1 Running Head: WHY BUSINESS STUDENTS WHY ...

Download PDF
8 downloads 0 Views 597KB Size Report
Comment
WHY BUSINESS STUDENTS MAKE THE ETHICAL DECISIONS THEY MAKE ..... of consulting in a wide range of business settings to include Military, Medical, ...
1 Running Head:

WHY BUSINESS STUDENTS

WHY BUSINESS STUDENTS MAKE THE ETHICAL DECISIONS THEY MAKE William R. Hanson, Anderson University, Anderson, South Carolina, USA Jeffery Moore, Anderson University, Anderson, South Carolina, USA ABSTRACT This paper examines the rationalizations that induce business students to make ethics-related decisions in the course of thier everyday college life. As a single case study,we collect data from 27 business college students using surveys and follow-up interviews.Analysis relies on coding methods of Strauss and Corbin. Students reveal that they make the decisions they do because of external, internal, and relational motivational factors. External motivational factors include student behavior in response to rules and policy through academic integrity and institutional expectations. Internal motivational factors encompass the need for foundational beliefs, fulfilling various organizational roles and identity alignment. Relational motives involve the function of social network and role fulfillment in student ethical decisions. Part of a larger study on student moral decision making and development, this case study provides concepts for university consideration in culture management to strengthen student ethical decisions. Key Words: Ethical Decision-Making, Case Study, Business Students

1. INTRODUCTION What influences business students to make the ethical decisions they do? And wouldn’t it be good to culturally enable their ethical decisions and development at universities? As it stands now, within a backdrop of questionable business ethics in America, focus has fallen upon the moral preparation and behavior of business students by American universities. It is concerning that contemporary student data show trends of increasing unethical behavior by students in general, and the most infractions resting with business students (McCabe et al., 2006). There are data that suggest some deviation regarding specific nuances of unethical behvior type. For example, Iyer & Eastman (2006) suggest that nonbusiness students are more likely to cheat than are business students. The simple fact remains that students are behaving more unethically and this is a moral delimna that universities must address and resolve. While there is research suggesting various steps to be addressed, such as creating a student honor code or devising methods to detect cheating, there is no indication that these steps are enough to shape university environments in reforming ethical behavior. The bulk of university action to counter student unethical practice is the creation and enforcement of rules, and the effort to identify violators for punishment. We argue that it is disappointing that rule-based organizations do little to solve issues by furthering moral development—even more so for institutions of higher learning. Of course to pursue moral development requires knowledge of what informs, disuades or encourages student ethical behavior within the context of university life. While there are strong demands for universities to improve the moral development of business students, there exists minimal work to be found at the institutional level of analysis or on collective perspectives of why student bodies make the ethical choices they do within organizational contexts. The “reasons” students make ethical choices, and their influences, rest within student perceptions—something university leaders are challenged to manage. As part of a larger study building theory on factors that influence student ethical decision making, the goal of this work is to analyze at the collective level, why students make the moral decisions that they do within a university context. We believe universities can use this

2 information to both analyze why students behave as they do, and to link appropriate motivators or development steps to desired moral outcomes. The goals of this study then are to a) capture student factors that help explain the “why” of student moral decisions, to b) identify actionable influencers for universities to encourage ethical behavior rather than over-reliance on compliance and detection measures, and to c) discover a moral dimension framework that can be used to organize student perceptions. 2. MORAL DEVELOPMENT: RESEARCH AND THEORY When it comes to student moral reasoning, most research and theory remain grounded at the individual level of analysis (Colby et al., 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). By and large, research is tied to quantitative methods representing the classic experiment that focuses on pre-selection of a limited number of variables and control of environmental factors. There are fewer qualitative studies seeking to discover new or contextual variables elaborating a particular process so as to understand the dynamics between them and the outcome. For organizations to shape ethical behavior, the environmental context is critical. Qualitative research is discovery oriented and usually prepares for the inclusion of a large host of variables. This is important due to scarce work on institutional or collective dynamics involved in moral development and decision making. There are many moral development theories. Because most theories in moral development or moral reasoning are at the individual level of meaning making, they are often grounded in an epistemology of contructivism—how the individual makes sense of the phenomena. A good example of this is Kohlberg’s moral development theory (refer to Colby et al., 1987; Kohlberg and Hersh, 1977; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Lawrence Kohlberg is well known for his research in moral development and the cognitive reasoning used to make moral decisions. Specifically, he identified six stages of moral development using rules and principles guiding ethical choices (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, Reimer et al., 1983, Evans et al., 1998). Kohlberg and Hersh (1977: 54) explain that these stages represent the structure of cognitive reasoning. What is interesting about Kohlberg’s model is that motives of ethical choices tied to ego-centricity—such as those made from fear of punishment or acting in self-interest, represent the lowest level of ethical development. At the higher end of moral development are internalized values, and a sense of community and obligation embedded in moral decision-making principles (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, Reimer et al., 1983). This is not to say that various concepts of Kohlberg’s model have not been questioned or altered over time (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Yet, today his model continues to hold a significant place in research, business and education. Kohlberg’s concept of moral development was not a process of indoctrination, rather of teaching so as to produce someone who was “morally autonomous” (Kohlberg and Hersh, 1977: 53). This end fits within the objectives of higher education—what Kohlberg and Hersh (1977: 53). call a “moral enterprise.” So how do we conduct work at the collective level to shape conditions such that universities enable studentbody development? We begin with searching for some of the more powerful cultural influences to moral decision making—the focus of this work. Later, universities might exploit and refine these influences in conjunction with the student-body so as to increase the level of student moral autonomy within a university, and later, job context. In this work we apply an epistemology of constructionism to capture an understanding of student-body meaning making as a collective entity, shaped by institutional context and culture (rules, policies, norms, rituals, etc.) (Crotty, 2003).

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3 Part of a larger study, we ask “Why do students make the ethical decisions they do?” We frame the study within an epistemology of constructionism, where student interaction generates a level of cultural, collective meaning (Crotty, 2003). Cultural context and relationships provide a comprehensive student perspective of truth that drives rationalization. Student perceptions are the product of long-term interaction and experiences with peers, institutional stakeholders and artifacts. As such, the theoretical assumptions of this work are embedded in symbolic interactionism (Crotty, 2003). We use case study methodology to explore student perspectives and establish theoretic propositions necessary for model building (Creswell, 2003, Yin, 2003). As a qualitative approach to empirical research, this work is discovery oriented, and allows ongoing investigative pursuit of relevant data through adding to the sample and conducting follow-up interviews to clarify emerging themes (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). During analysis, data is broken into meaning units, categorized, and then abstracted into thematic elements representing shared meaning (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). In the final stage of coding, categories are linked via relational dynamics. Generalizability of this work lies in conceptual analysis, producing theory soundness (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2003). 3.1. Setting, Sample and Participants Research took place at a small, private university in the southeast. To ensure maximum data richness, the sample was limited to full-time business students holding status as a college junior or senior. Our theoretic sample includes 27 participants, well within the accepted target to achieve data saturation (Creswell, 2003). Business concentrations identified by students included 18 management (149 enrolled), two human resources (14 enrolled), two accounting (38), two finance/economics (9 enrolled), one marketing/finance (11 enrolled), and two unidentified. 3.2. Collection Interviews, observations, and artifacts were the focus of data collection (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). For interviews we used open-ended, structured questions (Kerlinger and Lee, 2000, Smith and Osborn, 2008). To achieve a fuller understanding of student meaning, we also conducted limited observations of campus activities and investigated institutional artifacts noted by participants during interviews—such as examination of policies, rules, and an ethics-related academic quote engraved on one of the building’s walls. Later, we conducted a member check to pursue clarification of resulting themes and concepts. 3.3. Analysis For analysis, we applied Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) open, axial and selective coding procedures. This process was iterative and employed the constant comparison method of data to determine descriptive categories and their resulting properties and dimensions (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The process of coding was rigorous, strictly following a well established method involving extensive labor and review.

4. FINDINGS Students reveal that they make the decisions they do because of external, internal, and relational motivational factors. External motivational factors include student behavior in response to rules and policy through academic norms and institutional moral expectations. Internal motivational factors encompass the need for foundational beliefs, fulfilling organizational roles and identity alignment. Relational motives involve the function of social network and role fulfillment in student ethical decisions. Thus, external influencers provide a set of expectations for the student’s environment. Internal influencers provide identity, values and a set of self-expectations, and relational influencers provide the student contexts that shift consideration from self to others in decision making. Figure 1 reveals a model of influence factors to student ethical decision making.

4

FIGURE 1. THEMATIC FACTORS OF WHY STUDENTS MAKE THEIR ETHICAL OR UNETHICAL DECISIONS.

4.1 Moral Dimensions of External Motivational Factors It may come as no surprise that institutional tenets play a major role in why students act the way they do. External or institutional stimuli do play a major role in student behavior. Yet it is not always in the form that institutions might expect. For example, students can reject rules and policies outright. Our question focuses on why these instruments are accepted. So, with regard to institutional rules and policy, why to students act the way they do? Student responses are revealing. Sometimes students comply with rules and policies due to fear of punitive consequence—to avoid negative repercussions. Other times they comply primarily to serve self-interest or articulate reluctant acceptance because demands do not align with world-view yet they feel obligated. Students are also motivated by willing moral acceptance of rules due to moral perspective alignment. Still in other instances students feel policy or rules represent their identity convergence—who they are and what they believe. Figure 2 provides the moral motivational dimensions of student perceptions regarding rule-based behavior. Over half of our sample made mention of following rules to primarily to avoid punishment. They say they act morally because they hold fears of getting kicked out of college, obtaining a poor grade, or hampering future job opportunity--not because they view rules as good or right. Not all expressions are negative— some believe that consequences for immoral behavior are helpful in aiding their own motivation. Failure to enforce rules is also a deep concern for them. The way others are or are not punished relate directly to their own behavior rationalization—more willing to accept rules that are displayed and reinforced. This highlights institutional need to enforce policy and rules as an example to students and to meet student needs for ethical order and behavior outcomes. Students also claim to follow rules to serve self-interest. They feel by following rules, they develop an image that others respect. It provides a sense of achievement. The belief is that by following rules or policy, they reap personal rewards. They imply that if following rules are not of some benefit or utility to themselves, they are less likely to follow them.

5 Students also follow rules because they feel they must. The habit of following rules is so deeply embedded within their identity, that even when they disagree or simply do not like them, they will follow rules or policy nonetheless. The question might then become “at what point will they challenge them?” Further, students also follow rules because they want to do the “right thing.” It is simply their attempt to be pro-social. They believe that a set of rules or policy feed their need to know what the “right thing” is—what it looks like so they can fully comply with the spirit and intent of institutional expectations. Finally, students follow rules because they feel they align with their personal beliefs and values. Following them feeds their sense of obligation and fulfillment. They often believe their values and policy or rules are the same. By fulfilling a policy or rule, they feel it reaffirms who they believe themselves to be.

Avoid Negative Implications

Serves Self-interest

Reluctant Acceptance

Moral Acceptance

•“Punishment for rulebreaking keeps you honest.” •“School policies pressures students into doing the right because the school threatens discipline.” •Friends mak[e] sure I follow the rules and stay out of trouble.”

•“I follow the rules to maintain a great selfimage on campus.”

• “I don’t agree with the rules of the university, but I follow them anyways because that is how I was raised.”

•“I follow the rules because it is the right thing to do.” •“It is just expected of students to do the right thing according to school policies.” •“The academic integrity policy shows students the right way to handle their ethics.”

Convergence •“Policies act as a reminder of who I’m called to be.” •“Academic integrity [policy] is my main influence because that reflects my own values and morals.”

FIGURE 2. EXTERNAL MOTIVATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT ETHICAL DECISION CONSIDERATION FOR RULES AND POLICY.

As noted earlier, Figure 2 is organized in a continuum. Beginning on the left, the student behavior suggests a more self-centered and less morally mature person. Moving right, the student motives seem more morally mature. While this figure may hold implications at the individual level, for the collective body of students the university challenge is to develop a set of expectations viewed as relevant and representative of student perspectives. Proposals by McCabe et al. (2006) suggest that by includings students in the construction and implementation of instutional rules and policy, they become grounded in student body relevence and value. A key observation is that students seem to cluster around each dimension of the moral continuum, signifying that as individuals they have different developmental stages. However the implication for the group is that there is a process and progression morally that the group is undergoing. The how of that moral development is not the focus of this research but the fact of existance of the group’s moral identity is. We note that individuals must have progressed to their current moral level while being immersed in the university group.

6

4.2 Internal Motivational Factors Why do students act ethically? Students also initiate behavior without reacting to external stimuli—like institutionally required mandates. Rather, they rely on various internal desires such as seeking institutional acceptance or personal fulfillment. Specific sources for these desires stem from foundational beliefs (religious and family background), a drive to live up to implied institutional expectations, adopt academic norms and an effort to achieve role fulfillment linked to job identity. These internal motives help represent why students make related ethical choices regardless of external demands. Figure 3 presents the student’s internal motive dimensions of seeking embedded, ethically related needs. Participants note the role of faith in their ethical behavior during university life. Foundational beliefs represent influence of religious and family background in their ethical decision making process. Whether from development prior to college, or that attained while attending, students apply these concepts in the present while engaged in campus-based activities. Students also generate moral behavior through an express desire to know what is ethically expected. For various reasons, they articulate a desire to meet institutional expectations, and feel frustrated by unclear guidelines. Once conveyed, students recognize those expectations having practical application, such as academic norms. In a sense, this provides cultural utility--setting boundaries for their individual work and group work. While perhaps also an institutional value, students integrate expectations having utility into collective norms—through internal motivation to do good or right. From a group perspective, it regulates the ethicality of student interaction with others. In a campus job-related role, students see a more pronounced responsibility for both themselves as rolemodels and in the enforcement of institutional rules. It is something they see within job identity that encourages the operationalization of ethical decisions and behavior involving a sense of responsibility for collective wellbeing.

Foundational Beliefs

Institutional Expectation

•“My faith keeps me ethical."

•“The student handbook provides information and biblical principles so you know what is expected of you.”

•“The campus life of thriving in Christ brings out positive ethical decision-making.”

• “The student handbook—making sure I know the rules so I can follow them."

Academic Norms •“Academic integrity policy shapes the way I work because it is the exact demands of the university in terms of ethical work.” •“Academic integrity influences the way I do assignments.” •The academic integrity policy influences my interaction with other students concerning class work.”

Role Fulfillment •“The student handbook, because part of my job is enforcing those rules and it is important for me to uphold them." •“[My campus job] challenges me to be the example of the values and rules.”

7 FIGURE 3. INTERNAL MOTIVATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF STUDENTS SEEKING ETHICS-BASED NEEDS.

Figure 3 reveals four major internal sources of motivators for ethical student behavior. These sources range from an active spiritual perspective, a quest to understand institutional expectations and ethics guidelines (academic norms), as well as the operational need to utilize ethics in job roles involving responsibility for others. This evidence allows universities to explore meeting these needs and managing the effect they have on the student body. Students question what they believe, and, “want to have a solidified system of belief.” Perhaps the university can actively help the student attain that.

4.3 Relational Motivational Factors: Social Network and Organizational Roles There are also organizational and “network” relationships that play a powerful role in student rationalization to be ethical or not. Students view these relationships as important, one saying, “It is important to build a good relationship so that you may live harmoniously.” This underlines the role of university networks in creating norms that are enforced and developed. Individual students have to make decisions based on their social reality. Relational motivational factors are primarily driven by peers—they are swayed in their resulting behavior. While students mention that friends could lead them in the wrong direction, largely they express their friends as influencing their decisions in the positive. One stated, “The peer pressure tends to be about making good choices, not bad ones.” 4.3.1 Student Social Network Roles Peers are well-known to influence group and individual eithcal behavior at the university (McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Even when making decisions in the context of others as a group, students often succumb to the pressure of peers to quickly reach consensus (Auer-Rizzi and Berry, 2000, Gentile, 2010). Ethically speaking, the dimensions of peer influence tied to why students act ethically includes steering others in a particular direction, correcting peers, as well as guiding, motivating, and even developing fellow students. By and large, students say they appreciate these peer inputs as helping them make good ethical decisions. For instance one participant remarks that, “Building relationships with friends is an unbiased frame of reference for feedback that cannot be distinguished by any other relationship.” Figure 4 presents various examples of student expression in the role peers play in their ethical decisions. Peer roles can be very active, where students feel their friends oblige them to make specific decisions; they steer the participant in a specific direction or outcome. Participants describe this influence often as a “pressure.” Another related form of active influence is “correcting.” That is, their friends intervene if they feel the student is “out of bounds” or headed in the wrong direction. Friends hold others accountable. Sometimes students look at friends as more “guiding.” This influence is more indirect and emanates from peer role-modeling or association. An even deeper attachment is one where students look at friends as role-models. Related, is a self-referent desire by some students to make a decision of value for their friend. Almost altruistic in the sense of wanting to do the right thing for the sake of the friend’s good— whether it is to “not let them down” or in order to produce a more distinct value for their benefit. The deepest and richest role peers play in student ethical decisions is long-term development. Friends in this case contribute to the student’s sense of growth and understanding. The student recognizes this as valuable and deeply appreciated.

8

Steering

Correcting

Guiding

Motivating

Developing

•“Friends pressure you the most to do right or sometimes wrong.”

• “My friends keep me accountable; if I’m doing something wrong, they’ll tell me.”

•“My group of friends influence my ethical decision-making. I have a good group of friends that positively influence me.”

•“Friends influence me ethically. I always want to make the right decisions not only for myself, but for them as well.”

•“My friends are the

•“Peers making sure I’m involved in the right activities and doing the right things.” •Friends...pressure [me by] either going out on the weekends or staying in and staying out of trouble."

•“Friends mak[e] sure I follow the rules and stay out of trouble.”

•“When my friends do the right thing, I am more likely to do the same.”

most important because they [unintelligible] me on a daily basis and can assist me to grow.” •“My friends influence my decision [making] the most. They allow me to see what honesty and integrity bring.”

FIGURE 4. DIMENSIONS OF PEER/FRIENDSHIP IN ETHICAL INFLUENCE.

Figure 4 reveals the complex nature peers play in student ethical motivation to do good and right. Students may sometimes look for stronger, more direct pressure in some instances, yet at other times they might look for more developmental effort. Universities might attempt to assist the developmental aspect by teaching peer mentorship programs. The concept would be that by enabling student-peer developers, ethical considerations for student decisions would be embedded within a stronger relational culture.

4.3.1 Student Organizational Roles Students also link their role in various organizations as a prime motivator for their ethical behavior. Whether in the context of team, campus job, or some other university related organization, they feel compelled to do what is right. Part of the reason might be the university environment and culture, one that imbues a sense of obligation—both as a member and leader in various roles. One participant places this in a larger context, “The university taught me that just living in your community is not enough to be a part of it.” You have to help others and take the initiative to increase the quality of life in your community.” In some cases, students link this pressure as a belief that others look to them for role modeling. That is, to them this stems from the expectations of others. But more powerful, students act ethically because they feel their behavior is a reflection of their organization. In the role of leader, students also feel a sense of responsibility for the wellbeing of others, thus act to do good or right for the subordinate. Lastly, students also act ethically in order to fulfill self-expectations. Dimensional sources of ethics consideration in a job role are provided in Figure 5.

9

Expectations by Others

Organization Representation

Care for Others

Expectations of Self

•“Pressure to do the right thing because of how I’m viewed [as a leader].” •“Being involved in campus leadership is a pressure because people know you are a leader and expect you to uphold that standard.” •"I want [people] to be proud of who represents them.” •“Coaches influence me because their opinion and view of me matters.”

•“[I] serve in a position where I’m viewed as a leader on campus and I need to represent that well.”

• “I’m a supervisor over 12 people; if I fail or make the wrong decision, so will they.” •“Job pressures to do right because there are people working under me.”

•““My job pressures me to do the right thing 24/7. I am the example for students.” •“[My campus job] challenges me to be the example of the [university] values and rules.” •"I try to be a role model for [the team].”

•“I work in Financial Aid as a campus job, so represent that office when I’m not working and when I am.” • "I am always representing the sports team for the university."

FIGURE 5. DIMENSIONAL SOURCES OF ETHICS CONSIDERATION WITH OPERATIONAL NEEDS IN CAMPUS JOB ROLE. As Figure 5 denotes, students seek both acceptance and approval from peers and campus job groups. At the same time, students hold an embedded sense of obligation for others and to themselves which they seek to meet. The relationship students hold with peers and organizations on campus can become stronger over time. As one participant stated, “I found my place and began to participate in the organization. The more I served the more I fell in love with my university and the people within it.” Universities—at some level, are able to catalyze this effect by assisting students in finding their “place” and encouraging institutional participation in order for students to build lasting, ethically motivated relationships.

Reasoning

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

Practical Focus

Clear Expectations

Role Fulfillment

Influence

Following (internal)

Leading / Influencing others (external)

Fear / Self-interest

Serve / Vision

avoidance of harm

mutual-actualization

Moral Motivator

10 FIGURE 6. MORAL DEVELOPMENT CONTINUUM BOUNDARIES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS.

Figure 6 summarizes the continuum of moral rationalization by university students. We observed in the data, that their moral reasoning gives them the greatest benefit and return. Students diverged in what they saw as the greatest benefit based upon context. At the lowest level of moral development we have simple ethical reasoning founded on internal, fear-based motivations in an effort to avoid harm. Punishments are best avoided by focusing on rule following which rests on the cornerstone of identifying clear expectations that do not change. The highest level of complex moral reasoning is based on external motivations embedded in seeking mutual-actualization (group welfare) with an ethical moral identity. Student focus is to protect and assist peer group / network members to also make ethical decisions. This role fulfillment aligns the student with pressures to become a leader in the university community and reinforce the values and norms of the group. 5. Discussion and Conclusion In reviewing student comments about why they decide to be ethical one cannot help but see a parallel with human development in general. Students find themselves immersed in a process of identity and maturity development in dealing with themselves and others. They display both simple ethical decision making practices motivated largely by fear and self-interest to avoid harm, as well as complex reasoning where they are self-actualized leaders in their university network. The inclusion of identity creation is a central finding of complex ethical decision making students. Identity creation encompasses self influencers, friends and external direct influences as well as external indirect influencers. Furthermore, this complexity also encompasses spiritual as well as academic, professional and relational elements. These are the forces that universities must manage. This research brings new light and a greater level of complexity to why students decide to act ethically. Within the three factors of external, internal and relational motivational influences, there exists a scale by which elements play a role in rationalizing behavior outcomes. Understanding what these elements are helps us influence the university student-body to higher and more complex ethical decision making levels. Another point of discussion is the importance of identity formation / self-actualization. At the source of each student is an innate need to make decisions about oneself and one’s environment. Based on what students face in meeting institutional demands, forging relationships with peers and groups, they are forced to adjust to a wide array of demands and conflicting beliefs. As a matter-of-fact, one student expresses how these demands force identity adjustment saying, “They make me question what I believe and want to have a solidified system of belief.” This is for the institution a great opportunity to participate in an intentional development of individual identity and moral formation in students. Students reported that they benefited from their ethical behavior in three main ways. The first was social inclusion, second in a sense of personal achievement and finally in being successful in university and their future careers. All of these benefits inform the identity formation of the student.

6. IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Implications for this study are three fold—the exploration of application of Kohlberg’s model to collective entities in order to evaluate group behavior, the challenge of raising collective behavior to higher stages of moral development, and the evaluation of institutional strategy and culture to determine alignment to student moral development goals. 6.1 Model for Evaluating Group Moral Development First, we believe that Kholberg’s model of moral development can, in part, be applied to evaluate collective outcomes, in addition to evaluating the development of the individual. For example, we evidence of the student-body deciding to act ethically because they wanted to avoid punishment. This

11 matches the lowest level of moral development for the individual. There is research needed to explore this proposition—can this model be applied to collective behavior equally? Additionally, another challenge is to investigate the specific nature of motivators. In this case, what rules do students avoid due to punishment, and what rules do students feel are a part of their identity? The dimension of student response to rules is varied and different rules have different motivational effects in student decision making. 6.2 Strategies for Raising Collective Development Levels Related to the first implication of determining the level of group moral development, are the university strategies created to raise them to achieve higher moral development levels. Once the collective level of moral development is assessed, how does the university move groups to higher moral development levels? We know that universities exert influence in the development of students. Evans, Trevino and Weaver (2006; 281) describe this as an“institutional demand” reflecting a culture of tradition and moral expectation. Future research might look at how to purposefully move students and the student-body from lower levels of moral decision making with respect to external university expectations (rules, academic integrity etc…) to higher levels of identity-moral convergence. For example, how do we move agents from the lowest level of motive to avoid punishment to a higher-level structure incorporating responsibilities and concern for collective well-being. Kohlberg and Hersh (1977: 57) suggested long ago that development must occur not only in the classroom, but “… be a part of a broader, more enduring involvement of students in the social and moral functioning of the school.” As part of this effort, we noted in our work that the relational influencers align with higher levels of moral decision making. Research might look at ways to integrate this into institutional strategy through group activities and student-to-student mentorship programs. 6.3 University and Developmental Strategy Evaluation We clearly see that the student-body has varied moral motivators for acting ethically. Future research might explore the moral motivators of the institution to determine if the strategy and culture are operating at a lower moral level where coercion and punishment are utilized as the prime motivators. Our proposition is that higher levels of development are fostered through a university-student relationship exchange that might be evaluated on the role students’ play in campus governance, the opportunity for group activities, and a joint policy and rule creation process. We also suggest focus on the study of the dynamic partnership between university and student in outcomes of student moral autonomy in both campus and employment environments.

7. AUTHOR PROFILE Dr. William Hanson (Ph.D., Clemson University) has over 25 years of leadership experience and 10 years of consulting in a wide range of business settings to include Military, Medical, Educational, and Agricultural. He teaches leadership and ethics in Anderson University’s MBA program, and sits as an invited PhD committee member at Clemson University. As a researcher, his work focuses on organizational relationships and dynamics tied to leadership and ethics. His most recent publications include articles in the Academy of Management’s Learning and Education (in-press), the Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, and the British Journal of Healthcare Management. Dr. Jeffrey Moore (Ph.D., Universite de Nice-Sophia Antipolis – France) grew up in Europe (France, Germany and Switzerland). His dissertation was on the Role of the consultant in Eastern Europe. He started his PhD work in 1990 in Eastern Europe based out of Romania in partnership with World Vision International. His focus is on research activities in international business, organizational development and ethical decision making from a values perspective. He is actively researching in India, Morocco, Brazil and Nepal. His most recent publications include articles in the Academy of Management’s Learning and Education (in-press), the Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Gestor Contabil (Brazil), International Journal of Management & Information Systems, and the Indian Institute of Science (India).

12 References Auer-Rizzi, W. & Berry, M. 2000. “Business Vs. Cultural Frames of Reference in Group Decision Making: Interactions Among Austrian, Finnish, and Swedish Business Students.”, Journal of Business Communication, vol. 37, pp. 264-92. Creswell, J. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage Thousand Oaks. Crotty, M. 2003. The Foundations of Social Research, Sage, Los Angeles. Evans, J., Trevino, L. & Weaver, G. 2006. “Who's in the Ethics Driver's Seat? Factors Influencing Ethics in The MBA Curriculum”, Academy Of Management Learning & Education, vol. 5, pp. 278-293. Evans, N., Forney, D. & Guido-Dibrito, F. 1998. Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Gentile, M. C. 2010. “Keeping Your Colleagues Honest”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 88, pp. 114-117. Iyer, R. & Eastman, J. K. 2006. “Academic Dishonesty: Are Business Students Different From Other College Students?”, Journal Of Education For Business, vol. 82, pp. 101-110. Kerlinger, F. & Lee, H. 2000. Foundations of Behavioral Research, Wadsworth-Thomson Learning, United States. Kohlberg, L. & Hersh, R. H. 1977. “Moral Development: A Review of the Theory”, Theory Into Practice, vol.16, pp. 53-59. Mccabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D. & Trevino, L. K. 2006. “Academic Dishonesty In Graduate Business Programs: Prevalence, Causes, And Proposed Action”, Academy Of Management Learning & Education, vol. 5, pp. 294-305. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. 2005. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research, John Wiley And Sons, San Francisco. Reimer, J., Paolitto, D. P. & Hersh, R. H. 1983. Promoting Moral Growth: From Piaget to Kohlberg, Longman, New York. Smith, J. A. & Osborn, M. 2008. “Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis” in: Smith, J. A. (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology; A Practical Guide to Research Methods, 2ed. (pp. 53-80) Los Angeles: Sage. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park. Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

13 Appendix Interview Protocol (Partial—as part of a larger study): Ethical Decision Making By Business Students 1. Consider why you do the right things on campus--who influences you? Why are they important to you? 2. What are the top-three university-based things (artifacts) that influence your ethical decision making as it relates to university life? Why does it influence you? 3. What top-three campus-related pressures influence your ethical decision-making as it relates to university life? a. Are they pressures that encourage you doing the right thing or do the wrong thing? b. Why? 4. What else to you think is important to mention about making everyday student ethical decisions? Why?