ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 17, 443-472 (2000)

Making ethical judgements: A cross-cultural management study

This article reports the results of a cross-cultural empirical study across seven

countries which investigates the differences in the way managers structure

their ethical judgements regarding the loyalty of a corporation to its employees,

the loyalty of employees to the corporation, and the loyalty of employees

towards their co-workers. Managers’ ethical judgements from the East Asian

‘tiger’ countries of Japan, Korea and Hong Kong are compared with those from

the ‘Anglo’ countries of the United States and Australia, and with those from

the ‘transitional’ countries of Asiatic Russia and Poland. An adapted version of

the well documented Reidenbach-Robin instrument is used, and its cross-

cultural application investigated. As hypothesized, cross-cultural differences

were indicated for both the structure and content of managers’ ethical

judgements, which have important implications for the way organizations are

effectively managed both nationally, regionally and internationally. Weaknesses

in the d priori constructs of the research instrument were also indicated, and

recommendations made for future development of methodology in this area.

1. INTRODUCTION

With an increase in managerial activity across borders, the way managers from

different countries may see decisions as ethical or unethical is important to understand.

The decision of a multinational company to lay off considerable numbers of employees

in a subsidiary may be judged differently from culture to culture. Higher levels of

CCC 0217-456 l/00/040443-.30

0 2000 BY JOHN WILEY 81 SONS (ASIA) LTD

444 ‘I’. JACKSON ET AL.

loyalty expected of a company for its employees in collectivist countries such as

Japan and Korea (Bae and Chung 1997) may explain such differences. Similarly, the

degree of loyalty expected from employees to their company may differ across cultures

on the basis of the degree to which collectivism is focused on the corporation (Hui

1990), or the extent to which individualism prevails in a culture (Hofstede 1980)

and employees have a calculative or instrumental regard towards their organizations.

Also, the extent to which group members may rally around a disadvantaged colleague

when threatened with dismissal and the degree to which a manager should go along

with this could differ according to the extent to which collectivism is focused on the

group (Hui 1990) or on the level of egalitarian commitment (Schwartz 1994) which

is evident in an individualistic society.

This paper presents the results of an empirical investigation of differences in

the structure of ethical judgements across seven countries. By ‘structure’ we mean

those aspects which contribute to the making of a judgement as to whether or not

a decision is ethical. The study also investigates differences in the culrural content

of ethical judgements of managers in two ‘Anglo’ countries (the United States,

Australia,) three East Asian countries (Japan, Korea and Hong Kong - although

Ronen and Shenkar’s (1985) seminal work on clustering countries regards Japan as

an independent countries which has followed a different line of industralization) and

two ‘transitional’ former Soviet countries (Russia and Poland - although we obtain

samples for the former from Asiatic Russia). By ‘content’ we mean the extent to

which a decision is seen to be ethical or unethical, and the extent to which this varies

across national cultures.

The study focuses on three major aspects of relations between internal

organizational stakeholders: corporate loyalty to employees, loyalty of employees

to the corporation, and loyalty of employees to group members. The study

employs a multidimensional research method which is well established in the

literature (Reidenbach and Robin 1990) yet under-exploited in the cross-cultural

management literature.

As the cross-cultural literature is mainly confined to differences in the ‘content’

of ethical judgement, or what managers regard as ethical or not ethical, we first focus

on the literature in this area, particularly to see what light it may shed on cultural

differences in ethical regard towards the relationships of corporate and group loyalty

in which we are interested. We then outline concepts concerning the ‘structure’ of

ethical judgement, or on what basis judgements are made, and look for evidence of

cross-cultural differences. We then turn our attention to the methodological basis of

the study and provide an overview of the Reidenbach-Robin instrument and its

application to cross-cultural study.

MAKING ETHICAL JLJIXIXENTS 445

2. CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN ETHICAL JUDGEMENTS

The growing cross-cultural literature on management ethics provides evidence that

there are differences among national groups in the perceptions of what constitutes

ethical decision making among European countries (Becker and Fritzche 1987a,

t987b; Jackson and Calafell Artola 1997), among Anglo countries (Alderson and

Kakabadse 1994) between Anglo and European countries (Lyonski and Gaidis 1991),

between American and other nationalities (Hegarty and Sims 1978, 1979; Izraeli

1988; White and Rhodeback 1992; Schlegelmilch and Robertson 1995; Okleshen

and Hoyt 1996), and between Asian and non-Asian countries (Dolecheck and Dolecheck

1987; McDonald and Pak 1997; Ralston et al. 1994).

This literature suggests that for issues concerning relations with external

stakeholders such as customers and suppliers, Anglo countries have a higher ethical

concern than European and Asian managers, and that Americans a greater concern

than their other Anglo counterparts (Becker and Fritzche 1987a,b; Lyonski and

Gaidis 1991; Hegarty and Sims 1978, 1979; White and Rhodeback 1992; Okleshen

and Hoyt 1996; McDonald and Pak 1997). However, for issues involving loyalty

relationships with the organization, Americans have a lower ethical concern than

European managers (Izraeli 1988; Alderson and Kakabadse 1994) with some indication

of variation among European groups (Jackson and Calafell Artola 1997). There is

some suggestion that Americans are more ethically concerned with issue of group

loyalty (Izraeli 1988) and that American managers may not put the organization first

when it comes to conflicts with either group- or self-interests (Izraeli 1988; Alderson

and Kakabadse 1994).

Studies undertaken which focus on management ethics in specific countries

also indicate that for Japanese managers company interests are more likely to take

precedence over personal ethical considerations (Nakano 1997), and that Japanese

corporations instil a reciprocal loyalty with employees (Pickens 1987) with high

levels of commitment of Japanese employees to the organization (Bae and Chung

1997). The study by Bae and Chung (1997) which compares Korean employees with

Japanese and United States employees, shows a higher level of solidarity of Korean

employees with the corporation compared with Japan and the United States, and

indicates that Koreans expect the corporation to show the same degree of loyalty to

them. However, in the same study they show a lower level of solidarity with co-

workers compared with the U.S. and Japan. McDonald and Pak’s (1997) study of

Hong Kong managers compared with (Anglo) expatriates in Hong Kong shows a

lower ethicality for Hong Kong managers, including a lower ethical concern for the

manipulation of expenses (an indication of the level of loyalty to the corporation).

In a study which compares the work values of Australian, Hong Kong and American

managers, Westwood and Posner (1997) indicate that U.S. and Australian managers

place more importance on employees and co-workers as organizational stakeholders

than their Hong Kong counterparts.

446 T. JACKSON E’l AL.

Concerning the rontent of ethical judgements we can therefore propose that:

Hypothesis 1: There will be significant cultural differences among the national

groups surveyed in managers’ ethical concern for:

1 .l: the loyalty of the corporation to employees, such that Korean

and Japanese managers will be more concerned ethically with

this than the Anglo managers;

1.2: the loyalty of employees to the corporation, such that Anglo

and Hong Kong managers will be less ethically concerned than

Korean and Japanese managers;

1.3: group loyalty of employees to their fellow workers, such that

Anglo managers will be more ethically concerned with this

than the Korean and Japanese managers.

3. THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICAL JUDGEMENTS AND CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

In the literature the basis for ethical judgements seems logically to fit into two

dimensions: (1) judgements based on consequential considerations; and, (2) judgements

based on non-consequential considerations (Brady 1990; Tsalikis and LaTour 1995).

Hence, consequential judgements may be based on their having a result which on

balance is good for the majority of stakeholders (utilitarianism) or in the overall

interests of the person making the decision or those with whom he or she identifies,

such as the company (egoism). Non-consequential judgements are based on prior

considerations of an explicit or implicit set of rules or principles which guides

conduct. Judgements are based on these ‘universal’ moral principles which do not

anticipate the results of a decision (deontology).

However, it is unlikely that the bases for these different types of judgement are

‘pure’ (Hunt and Vitell 1986) or that we solely rely on one to the exclusion of the

other (Brady 1990). Hence, we may make a judgement on prior considerations of

what we believe to be ‘fair’ to all concerned (justice). Ideas of fairness may be based

on perceptions of the outcome of a decision providing to each the greatest amount

of liberty which is compatible with a like liberty for all, but also implies prior

judgements on the extent to which such liberty should be distributed unequally

according to prior principles of difference (Rawls 1971). We may also make ethical

judgements based on what we believe is acceptable to us as a member of a family,

other groups which influence us, and as a member of a cultural group or society

(ethical relativism).

It is also unlikely that these principles are invariable across cultures, and across

different contexts. Ethical relativism is the only theory which addresses this issue,

not by explaining it, but simply by acknowledging it.

MAKING FTHI(:AI. JIJDGFMENTS 447

Although the cross-cultural literature focuses more on the content of ethical

decisions, there is some evidence that the way judgements are made, what we are

calling the ‘structure’ of ethical judgements, may vary among different cultural

groups, although this has mainly focused on differences between Asian and non-

Asian cultures. Ralston et al. (1994) cl’ ISCUSS differences between the apparent self-

serving attitudes of Hong Kong Chinese managers compared with American managers

as being explained by differences in the western view of ethical behavior as an

absolute that applies universally. In the East ‘face’ is important and ethical behavior

depends on the situation. Ethics is therefore relative. As long as ‘face’ is intact it is

not a concern. This situationalism is also seen in Dolecheck and Dolecheck’s (1987)

study which found Hong Kong managers equate ethics to acting within the law,

compared with American managers who see ethics as going beyond keeping to the

letter of the law. Singhapakdi, Vitell and Leelakulthanit (1994) also found that Thai

managers rely more on the nature of the ethical issues or circumstance and less

on universal moral principles when making ethical judgements, compared with

their American counterparts. This may provide a basis for assuming that Asian

ethical judgement may be more relativistic in structure, and that the way judgements

are made may vary from one situation to the other. Ethical judgements of western

managers may be more based on the application of universal principles of

ethical behavior.

More specifically, a study by McDonald and Pak (1996) set out to investigate

cross-cultural differences in ‘cognitive philosophies’ among managers from Hong

Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand and Canada. Their findings suggest that self-interest

is important in ethical decision making for Hong Kong managers, but that ‘duty’

(a deontological consideration) is important to all these national groups. Justice, or

considerations of fairness are also important to all national groups. Utilitarian

considerations are shown to be less important, but more important relatively for the

Malaysian group. This study, as others which focus on the way ethical judgements

are made (Reidenbach and Robin 198X, 1990), indicate that judgements are made

using multiple criteria rather than relying on one specific basis of ethical decision

making. It is the combination of multiple criteria which we call the ‘structure’ of

ethical judgements, and this is what we investigate in this article.

Specific studies of management ethics in Japan suggest that Japanese managers’

ethical decisions tend to be situational (Nakano 1997), although the development of

Japanese ‘moralogy’ (Taka and Dunfee 1997) may be indicative of a deontological

emphasis in ethical decision making. American managers may look to industrial

norms and what their company expects when making an ethical decision (Posner and

Schmidt 1987). Consequential considerations of organizational efficiency figure lower

for American than for Australian and Hong Kong managers in a comparative study

of organizational values by Westwood and Posner (1997), where organizational stability

is seen as significantly more important by the American than by the Australian and

448 T . JACKSON ET /I/,.

Hong Kong managers. A comparative study by Elenkov (1997) of managers in the

United States and (European) Russia suggests that Russian managers display higher

levels of machiavellism than those in the U.S., as well as being as competitively

oriented as the American group and equally not dogmatic. This may indicate a

tendency to employ self-seeking criteria in ethical decision making, or at least

employing utilitarian criteria. However, Neimanis (1997) suggests that the Soviet

system militated against people making their own decisions, but justifying the

interests of the state, the corporation or the party as superseding that of ethical

considerations. This may have encouraged an egoism based on best interests of the

corporation, and more latterly based on self-interest with a move towards a free

market economy (see also Apressyan 1997). However, it may also have encouraged

a reference to rules and principles in order to avoid the consequences (punishment)

of making a wrong decision. Principle-based decision making of managers and

negotiators in the former Soviet Union is well documented (see for example Glenn

et al. 1984, in relation to negotiation style), and the current Russian (and perhaps

Polish) ethical judgement structure may be a complexity of historical and current

influences (Apressyan 1997).

Concerning the st~rtz~r~ of ethical judgements we can therefore propose that:

Hypothesis 2: The structure of ethical judgements for managers from all nationalities

surveyed will be multi-dimensional, but will vary by culture such

that:

2.1: Managers from Japan, Korea and Hong Kong will use situational

criteria for making ethical judgements employing predominantly

relativistic and consequential dimensions;

2.2: Managers from Russia and Poland will use a combination of

consequential, relativistic and deontological criteria for making ethical

judgements;

2.3: Managers from the United States will use predominantly

deontological criteria for making ethical judgements;

2.4: Managers from Australia will use predominantly consequential

criteria for making ethical judgements.

Hypothesis 3: The structure of ethical judgements employed by managers is generally

situational, that is, the structure will vary from decision-making

situation to situation.

4. A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY: METHODOLOGY

The use of the Reidenbach-Robin multidimensional scale (Reidenbach and Robin

1988, 1990) is now well established in the literature (Hansen 1992; Tsalikis and

MAKING ETIII(.AL JUIXEMENTS 449

Nwachukwu 1991; Tsalikis and LaTour 1995). This provides an instrument which

is purported to measure the complexities of the ethical decision-making process by

anchoring items to contemporary normative ethical philosophies, namely: justice,

relativism, egoism, utilitarianism, deontology (Reidenbach and Robin 1990). As

such the scale is seen as a way of both moving away from unidimensional models,

and away from pure theoretical debate and attempting to quantify the various

philosophical concepts used (Hansen 1992). As such, the Reidenbach-Robin scale

probably remains one of the most promising research instruments available.

The problems of interpreting the usefulness of the instrument stem from the

nature of the research already undertaken. Results from studies reported in the

literature are taken from samples of full-time business students and not practitioners,

and with the exception of the work of Tsalikis and Nwachukwu (1991), and Tsalikis

and LaTour (1995) have been drawn from specific and geographically confined American

samples. While comparing Americans and Nigerians (Tsalikis and Nwachukwu 1991)

and American and Greeks (Tsalikis and LaTour 1995) the work of Tsalikis and

colleagues has made little attempt at cultural explanations of differences between

national samples. The studies already undertaken using this instrument are also

concerned mainly with marketing issues, and other issues relating to management

ethics remain to be explored.

Another problem of interpreting the usefulness of this instrument is the apparent

disagreement on empirically derived constructs resulting from its different uses.

Hence, Reidenbach and Robin’s (1988) original study produced a five factor solution

which was difficult to interpret in relation to the apiori constructs. Their subsequent

study (Reidenbach and Robin 1990), following detailed item analysis and elimination,

and more rigorous consideration of reliability and construct validity produced three

factors which were more readily interpretable. The first factor was a moral equity

dimension comprising four items on fair/unfair, just/unjust, acceptable/unacceptable

to my family, and morally/not morally right. The second factor was a relativistic

dimension which encompassed two items of traditionally acceptable/unacceptable,

and culturally acceptable/unacceptable. The third factor produced a two-item

contractualism dimension incorporating one item on violates/does not violate an

unspoken promise and another on violates/does not violate an unwritten contract.

Hansen (1992) produced a four factor solution incorporating I6 items. Factor one

is a ‘broad-based ethical judgement’ dimension, factor two is a ‘deontological judgement’

dimension, factor three is a ‘social contract judgement’ dimension and factor four is

a ‘teleological judgement’ dimension which combines egoism and utilitarianism. As

such this factor structure may be closer to the aprio~i constructs of the instrument.

Tsalikis and associates do not offer a factor structure, but provide a range of comparisons

for each item and aprio~i scale scores for justice, relativism, utilitarianism, deontological

and egoism.

450 T . JACKSON I;‘/ /IL..

Differences in the interpretation of results are mainly a consequence of the use

of different statistical methods including different methods of factor extraction,

interpretation of factors, reliance on different but restricted samples, and the use of

different scenarios in order to elicit responses. However, such differences and difficulties

of interpretation may also be a consequence of: (1) the problems of operationalizing

d priori constructs: constructs in the minds of philosophers may not be the constructs

which are used on a day-to-day basis by managers who have to make ethical judgements

about practical issues; and, (2) there may be significant differences among different

cultures in the way managers confront ethical dilemmas.

Despite these issues, the Reidenbach-Robin scale would seem a useful instrument

to measure cross-cultural differences in ethical judgements. Its construction followed

an extensive literature review and expert panel evaluation. The five philosophies

‘encompass most of the ‘great’ ideas for social survival, not just from the area of

moral philosophy, but also from religion. Ideas of fairness, justice, contract, duty,

consequence, greater good and many others that come from the five philosophies can

be found in the Bible, the Koran, the writings of Buddha, and in other religions.’

(Reidenbach and Robin 1990: 640). In addition, the work of Tsalikis and associates

has provided a useful starting place for more extensive cross-cultural work, using a

slightly adapted version of the original Reidenbach-Robin instrument.

Previous work on cross-cultural comparisons of ethical decision making focuses

mainly on the content of the decision rather than the process or basis upon which

an ethical judgement is formed. The current study focuses on the way ethical judgements

are made by practising managers across seven countries. The decisions concern relations

with internal organizational stakeholders, rather than relations with external stakeholders

upon which previous work using the Reidenbach-Robin instrumental has focused.

As in this previous work, three scenarios were presented to respondents. However,

in this study the scenarios focus on corporate loyalty to employees, loyalty to company

and loyalty to one’s group. An initial search of the literature revealed a lack of

vignettes used previously in research on management ethics which attempted to

capture these loyalty aspects. The scenarios were therefore initially developed by the

first author, and subjected to examination by the international team members, cited

as co-authors, in their respective countries in order to check for cultural appropriateness

as well as to gain consensus on the content validity (e.g., Cronbach 1990) of each

scenario. This was to establish that they in fact relate to corporate loyalty to employees,

loyalty to company, and loyalty to group in the context of the target cultures. This

also went some way in ensuring construct validity (e.g., Cronbach 1990) so that we

could reasonably expect that respondents scoring high on, for example, the ethical

item relating to the loyalty to employees scenario actually reflects a judgement that

loyalty to employees is not such an ethical issue (see items used in Table 5). The

scenarios thus developed are as follows.

MAKING ETHICAL JIJDGEMENTS 451

Scenario 1 Corporate loyalty to employees

In a time of economic recession, profits have been significantly reduced. The company

could struggle on for another year, but this would mean greatly depleting financial

reserves to a dangerous level. Unemployment in the local community is now very

high. The company decides to make redundant (lay off) up to a third of the workforce

as necessary.

Scenario 2 Loyalty to company

You know that when your colleague goes on business trips he sometimes inflates the

amount of expenses he can claim back from the company by about 50%. You speak

to him about it and he says that he gives a lot of his time to the company on these

trips, and this is just fair recompense. You decide to report this to a superior.

Scenario 3 Loyalty to group

An employee has been late on a number of occasions and his productivity has gone

down significantly over the last six months. You know that the employee financially

supports an extended family. Members of his work team have said they will work

harder to compensate for the employees deficiencies. You accept this.

Following Tsalikis and LaTour (1995) a modified multi-dimensional scale was

constructed from the Reidenbach-Robin instrument and managers were asked to

respond on a 5-point semantic differential scale as in Table 1. This differed from the

7-point scale used by Reidenbach and Robin (1988, 1990) in their one-nation

studies. A number of cross-cultural researchers have pointed to the potential problem

of different interpretation of the meaning of rating scales, and have urged the use

of more restrictive scales in order to minimize this problem. Five-point scales are

therefore more commonly used within cross-cultural studies (Hofstede 1980; Lonner

1990; Berry et al. 1992).

The sampling frame included only managers in full-time managerial positions

who work in their home country. Data collection was by questionnaire administered

by a member of an international team of researchers in their respective countries to

part-time attendees of management programs within their locality. Sampling from

this population of managers was seen as legitimate and pertinent to this study as it

provided matched samples across the countries surveyed (van de Vijver and Leung

1997) of similarly educated individuals who have the potential to occupy key positions

of influence in their organizations. This type of sampling also maintains company

anonymity and avoids self-selection in a subject area which is often seen as sensitive

and sometimes prejudicial to the public interests of the company. This can militate

against matching of samples across countries. The chances of sampling error is also

minimized by drawing samples from different institutes and locations in each country.

452

Table 1 Items and LZ priori scales

T . JACKSON ET AL.

A priori scales Item (scored l-5)

The decision is:

Justice Fair/Unfair

Relativist Acceptable m my culture/Not acceptable in my culture

Acceptable to me/Not acceptable to me

Acceptable to people I most admire/Not acceptable to people I most

admire

Acceptable to my family/Not acceptable to my family

Egoism

Utilitarianism EfficientiInefficlent

Okay if actions can be justified by their consequences/Not okay if

actions can be justified by their consequences

Does not compromise an important rule by which I live/ Compro-

mises an important rule by which I live

On balance, tends to be good/On balance, tends to be bad

Leads to the greatest good for the greatest number/Leads to the least

good for the greatest number

Maximizes pleasureihlinimlzes pleasure

Not selfish/Selfish

Prudent/Not prudent

Under no moral obligation to act otherwise/Morally obliged to act

otherwise

In the best interests of the company/Not in the best interests of the

company

Deontology Does not violate an unwritten contract/Violates an unwritten contract

Morally right/Not morally right

Obligated to act in this way/Not obligated to act in this way

Univariate ethical measure Generally an ethical decision/Generally not an ethical decision

5. RESULTS

However, despite the choice of sampling method, problems were still encountered

in matching samples by sex and seniority. The predominance of males in the Japanese

and Korean samples reflects the predominance of males in the general managerial

population for these countries. The predominance of one sex in managerial positions

is also part of the management culture in different countries. Hence, Japan and

Korea are male dominated management cultures. This may be the case also for the

predominance of females in the Russian sample, but may be a characteristic of the

sample only for the Hong Kong sample. Over 70% of Korean managers describe

themselves as senior managers, and their average stated number of subordinates

supports their perceived levels of responsibility, while the Japanese managers may be

under-stating their level of seniority compared with other national groups (Table 2).

MAKING ETHICAL JUDCEMENTS 453

Table 2 Descriptive statistics

Nationality ?l % Mean Management female No. of position %

Subordinates

American 105 33.3 5.35

Australian 39 28.2 20.37

Japanese 137 5.1 64.58

Korean 40 2.5 233.23 Hong Kong 34 79.4 6.97

Russian 115 67.0 24.35

Polish 50 38.0 19.20

Total 520 34.0 48.88

Junior Middle Senior

49.0 39.6 11.5

33.3 46.2 20.5

45.7 31.8 22.5

9.8 19.5 70.7

55.9 44.1 0

49.5 40.2 10.3 48.0 30.0 22.0

44.2 35.9 20.0

Item analysis conducted through visual inspection of the histogram for each

item, for each scenario and each national group for facility, discrimination and central

response tendency (Rust and Golombok 1989; Kline 1986) did not justify eliminating

any item from subsequent analysis. However, it did indicate a central response

tendency on certain items for the Polish sample, and to a lesser extent for the Hong

Kong sample, but not sufficiently so to eliminate these samples from the study.

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICAL JUDGEMENTS

Factor analysis is a useful means of deducing the structure of cognitive processes by

determining which responses are most closely associated with other responses (Hisrich

and Jankowicz 1990; Child 1990). Hence, if respondents regard a decision as ethical,

and they also regard the decision as not selfish and prudent, we can deduce that these

concepts are closely associated in the mind of the respondent, and this can be

deduced from the factor structure of responses to the items of the questionnaire. If

we may assume that these structures are unique to individuals, to groups of individuals

who share a common outlook, and to larger groups of people who share a common

culture, we could also assume that all individuals across the world have at least an

element of this structure in common (Allport 1962). The point of cross-cultural

studies such as the present one is to determine the level of similarity or dissimilarity

among different cultural groups (Berry et al. 1992). It is essential to try to ascertain

whether the structure of ethical judgements is the same or different for the national

groups across our sample. We can do this by comparing the factor structure for each

group for each scenario (Table 3). This focuses on the levels of dissimilarity among

the national groups.

We are therefore aiming to deduce the differences among the national groups

in their collective ethical cognitive structures using responses to scenarios: one scenario

454 T. JACKSON ET AL.

representing corporate loyalty to employees, one representing employee loyalty to

the organization, and one representing loyalty to the group. We are hypothesizing

differences among national groups in the way they respond differently to the three

separate scenarios. It is therefore inappropriate to employ a method of multitraite-

multimethod (multicontext) analysis which Reidenbach and Robin (1990) suggest

to establish convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent and divergent validity

seeks to confirm that constructs (in this case, factors derived from principle components

analysis) are consistent across methods employed to deduce them (or in this case the

context of each scenario presented to respondents) and that each construct (factor) is

equally unique and separate from other constructs (other factors identified) across all

scenarios. We have noted earlier the inconsistencies in factor structures reported in

the literature on applications of the Reidenbach-Robin instrument, and have suggested

that in part this may be attributed to cultural factors. As this is the first study which

has used an adaptation of this instrument with diverse national samples, it is more

important to establish validity against appropriate cultural factors, rather than against

the stability of structure of ethical judgements which we have proposed will vary as

a result of cultural factors. We take this point up further in our discussion below.

Table 3 provides a summary of the factor structures for each nationality for

each scenario, as well as a general factor structure for all respondents across the

countries surveyed (full details of factor structure and factor loadings are available

from the first author). Where items also load on another factor (.400 and above), this

is shown as a subscript. We were particularly interested in the factor loadings of the

univariate ethical variable, as a means of understanding what respondents associated

with an ethical judgement. From Table 4 we can see that this varies among country

samples and among the three scenarios. The factor structure shown in Table 3 for

all respondents confirms the difficulty not only of generalizing a factor structure

across country samples, but also across different decision-making situations. The

aspects which respondents consider when taking into account whether a judgement

is ethical or not varies from situation to situation. Hence, we can conclude that

Americans, for example, consider different criteria when making a judgement about

whether a decision is ethical across the three sample scenarios for corporate loyalty

to employees, loyalty to company and loyalty to one’s group; and the criteria used

to make ethical judgements for these three types of situation will be different, for

example, for Japanese managers. Table 4 provides a ‘profile’ by country group of

criteria used to evaluate the three scenarios. Table 5 provides mean scores by country

group, and shows significant differences among these groups using ANOVA and a

multiple comparison test (Tukey).

It should also be noted that the LZ priori justice item, fair/unfair, appears to be

an isolated variable which is unrelated to the other items and generally forming its

own one-item factor (Table 3). This may be because such a judgement is not related

to a referent. That is, to whom is it fair or unfair? The company, the employee?

Tabl

e 3

Facto

r st

ruct

ure

of

item

s by

na

tiona

l gr

oups

Coun

try

group

s P -

LII

Amer

ican

Austr

alian

Ja

pane

se

SCe”

UlO

A B

C A

B C

A B

C A

B C

Justi

ce

a.

Fair/U

nfair

Relat

ivist

b.

Acce

ptable

/Not

acce

ptable

in

my

cultu

re

c.

Acce

ptable

/Not

acce

ptable

to

m

e d.

Ac

cepta

ble/N

ot ac

cepta

ble

co

peop

le I

mos

t ad

mire

e.

Acce

ptable

/Not

acce

ptable

to

m

y fa

mdy

Egois

m

f. No

t se

lfish/S

elfish

g.

Prud

enriN

ot pru

dent

h.

Unde

r no

m

oral

oblig

ation

/Mor

ally

oblig

ed

to

act

other

wise

i. In

the

be

st int

eres

ts/No

t in

rhe

best

inter

ests

of

the

com

pany

Utilita

rianis

m

j. Ef

ficien

t/Inef

ficien

t k.

Ok

ay

/Not

okay

if

actio

ns

can

he

lustifl

ed

by

cons

eque

nces

1.

Do

es

not/C

ompr

omise

s im

porta

nt rul

e by

wt

uch

I live

m

On

balan

ce,

tends

to

be

go

od/te

nds

TO b

e ba

d n.

Le

ads

co

grea

rest

good

/leas

t go

od

for

grea

test

num

ber

o.

Max

imize

s ple

asur

e/Mini

mize

s ple

asure

Deon

tolog

ical

p.

Does

no

r vio

late/v

iolate

s an

un

writte

n co

ntrac

t

q.

Mora

lly rig

ht/N

ot

mor

ally

right

r.

Oblig

ated

to

act

in thi

s wa

y/Not

oblig

ated

to

act

in thi

s wa

y

s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 -3

3 4 3

5 5

1,

1

2 1

21

1

2 1

2 1

12

31

11

31

1 3

I 2

1 2

1 32

4

4

li 23

Ii

2

3 21

4

4

1 12

;

5 1 4 1 1 1 1 21

2 2 2 21 1 li 13

3 2’1 1

5 21

21 2 2 2 1, 12

3 1 1 1 3 li Ii 4 3 31

5 1 I? 1 1 1 3 1. 3 2 2 1 3 21

2. 4 4 1

-5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 -4 12

2 2 -4. 2

5 2 2 2 2 2 4 12

41 1 1 1 -: 1 I 1 -: 1

Univa

riate

ethica

l va

riable

s.

Ge

neral

ly an

ett

ucal

decis

ion/no

t an

eth

ical

deus

ion

li 1

2 2

1 1

-2

4 5

1 -4

2

3 2

3 14

5 21

2

1 2;

I?

5 21

12

5 1

2

I 21

12

1 1

4,>

4 1

1

3 12

I

2,

13

3 32

. 3

li 21

12

12

2

I 1

4 5

12

3 li

li

1 1

2

I,?

21

4

5 12

31 1 1 I 1 12 3 3r

32

21

-4 2 2 2 4 21 7

51

- 1

K0r%

ln Ho

ng

Kong

Rll

S%Xl

Pohs

h

A B

C A

B C

A B

C A

B C

-5

5 3

li 2

21

21

4 4

31

1 2

3 1

21

1 1

21

12

21

1

1,

2i 2

4 3

12

1 2

l-1

I 2

2 21

3

1,

3 -S

il 5

1 1

I?

1 1

12

21

I l?

2 1

1

2 21

1

1 21

1

-5

-35

5

lr 3

1

21

3 l-

12

3 1

2 4

1

2 4

1 2

1 2

3 51

d 2

3 2

2

4i 21

3,

51

I 3

1 21

4

4 5

5 1

1 I

-2,

2,

-3

3 2

1 1

2 1

41

31

4

4 1,

1

5 3

31

4,

3 IA

3r

4 31

3

1 I

3 1

1

3 1

1

2 3

4

4 I45

4

2 3~

i 2

2 2;

2

2 2

51

4 5

2-

5 4

3 1

12

2 1,

21

5

I I

1,

1 2

1

I 21

; 1

1 2r

i 1

-4-r

-4

3

1 21

1

1 3

lr 1

2 1

I 2

1

1 2

1 5

51

12

5 37

2 1

2 5

2

3 1

2

3 1

2 31

1

2 4

41

4

1 21

2

4,

1 2

-32

3 4

21

12

3

2 12

1

2 21

5

Note:

A

five

facto

r so

lurlon

wa

s rhe

m

ost

appro

priate

fo

r all

gr

oups

iscen

arlos

ab

ove.

Main

nu

mbe

rs inc

hcate

the

fa

ctors

on

wh

ich

each

Ite

m

loads

lug

hest.

W

here

item

s als

o loa

d (.4

00

and

abov

e) on

oth

er

facto

rs

this

is sh

own

in su

bscri

pt.

Scen

arios

are

Ind

icated

A

(corp

orate

loy

alty

to

emplo

yee)

, B

(loya

lty

to

com

pany

) an

d C

(loya

lty

to

grou

p m

embe

rs).

Full

detai

ls on

fa

ctors

so

lution

s are

av

ailable

fro

m

the

first

autho

r.

Tabl

e 4

The

basi

s up

on

which

et

hica

l ju

dgem

ents

ar

e m

ade,

by

na

tiona

l gr

oup

a-b

n

A.

Loya

lty

to

empl

oyee

s B.

Lo

yalty

to

Co

mpa

ny

C.

Loya

lty

to

grou

p

Amer

ican

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

auo

ciate

d wi

th

fact

or

2:

bein

g un

der

no

oblig

atio

n to

ac

t ot

herw

ise

(E),

bein

g in

th

e be

st

inte

rest

s of

th

e co

mpa

ny

(E),

bein

g ok

ay

if th

e ac

tion

can

be

just

ified

by

th

e co

nseq

uenc

ies

(U),

not

com

prom

ising

an

im

porta

nt

rule

by

wh

ich

one

lives

(U

) an

d be

ing

mor

ally

right

(D

).

Aust

ralia

n An

et

hica

l ju

dgem

ent

IJ a

ssoc

iate

d wi

th

fact

or

1:

bein

g ac

cept

able

in

on

e’s

cultu

re

(R),

acce

ptab

le

to

peop

le

one

mos

t ad

mire

s (R

), be

ing

acce

ptab

le

to

one’

s fa

mily

(R

), be

ing

unde

r no

m

oral

ob

ligat

ion

to

act

othe

rwise

(E

) be

ing

in

the

best

in

tere

sts

of

the

com

pany

(E

), an

d be

ing

oblig

ated

to

ac

t in

th

is

way

(D).

Japa

nese

An

et

hica

l ju

dgem

ent

is c

orre

late

d m

ore

high

ly wz

tb

item

s in

fa

ctor

I*,

in

pa

rticu

lar:

lead

ing

to

the

grea

test

go

od

for

the

grea

test

nu

mbe

r (U

); an

d al

so

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

on

e’s

cultu

re

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

on

e’s

self

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

-

able

to

th

e pe

ople

on

e m

ost

adm

ires

(R),

and

bein

g un

der

no

oblig

atio

n to

ac

t ot

herw

ise

(E).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

1:

bein

g pr

uden

t (E

), be

ing

unde

r no

ob

ligat

ion

to

act

othe

rwise

(E

) be

ing

effic

ient

(U

), be

ing

okay

if

actio

ns

can

be

just

ified

by

th

e co

nseq

uenc

es

(U),

not

com

prom

ising

an

im

porta

nt

rule

by

wh

ich

one

lives

(U

), le

adin

g to

th

e gr

eate

st

good

fo

r th

e gr

eate

t nu

mbe

r (U

), an

d m

axim

iz-

ing

plea

sure

(U

).

An

ethi

cal

pdge

men

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

2:

be

ing

acce

ptab

le

to

one’

s se

lf (R

), be

ing

acce

ptab

le

to

peop

le

one

mos

t ad

mire

s (R

), be

ing

acce

ptab

le

to

one’

s fa

mily

(R

), no

t be

ing

selfi

sh

(E),

and

bein

g un

der

no

oblig

atio

n to

ac

t ot

herw

ise

(E).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

wztb

fa

ctor

2:

not

com

prom

ising

an

im

porta

nt

rule

by

wh

ich

one

lives

(U

), le

adin

g to

th

e gr

eate

st

good

fo

r th

e gr

eate

st

num

ber

of(U

),

max

imizi

ng

plea

sure

(U

), no

t vio

latin

g an

un

writte

n co

ntra

ct

(D),

and

bein

g ob

ligat

ed

to

act

in

this

wa

y (D

).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

auo

ciate

d wi

th

fact

or

1:

bein

g ac

cept

able

in

on

e’s

cultu

re

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

on

e’s

self

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

th

e pe

ople

on

e m

ost

adm

ires

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

on

e’s

fam

ily

(R),

not

bein

g se

lfish

(E

), be

ing

unde

r no

m

oral

ob

ligat

ion

to

act

othe

rwise

(E

), no

t co

mpr

omisi

ng

a ru

le

by

which

on

e liv

es

(U),

lead

ing

to

the

grea

test

go

od

for

the

grea

test

nu

mbe

r (U

), an

d be

ing

oblig

ated

to

ac

t in

th

is

way

(D).

An

ethi

cal

judge

mer

rt is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

2

4:

bein

g in

th

e be

st

inte

rest

s of

th

e E

com

pany

(E

) an

d al

so

corre

late

s hi

ghly

with

m

axim

izing

pl

easu

re

(U).

g 3

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

1:

be

ing

unde

r no

m

oral

ob

ligat

ion

to

act

othe

rwise

(E

), be

ing

effic

ient

(L

J),

bein

g ok

ay

if th

e ac

tion

can

be

just

ified

by

th

e co

nseq

uenc

es

(U),

not

com

prom

ising

an

impo

rtant

ru

le

by

which

on

e liv

es

(LJ)

, le

adin

g to

th

e gr

eate

st

good

fo

r th

e gr

eate

st

num

ber

(U),

max

imizi

ng

plea

sure

(U),

not

viola

ting

an

unwr

itten

cont

ract

(D

), be

ing

oblig

ated

to

ac

t in

th

is

way

(D).

Table

4

(Con

tinue

d)

A.

Loya

lty

to

empl

oyee

s B.

Lo

yalty

to

Co

mpa

ny

c.

Loya

lty

to

grou

p

Korea

n An

et

hica

l ju

dgm

ent

is a

ssoc

iate

d wi

th

facto

r

1:

bein

g no

t se

lfish

(E

), be

ing

prud

ent

(E),

bein

g un

der

no

mor

al

oblig

atio

n to

ac

t ot

herw

ise

(E),

bein

g ef

ficie

nt

(U),

bein

g

okay

if

the

actio

n ca

n be

ju

stifi

ed

by

the

cons

eque

ncs

(U),

lead

ing

to

the

grea

test

go

od

for

the

grea

test

nu

mbe

r (U

), m

axi-

mizi

ng

plea

sure

(U

), an

d be

ing

acce

ptab

le

in

one’

s cu

lture

(R

).

Hong

Ko

ng

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

wztb

fa

ctor

4:

tend

ing

on

bala

nce

to

be

good

(U

), be

ing

okay

if

the

actio

n is

ju

stifi

ed

by

the

cons

eque

nces

(U

), an

d be

ing

oblig

ated

to

ac

t in

th

is

way

(D).

Russ

ian

Polis

h

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

ulith

fa

ctor

1:

bein

g m

oral

ly rig

ht

(D),

not

viola

ting

an

unwr

itten

cont

ract

(D

), be

ing

oblig

ated

to

act

in

this

wa

y (D

), le

adin

g to

th

e gr

eate

st

good

fo

r th

e gr

eate

st

num

ber

of

peop

le

(U)

and

max

imizi

ng

plea

sure

(U

).

An

ethi

cal

pdge

men

t is

ass

ocra

ted

wzth

fa

ctor

2:

bein

g in

th

e be

st

inte

rest

s of

th

e

com

pany

(E

), be

ing

mor

ally

right

(D

), an

d be

ing

oblig

ated

to

ac

t in

th

is

way

(D).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

2:

bein

g ac

cept

able

in

on

e’s

cultu

re

(R),

bein

g pr

uden

t (E

), be

ing

unde

r no

m

oral

ob

ligat

ion

to

act

othe

rwise

(E

), be

ing

effic

ient

(U

), be

ing

okay

if

the

actio

n is

ju

stifi

ed

by

the

cons

eque

nces

(U

) an

d be

ing

oblig

ated

to

ac

t in

th

is

way

(D).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

1:

bein

g pr

uden

t (E

), be

ing

okay

If

the

actio

n ca

n be

ju

stifi

ed

by

the

cons

eque

nces

(U

), an

d le

adin

g to

th

e gr

eate

st

good

fo

r th

e gr

eate

st

num

ber

of

peop

le

(U).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

2:

bein

g ob

ligat

ed

to

act

in

this

wa

y (D

), be

ing

mor

ally

right

(D

), be

ing

effic

ient

(U),

bein

g ok

ay

if th

e ac

tion

is

just

ified

by

th

e co

nseq

uenc

es

(U),

and

max

imizi

ng

plea

sure

(U

).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

as

socia

ted

with

fa

ctor

2:

be

ing

acce

ptab

le

in

one’

s cu

lture

(R

),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

pe

ople

on

e m

ost

adm

ires

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

on

e’s

fam

ily

(R),

not

bein

g se

lfish

(E

), an

d

lead

ing

to

the

grea

test

go

od

for

the

grea

test

nu

mbe

r (U

).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

1:

bein

g pr

uden

t (E

), be

ing

in

the

best

in

tere

sts

of

the

com

pany

(E

), be

ing

effic

ient

(U

), no

t co

mpr

omrs

ing

and

impo

rtant

ru

le

by

which

on

e liv

es

(U),

lead

ing

to

the

grea

test

go

od

for

the

grea

test

nu

mbe

r (U

), m

axim

izing

pl

easu

re

(U),

not

viola

ting

an

unwr

itten

cont

ract

(D),

bein

g m

oral

ly rig

ht

(D),

and

bein

g ob

ligat

ed

to

act

in

this

wa

y (D

).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

1:

be

ing

acce

ptab

le

in

one’

s cu

lture

(R

), be

ing

acce

ptab

le

to

one’

s se

lf(R)

, be

ing

acce

ptab

le

to

the

peop

le

one

mos

t ad

mire

s (R

), be

ing

acce

ptab

le

to

one’

s fa

mily

(R

), no

t be

ing

selfi

sh

(E),

lead

ing

to

the

grea

test

go

od

for

the

grea

test

nu

mbe

r (U

), no

t vio

latin

g an

un

writte

n co

ntra

ct

(D),

and

bein

g m

oral

ly rig

ht

(D).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

ass

ocia

ted

with

fa

ctor

1:

bein

g ob

ligat

ed

to

act

in

this

wa

y (D

),

not

viola

ting

an

unwr

itten

cont

ract

(D

), be

ing

mor

ally

right

(D

), no

t be

ing

selfi

sh

(E),

bein

g ac

cept

able

in

on

es

cultu

re

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

pe

ople

on

e m

ost

adm

ires

(R),

and

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

on

e’s

fam

ily

(R).

An

ethi

cal

judg

emen

t is

cor

rela

ted

mor

e hi

ghly

with

ite

ms

in

facto

r 1”

: be

ing

oblig

ated

to

act

in

this

wa

y (D

), no

t be

mg

selfi

sh

(E),

bein

g ac

cept

able

in

on

es

cultu

re

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

pe

ople

on

e m

ost

adm

ires

(R),

bein

g ac

cept

able

to

on

e’s

fam

ily

(R).

Note

. n

hrio

ri co

nsrrn

cts

are

indi

cate

d as

fol

lows

: Eg

oist

ic

(E).

Utilit

aria

n (U

). De

onto

logi

cal

(D)

and

Rela

tivist

ic (R

)

Tabl

e 5

Com

paris

on

of

mea

n sc

ores

fo

r ite

ms

by

natio

nality

b&

x

US

Aust

Ja

p Ko

r HK

Ru

s PO

1 Al

l SD

F

stat

* Tu

key

--

a.

Fair/

unfa

ir

b.

Acce

ptab

le/

not

acce

ptab

le

in

my

cultu

re

c.

Acce

ptab

le/

not

acce

ptab

le

to

me

d.

Acce

ptab

le/

not

acce

ptab

le

to

peop

le

I ad

mire

e.

Acce

ptab

le/

not

acce

ptab

le

to

my

fam

ily

f. No

t se

lfish

/ se

lfish

g.

Prud

ent/

not

prud

ent

h.

Unde

r no

/ m

oral

ly ob

liged

to

ac

t ot

herw

ise

i. In

be

st

inte

rest

/ no

t in

in

tere

st

of

co.

j. Ef

ficie

nt/

inef

ficie

nt

A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

3.12

3.

13

3.58

2.

71

2.69

3.

36

2.19

2.

32

2.65

2.71

3.

21

2.90

2.69

3.

17

3.31

3.79

3.

48

3.90

3.

41

1.05

8.

92

K<RJ

HP,U

s<JH

P,Au

<P

3.09

3.

25

3.06

3.

10

1.09

5.

15

AuUs

<RJ

2.53

3.

23

3.24

2.

73

1.40

7.

52

UsAu

<RP,

J<

R

2.19

2.

40

3.12

1.94

2.

96

2.84

2.10

2.

91

2.18

2.

50

3.16

3.

77

3.18

2.

72

2.18

2.

59

1.07

8.

32

AuUs

<RJH

, P<

JH

2.65

3.

16

3.57

2.

75

1.42

7.

01

AuUs

<RKP

, J<

KP

3.45

2.

90

2.92

3.

26

1.32

6.

06

RPUs

<J

1.95

3.

18

3.38

3.

00

2.97

2.

80

2.76

1.

27

17.5

8 Au

Us<P

RHJK

3.

05

3.06

3.

67

2.88

3.

16

3.43

3.

14

1.34

ns

.2.1

5 ns

. 3.

18

2.89

2.

57

3.09

2.

78

2.64

2.

84

1.23

ns

.1.3

8 ns

.

2.32

2.

74

2.99

2.45

2.

70

2.99

2.13

2.

87

2.50

3.

09

3.35

2.

29

2.74

1.

25

11.3

4 2.

68

2.75

3.

05

2.63

3.

57

3.33

3.

00

1.41

5.

96

3.32

3.

51

2.57

3.

34

2.76

2.

98

3.09

1.

30

5.59

2.38

2.

84

2.50

3.

15

3.47

2.

31

2.81

1.

21

11.9

6 2.

74

2.79

3.

07

2.84

3.

56

3.49

3.

03

1.37

6.

38

3.47

3.

48

2.98

3.

44

2.91

3.

10

3.17

1.

26

3.48

2.92

2.

69

3.40

3.

12

3.45

3.

83

2.50

3.

24

1.23

11

.62

2.50

2.

82

2.92

2.

88

2.94

3.

53

3.25

3.

01

1.36

5.

42

2.87

3.

08

3.26

2.

90

3.44

2.

88

2.80

3.

02

1.27

ns

.2.2

7

AuPU

s<JH

R,

K<R

HAuU

sJ<R

-i

KR<J

s

PUs<

HR,

AuKJ

<R

R

UsAu

J<PR

E

RUs<

J G

PAuU

s<JH

R,

K<R

Us<P

R,

J<R

F

ns.

2.81

2.

64

3.09

3.

26

3.12

3.

23

2.59

3.

00

1.18

3.

51

P<RK

2.

65

2.61

2.

82

3.14

2.

91

3.33

2.

76

2.91

1.

38

3.15

Us

>R

2.52

2.

73

3.23

2.

63

3.28

2.

97

2.64

2.

89

1.30

4.

34

Us<J

H

2.08

1.

85

2.85

2.

88

2.82

2.

95

2.75

2.

63

1.09

12

.58

AuUs

<PHJ

KR

2.77

3.

11

2.67

2.

95

3.22

3.

57

3.04

3.

02

1.29

6.

31

JUs<

R 3.

30

3.13

3.

41

2.88

3.

19

3.27

2.

78

3.22

1.

13

2.76

P<

J 2.

44

2.56

3.

91

3.76

2.

91

3.22

2.

90

3.19

1.

14

28.0

1 Us

Au<R

KP,

PH<K

J 2.

57

2.38

3.

20

3.38

2.

94

3.22

3.

02

3.00

1.

30

5.30

Au

Us<J

RK

3.07

2.

84

3.96

3.

60

3.03

3.

46

3.02

3.

41

1.21

10

.13

AuPH

UsR

<J

1.89

1.

64

3.23

2.

93

2.69

2.

73

2.04

2.

55

1.23

22

.93

AuUs

<HRK

J,

P<RK

J 1.

99

2.32

2.

82

2.81

2.

88

2.84

3.

04

2.64

1.

39

6.23

Us

<KJR

HP

3.56

3.

84

3.93

3.

40

3.21

3.

48

3.32

3.

61

1.26

2.

86

ns.

Tabl

e 5

(Con

tinue

d)

us

Aust

Ja

P Ko

r HK

RU

S PO

1 Al

l SD

F

stat

* Tu

key

k. Ok

ay/n

ot

okay

if

actio

ns

can

be

just

if-

ied

by

cons

eque

nces

1.

Does

no

t/com

pro-

m

ises

im

porta

nt

rule

by

wh

ich

I liv

e

m.

On

bala

nce

tend

s to

be

go

od/te

nds

to

be

bad

n.

Lead

s to

gr

eate

st

good

/leas

t go

od

for

grea

test

nu

mbe

r

o.

Max

imize

s pl

easu

re/m

inim

izes

Plea

sure

p.

Does

no

t vio

late

/ vio

late

s an

un

writte

n co

ntra

ct

4.

Mor

ally

right

/ no

t m

oral

ly rig

ht

r. O

blig

ated

to

ac

t th

is

way/

not

oblig

- at

ed

to

act

in

way

s.

Gen

erall

y an

et

hica

l/not

an

et

hica

l de

cisi

on

A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

2.17

1.

87

2.69

2.

69

2.79

2.

88

2.29

2.

53

I.17

7.13

Au

KJs<

JKHR

, P<

R 2.

40

2.74

2.

89

2.74

2.

88

3.17

3.

24

2.86

1.

30

4.27

Us

<RP

3.78

3.

82

4.04

3.

62

3.34

3.

18

3.36

3.

64

1.21

6.

74

R<LJ

sJ,

HP<J

2.23

2.65

3.

06

2.44

2.

73

3.08

2.00

2.

99

3.05

2.

61

2.71

2.

29

2.61

1.

16

8.64

2.

82

3.05

3.

57

2.84

3.

04

3.22

3.

00

1.27

3.

35

3.16

3.

74

3.52

3.

16

3.01

3.

18

3.29

1.

17

6.01

2.18

3.

08

2.93

2.

82

2.94

2.

76

2.79

1.

11

5.96

2.

68

2.90

3.

10

2.91

2.

82

2.90

2.

85

1.31

~0

.56

3.18

2.

51

2.79

3.

19

3.16

3.

16

2.94

1.

24

4.52

AuUs

<RJK

, P<

JK

Us<K

RU

s<J

Au<K

RJ,

LJs<

RJ

tlS.

J<Us

PRAu

2.75

2.

38

2.91

2.

79

2.73

2.

94

2.76

2.

81

1.02

ns

.1.8

1 2.

78

2.76

2.

89

3.10

2.

88

3.26

3.

26

3.00

1.

27

2.44

3.23

3.

37

3.64

3.

40

3.34

3.

30

2.96

3.

36

1.20

2.

47

2.83

2.

15

3.25

3.

05

2.88

3.

28

3.00

3.

02

2.81

2.

61

2.99

3.

07

2.78

3.

21

3.16

2.

98

3.16

3.

32

3.57

3.

07

3.34

3.

44

3.12

3.

34

1.07

1.

21

1.47

1.02

1.

13

1.07

I. I3

1.

30

1.19

0.99

1.

48

1.20

1.11

1.

18

1.18

7.57

ns

.2.0

2 ns

.1.3

2

3.77

3.

79

3.57

3.

19

3.24

3.

36

3.61

3.

53

3.68

3.

66

3.29

2.

98

3.00

3.

56

3.40

3.

43

3.47

3.

47

3.45

3.

12

3.47

2.

99

3.30

3.

31

3.28

3.

72

3.02

2.43

2.

44

2.88

3.

48

2.94

3.

39

2.84

2.

92

3.08

2.

97

3.21

2.

93

3.00

3.

43

3.66

3.

23

3.22

3.

34

2.98

3.

26

3.47

3.

08

2.92

3.

12

11.5

7 2.

46

ns.1

.50

ns.

F

Us<R

E z

P<J

0 3 Au

<UsH

PKJR

, Us

<JR

~ ns

. F

ns.

2 KR

<UsA

u x

ns.

!2

R<JU

s s

UsAu

J<RK

G

!

flS. ns.

2.89

2.

67

3.36

3.

26

3.24

3.

61

2.82

3.

20

2.38

2.

42

2.59

3.

12

2.66

1.

45

3.38

2.

85

3.07

3.

21

3.49

3.

29

3.47

3.

14

3.00

3.

24

9.87

8.

07

ns.2

.03

AuUs

P<JR

KJ

sAuJ

<PR

tlS

2.55

2.

13

2.77

2.

57

3.15

3.

41

2.55

2.

81

2.71

2.

89

2.64

3.

07

3.03

3.

36

3.46

2.

97

3.63

3.

58

3.64

3.

00

3.44

3.

28

3.44

3.

47

11.4

9 Au

<JHR

, Us

PKJ<

R 4.

83

JUs<

RP

ns.2

.45

K<Us

J

*1,

< .O

l; ns

. =

not

sign

ifica

nt

460 T. JACKSON E7 AL.

THE STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF ETHlCAL JUDGEMENTS FOR

COUNTRY GROUPS

It is possible to indicate for each country group in this study how ethical judgements

are made, based on those criteria which are considered to be part of the judgement

as to whether or not a decision is ethical, and the extent to which the decision is

seen as ethical or not.

American managers

American managers make an ethical judgement about the company’s decision to lay

off up to a third of the workforce using mainly consequential criteria. They see this

decision as generally more ethical than the Russian group, and more morally right

than the Russian and Korean groups (Table 5). They also see it more in the interests

of the company (which they associate with the decision being ethical and morally

right) than do the Russian, Korean and Polish groups. They also appear to base the

judgement on the company being under no moral obligation to act otherwise

(significantly more so than the Polish, Hong Kong, Japanese, Korean and Russian

groups who in comparison indicate a judgement that the company may have been

morally obliged to act otherwise).

Similarly, the American managers make an ethical judgement about the decision

to report a colleague for inflating his expenses based on consequential criteria. With

the Japanese managers, the Americans judge this to be more of an ethical decision

than do the Russian and Polish managers. They appear to apply a criteria of efficiency

to their judgement about this decision being generally ethical, and see this as being

more efficient than do the Hong Kong, Russian, Korean and Japanese groups.

The Americans make an ethical judgement about the decision to accept that

an unproductive employee will be supported while the employee’s workmates work

harder to compensate is based largely on what they believe is acceptable to significant

others and to themselves (relativistic criteria), with a consequential element also

involved. They judge this, together with the Japanese group, as being less of an

ethical decision than do the Korean managers, although the American group sees the

decision as being more acceptable to their culture than the Japanese, and more

acceptable to their families than the Japanese managers.

Australian managers

Australian managers make an ethical judgement about the company’s decision to lay

off up to a third of the workforce using mostly relativistic criteria, but also consequential

considerations of whether or not the company is under any moral obligation to act

otherwise and the decision being in the best interest of the company, as well as the

deontological criteria of being obligated to act in this way (Table 4). They consider

MAKING ETHICAL JUDGEMENTS 461

the decision significantly more ethical than do theJapanese, Hong Kong and Russian

managers. Associated with this, the decision is seen by them, with the Americans,

as significantly more acceptable in their culture than the Russian, Japanese and

Hong Kong managers. The decision is seen by them together with the Polish and

American managers as being significantly more acceptable to the people they most

admire than the Japanese, Hong Kong and Russian managers; and with the Korean

and Japanese managers as being more acceptable to their families than the Russians.

With the Americans they believe that the company is under less moral obligation

to act otherwise, and with the American group see the decision as significantly more

in the best interests of the company than do the Russian, Korean and Polish managers.

Also with the American and Polish managers they indicate that the company is more

obligated to act in this way than the Japanese and Russians believe.

The Australian managers make an ethical judgement about the decision to

report a colleague for inflating his expenses again based on mostly relativistic criteria,

and partly consequential considerations (Table 4). There are no significant differences

to the other national groups for the mean Australian score for the general ethical

item. For associated items, the Australian managers with the Polish and Americans

indicate that the decision is significantly more acceptable to people they most admire

than the Japanese, Hong Kong and Russian managers. With the American and

Japanese managers the decision is seen as being more acceptable to their families

than the Polish and Russian managers.

The Australian managers make an ethical judgement about the decision to

accept that an unproductive employee will be supported while the employee’s work-

mates work harder to compensate based on the consequential criteria of whether it

is in the best interests of the company and whether it maximizes pleasure. There are

no significant differences between the Australian mean score for the general ethical

item and the other national groups. However, they see this decision together with

the Polish, Hong Kong, American and Russian managers as being significantly more

in the interests of the company than the Japanese.

Japanese managers

The Japanese managers make an ethical judgement about the company’s decision to

lay off up to a third of the workforce using both consequential and relativistic

criteria (Table 4). With the Russian and Hong Kong groups they see this as less of

an ethical decision than the Australian managers, and see this as less acceptable to

their culture (with the Russian and Hong Kong groups) than the Australians and

Americans, as they do what is acceptable to them and acceptable to people they most

admire. With the Polish, Hong Kong, Korean and Russian managers they indicate

that the company was more obligated to act otherwise than the Australian and

American groups indicate (Table 5).

462 T. JACKSON ET AL,

They make an ethical judgement about the loyalty to company scenario based

partly on utilitarian considerations and partly on deontological ones. With the American

managers they see this decision as more of an ethical one than do the Russians and

Polish. With the American and Australian managers they indicate a belief that there

was more of an obligation to report the colleague than the Russian and Polish

managers believe.

The Japanese managers make an ethical judgement about the group loyalty

scenario based mainly on consequential considerations, but partly on deontological

ones. With the American managers they indicate a belief that this is less of an ethical

decision than the Koreans believe. Associated with an ethical judgement, they believe

that there was more of a moral obligation to act otherwise than the Polish managers

believe. They do not believe that the decision is okay if the action can be justified

by the consequences, and this is at variance with the Russian, Hong Kong and

Polish managers. On balance it does compromise an important rule by which they

live in distinction to the Russian and American managers. As opposed to the Polish

managers’ beliefs, it does not on balance lead to the greatest good for the greatest

number. On balance and with the American managers’ beliefs, it more violates an

unwritten contract than the Russian managers believe.

Korean managers

The Korean managers seem to base their ethical judgement on the company decision

to lay off up to a third of their workforce principally on consequential considerations

(Table 4). With the American, Polish and Japanese managers they see it as more of

an ethical decision than the Russians. They see it as less of a selfish decision than

the Russians. But they indicate that with the Russian managers it was less of a

prudent decision than the Polish believe, and distinct from the Australians and

Americans and with the Polish, Hong Kong, Japanese and Russian managers that

there was more of a moral obligation to act otherwise. With the Hong Kong,

Russian and Japanese managers they indicate that it may have been more inefficient

than the Australians and Americans believe, and that it was less okay if the action

could be justified by the consequences. With the American, Hong Kong, Polish,

Japanese and Russian groups they consider that it maximizes pleasure less than the

Australians believe.

They seem to base their ethical judgement of the decision to report the colleague

for inflating his expenses partly on the relativistic aspect of being acceptable in their

culture and on the deontological consideration of being obligated to act in this way,

but mostly on consequential considerations. The Koreans have a neutral mean score

of 3 for the general ethical item with no significant differences with the other

national groups. However, for the items which associate with this general ethical

item they do indicate that with the Polish and Russian groups it is less acceptable

MAKING ETHICAL JtJDGEMENTS 463

to their culture than for the Australian and American groups; and that with the

Japanese, Russian, Hong Kong and Polish managers, the decision is seen as less

efficient than in the American managers’ view.

The Korean managers again seem to base their ethical judgement on the decision

to accept that the inefficient employee is supported mainly on consequential

considerations. They view the decision as more ethical than do the American and

Japanese managers, but the Korean manager scores for the other items which are

associated with this general ethical item are not significantly different to the scores

of the other national groups (Table 5).

Hong Kong managers

The Hong Kong group seems to employ the consequential criteria of tending on

balance to be good and being okay if the action is justified by the consequences, as

well as the non-consequential criteria of being obligated to act in this way to make

an ethical judgement about the decision to lay off employees by the company (Table

4). With the Japanese and Russian managers, they see this decision as being less

ethical than the Australian managers; and with the Japanese, Korean and Russian

managers seeing this decision as being less okay if the actions can be justified by the

consequences than do the Australian and American managers.

An ethical judgement on the loyalty to company scenario seems to be based

on consequential criteria of being prudent, being okay if actions can be justified

by their consequences, and leading to the greatest good for the greatest number

of people. The Hong Kong group does not account for differences among the national

groups for the general ethical variable nor the other variables associated with

this. The Hong Kong group’s mean scores for these items indicate a neutral stance

on this decision.

The Hong Kong managers’ ethical judgement regarding the workmates’ support

for the inefficient employee is based like the American managers’ largely on concern

about what is acceptable to significant others, together with a mixture of consequential

and deontological criteria. Although scores for these items above the 3 mid-point

indicate a judgement that the decision is somewhat unethical, this group does not

account for any significant differences.

Russian managers

Russian managers make an ethical judgement about the company’s decision to lay

off up to a third of the workforce using mainly deontological criteria, and partly

utilitarian considerations. They do not see this on balance as an ethical decision in

contrast to the American, Polish, Korean and Japanese managers. Associated with

this, with the Koreans they believe that it is less morally right than the American,

Australian and Japanese managers, but with the Korean managers believe that it

464 T. JACKSON iZ7 AL.

violates less an unwritten contract than the Americans and Australians. With the

Japanese managers they believe that the company was less obligated to act in this

way compared to the beliefs of the Australia, American and Polish managers. They

also indicate a belief, with the Japanese, that this decision is less likely to maximize

pleasure than the American managers believe.

The Russian managers make an ethical judgement about the decision to report

a colleague for inflating his expenses based on both deontological and consequential

criteria. With the Polish managers they see it as less of an ethical decision than the

Japanese and American managers; with the Polish managers as being less obligated

to act in this way than the American, Australian and Japanese believe; with the

Koreans, Japanese, Hong Kong and Polish managers that the decision is less efficient

than the Americans believe; and, with the Polish believe less that it is okay if the

action can be justified by the consequences.

The Russians make an ethical judgement about the decision to accept that an

unproductive employee will be supported is based partly on deontological considerations

and partly on relativistic ones, with some reference to an egoistic consideration of

the decision not being selfish (Table 4). Although for the mean Russian score for the

general ethical item there are no significant differences with other national groups,

the items associated with this item indicate that the Russian managers believe more

than the Japanese and American managers that this decision does not violate an

unwritten contract; that with the Polish and Americans it is more acceptable in their

culture than the Japanese believe about their culture; that with the Koreans it is

more acceptable to the people they most admire than the Japanese believe; and with

the Americans more acceptable to their family than the Japanese believe.

Polish managers

Polish managers seem to base their ethical judgement of the decision to lay off

employees on the consequential consideration of whether it is in the interests of the

company, and the two deontological considerations of its being morally right and

being obligated to act in this way (Table 4). They see the decision, with the American,

Korean and Japanese managers, as more ethical than the Russians; with the Hong

Kong managers, being more in the interests of the company than the Korean and

Japanese, but with the Russian and Korean managers as being less in the interests

of the company than the Americans and Australians. With the Americans and

Australians they believe that the company was more obligated to act in this way

than the Japanese and Russian managers believe.

The decision to report the colleague for inflating his expenses is judged by the

Polish on the basis of mostly relativistic considerations of what is seen as acceptable

in their culture and to significant others, and partly on the consequential considerations

of not being selfish and leading to the greatest good for the greatest number (Table 4).

MAKING ETHICAL JUDGEMBNTS 465

They see it, with the Russians, as less of an ethical decision than the Japanese and

American managers; and, with the Russians and Koreans as being less acceptable in

their culture than the Australian, American and Japanese managers; and with the

Russians being less acceptable to their family than the Americans, Australians and

Japanese. With the Russians they see the decision as more selfish than the Americans

(Table 5).

Again, their ethical judgement on the decision to support the inefficient employee

seems to be based on relativistic considerations, and partly on the deontological

consideration of being obligated to act in this way and the consequential consideration

of not being selfish (Table 4). Although there are no significant differences on the

general ethical item score with other national groups, Polish managers indicate on

the associated item that with the Russian and American groups, the decision is more

acceptable in their culture than it is for the Japanese in their culture.

6. DISCUSSION

The complexity of cultural and other influences on modern societies makes it difficult

to distinguish indigenous and foreign influences, historical and current influences,

and situational influences which may affect the way managers make judgements

about issues of ethical concern. This is not only evident in the ‘transitional’ economies

of Russia and Poland, and the ‘tiger’ economies of East Asia with such a mixture of

eastern and western influences particularly in Hong Kong. It is also evident in the

‘Anglo’ countries of the United States with a combination of pragmatism of a free

market economy and principle-based decision-making based on elements of social

cohesion (egalitarian commitment in Schwartz’s 1994 terms), and the more socially

referenced culture of Australia.

Hence, our findings indicate that American managers base their judgements

not on reference to prior principles (for example, as contained in the many codes of

ethics published by American companies) but on consequential considerations.

This is a strong indication that corporate codes may not be effective in intervening

in management decision making, and does not support Hypothesis 2.3 which

proposed that managers from the United States will use predominantly deontological

criteria for making ethical judgements. The indication that American managers may

also employ relativistic criteria in a judgement on the ethicality of retaining an

inefficient employee out of consideration of group solidarity may indicate a

social influence on this type of dilemma. Although this goes against a consequential

concern of how it might affect the company, the indication that this decision is more

acceptable to their culture and their family than the Japanese managers tends to

support the assumption of Hypothesis 1.3 which proposed that Anglo managers will

be more ethically concerned with issues relating to group loyalty than their Korean

or Japanese counterparts.

466 T. JACKSON ET AL.

Like the Americans, the Australian managers indicate little use of deontological

criteria in their ethical judgements. This may be more expected in the absence of

wide-scale corporate emphasis on codes of ethics and educational programs on business

ethics and this, at least in part, supports the assumption of Hypothesis 2.4 which

proposed that managers from Australia will use predominantly consequential criteria

for making ethical judgements. However, there is a strong emphasis on the social

referencing of ethical judgements by Australian managers who employ relativistic

criteria. The collegiality contained within Schwartz’s (1994) concept of egalitarian

commitment may provide some explanation as Australians score relatively highly on

this. However, the ethical judgement regarding the decision to keep on the unproductive

employee is based on utilitarian considerations, and is judged by the Australians, as

well as the American, as being in the interests of the company. This supports

Hypothesis 2.4 and, in part, Hypothesis 1.3.

We have predicted a largely situational regard for ethical judgements by the

East Asian managers. This is mainly supported by our findings which indicate an

emphasis on consequential considerations for the Japanese, Korean and Hong Kong

managers, with relativistic criteria being important for the Japanese for their ethical

judgement of the decision to lay off employees, for the Hong Kong managers in

their judgement about the decision to support the inefficient employee, but only

being used marginally by the Korean managers in their judgement about the decision

to lay off employees. Although deontological considerations do figure in their ethical

judgements, this is only marginally so. The decision to lay off employees is seen as

less ethical than other national groups by the Japanese and Hong Kong managers,

but not the Koreans. This supports the assumption of Hypothesis 1.1 regarding the

Japanese. This hypothesis proposed that Korean and Japanese managers will be more

ethically concerned with loyalty of the corporation to employees than the Anglo

managers. The Korean position on this may reflect Bae and Chung’s (1997) finding

that co-worker solidarity is less well developed in Korean industry than in Japan. So,

even though the expectation of corporate loyalty to employees may be high, because

it is not happening to them, they may put corporate interests first. The Hong Kong

managers position on this may reflect both a calculative relationship with the company

and a higher level of solidarity with co-workers. The Japanese managers display an

element of loyalty to the corporation by viewing the decision ethically to report the

colleague for inflating the expense claim (supporting Hypothesis 1.2, which proposed

that Anglo and Hong Kong managers will be less ethically concerned with loyalty

of employees to the corporation than their Korean and Japanese counterparts). This

is seen as being less acceptable to their culture by the Koreans, while remaining

neutral on the related criteria of being ethical or not. This may well reflect a general

collectivism in Korean society with elements of social solidarity which militates

again reporting co-workers (Korea is high on collectivism on Hofstede’s 1980 index).

This is also apparent in the Korean managers’ judgement that the decision to support

MAKING ETHlCAL JlJDGF.MENT.5 467

the inefficient employee is more ethical than what the American and Japanese managers

believe. The assumption of Hypothesis 1.3, which proposed that Anglo managers

will be more ethically concerned with issues relating to group loyalty than their

Korean or Japanese counterparts, is only partially supported by the findings for the

Japanese managers.

As predicted (Hypothesis 2.2) the Russian and Polish managers base their

ethical judgements on multiple criteria. The ethical judgement on the decision of

the company to make employees redundant is based on deontological and consequential

considerations for the Russians and the Poles. However, the Russians see this decision

as being less ethical in contrast to the Polish managers. This may indicate that the

Russian managers expect a higher level of loyalty by the company to its employees

than the Poles, and a lower level of employee solidarity by the Poles (the Polish

sample see this in the best interests of the company, a criterion which is highly

associated with an ethical judgement in this case). This may be an indication of the

results of a faster move towards a free market economy and the adoption of western

concepts on the part of the Poles. On the judgement of the decision to report one’s

colleague for inflating expenses claims, the Russians use a combination of deontological

and consequential criteria and the Poles a combination of relativistic and consequential

criteria. They both see this as less of an ethical decision than the Japanese and

American managers. This may indicate a lower level of loyalty to the corporation and

a higher level of co-worker solidarity. However, it may also indicate a reluctance to

report one’s colleague for wrong doing, where in recent times, the consequences of

doing this may have been dire for the colleague. The argument that this may

indicate higher levels of solidarity is supported in the Polish and Russian managers’

judgement that the decision to support an inefficient employee is more acceptable

in their culture than in the Japanese managers’ culture. This judgement also is

multifaceted in that it is based on relativistic, deontological and consequential criteria

for the Russian Polish managers. The importance of referencing this judgement to

one’s culture, family and significant others is also indicative of the importance of

social influences and solidarity in these societies. The multidimensional nature of the

structure of ethical judgements for managers in the two ‘transitional’ economies

surveyed is indicative of the historical and current influences on ethical decision

making. While making it difficult to predict the content of ethical judgement, it

does lend support to the assumption we make in Hypothesis 2.2 that managers from

Russia and Poland will use a combination of consequential, relativistic and deontological

criteria for making ethical judgements.

All groups used different criteria to judge the different sceneries, and this

supports the assumption of Hypothesis 3 which proposed that the structure of

ethical judgements employed by managers is generally situational, that is, the structure

will vary from decision making situation to situation. A lack of common structure

across the national groups and across the scenarios had implications for the way we

468 T. JACKSON ET Al..

could analyze the data, and has got implications for the future use of the Riedenbach-

Robin instrument. This underlines the difficulty observed in the literature on previous

uses of this instrument on finding common agreement on factor structure (Reidenbach

and Robin 1988, 1990; Hansen 1992) and the employment of d priori constructs in

the analysis of resulting data (Tsalikis and Nwachukwu 1991; Tsalikis and LaTour

1995) is not supported.

We have mentioned above the inappropriateness of establishing convergent and

discriminant validity for the factor structure derived from using the three scenarios.

It has been felt more important in such cross-cultural studies to attempt to establish

criterion validity. For example, Cronbach (1990: 152) sees this as translating a score

into a statement about some other variable, and a prediction about what could be

expected if the second variable were observed. In this case the second variable would

be cultural factors which could explain variation in the scores obtained. Through

cultural analysis within the current study (an aspect which is largely missing in

other studies employing the Reidenbach-Robin instrument) we have attempted to

go some way in establishing this type of validity.

7. CONCLUSIONS

This article has employed a modified version of the Reidenbach-Robin instrument

across a diverse range of national cultures, and to decision situations involving

relations of internal organizational stakeholders. In order to evaluate the validity of

this study, in both its findings and the implications for further use and refinement

of the instrument, the shortcomings of the current study should be borne in mind.

Although attempts were made to match samples across the seven countries, differences

in sample composition in terms of gender and seniority should indicate caution in

the interpretation of our results. However, our main concern is with the comparison

of samples from national cultures as they are manifested within the management

population. We believe that we have captured samples which are representative of

the gender composition of the general populations. We do not believe that further

general data collection from these populations would increase their representative

nature. If we deliberately sought samples from the sex which is under-represented,

this may distort the impression of the predominant management culture in the

respective countries. The overall representation of senior management in the Korean

sample is a concern, and this may distort the findings for this group. We set out to

capture samples from comparable part-time management education programs, in

order to obtain representation from those managers who are likely to be potentially

key managers and influential in their organizations. The Korean managers may be

further towards realizing this potential than the managers from the other countries,

but are still representative of this particular population of managers. However, their

MAKING ETHICAL JtJUGEMENTS 469

seniority may be reflected in their greater loyalty to the organization than their

junior counterparts.

The implications for the future use of the research instrument are unaffected

by any shortcomings in sampling. This instrument is useful as a multidimensional

research method which is able to distinguish differences in the structure of ethical

judgements. However, while its u priori constructs are useful in explaining variation

in such structures, it is evident that such constructs are nor representative of connections

made by respondents in the criteria employed in making ethical judgements. More

work needs to be undertaken in deriving constructs directly from respondents, rather

than providing a priori structures. Methodologies could, for example, be developed

from personal construct psychology (Kelly 1955) and use the method of repertory

grid (Fransella and Bannister 1977). Such work would be useful in refining and

developing the Riedenbach-Robin instrument and designing new instruments which

can be used across cultures as well as exploring more embedded and indigenous

constructs used by managers in making ethical judgements.

Although cross-cultural differences in ethical ‘content’ are well documented in

the literature, such differences in the way ethical judgement are made have previously

been under-researched. Indicative findings from the current study have implications

for management practice in the way decisions are made and the inculcation of ethical

principles in decision making in organizations both regionally and internationally.

1. There may be considerable variation in the nature of ethical management

decision making among managers in different countries which have implications

for managers working across national borders. Hence, managers from the two

Anglo countries seem to look more to the consequences of their decisions in

order to judge whether a decision is ethical, while managers from the three

East Asian countries employed far more a social referencing to guide their

judgements, and the Asiatic Russian managers employed more principled or

deontological considerations. Although all groups tended to use multiple criteria,

the differences in emphasis should be taken into consideration when interacting

with managers from different cultures and attempting to understand what has

gone into a particular management decision.

The emphasis on different decision criteria across cultures has implications for

the way organizations attempt to influence the ethical decision making of its

managers. There is little direct relevance of employee codes of ethics if managers

are employing predominantly consequential criteria, as in the case of the Anglo

managers. This supports evidence in the literature which suggests codes of

ethics do not directly influence management decision making (Jackson 2000).

While this may be more directly relevant to managers in Asiatic Russia to

whom deontological considerations are more relevant, intervention in group

processes may be more applicable to East Asian managers, and to a certain

2.

470 T. JACKSON ET AL.

extent Australian managers who employ socially referenced criteria alongside

consequential considerations. For those managers such as the Americans, who

employ predominantly consequential considerations, discussion groups in

organizations which address the issues of the consequences of management

decisions may be more applicable in guiding future ethical decision making.

3. Differences in the content of ethical decision making, that is judging the

extent to which a decision is ethical or not, may have implications for cross-

cultural management interaction. Hence, our results indicate that the Australian

and American managers saw a decision to lay off workers as being relatively

ethical, and the Russian and Hong Kong managers saw this decision as relatively

unethical. For the decision to report a colleague for falsifying his expenses

account, the Japanese and American managers saw this as relatively unethical

and the Polish and Russian managers relatively ethical. For the decision to

support the poor performing colleague, the Korean managers saw this as relatively

ethical and the American and Japanese managers saw this as relatively unethical.

Such differences, which indicate difference in regard for corporate loyalty to

employees, loyalty of employees towards the corporation and loyalty to members

of one’s work group should be borne in mind by corporates and managers when

making decisions about such issues in subsidiaries and ventures in countries

other than their own.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Yasuaki Kido, Sangyo Noritsu University,

Japan; Tadeo Miyakawa, Reitaku University, Japan; Yukihiro Okawa and Toshihiro

Yono, Japan Productivity Center; Akihiro Okumuru, Keio University, Japan; Tomoaki

Sakano, Waseda University, Japan; Lee Chong-Yeong, Korea Industrial and

Development; Paula Tidwell, University of Southern Queensland, Australia; and,

Robert Markus, Babson College, USA.

REFERENCES

Alderson, S. and Kakabadse, A. 1994. Business ethics and Irish management: A cross- cultural study. European Management Journal, 12(4): 432-40.

Allport, G.W. 1962. The general and the unique in psychological science, Journal of Personality, 30: 405-22

Apressyan, R.G. 1997. Business ethics in Russia. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 1561-70.

Bae, K. and Chung, C. 1997. Cultural values and work attitudes of Korean industrial workers in comparison with those of the United States and Japan. Work and Occzlpations,

24( 1): 80-96.

Becker, H. and Fritzsche, D.J. 1987a. Business ethics: a cross-cultural comparison of managers’ attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 6: 289-95.

MAKING ETHICAL JLJDGEMENTS 471

Becker, H. and Fritzsche, D.J. 1987b. A comparison of the ethical behavior of American, French and German managers. Cohmbia Journal of World Business, Winter: 87-95.

Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H. and Dasen, P.R. 1992. Cross-c&gral Psychology.

Research and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brady, EN. 1990. Ethical Management: Rules and Results. London: MacMillan. Child, C. 1990. The Essentials of Factor Analysis. 2nd Edition. London: Casell. Cronbach, L. 1990. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 5th Edition. New York: Harper Collins. Dolecheck, M. and Dolecheck, C. 1987. Business ethics: A comparison of attitudes of

managers in Hong Kong and the United States. Hong Kong Managers, 1: 28-43.

Elenkov, D.S. 1997. Differences and similarities in managerial values between U.S. and Russia managers. International Studies of Management and Organization. 27( 1): 85-106.

Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. 1977. A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. London: Academic Press.

Glenn, ES., Witmeyer, D. and Stevenson, K.A. 1984. Cultural styles of persuasion. International jozlrnal of Interrz/&ral Relations: 1.

Hansen, R.S. 1992. A multidimensional scale for measuring business ethics: a purification and refinement. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 523-34.

Hegarty, W.H. and Sims, H.P. 1978. Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: an experiment. Jownal of Applied Psychology, 63(4): 45 l-57.

Hegarty, W.H. and Sims, H.P. 1979. Organizational philosophy, policies and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied

Pgdology, 64(3): 331-38. Hisrich, R.D. and Jankowicz, A.D. 1990. Intuitive venture capital decisions: An exploratory

study using a new technique. Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 49-62.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Czllturei Consequences: International Diff erences in Work-related Values.

Beverly Hills: Sage Hui, C.H. 1990. Work attitudes, leadership styles and managerial behavior in different

cultures. In R. W. Brislin, Applied Cross-cultural Psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. 1986. A general theory of markering ethics. Jownal of

Macromarketing, 6: S-16. Izraeli, D. 1988. Ethical beliefs and behaviors among managers: A cross-cultural

comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 7: 263-71. Jackson, T. 2000. Management ethics and corporate policy: A cross-cultural comparison.

Journal qf Management Studies, 37(3): 349-69.

Jackson, T. and Calafell Artola, M. 1997. Ethical beliefs and management behavior: A cross- cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 1163-73.

Kelly, G.A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Kline, I? 1986. A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design. London:

Methuen. Lonner, W.J. 1990. An overview of cross-cultural testing and assessment. In R.W. Brislin

(ed) Applied Cross-cdtural Psychology, pp. 57-76. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lyonski, S. and Gaidis, W. 1991. A cross-cultural comparison of the ethics of business

students. Journal of Business Ethics, 10: 141-50. McDonald, G.M. and Pak, C.K. 1997. Ethical perception of expatriates and local managers

in Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 1605-23. Nakano, C. 1997. A survey study on Japanese managers’ views of business ethics, Journal

of Business Ethics, 16: 1737-51. Neimanis, G.J. 1997. Business ethics in the former Soviet Union: A report. Journal of

Business Ethics, 16: 357-62.

Okleshen, M. and Hoyt, R. 1996. A cross-cultural comparison of ethical perspectives and decision approaches of business students: United States of America versus New Zealand.

Journal of Business Ethics, 15 : 5 3 7-49.

472 T . JACKSON ET AL.

Pickens, S.D.B. 1987. Values and value related strategies in Japanese corporate culture, Journal of Business Ethics, 6: 137-43.

Posner, B.Z. and Schmidt, W.H. 1987. Ethics in American companies: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 6: 383-91.

Ralston, D.A., Gaicalone, R.A. and Terpstra, R.H. 1994. Ethical perceptions of organizational politics: a comparative evaluation of American and Hong Kong managers.

Journal of Business Ethics, 13: 989-99. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. 1988. Some initial steps towards improving the

measurement of ethical evaluation of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7: 87 l-9.

Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. 1990. Towards the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9: 639-53.

Ronen, S. and Shenkar, 0. 1985. Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, lO(3): 435-54.

Rust, J. and Golombok, S. 1989. Modern Psychometrics: The Science of Psychological Assessment, London: Routledge.

Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Robertson, D.C. 1995. The influence of country and industry on ethical perceptions of senior executives in the U.S. and Europe. Journal of International Business Studies: 859-88 1.

Schwartz, S. 1994. Beyond individualism and collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, and G. Yon, Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Application, pp. 85-l 19. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S.J. and Leelakulthanit, 0. 1994. A cross-cultural study of moral philosophies, ethical perceptions and judgements: A comparison of American and Thai marketers, International Marketing Review, 1 l(6): 65-78.

Taka, I. and Dunfee, T.W. 1997. Japanese moralogy as business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 507-19.

Tsalikis, J. and LaTour, M.S. 1995. Bribery and extortion in international business: ethical perceptions of Greeks compared to Americans. Journal of Business Ethics, 14: 249-64.

Tsalikis, J. and Nwachukwu, 0. 1991. A comparison of Nigeria to American views of bribery and extortion in international commerce, Journal of Business Ethics, 10: 85-98.

Van de Vijver, E. and Leung, K. 1997. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-cultural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Westwood, R.J. and Posner, B.Z. 1997. Managerial values across cultures: Australia, Hong Kong and the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 14: 31-66.

White, L.P. and Rhodeback 1992. Ethical dilemmas in organizational development: A cross- cultural analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 663-70.