You are on page 1of 17
The Moral Philosophy of Sales Managers and its Influence on Ethical Decision Making im Barnett and Gene Brown Sales managers’ moral philosophies may be particularly important due to the influence these managers can have on the ethical climato of their sales organizations. Our study analyzed the moral philosophies of a national sample of sales managers in terms of differences between ealea manaigers andother marketors, characteristics associated with differences in moral philosophies, and the effect of personal moral philosophy on ethical decision making. Findings ini ‘ated that sales managers’ moral philosophies did not differ significantly from other marketers. The age and gender of sales managers were associated with differences in personal moral philosophies. Sales manager: regarding potentially Sales managers can influence the ethical climate of their sales organization through carefi! sclection of salespeople, ethies training, and rigorous enforce: ment of ethical codes (Hunt, Chonko, and Wileox 1984; Hunt and Vosquez-Parraga 1993; Schwepker, Fereell, and Ingram 1997; Wotruba 1990). Research has identified several factors that influence sales managers’ reactions to the unethical behavior of their subordinates (Bellizei 1995; Bellizzi and Norvell 1902; Bellizzi and Hite 1989) but has not SE Kon Bass (DBA) is Associate Professor of Management Kast Carolyn University, He hax published jn journela auch as the ourval of Personet Seing & Sala Manager tet nese BUhice Quarterly, analthe Journal of Business ihica Hscerrcon research interest nelnde cthiesl doos'ox making, eval sat ey. and methodslogy Tim Harnett (DBA) is Associate Professor of Mosiazcment nt Nouisiana Tech University, He has suilwnnd or onavchored omierous articles apaearing i journal such afer see! Pop chology, Haman Relations, the dournal of Business Research Busincas Bihiew Quorter'y, and ibe serarnal of Busan Bikes, plas national and regis. prow research interests inehude othieal \Gonal eitivanship, ethical work alin temoea in acaderin Gene Brown (Ph.D. is Profesor of Marketing, Head of the Monngement & Marketing Deparimant at Lavistn Tacs U versity, and Dircetor of the National Callison Marketing be tute, Ho has published aumerois articles 99 journals faction: the Journal of Marketing’ Ressarch. the slowrnal vf Busines Research, tho Fournat of Be sonal Selling & Saden Menage? he dour of Busirces Bthie. and the sovrnal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, plus romeroas proceediege papers, fhe ‘roienreh interests include personal selling eteiings ethics and srethadaigy We thenk the editor andl txe anonymous reviewers fur their helpful eommonts on the initial draficnt this manuscripe ngs papers. His curronk sion making, wrpenien id Huraaee Resour ‘meral philosophies were associated with their ethieal judgments ethical sales prectices addressed how sales managers’ ethical orientations affect their decisions about ethical issues faced by themselves and their subordinates. One measure of ethical orientation, personal moral philosophy, is a potentially key influence on sales monagers’ ethical decision making (Ferrell, Gresham, and Praedrich 1989; Huntand Vitell 1986, 1993). This construct is based primarily upon the ethical theories of deontology, teleology, and ethi- eal skepticism (Porsyth 1980). Within this frame- work, individuals’ moral philosophies ean he parsi moniously represented hy the extent to which they are relativistic and idealistic (Forsyth 1992). Although empirical studies have examined moral philosophy and its impact on the ethieal deeision making of marketers (Barnett, Bass, Brown, and Hebert 1998; Fraedrich and Ferrell 1992a, 1992b; Singhapakdi, Kraft, Vitell, and Rallapalli 1996; ‘Tansey, Brown, Hyman, and Dawson 1994; Vitell, Rallapalli, and Singhapakdi 1993; Vitell and Singhapakdi 1993), to date there has not been a large-scale national study of sales managers’ moral philosophies. The perception exists that those in sales and sales manayementhave lower ethical stan. dards than those in other business aceupations (Singhapakdi and Vitel! 1992). Thus, it appears Particularly important to assess the moral philoso. phies of sales managers, Therefore, our study focuses on the following re- search questions: dourvol of Personal Selling & Sates Management, Voluave XVIN, Nuniber 2 Spring 1998, Pages 1-37), Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management The sales profession suffers from a public perception that it has low standards of ethical behavior... . 1, What are the moral philosophies of sales managers relative to other marketers? 2 Dosales managers’ moral philosophies dif- ferbased on personal charaeteristies such as age, gender, arid education? 3. Dosales managers’ moral philosophies af- fect their ethical judgments and behav ioral intentions regarding potentially un- ethical sales practices? Personal Moral Philosophy One distinction among the ethical theories of de- ontology, teleology, and skepticism is the extent to which the theories are relativistic or non-relativis: tie. Relativism is the degree to which an individual “rejects universal moral rules" (Forsyth 1980, p. 175) as appropriate guidelines for ethical decisions. Highly relativistic individuals reject universal moral principles, but non-relativistic individuals accept tuniversal prineiples when making ethical judg. ments. “The second distinction, ideatism, involves the ex- tent of an individual's eoncern with the welfare of others (Forsyth, Nye, and Kelley 1988). Idealism is the desgree to which an individual believes that "de sivable consequences can, with the ‘right’ action, always be obtained” (Forsyth 1980, p. 176). An ide alist acopts the idea that good outcomes for all ean be achieved by morally correct actions. Nen-ideal- ists believe that morally correct actions will often produce negative consequences as well as positive ones (Forsyth 1980). Forsyth (1980) developed a 2 X 2 taxonomy of moral philosophies based on the relativism and ide- alism dimensions. The taxonomy is presented in Table 1 with a summary of the characteristics of “absolutists,” “situationists,” “subjectivists,” and “exceptionists.” Personal moral philosophy has been found to in- fluence decisions abont a wide variety of both non: business and business-related ethical issues (Barnett, Bass, and Brown 1994, 1996; Forsyth 1980; Forsyth and Berger 1982; Forsyth et al. 1988; Singhapakdi et al, 1995; Vitell et al. 1993; Vitell enna ttre Amn mR ETERS TUK ERE erg mmr and Singhapakdi 1992). The next section of the paper reviews relevant research in marketing eth: ies and presents several rescarch hypotheses, Personal Moral Philosophy and Sales Managers ‘The sales profession suffers from a public percep tion that it has low standards of ethical behavior (Chonko, Tanner, and Weeks 1996; Dubinsky, Jolson, Michaels, Kotabe, and Lim 1992; Singhapakdi and Vitel! 1951). This perception has serious implications for the ability of organizations to attract well-qualified posple into the field ane! to effectively market. goods and services. The visibil ity of sales, intense competitive pressures, reward systems, and the boundary-spanning role of the sales fanetion are all possible reasons for perceived un: ethical behavior (Bellizzi and Hite 1989; Wotraba 990). Another reason for the negative image may be that the public is most familiar with indusivies, companies, and salespeopic that. use questionable sales tacties (Anderson 1996). The generally poor reputation of sales careers might also foster a form of self-selection into the occupation in which indi viduals who enter sales might differ in termas of their ethical philosophies and standards (Sparks ‘and Johlke 1996; Weeks and Muebling 1987). "To dato, however, there is Tittle evidence that sales managers differ from others in terms of moral philosophy. In one study, Dubinsky and Gavin (1981) found that salespeople were less sensitive to ethieal problems than their buyers. Singhapakdi and Vitelt (1992), conversely, discovered no significant differ- ences between those in sales and other marketers on perceptions of ethical problems or deontological norms, although those in sales were more likely to rate self-interest above the interests of others. Henthorne, Robin, and Reidenbach (1992) foond that sales managers were less critical of unethical behavior than other managers. Research has not directly compared the moral philosophies of sales managers with other market; ts. We believe that sales managers may differ from other marketers ini terms of relativism and ideal: Spring 1998 Table 1 High Relativism Sivationists High Rejects moral codes, Idealism Personal analysis of actions in each situation Relativistic. Idealistic skoptic. Subjectivists low Rejects mora! codes. ideatison Poreoral valios determine judgments | rot urivercal codes Fitical eget 1902) and Tansy et al (1904) Adapted trom Foray ism. Sales managers might be less eritical of un- ethical behavior (Henthorne ot al. 1992) beeaus: they do not believe that they can apply universal principles of morality to a given situation, Singhapakdi and Vitell's (1992) finding that sales. people rate self-interest above the interest of others mplies that sales managers might not exhibit an idealistic concern with the welfare of others, Sev- eral studies indieate that sales managers evaluate the consoquences to the organization of their subor dinates’ unethical actions befere deciding; how te discipline them (Bellizzi 1995; Bellizzi and Hite 1989; Hunt and Vasquer-Parrage 1993), Studies also suggest that sales managers consider the per formance of the salesperson when deciding whether to punish them for uncthical behavicr (Bellizzi and Hite 1989). These findings suggest that sales man- agers might be non-idealistie and relativistic Hia: Sales managers will exhibit higher lev els of relativism than other marketers Sales managers will exhibit lower lev- els of idealism than other marketers, Ab: Copyright © 2001 Forsyth’s Taxonomy of Personal Moral Philosophies Low Relativism Absolutists ‘Accepts moral codes. Ethical decisions must ot harm others, Deontoiogist Exceptionists Accepts moral codes, but open to exceptions. Optima! outcomes not possible for a. Teleologist; utiitarian Personal Characteristics and Personal Moral Philosophy Wotruba (1990) suggests that the demographic characteristics of salespeople affecl their ethical decision making. Three such characteristies, age, gender, and education, were chosen for inclusion in this study. Extant research in both marketing and nonmarketing contexts has linked these variables h important aspeets of ethieal decision making such as recognizing ethical issues, making ethical Judgments, and forming behavioral intentions, For example, increasing age has been linked to higher levels of moral judgment (Rest 1986; Thoma 1985) and lower levels of Machiavellianism (Hunt and Chonko 1984). Age has also been shown to relate to greater sensitivity to ethical dilemmas abholkar and Kellaris 1992; Dubinsky et al. 1992: Ruegger and King 1992), A few studies have found a negative relationship between age and relativism (Barnett et al. 1998; Ho, Vitell, Barnes, and Desborde 1997). As individuats grow older, they All Rights Reseved. Journal of Personal Seiling & Sales Management appear to rely more on universal principles of mo: rality to guide their ethical judgments and less on societal influence or concern that they will be pun- ished for failing to act ethically. Vitell, Lumpkin, and Rawwas (1991) found evidence of a positive association between age and idealism, As individu- als grow older, they might place less emphasis on self-interest and exhibit @ greater concern for the welfare of others. Ha: Older sales managers will exhibit lower levels of relativism than younger sales managers. Hab: Older sales managers will exhibit highor levels of idealism than younger sales managers Gender socialization theory suggests that women are conditioned to reason differently about ethical issues (Gilligan 1982; Mason and Mudrack 1996). Thus, they should be moro likely to judge issues in a moral context. Although some studies do not sup- port gender differences on ethical issues (Dubinsky and Levy 1985; Fritzsche 1988; Hegarly and Sims 1978; Jones and Kavanagh 1996; Singhapakdi and Vitell 1990, 19918, 1991b), research increasingly reveals significant differences, For example, women appear to exhibit higher levels of cognitive moral development and exhibit a greater “ethic of earing” (Gilligan 1982; Goolsby and Hunt 1992). Women seem to be more sensitive to some ethical issues (Chonko and Hunt 1985; Harris and Sutton 1995) and to respond “more ethically” to marketing di- lemmas (Dawson 1992, 1997; Ferrell and Skinner 1988; Vitell et al. 1993). Research among market- ers has also shown that women rely more on deontological norms when making ethical decisions (Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga 1999; Vitel! and Singhapakdi 1993), Findings concerning gender and relativism have been inconsistent, with one study indicating women ‘as more relativistic (Barnett et al. 1998), another indicating men as more relativistic (Wise 1997), and still others showing no relationship (Barnett et ‘al, 1994, 1996). There appears to be no compelling theoretical rationale for gender differenees on rela- tivism. Notwithstanding the inconsistent findings, ‘examining this relationship among sales managers appears warranted. To facilitate analysis, we for- rmalize our expectation of no relationship in & re- search hypothesis. ‘Women seem to exhibit a greater ethic of caring than men, which implies an idealistic concern for the welfare of others (Gilligan 1982). The finding, that women marketers rely heavily ological norms (Hant and Vasquez-Parraga 1993) alse sup ports gender differences in levels of idealism. Re cent empirical evidence among samples of business students and marketing practitioners also supports the hypothesis that women sales managers will ex- hibit higher levels of idealism than men (Barnett et al. 1994, 1996). H13a: Women and men sales ianagers will not differ in terms of relativism. H3b: Women sales managers will exhibit a higher level of idealism than men sales managers. Intellectual capacity is regarded as essential for attaining high levels of cognitive moral develop: ment (Rest 1986), Ideally, educational attaininent broadens the scope of one’s immediate concern fram self'interest or concern for one’s irnreediate family to a consideration of the welfare of the community and society as a whole, Coalshy and Hunt (1992) found a positive correlation botweex level of educa tional attainment aad cognitive moral development in their study of marketers ‘Studies that have examined the relationship be- tween level of edzeation and moral philosophy have 0 far yielded mixed results. Differences in relativ: ism based on education have not been demonsirated empirically (Barnett et al. 1998; Ho et al. 1997) However, none of the research has been conducted among sales managers. We expect to see a positive ‘association between education and relativism among sales managers. More educated managers are more likely to have been exposed to a variety of ethical viewpoints and world views. They may be unlikely to adopt the non-relativistic position that there are universal principles of morality. Conversely, ed cation appears to be negatively associated with (he ethical ideology of idealism (Barnett et al. 1998; Ho etal. 1997), In broadening individuals’ perspectives, higher educational attainment might prompt them to consider that outcomes of ethically ambiguous actions may be positive for some but negative for others. Thus, the individual might be unlikely to adopt the idealistic perspective that ethical actions do not cause harm to anyone Ha: More educated sales managers will ex hibit a higher level of relativism than less educated sales managers. Hab: More educated sales managers will ex- hibit a lower level of idealism than tess educated sales managers “COBVFTGNES D001 Ail Rights Reseved. Spring 1998 —_— Personal Moral Philosophy and Ethical Judgments Ethical judgment is the degree to whieh a par- ticular behavior is considered ethical by an indi vidual (Reidenback and Robin 1990). Sinee indi- vidual ethical judgnient. is an evalnation of the “rightness” of an action, an individual's aeceptaneo of moral philosophies should be key (Hunt and Viteli 1986). Previous studies have found that ad- herence te deontological andor teleslogical norms affects individuals’ judgments about ethical issucs che and Becker 1984; Hunt and Vasquez ga 1993; Mayo and Marks 1999) ‘arch indicates that there is a relatively strong velationship between individuals’ moral phi losophy as conceived by Forsyth (1980) atid ethical Judgments concerning a variety of issues, includ ng contemporary moral issues (Forsyth 1980: gh and Forsyth 1989), research practices (Forsyth and Pope 1984), and business ethics (Barnett ot al. 1994, 1996}. Individuals who are idealistic and non-relativistic (absolutists) se consistently more likely to condemn morally am: biguons act Highly relativistic individuals should be less likely to make harsh judgments about question- able oetions, since they believe that it is impos. sibie to apply universal principles or rulos to every situation, They may be hesitant to judge others’ behavior without being intimately famitiar with the situational factors that contributed to the qn tionable behavior. However, sinee idealistic indi- viduals believe that it is possible to avoid harm to I stekeholders if the morally correct action is chosen, they are likely to judge questionable ac tions with mixed outcomes more harshly than non idealistic individuals. Several studies within the field of marketing eth- ies have addressed the above relationships Barnett, etal. 1998; Ho et al. 1997; Siaghapakdi et al. 1996: ‘Tansey et al. 1994; Vitell et al. 1993; Vitell and Singhapakdi 1993), In generat, these studies sug- st that idealistic and non-relativistic murketers (absolutists) are more likely to rate ethical issues as important and to judge ethically ambiguous ae tions more harshly than othe Highly idealistic and non-relativistic (absolatist) sales managers will judge potentially unethical sales practices as 8 more unethical than will situation-ist, subjeetivist, or exceptionist sales man agers. Personal Moral Philosophy and Ethical Behavioral Intentions Behavioral intentions can be defined as an individual's subjective probability that a given be havioral alternative will be enacted (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The Hunt and Vitell (1986) model of ethical behavior posits that deontological evalua tions and teleological evaluations influence behav. ioral intentions indirectly through their influence on ethical judgments. Further, teleological evalua. tions are hypothesized to directly influence behav. ioral intentions. Previous empirical research pro vides some evidence that adherence to classical oth cal philosophies do play a role in shaping behav ioral intentions. Por instance, Fritzsche and Beckor (1984) discovered a linkage between utilitarianism and behavioral intontions. Similarly, Fraedrich and Fervell (1992b), utilizing a system of five moral philosophies, found significant linkages betwsen marketing managers’ ethical philosophy and their behavioral intentions. Mayo and Marks (1990) find. ings suggest that individuals’ deontological and te- leological evaluations of ethical questions are sig. nificantly related to ethica’ behavioral intentions Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993) found that ethi. cal philosophy affected managers’ behavioral inten tions regarding salespersons’ rewards and diseiplin- ary actions. Little direct evidence exists concerwing the im. pact of personal moral philosophy as conceptual ized by Forsyth (1980) and cthical behavioral in tentions. Forsyth (1992), however, suggests that, individuals’ moral philosophies will influence be- haviaral intentions regarding business ethics is sues, Itis expected that sales managers with differ- ent moral philosophies will differ in their ethical behavioral intentions and that absolutist sales man. agers will be less likely to form intentions to prac tice potentially unethical sales activities HG: Highly idealistic and non-relativistic (absolutist) sales managers will be less likely to express intentions to engage in a potentially unethical sales practice than will situationist, subjectivist, or exceptionist sales managers Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved. 6 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management Methodology Measures Questionnaire Ethics Position Questionnaire. Personal moral Data were collected as part of a larger study of marketing professionals. A self-administered ques- tionnaire was designed to assess personal moral philosophy, ethieal judgments, and ethical behav- ioral intentions, as well as demographic character istics. Three ethical scenarios deseribing potentially tunethical sales practices were also included. Sample ‘The American Marketing Association provided a random satuple of 2,000 members who selected Marketing Management/Sales Management as their primary professional interest, Eighty-seven of these were climinated because of incomplete addresses, ete, A preliminary mail-out to 100 of the marketers: was conducted in order to facilitate revision of the instrument and provide information about the likely response rate for the main study. ‘The final questionnaire was then mailed to the remaining 1,813 individuals. After two separate mailings four weoks apart, 602 marketers re sponded, a response rate of 33.2%. Following the procedure recommended by Armstrong and Overton (1977), nonresponse bias was estimated by compar- ing respondents from the first and second wave of questionnaires. No significant differences were found in terms of age, gender, race, company size, industry, job title, idealism, relativism, ethical judg- ments, of behavioral intentions. As a further check for non-response bias, 30 randomly selected nonrespondents were contacted and asked for de- mogtaphie information, Their demographic charac- teristics were then compared to the 802 respon- dents, No significant differences were detected be: tween nonrespondents and those who responded to either the first or second mailing of the survey in: strument. Twenty-nine percent (n=175) of the respondents indicated that their job title was “Sales Manager.” Demographic information about the sales manag. cers is presented in Table 2. Sales managers differed significantly from the overall sample only in terms of income (lower) and age (younger). ‘To test H1, responses from sales managers were compared to ail other respondents (n=239), exclud- ing the 188 who indicated no job title or that they ‘were sales representatives. Only responses from the 175 sales managers were used to test H2-H6. me COBYYAT C2001 All Rights Reseved. philosophy was assessed using the Ethics Position Questionnaire (Forsyth 1980). The Ethies Position Questionnaire consists of 20 items on 9-point Likert seales, 10 of which are designed to assess relativ fam and the other 40 idealism, Scores on the two sealos can range from 10 to 90, with higher scores indicating higher levels of idealism or relativisw. ‘The EPQ has consistently exhibited high levels of reliability and a two-factor solution consistent with the idealism and relativism dimensions (Barnett et al. 1994, 1996; Ho et al. 1997; Singhapakdi et al 1995; Tansoy et al. 1994; Vitell ct al, 1993; Vitel! and Singhapakdi 1993). ‘Cronbach's alpha in the present study was 81 for the relativism scale and .86 for the idealism seale. The 20 items comprising the FPQ are shown in the appendix, along with the results when the items ‘were factor analyzed. ‘Multidimensional Ethics Scate. Vhe Multidimes: sional Ethies Scale (Reidenbach and Robin 1988, 1990} was utilized as a means to evaluate ethieal judgments, This scale consists of 8 items on a7 point semantic differential seale, with items such as “Fair/Unfair” and Morally KightNot Morally Right.” Respondents judged sales practices con. tained in three scenarios. Ethieal judgment scores, wore calculated by summing responses to the 8 itens land dividing by 8. Cronbach's alphas for the seale across the three scenarios were .90, 93, and 94, respectively. ‘Ethical Behavioral Intentions Measurement. font. and Vitell (1986) sugest that individus! behav. ioral intentions can be determined by asking indi- viduals to read seenarios that contain ethical di Jemmas, and then expressing the likelihood that they will perform the behavior. Respondents were asked to indicate the likelihood that they would engage in the behaviors represented in the see narios “within the near future,” “within the next year,” and “within the next five years.” Intention xtores were mncasured on a T-point scale ranging from “highly unlikely” to *highly likely.” Seores were calculated by summing across the items and dividing the total by 3. Cronbach's alphas for the behavioral intentions seale were .98 for each of the three scenarios. Ethical Seenarios. Scenarios allow researchers to present concrete decision making: situations Approximate real-life situations (Alexander and Becker 1978). Scenarios have been used across & Age (years) 20-29 24 30-38 7 40-48 14 50.59 4 60 or okter 1 Income <$20,000 3 $20,000-39.999 28 $40,000-59.999 38 $60,000-79.999 21 $80,000-99,999 5 >$100,000 5 Male 52. Female 48 Marital Status Married 66 Single 34 Educational Level No degiee 4 College degree 29 Some graduate work 18 Masters degree 48. Doctoral degree 1 Table 2 Sample Characteristics* (1 175) Race Black 2 Hispanic 2 Asian-American 2 Write 94 Company Size <100empioyees 24 100-999 35 1,000-9,999 25 >10.000, 19 Industey Manufacturing 37 Services 7 Wholesaleiretal = 14 Communications 6 AdvertisingMR 12 Otherino answer 14 ‘Numbers represent percentages, Percuntages may nat um te 100 because of rounding variety of disciplines to evaluate ethical judgments and behavioral intentions (¢.., Dubinsky and Loken 1989). Webcr (1992) suggests that previously daveloped scenarios be used to allow for crose-study compari sons. The three seenarios used in this study were based on the research of Dubinsky, Berkowitz, and Rudelius (1980) and Dubinsky et al, (1992). ‘The first scenario concerned “allowing liking for one cus- tomer and disliking another to affect price, del ery, and other decisions regarding terms of sale.” This scenario was ranked as most unethical (Dubinsky et al, 1980) and third most unethical (Dubinsky etal. 1992) of twelve sales practices. The second involved “giving physical gifts, such as free sales promotion prizes or ‘purchase volume incen. tive bonuses’ toa customer.” This practice was ranked as the sixth most unethical in both earlier studies (Dubinsky et al. 1980, 1992). ‘The third sce nario coneerned "gaining information about com- petitors by asking buyers for specific information about these competitors.” This practice was ranked as the ninth (Dubinsky etal. 1992) and twelfth (Dubinsky et al. 1980) most unethical practice in the earlier studi Results ‘The sales managers reported a mean relativism Score of 48.7 (range 10-90, with higher scores more relativistic) and an averago idealism score of 63.1 (range 10-90, with higher scores more idealistic) ‘These levels of relativism and idealism are quite similar to those reported in other studies of busi- Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management Older sales managers were more accepting of universal moral principles. ness students, business practitioners, and market: ers (Barnett ot al. 1994, 1996, 1998). Ethical judgment scores could range from 1-7, with higher scores indicating greater moral accept ability. The sales managers’ ethieal judgment scores for the three scenarios were 2.96, 6.59, and 5.15, respectively. Thus, the sales managers felt that al lowing personalities to influence terms of sale was the most unethical practice, which is consistent with previous results (Dubinsky et al. 1980, 1992). The sales managers did not feel that the sales practices deseribed in the other two scenarios were very Un: ethical; the order of the rankings of Scenario 2 and 3 were reversed compared to prior research (Dubiashy et al. 1980, 1992). chavioral intentions scores Tanged from 1-7, with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood of en- gaging in the action, Sales managers’ reported scores were 2.49, 5.06, and 5.47 for the Usvee scenarios. ‘Thus, sales managers indicated they were unlikely to ongage in the behavior represented by the first scenario but more likely to engage in the behaviors represented by the second and third scenarios. Sates Managers’ Relative Level of Relativism and Idealism 4's would exhibit alism than other ‘to test HI, that sales manay higher relativism and lower id marketers, the sales managers’ philosophies ¥ compared to other marketers in the survey who indicated 2 non-sales specialty. T-tests were used to compare mean responses. The results did not support either Hla or Hb, Sales managers did not exhibit significantly higher levels of relativism (48.68 versus 48.14, p<.73) than other marketers Rather than exhibiting tower idealism, sales man- agers actually were somewhat more idealistic (63.05 versus 60,51), although the difference was not a statistically significant one (p<.08). Personal Characteristics, Relativism, and Idealism ‘Two analysis of variance procedures were con- ducted to test the relationship between personal Copyright @ 200 Al Rights Beseved. characteristies and moral philosophies. To facili tate the analysis educational attainment was coded as*I" for those with a colloge degree or “some gradu: ate work” (51 percent. of the sample) and “2” for those with a master’s degree or greater (49 percent of the sample), ‘The first analysis of variance in. cluded relativism as the dependent variable, gen der and educational attainment as grouping vari- ables, and age a8 a co-variate. The second analysis included idealism as the dependent variable. The overall ANOVA model for relativism was signifi ant (F=6.12, p<.005), suggesting that relativism was indeed influenced by sales manayers’ personal Charactcristics. The overall model for idealism was also significant (F=5.16, p<.005), indicative that sales managers! level of idealism was influenced by personal characterieti Table 3 provides additional details concerning the relationship between the sales managers’ personal characteristics and their moral philosophies. As was negatively associated with relativism (p<.0 which supports Ha. Older sales managers were more accepting of universal mora! principles, In a post hoe analysis, we broke the sales managers into three age groups,<30 years, 20-39 years, and 40 or older. Results indicates! a consistently lower mean level of relativism fr ger to the older croup of sales manayers (53.0, 48.5, av spectively). However, pairwise compari the only significant difference among the three 2 {groups wasbetween thealdest and the youngest group {pe.02). Differences between those utier 30 and these 130-39 (p-<.09) and between those 30-39 and those 40 for older (p<.14) were not statistically significant ‘The hypothesized positive relationship between ase and idealism (H2b) was also supported (p<.02), Older sales managers were somewhat moze idealis- tie than their younger counterparts. In a post hoc analysis, we examined sales managers’ idealism ‘crass the three age groups. Results indicated that those over 40 years old had the greatest level of idealism (67.4) compared to those<30 years (64.5) or those between 30-39 years (61.1). Pairwise sig: nifieance tests showed that those 40 or older were significantly more idealistic than those 30-39 (p<.02), but not those<20 (p<.35). Spring 1998 by Demographic Characteristics Dependent Variable Education Female College Degree Grad. Degree orless Relativism 46.0 516 50.6 46.7 Idealism 609 655" 647 612 Age was a signlicant co-variato (F=8.95, 9 «< .005), indicating a negative correlation belwecn age and relativism, Age was a signifi pet Women sales managers were somewhat snore rela- tivistic than men, but the differenice did not achieve statistical significarce. This supported Ha. The results alse supported H3b, as female sales wnanag- ers wore inore idealistic than male salos managers (ps.00, ‘The hypothesized relationship between education relativistm (H4a) was not supported, In fact, the direction of the effect was the opposite of our a priori expectations, Those with higher education? attainment were somewhat. less relativistic than others, although the relationship was not signif cant (pe. 08), clationship between edueation and ide spported. } was net Personal Moral Philosophy and Ethical Judgmer alysis of 115, the sales managers 0 one of the four personal moral philosop!'es shown in Tabie 1 based on their rola Gvism and idealism scores. Consistent with previ ous reseaich, median splits were used to group the sales managers (Tansey et al. 1994). Median scores on relativism and ideslism were 50 and 68, respec. tively, Those scoring above the median an both di- mensions were classified as situationists (n=26) ‘Those scoring above the median on relativism but below on idealism were subjectivists (n=42). Those scoring below the median an relativism but above on idealism were classified as absolutists (n=43) ‘Those who scored below the median on both dimen. sions were classified as exceptionists (n=31) ‘To test H5, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with the three ethical To facilitate 3 nt co-variate (I'=6.32, 9 < 02), indicating @ positive correlation between age and idealism Judgments as dependent variables and the four cat egories of moral philosophy as the independent vari. ables. HS was supported by the results. As shown, iu Table 4, the MANOVA results were significant (p<.01), indicating that sales managers’ ethical judg. ments of the scenarios differed based on whether they were absolutists, subjectivists, exceptionists, oF situationists. Univariate analyses revealed that Judgments among the moral philosophy types dif. fered significantly on only the first seenaric (p=.004), which dealt with preferences in terms uf sale based on personal feelings. This practice was judged as the most unethical of the three practices overall Planned comparisons were conducted to deter- imine if absolutist sales managers judged the ae tions as significantly more unethical than subjeo livists, exceptionisés, and situationists, respectively ‘The results showed that absolutists judged the ae tion in the first scenario as significantly more un- ethical than subjectivists (p<.001) and exceptionists (p< 02). They did not judge any of the three see narios as significantly more unethical than situationists. ituationists, hike absolutists, are highly ic, we conducted a post hoe analysis in which we grouped them with absolutists and compared their ethical judgments to the subjectivists and exceptionists, both of whom are non-idealistic. Re- sults of this analysis indieated that the high ideal: ists’ ethical judgments were more harsh concerning the first (p<.005) and third (p<.04) scenarios, Tt appears from our results that idealism and not rela- tivism was the key dimension of moral philosophy that explained differences in ethical judgments among the sales managers. This result is similar to Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved. 10 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management Table 4 MANOVA Results, Means’, and Univariate Significance Levels: Ethical Judgments and Behavioral Intentions by Ethical Ideology Dependent Variable __Stuationist_Subjectivist__Absolutis!__ Exceptionist F value Ethical Judgment 1st Scenario 2a1 3.44 247 3.03 454 004 Ethical Judgment 2nd Scenario 573 5.87 Bat 5.40 127 Ethical Judgment 3rd Scenario 475 5.28 5.07 553 1.86 138 MANOVA results were signilicant (F=2.58, p < .01), indicating that ethical judgments across the three scenarios varied significantly by personal mora! philosophy. Behavioral Intention ‘1st Scenario 297 2.59 2.08 237 1.66 179 Behavioral Intention 2nd Scenario 5.48 553 452 472 275 045, Behavioral Intention ‘31d Scenario 5.30 5.28 478 5.42 92 433, MANOVA results were not significant (F=1.48, p-< 16). indicating that behavioral intentions across the three ‘scenarios did not vary significantly by personal morai philosophy. eal judgrort mean values ranged rm 1-7, wih means cosa indeatng stonger agrooment ta the soon coset i ey Tyanion moan vaues ranged Wom +7, wih mean last 1 ncctng a sat Iktngod that to respondent would engage in te action doscrbedtin the scenario. that observed in prior studies ‘of moral philosophy and ‘on personal moral philosophy: ‘Thus, H6 was not business ethics (Barnett et al. 1998; Barnett et al. 1994). supported by the data. hough the overall MANOVA results did not achieve statistical signif Personal Moral Philosophy and ance, univariate tests revealed that behaviorsl in- Behavioral Intentions tontions did differ significantly for Secnario 2. HG concerned the relationship between personal Dieciseten| ‘moral philosophy and behavioral intentions. A see- ond MANOVA was conducted with behavioral in ‘This paper reported the results of a national study tentions for the three seenarios as the dependent of the moral philosophies of sales managers, We variables and the four moral philosophies as the examined whether the personal moral philosophies independent variables. As shown in Table 4, the of sales managers differ from other marketers, MANOVA was not significant, indicating that sales whether personal moral philosophies differ based managers’ expressed intentions to engage in the on demographics, and whether ethical decision mak Scenario practices did not differ significantly based ing is influenced by personal moral philosophies. Convight @ 2001” Ail Rights Reseved.__ Spring 1998 uw Sales Managers’ Degree of Relativism and Idealism ‘The sales managers did not differ significantly in terms of relativism and idealism froin non-sales marketers. Their persona! moral philosophies were also similar to those of recent samples of students and marketing practitioners (Barnett et al. 1994, 1996, 1998), This indicates that sales managers are not necessarily more relativistic or less idealistic than others, whieh is consistent with other research showing no difference hetween sales managers and other marketers on Machiavellianism, ethical norms, or perceptions of ethical problems (Singhapakdi and Vitell 1992), ‘This finding is particalarly important in that the ethical standards of sales has been criticized quite frequently, ‘To the extent, that non-relativism and idealism are associated with more ethieal judgments and behavior, one would not expect sates managers to be more unethical than others. These findings suggest that an ethical organizational culture, eth ies codes, and ethies training should be as effective with sales managers as other employees. Establishing en ethical culture with ethies train- ing and codes of ethies should improve ethical be- havior in sales. One study reported that only 44 percent of sales trainings programs included ethics asa topic (Anderson, Mehta, and Strong 1987). Sale. nagers who receive ethics training designed to their sensitivity to ethical issues that are inherent i selling situations might simi- larly encourage their salesforce to improve their ethical practices, which should eventually lend to improved perceptions of sales ethics. Further, per- ceptions of sales might be improved hy sales eertifi- cation programs that require high ethical standards (Honeyeutt, Attia and D’Aria 1996). Companies could use personal moral philosophies to identity cs managers who could most benefit from ethies training and sales certification programs. Two professional organizations offer professional sales certification programs, Sates and Marketing, Executives-International and the National Associa. tion of Sales Persons, Programs exisi for bath sales managers and salespeople, These programs impose stringent requirements for the professionalism of sales managers and salespeople. The programs re. quire that those who become certified agree to and adhere lo a stated code of ethies (Anderson 1996; Honeycutt et al, 1996). Personal Characteristics, Relativism, and Idealism ‘The age of sales managers was associated with both dimensions of personal moral philosophy. Older sales managers were leas relativistic, with those 40 and elder significantly more likely to accept univer- sal moral principles than those under 30. Increas- ing age was also associated with greater idealism, with those 40 and older being the most idealistic group. Interestingly, those between 30:39 years of age were the least idealistic age group, suggesting that idealism might not steadily increas as one ages but rather that the level of idealism might vary with individuals’ carecr stage. In general, how: ever, those 40 and older were more likely to exhibit an absolutist philosophy, which is consistent with classical deontology. Conversely, younger sales man: agers (those under 40) were somewhat more likely to be relativistic and pragmatie in their evaluation of the consequences of actions. ‘These findings emphasize the importance of train- ing methods used to socialize younger sales manag. ers. Companies should stress the importance of the ethical norms of the company to new hires and younger sales managers, ‘The findings also imply that, if younger managers are to take companies ethical norms seriously, the reward system must be consistent with proclaimed ethieal norms. If com- panies reward high-pressure or deceptive sales prac- tices, such practices are likely to flourish. A com pany might encourage more ethieal behavior by re- warding sales personnel for having a customer ori- entation and focusing on the eustomers' long-term wants and needs Siguaw, Brown and Widing 1994) Women are entering the sales profession in in. creasing numbers and some suggest that because of women’s greater sensitivity to ethical issues, they are likely to promote more ethical behavior in the field (Dawson 1992). An important question, then, is whether or not there are gender differences in personal moral philosophy. Among the sales man agers in our sample, women were more idealistic than their male counterparts. To the extent that idealism is associated with more ethical judgments and behavior, women sales managers might be more aware of and sensitive to ethical issues. Our results also support previous research that suggests that women who enter sales careers are not less moral or idealistie than women entering other types of careers (Dawson 1992), Though prior empirical evi- Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved. 12 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management Companies should stress the importance of... ethical norms... .- dence is inconclusive as to whether gender differ fences in ethical standards exist, our findings of higher idealism among women managers seem con- sistent with Gilligan’s (1992) theory that women, when compared with men, display more concern for relationships and feelings as they reach moral and ethical judgments. The gender differences in per- sonal moral philosophy are intriguing and may be- come increasingly important as women continue to enter the field Although inereased education has been shown to predict cognitive rnoral development (Ho et al, 1997), educational altainment did not appear to be associ ated with sales managers’ personal moral philoso- phy. A findings is the high education level of our sample. Only about 4 percent of the sales managers in our sample did not have college degrees. Therefore, our analysis was severely restricted. Our findings onty suggest that the moral philosophies of those with graduate degrees docs not differ from those with undergraduate degrees. Personal Moral Philosophy and Ethical Judgments Sales managers’ ethical judgments across the threo scenarios differed based on their personal moral philosophy, Univariate analysis revealed that absolutists (non-relativistic and idealistic) sales managers were significantly more harsh in their ‘ethical judgments of the scenario deetned most un- ethical overall. These findings imply that the per: sonal moral philosophy taxonomy could be useful in terms of salesperson training (Tansey et al. 1984) ‘Applicants’ personal moral philosophy could be used to determine training necds as well as a means to gauge changes in sales managers’ philosophies af- ter exposure to ethies training. Such training might, include sales ethies scenarios and role-playing ex- ercises designed to heighten awareness of and sen- sitivity to ethical issues inherent in the selling pro- fession. Differences in ethical judgment were only signifi cant, however, on the sales practice judged most eememneccereer rE aa Ai Rights Reseved. unethical, that of allowing personal fectings to in. fluence terms of sale, This sales practice dealt with personal relationships between seller and buyer which might explain why sales managers regarded it as more unethical than the other two sales prac: tices. Jones (1991) suggests that before individuats ethical decision making processes are triggered, an issue must achieve a threshold level of “moral in- tensity.” ‘The moral intensity of an issue depends on such factors as the seriousness of consequences, the proximity of the victim, the probability of harm to others, and societal consensus that the action is morally wrong (Jones 1991). The personal moral philosophy of sales managers relevant, therefore, whea an ethical issue surpasses this threshold of intensity. It appears that in our study, only the first of the three scenarios was re garded by the sales managers as morally serious This apparently triggered an ethical decision mak- ing process and the sales managers’ moral philoso phies affected their judgment of the sales practice Tdcalisin appeared to he a more important predic torof ethical judgments thar relativism in cur study. as situationists and absolutists, both of whom are highly idealistic, judged the sales practices in two of the three scenarios as more unethical than von. idealists. This result is consistent with previous research that has revealed a strong association be- tween idealism and ethical judgments and weaker negative correlations between relativism and ethi cal judgnients (Barnett et al. 1994, 1996, 1998). ‘Companies interested in evaluating and improving the ethical behavior of their sales personnel might, ‘be well served to focus on idealism as a potentially important explanatory variable. ‘An interesting finding in our study was that sales managers differed from respondents in earlier stud. ies regarding their ethical judements of the see- narios. In earlier studies, the first seenario was ranked as the most unethical while the second and third seonarios were ranked in numerical order. However, in our study, rankings of the second and third scenarios were reversed. A possible reason for tho reversal of the rankings of the second and third seenario may lie in the nature of our sample. We vy only be Spring 1998 13 restricted our sample to sales muanagers, while pre: vious studies fueused on field sales personnel {Dubinsky et el, 1980; Dubinsky et al. 1992). Differ- ences in ethical perceptions between sales manag ersand field sales personnel could lead to inereast ethical conflict. Personal Moral Philosophy and Behavioral Intentions The behavioral intentions of the: sales managers did not differ significantly based on moral philoso phy, although absolutists were somewhat less likely to perform the actions than situationists or subjec- tivists. There are several reasons why a stronger relationship was not observed. First, it is likely that ethical judgments mediate the relationship between recognition of an ethical issue and inten tions. This is consistent with the theory of reasoned action (Ajeen and Fishbein 1980), which proposes that individuals first form an attitude about an ethical issue (ethical judgment) and then form be havioral intentions based on that attitude. A sec. ond possible explanation, mentioned already, is that the managers didi not feel that two of the three scenarios were very unethical. Therefore, it is not surprising that their moral philosophy was not a strong predictor of their expressed intentions to perform the practices, Limitations and Future Research Our study was limited by severa! factors. We drew our sample from a professional organization whose members may represent a segment of sales manag ers who are more highly educated and have higher incomes than other sales managers. All of our data analysis was based on sotfreports, Our sample size was relatively small. However, we did utilize a na tional sample of sales managers and respondents represented a variety of organizations and indas- tries. Respondents indicated their judgments and in. tentions regarding hypothetical situations. Behav- ior in actual situations might differ. We used only three scenarios drawn from provious research, two of which were not considered very anethica by oue respondents, Puture research should utilize a more comprehensive set of sales practices. The fact that respondents did not consider two of the scenarios very unethical raises the question of the effect of moral intensity. The influence of moral intensity on the relationship between personal moral philoso: phy and ethical judgments should be addressed within a sales context. Future research should also compare the moral philosophies of sales managers to a variety of other occupations, The relative levels of relativism and idealism among occupational groups might shed light on relative levels of ethical behavior. It might also dispel myths about differences in ethical orien. tations among people in different occupations. Future research should also consider the effect of both personal moral philosophy and organizational factors such as organization ethical climate (Schwepker, Ferrell, and Ingram 1997) and roward systems utilized for sales managers. Our findings suggest that sales managers do not differ from other marketers in terms of moral philosophy. Previous research indicates that they do not differ from other marketers on other ethies constructs (Singhapakdi and Vitell 1992). It is possible, therefore, that the poor perception of sales othies among the general publie is due to organizational and not individual factors. Many individuals’ negative perceptions of sales ethics may result from their frequent expo- sure to retail salespeople in industries where un- professional sales practices are perhaps more com: mon than in industrial sclling (Honeycutt et al 1996). Future research should address this issue as well, A simultaneous consideration of industry, or ganizational, and individual factors is likely to pro- vide # more complete picture of the relative impor- tanee of personal moral philosophy and situational factors on ethical decision making. References Aizen, Took and Martin Fishbein (1990), Understanding Ati ‘ules and Predicting Sovial Behavior, Bnglewond Cit, NJ Preatico all, I Alexander, Chery! S. and Henry J. Becker (1978), “The Use of Vigneltes in Survey Research," Public Opinion Quarter, 42 Spring), 93-108, Anderson, Ralph B. (1996), "Personal Selling and Sales Manage ‘ment in the Now Millennive,” Journal of Personal Sling and Sales Manageraent, 15 Fal, 1732. Rajiv Mehta ‘and James Strong (1997), “Aa Bow pirical Tavostigation of Salée Management ‘Training Pro ixrams for Sales Managers," Journal of Perwonal Selling tnd Sales Management, 7 (Surin), 88-66, Armstrong, Scott J. and Terry Overton (1977), "Estimating ‘Nonresponse Bias ia Mail Surveys? Journal of Marketing Researeh, V4 (Angst), 396-409, Barnett, Tim, Ken Bass and Gane Brown (1994), “Euhical Ico) ony and Ethical Judgment Reyarding Bthieal Issues in Busi. ross,” Journal of Business Bthics, 18, 469-480. Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 14 pn (1898), “Regios, ‘Ethical Ideslogy, and Intentions to Report. a Poer’s Wrong doing Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1161-1374 = os = and Hebert (1998), “Bihical acologios and the Ruhicat Judyinente of Market ing Professionals Journal of Business Bthice, frtbeom= ing Bellies, Joseph A. (2995), “Committing and Suservising Un ‘cthical Sales Fore Behavior: The Eifects of Vieim Ge flee, Vietio Status, and Sales Force Motivational Tech: niques Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manogement, 1B (Spring), 115, eit dnd Robert B, Hite (1988), “Supervising Uncthi nl Salesforce Behavior” Journal of Marketing, 58, 36:47 ‘and D. Waye Norvell (1000), “Personal Charar- ‘erates and Salosperson’s Justiieations as Modcrators of Supervisory Dieeipliag in Cases Involving Unethical Salesforce Behavior? Journol ofthe Academy nf Marketing: Science, 19(Winter), 1-16. CChonke, Lawrence B. ned Shelby D. ffunt (1985), “Ethics and "Marketing Maningement: An Empirical Examination, “Jour ral of Business Reenreh, 13, 839-359 EE Soba F. Taner dr and William A, Wocks 196), “Bubies in Salesperson Decision Makinye A Syathesis of Research Approaches and an Extension of the Seenaris Metin ournalf Personal Selling & Sales Mananerso, 16 (Winter), 35-462 Dabbelkar, Pratibha A. and James J. Kellaris (3992), “Toward ‘Understanding Marketing Stedents Ethical Judges of Caniroversil Selling Practices,” Jovernal of Businens Re: search, 24, 13029 Doweon, Leslie M, (1991), “Bthieal Differences Betwoon Men ‘ond Women in The Salo Profession "Journal of Business Elhies, 16, 1148-1352. “*{ig92), ‘Will Cominization Change the Bthies of the Sales Profecsion?,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24 Winter), 2-2. Dubinsky, Alan d- and M. vin (1982), "Business Ehies: Buy- “Cm ad Seca" ournel of Purchasing and Materials Mon. cagoment, 17,916. anid M. Levy (1986), "Bthies in Rotating: Pereep tions of Retail Salespoople,* Journal of the Academy of Marketing Seience, 13, 1-16. “and Barbara Loken (2989), “Analyzing Ethical Decision Making in Markoting,” Journal of Business Re- seareh, 19 (2), 88-107. "Brie N. Berkowits and William Rudelins (1980), “Hue Broblesns of Field Sales Personnel,” MSU Bust ness Topics, 25 Summer), HIG. Marvin A- Jolson, Ronald E, Michaols, Masaaki otabe and Chao Un Lim (1992), “Ethical Perceptions of Field Sales Personnel: An Bmpirial Assessment * Journal bf Personal Selling & Sales Management, 12 Fall, 921 Ferrel, 0.6. and Steven J, Skioner (1988), "Ethical Behavior Tand Sureaveratie Stmcture in Marketing Research Ors ‘uations Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 10-109, "Larry G: Gresham, and Jha Fracdrich (1989), “A Synthasie of Ethical Decision Models for Marketing owrnal of Mecromarketing, 8, 65:6. Forsyth, Doaelson R. (1980), “A Taxonomy of Kthica) Mote ‘pest Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3. Yrs. EIS (98s), “Individual Differences in Information Tnteyration During Moral Judganent,” Journal of Personal ity anid Sovial Payehology, 49, 254-272 (1992), “Figo the Morality of Busines tees: The lnfucnce af Personal Maral Philosophies,” dorr hal of Business Ethics, 11, 481470. nd Rick B. Berges (1992), ‘al Ideology on Moral Behavior” Journal of Social Psyekol fy 117, 58-56 and Jodi L. Nye (1999) Tonophies and Moral Chics” Journal of Research in Bor sonality, 24, 898-414 ma ane! Kar) Ketley (1988), “Idea! iam, Reliivigm, and the Ethie of Caring,” Te Jowsval of Prycholegy, 122, 248.248, eee yd Willian Ray Pope (1984), "Euical Ideology and Judgesents of Socio! Paychological Resooreh: Muli mensional Analysis Journal of Personality ana Sccal Psy chnlegy, 6, 1965-1348. Praedrich, John and O.C. Ferrell (992m), “Cognitive Cons Toney ofMerketing Manogersin Ethieal Situations,” fur hal of the Academy uf Marketing Seience, 29 (Summer 28-254 and ——— (1992), "The Impact of Percived ak nnd Moral Philosophy Type on Fuhienl Decitiva Mk- ing in Business Organizations,” Journal nf Psiness Re search, 24 (Sine), 283-296. Priusecho, Navid J. (1988), "An Examination of Meeting BOh- ‘ex. Role of the Decisis! Maker, Consegse--s af the Dec oo, Management Postion, and Sex af the Respament Sowrnal of Macromnrketing, 23-39 IT nfl! Becker 2981), "Linking Manageme havior to Ethie Phikmphy-An Benpiical Investigation,” Academy of Masiogementdiarual, 27 fare), 16178 iligan, Carol 1982), In a Different Vaice, CanordgesHarvard ‘University Press. Geoleby, Jerry R. and Shelby D. Hunt (1992), “Cogeitive Mo) Development and Marketing” vournal of Marketing, Ganary, 5588, Harris, James R, and Charlote D. Sutton (299), “Vnravelling ‘the Eien! Decision Making Process: Clic From an Er pirical Stady Comparing Foyiusic 1000 Exceutives and MBA, Bindents” sournal of Business Rthies, M 809.817 Slagurty, W.Hlarvey and Honry P. Sis (197R), “Sore Detera nents of Unethical Decision Behavior: ‘An Experiment” Sournal of Applied Peycholngy, 68, 451-457 Hfonthorne, Tony Le, Donsla P. Robin nnd Bric R. Reidenbuch (1993), “Identifying the Gaps in Ethical Percoptions Se toacen Manngets and Solespeople: A Multidimensional Approach,” Journal of Business hes, 11, 649-956 Ho, Foo Nin, Seat. J. Vitel, James Baract and Rene Nesbore (1997), “Ethicel Correlates of Role Confit and Ambiguity fh Marketing: The Mediating Rolo of Cognitive Moral De Volopment"slournal ofthe Academy of Marketing Seience, 2 Spring) M7126, Honcyeutt, Bart D. Jr, Ashraf, M. Attia and Angela R, D'Auria an9e), "Selling and Sales Management in Action,” Journal Uf Porcenat Selling ond Sales Management, 6 (Summer) 5965, flunt, Shelby D, nnd Lawrence B. Chonko (1964), “Marketing Mand Mochiavellionism Journal of Marketing. 48 (July 3042, ee, und dames B. Wileax 1964), “Fei ‘al Problems of Morkating Researchers,” Journal of Sor Ieding Research, 21 (August), 304-524 eee pnd Scott Viel (1986), "A General Theory af Mar Trating Ethica Journal of Macromarketing, 6 (Spring, 5 16. Copyright @ 3001. All Rights Reseved. Spring 1998 15, a ands. (2995), General Thoory of Mar. ‘Keting Ethiew: A Retrospective end Revision” in Fthis Mertoting, John A Queleh ad Greig Sith, eds, Chi ‘ego Irwin, 775-784. —— and Arturo Z. Vasques: Parra (1095 “ ‘ational Consequences, Marketing Ethics, and Supervision Journal of Merketing Research, $0 (Feb ary, 78-90. Jones, Thomas M. (1901), “Ethics! Beeston Making hy Individa- alsin Onganizations: An Tssuo-Contingent Model” Acad fey of Management Reviews 16, 166-395 Jones, Gwen E. and Michsc! J- Kavanagh (1990), “An Expert ‘ental Examination ofthe Bees of Fndividoa? and Sita ational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intensions i the Workplace *sJonrva! of Business BUbhes, 1, 511 528 ‘Mason, Sharow W. and Peter B. Masuek (199), “Gonder and Bihical Orientation: A Test of Gender and Oecuyational Socialization Thourian"Jesrnal of Business BUhice, 5, 899 608 Mayo, Micheel A. and Laserence J. Marks 1990) “81 Empirical Tnvestigation of a General Phooey of Market ng Ethics” Tourn of the Acodlny of Macting Scimnce, 1s Sprig reat, Reideabach, R Lie and Donald P. Rabin (2918), “Soxse Lnitial ‘Stops Toward Improving the Measrement of Ethical Beal ations of Markestiog Activities” Jnana! of Busine Bthiv 7.871829, ‘and 0994), “Fasa~d tho Development bf'a Moluidimensional Scale for Imamving Bvaloatinns of Business Etnies Journal of Husinens bikie, 9 GES, ‘est, James R (1886), Moral Develnamer = Addonsces in Fe ‘earch and Theory, New York:Prooger Publishors usgyer, Dewoed and Ernest W. King (1992), “A Study ofthe Elect of Age nad Gond=r Upon Stndonts’ Bsinors Echion? oral of Businens Bthie, 11, 179-188, Schweplcr, Chavtes HL, 0, C, Ferrell and Thomas N. Lngvon (1987), "Phe laftucnew of Ethieal Climate and Buea Con ict on Role Stee in the Sales Fores" voacmal of the Academy of Marketing Seience, 25 (Spring) 99-108 Siguiw,dudy A. Gene Brows and Robert &, Widing, 111904), “The Influcore of Une Market Orientation of the Firm on Sales Force Behavior and Attituder,* Journal of Marketing Research $1 (Febrinry), 106-116, ‘Soh. Betsy and Donelsoa R. Fursyth (M80), “Soxusd Actus And Moral Valioe: ‘The Importance of leaism ond Relor tivisin* Buen of the Pxyshonamaie Society, 21. .60-162 Singhapakd, Anueorn and Seott Vitel dr. (1990), “Markcting Ethics: Factors Influoncing Perceptions of Euhieal Probe leas and Alternatives” dournal of Macromacketing, 10 (Win 29010), Rewenreh Note: Selected Factors Iaftvencing Marketer" Deontologieal Nowra Jour ral of the Academy of Marbeiing Selene, 19 Winter), 37 2 and (199, “Analy ing the ethieat Decision Making of Sales Professionals owrnal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, (Pall), viz. and (1992), "Marketing Ethie Sales Professionals Versus Othor Marketing Professionals,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Menagement, 12 (Spring), 27-8, + Keoneth L. Kraft, Sott J. Vitel snd Kura C. ‘Rallapalli (1995), “The Perceived Impentance of Ethics and Social Responsiility on Organizational Efeeivenees: Survey of Marketers,” dovcnal of the Academy of Mr sing Setence, 2L (Winker 19-5 Sparks, Jol R. andl Mark JohIke (2996), "Pacuors Ta Ruenclny Siudent Perceptions of Uncthical Behavior by Persona! Salespeople: An Experimental Investigation,” Journal of Business Ethics, 1, 871-887. ‘Tansey, Richard, Gene Brown, Michee! 8, Hyman and Lynde Dawson, Jr (1994), "Personal Moral Philesophies and the Moral Judgments of Salespeople,” Journal of Per sonal Selling & Sales Manogement, 14 (Winter), 59-75 ‘Thoma, 8. J. 1985), “On Improving the Relationship Between, Moral Reasoning and Extra Criteria: The Uslizer! Non-Uuilizer Dimension,” unpublished dactora!disaerta tion, University of Minacvota Vitel), Seout J., James R. Lumpkin and Nokawined Y. A Rowwas (1991), “Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Beliofe of Hlderly Coniarra” Journal of Busine Fthies, 10, 268-075, a ~ Kumar C.Rallapalli and Arasorn Singhapakdi (2998), “Marketing Norms: The tnfigencoet Personal Moral Philosophies snd Organizational Calvare* Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (Fall), 91-7 aad Anusorn Singhapakai (1003), “Bthieal [de ‘logy and Tes Taluenee on the Norras and Judgments of Marketing Practitioners," Journal of Marketing Mange sent, 4 SpriggSmmer), -2, Weber, James (992), “Scenavios in Bosinoss Ethics Research Review, Critical Assorsment, and Reenmmendations Business Bthies Quarterly, 2 (April), 137-160, Weeks, W.A, and DD. Muchling (1987), "Students Perceptions ‘af Personal Selling. Industrial Marketing Management, 16, 145-151, Wise, Timothy D. 997), “Persoaal Moral Philosophy and the ‘Tendency to Report Wrongoing,” uapublished working paper Wotrua, Thoms R_(1000),*A Comprehensive Pram work for the Analysis of Ethies! Behavior, with a Focus on Sales Organizations,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Man cement, 10, 29.42. Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved. 16 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management ‘Appendix Ethics Position Questionnaire" 1. person shoukd make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree 2, Risks to another should never be tolerated, respective of how small the risks might be 3, The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irespective of the benetits to be gained 4, One should never psychologically or physically harm another person. 5. One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and weltare of another individual, 6, If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done. 7. Deciding whether or not to pertorm an act by balancing the positive consequences of the act against the negative consequences of the act is immoral. 8. The dignily and welfare of people should be the most important concer in any society. 9. tis never necessary to sacrifice the weilare of others. 10. Moral actions are those which closely match ideals of the most ‘perfect” action. 11, There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be a part ot any code of ethics. 42 What is ethical varies from one situation to another. 18. Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be judged fo be immoral by another person. 14. Different types of moralities cannot be compared as to “rightness.” 15. Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved since what is moral or immoral is up to the individual. 16. Moral standards are simple personal rules which indicate haw a person should! behave, anc are not to be applied in making judgments of others. 17. Ethical considerations in interpersonal relations are so complex that individuals should be allowed 1o formulate their own individual codes. 18. Rigidly coditying an ethical option that prevents certain \ypes of actions could stand in the way of better human relations and adjustment. 49. No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is permissible or not permissible totally depends upon the situation. 20. Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral depends upon the citcumstances surrounding the action. ‘Each tom seorad on a 1-9 scale, with higher values cating strongor agreement wih the sialement. eric 1-10 ao designed to asses iaaim; Roms 11-20, relatwisin Forsyth 1980) —ETGHT O OO0T All Rights Beseved. Spring 1998 7 Appendix Factor Analysis Results-Sales Managers Ethics Position Questionnaire Question Number Factor 1 a eit -.036 6 795, 033, 2 740 001 4 688 -025 5 671 -.055 1 591 051 9 562 058 8 362 -027 7 305 ~.056 10 187 020 106 807 019 786 -.028 a7 081 713 016 560 045, 817 002, 466 029 400 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved.

You might also like