Attitudes Towards Business Ethics: A Five Nation Comparative Study
ABSTRACT. Increasingly the business environment is tending toward a global economy. The current study compares the results of the Attitudes Towards Business Ethics Questionnaire (ATBEQ) reported in the literature for samples from the United States of America, Israel, Western Australia, and South Africa to a new sample (n = 125) from Turkey. The results indicate that while there are some shared views towards business ethics across countries, significant differences do exist between Turkey and each of the other countries in the study. Similarities and differences are discussed in terms of the countries’ ratings on the Corruption Perceptions Index (as reported by the Internet Center for Corruption Research) and Hofstede’s Theory of International Cultures. Recommendations for managers interacting with employees from differing countries are provided. KEY WORDS: ATBEQ, business ethics, crosscultural
Randi L. Sims is currently an Associate Professor for Nova Southeastern University, located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She obtained her doctorate degree in Business Administration from Florida Atlantic University. Her teaching and research interests lie in the fields of ethical decision making, business ethics, organizational behavior, and academic dishonesty. A. Ercan Gegez is an Assistant Professor of Marketing and International Business at Marmara University in Istanbul, Turkey. Dr. Gegez holds an MBA and Ph.D. from Marmara University in the field of International Marketing. He is one of the founding members of the Turkish Marketing Association and he has served as a member of the supervisory board. His research interests include International Marketing, Marketing Research, and Marketing Ethics.
Randi L. Sims A. Ercan Gegez
1. Introduction Increasingly the business environment is tending toward a global economy. With this trend comes excitement, opportunity, and unfortunately potential for problems associated with differing attitudes and practices commonly encountered when interacting with cultures different from our own. These cross-cultural differences within the business environment are compounded when the topic of business ethics is considered. Attitudes toward business ethics may vary so greatly even within one culture that trying to come to a consensus across cultures can become nearly impossible. “Culture not only influences learning, but also impacts what is perceived as right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable, and ethical/unethical” (Lu et al., 1999, p. 92). In an attempt to further our understanding of business ethics across cultures, researchers have begun to gather information from as many different countries as possible. It is their, and our hope, that the sharing of cross-cultural ethics research will help managers and employees alike respond to crosscultural ethical differences with full understanding and respect. Whipple and Swords (1992) suggest that the results of cross-cultural ethics research “can be informative in the development of education and training programs for prospective business managers with diverse cultural backgrounds” (p. 671). “A better informed understanding of the ethics of individuals in their environments has relevance to management development issues” (Whipple and Swords, 1992, p. 676). The current study compares the results of the Attitudes Towards Business Ethics Questionnaire (ATBEQ) reported in the literature for samples
Journal of Business Ethics 50: 253–265, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
254
Randi L. Sims and A. Ercan Gegez
from the United States of America, Israel, Western Australia, and South Africa (see Moore and Radloff, 1996; Preble and Reichel, 1988; Small, 1992) to a new sample from Turkey. Although the ATBEQ was used with a Turkish sample in 1996 by Uslu, that study was mainly focused on gender differences on ethical perceptions and did not consider cross-cultural issues, the primary focus of this study. While there may be some commonly shared ethical values across cultures, research suggests that there are many differences across national cultures in regards to ethical beliefs and practices (Buller et al., 2000). Culture is often considered “one of the most important factors influencing ethical decision making” (Singhapakdi et al., 1994, p. 65). Kennedy and Lawton (1996) studied the reported willingness to engage in unethical business behavior for groups of business students from the Ukraine and the United States. Their results found that the Ukraine students indicated increased willingness to engage in unethical business behavior. Similarly, Okleshen and Hoyt (1996) studied the ethical perceptions of business students from the United States and New Zealand. They found that the U.S. students reported less tolerance for the unethical business behavior of fraud, coercion, and selfinterest. Using the ATBEQ, Preble and Reichel (1988) studied the ethical attitudes of business students in the United States of American and business students in Israel. Of the 30 ethical issues studied, their findings indicated that there were significant attitude differences between the U.S. and Israeli students for 19 of the items. For example, the Israeli students felt more strongly that “the only moral of business is making money,” “moral values are irrelevant to the business world,” and that “the business world has its own rules.” The U.S. students agreed more strongly that taking office supplies home doesn’t hurt anyone and that “true morality is first and foremost self-interested.” Building on Preble and Reichel’s (1988) work, Small (1992) questioned Western Australian students about their attitudes toward business ethics (also using the ATBEQ). Small found that
the attitudes of the Western Australian students were significantly different from the Israel students for 19 of the 30 items. Differences included Western Australian students reporting more agreement than the Israeli students that it is acceptable to cheat the automobile insurance company and less agreement that “the business world today is not different from what it used to be in the past. There is nothing new under the sun.” Small found that the attitudes of the Western Australian students were closer to those of the U.S. students with only 10 of the 30 items significantly different. These differences include stronger agreement by the Western Australian students that “moral values are irrelevant to the business world” and less agreement that “a person who is doing well in business does not have to worry about moral problems.” In furthering both Small’s (1992) and Preble and Reichel’s (1988) work using the ATBEQ to study cross-cultural differences in student attitudes towards business ethics, Moore and Radloff (1996) added a South African student group. The South African student views were closest to the Western Australian students, with 8 of the 30 items significantly different. For example, the South African students agreed more strongly than the Western Australian students that “business decisions involve a realistic economic attitude and not a moral philosophy.” The South African students differed significantly from the United States students on 13 of the 30 items. One significant difference was where the South African students more strongly agreed that “selfsacrifice is immoral.” The business ethics attitudes of the South African students were most different from the Israeli student attitudes with significant differences found for 17 of the 30 items measured. These differences included lower levels of agreement by the South African students for “a good business person is a successful business person” and “business ethics is a concept for public relations only.” By studying the moral judgments of Chinese and American Managers, Ford et al. (1997) found that the moral judgments of Chinese managers were significantly more dependent on group norms than were the American managers. They concluded that the difference in the collectivism
Attitudes Towards Business Ethics of the cultures is expected to impact the ethical decision making of the managers. Jackson and Artola (1997) compared the ethical beliefs of managers from France, Germany, the United States, and Israel. Their findings suggest that reported ethical beliefs varied by country. For example, managers from France and Israel reported that they believe that “accepting gifts/favours in exchange for preferential treatment” is more unethical than the reported belief of the Germany and United States managers. The research summarized above has repeatedly suggested that there are many cross-cultural differences when it comes to ethical business attitudes, decisions, and practices. “Moral commitment seems to be rooted in the cultural background of the individual” (Vasques-Parraga and Kara, 1995, p. 66). As such, the following hypotheses are proposed. H1: Significant differences in reported attitudes toward business ethics exist between respondents from Turkey and the United States of America. H2: Significant differences in reported attitudes toward business ethics exist between respondents from Turkey and Israel. H3: Significant differences in reported attitudes toward business ethics exist between respondents from Turkey and Western Australia. H4: Significant differences in reported attitudes toward business ethics exist between respondents from Turkey and South Africa. In order to understand more clearly the cultural climate of the five countries within this study, Hofstede’s theory of International Cultures and the countries’ ratings on the Corruption Perceptions Index (as reported by the Internet Center for Corruption Research) have been included as background material.
255
2. Hofstede’s theory of international cultures Hofstede (1997) theorizes that there are four dimensions that describe the cultures that make up our world. These dimensions are power distance, collectivism versus individualism, femininity versus masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. Power distance describes “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (p. 28). Lower scores are an indication of low power distance cultures and higher scores are an indication of high power distance cultures. In low power distance cultures, individuals feel that “inequalities among people should be minimized” (p. 37) and in large power distance cultures obedience to authority is expected. Turkey scored 66 on the power distance dimension, this is a rank of 18. The United States scored 40, with a rank of 38; Israel scored 13, with a rank of 52 (only one country scored lower than Israel on the power distance dimension); Australia scored 36, with a rank of 41; and South Africa scored 49, with a rank of 36. Turkey is considered a moderately large power distance culture, the U.S., Australia, and South Africa are all considered moderate power distance cultures, and Israel is considered a low power distance culture (Hofstede, 1997). The collectivism versus individualism dimension has a two part definition. Individualism describes cultures with loose ties between individuals. People are expected to look out for him/herself and immediate family only. Collectivism describes cultures with strong ties between individuals. People are members of cohesive groups which offer protection and demand loyalty. In collectivist cultures, harmony should be maintained and confrontations avoided. In individualistic cultures, people feel free to speak their minds and are often considered honest for doing so (Hofstede, 1997). Turkey scored 37 on the collectivism versus individualism dimension, this is a rank of 28. The United States scored 91, with a rank of 1 (the highest scoring country for this dimension); Israel scored 54, with a rank of 19; Australia scored 90,
256
Randi L. Sims and A. Ercan Gegez
with a rank of 2; and South Africa scored 65, with a rank of 16. The U.S. and Australia are considered highly individualistic cultures, Israel and South Africa are considered moderately individualistic, and Turkey is considered a moderately collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1997). The femininity versus masculinity dimension is defined in two parts. Femininity refers to cultures “in which social gender roles overlap” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 82). In masculine cultures, “gender roles are clearly distinct. Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (p. 82). In feminine cultures, “both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (p. 83). Turkey scored 45 on the femininity versus masculinity dimension, this is a rank of 32. The United States scored 62, with a rank of 15; Israel scored 47, with a rank of 29; Australia scored 61, with a rank of 16; and South Africa scored 63, with a rank of 14. The U.S., Australia, and South Africa are all considered moderately masculine cultures, Israel and Turkey are considered moderately feminine cultures (Hofstede, 1997). Uncertainty avoidance is “defined as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 113). Lower scores are an indication of weak levels of uncertainty avoidance and higher scores are an indication of strong levels of uncertainty avoidance. In weak uncertainty avoidance cultures deviant and innovative ideas and behavior are tolerated. In strong uncertainty avoidance cultures there is an “emotional need for rules” (p. 125). Turkey scored 85 on the uncertainty avoidance dimension, this is a rank of 16. The United States scored 46, with a rank of 43; Israel scored 81, with a rank of 19; Australia scored 51, with a rank of 37; and South Africa scored 49, with a rank of 39. Turkey and Israel are considered strong uncertainty avoidance cultures, while the U.S., Australia, and South Africa are all considered moderate on this dimension (Hofstede, 1997).
3. Corruption perceptions index The Internet Center for Corruption Research gathers survey data on the perception “of the degree of corruption as seen by business people, risk analysts and the general public” (Internet Center, 2001, p. 1). The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranges from a high of 10 points for a country considered “highly clean,” to a low of 0 for a country considered “highly corrupt.” While the Center considers as many as 16 surveys for each country, a minimum of 3 surveys are needed before a country will be included in the CPI report. A total of 90 countries were included in the 2000 CPI (the latest year available; Internet Center, 2001). The CPI for each of the five countries included in this study were considered as a possible explanation for the differences in reported attitudes towards business ethics. Turkey scored the lowest of the five countries on the CPI with a score of 3.8. The United States of America scored 7.8, Israel scored 6.6, Australia scored 8.3, and South Africa scored 5.0 (Internet Center, 2001, pp. 1–2).
4. Method 4.1. Subjects Using a convenience sampling technique, 125 graduate students (enrolled in master’s and doctorate level programs in marketing or one of the general business disciplines) who were all working full-time were selected for participation. The sample included 71 male (57%) and 54 female (43%) respondents with an average age of 28 years and 4 1/2 years of employment in their current position.
4.2. Measures A 30-item Attitude Towards Business Ethics (ATBEQ) scale (Neumann and Reichel, 1987 as cited in Preble and Reichel, 1988) was used to gather employee attitudes towards business ethics. The ATBEQ is scored on a five-point scale
Attitudes Towards Business Ethics ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.” Sample items include “The business world has its own rules” and “Self-sacrifice is immoral.” See Table I for each of the 30 items.
4.3. Procedures The ATBEQ was translated and back translated (independently) into Turkish by two research
257
associates. Minor editing was completed following the translations. The surveys were distributed by five research associates to small groups of students during class time. A cover-letter was including explaining that the intent of the study was to gather employee attitudes towards business ethics and that their participation was voluntary. No incentives were provided for participation. Students returned their completed surveys directly to the research associate present.
TABLE I Turkish attitudes towards business ethics: Descriptive statistics Question
Mean
Standard deviation
n
01. The only moral of business is making money. 02. A person who is doing well in business does not have to worry about moral problems. 03. Every business person acts according to moral principles, whether he/she is aware of it or not. 04. Act according to the law, and you can’t go wrong morally. 05. Ethics in business is basically an adjustment between expectations and the way people behave. 06. Business decisions involve a realistic economic attitude and not a moral philosophy. 07. Moral values are irrelevant to the business world. 08. The lack of public confidence in the ethics of business people is not justified. 09. “Business Ethics” is a concept for public relations only. 10. The business world today is not different from what it used to be in the past. There is nothing new under the sun. 11. Competitiveness and profitability are independent values (existing on their own). 12. Conditions of free economy will serve best the needs of society. Limiting competition can only hurt society and actually violates basic natural laws. 13. As a consumer, when making a car insurance claim, I try to get as much as possible regardless of the damage. 14. While shopping at the supermarket, it is appropriate to switch price tags or packages. 15. As an employee, I take office supplies home; it doesn’t hurt anyone. 16. I view sick days as vacation days that I deserve. 17. Employee wages should be determined according to the laws of supply and demand.
2.15
1.28
125
2.05
1.16
125
2.82 2.48
1.19 1.15
25 125
3.41
0.93
124
2.65 2.12
1.10 1.12
124 124
2.97 1.75
1.06 1.01
123 125
1.97
1.20
121
2.20
1.20
3.45
1.18
124
2.71
1.46
125
1.37 1.57 1.91
0.98 0.85 1.20
125 125 125
2.90
1.37
124
258
Randi L. Sims and A. Ercan Gegez TABLE I (Continued)
Question
18. The main interest of shareholders is maximum return on their investment. 19. George X says of himself. “I work long, hard hours and do a good job, but it seems to me that other people are progressing faster. But I know my efforts will pay off in the end.” Yes, George works hard, but he’s not realistic. 20. For every decision in business the only question I ask is, “Will it be profitable?” If yes – I will act according; if not it is irrelevant and a waste of time. 21. In my grocery store every week I raise the price of a certain product and mark it “on sale.” There is nothing wrong with doing this. 22. A business person can’t afford to get hung up on details. 23. If you want a specific goal, you have got to take the necessary means to achieve it. 24. The business world has its own rules. 25. A good business person is a successful business person. 26. I would rather have truth and personal responsibility than unconditional love and belongingness. 27. True morality is first and foremost self-interested. 28. Self-sacrifice is immoral. 29. You can judge a person according to his/her work and decisions. 30. You should not consume more than you produce.
Mean
Standard deviation
n
3.80
1.01
124
2.99
1.19
125
2.71
1.26
125
1.54 3.64
0.97 1.39
125 125
3.98 4.11 3.10
1.18 1.04 1.24
122 121 123
3.15 4.12 1.88 3.44 3.88
1.18 1.07 1.13 1.14 1.20
124 125 125 124 125
4.4. Analysis
4.5. Results
This study relied on secondary data for the respondent attitudes towards business ethics from the United States of America (Preble and Reichel, 1988), Israel (Preble and Reichel, 1988), Western Australia (Small, 1992), and South Africa (Moore and Radloff, 1996). Ideally ANOVA or MANOVA would have been the statistical methods of choice, however, the statistical analysis was limited by the data reported in the literature (mean, standard deviation, and sample size). As such, t-tests of two means were used to compare the Turkish respondent attitudes towards business ethics for the 30 items collected to each of the attitude measures reported for the comparison countries. Differences were tested at the 0.05 probability level.
Descriptive statistics for each of the 30 items collected from the Turkish respondents are displayed in Table I. Hypothesis one proposed that there would be significant differences in reported attitudes toward business ethics between respondents from Turkey and the United States of America. The results of the t-tests of two means indicate that, on average, Turkish respondents reported significantly greater levels of agreement for items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 30 and significantly lower levels of agreement for items 15, 16, and 21 (see Table II). Given that there were significant differences in reported attitudes towards business ethics for 14 of the 30 ATBEQ items, hypothesis one is accepted. Thus, it is
Attitudes Towards Business Ethics
259
TABLE II t-tests for ATBEQ. Turkey and United States of Americaa Question
a
Turkey n = 125
U.S. n = 129
t-value
df
p
mean
s.d.
mean
s.d.
01 02 03 04 05
2.15 2.05 2.82 2.48 3.41
1.28 1.16 1.19 1.15 0.93
1.90 1.60 2.90 1.90 3.00
0.860 0.692 1.141 0.641 0.741
01.8214 03.7400 –0.5466 04.9435 03.8784
252 252 252 252 252
0.06973 0.00023 0.58514 0.00000 0.00013
06 07 08 09 10
2.65 2.12 2.97 1.75 1.97
1.10 1.12 1.06 1.01 1.20
2.40 1.40 2.50 1.80 1.90
0.933 0.531 0.848 0.570 0.971
01.9505 06.5130 03.8947 –0.4838 00.5101
252 252 252 252 252
0.05223 0.00000 0.00013 0.62895 0.61043
11 12 13 14 15
2.20 3.45 2.71 1.37 1.57
1.20 1.18 1.46 0.98 0.85
2.30 3.20 3.00 1.50 2.20
1.047 1.210 1.176 0.719 0.912
–0.7068 01.6671 –1.7401 –1.2023 –5.6973
252 252 252 252 252
0.48034 0.09674 0.08306 0.23038 0.00000
16 17 18 19 20
1.91 2.90 3.80 2.99 2.71
1.20 1.37 1.01 1.19 1.26
2.30 2.90 4.00 3.00 2.00
0.877 1.060 0.789 0.935 0.951
–2.9496 00.0000 –1.7550 –0.0743 05.0570
252 252 252 252 252
0.00348 1.00000 0.08047 0.94083 0.00000
21 22 23 24 25
1.54 3.64 3.98 4.11 3.10
0.97 1.39 1.18 1.04 1.24
2.00 2.40 3.60 3.30 3.00
0.951 0.974 0.977 0.980 1.068
–3.8151 08.2101 02.7909 06.3841 00.6877
252 252 252 252 252
0.00017 0.00000 0.00566 0.00000 0.49227
26 27 28 29 30
3.15 4.12 1.88 3.44 3.88
1.18 1.07 1.13 1.14 1.20
3.40 2.70 2.10 3.30 2.70
0.911 1.089 0.839 1.106 0.935
–1.8859 10.4819 –1.7574 00.9930 08.7235
252 252 252 252 252
0.06046 0.00000 0.08006 0.32166 0.00000
See Preble and Reichel (1988).
concluded that reported attitudes toward business ethics between respondents from Turkey and the United States of America differ. Hypothesis two proposed that there would be significant differences in reported attitudes toward business ethics between respondents from Turkey and Israel. The results of the t-tests of two means indicate that, on average, Turkish respondents reported significantly greater levels of agreement for items 3, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 30 and signifi-
cantly lower levels of agreement for items 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 20, 25, and 28 (see Table III). Given that there were significant differences in reported attitudes towards business ethics for 15 of the 30 ATBEQ items, hypothesis two is accepted. Thus, it is concluded that reported attitudes toward business ethics between respondents from Turkey and Israel differ. Hypothesis three proposed that there would be significant differences in reported attitudes toward
260
Randi L. Sims and A. Ercan Gegez TABLE III t-tests for ATBEQ. Turkey and Israela
Question
a
Turkey n = 125
Israel n =150
t-value
df
p
mean
s.d.
mean
s.d.
01 02 03 04 05
2.15 2.05 2.82 2.48 3.41
1.28 1.16 1.19 1.15 0.93
2.80 1.80 2.50 2.70 3.20
1.289 1.480 1.163 1.164 1.109
–4.1797 01.5696 02.2434 –1.5709 01.7079
273 273 273 273 273
0.00004 0.11767 0.02567 0.11736 0.08879
06 07 08 09 10
2.65 2.12 2.97 1.75 1.97
1.10 1.12 1.06 1.01 1.20
3.60 2.40 2.90 2.80 3.30
1.184 1.300 0.995 1.254 1.354
–6.8874 –1.9184 00.5606 –7.6898 –8.6316
273 273 273 273 273
0.00000 0.05610 0.57553 0.00000 0.00000
11 12 13 14 15
2.20 3.45 2.71 1.37 1.57
1.20 1.18 1.46 0.98 0.85
3.40 3.60 2.90 1.60 1.50
1.332 1.309 1.354 1.147 1.037
–7.8533 –0.9986 –1.1105 –1.7931 00.6151
273 273 273 273 273
0.00000 0.31887 0.26776 0.07406 0.53900
16 17 18 19 20
1.91 2.90 3.80 2.99 2.71
1.20 1.37 1.01 1.19 1.26
2.50 2.90 4.00 3.00 3.40
1.549 1.492 1.170 1.288 1.338
–3.5568 00.0000 –1.5212 –0.0668 –4.3961
273 273 273 273 273
0.00044 1.00000 0.12937 0.94679 0.00002
21 22 23 24 25
1.54 3.64 3.98 4.11 3.10
0.97 1.39 1.18 1.04 1.24
1.80 2.50 2.70 3.60 3.50
1.239 1.241 1.382 1.163 1.262
–1.9509 07.1078 08.2845 03.8367 –2.6422
273 273 273 273 273
0.05209 0.00000 0.00000 0.00015 0.00871
26 27 28 29 30
3.15 4.12 1.88 3.44 3.88
1.18 1.07 1.13 1.14 1.20
3.30 2.50 2.50 3.60 3.20
1.264 1.339 1.185 1.111 1.473
–1.0161 11.1494 –4.4312 –1.1724 04.2184
273 273 273 273 273
0.31048 0.00000 0.00001 0.24206 0.00003
See Preble and Reichel (1988).
business ethics between respondents from Turkey and Western Australia. The results of the t-tests of two means indicate that, on average, Turkish respondents reported significantly greater levels of agreement for items 2, 5, 7, 8, 17, 22, 24, 27, and 30 and significantly lower levels of agreement for items 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, and 28 (see Table IV). Given that there were significant differences in reported attitudes towards business ethics for 15 of the 30 ATBEQ items, hypoth-
esis three is accepted. Thus, it is concluded that reported attitudes toward business ethics between respondents from Turkey and Western Australia differ. Hypothesis four proposed that there would be significant differences in reported attitudes toward business ethics between respondents from Turkey and South Africa. The results of the t-tests of two means indicate that, on average, Turkish respondents reported significantly greater levels of
Attitudes Towards Business Ethics
261
TABLE IV t-tests for ATBEQ. Turkey and West Australiaa Question
a
Turkey n = 125
W. Australia n =112
t-value
df
p
mean
s.d.
mean
s.d.
01 02 03 04 05
2.15 2.05 2.82 2.48 3.41
1.28 1.16 1.19 1.15 0.93
2.393 1.393 2.860 2.220 3.150
1.318 0.575 1.210 0.877 0.774
–1.4365 05.6097 –0.2561 01.9684 02.3474
235 235 235 235 235
0.15219 0.00000 0.79810 0.05020 0.01974
06 07 08 09 10
2.65 2.12 2.97 1.75 1.97
1.10 1.12 1.06 1.01 1.20
2.700 1.590 2.530 1.860 2.009
1.110 0.731 0.829 0.777 1.086
–0.3477 04.3556 03.5777 –0.9449 –0.2626
235 235 235 235 235
0.72838 0.00002 0.00042 0.34568 0.79309
11 12 13 14 15
2.20 3.45 2.71 1.37 1.57
1.20 1.18 1.46 0.98 0.85
2.509 3.180 3.223 1.540 2.450
1.150 1.114 1.220 0.793 1.080
–2.0231 01.8113 –2.9451 –1.4742 –6.9152
235 235 235 235 235
0.04420 0.07137 0.00355 0.14177 0.00000
16 17 18 19 20
1.91 2.90 3.80 2.99 2.71
1.20 1.37 1.01 1.19 1.26
2.140 2.520 4.062 3.160 2.730
0.976 1.301 0.971 1.119 1.322
–1.6253 02.1893 –2.0348 –1.1331 –0.1189
235 235 235 235 235
0.10544 0.02956 0.04299 0.25833 0.90546
21 22 23 24 25
1.54 3.64 3.98 4.11 3.10
0.97 1.39 1.18 1.04 1.24
2.000 2.741 4.000 3.441 2.980
0.959 1.121 1.004 1.165 1.139
–3.6667 05.5042 –0.1409 04.6419 00.7765
235 235 235 235 235
0.00030 0.00000 0.88807 0.00001 0.43823
26 27 28 29 30
3.15 4.12 1.88 3.44 3.88
1.18 1.07 1.13 1.14 1.20
3.196 2.712 2.223 3.357 2.991
0.976 1.004 0.917 1.140 1.116
–0.3282 10.4485 –2.5765 00.5596 05.9083
235 235 235 235 235
0.74305 0.00000 0.01059 0.57629 0.00000
See Small (1992).
agreement for items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 22, 24, 27, and 30 and significantly lower levels of agreement for items 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 21, and 28 (see Table V). Given that there were significant differences in reported attitudes towards business ethics for 16 of the 30 ATBEQ items, hypothesis four is accepted. Thus, it is concluded that reported attitudes toward business ethics between respondents from Turkey and South Africa differ.
5. Discussion
The results support the hypotheses that there would be significant differences in reported attitudes towards business ethics for respondents from Turkey and the United States of America and Western Australia. Many of these differences were related to the general opinion of the respondents that in some way the business world was governed by different rules which do not
262
Randi L. Sims and A. Ercan Gegez TABLE V t-tests for ATBEQ. Turkey and South Africaa
Question
a
Turkey n = 125
S. Africa n = 379
t-value
df
p
mean
s.d.
mean
s.d.
01 02 03 04 05
2.15 2.05 2.82 2.48 3.41
1.28 1.16 1.19 1.15 0.93
2.308 1.683 2.968 2.089 3.077
1.288 0.656 1.205 0.743 0.583
–1.1949 03.3642 –1.2020 03.5639 03.7666
502 502 502 502 502
0.23269 0.00083 0.22993 0.00040 0.00019
06 07 08 09 10
2.65 2.12 2.97 1.75 1.97
1.10 1.12 1.06 1.01 1.20
3.092 1.759 2.729 1.989 1.978
1.136 0.627 0.979 0.777 1.052
–3.8640 03.4307 02.2456 –2.4200 –0.0666
502 502 502 502 502
0.00013 0.00065 0.02516 0.01587 0.94693
11 12 13 14 15
2.20 3.45 2.71 1.37 1.57
1.20 1.18 1.46 0.98 0.85
2.258 3.596 3.306 1.604 2.149
1.007 1.323 1.369 0.927 0.961
–0.4868 –1.1631 –4.0184 –2.3458 –6.3875
502 502 502 502 502
0.62661 0.24534 0.00007 0.01937 0.00000
16 17 18 19 20
1.91 2.90 3.80 2.99 2.71
1.20 1.37 1.01 1.19 1.26
2.122 2.702 3.947 3.169 2.550
1.051 1.383 0.962 0.996 1.330
–1.7646 01.3979 –1.4276 –1.5157 01.2141
502 502 502 502 502
0.07824 0.16276 0.15403 0.13022 0.22528
21 22 23 24 25
1.54 3.64 3.98 4.11 3.10
0.97 1.39 1.18 1.04 1.24
2.068 2.484 3.854 3.440 3.116
1.162 1.082 1.087 1.140 1.177
–5.0138 08.4886 01.0553 06.0955 –0.1267
502 502 502 502 502
0.00000 0.00000 0.29180 0.00000 0.89923
26 27 28 29 30
3.15 4.12 1.88 3.44 3.88
1.18 1.07 1.13 1.14 1.20
3.238 2.994 2.357 3.294 2.981
1.179 1.072 0.845 1.266 1.323
–0.7232 10.1979 –4.3365 01.2072 07.0767
502 502 502 502 502
0.46989 0.00000 0.00002 0.22792 0.00000
See Moore and Radloff (1996).
include morality. Items such as “a person who is doing well in business does not have to worry about moral problems,” “moral problems are irrelevant to the business world,” “a business person can’t afford to get hung up on details,” and “the business world has its own rules.” For each of these items, the respondents from Turkey agreed more strongly than did the respondents from the United States and Western Australia. These differences may be due, in part, to the
general business climate in Turkey. Turkey scored much lower on the corruption perception index than did the United States and Western Australia (3.8 versus 7.8 and 8.3; Internet Center, 2001). It appears that the overall impression of business practices as reported both by the CPI survey and the ATBEQ is that ethics are not as strong a component of the business environment for Turkey as they are for the United States and for Western Australia.
Attitudes Towards Business Ethics As a moderately collective culture, business practices in Turkey may be such that employees and ordinary citizens are unwilling to confront questionable business practices because doing so would lead to unpleasant results. Collective cultures strive towards harmony. Change, even for the better – as would be seen with stronger ethical expectations of businesses – does not come without confrontation and conflict. The collectivistic culture of Turkey may also help to explain why the Turkish respondents reported lower levels of agreement than did the respondents from the United States for items 15, 16, and 21 and lower levels of agreement than did respondents from Western Australia for items 13, 15, and 21. Each of these items is concerned with relationships among people. Item 13 relates to the relationship between the consumer and insurance company. Items 15 and 16 relate to the relationship between the employee and the organization and item 20 relates to the relationship between the company and its customers. As members of individualistic cultures, the ties between individuals in the United States and Western Australia are very weak. In individualistic cultures, people look out for themselves first. This priority on self-interest can be seen in the significantly higher level of agreement (as compared to the level of agreement for the respondents from Turkey) to those items relating to petty theft (taking office supplies, misusing sick leave benefits), the cheating of the insurance company (inflated claim of damage), and to the cheating of customers (phony sales prices). These behaviors have a relatively low risk of negative consequences, yet provide immediate, short-term benefit to the individual. Since collective cultures demand loyalty between members of cohesive groups, it is reasonable that respondents from Turkey are more likely to demonstrate this loyalty by treating others more fairly in their business relationships, either as employees, customers, or as organizations dealing with the consumer. Likewise, as less individualistic cultures, respondents from Israel and South Africa also responded with less agreement for these items which related to the violation of trust and/or honesty between people. Like with the respondents from Turkey, this is an indication that
263
cultures which are less individualistic may place more importance in maintaining honest interpersonal relationships. The results of this study also indicate that the Turkish respondents reported higher levels of agreement with item 8 “the lack of public confidence in the ethics of business people is not justified” than did the respondents from the United States, Western Australia, and South Africa, but similar levels of agreement for the respondents from Israel. Since this item is negatively worded, agreement is an indication that, on average, the Turkish respondents feel that the poor reputation of businesses is not deserved. This is a direct contradiction of the CPI index reported by the Internet Center for Corruption Index. It is their finding that Turkey scores much lower on the CPI than does the United States and Western Australia, and slightly lower than does South Africa . This is an indication that “business people, risk analysts and the general public” believe that Turkey is a relatively corrupt country (Internet Center, 2001, p. 1). It may be that the CPI is a measure of government and businesses and not businesses alone. It may also be that the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance plays a part in the respondent’s view that the poor reputation of the business world is unjustified. Similar views were reported by the respondents from Israel. They too felt more strongly that the poor reputation of the business world is unjustified. Both Turkey and Israel are considered strong uncertainty avoidance cultures. In strong uncertainty avoidance cultures, rules, even when they do not work, are strongly defended (Hofstede, 1997). After all, in the strong uncertainty avoidance culture, an ineffective rule is better than no rule at all. Higher levels of agreement that the business world is unfairly judged, may be an indication that the respondents from Turkey and Israel feel the need to defend the practices of their businesses. Nevertheless, this is an area which would benefit from future research. Turkey and Israel are considered moderately feminine cultures and the United States, Australia, and South Africa are considered moderately masculine cultures. In masculine cultures, greater emphasis is placed on material success.
264
Randi L. Sims and A. Ercan Gegez
Yet, the results show no consistent differences between these two groups of countries for those items which fit into this area (for the most part, items 1, 6, 18, 20 emphasize material success). Even as a moderately feminine culture, Israel scored significantly higher (placing more emphasis on material success) than did Turkey on items 1, 6, and 20. The results indicate that the respondents from South Africa and Western Australia only scored significantly higher than Turkey on one item each “Business decisions involve a realistic economic attitude and not a moral philosophy” and “The main interest of shareholders is maximum return on their investment.” The respondents from the United States did not report higher scores than the respondents from Turkey on any of the four items. Actually, Turkish respondents reported higher levels of agreement than did the United States for item 20, “For every decision in business the only question I ask is, ‘Will it be profitiable?’ If yes, I will act according; if not it is irrelevant and a waste of time.” Failure of the cultural dimension of femininity versus masculinity to help explain the differences between the five countries in the sample is disappointing. It may be that the four items in the survey which measure material success are not adequate or it may be that there is not enough difference between moderately masculine and moderately feminine cultures in regards to such types of questions. Future research may want to consider gathering attitudes towards business ethics from strongly masculine and strongly feminine cultures to help better uncover differences which may be explained by this cultural dimension. Although this study is not without limitations, respondents who are employees as well as graduate students and the use of secondary data which limits the statistical testing, the results do offer some interesting points. As researchers continue to collect information concerning the ethical opinions of business people from varying countries, our understanding of these cultural differences increases. “Cross-cultural studies in [ethics] . . . contribute to making the field know . . . and reduce misunderstandings or false assumptions, which often [are] at the root of unethical conduct” (Grunhaum, 1997, p. 460).
Overall, the results of this study offer insight into the differing attitudes towards business ethics for respondents from these five countries. Managers and employees working with individuals from differing cultural backgrounds may be faced with attitudes towards business ethics which differ from their own. These attitudes may not be transparent, instead only surfacing when a situation warrants an ethical decision. It may be too late after the decision has been made to come to agreement upon the best course of action concerning the ethical dilemma faced. The traditional course of action for an ethical issue in one country may be quite different from the common practice in another country. Unless these differences are discussed before the dilemma presents itself, conflict between people is likely to occur. “Cultural diversity and different perceptions of right and wrong will create ethical conflict” (Ferrell, 1999, p. 226). Instead, it would make better business sense to discuss ethical issues and the company’s expectations when it comes to ethical decision making before the ethical dilemma is faced. In this way, employees from varying cultures will all learn a similar means of handling the inevitable ethical dilemmas that arise. While research has suggested that formal written policies which are designed to govern ethical behavior within corporations are not always effective (Sims and Keenan, 1998; Sims and Keon, 1999), the more informal discussions which can take place between coworkers and supervisors may help forge common ethical attitudes and actions among employees no matter their country of origin or cultural background. In addition, ethics training programs that include situational-type exercises and role playing can also generate understanding and respect for differences in attitudes towards business ethics. References Buller, P. F., J. J. Kohls and K. S. Anderson: 2000, ‘When Ethics Collide: Managing Conflict across Cultures’, Organizational Dynamics 28(4), 52–66. Ferrell, O. C.: 1999, ‘As Assessment of the Proposed Academy of Marketing Science Code of Ethics for Marketing Educators’, Journal of Business Ethics 19(2), 225–228.
Attitudes Towards Business Ethics Ford, J. B., M. S. LaTour, S. J. Vitell and W. A. French: 1997, ‘Moral Judgment and Market Negotiations: A Comparison of Chinese and American Managers’, Journal of International Marketing 5(2), 57–76. Grunbaum, L.: 1997, ‘Attitudes of Future Managers towards Business Ethics: A comparison of Finnish and American Business Students’, Journal of Business Ethics 16(4), 451–463. Hofstede, G.: 1997, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (McGraw-Hill, New York). Internet Center for Corruption Research: 2001, July 19, The 2000 Corruption Perceptions Index. www.gwdg.de/~uwvw/2000Data.html Jackson, T. and M. C. Artola: 1997, ‘Ethical Beliefs and Management Behaviour: A Cross-Cultural Comparison’, Journal of Business Ethics 16(11), 1163–1173. Kennedy, E. J. and L. Lawton: 1996, ‘The Effects of Social and Moral Integration on Ethical Standards: A Comparison of American and Ukrainian Business Students’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(8), 901–911. Lu, L., G. M. Rose and J. G. Blodgett: 1999, ‘The Effects of Cultural Dimensions on Ethical Decision Making in Marketing: An Exploratory Study’, Journal of Business Ethics 18, 91–105. Lund, D. B.: 2000, ‘An Empirical Examination of Marketing Professional’s Ethical Behavior in Differing Situations’, Journal of Business Ethics 24, 331–342. Moore, R. S. and S. E. Radloff: 1996, ‘Attitudes Towards Business Ethics Held by South African Students’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 863–869. Okleshen, M. and R. Hoyt: 1996, ‘A Cross Cultural Comparison of Ethical Perspectives and Decision Approaches of Business Students: United States of America Versus New Zealand’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(5), 537–549. Preble, J. F. and A. Reichel: 1988, ‘Attitudes Towards Business Ethics of Future Managers in the U.S. and Israel’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 941–949. Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell and O. Leelakulthanit:
265
1994, ‘A Cross-Cultural Study of Moral Philosophies, Ethical Perceptions and Judgements: A Comparison of American and Thai Marketers’, International Marketing Review 11(6), 65–78. Sims, R. L. and J. P. Keenan: 1998, ‘Predictors of External Whistleblowing: Organizational and Intrapersonal Variables’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(4), 411–421. Sims, R. L. and T. L. Keon: 1999, ‘Determinants of Ethical Decision Making: The Relationship of the Perceived Organizational Environment’, Journal of Business Ethics 19(4), 393–401. Small, M. W.: 1992, ‘Attitudes Towards Business Ethics held by Western Australian Students: A Comparative study’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 745–752. Uslu, A. T.: 1996, ‘Isletme ogrencilerinin is ahlakina yonelik tutum ve davranislari’, Oneri, M.U. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi Cilt 1(Sayi 5), 35–40. Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z. A. Kara: 1995, ‘Ethical Decision Making in Turkish Sales Management’, Journal of Euro-Marketing 4(2), 61–86. Whipple, T. W. and D. F. Swords: 1992, ‘Business Ethics Judgments: A Cross-Cultural Comparison’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 671–678.
Randi L. Sims Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Parker 233, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, U.S.A. A. Ercan Gegez Marmara University, Department of Business Administration, Ressam Namik Ismail Sokak, No. 1A Blok, 34590 Bahcelievler, Istanbul, Turkey.
