ArticlesOn November 27, the president signed the Whistleblower
Protection Enhancement Act Source: Issues in Science and
Technology. 29.2 (Winter 2013): p25. From Academic OneFile.
Document Type: Brief article
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2013 National Academy of Sciences
http://www.issues.org Full Text:* On November 27, the president
signed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which protects
government employees from retaliation when disclosing evidence of
gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority
within the government. Of interest to the research community, the
legislation includes language that protects against censorship
related to research, including efforts "to distort, misrepresent,
or suppress research, analysis, or technical information." * An
effort to pass cybersecurity legislation failed, after Republican
leaders objected because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
would not allow an open amendment process. The Senate also failed
to pass cybersecurity legislation in August. At that time,
Republicans were concerned that mandatory security standards in the
bill would put unnecessary burdens on the private sector. Source
Citation (MLA 7th Edition) "On November 27, the president signed
the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act." Issues in Science
and Technology 29.2 (2013): 25. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar.
2013.Document
URLhttp://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA319229564&v=2.1&u=cclc_trade&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
Gale Document Number: GALE|A319229564
Back to Search ResultsPrevious1 2 3 4 5 6 NextSave this
document
Results for Basic Search Keyword (retaliation for
whistleblowers) LIMITS: With Full Text Title: Retaliation for
whistleblowing is on the rise Author(s): Curtis C. Verschoor
Source: Strategic Finance. 94.5 (Nov. 2012): p13. From Academic
OneFile. Document Type: Article Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2012 Institute
of Management Accountants http://www.imanet.org Full Text:Many
favorable outcomes have resulted from the courageous actions of
whistleblowers. Examples include the disclosures revealing the
efforts of tobacco companies to get smokers hooked on nicotine,
UBS's massive efforts to help U.S. taxpayers evade federal income
taxes, and drug giant Pfizer's illegal marketing efforts that
resulted in $2.3 billion of criminal and civil penalties.
Unfortunately, those blowing the whistle on such events are likely
to face the painful cost of retaliation. The provisions of the
Dodd-Frank Act that were enacted to encourage whistleblowers and
protect them from retaliation are still being adjudicated in the
court system. One recent case is Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp., Case
No. 3:11-cv-01424-SRU (D. Conn. September 25, 2012). The result was
encouraging for whistleblowers. The U.S. District Court for
Connecticut held that a whistleblower may pursue claims under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) as well as Dodd-Frank. The court also
ruled that a whistleblower doesn't have to report a tip to the SEC
in the manner prescribed by the SEC in order to qualify as a
whistleblower under Dodd-Frank. Instead, the individual only must
allege that he or she had a reasonable belief that the information
relates to a possible violation of securities laws. Though the
courts continue to address the Dodd-Frank provisions, a report
issued September 4, 2012, by the Ethics Resource Center (ERC)
highlights the need for greater protection for whistleblowers.
Titled Retaliation: When Whistleblowers Become Victims, the report
details the practices of reporting illegal and unethical conduct in
U.S. companies. Retaliation analyzes data obtained in the 2011
National Business Ethics Survey (NBES), conducted before the
protections of Dodd-Frank became effective. The NBES survey
interviewed U.S. employees at all levels working at least 20 hours
per week in the for-profit sector. Data was weighted for gender,
age, and education. (The NBES study was covered in the April 2012
column, "New Survey of Workplace Ethics Shows Surprising Results.")
Retaliation analyzes data obtained in the 2011 National Business
Ethics Survey (NBES), conducted before the protections of
Dodd-Frank became effective. The NBES survey interviewed U.S.
employees at all levels working at least 20 hours per week in the
for-profit sector. Data was weighted for gender, age, and
education. (The NBES study was covered in the April 2012 column,
"New Survey of Workplace Ethics Shows Surprising Results.")
According to ERC's Retaliation report, retaliation against
work-place whistleblowers is now extending to previously safe
groups such as senior managers and is involving more acts of
physical violence. "Addressing workplace retaliation should be a
high priority for business leaders," ERC President Patricia J.
Harned said. "When an employee experiences retaliation for
reporting misconduct, companies have two new problems. A second
form of misconduct has been observed, and the reporter is now a
victim. Additionally, retaliation can create an environment that is
cancerous to the organization." The rate of retaliation against
whistleblowers is increasing far more quickly than the rate of
people reporting misdoing. Since 2007, the rate of reporting
misconduct, or whistleblowing, has increased from 58% of those who
observe improper behavior to 65%. Of the reporting group, the rate
of employees experiencing retaliation increased from 12% in 2007 to
22% in 2011. Among the unfavorable side effects of retaliation is
the dampening of motivation for future whistleblowers and the
increased risk that unreported wrongdoing will continue and expand
because management has no opportunity to take corrective action.
Perhaps the most surprising findings set forth in Retaliation
involve the striking increases in specific types of retaliatory
acts--particularly those related to managerial employees. In the
past two years alone, traceable retaliation (those that leave proof
of having happened, such as physical harm, online harassment,
harassment at home, job shift, demotion, or cuts to hours or pay)
increased from 4% of those who experienced retaliation to 31%,
managerial demotions increased from 18% to 32%, and relocations or
reassignments increased from 27% to 44%. This is the first time in
the history of the ERC's studies of ethics that supervisory and
managerial employees are now more likely to experience retaliation
after whistle-blowing. In addition, retaliation among union
employees (another group with higher job security) increased
dramatically in the past two years. Retaliation rates for union
members were 25 percentage points higher (42%) than the rate for
nonunion employees (17%). Employees who feel comfortable enough to
first report misconduct to their supervisor experience far less
retaliation (17%) than those who first report to higher management
(27%) or to their organization's hotline (40%). Possible
explanations for this disparity are that (1) more significant
violations would be reported to higher executives directly so that
they could take immediate corrective action or (2) the reporter's
supervisor may have some involvement with the situation. The
severity of the wrongdoing also may be a factor here. Logically,
more significant violations are more likely to result in
retaliation. If the action being reported is serious enough that
the reporting would be escalated above a supervisor or done through
a hotline, it's also more likely that there would be retaliation
for reporting that action. But in organizations with an open
culture, speaking up to benefit the firm in the long run is more
likely to be accepted. The ERC report also shows a direct link
between increased retaliation and job pressures or stress.
Fifty-two percent of people who report wrongdoing and feel pressure
to compromise standards also end up experiencing retaliation. But
only 12% of those who didn't feel such pressures experience
retaliation. This suggests that an open and ethically strong
culture encourages whistleblowing, while an unethical culture is
more likely to result in employees "going along to get along." The
ERC study measures critical aspects of ethical culture, including
management's trustworthiness, whether managers at all levels talk
about ethics and model appropriate behavior, and the extent to
which employees value and sup-port ethical conduct, accountability,
and transparency. Openness and the willingness to report
misbehavior for the good of the organization is a positive outcome.
The best news in Retaliation is that ethics and compliance
pro-grams, strong ethical cultures, high standards of
accountability that are applied consistently, and positive
management behaviors are all linked to a reduced likelihood of
retaliation. Though the rate of retaliation increased in stronger
ethical cultures, that rate (15%) was still lower than the
retaliation rate in ethically weak cultures, which increased to 27%
from 24%. In addition, retaliation is lower in organizations with
comprehensive ethics and compliance programs (2% of reporters) than
it is in companies that lack all of the standard program elements
(36%). Using other measurements, retaliation is far less likely
when employees agree that management is accountable. Managers also
have the power to curb retaliation. When they are perceived as
trustworthy and committed to ethics, retaliation is far less
likely. Some of the measures of accountability include: * Trust
supervisor to keep promises and commitments, * Trust top management
to keep promises and commitments, and * Trust coworkers to keep
promises and commitments. Retaliation includes additional
recommendations from the ERC for organizations that want to reduce
the likelihood of the damaging effects of retaliation for
whistleblowers. They include: * Assess the views of the
organization regarding whistleblowing and the protection of those
who come forward with concerns about actions they have observed. *
Target managers with anti-retaliation training so they can
recognize reporting, address the issues if possible, and interact
with reporters in ways that aren't perceived as retaliatory. *
Communicate the reporting process broadly among all employees so
they can feel reassured that progress is being made and are aware
of the protections for those that do the reporting. * Move
investigations along and provide information as to the status of
the issue so that reporters will feel they are being heard and
won't need to bring up the same issues multiple times. * Take steps
to ensure that retaliation doesn't happen--show that fairness and
consistency are the norms in the organization. * Implement systems
and procedures that ensure confidentiality. * When a claim of
retaliation is substantiated, take action in a way that is both
decisive and, if possible, visible to employees. * Track progress
and periodically check up on reporters. In view of the motivations
for whistleblowing contained in Dodd-Frank--and the Act's greater
protection against retaliation--the subject of whistleblowing and
its influence in helping to establish and maintain a strong ethical
culture within an organization deserves immediate attention and is
likely to remain important for many years to come. A report from
the ERC shows that retaliation against whistleblowers is
increasing. While provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act strengthen the
protection of whistleblowers, companies can still do more to
strengthen their ethical culture and encourage employees to report
misconduct. Curts C. Verschoor, CMA, Editor Curtis C. Verschoor is
the Emeritus Ledger & Quill Research Professor, School of
Accountancy and MIS, and an honorary Senior Wicklander Research
Fellow in the Institute for Business and Professional Ethics, both
at DePaul University, Chicago. He was selected by Trust Across
America as one of North America's Top Thought Leaders in
Trust-worthy Business Behavior-2012. His e-mail address is
[email protected]. Verschoor, Curtis C. Source Citation
(MLA 7th Edition) Verschoor, Curtis C. "Retaliation for
whistleblowing is on the rise." Strategic Finance Nov. 2012: 13+.
Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.Document
URLhttp://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA309735343&v=2.1&u=cclc_trade&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
Gale Document Number: GALE|A309735343 Top of page Can ethics
education improve ethical judgment? An empirical study Author(s):
Peggy A. Cloninger and T.T. Seivarajan Source: SAM Advanced
Management Journal. 75.4 (Autumn 2010): p4. From Academic OneFile.
Document Type: Report Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2010 Society for the
Advancement of Management http://islander.tamucc.edu/~cobweb/sam/
Full Text:Ethics scandals and corrupt practices can ruin a
business. Can good judgment and ethical decision-making be taught
in business schools? While these schools are now trying to
incorporate ethics education, few studies have examined the
effectiveness of such courses. This study focuses on the influence
of successful outcomes on perceptions of ethical behavior. Is a
successful person more likely to be considered ethical, regardless
of other factors? A statistical analysis of responses from 175
people who were working and also pursuing master's degrees in
business supported the hypothesis that a comprehensive course with
an ethical focus mitigated bias in judging the ethical standing of
others. ********** Ethical behavior has interested business
researchers for decades (e.g., Akaah and Lund, 1994), but recent
ethical scandals in major organizations worldwide (e.g., WorldCom,
Adelphia, Parmalat, WIPRO, Sanlu Group) have brought business
school curricula under intense scrutiny. Masters of business
administration programs have been subject to criticism for failing
to develop critical competencies such as decision-making (Rubin and
Dierdorff, 2009) and for fostering amoral theories based on
opportunistic behavior and lack of trust (Ghoshal, 2005). Business
organizations and society alike are demanding that business schools
examine their curricula and work toward graduating managers who
will perform their jobs in an ethical manner. The primary
accrediting organization for business schools has responded to this
demand and has indicated that schools should ensure that all
students understand the symbiotic relationship between business and
society (AACSB International, 2004). Business students themselves
also are interested in having classes explore issues related to
corporate social responsibility (Net Impact, 2006). Many of the
2009 graduates of the Harvard Business School took a voluntary
student-led pledge to "serve the greater good" (Wayne, 2009). Yet,
the effectiveness of education to improve ethical judgment and
performance remains in doubt. Many suggest that a business school
course is unlikely to make students more ethical decision-makers
(Giacalone and Thompson, 2008). However, the differences in the
day-to-day ethical judgments of those who have completed required
courses covering ethics are not well understood. Much research in
ethics has tended to be either prescriptive or focused on surveys
regarding perceptions or opinions of ethical performance. Empirical
research has often been correlational and exploratory (Tenbrunsel
and Smith-Crowe, 2008). Theoretical work has consisted primarily of
developing models that propose various personal and organizational
variables as the determinants of ethical behavior (Akaah and Lund,
1994). It has been argued that the influence of organizational
context is often unrecognized and unappreciated by researchers
(e.g., Johns, 2006). Yet, relatively little research has examined
whether or not completing a course on ethical decision-making can
reduce organizational influences and improve ethical judgment and
performance. Our research addresses this gap in the literature. In
particular, this study examines whether or not ethics education
reduces the influence of performance outcomes and results in
improved ethical judgment. Performance outcome, that is, whether or
not an employee is considered successful or unsuccessful on the
job, has been found to bias ethical judgments (e.g., Selvarajan and
Cloninger, 2009). Those considered successful have been judged to
behave more ethically than those deemed unsuccessful. In other
words, employees' performance levels have been found to influence
judgments of whether they are ethical or not. Furthermore, the
respondent's personal beliefs do not affect this finding. That is,
the evidence suggests that organizational influences (e.g., job
performance levels), can override respondents' personal ethical
systems. Since personal ethics are developed over a lifetime, this
finding raises the question of whether or not ethics education can
help students improve their ethical reasoning skills sufficiently
so that their ethical judgments overcome the influence of job
performance levels. Specifically, this research tests if a single
comprehensive course that includes substantial attention to ethics
can accomplish this task. Or simply put, can ethics education
reduce job performance outcome bias? This research is important for
theory and practice. From a practical perspective, job performance
appraisals are used by most organizations to improve job
performance. Yet job outcomes (performance levels achieved by
employees) have been shown to bias the ethical judgments. In
particular, employees who receive positive appraisals are judged to
be more ethical than employees who receive negative appraisals. If
ethics education reduces bias and improves ethical judgment,
implications for businesses seeking to hire ethical managers are
significant. From a theoretical perspective, this research is
important because it systematically examines whether or not ethics
education can mitigate the influence of job outcome bias.
Performance appraisals are subject to the cognitive limitations
(Selvarajan and Cloninger, 2009; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994), and
given their prevalence, the influence of job outcome bias on
ethical judgments is likely to be common. Yet job outcome bias is
relatively unstudied. Also, unlike the previous ethics research
examining undergraduates (e.g., Neubaum, Pagell, Drexler, MckeeRyan
and Larson, 2009), this research examines ethical judgments of
graduate students who are full-time employees, are generally older,
and have more experience than undergraduates entering the field of
management. The judgments of full-time employees are of greater
practical interest and relevance in the field of management, and
ethical judgments of older individuals have frequently been found
to differ from those of younger individuals. Finally, systematic
examination of the influence of bias may shed light on the mixed
findings of prior studies regarding the influence of education on
ethical judgment. Therefore, this research provides new empirical
evidence evaluating the relationship of ethics education to
performance appraisal systems, and can be used to help build better
theories. Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses Performance
appraisals and ethics Researchers have recommended recently that
ethical behavior be explicitly incorporated into performance
appraisals (Buckley, 2001; Weaver and Trevino, 1999), suggesting
that incorporating ethical dimensions into performance appraisal
systems will help integrate ethical expectations into formal role
identities. Yet many organizations primarily reward other measures
of performance, especially financial, regardless of ethical or
unethical behavior. Although research remains limited, theoretical
evidence suggests that job performance outcomes influence ethical
judgments (e.g., Selverajan and Cloninger, 2009). Ashkanasy,
Windsor, and Trevino (2006) found that perceptions that an
organization rewards unethical behavior or punishes ethical
behavior influences employees' decision-making. Other studies have
found that respondents judged those with successful job performance
outcomes to have exhibited more ethical behaviors than those who
had unsuccessful job performance outcomes (Selvarajan and
Cloninger, 2009). Furthermore, the ethical judgments in these
studies were consistent regardless of the respondent's personal
ethical beliefs. Education and ethics Arguments on the
effectiveness of ethics education vary. Some research finds that
integrating ethics into the curriculum is significant and decreases
tolerance for unethical behavior (e.g., Lopez, Rechner,
Sundaramurthy and Olson-Buchanan, 2005). Hartman (2006) suggests
that ethics education can help students think critically about
their values and how to put them into practice. In other words,
ethics education can help students better assess complex situations
and realize that being ethical is in their own best interests.
Alternatively, Neubaum, et al. (2009) found the moral philosophies
of undergraduate business students and nonbusiness students were
similar as they progressed through four years of college, and that
seniors were more likely than freshman to expect businesses to
behave ethically. This finding is consistent with O'Fallon and
Butterfield's (2005) review of the literature that indicates that
more education, employment, or work experience is positively
related to ethical decision-making, but that the type of education
has little or no effect. Organizations support and undermine
ethical judgment On the other hand, some make the argument that
managers already know what is ethical, and know that they should be
ethical (e.g., Velthouse and Kandogan, 2006), but that ethical
judgments are undermined by organizational behavior. Moral
reasoning may be context-specific and only weakly linked to
behavior (Svanberg, 2008). Evidence suggests that organizations can
support or oppose ethical behaviors (Hartman, 2006; Shelley, 1994).
Organizations can foster an ethical environment or one in which
customers, suppliers, or employees are treated dishonestly or
unfairly (Shelley, 1994). In the latter, rationalizing unethical
actions may be easy. Similarly, some organizations require managers
to meet unrealistic performance goals (Shelley, 1994), and meeting
an immediate financial goal is rewarded while ethical behavior is
not. In these organizations, ethics simply doesn't 'fit' into
managers' daily tasks (Velthouse and Kandogan, 2006:153). Ethical
judgments are subject to biases Given that unethical behavior can
take a variety of forms, ranging from convenient disregard of
company policies to breaking civil or criminal law, improving the
ethical judgments of employees is vitally important to an
organization. Although evidence suggests that more education
generally improves ethical judgment (O'Fallen and Butterfield,
2005), ethical judgments are subjective. The ethical nature of
behavior is seen as a social reality (Payne and Giacalone, 1990)
rather than as an objective fact, and is subject to biases arising
from cognitive limitations of the person rating the performance.
Biases degrade decision outcomes (Doerr and Mitchell, 1998). The
performance appraisal literature suggests that performance
judgments (positive or negative) can be biased by outcomes achieved
by the ratee, the characteristics of the respondent (e.g.,
education) as well as trait inferences made by the respondent
(e.g., Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). From a schematic perspective
(e.g., Neisser, 1967), a worker who achieves excellent work
outcomes may be placed in a successful-performance cognitive
category by the respondent. Thus, an outcome schema may influence
the evaluation of the performer's ethical nature. Unethical
behavior may be ignored, discounted, or reinterpreted as consistent
with the schema of a high performer. This is consistent with
research that finds people tend to rate the ethical nature of a
successful employee more favorably than that of an unsuccessful
employee (Selvarajan and Cloninger, 2009; Cardy and Selvarajan,
1997). Improving ethics education Recently, researchers have called
for business courses to emphasize ethical and social responsible
behavior as an aspirational standard for business and as a
strategic way to earn greater long-term benefits for the firm
(Kashyap, Mir, and Iyer, 2006). As an aspirational standard,
ethical and socially responsible behaviors are expected much in the
same way that the Hippocratic Oath is an aspirational standard for
the medical profession, that is, an ideal that should be pursued
regardless of other rewards. On the other hand, from a strategic
perspective courses should seek to convince students that ethical
and socially responsible behavior increases the likelihood of
short- and long-term advantages for themselves and the firm. The
twofold approach is posited to be more meaningful for students. In
this thinking, a comprehensive business and society course with a
significant ethics component can be expected to improve ethical
judgments by providing a body of information, ethical tools and
reasoning methods, and a variety of relevant cases and examples to
which students can refer as they make ethical judgments. Education
may increase a person's capacity for ethical reasoning (Svanberg,
2008), and education focused explicitly on improving ethical
reasoning should improve ethical judgment. Therefore, this research
posits that education, specifically a comprehensive business and
society course with an extensive focus on ethics, will improve
ethical judgment such that the respondents' ethical judgments are
less biased by job performance outcomes. Hypothesis 1. Ethical
judgments of students who complete a comprehensive business and
society course will be less biased by job outcomes than ethical
judgments of students who have not completed the course. Rater age
Rater characteristics have been found to significantly affect
performance judgments (Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). In the appraisal
literature, rater characteristics such as personality and ability
have been recognized as potentially important influences on ratings
(e.g., Lee 1988). Many studies have reported that age appears to be
positively correlated with more ethical decisions. In O'Fallon and
Butterfield's (2005) review of 37 studies on the effect of age and
ethical decision-making, 10 found a positive relationship and six a
negative relationship, but 14 reported no significant differences
based on age. They concluded that the relationship between age and
ethical decision-making is complicated and not necessarily captured
by previous studies. This is likely true, but studies continue to
find that age appears to be related to improved ethical judgments.
Therefore, to focus more effectively on the influence of education
on bias and improve our confidence in the results, this study will
also examine if the students' age influences the relationship
between ethics education and ethical judgments, or if there is an
interaction effect between age and education. However, it will not
make a hypothesis with respect to student age, although there is a
general expectation that older respondents are likely to make
better ethical judgments due to their greater work and life
experiences. Methodology Self-selection bias All students in the
program used in the study were required to take the business and
society class, so the sample was not biased by self-selection. In
other words, students who took the class were not necessarily more
interested in ethics or social responsibility than those who took
the class for other reasons (e.g., it fit their schedule). Sample
The convenience sample consisted of 175 (90 men and 85 women) with
an average work experience of 9.1 years. The average age of the
respondents was 30.9 years. The respondents were employed in
organizations ranging from large firms employing more than 1,000 to
smaller firms employing fewer than 100. The respondents were all
pursuing master's degrees, primarily in business at a Southwestern
University. There were 82 participants in the after condition and
93 participants in the before condition (before and after taking a
course). Experimental vignettes The basic material for this
research was a vignette that described the performance of a
fictitious sales person. The respondents randomly received one of
four written vignettes (ethical-high performer, unethical-high
performer, ethical-low performer, unethical low-performer). An
example of the vignette is in the Appendix. Each vignette contained
10 critical incidents describing a salesperson's ethical or
unethical behavior. The critical incidents represented five of the
six dimensions (two incidents for each dimension) of ethical
behavior. The six dimensions of ethical behavior (personal use,
bribery, deception, padding expense accounts, passing blame, and
falsification) were based on the research by Newstrom and Ruch
(1975) and Akaah and Lund (1994). Ethical behavior was manipulated
by providing ethical or unethical incidents for each of the four
ratees. The "ethical" ratees had ethical incidents and "unethical"
ratees had unethical incidents for all the dimensions of ethical
performance. In addition to critical incidents of ethical behavior,
the vignettes also contained summary statements regarding sales
performance outcomes. The summary statements were drawn from the
dimensions of sales performance (salesmanship, product knowledge,
and ability to initiate/utilize sales innovations) identified from
research in marketing (Bush, Bush, Ortinau, and Hair, 1990; Lucas,
1985). These statements summarized the salespersons' outcomes for
each of these dimensions. For example, a ratee with poor outcomes
was described as failing to close sales on the salesmanship
dimension. In addition to these summary statements, the overall
performance of each ratee was described as successful or
unsuccessful, as appropriate; a successful ratee was described as a
star performer who consistently exceeded all performance targets
and an unsuccessful ratee was described as a dismal performer who
never achieved performance targets. In summary, ethical behavior
was manipulated by providing unethical or ethical critical
incidents for each of the four ratees. Job performance outcomes
were manipulated by providing performance outcome descriptions for
the sales performance dimensions and by summarizing the level of
success or failure in the overall performance description. A total
of four ratee vignettes were formed by crossing the two levels of
ethical behavior (ethical or unethical) with the two levels of
outcomes (success or failure). Validity and reliability of the
vignettes Scale development work (Cardy and Selvarajan, 2004)
confirmed the dimensions and effectiveness of the ethical and
unethical incidents. In brief, the development work generated a
six-dimension behavioral scale for assessing ethical judgment using
the behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) procedure outlined by
Bernardin and Beatty (1984). For each of the six dimensions, the
authors generated critical incidents representing ineffective,
average, and effective ethical behaviors. This is a variation from
the BARS procedure outlined by Bernardin and Beatty (1984), in
which students generated critical incidents. Retranslation was
conducted by 47 undergraduate student raters who indicated the
dimension to which each of the critical incidents belonged.
Finally, the effectiveness of the items surviving the retranslation
process was evaluated by a separate group of 84 student raters.
Based on the effectiveness levels of items, behaviorally anchored
rating scales were constructed for the six dimensions of ethical
behavior. Each scale had approximately five behavioral anchors
spanning the range of each scale. Further details can be found in
Cardy and Selvarajan (2004). In addition, the dimensions of ethical
behavior used in this study roughly correspond to the types of
misconduct observed most frequently in organizations. In a national
business ethics survey of 1,500 employees, the Ethics Resource
Center (2003) found that the most often observed misconducts were
lying, withholding needed information, abusive or intimidating
behavior toward employees, and misreporting actual hours worked.
Measures The rating scales included (a) a 12 item behavioral
observation scale (BOS), (b) one 7-point global ethical rating
scale, (c) one 7-point global performance rating scale, and (d) a
16-item, 7-point Likert scale for measuring individual differences
in ethical beliefs (Daniel, Elliot-Howard and Dufrene, 1997). The
behavioral observation scale contained a 12-item checklist on which
participants were asked to print Y (yes) or N (no) depending on
whether the sales person had exhibited the specific behavior. Ten
of these items represented the 10 critical incidents provided in
the vignette. Two items served as "lures" to calculate false alarm
rates (explained later on). This scale was used for calculating the
dependent measure "bias." A scale developed by Daniel,
Elliot-Howard, and Dufrene (1997) was used for measuring individual
differences in ethical beliefs. This scale included five dimensions
of ethical beliefs: personal integrity issues, corporate integrity
issues, individual rights issues, environmental issues, and
international issues. For this study, the items representing the
three most relevant dimensions, namely, personal integrity issues,
corporate integrity issues, and individual rights issues, were
used. Sample items for this scale include: "It's acceptable to use
investment resources from questionable resources," and "It's
acceptable to restrict legal actions by damaged customers." The
alpha reliability for this 16-item scale in the present study was
0.77. Dependent measure The signal detection measure of "bias" was
used as the dependent measure for this study. Signal detection
measures have been used extensively in determining judgment
accuracy (e.g., Larson, Lingle and Scerbo, 1984; Lord, 1985;
Snodgrass and Corwin, 1988; Sulsky and Day, 1992). Sulsky and Day
(1992) define bias as "the probability of saying "yes" to an item
when faced with a recognition task under conditions of
uncertainty." That is, bias is a function of the probability of
saying "yes" to lure items (items not presented in the ratee
description vignette but appearing in behavioral observation
scale). Bias is measured by the following formula recommended by
Snodgrass and Corwin (1988): Bias = false-alarm rate/[1-(hit
rate-false alarm rate)] Higher scores on this index are associated
with more lenient decision criteria. A hit rate is the proportion
of items correctly identified as observed, and a false alarm rate
is the proportion of items incorrectly identified as observed.
Since bias is undefined for hit rates of 1.0 and corresponding
false-alarm rates of 0, the following corrections recommended by
Snodgrass and Corwin (1988) were used: HR' = [hit-rates +0.5]/[no.
of relevant items +1] FAR' = [false-alarm rates +0.5]/[no. of
relevant items +1] Snodgrass and Corwin (1988) recommend the
routine use of this correction in analyses using signal detection
theory. Procedures The participants were randomly assigned to one
of the four experimental conditions (success, unethical; success,
ethical; failure, unethical; failure, ethical). The packet of
materials given to the participants included one ratee vignette,
one set of rating forms, the ethical belief scale, and a
demographic data form. Participants were instructed to read each
vignette carefully and fill out the various rating forms. They were
specifically asked not to look back at the description of the
salesperson while they were filling out the rating forms. Results
This research hypothesized that ethical judgments of students who
complete a comprehensive business and society course will be less
biased by job outcomes than ethical judgments of students who have
not completed the course. In addition, to focus more effectively on
the influence of education on bias and to improve our confidence in
the results, this study also examined if the student's age
influenced the relationship between the ethics education and
ethical judgments, or if there was an interaction effect between
age and education. We did not make a hypothesis with respect to
student age, because evidence remained mix, but expected older
respondents would make better ethical judgments due to greater work
and life experiences. Our findings follow. Bias To test for before
and after effects, that is whether or not the students who had
completed the course demonstrated improved ethical judgment (less
bias) than students who had not completed the course, we used
analysis of variance. The mean bias score for the before condition
was 0.53, and the mean bias score for the after condition was 0.41.
Analysis of variance showed that the bias scores between these two
conditions was significant (F (1,171) = 3.96; (p