performance. Again, this should comfortably exceed any formal legal requirements while reinforcing a deep commitment to ethical conduct.

In 2005, Verschoor reviewed the IMA (Institute of Management Accountants) decision to rework its Statement of Ethical Professional Practices. One of the drivers for the statement was to ensure compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The introduction to the statement begins with a simple and direct imperative: “Members of IMA shall behave ethically.” One major revision was the introduction of overarching core ethical principles of honesty, fairness, objectivity, and responsibility to elucidate IMA core values.

The principles are defined in basic, understandable language as:

• “Honesty requires conscientious application to the task at hand and truthfulness in all analyses and communications.

• Fairness requires empathetic, just consideration of the needs of others involved in a particular situation and full disclosure of all necessary contextual information.

• Objectivity requires impartial and dispassionate evaluation of conflicting points of view before arriving at a conclusion.

• Responsibility requires actions to be performed with faithfulness and loyalty.”

Verschoor puts these principles into perspective when he reports that these overarching principles are provided as “freestanding additional guidance” to foster thoughtful consideration of the ethical ramifications of member decisions. This general guidance, unlike the expectations outlined in the standards section, is voluntary and therefore does not subject members to disciplinary action. It would seem that great care would be necessary to discern the relationships, if any, of general guidance in the principles section to specific guidance in the standards section. No doubt corporate attorneys are tasked on a regular basis to make interpretations.

Some have looked to Natural Law as pioneered by Darwin to provide a foundation for ethical conduct. However, as Phillips (2004) quotes Dennett:

“I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection. The truly dangerous aspect of Darwin’s idea is its seductiveness.”

Phillips himself observes that there is significant risk in falling victim to this train of thought due to the tendency to accept physical science as fact without critical examination. Descriptors such as natural and cultural tend to go unchallenged and therefore bestow assumed legitimacy on unproven concepts.

Phillips proposes that it is the commonality of a given behavioral norm between all peoples that should be considered as the basis for an ethical standard; as opposed to the origin of the norm in either nature or culture. He further states that if a particular norm is, or appears to approach, universality among peoples; that norm should be incorporated in the construction of political and business organizations. This would seem to facilitate acceptance of the particular ethical standard; however, to formulate a standard based on its perceived universality may be no less risky than drawing conclusions from nature – if it is not actually the same process under a different name.

Thompson (2004), while referencing Connolly (1999), sheds further light on the secularization of values; and comments on the accompanying privatization of these values. European pioneers to America were often driven here by state persecution for unorthodox religious practice. Hence, the separation of church and state was codified in law. Although secular pluralism became the law of the land, religious identity was not diminished. However, over time, as phrased by Thompson, there was a “gradual secularization of civic space and privatization of religious space.” This secular pluralism was intended to protect both the exercise of individual political preferences and freedom of religion.

The long-term trend has been a persistent attack on religion in the civic arena as constituting a threat to secular pluralism. Thompson does not suggest the reinstatement of a state religion. However, his contention is that the nearly successful purging of spirituality from government affairs has damaged the cohesiveness of the body politic to the extent that formation of a national moral consciousness is nearly impossible. He maintains that the spiritual distance between civic and religious institutions has grown too great for effectual communication. This condition has only become more aggravated as the religious and spiritual communities have become more diverse.

CULTURE

Globalization creates a myriad of ethical dilemmas for employees of multi-national corporations (MNC’s). Whereas the phenomenon of globalization has resulted in the apparent adaptation of capitalistic economic values (quality goods and services, pay for performance, return on investment, etc.) on a near global scale; the methods practiced in the pursuit of these common goals do not have universal acceptance. Ancient methods of doing business do not yield easily to foreign concepts of correct ethical conduct.

As stated by Asgary and Mitschow (2002) in reference to the work of Lovett (1999), “Guanxi Versus the Market: Ethics and Efficiency”, the guanxi (network of informal relationships and exchanges) characteristic of Eastern business relationships contrasts sharply with the Western practice of stand-alone transactions and their supporting formal contracts. Asgary and Mitschow ask, “Why should one country, in this case China, sacrifice an idea that is ethically acceptable in its culture because people in Italy do not subscribe to it?”

Asgary and Mitschow created an International Business Code of Ethics that includes such principles as: trust, fairness, honesty, respect and honor. To support this code; they recommend a 24-hour ethics hotline, paid ethics training, an ethics committee, a requirement to sign a pledge to obey the code and penalties for failing to sign and follow through with conformance. However, all of these mechanisms must rely on consistent interpretation of the meaning of the fundamental principles claimed as foundation for the code.

This, in effect, is a privatization of norm making. Beginning with The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977) in the United States, the trend has developed for governments world-wide to increasingly legislate greater responsibilities to companies for “the prevention, detection, and where necessary, enforcement actions with respect to harmful employee or organizational conduct.” MNCs, in order to meet these far-reaching demands, must develop comprehensive operating principles for all of their scattered enterprises. Also, appropriate mechanisms for principled decision-making must ensure the application of these principles at all sites. (Berenbiem, 2005)

Cultural parameters change over time. Sen (1997) proposes the need for an open and ongoing assessment of inter-cultural relations. A cursory understanding of the foreign culture is not adequate. Long-standing, sometimes ancient, customs have deep roots. Generally, but not always, an open-minded probing into accepted social interaction will reveal a rational basis in history. Cultural taboos require particularly sensitive treatment; but a thorough understanding is nonetheless critical to appreciation and respect. The impact of national and local customs on business negotiations should not be minimized. However, these differences should not be viewed as barriers; but rather opportunities for more effective communication.

When disparate cultures interface, economic gain may not be an appropriate focus of discussions – at least initially. The methods of conducting business relations may carry more weight than financial performance. Violations of cultural protocol may garner more disdain than violations of local law. Understanding of these customs must precede any value judgments; if such judgments are even appropriate. The search for common ethical ground will, most likely, reveal standards and methods acceptable to both parties; in addition to being sound ethically and legally.

Dawson (2005) states that, “… ethical concepts are not ideas that are unique to a particular culture; they have universal relevance.” She observes that social customs and religious practices world-wide exhibit nearly universal high regard for human life and property rights. The challenge is to discern the fundamental principles supporting the seemingly irrational practices. Continuing this train of thought, she refers to (Wittgenstein 1979:34), “Without these common understandings it would be impossible to have a cross-cultural discussion about ethics.”

Dawson asserts that the ethical norms of doing business in a given society can be traced to the values governing acceptable social interaction in that particular culture. If a specific business norm does not have a complementary practice in daily social interaction, it will probably not be taken seriously. Ethical standards promulgated in business must resonate with the local population. To be effective, these standards must be couched in terms that communicate a relationship to similar values routinely observed in social settings. This is not to say that every cultural practice can be transplanted into the business environment. Tactful and sensitive education may be necessary to overcome those few customs that violate commonly accepted values that are crucial to support orderly business operations.

This reasoning appears to be supported by Granitz (2003). His study addressed:

“the core models of ethical decision-making by validating the influence of social ties, personal moral intensity, Machiavellianism, locus of control and codes of ethics in the context of sharing and variation amongst groups”

It also demonstrated that “subcultures of ethics can emerge in organizations.” The multicultural business environment resulting from globalization makes the latter point a key issue for MNCs.

Granitz contends that social ties have the most profound effect on ethical conduct. Therefore, social interaction is the most powerful medium through which ethical behavior can be promoted. At the organizational level, Granitz warns that, “codes of ethics may be helpful, but they do not suffice. Ethics are situational and given specific situations, codes may be questioned.” He counsels that as individuals discuss ethical issues within their social groups, managers must have a thorough grasp of local customs and thought processes in order to effectively communicate organizational norms and inspire compliance. The views of Granitz notwithstanding, the author disagrees heartily with the notion that ethics are situational.

Social groups and subcultures also play heavily into efforts to implement values based decision making (VBDM). Iltis (2005) stresses the concept that principles of ethics must be woven through all organizational functions. If ethical considerations are only applied to decision-making in certain areas of business operations, but not all, the organization as a whole is not maintaining its integrity. “An organization which fails to do this will be ethically bifurcated.” She attributes this terminology (ethical bifurcation) to Stanley Reiser. “… the fundamental problem health care organizations face is the problem of ethical bifurcation.” Reiser explains that expectations regarding clinician/patient relationships are clearly articulated, but those concerning staff/student and institution/societal nexuses are not. (Reiser, 1994)

Another bifurcation is the differentiation between codes of conduct and codes of ethics. Kaptein (2004), with regard to a comprehensive study of the world’s two hundred largest corporations, makes it clear that said study “employs the concept of business codes rather than codes of business ethics.” Nonetheless, based on the study, one of the three main types of business codes is categorized as a “values statement”. Kaptein notes that core values, once adopted as such, should govern all aspects of goal-setting and decision-making to attain those goals. He further notes that the content of the code tends to vary with the target audience (for example: internal vs external focus, employees vs stockholders). In addition, he states, “The core values cited in the codes diverge strongly.” Irregardless of this bifurcation, Kaptein contends that the ethical precepts espoused by an organization can be gleaned from a careful analysis of its code.

Logic would seem to dictate that training precede implementation. Miner and Petocz (2003) admonish that, although formal training is a commonly accepted prerequisite for ethical decision-making; rarely does this training contain significant reference to the theoretical basis of the ethical principles presented. Miner and Petocz strongly recommend that all ethics training also include some basic teaching of moral philosophy.

This teaching should cover a wide range of moral theories in order to expand the students’ knowledge base and thereby facilitate the inclusion of ethical precepts in subsequent decisions. In addition, participants should be assisted in the process of thoroughly examining their own views on ethical principles and articulating justification for their positions. This would serve to clarify and solidify the values and the commitment to uphold them.

Miner and Petocz further recommend that, having given due consideration and weight to the diverse views held; it is nonetheless feasible to develop a normative model for ethical decision-making. It is their contention that such a model can be constructed with the required breadth and flexibility to honor the respective ethical and moral positions held by all parties. Such a multifaceted model would need to clearly delineate each step for ethical decision-making; and include an examination of all ethical and moral assumptions in the process. Also, the standard modus operandi would be to investigate each set of circumstances to ascertain any ethical considerations; not assume that there are always ethical dilemmas to resolve.

In this manner, the application of reason would be maintained for both the process of ethical decision-making and the issues composing the entire scenario. The step-by-step procedure would be executed faithfully. In conjunction, all relevant factors, to include ethical theory, would be given due consideration. Respect for the complexity and esoteric nature of moral values would color every stage of the process. Rather than rote procedures for mechanical implementation, the decision-maker is to be encouraged to employ his or her moral judgment. This is to include the use of qualitative terms such as “the good” and “the right” throughout the process.

Unfortunately, even the most thorough training in ethical decision-making can be subverted by an entrenched corporate informal organization. Quinn et al (1997) warn that this “entity” has no written charter; in fact, the protocols are rarely ever explained - even verbally. Those who desire admittance must observe the very discreet, almost ceremonial, workings of the initiated to gain admittance into the network. Any nonconformist who dares to interject an unorthodox ethical value does so at the risk of losing their access to the inner circle.

With reference to Ewing (1977), Quinn et al continue: “… the major alternative to obedience is to pack up and leave the company. “ This usually mild, but constant, pressure to be a good team player and go along with the program, even if that program is not formally documented, is as subversive to ethical standards as it is persistent. There are no requests or expectations to commit major violations of law or flagrant breaches of moral conduct. Over time, one becomes desensitized to cutting ethical and legal corners here and there. Recognition and promotion in vertical, hierarchal organizations come only with conformance to the demands of the political network.

In reference to the study “Assuring Ethical and Responsible Leadership: How to Meet the Challenge”, based on a survey of board members and CEOs conducted by Heidrick & Struggles, Lore International Institute, and Neisendorf & Associates, Inc.; Verschoor (2004) notes one finding that approximately two thirds of CEOs had “an excellent level of assurance” that the right leaders were in place to achieve “responsible commercial success”, whereas only 27% of directors agreed. This is an alarming disconnect in perceptions.

The study also notes that: “Upholding moral and ethical standards at the company.” is the greatest expectation of boards of directors. Verschoor quotes SEC Chairman William Donaldson as stating, “ … having a culture of doing what is right – in the absence of specific rules and even in the face of your competitors’ choosing a different path - is vital.” Donaldson also noted that courage is required to challenge corporate polices; especially in the face of full endorsement by the legal staff. Leaders must be willing to take personal risks to promote ethical approaches to doing business that conflict with vested interests. He further noted that this fervor to always do the right thing cannot be confined to the board, top executives and the audit committee. It must be “embedded in the firm’s ‘essential DNA’ and shared by each and every employee.”

PSYCHOLOGY

Baley (2004) delineates leadership behavior into two domains: teleological and deontological. The teleological domain concerns leadership decisions and the consequences thereof. Within this domain are three main subtypes: egoism (self-serving to the leader), utilitarianism (greatest good to the greatest number), and altruism (other-directed and diametrically opposed to egoism). The deontological domain concerns not only the leader’s character, related duties and the consequences of decisions; but also the inherent moral nature of the decision itself.

Baley (2004) referenced Goldberg (2001) as having concluded that executive decision processes are of two main types: veridical – finding the truth; and, adaptive – “actor-centered”, or “what is good for me”. Goldberg observed that most executive decisions were priority-based and made in ambiguous environments; therefore, adaptive and self-oriented. Leadership decisions, due to real world situational demands, tend to naturally fall into the egoism category within the teleological domain.

Egoism also plays a large part in determining to what matters we pay attention. Berger (2003) refers to the “hermeneutical circle”, or, the “perpetual cycle” in cognitive psychology (Neisser, 1967). Attention, how our mental faculties are focused moment by moment, tends to be directed to subjects we understand. In turn, “… understanding determines our focus, which determines future understanding.”

Example: Investors have little understanding of market fundamentals; but are well versed in general investor psychology and market history (at least recent history). Therefore, their investment decisions do not consider the fundamentals. Result: The market fundamentals are not reflected in the stock prices. This is a global phenomenon as markets world-wide tend to move in unison in spite of differing regional fundamental conditions. Berger quotes Shiller (1990) who described this phenomenon as “attention cascades” – “a series of heightened public fixations”. Can these thought mechanisms be harnessed to create and institutionalize global ethical norms?

The power of thought processes on action should not be underestimated. Cordiero (2003) refers to a study by Adams et al. (2001) which concluded that the very existence of a code of ethics generated positive feedback from employees regarding the ethical standing of the organization. This was noted even in cases where there was no recollection of any particular ethical standard promulgated by the organization. This trend is somewhat positive, but nonetheless inadequate. As stated succinctly by Thorn (1988), “ethics have to be taught.”

Unfortunately, as outlined by Farrell, et al. (2002), the study by Cressey and Moore (1983) revealed that “corporate codes tend to imitate the criminal law by containing rule-based statements, while broad shared values were almost totally absent.” This bias toward prescriptive over inspirational codes continues as a means of legal self-defense. Sweeney and Siers (1990) were highly critical of prescriptive codes as any serious examination of practical reality quickly reveals that it is simply not feasible to address every possible ethical scenario; and then provide a prescriptive solution for each. Inspirational codes are inherently superior as the general ethical precepts can be applied to an innumerable host of scenarios. Self-application of an ethical principle to solve a moral dilemma can also serve to facilitate the internalization of that principle.

Robin et al (1989) had made similar observations and “condemned the prescriptive codes as being contrary to the very essence of ethics.” In like manner, Ladd (1985) argued that codes are “ethically incoherent” which do not allow employees to make decisions based upon their understanding of ethical principles as stated in the corporate code of ethics. This is because the employee does not have the freedom to actually exercise ethical judgment; hence, the code is in reality a code of conduct – not a code of ethics.

It can get even more complicated. Kubal et al (2006) references “Arthur Freedman, PhD, a consulting psychologist who specializes in organization development …” They describe Freedman’s hierarchy as: “morality (“this is right or wrong”) informs values (the notion that “I prefer this to that”), which in turn informs ethics.” Kubal et al again refer to Freedman as defining ethics as a formal set of standards to manage behavior in an organization. However, he acknowledges that the formally recognized ethical standards may not directly correlate to the actual ethics of operations; or, in effect, the true organizational norms.

Kubal et al make several seemingly incongruent statements:

• “An organization’s moral compass should always be turned toward doing the ‘right thing’.”

• “Every organization has its own personality so appropriate ethical practices will vary.”

• “Figure out what works and maintain it so you are not the next headline in the news.”

Maintaining a disciplined and consistent logic flow from morality to values to ethics to action decision would seem to demand a structured approach to ethical practices; rather than this generalized, open-ended, situation-driven methodology – if it is indeed a methodology.

However, according to Mackenzie (2004), ethical standards do not have to be created as they already exist. He sees self-enforcement of these norms in society at large; and, as a segment of society, business organizations. Governmental committees and the formal laws they concoct are not needed to manage, or even begin, the process. These societal norms are naturally occurring and operate without the need for formal structure. The voicing of criticism, and even social rejection, can serve to create feelings of shame and isolation and thus motivate the offender toward compliance with group moral expectations.

This line of reasoning is tangentially supported by Messick (2004); who, when discussing the universal emotions of anger and fear, conjectured that the display of these emotions are evidence of another process, even more fundamental, at work. These emotions are the result of analysis and judgment. A thing or event has been thoughtfully considered and judged to be either improper or dangerous; hence, the reactive emotions of anger or fear result. Messick argues that this ability to judge, or express favor or disfavor, is also the basis for the human ability (or psychological process) to distinguish good from evil – right from wrong.

Continuing on this theme, Messick states:

“The results of many studies conducted in all parts of the globe indicated that the most basic dimension was an evaluative dimension, a “good-bad” dimension of judgment. This fundamental fact has never, to my knowledge, been challenged.”

In referring to our “moral vessels”, which Messick considers innate, he describes a built-in, naturally-occurring mechanism that serves as a moderator of our interface with others. This mechanism influences the development of our moral characters. This would seem to suggest an inborn capacity for all humans to understand and assimilate common ethical principles.

It follows that this capacity can be used by employees to evaluate the ethical performance of those in management positions. Turner et al (2002) refer to the works of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985, 1998) in delineating between transactional leaders and transformational leaders. Transactional leaders manipulate the actions of their subordinates through “corrective transactions” designed to guarantee desired outcomes by forcing obedience. Transformational leaders inspire their subordinates to place company goals above personal preferences by instilling within them a desire to contribute to fulfillment of the leader’s vision. If a leader violates accepted ethical norms, the leader’s credibility will be damaged.

Turner et al also refer to the work of Kohlberg (1969, 1976) who pioneered a three-stage theory of cognitive moral development: (1) preconventional moral reasoning – obedience, striving to escape punishment and self-interest; (2) conventional moral reasoning – use of laws and rules to guide behavior, see interaction with others as fundamentally instrumental; (3) postconventional moral reasoning – less instrumental thinking, more extensive use of universal moral principles.

Based upon this moral development theory, Turner et al surmise that leaders with an expanded capacity for the analysis of complicated moral dilemmas are better equipped to reason with subordinates to jointly develop solutions. This ability to view a particular ethical problem from different perspectives enables the leader to foresee multiple outcomes and focus efforts with more efficiency and ethical surety. Leaders with a narrow, simplistic, ethical focus are less likely to make transformational decisions of a lasting nature.

In accordance with this line of reasoning, Turner et al hypothesized that the observation by subordinates that a leader functioned at a high level of ethical decision-making caused them to view that leader as transformational. Testing with moral-reasoning level as the independent variable and leadership as the dependent variable supported this hypothesis. Turner et al observed that study results revealed a “unidirectional causality”: that of ethical rationale facilitating transformational leadership. They also note that other researchers have:

“ … proposed models of moral action that associate moral reasoning with other developmental constructs, such as moral awareness, moral sensitivity, moral motivation, moral character, and moral intent, all of which may serve as intervening variables between moral reasoning and leadership behaviors.”

White (2002) refers to Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning as “dynamic consistency” and defines it as “the tendency for a person who holds a particular moral standard to act according to it and to feel guilty when he does not”. He delineates the positions of both supporters and critics of Kohlberg’s work.

White refers to a “meta-analysis of 74 empirical studies relating reasoning to delinquency, honesty, altruism, civil disobedience, conformity, and other real-life behaviors” conducted by Blasi (1980). Blasi concluded that these studies provide empirical evidence to substantiate a cognitive development perspective and a definite connection between thoughtful consideration of moral principles and subsequent decision to comply with those principles. Thomas (1985) conducted a meta-review of another 30 studies that produced similar correlations.

However, in addition to several other critics, White states, “The most compelling indictment of dynamic consistency are three landmark studies by Milgram, Zimnardo, and Asch.” Asch (1960) conducted experiments which indicated that peer pressure can subvert moral principle. During tests of simple judgment with obvious correct and incorrect responses; he observed that one third of test subjects never compromised their values to conform (were not subject to peers giving false responses), one third conformed on nearly all tests, and one third vacillated. White further reviews Asch as considering behavior a result of psychological process as opposed to character traits of the actor. This emphasis on process gives precedence to immediate social pressures and individual emotional states as primary determinants of behavior.

Milgram (1974) conducted a study wherein the subject administers increasingly powerful electric shocks (simulated – unbeknownst to the subjects) to punish a protesting victim on the orders of a person in authority. He was surprised to discover that 65% of the subjects administered the highest level of simulated shock to the victim. Milgram surmised that, under authoritarian conditions, those of lower status succumb to the wishes of authority figures – rationalizing that the authority figure is now responsible for the action.

As White paraphrases Milgram’s observations of this phenomenon:

“ … everyone possesses a capacity to abandon his humanity; inevitably he does so as he merges his unique personality with the larger structures of the organization. Individuals in hierarchies become passive players and enter a heterogeneous state in which they suspend autonomy and moral judgment.”

Zimbardo (1975) conducted an experiment during which a mock prison was established creating an “intense environment promoting anonymity and depersonalization of student volunteers.’ He observed “aggressive, sadistic behavior” by the guards and “submissive behavior” by prisoners. His conclusion was that morality is “situation-dependent”; therefore, extreme behaviors can be generated if provided the pertinent organizational setting. Per White, Zimbardo determined the following conditions to be conducive to such behavior:

• authority figure responsible for consequences

• remoteness of “victims” or clients

• vertical, hierarchal organization

• binding rules of protocol and etiquette

These conditions are all present in a typical organization.

According to White, the overall verdict of the Asch, Milgram, and Zimbardo experiments is that dynamic consistency is not always a factor in ethical decision-making. A condition, or conditions, in the environment, or the person’s character, may overwhelm a decision-maker’s inclination or desire to employ their innate moral disposition. These may include, but are certainly not limited to:

• a desire to conform

• a rigid hierarchy

• fear of backlash

• ambition

White argues for a more complex model to include a significant number of these domain variables, many with co-variance complications.

PHILOSOPHY

Miner and Petocz (2003) bemoan the weakness of the “psychology/philosophy interface”. They contend that many psychologists appear to be disoriented when addressing the subject of ethics as they have not performed adequate theoretical research. This is in spite of the fact that ethics has a broad and deep history in philosophical reasoning. They outline the “distinct strands of inquiry” pertaining to ethical decision-making:

• meta-ethics or moral/ethical properties identified as “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad”, etc.

• non-normative descriptive ethics or “how people actually make decisions … which moral principles they invoke”

• prescriptive/normative ethics or “statements about what is right/wrong, what ought/ought not to be done … specifying processes and strategies” for ethical decision-making

According to Miner and Petocz, ethical decision-making is in a unique category of decision-making as it requires the application of ethical reasoning or moral authority. This “special feature of moral beliefs”, as distinguished from the acceptance of certain conditions as factual or the decision-maker’s personal desires, is that they are considered morally justified. This justification is inherent in the very nature of the matter at hand.

They refer to Singer (1993) as having made the observation that this justification must reach beyond the self-interest of the decision-maker to gain credence from the priorities of the collective. Miner and Petocz also interject that a central aspect of ethical decision-making is promotion of the best option. This presupposes a moral judgment to make that selection.

Dawson (2005) considers the three main Western ethical theories to be:

• deontology (Immanuel Kant)

• rule utilitarianism (John Stewart Mill), and

• virtue ethics (Aristotle).

For Kant, deontology is established by a duty to do the ‘right’ thing as a “universal imperative”. Under Mill’s utilitarianism, the “ethical worth” of a decision is evaluated by the consequences for society – limited by social conventions. Aristotle’s virtue ethics is “an empirical description of ethical life.” This infers that it is not prescriptive in nature such as the theories of Kant and Mill. Rather, it is descriptive in nature, providing a narrative of ethical norms as observed in actual implementation in true life scenarios. Dawson states, “There is no universal philosophical agreement among ethicists about which theory ‘trumps’ the others as the universal master.”

Berger (2003) posits that “the search for fundamentals is a search for an underlying structure to human behavior”. He opines that this structure cannot be based upon foundational principles that are human in origin. Institutions and institutional mechanisms, policies and procedures, are therefore merely tools to implement the common fundamental philosophies accepted as legitimate by our society. We create these tools in the process of operating the business and interfacing one with another.

Berger presents his list of “fundamental questions of moral philosophy”:

• “What am I?

• How shall I live?

• What is my relation to others?

• What is the nature of reality?

• Is there something higher to which I can aspire?”

Berger argues that these questions are answered by “our ethos, by the way that we live”. He contends that the most fundamental of all phenomena is the history of “attention and understanding.” The quality of our ethos is determined by the quality of our ethics.

Burton and Goldsby (2005) refer to Kung (1997, p.18) as taking the position that the globalization of the world economy, in and of itself, demands a like globalization of ethical standards. Kung asks, “How can a world with contradictory ethical norms and orders become peaceful and just?” Burton and Goldsby propose the related position that, although human beings are quite different on the surface, they nonetheless have basic human nature in common.

The Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” – appears, at least upon cursory examination, to present itself as one of the rare, viable prospects for a principle that has universal application. Burton and Goldsby note that variations of the rule are found incorporated in most religions and many philosophies around the world. They refer to Barach and Elstrott (1988) as promoting the rule as “one of the moral foundations of a free-market economy as an ethic of transactions calling for reciprocity, mutual satisfaction, and fairness.”

The Golden Rule, however, can be “deceptively simple”; and this “superficial simplicity” must be recognized before one can delve into the truly complex nature of its application. The aphorism of Shaw (1903) articulates this point thusly, “Do not do unto others as you expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.” However, even this seeming weakness of the rule has great value: carefully consider the position of the other as if you were the other.

Langenberg (2004) considers the other (the board of directors, stakeholders, shareholders) as being ever present to test the moral consciousness of the decision-maker for confirmation that actual practices align with promises made. She opines that transparency in the actual implementation of ethical business practices cannot be attained unless due consideration is given to the fulfillment of stakeholder entitlements; and even stakeholder perceptions. She intimates that this is just as needful as a brilliant business strategy.

Langenberg, with reference to Beyers (2000, pp. 58-59), observes that the resolution of ethical dilemmas requires that both personal moral character and values accepted as universal both be given thoughtful analysis. Management, recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of these issues; must carefully examine all relevant individual, cultural and organizational aspects of the matter. She suggests that this process of “emancipation and consciousness-raising” must be a continuous and permanent function of the organization. This can only be achieved if managers act as coaches for employees to assist them in the resolution of conflicts using methods that are “secular, deconstructive and developmental.”

Langenberg defines these terms as:

• “Secular: non-ideological and non-religious

• Deconstructive: space for free speech without historical, cultural, societal and economic barriers

• Developmental: stimulation of dynamics concerning relational learning.”

This effort to emancipate employees creates a conundrum as described by Miner and Petocz (2003). The more clearly formulated and defined codes become, the more they tend to be prescriptive in nature. They become “cognitive decision making models” with little opportunity for the application of any particular moral philosophy or individually-held value. However, there is, nonetheless, inadequate delineation between simply following procedure to meet legal requirements and company policy on the one hand; and expectations for an employee to make an ethical choice utilizing internal moral values on the other. This lack of clear delineation between decision types is aggravated by linguistic inadequacies and logic disconnects in the codes themselves. Not surprisingly, the same passage is subject to varying interpretations.

This is the fine line between providing general principles for decision-making and prescribing the decision for the employee. In reference to Coady (1996), Miner and Petocz explain that the effectiveness of a given professional code is bounded by its ability to provide adequate guidance in only a limited range of scenarios. They also often fall short even when attempting to guide implementation of stated fundamental principles. They even have the unintended effect of displacing individual freedom to exercise ethical choice with specific instruction that, misapplied, has the opposite consequence.

Miner and Petocz reflect:

“It is interesting to note that here, as in many psychological investigations of ethics, the adjective “ethical” is used synonymously with “right” yet the moral content of the rightness of the behaviour in question is not explicitly presented or examined.”

The corporate environment may limit choices by its very nature. Quinn et al (1997) observe that “the modernist conception of moral agency is deeply intertwined with a thoroughly instrumental conception of rationality.” They argue that to replace this modernist view of agency, a non-instrumental representation of rationality is needed. This rationality, when employed, must close the distance between morality and expediency; but not permit expediency to corrupt the moral purpose. However, if this non-instrumental rationality is to succeed in fostering the exercise of moral agency; Quinn et al surmise that the agent’s organization must be democratic in nature. Therefore, they caution: “If the community in question is the modern hierarchical corporation, then, clearly, ethical agency is bound to be beset with great, perhaps insuperable, difficulties.”

Robin and Reidenbach (1993) rejected the “grand narratives” from moral philosophy. They are specifically critical of deontology and utilitarianism. Instead, they propose the application of “a kind of bounded relativism.” This expansive doctrine would glean “boundaries or restraints” from numerous sources – including but not limited to: society, the economy, business goals, human factors, history, time, immediate circumstances, etc. They reason that the goals and purposes for establishing the ethical guidelines, when considered within the selected boundaries, would supplant any previously adopted moral philosophies. The newly adopted framework would then become the current guide for ethical decision-making.

Robin (2004) proposes to reduce ethical decision-making to a simple determination of causing harm or not causing harm – or the potential for same. He maintains that in order for an ethical issue to arise in the first place, there must be an application of power that causes harm, or the potential of harm. This question of harm is the sole basis for the classification of a decision as ethical or unethical. The degree of ethicality is inversely proportional to the degree of harm. This harm could be inflicted upon any entity, individual or collective. The application of power that causes harm, or potential harm, must be willful or negligent to qualify the action as unethical. This would appear to open a Pandora’s Box of amoral or patently immoral decisions justified by a lack of reasonably foreseeable harm – the definition of harm, of course, is often subject to debate.

SPIRIT

Epstein (2002) laments the “emancipation” of work from religion and spirituality in the post-modern era. He states, “Contract has replaced covenant in the relationship of individuals to organizations in the 21st century New Economy.” However, Epstein also notes that, during the most recent decade, there has been a dramatic increase in efforts by employees to connect, or reconnect (historically), their work lives and religious or spiritual lives. Regardless of whether employees consider themselves religious as opposed to spiritual, or the converse, they are searching for purpose in their work outside the limits of financial remuneration. This has resulted in a marked rise in prayer groups, study groups, periods of meditation and other spiritual activities in the workplace.

Epstein further laments his observation that there is, “a great deal more academic freedom in the private sector of the American educational system than there is in the public sector.” He is convinced that any particular idea that is banned from being taught in the public system can be taught somewhere in the private system. Epstein posits that ethical insights gleaned from these private (often religious) curricula have much value for intellectual insight; provided indoctrination is avoided. He suggests that faith traditions have a rightful place in the school curriculum - under certain conditions. He is concerned that the proponents of the religious perspective tend to be doctrinaire in their views on ethics and methods for applying ethical codes. Epstein sees edification of the curriculum taking place if the faithful maintain a tolerant approach.

Epstein acknowledges rational concern that “exposing students to religiously based ethical teachings can turn into heavy-handed sectarian proselytization, inimitable to academic freedom.” Human history provides numerous examples of such recorded domination by the prevailing doctrine. Nonetheless, Epstein assesses that this risk is minimal in the United States and other societies having checks and balances on undue influence by any particular philosophy. He sees no greater risk from any religion than that presented by ideologies such as Marxism or free enterprise capitalism. Heavy-handed indoctrination, as opposed to impartial examination of these “secular religions”, is also a potential risk. Epstein welcomes the alternative paradigms that a religious perspective can add to the mix of techniques for the critical examination of business methods from a moral and ethical standpoint.

Frederick (1998) decries the “current spate of management treatises about spirituality and soul as a presence in the workplace” as possibly “little more than another faddish maneuver invented by consultants eager to peddle their services to corporations.” Nonetheless, while voicing a warning about the unknown degree of risk that may be associated with considerations of spirituality; he also notes that perhaps even the most hard-line “empiricist secularist”, with impartial examination, can find connections between the mundane daily work of employees and the higher levels of spiritual awareness and fulfillment.

Frederick recognizes the concept that employees tend to search for a higher meaning in their lives by searching for connections between themselves, their work and the larger world. He opines that, “This search for meaning and purpose appears to be a constant in human affairs …” Frederick categorizes this constant as an impulse: whether religious, spiritual or metaphysical. He considers this impulse to be a “phylogenetic (evolutionary) trait” which drives the person to ponder the meaning of life and search for explanations.

George England (1967) is referenced by Frederick as having noted that this impulse is “submerged and diminished by suffocating bureaucratic routines of corporations.” Frederick himself states that this impulse:

“… is often hidden from public view, a fugitive concealed from official authority, a refugee uprooted from its natural habitat, an endangered species searching for sustenance in barren organizational landscapes.”

He further notes that acknowledging these impulses and their effects does not constitute either an acceptance or rejection of any particular philosophy or religion. However, this influence on ethical decision-making and the functioning of the organization must be factored into any in-depth analysis of organizational health.

Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) have noted that spirituality, as an individual value system, has received significant empirical and theoretical academic examination. Spiritual connections to ethical reasoning have been observed. This spiritual vector may have considerable influence on an individual’s interpretation of the presence and degree of the ethical factors attached to business decisions.

They also posit that spirituality can be manifest in an employee’s efforts to reach the level of “transcendence, or a deeper meaning to life” through seemingly routine experiences in the workplace. Giacalone and Jurkiewicz refer to the position of Velasquez (2002) and Furnham (1996) that, “spirituality is a key component of ethical behavior”, and the establishment by Victor and Cullen (1988) of a “typological link between spirituality and ethical work climates.”

Giacalone and Jurkeiwicz conducted a study which demonstrated a meaningful relationship between spirituality and ethics. However, the data was not convincing enough to support any theory as generalizable. They acknowledged that the study had the two primary weaknesses:

• “not rooted in broad-based theory, which is a problem being incrementally resolved within the spirituality literature as a whole”

• “due to the newness of the paradigm … The discipline of spirituality is still seeking a definitive character …”

Giacalone and Jurkiewicz further acknowledge that the question of consistent outcomes from various “operationalizations” of spirituality will need to be ascertained by future examination.

Semantics plays a key role in discussions of spirituality and attempts to identify and quantify its influence on business operations. McLaughlin (2005) tries to distinguish the fine lines between terminologies. She notes that some in the business world are very comfortable with the term “spirituality”. Being fairly generic, it has less potential for offense than use of the term “religion”. Use of spirituality as a state of being also tends to be more inclusive. It suggests the connotation of values, defined and applied, as opposed to the more restrictive connotations of faith and belief attached to religion.

However, some employees are alienated by the term spiritual as they tend to assume a supernatural or metaphysical connotation to spirituality. They refer to ethics and values; whereas those of a new-age persuasion my use less commonly used terminology to convey the same meanings. McLaughlin illustrates the wide range of definitions for spirituality when she states that:

“Key spiritual values embraced in a business context include integrity, honesty, accountability, quality, cooperation, service, intuition, trustworthiness, respect, justice, and service.”

Merrifield (1999) takes the spiritual side of ethics to a more religiously confined level. He pronounces that ethics, even when directed at seeking the common good and enlightened by “social imperative”, can nonetheless achieve “fullness in the Judeo-Christian tradition” as obedience to the scriptural commandment to love one another. Merrifield observes that this love is evidenced most properly by the ordinary supportive deeds of daily life. Those who do not identify with the Judeo-Christian tradition may take exception to the term “fullness” as used in this context, as it appears to be quite exclusionary.

However, Merrifield, in a more broad-based tone, acknowledges that this tack may startle some as being too idealistic to be of value in the real business world. He clarifies that love is not simply pure emotion; but it is also rational, and includes an appreciation for the talents and contributions of others that might otherwise be overlooked. Merrifield seems to be defining love in the business environment as applied spirituality through ethical conduct and appreciation of the value of others. This, he stresses, has quite practical benefits.

Pava (2003), referring to a Buchholz and Rosenthal summarization of Dewey’s definition of spirituality, states:

“A pragmatically-grounded definition of spirituality brings about a change in consciousness where the individual senses the possibilities of harmonizing herself with the environment.”

Employers who adopt a code of ethics certainly expect employees to harmonize with its principles.

Pava, himself paraphrasing Dewey, writes: “ … spirituality can be part of any activity that is pursued in order to achieve and embody shared human ideals of lasting value, as long as the activity involves the whole self.” From this viewpoint, it would seem that spirituality and the observance of a code of ethics would be mutually reinforcing. Any half-hearted conformance to ethical guidelines would not only be questionable from an ethical standpoint; but also destructive to spirituality in the workplace.

Thompson (2004) assesses reason as a “flawed foundation for moral leadership”. She notes that leaders attempt to use reason to develop ethical cultures of respect for others and tolerance for their views; assuming that reason naturally entails aspects of respect and tolerance. The leaders assume that the application of reason will not violate intellectual or spiritual freedoms, whether individual or group. Thompson criticizes this methodology as she considers respect, tolerance and moral solidarity as emanating from the human spirit – not intellectual reasoning. The paradox is that, according to secular thinking, spirituality does not have a proper place in the public discourse; rather it should be confined to an employee’s private world.

Thompson observes that the challenge for employees is to find a moral foundation in a fast-paced work environment that is continually growing in complexity and pluralism. Striving to avoid even the appearance of favoritism to any particular interest, and always steering clear of any terminology that might offend stakeholders; leaders are pressured to water down any claims of moral and ethical values until they are little more than “benign abstractions”. Thompson has noted with dismay that, whether it is corporate leadership or political leaders on the world stage, there are continual displays of “moral confusion and paralysis” which thwart the implementation of standards.

Thompson also recognizes that the pluralistic nature of the stakeholder community creates intimidating barriers for leaders to overcome in their efforts to enlist enthusiastic support for the pursuit of a common vision. The dramatically diverse collection of varied moral paradigms causes integration for the purpose of unified effort to be a daunting task. A rational centrist appeal may result in a “reasoned intellectual consensus”, however, it is unlikely to generate a strong collective force for action. This “unity of will” comes from a solidarity that must be “affective, intuitive and visceral” in nature.

While discoursing on morality and spirituality in the civic arena, Thompson notes that moral consciousness is thoroughly intertwined with the social medium of negotiation. Personal and group identities, along with limits on agency, are established. Symbolic depictions of “good, bad, right, wrong, honorable and shameful” are used to effect these negotiations. The nonreligious also use symbolism to communicate ideas with moral content. This is actually a spiritual method for resolving moral issues; although it may not be related to any religion or deity. Spirituality does not require religious association in order to develop sophistication in the process of moral investigation.

To further delineate her view of spirituality in the secular world, Thompson explains that a spiritual rebirth in the civic arena does not necessarily entail a much feared public adoption of a particular religion. She proposes a definition of morality which includes spirituality but does not endorse religion: “A framework of vision, values, practice, and performance that defines and shapes character, especially in conditions of danger, risk, and uncertainty.” She further describes this civic morality in a secular society as operating “as a vaguely diffused collective spirituality lacking the formal structure of codified myths and rituals.” Thompson suggests creating opportunity for the expression of a civic spirituality and consideration of research into the relationships of private and public notions of morality.

SUMMARY

During the rather extensive literature review of 39 secondary sources, which referenced an additional 40 sources, the author did not discover any work specifically devoted to the research topic of this thesis. Neither was this topic directly referenced in any of the works.

However, these secondary sources provided an extensive range of thought regarding the economic, legal, cultural, psychological, philosophical and spiritual influences on ethicality; and the codes designed to promote ethical conduct. There appears to be overwhelming anecdotal evidence that ethical decision-making, at least in a business context or universe, is influenced by one or a combination of these influences.

This review convinced the author that a framework for the study of codes of ethics in general, and the investigation of the effect of knowledge pertaining to the foundational principles of the code on subsequent compliance in particular, should be based upon these influences. Hence, the author depicts the framework as shown in Illustration 1 of Chapter 1.

Chapter 3

Methodology

INTRODUCTION

The literature review did not reveal any previous research directly addressing the subject of this thesis: The education of employees to the origin of the foundational principles upon which their company’s code of ethics is based; and the influence of this knowledge on employee compliance with said code.

However, during the course of the literature review; the author did glean many significant insights into the economic, legal, cultural, psychological, philosophical and spiritual aspects of codes of ethics and their theoretical and practical origins.

The author designed an explanatory web page and a linked survey to ascertain the perceptions of respondents regarding their experience with codes of ethics, their understanding of the foundations of said codes, and their opinions pertaining to the most appropriate foundations. Respondents were also queried directly regarding their opinion of the impact of knowledge regarding the origins of codes upon subsequent compliance.

METHODOLOGY

The author created a web page to inform respondents regarding the purpose of the survey, to educate them regarding the difference between “codes of conduct” and “codes of ethics”, and to provide instruction to access the survey (computer screen shot of web page attached as Appendix A). The text of the web page is as follows:

Illustration 2 (Web Page Text)

A "Code of Conduct" provides employees with specific rules and procedures to follow in the course of performing their duties.

A "Code of Ethics", on the other hand, provides general ethical and moral guidelines

to assist employees when they have to make difficult decisions - no obvious right or wrong - the "gray area".

If you are 18 or older, and are employed or have ever been employed, your thoughtful answers to my short questionnaire (20 questions - 5 to10 minutes of your time) would be greatly appreciated.

This research is very meaningful in the business world. Your responses are

completely confidential (no identifying information is requested).

Thank you so much for your assistance. Please access the questionnaire at the Perseus link on the left side of the page.

The literature review provided the intellectual basis for developing the survey. The survey questions and rationale for each are as follows:

Illustration 3 (Survey Questions / Rationale)

1. Does your current employer, or did your most recent employer, have a formal, written code of ethics (basic guiding principles, NOT specific rules of conduct)?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To delineate between Respondents’ with personal experience versus non-experiential opinions.

2. Have you ever received formal training (classroom, computer, one-on-one) to help you understand the meaning of your employer's general ethical guidelines or principles?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To delineate between Respondents who have been subject to codes of ethics with formal training versus those who received no training.

3. Were you advised regarding the original source of the ethical principles presented by your employer?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To ascertain, with some degree of certainty, the prevalence of concern for original sources for ethical standards among employers.

4. Please choose the selection that most accurately describes what YOU believe to be your employer's primary source of ethical principles.

[pic]The Great Philosophers

[pic]Psychology Professionals

[pic]Religious / Spiritual Leaders

[pic]Legal Requirements

[pic]Existing Cultural Norms

[pic]Other

Rationale: To glean Respondents’ perceptions regarding their employer’s foundation for espoused ethical standards.

5. Please choose the selection that most accurately describes what YOU believe SHOULD BE an employer's primary source of ethical principles.

[pic]The Great Philosophers

[pic]Psychology Professionals

[pic]Religious / Spiritual Leaders

[pic]Legal Requirements

[pic]Existing Cultural Norms

[pic]Other

Rationale: To ascertain Respondents’ personal preferences for sources of ethical guidance.

6. When attempting to "Do the Right Thing", what teaching or reference do you rely on to make your decision and choose a course of action? 

[pic]The Great Philosophers

[pic]Psychology Professionals

[pic]Religious / Spiritual Leaders

[pic]Legal Requirements

[pic]Existing Cultural Norms

[pic]Training by Parents

[pic]"Gut" Feeling

[pic]Other

Rationale: To determine Respondents’ actual sources of guidance for ethical decision-making.

7. In your opinion, "Doing the Right Thing" SHOULD BE primarily determined by consideration of:

[pic]Legal Requirements

[pic]Demands of the Circumstances

[pic]Universal / Unchanging Principles

[pic]Existing Cultural Norms

[pic]Considerations of Self-Interest

[pic]Advice of Trusted / Respected Persons

[pic]Instructions from "Higher-Ups"

[pic]Other

Rationale: To ascertain Respondents’ views pertaining to the ideal source for guidance in ethical decision-making.

8. If an action is permitted by the law, do you feel that it is thereby also ethically correct?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To determine which Respondents equate ethicality with legality.

9. If your employer expected you to perform an action that clearly violated written company ethical guidance, you would:

[pic]Perform the Action as Directed

[pic]Follow Written Company Guidance

[pic]Act in Accordance with your Personal Ethics

[pic]Consult Company Ethics Office / Legal

[pic]Contact Appropriate Government Authorities

[pic]Resign

[pic]Other

Rationale: To reveal Respondents’ approach to resolving a conflict between code of ethics guidelines and the actual expectations of management.

10. Do you believe that ethical principles change over time to be relevant and operate effectively in the changed culture or environment?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To ascertain Respondents’ position regarding the relativity versus normality of ethical principles.

11. Do you believe that the foundational principles for ethical decision-making SHOULD BE the same in both the work and non-work environments?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To ascertain Respondents’ views regarding the universality of ethical principles.

12. Do you believe that there is a Higher Power or Intelligence, far superior to mortal man, that is a creative and influential force in the Universe?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To determine which Respondents believe that the ethereal can have an observable effect upon their circumstances.

13. Do you believe that you, or others, can obtain guidance for decision-making from a Higher Power or Intelligence?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To determine which Respondents believe that they can relate to the ethereal in a personal manner.

14. In your opinion, a person's ethical character is PRIMARILY determined by:

[pic]Genetics

[pic]Present Circumstances

[pic]Education - School / Work

[pic]Education - Religious / Spiritual

[pic]Life Experience

[pic]Other

Rationale: To ascertain Respondents’ views pertaining to the formation of ethical character – inherited, learned formally, learned informally, or acquired by experience.

15. Do you feel that an understanding of the origins and foundations of your employer's code of ethics would assist you in the application of that code in decision-making?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: Direct assessment of Respondents’ opinion regarding the internalization of a code of ethics being facilitated by the knowledge of its origins.

16. Please check your age category.

[pic]18 - 24

[pic]25 – 39

[pic]40 - 65

[pic]66+

Rationale: To analyze survey results for age bias.

17. Please indicate your sex.

[pic]Male

[pic]Female

Rationale: To analyze survey results for sex bias.

18. Your approximate total years of employment.

[pic]1 - 4

[pic]5 - 19

[pic]20 - 39

[pic]40+

Rationale: To examine survey results for any bias due to time employed.

19. Are you currently employed?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

Rationale: To assess differences between employed and unemployed Respondents.

20. Please choose the category which best describes your primary employment. [pic]Hourly Skilled

[pic]Hourly Unskilled

[pic]Salaried

[pic]Managerial

[pic]Professional

[pic]Entrepreneur

Rationale: To reveal any biases that may be attributed to type of employment.

Respondents were solicited by both e-mail and telephone. The author contacted friends, relatives and work acquaintances. Those who replied affirmatively to the e-mail contact, or agreed verbally during telephone contact, were sent an e-mail composed as follows:

Illustration 4 (Instructional E-Mail Text)

Thank you so much for your willingness to take my survey. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

The survey is short (20 questions) and should only take 5 to 10 minutes to complete. No identifying information is requested.

The link to my Web Page is attached. The link to the Perseus web site containing the survey is on the Web Page.

Please forward the link to my Web Page to anyone who would not be offended.

Thanks again. Please let me know if you have any problems accessing the survey.

The author attempted to avoid introducing any biases into the distribution of the questionnaire by carefully avoiding the over-sampling of any one category of contact (relative vs. friend vs. work associate). The latter category was minimized to avoid bias due to a narrow range of employers. Approximately two thirds of the responses were from direct contacts – the remaining third resulting from their dispersion of the web page link per my request.

DATA ANALYSIS

As the population sample is small (54), and the sample was collected in an informal manner; there can be no assumptions regarding the normality of this sample. Therefore, nonparametric statistical analysis was necessarily chosen for data analysis. Due to the nature of the data collected (respondent opinions regarding various subjective issues as opposed to responses that are conducive to numerical valuation), the data collected was analyzed for goodness of fit and correlation. The results were primarily expressed in terms of percentages – also illustrated in graphic form.

When composing the survey, the author listed “other” as an option for six of the survey questions. However, an opportunity to describe, or name (write-in), this choice was not provided. Only two of the respondents appear to have made this selection frequently.

One respondent (R-18) chose “other” four of these six opportunities. The author examined all of her responses. There did not appear to be any pattern of frivolous participation in the survey. This respondent is 66+ years old and has 20 – 39 years of work experience. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that she would have her own ideas about how these particular questions should be answered – obviously not among the options listed by the author.

A second respondent (R-11) chose the “other” option three of the six opportunities. She is in the 40 – 65 years old age range and has 20 – 39 years of work experience. Again, this would suggest independence of opinion. Her remaining responses do not reveal any frivolous pattern of response selection.

All of the remaining respondents chose “other” two times or less. This would appear to indicate that this option did not create any anomalies of enough magnitude to detract from the effectiveness of the survey.

Two respondents (R-30 and R-53) answered “no” to Question 1; but “yes” to Question 2 – thus indicating that they had formal training in ethics but no formal, written code of ethics presented by their employer. This would appear illogical; but it is nonetheless certainly possible that either: (1) the employer actually did not have a formal, written code of ethics; or (2) such a code existed but was never presented during training

The author reviewed both of their response histories for any frivolous patterns with negative results. Therefore, it would appear that these two aberrations do not significantly detract from the overall quality of the survey results.

SUMMARY

As a result of the positive review of all responses for trueness to logic and thoughtfulness by the respondents, it is the opinion of the author that all responses should be considered when determining the findings and results in Chapter 4.

Chapter 4

Findings

INTRODUCTION

The Perseus Survey Solutions web site documented responses totaling 54 between June 24, 2006 and July 31, 2006. All 54 questionnaires were completed in their entirety. Each questionnaire is logged by date and time of receipt at Perseus. This report also indicates each selection made by all respondents. (The Questionnaire Response History Report is appended as Appendix “B”.)

The Perseus Frequency Report summarizes the responses to each question by number and percentage, thus allowing an analysis of the respondents’ perceptions and opinions pertaining to each of the 54 survey questions.

FINDINGS

The Frequency Report containing a breakdown of responses by number and relative percentages (frequency rates) is as follows:

Illustration 4 (Frequency Report)

|Ethics and Morals | |

|Type: Frequency Report | |

|Date: 8/4/2006 | |

| | |

|Total number of responses collected: 54 | | |

| |

|Q1: Does your current employer, or did your most recent employer, have a formal, written code of ethics (basic guiding principles, NOT |

|specific rules of conduct)? |

|Response |Frequency |Count | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Yes |72.20% |39 | | | | |

|No |27.80% |15 | | | | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Q2: Have you ever received formal training (classroom, computer, one-on-one) to help you understand the meaning of your employer's general |

|ethical guidelines or principles? |

| |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |59.30% |32 | |

|No |40.70% |22 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | |

|Q3: Were you advised regarding the original source of the ethical principles presented by your employer? |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |27.80% |15 | |

|No |72.20% |39 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

|Q4: Please choose the selection that most accurately describes what YOU believe to be your employer's primary source of ethical principles. |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Philosophy |0.00% |0 | | | | |

|Psychology |0.00% |0 | | | | |

|Spirituality |11.10% |6 | | | | |

|The Law |61.10% |33 | | | | |

|Culture |18.50% |10 | | | | |

|Other |9.30% |5 | | | | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

|Q5: Please choose the selection that most accurately describes what YOU believe SHOULD BE an employer's primary source of ethical principles. |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Philosophy |1.90% |1 | | | | |

|Psychology |3.70% |2 | | | | |

|Spirituality |35.20% |19 | | | | |

|The Law |18.50% |10 | | | | |

|Culture |18.50% |10 | | | | |

|Other |22.20% |12 | | | | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

|Q6: When attempting to "Do the Right Thing", what teaching or reference do you rely on to make your decision and choose a course of action?  |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Philosophy |0.00% |0 | |

|Psychology |0.00% |0 | |

|Spirituality |42.60% |23 | |

|The Law |3.70% |2 | |

|Culture |7.40% |4 | | | | |

|Parents |20.40% |11 | | | | |

|"Gut" Feel |22.20% |12 | |

|Other |3.70% |2 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| |

|Q7: In your opinion, "Doing the Right Thing" SHOULD BE primarily determined by consideration of: |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|The Law |1.90% |1 | | | | |

|Conditions |22.20% |12 | | | | |

|Principles |55.60% |30 | | | | |

|Culture |7.40% |4 | | | | |

|Personal |0.00% |0 | | | | |

|Confidant |7.40% |4 | | | | |

|Leaders |0.00% |0 | |

|Other |5.60% |3 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

|Q8: If an action is permitted by the law, do you feel that it is thereby also ethically correct? |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |0.00% |0 | |

|No |100.00% |54 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | |

| | |

|Q9: If your employer expected you to perform an action that clearly violated written company ethical guidance, you would: |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Comply |0.00% |0 | |

|Follow Written |7.40% |4 | |

|Own Ethics |38.90% |21 | |

|Ethics Officer |42.60% |23 | |

|Gov’t Authority |1.90% |1 | | | | |

|Resign |0.00% |0 | | | | |

|Other |9.30% |5 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

|Q10: Do you believe that ethical principles change over time to be relevant and operate effectively in the changed culture or environment? |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |50.00% |27 | |

|No |50.00% |27 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | |

| | |

| | | | | |

| |

|Q11: Do you believe that the foundational principles for ethical decision-making SHOULD BE the same in both the work and non-work |

|environments? |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |85.20% |46 | |

|No |14.80% |8 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | | | | |

|Q12: Do you believe that there is a Higher Power or Intelligence, far superior to mortal man, that is a creative and influential force in the |

|Universe? |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |85.20% |46 | |

|No |14.80% |8 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | |

| | | | | |

|Q13: Do you believe that you, or others, can obtain guidance for decision-making from a Higher Power or Intelligence? |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |81.50% |44 | |

|No |18.50% |10 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

|Q14: In your opinion, a person's ethical character is PRIMARILY determined by: |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Genetics |1.90% |1 | |

|Conditions |1.90% |1 | |

|Secular Educ |5.60% |3 | |

|Rel/Spir Educ |31.50% |17 | |

|Experience |48.10% |26 | | | | |

|Other |11.10% |6 | | | | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| |

|Q15: Do you feel that an understanding of the origins and foundations of your employer's code of ethics would assist you in the application of|

|that code in decision-making? |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |64.80% |35 | |

|No |35.20% |19 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

|Q16: Please check your age category. |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|18 - 24 |5.60% |3 | |

|25 - 39 |33.30% |18 | |

|40 - 65 |55.60% |30 | |

|66+ |5.60% |3 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | |

| |

|Q17: Please indicate your sex. |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Male |44.40% |24 | |

|Female |55.60% |30 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | |

| | | | | |

| |

|Q18: Your approximate total years of employment. |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|01 - 04 |11.10% |6 | |

|05 - 19 |38.90% |21 | |

|20 - 39 |46.30% |25 | |

|40+ |3.70% |2 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | |

| |

|Q19: Are you currently employed? |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Yes |77.80% |42 | |

|No |22.20% |12 | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| | |

| | | | | |

| |

| |

| |

|20: Please choose the category which best describes your primary employment. |

| |

| |

|Response |Frequency |Count | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Hourly Skilled |18.50% |10 | |

|Hourly UnSkill |5.60% |3 | |

|Salaried |33.30% |18 | |

|Managerial |16.70% |9 | |

|Professional |22.20% |12 | | | | |

|Self-Employed |3.70% |2 | | | | |

|Total |100.00% |54 | |

| |

|Illustration 4 created using Perseus SurveySolutions/EFM and Microsoft Excel |

| |

SUMMARY

All percentages referred to below are rounded for ease of readability.

72% of respondents have worked for employers who had a formal, written code of ethics. However, only 57% provided formal training. Even less, 28%, informed respondents regarding the original source of the ethical principles.

With regard to legal requirements, 61% of respondents believe that it is the primary source for their employers’ ethical standards; however, only 19% agree that it should be the source. 35% of respondents believe that the source should be religious/spiritual leaders.

When attempting to “Do the Right Thing”, 43% of respondents chose religious/spiritual leaders as teachers/references for making a decision; whereas only 4% looked to legal requirements. When asked what the determining factor should be, 56% selected universal/unchanging principles; but only 2% chose legal requirements. Supporting these results, 100% of respondents did not equate legality with ethicality.

Respondents were split equally when asked if ethical principles change over time to be relevant and operate effectively in a changed culture or environment. However, when asked if the foundational principles for ethical decision-making should be the same in both the work and non-work environments; 85% answered in the affirmative.

Respondents were consistent regarding their belief in a higher power or intelligence, and the ability to obtain guidance for decision-making from this higher power: 85% and 82% respectively. However, when queried regarding the forging of ethical character; 48% chose life experience, but only 32% chose religious/spiritual education.

Concerning the proposition that an understanding of the origins and foundations of a code of ethics would be conducive to the application of that code for decision-making, 65% agreed and 35% disagreed.

The age distribution of respondents is a rough bell curve with a leaning towards the high end. The male/female ratio is 44% to 56% - reasonably balanced.

The ‘years of employment’ category is also a rough bell curve leaning to the high end. Of all respondents, 78% are currently employed with 22% currently unemployed. The category of ‘primary employment’ is skewed toward the professionals versus the hourly workers: 76% to 24%.

From a holistic view, the survey questions appear to have solicited logical responses with consistent patterns of respondent thought. It therefore appears that, in spite of its flaws, the survey questionnaire proved useful in the collection of meaningful data.

Chapter 5

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an overview of this study. A summary of the author’s efforts to thoroughly examine and analyze the topic is presented; followed by conclusions drawn and recommendations for further research.

SUMMARY - SURVEY

Business ethics is a very large and diverse field of study. During the last three to four decades, a tremendous amount of effort has been invested in research pertaining to the development and implementation of various codes and mechanisms to enforce them. Nonetheless, in the most recent decade, spectacular breaches of fundamental ethical principles by well-educated, capable persons in positions of authority have caused devastating losses to stakeholders. This piqued the author’s curiosity as to the failure of codes of ethics to prevent such travesties.

An examination of codes of ethics, fundamental guiding principles - rather than codes of conduct, specific instructions for employee behavior – was chosen. This was due to a fascination with an employee’s decision to internalize codes of ethics and comply; or, on the other hand, disregard the fundamental principles of ethics proffered by their employers. To rationalize these breaches of moral principle as the logical outcome of opportunity for self-gratification exceeding fear of consequences just seemed too cursory and simplistic.

Therefore, the author commenced a literature review to ascertain the source or sources of the fundamental principles selected by employers as foundation for their codes of ethics; and any information regarding the influence of code knowledge on subsequent compliance. A thorough search of the California Polytechnic University, Pomona on-line business research library failed to reveal any academic research papers with these particular foci.

However, during the course of this research; much information was gleaned that pertains to the economic, legal, cultural, psychological, philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of codes of ethics and theories regarding their relative influences on compliance. Based upon this research, the author created a twenty-question survey to ascertain respondents’ experience with codes of ethics and their opinions regarding their composition and application.

The Survey

The author telephonically, and by e-mail, contacted friends, relatives, work and school associates to solicit their participation – making every effort to distribute these invitations impartially. Also, with each invitation, a request was included to forward the web page link to anyone they considered appropriate – this with the intention of introducing a randomness factor. To those who expressed an interest, the author forwarded an e-mail with a link to the web page constructed to explain the nature and purpose of the survey. The web page contained a link to the Perseus web site containing the survey questionnaire. A total of 54 complete questionnaires from respondents meeting the age and experience requirements were documented by Perseus.

All percentages referenced below are rounded for ease of readability.

Of the 54 respondents, 72% indicated that a current or former employer had a formal, written code of ethics. Only 59% answered affirmatively that they had received formal ethics training. This would appear to reveal that 82% of respondents with formal, written codes have received formal training. However, two respondents indicated formal training; but no formal written code. This is possible, but highly unlikely; thus indicating a flaw in question design which could have been avoided with a decision tree.

This would seem to firmly indicate a prevalence of formal codes of ethics accompanied by formal training of some type. Interestingly, only 28% answered that their employers had advised them regarding a source for their ethics code foundational principles.

The juxtaposing of responses to the believed primary source of code principles with responses to a preferred primary source is quite revealing. 62% believe that their employers’ primary source is legal requirements (with 19% selecting existing cultural norms); whereas 35% would prefer religious/spiritual leaders as the source (with only 19% selecting legal requirements).

This would seem to indicate a very strong dichotomy between perceived and preferred sources of ethical principles – suggesting that respondents would prefer a spiritual foundation to a legal foundation. However, 22% selected “other”; thus revealing a large factor of unknown composition and casting some doubt on the true weighted distribution of preferences.

The author provided “other” as an option for six of the twenty questions. If a write-in option had been used instead of “other”; additional insight into the issues, perhaps significant, could have been gleaned.

The respondent preference for spiritual over legal guidance for ethical decision-making is also supported by the query regarding the preferred source for advice when attempting to “do the right thing”. 43% of respondents indicated religious/spiritual leaders; whereas, only 4% indicated legal requirements. 22% selected “gut” feeling and 20% selected training by parents. This would appear to indicate an almost total disregard for legal requirements, even in the face of employer emphasis on that rationale. This may be a clue as to the failure of increasingly complex and intrusive legal remedies to have an appreciable effect on ethics code compliance.

When respondents were queried regarding their opinion as to what “should be” the primary determinant of “doing the right thing”, 56% selected universal principles; with 22% selecting demands of the circumstances. In stark contrast, only 2% chose legal requirements. All 54 respondents selected “no” when asked if legality is equated with ethicality. All of these responses appear to be strongly consistent and reinforce the conclusion that respondents overwhelmingly prefer spiritual to legal guidance in matters of ethical choices.

However, when confronted with a management expectation to violate the code; 43% indicated they would go to company ethics/legal offices for guidance and 39% chose the option to rely on their personal ethics. The author did not list religious/spiritual leaders as an option so as not to bias the responses; however, it would seem that, based on the responses to previous questions, a greater number of respondents would have chosen “other”. This would seem to be the preferred choice, absent any spiritual option, considering respondents’ strongly indicated preference for spiritual guidance.

Or, it may simply be unreasonable to expect respondents to extend their thinking much outside those options listed and specifically named. Perhaps variations in respondent thought processes between theoretical questions and questions of a seemingly more practical nature are at work here. Thus, further refinement in the questions and question sequencing may be advisable for any subsequent surveys.

Nonetheless, only 2% selected the option to contact appropriate government authorities. This appears to align nearly perfectly with the previously expressed disdain for the law as a source of guidance for doing the right thing.

When queried regarding their opinion as to ethical principles changing over time to meet the demands of a changing culture or environment, respondents were split evenly: 27 to 27, yes versus no. Given that it is generally accepted that religious and spiritual principles are unchanging, it would appear that a significant number of respondents are conflicted regarding their understanding of, or relationship to, religious/spiritual principles.

Interestingly, consistency is partially restored by the responses to the query as to whether the foundational principles for ethical decision-making should be the same in the work and non-work environments. 85% agreed. Exactly the same number of respondents indicated a belief in a higher power or intelligence. A nearly equal number, 82%, believe that guidance for decision-making can be obtained from that higher power. This is consistent with the strong preference for guidance from religious/spiritual sources as revealed previously.

However, the responses to the query regarding the primary determinant of ethical character revealed another slight departure from the spiritual focus. 48% selected life experience; but only 32% chose education – religious/spiritual. (This was very similar to the results for the question regarding a teaching or reference to rely upon when attempting to do the right thing: training by parents and “gut” feeling taken together were equal to religious/spiritual leaders.) This appears to suggest a limited consistency of thought among respondents; although this should not be surprising when the emotional nature of the subject matter is taken into consideration.

When queried directly as to whether an understanding of the origins and foundations of a code of ethics would assist in the application of that code in decision-making, 65% answered in the affirmative; thereby supporting the author’s conjecture that employee knowledge of the source of foundational principles may influence compliance.

Respondent Demographics

Age is weighted somewhat to the high end with 56% of respondents in the 40 – 65 range and 6% in the 66+ range; with only 6% in the 18 – 24 and 32% aged 25 – 39 (a 62% to 38% ratio – older to younger). Total years of employment is weighted equally with 11% in the 01 – 04 year range and 39% in the 05 – 19 range, compared to 46% in the 20 – 39 year range and 4% in the 40+ range (50/50). Respondent distribution by gender is fairly balanced: 56% females to 44% males. 78% of respondents are currently employed. Respondents are heavily distributed in salaried positions versus hourly: 72% to 24%. The remaining 4% consider themselves entrepreneurs.

These numbers are indicative of a mature, experienced set of respondents – somewhat evenly distributed between the genders. Considering that most of the respondents are well-seasoned and still engaged in the work-force, the author has a high level of confidence that the survey responses were well thought out and reasonably representative of the total population – keeping in mind the limited extent of the survey distribution and the subjective nature of the survey questions.

Survey Recap

Taken as a whole, the survey makes a strong statement that employees believe that spiritual guidance is far preferable to the law as a source of guidance in making ethical decisions. However, personal upbringing and circumstantial pressures are acknowledged as having considerable influence. The author’s conjecture that knowledge of the foundational principles of a code of ethics would motivate compliance is supported – but not conclusively. Nevertheless, this survey appears to provide ample justification for a more in-depth, extensively distributed survey as a continuing effort to explore the basic premise.

SUMMARY – LITERATURE REVIEW

Economics

It seems history has made a strong case for the superiority of the free market over command economies. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” has been instrumental in creating massive wealth and prosperity – where it has been free to operate. Corruption, however, with its deleterious effect on economic efficiency and the valuation process, has also continued its destructive operations – indifferent to the type of economic system and the associated laws. The capacity for human ingenuity in seeking wealth, irregardless of the particular economic system, may be boundless.

Economic intercourse is facilitated by the determination of exchange values. As these exchange mechanisms become more sophisticated, the pace of exchange accelerates and the sensitivity of exchange rates becomes increasingly refined. The moving parts of this highly tuned global economic engine are interconnected and interdependent to an alarming degree. Ethical pollutants are highly destructive to its smooth operation. Educational techniques and enforcement systems must necessarily differ between countries; however, the fundamental principles of ethical conductive must be universally understood and accepted.

Law

In recent decades, dramatic examples of unethical conduct have arisen with some regularity. Stakeholders, primarily shareholders and employees, have suffered catastrophic losses. This has led to the legislation of cumbersome, and therefore expensive, regulations designed to prevent further outrages. History provides little encouragement for any expectation that additional layers of bureaucratic procedure will prove effective. Only time will tell. Will the tide of corruption be stemmed, or will the sophistication of evil-doers simply ratchet up as needed in order to adapt?

The law, standing alone, as it appears to be, has proven itself impotent in the face of human nature. Respect for the law continues to wane. It appears to be dramatically ineffectual as a source of inspiration. Although more severe penalties are being levied, the impact, if any, may take decades to evaluate. Worldwide, penalties vary in the extreme: death in communist China – a few years relaxing in minimum security comfort in the United States. It would seem that some consistency is a prerequisite for a truly fine-tuned global economic engine.

Culture

Culture has an extremely powerful influence on human behavior. However, the author is unaware of any economically advanced culture that ever condoned theft as acceptable conduct – at least officially. There are certain fundamental laws of human interaction that are common to all cultures. Quite often, the primary difference is in the presentation of the principle of conduct – not the substance. The communication of a code of ethics principle can either enhance or degrade its effectiveness. Globalization has made this communication critical to the promulgation of ethical conduct throughout the operations of multinational corporations.

Cultural barriers have never been a significant deterrence to trade. When there is a profit to be had, traders from diverse cultures manage to develop methods of interaction acceptable to the parties involved. The delineation of standard ethical principles to govern this trade, and the associated business operations, need not be an exception. The adoption of English as a near-universal language of international trade serves as an encouraging example of compromise for the sake of efficiency. If understood, some cultural standards can be enlisted to enhance the acceptance and implementation of ethical principles.

Psychology

The mechanics of human thought would seem to be the primary focus of research in the realm of psychology. This understanding is germane to the mechanical presentation of codes of ethical conduct; however, the author is unconvinced that such mechanics motivate an employee intellectually or spiritually. Psychology can address understanding of the principles and the steps of the decision-making process; but it cannot account for the ultimate decision. The final course of action is chosen at a higher level. There is more at work here than reflex, environmental conditioning and the electro-chemical processes of biological functions.

Emotional conditioning can be a factor, but given an adequate amount of time for rational thought, such conditioned impulses should yield to contemplative reasoning at a more sophisticated level. If a person’s character is purely the creation of the summation and interaction of life experiences, no code of ethics will have any appreciable impact on that person’s decision-making. Nonetheless, when determining the language of a code and its mode of presentation; aspects of fundamental psychology are germane. Content can be distorted by its expression.

Philosophy

A particular religion is a particular philosophy. A particular philosophy can be an individual’s “religion” – whether they acknowledge it as such or not. The philosophy of secular humanism is a religion to some. The only aspect missing is a physical structure for meeting - commonly referred to as a church. Secular Humanists simply hold their meetings elsewhere. The power of philosophy is in its capacity to motivate action. Adherents to certain philosophies are driven by their emotional involvement with said philosophy to take extreme measures in furtherance of “the cause”. It is the author’s opinion that this power can be carefully and appropriately harnessed to propagate employee buy-in to ethical principles and thereby significantly enhance compliance.

Whether accessing the emotional clout of a predominant religion, or appealing to the nationalistic appeal of a present or past statesman or national icon; supporting the presentation of a particular ethical principle with the well-known endorsement of a respected person or ideology should provide solid reinforcement and acceptance of the concept. Religious standards and the quotes of famous persons can thereby bestow legitimacy upon an ethical precept such as to dwarf the impact of any legal or corporate requirement. Furthermore, it appears that personal identification with corporate entities will continue to decline; thus resulting in a decreasing respect for the edicts of management.

Spirit

Spirituality is not confined to religion. In fact, an individual may be religious in the outward sense by the observation of religious activities and rituals; and yet be totally devoid of any spiritual sensitivity whatsoever. Spirituality goes beyond psychological process and philosophical fervor to complete internalization. This is total acceptance of and identification with a given principle. The employee views the particular ethical concept as larger than self, all others, the corporation or government. It becomes part of the individual’s character and cannot be tainted or sacrificed – even in the face of harassment by peers and/or termination of employment. To violate the principle would be to destroy one’s personal integrity. Conversion of the spirit to ethical principle is the only guarantor of conformance.

Hence, any expectation of adherence to a code of ethics without an appeal to a higher level of spirituality than that found in the mundane and officious pronouncements of the law and corporate regulations is doomed to futility. Employees are human beings and therefore susceptible to, and indeed often yearn for, inspiration. They aspire to a higher purpose in their lives and in their work. A sterile, and perhaps even hostile and threatening, work environment is not conducive to such aspirations. These negative conditions are toxic to spirituality and counterproductive to ethical conduct.

CONCLUSIONS

It is the author’s contention that his survey, as outlined and delineated above, although limited and somewhat flawed, supports his conjecture that an understanding of the source or sources of the ethical principles upon which a code of ethics is founded is an important determinant of compliance.

In addition, the author contends that the literature review also supports his conjecture as evidenced in the hierarchal strata of ethical decision-making in ascending order as follows: economics, law, culture, psychology, philosophy and spirit. These strata constitute a framework for the analysis of compliance to codes of ethical conduct as visually represented in Illustration 1.

It would appear that legal requirements and corporate policies, with accompanying penalties, on one end of the spectrum; and puzzling, nebulous admonishments to “do the right thing”, at the other extreme; have failed to engender compliance with ethical standards as a societal norm. A broad-based approach - employing features of economic, legal, cultural, psychological, philosophical and spiritual persuasion in an integrated format – would seem to create the most comprehensive and powerful approach to successfully nurture a dedicated commitment to ethical decision-making in the business world.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The author recommends that his framework be used for the structure of a more comprehensive study of the effect of foundational principles awareness on compliance to the supported code of ethics. A more in-depth survey based on a larger base of respondents filtered to be representative of the population could provide evidence of concepts statistically confirmed as generalizable. The author also recommends in-depth interview of persons who have breached their code of ethics (or review of existing interviews) utilizing the author’s framework as a tool to analyze the subjects’ decision-making process.

Children are famous, or perhaps infamous, for asking, “Why?” When persons age, they don’t stop asking this question; only the subject of the question changes over time. Employees want to know the basis for the ethical standards for which conformance is expected by their employer and the law. However, they are not intimidated. If these questions are left unanswered, there remains a disconnect between motivation, or inspiration, and compliance. Research into the nature of this disconnect, with the author’s framework as a lens, may reveal concepts that can be applied to engender ethical decision-making.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aasland, D.G. (2004), On the ethics behind “Business Ethics”. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 3-8. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Adams, J.S., Tashchian, A. and T.H. Stone (2001, February). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(3), 199–211. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Cordiero, W.P., 2003)

Asch, S. (1960). Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in White, R.D., Jr., 2001)

Asgary, N. and Mitschow, M.C. (2002, March), Toward a model for international business ethics, Journal of Business Ethics. 36(3), 239, 8 pgs. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Baley, C.A. (2004, October), Leadership and ethics: Grounded theory versus today’s fad. Presentation at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: jobfunctions.

Barach, J. A. and Elstrott, J. B. (1988). The transactional ethic: The ethical foundations of free enterprise reconsidered, Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 545-551. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Burton, B.K. and Goldsby, M., 2005)

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Turner, N., et al., 2002)

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Hillsdale, N.J.: Earlbaum. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Turner, N., et al., 2002)

Berenbeim, R. (2005, September), Opening remarks. Keasbey Memorial Foundation 50th Anniversary, Panel on Business Ethics and Globalization, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Berger, L.A. (2003, Fall). Focusing on the fundamentals: A postmodern perspective on why ethics matters. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 6(2), 123. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Beyers, L. (2000). Norm en ervaring: een tegenspraak, Norm en ervaring (Hogeschool, Gent), pp. 44-76. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Langenberg, S., 2004)

Buchholz, R.A. and Rosenthal, S.B. (2002). Spirituality and the Spirit of American Pragmatism: Beyond the Theism-Atheism Split. Working Paper. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Pava, M.L., 2003)

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Turner, N., et al., 2002)

Burton, B.K. and Goldsby, M. (2005). The golden rule and business ethics: An examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 371-383. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Coady, M. (1996). The moral domain of professionals. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 28-51. Retrieved May 8, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Miner, M. and Petocz, E., 2003)

Connolly, W.E. (1999). Why I am not a secularist. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Thompson, L.J., 2004)

Cordiero, W.P. (2003, August). The only Solution to the decline in business ethics: Ethical managers. Teaching Business Ethics, 7(3), 265. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Cressy, D. and Moore, C. (1983, Summer). Managerial values and corporate codes of ethics., California Management Review, 25(4), 53-77. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Farrell, B.J., et al., 2002)

Daily, C.M. and Dalton, D.R. (2003, May/June). Dollars and sense: The path to board independence. The Journal of Business Strategy, 24(3), 41. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Davis, M. (1988, June). Working with your company’s code of ethics. Management Solutions, pp. 4-10. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Wood. G. and Rimmer, M., 2003)

Dawson, L. (2005, Autumn). Work ethics and business ethics (Reflections from Hegel and Nietzsche). The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (19), 55. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster p. 521. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Phillips, R.A., 2004)

Dewey, J. (1934). A Common Faith. Yale University Press. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Pava, M.L., 2003)

England, G.W. (1967, March). Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of Management Journal, pp. 53-68. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Frederick, W.C., 1998)

Epstein, E.M. (2002, June). Religion and business: the critical role of religious traditions in management education. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 91. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Ewing, L.J. and Lee, R.B. (2004, September). Surviving the age of risk: A call for ethical risk management. Risk Management, 5(9), 56. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Farrell, B.J.; Cobbin, D.M. and Farrell, H.M. (2002). Codes of ethics: Their evolution, development and other controversies. The Journal of Management Development, 21(2), 152, 12 pgs. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Frederick, W.C. (1998, March). Moving to CSR4: What to pack for the trip. Business and Society, 37(1), 40, 20 pgs. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Baley, C.A., 2004)

Furnham, A. (1996). Attitudinal correlates and demographic predictors of monetary beliefs and behaviours. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 17, 375-388. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2003)

Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2003, August). Right from wrong: The influence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (1), 85. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Goldberg, D. (1995). The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Baley, C.A., 2004)

Granitz, N.A. (2003, January). Individual, social and organizational sources of sharing and variation in the ethical reasoning of managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(2), 101. Retrieved May 09, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Grant, G.H. (2003). The evolution of corporate governance and its impact on modern corporate America. Management Decision, 41(9), 923. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Iltis, A.S. (2005, Spring). Values based decision making: Organizational mission and integrity. HEC Forum, 17(1), 6-17. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Kaptein, M. (2004, March). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), pg. 13. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the development of moral thought and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Turner, N., et al., 2002)

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Turner, N., et al., 2002)

Kubal, D.; Baker, M. and Coleman, K. (2006, March). Doing the right thing: How today’s leading companies are becoming more ethical. Performance Improvement, 45(3), 5. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Kung, H. (1997). A global ethic in an age of globalization, Business Ethics Quarterly 7(3), 17-32. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Burton, B.K. and Goldsby, M., 2005)

Ladd, J. (1985). The quest for a code of professional ethics. In Johnson, D. and Snapper, J. (Eds), Ethical issues in the use of computers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Farrell, B.J., et al., 2002)

Langenberg, S. (2004). Parresiastic stakeholders: A different approach to ethical institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 39-50. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Lovett, S. (1999), Guanxi versus the market: Ethics and efficiency. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 231–235. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Asgary, N. and Mitschow, M.C., 2002)

Mackenzie, C. (2004, Autumn). Moral sanctions: Ethical norms as a solution to corporate governance problems. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 15, 49, 13 pgs. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

McLaughlin, C. (2005). Spirituality and ethics in business. European Business Review, 17(1), 94, 8 pgs. Retrieved April 11 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Merrifield, D.P. (1999, March). Beyond good and evil: A worldly spirituality. Vital Speeches of the Day, 65(11), 338, 5 pgs. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Messick, D.M. (2004). Human nature and business ethics. Ruffin Series in Business Ethics, pg. 129, 5 pgs. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper and Row. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in White, R.D., Jr., 2001)

Miner, M. and Petocz, A. (2003, January). Moral theory in ethical decision making: Problems, clarifications and recommendations from a psychological perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 42 (1), pg. 11. Retrieved May 8, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Mudrack, P.E. (2003, February). The untapped relevance of moral development theory in the study of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 42 (3), pg. 225. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Neiser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. (New York: Appleton). Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest. (Cited in Berger, L.A., 2003)

Pava, M.L. (2003, December). Searching for spirituality in all the wrong places. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(4), pg. 393. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest.

Phillips, R.A. (2004). Brief remarks on the evolutionary method. Ruffin Series in Business Ethics, pg. 235, 4 pgs. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest.

Quinn, J. Kevin; Reed, J. David; Browne, M. Neil and Hiers, Wesley J. (1997, September). Honesty, individualism, and pragmatic business ethics: Implications for corporate hierarchy. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12/13), 1419, 12 pgs. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest.

Reiser, Stanley J. (1994). The ethical life of health care organizations. Hastings Center Report, 24(6), 28-35. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Iltis, A.S., 2005)

Roberts, J. (2001), Corporate governance and the ethics of Narcissus. Business Ethics Quarterly, pp. 109–127. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Aasland, D.G., 2004)

Robin, D. et al (1989, January/February). A different look at codes of ethics. Business Horizons, 32(1), 66-73. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Farrell, B.J., et al., 2002)

Robin, D.P. (2004, Fall). Exploring ethical judgment. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12(4), 39, 4 pgs. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Robin, D.P. and Reidenbach, R. E. (1993). Searching for a place to stand: Toward a workable ethical philosophy for marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 12(1), 97-105. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited by Robin, D.P., 2004)

Sen, A. (1997, July). Economics, business principles and moral sentiments. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 5-15. Retrieved April 5, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Shaw, G.B. (1903). Man and Superman: A comedy and a philosophy. Westminster: Archibald Constable. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Burton, B.K. and Goldsby, M., 2005)

Shiller, R. (1990). Irrational exuberance. New York: Broadway Books. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest. (Cited in Berger, L.A., 2003)

Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics, 2nd edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Retrieved May 8, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Miner, M. and Petocz, E., 2003)

Sweeney, R. and Siers, H. (1990, June). Survey: ethics in corporate America. Management Accounting, pp. 34-40. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Farrell, B.J., et al., 2002)

The St. James Ethics Centre (1993, Autumn). Different codes. City Ethics, 11(4). Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Wood. G. and Rimmer, M., 2003)

Thompson, L.J. (2004). Moral leadership in a postmodern world. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(1), 27, 11 pgs. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Thorne, P. (1988, September). Is there any place for morality in the world of management? International Management, 43, 63. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Cordiero, W.P., 2003)

Tipgos, M.A. and Keefe, T.J. (2004, December). A comprehensive structure of corporate governance in Post-Enron Corporate America. The CPA Journal, 74(12), 46, 5 pgs. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Turner, N.; Barling, J.; Epitropaki, O.; Butcher, V. and Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 304–311. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Velasquez, M.G. (2002). Business ethics: concepts and cases. (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2003)

Verschoor, Curtis C. (2004, December). Survey shows need for more ethics awareness. Strategic Finance, 86(6), 15, 2 pgs. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Verschoor, Curtis C. (2005, August). Do the right thing. Strategic Finance, 87(5), 42, 4 pgs. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Victor, B. and Cullen, J.B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101-125. California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2003)

Weber, J. (1981). Institutionalizing ethics into the corporation. MSU Business Topics, Spring 47 – 51. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited by Wood, G. and Rimmer, M., 2003)

White, J. and Taft, S. (2004, August). Frameworks for teaching and learning business ethics within the global context: Background of ethical theories. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 463, 15 pgs. Retrieved April 13, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

White, R.D. Jr. (2001 Fall/2002 Winter). Do employees act like they think? Exploring the dichotomy between moral judgment and ethical behavior. Public Administration Quarterly, 25(3/4), 391, 22 pgs. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Wittgenstein, L. (1979). On Certainty. (Oxford, UK: Blackwell). Retrieved May 9, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in Dawson, L., 2005)

Wood, G. and Rimmer, M. (2003). Codes of ethics: What are they really and what should they be? International Journal of Value-Based Management, 16, 181-195. Retrieved April 14, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database.

Zimbardo, Phillip (1975). The psychology of evil: Or the perversion of human potential. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from the Internet: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Proquest database. (Cited in White, R.D., Jr., 2001)

Appendix “A”

Web Page

[pic]

Appendix “B”

Survey as Viewed on Perseus Survey Solutions

Web Site

Top of Form

1. Does your current employer, or did your most recent employer, have a formal, written code of ethics (basic guiding principles, NOT specific rules of conduct)?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

2. Have you ever received formal training (classroom, computer, one-on-one) to help you understand the meaning of your employer's general ethical guidelines or principles?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

3. Were you advised regarding the original source of the ethical principles presented by your employer?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

4. Please choose the selection that most accurately describes what YOU believe to be your employer's primary source of ethical principles.

[pic]The Great Philosophers

[pic]Psychology Professionals

[pic]Religious / Spiritual Leaders

[pic]Legal Requirements

[pic]Existing Cultural Norms

[pic]Other

5. Please choose the selection that most accurately describes what YOU believe SHOULD BE an employer's primary source of ethical principles.

[pic]The Great Philosophers

[pic]Psychology Professionals

[pic]Religious / Spiritual Leaders

[pic]Legal Requirements

[pic]Existing Cultural Norms

[pic]Other

6. When attempting to "Do the Right Thing", what teaching or reference do you rely on to make your decision and choose a course of action? 

[pic]The Great Philosophers

[pic]Psychology Professionals

[pic]Religious / Spiritual Leaders

[pic]Legal Requirements

[pic]Existing Cultural Norms

[pic]Training by Parents

[pic]"Gut" Feeling

[pic]Other

7. In your opinion, "Doing the Right Thing" SHOULD BE primarily determined by consideration of:

[pic]Legal Requirements

[pic]Demands of the Circumstances

[pic]Universal / Unchanging Principles

[pic]Existing Cultural Norms

[pic]Considerations of Self-Interest

[pic]Advice of Trusted / Respected Persons

[pic]Instructions from "Higher-Ups"

[pic]Other

8. If an action is permitted by the law, do you feel that it is thereby also ethically correct?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

9. If your employer expected you to perform an action that clearly violated written company ethical guidance, you would:

[pic]Perform the Action as Directed

[pic]Follow Written Company Guidance

[pic]Act in Accordance with your Personal Ethics

[pic]Consult Company Ethics Office / Legal

[pic]Contact Appropriate Government Authorities

[pic]Resign

[pic]Other

10. Do you believe that ethical principles change over time to be relevant and operate effectively in the changed culture or environment?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

11. Do you believe that the foundational principles for ethical decision-making SHOULD BE the same in both the work and non-work environments?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

12. Do you believe that there is a Higher Power or Intelligence, far superior to mortal man, that is a creative and influential force in the Universe?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

13. Do you believe that you, or others, can obtain guidance for decision-making from a Higher Power or Intelligence?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

14. In your opinion, a person's ethical character is PRIMARILY determined by:

[pic]Genetics

[pic]Present Circumstances

[pic]Education - School / Work

[pic]Education - Religious / Spiritual

[pic]Life Experience

[pic]Other

15. Do you feel that an understanding of the origins and foundations of your employer's code of ethics would assist you in the application of that code in decision-making?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

16. Please check your age category.

[pic]18 - 24

[pic]25 - 39

[pic]40 - 65

[pic]66+

17. Please indicate your sex.

[pic]Male

[pic]Female

18. Your approximate total years of employment.

[pic]1 - 4

[pic]5 - 19

[pic]20 - 39

[pic]40+

19. Are you currently employed?

[pic]Yes

[pic]No

20. Please choose the category which best describes your primary employment. [pic]Hourly Skilled

[pic]Hourly Unskilled

[pic]Salaried

[pic]Managerial

[pic]Professional

[pic]Entrepreneur

[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]

[pic]

Bottom of Form

Appendix “C”

Survey Response History Report from

Perseus Survey Solutions

R/Q |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 | |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |3 |7 |3 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |3 |2 |2 |2 |2 | |2 |1 |1 |1 |5 |6 |4 |1 |2 |4 |1 |2 |2 |2 |5 |1 |2 |1 |2 |1 |5 | |3 |1 |1 |1 |4 |4 |6 |6 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |2 |5 |1 |3 |1 |3 |1 |3 | |4 |1 |1 |1 |3 |6 |7 |2 |2 |7 |1 |2 |1 |1 |5 |1 |2 |2 |2 |2 |2 | |5 |1 |2 |1 |3 |4 |3 |3 |2 |2 |2 |1 |1 |1 |1 |2 |3 |2 |2 |2 |5 | |6 |1 |1 |1 |4 |5 |5 |4 |2 |4 |2 |2 |2 |2 |5 |2 |3 |1 |3 |1 |3 | |7 |1 |1 |1 |4 |3 |3 |3 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |2 |1 |1 |1 |3 | |8 |1 |1 |2 |4 |3 |7 |6 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |4 |2 |3 |2 |3 | |9 |1 |2 |1 |4 |4 |6 |2 |2 |3 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |4 |1 |4 |2 |5 | |10 |1 |2 |2 |4 |5 |7 |2 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |5 |2 |3 |2 |3 |1 |4 | |11 |2 |2 |2 |4 |6 |8 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |6 |1 |3 |2 |3 |2 |4 | |12 |2 |2 |2 |5 |6 |7 |2 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |3 |2 |3 |1 |5 | |13 |1 |2 |1 |3 |6 |6 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |2 |2 |5 |2 |1 |2 |1 |1 |1 | |14 |1 |1 |1 |4 |6 |8 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |3 |2 |3 |2 |2 |1 |1 | |15 |1 |1 |1 |4 |3 |3 |6 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |3 |2 |3 |1 |1 | |16 |1 |1 |2 |4 |5 |3 |4 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |3 |2 |3 |2 |3 | |17 |2 |2 |2 |4 |3 |3 |8 |2 |3 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |2 |2 |2 |1 |1 | |18 |1 |2 |2 |6 |6 |7 |8 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |6 |1 |2 |1 |2 |1 |1 | |19 |2 |2 |2 |6 |3 |3 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |4 |2 |3 |1 |1 | |20 |2 |2 |2 |5 |5 |3 |3 |2 |3 |1 |1 |1 |1 |5 |2 |3 |2 |3 |1 |1 | |21 |2 |2 |2 |4 |4 |3 |3 |2 |4 |1 |2 |1 |1 |6 |1 |2 |1 |1 |1 |3 | |22 |1 |1 |2 |4 |3 |3 |3 |2 |7 |2 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |2 |1 |2 |1 |4 | |23 |2 |2 |2 |4 |5 |3 |2 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |2 |1 |3 |1 |3 |1 |1 | |24 |1 |1 |1 |6 |6 |7 |2 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |2 |1 |1 |1 |3 | |25 |2 |2 |2 |3 |3 |3 |3 |2 |7 |2 |1 |1 |1 |4 |2 |3 |2 |3 |1 |6 | |26 |2 |2 |2 |5 |3 |3 |2 |2 |7 |2 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |3 |1 |3 |1 |4 | |27 |1 |1 |2 |4 |4 |5 |2 |2 |4 |1 |2 |1 |2 |5 |1 |3 |1 |3 |1 |4 | |28 |1 |1 |2 |3 |6 |3 |2 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |3 |1 |2 |2 |2 |1 |3 | |29 |1 |1 |2 |4 |2 |3 |3 |2 |5 |1 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |3 |2 |2 |1 |5 | |30 |2 |1 |2 |4 |6 |6 |3 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |3 |2 |3 |1 |5 | |31 |1 |2 |2 |5 |4 |3 |3 |2 |2 |2 |2 |1 |1 |4 |1 |1 |2 |2 |1 |2 | |32 |1 |2 |2 |4 |5 |6 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |2 |2 |5 |2 |3 |1 |3 |1 |4 | |33 |1 |2 |2 |5 |5 |5 |4 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |5 |2 |2 |2 |2 |1 |3 | |34 |2 |2 |2 |6 |3 |6 |3 |2 |4 |2 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |3 |1 |4 |2 |6 | |35 |2 |2 |2 |4 |6 |6 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 | |36 |1 |1 |2 |4 |2 |3 |3 |2 |3 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |3 |2 |3 |2 |5 | |37 |2 |2 |2 |5 |3 |3 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |6 |2 |3 |2 |3 |1 |5 | |38 |1 |2 |2 |5 |3 |3 |3 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |2 |3 |2 |3 |2 |5 | |39 |1 |1 |2 |4 |1 |6 |3 |2 |4 |2 |1 |1 |1 |4 |2 |2 |2 |2 |1 |5 | |40 |1 |1 |2 |6 |6 |7 |3 |2 |3 |1 |1 |1 |1 |5 |2 |1 |2 |2 |1 |3 | |41 |1 |1 |2 |4 |4 |7 |4 |2 |4 |1 |2 |2 |2 |5 |1 |3 |2 |3 |1 |3 | |42 |1 |1 |1 |5 |5 |7 |3 |2 |4 |2 |1 |2 |1 |5 |1 |2 |1 |2 |1 |3 | |43 |1 |1 |1 |4 |3 |3 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |6 |2 |3 |2 |2 |1 |1 | |44 |2 |2 |2 |3 |3 |3 |2 |2 |3 |1 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |3 |2 |3 |1 |4 | |45 |1 |1 |2 |4 |4 |6 |3 |2 |2 |2 |1 |1 |1 |6 |2 |2 |1 |2 |1 |5 | |R/Q |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 | |46 |1 |1 |2 |4 |3 |3 |3 |2 |3 |2 |1 |1 |1 |4 |1 |2 |1 |2 |1 |3 | |47 |1 |1 |2 |4 |3 |4 |2 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |2 |3 |2 |2 |1 |1 |1 |3 | |48 |1 |1 |1 |4 |3 |3 |8 |2 |4 |1 |1 |1 |1 |4 |2 |3 |1 |2 |1 |4 | |49 |1 |1 |2 |5 |3 |5 |3 |2 |4 |2 |1 |2 |2 |5 |1 |3 |1 |3 |1 |3 | |50 |1 |1 |2 |4 |4 |7 |3 |2 |4 |1 |2 |1 |1 |5 |2 |3 |2 |3 |2 |4 | |51 |1 |1 |2 |4 |4 |7 |2 |2 |2 |1 |1 |2 |2 |5 |1 |2 |1 |1 |1 |3 | |52 |1 |1 |2 |4 |5 |6 |3 |2 |4 |2 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |3 |1 |3 |1 |3 | |53 |2 |1 |2 |4 |3 |6 |6 |2 |3 |1 |1 |1 |1 |5 |2 |2 |1 |2 |1 |3 | |54 |1 |1 |2 |4 |5 |3 |3 |2 |7 |2 |1 |1 |1 |5 |1 |2 |1 |2 |1 |5 | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download