A Comparison of Five BusinessPhilosophies

Paul MiesingJohn F. Preble

ABSTRACT. While the media and public opinion pollssuggest that the state of business ethics is declining,surveys of corporate managers on the subject are lessthan conclusive. This study presents results of a surveyof 487 adult, MBA, and undergraduate business studentson the business philosophies of Machiavellianism, Dar-winism, Objectivism, Relativism, and Universalism. Thefindings were consistent with earlier research whichshowed prospective managers to be less ethical thanpracticing ones and that women and those reportinga strong religious conviction tend to be more ethical.Explanations and several recommendations for im-proving the situation are offered.

Paul Miesing is Assistant Professor of Business Manage-ment at the State University of New York at Albany.He previously taught Business Policy and Business,Government, and Society at the School of Commerce,University of Virginia. Professor Miesing has pub-lished in the areas of strategic management, businessenvironments, and business simulation. His articleshave appeared in Managerial Planning, Journal ofMarketing, Long Range Planning, Small GroupBehavior, Urban Analysis and Public Management,and Journal of Public Policy and Marketing.

John F. Preble is Assistant Professor of Strategic Man-agement at the University of Delaware. He previouslytaught Business Policy and Business, Government,and Society at the School of Business, State Univer-sity of New York at Albany. Professor Preble haspublished in the areas of environmental scanning,futuristic methodologies, and business simulation.His articles have appeared in Michigan BusinessReview, Long Range Planning, Technological Fore-casting and Social Change, Strategic ManagementJournal American Review of Public Administration,and Small Group Behavior.

'If you saw Atlas ... tryingto hold the world aloft withthe last of his strength, andthe greater his effort theheavier the world boredown upon his shoulders —what would you tell him todo?'

'To shrug.'— Ayn Rand,^tlM Shrugged

If one is to believe current public opinion andthe media, businesspeople are shrugging off theweight of the world. Newspapers, magazines,and television newscasts are frequently reportingincidents of corporate fraud, bribery, corrup-tion, espionage and the like, while public opin-ion poUs indicate a decline in the level of publicconfidence in the ethics of business. For in-stance, a recent Gallup poll found that 49% ofthe public think business ethics has declined inthe past decade while only 9% think it has in-creased. Not surprisingly, only 23% of businessexecutives agree that their ethics have fallen,while 31% believe business ethics have actuallyrisen. Furthermore, younger people and collegestudents tend to be less ethical, whereas womenand those who had reported a religious affilia-tion were more ethical (Ricklefs, 1983).

Business philosophies

Ethics are basically frameworks for humanconduct that relate to moral principles andattempt to distinguish right from wrong. Al-

Joumal of Business Ethics 4 (1985) 465-476. 0167-4544/85.15.© 1985 by D. Reidel Publishing Company.

466 Paul Miesing and John F. Preble

though it has been claimed that 'business ethics'is a contradiction in terms, virtually all types ofdecisions entail a balancing of divergent eco-nomic, technical, psychological, sociological,political, aesthetic, and theological values. Whileindividuals may rank these values differently,everyone has a philosophy which, implicitlyor explicitly, determines the overall value orworth of a particular decision. Contrary topopular belief, economic values need not alwaysbe of overriding concern in dealing with businessproblems.

If all corporations operated in a perfectlyefficient market (which they do not) and ifthe market took account of all of society'sinterests (which it does not), then there wouldbe no need to worry about different businessphilosophies. But as Gilder explains it.

The notion of perfect competition ... actually comesto mean no competition at all: an equilibrium inwhich all participants have perfect information andin which companies can change neither prices norproducts and can essentially affect neither supplynor demand (1981, p. 31).

Generally, the attempt to achieve an idealmodel through public policy has come at theexpense of real-world dynamics.

On the other hand, market imperfectionscombined with organization slack allow profes-sional managers a great deal of latitude in theirallocation of resources. As a result, corporationsare now being criticized for not respondingsufficiently to society given their size and re-sources. At the same time, they are being

attacked for not having a moral basis thatjustifies their inequitable distribution of powerand prosperity. Since corporations are creaturesof the state and exist by the consent of society,irresponsible use of their power or lack ofaccountability for their actions will result intheir loss of privileges.

One method of categorizing business acts isby examining the motives of the decision maker(see Table I). For instance, a consideration ofthe results or consequences of an act (teleologi-cal) can be based on either self-interest (egoism)or a concern for the social good (utilitarian). Incontrast, an act may be viewed as inherentlygood or bad based on such principles as obliga-tion or duty (deontological) and may also beseen as either selfish or altruistic. Individualscan examine their possession of these businessphilosophies via 'values clarification exercises.'Four of the five business philosophies examinedin this paper come from Stevens (1979). Machia-vellianism, Objectivism, Social Darwinism, andEthical Relativism. In addition, Universalism willalso be included (Barry, 1979).

Machiavellianism

The Machiavellian philosophy states that a busi-ness firm is a self-contained organism with itsown 'natural' laws which can be bent but notbroken. Hence, expediency must take precedenceover virtue for one to succeed. Furthermore,since there are no categorical imperatives inbusiness, moral actions are only those which

TABLE I

Business values based on motives

Self (Egoism)

Society (Utilitarian)

Consequential (Ends)

Machiavellianism• Expediency• Ends justify the means

Universality• Categorical imperative• 'Golden Rule'

Non-consequential (Means)

Darwinian/Objectivism• Self-interest• Survival of the fittest

Relativism• Depends on time and place• Convention

A Gomparison of Five Business Philosophies 467

are effective in accomplishing some purpose.Thus, Machiavellianism is amoral in the sensethat the end, which is usually winning, is suffi-cient justification for the means.

Machiavellianism has attained a pejorativeconnotation by describing someone who is cold-blooded and conniving in using others with totaldisregard for human dignity. Considered 'op-portunistic' by their detractors and 'realistic'hy their admirers, Machiavellians view others asnaive about the real world and reject conven-tional moral standards in their emotionallydetached pursuit of selfish ends. According toChristie and Geis (1970), they do not accept thepremise that people should do what they believein but should instead believe in what they do.

The purpose of political science, with itsMachiavellian foundations, is to describe ob-served behavior and not to provide moralprescriptions. Indeed, the fate of nation-statesdepends on pragmatic politics rather than onunrealistic philosophies. Calhoon applied thisview to today's manager as:

. . .one who employs aggressive, manipulative, ex-ploiting, and devious moves in order to achievepersonal and organizational objectives. These movesare undertaken according to perceived feasibilitywith secondary consideration (what is necessaryunder the circumstances) to the feelings, needs,and/or 'rights' of others (1969, p. 211).

Objectivism

To many, the only end of business is to pro-vide goods and services at a reasonable price.Similar to Machiavellianism, the moral guidefor Ayn Rand's Objectivism is rational self-interest. Although both Rand and Machia-velli agree that business must deal with realityand not philosophy. Rand does not considerthe real world to be at odds with ethics. In-deed, morality is the ability to be faithful tothe real world by avoiding ethical judgementsbased on feelings. And since Rand's govern-ment exists to protect the natural rights ofindividuals, freedom becomes the right to defyfate by making rational decisions which lead toproductivity and happiness. Therefore, profit

is the result of reason and an ethical life comesfrom productive reasoning. In this view, then,evil individuals are those who survive as parasitesliving off of others, as in a government welfarestate.

According to the libertarian faith in themarket system, corporations have no ideologyor set of values other than economic grovrth,profit, and efficiency. Business in this view isthe only moral system precisely because it ispragmatic and based on an objective theory ofvalues that rewards dispassionate rationalityand economic individualism. Although profitis the primary motivator of economic activity,the coincidence of self-interest and publicgood also occurs to the extent that free marketassumptions are met. But Weber refers to thewidely-held perception that capitalism is ex-clusively profit-maximizing behavior as a naive'kindergarten' understanding which Inevitablyleads to an anticorporate bias (1958, p. 17).In fact, such behavior is not exclusively capitalisticat all but exists in most cultures regardless ofeconomic ideology. Besides, rewards can also bederived from non-monetary satisfaction (Novak,1981).

The best known economic justification of thevirtue of free competition is made by Friedman(1970) when he argues that it is fundamentallysubversive for a business to do anything otherthan maximize its profits. Acts of individualsas citizens must be separate from their role ascorporate agents in order to ensure basic politicalrights and individual freedoms. However, Stur-divant and Ginter (1977) did not find a contra-diction between social performance and cor-porate profits. At the individual level, Baumhart(1961) found that many business executivesregarded untempered profit maximization asimmoral. Similarly, Purcell (1977) reported that78% of his former students were opposed toFriedman's philosophy.

In an update to Baumhart's (1961) study,Brenner and Molander (1977) found economicvalues to be more important to business execu-tives than ethical concerns although the tradi-tional profit-maximizing ideology was rejectedin favor of a new management role. Moredisturbing, they report that nearly half of their

468 Paul Miesing and John F. Preble

respondents believed business executives do notapply ethical rules even though only 7% thoughtprofit pressures contributed to lower ethicalstandards. On the other hand, there was a 19%decrease in the proportion of respondents ex-periencing a conflict between ethics and effi-ciency. They attribute this result to either lowerethical standards or a greater acceptance ofonce-unethical practices.

Social Darwinism

Herbert Spencer developed the philosophy ofSocial Darwinism by synthesizing CharlesDarwin's theory of evolution and natural selec-tion with Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. Smith,primarily a moral philosopher during the pre-industrial era of state-controlled mercantalism,is today's business hero. According to his theoryof competition, individuals, by pursuing theirovwi selfish interests, unwittingly and effectivelypromote the social welfare. In this way. SocialDarwinism may also be viewed as Utilitarian.But stressing the ru^ed individual characterizedby the Protestant ethic ignores the role ofprivate corporations as social organizations:

Neither the ideology of laissez-faire nor the ideologyof rugged individualism suits their actual practiceor their inherent ideals. . . .The ideals of democraticcapitalism are not those of laissez-faire (Novak,1981, p. 52).

According to the precept 'survival of the fittest,'then, businesses survive because they obey thenatural laws of competition. Hence, only thestrong are good and morally superior in alaissez-faire environment. Although some sufferin the struggle, society will be improved as theinefficient are eliminated. In a sense, then.Social Darwinism is amoral since the laws ofevolution and natural selection are not amend-able by human intervention. The businesssystem is thus based on survival, profit maximi-zation, competition, self-interest, and theability to cope with economic inevitabilities.

Social Darvtdnism assumes that laws of bio-

logical systems can be applied to organizations.But a 'jungle philosophy' may be at odds withcivilization's willingness to help the helpless.Besides, there are no assurances that the sur-vivors will be the most efficent, competitive, orinnovative rather than the most ruthless or un-ethical. Furthermore, selecting the fittest re-quires a large number to pick from, vnth con-stant entry and turnover as survivors not onlyreplace the extinct but must deal with the new-comers as well. Besides, applying environmentaladaptation to social organizations means that allelements, not merely the market, must bereckoned with. An ecological perspective requirescoping with socio-political pressures and re-sponding to all claimants in order to survive inthe long run.

Ethical relativism

Ethical Relativism departs from business philo-sophies centered around the individual to one in-tended to serve the group or society. Here, ethicsdoes deal with feelings and attitudes and is basedon social convention which accepts behaviorsanctioned by established group norms. Hence,moral good means conforming to the way thingsare in a given time and place and Rand's selfish-ness becomes the root of all evil. Thus, conven-tional morality justifies the 'commonly acceptedpractice' argument in business. Those unableto adapt to the particular culture will sufferand questionable practices may eventually beseen as ethical under different circumstances.

Ethical Relativism is often confused withsituational ethics. In Ethical Relativism, societysets the rules so that the cultural context canalter the decision. In situational ethics, the endjustifies the means as long as the situation isevaluated by the amount of love achieved which,being the ultimate norm of Christian decisions,is intrinsically good. Although circumstancesalso alter the way a case is evaluated, there areno rules or social sanctions imposed. Instead,individuals have the freedom to be personallyresponsible for their actions and consequences(Fletcher, 1967).

A Gomparison of Five Business Philosophies 469

Universalism

The opposite of Ethical Relativism is a beliefthat there are absolutes and all behavior shouldbe evaluated by the same rules regardless ofconsequences. That is, moral values and prin-ciples are eternal and should apply Universally,being equally valid in all places and times.Universalism is described by Pichler and De-George as requiring "all others to act as we doonly if we are also prepared to be treated in thesame way under like circumstances" (1979,p. 29). This is similar to Confucian ethics whichholds that all interdependent parties must followpredetermined rules of obedience, loyalty,respect, and hard work so as to optimize theirmutual benefits. In fact, 80% responded in theBrenner and Molander (1977) survey that anabsolute moral standard should exist.

Method

Previous research results do not tell us conclu-sively whether business ethics are about thesame, improving, or declining. Further, we donot know much about the actual ethical valuesystems of the subjects studied. In an effort tofind out more about the current and futurestate of business ethics, a large sample of prac-ticing and prospective managers were measuredon five different business philosophies and theirresults compared.

The sample in this study was comprised of487 students enrolled at a business school ateither one of two major mid-Adantic state uni-versities; registered in an extension course ofeither a Midwestern or Northeastern state uni-versity ; or were practicing managers in an execu-tive development program. As previously indi-cated, the Stevens (1979) 'values clarificationexercises' relating to business philosophies wereadapted as the measuring instrument. Typicalof the ten Machiavellian items is, 'A businessperson can't afford to get hung up on ideals; it'sa real world out there, and reality is all thatcounts.' Objectivism also included ten state-ments, such as 'True morality is first and fore-

most 5eZ/-interested.' Social Darwinism had tenitems, including 'Competition and profits areideals in their own right; it is empty idealismto speak of higher purposes for business.' Oneof Ethical Relativism's five items was, 'A corpo-ration planning manager from Maryland acquiresan Ecuadorian company which has two sets ofbooks to evade income taxes. He plans to con-tinue the tax evasion on the grounds that this isa local standard practice.' One of Universalism'sthree items was, 'Even at the risk of losing aone-shot sale, I would not lead an unsuspectingcustomer to believe the truth of the exa^eratedmarketing claims of the computer software he isintending to buy from me.'

The survey instrument was administered tothe students in class about midway through thesemester, and at the end of the extension courseand executive development program. Respon-dents were asked to reflect on the 38 statementsand indicate their extent of agreement or dis-agreement with each on a five-point Likert scale.As a partial inducement, they were told thatthey would receive an interpretation of whatthey had done to see how they scored on theexercise. This would allow them to assess andreflect on their own business philosophies. Con-firmatory factor analysis was used to convert theraw data by estimating weights for each questionin order to maximize their fit to the value con-struct they comprised (Joreskog and Sorbom,1984). Averaging the product of these weightsand raw scores yielded an overall mean for eachvalue construct which can be compared betweengroups of respondents. The final weights used fitthe model quite well, explaining 86% of theobservations with less than a 0.001 chance of

error.

Results and discussion

As show in Table II, the mean scores for theoverall group consisting of 487 individuals were2.28 on Machiavellianism, 2.60 on Objectivism,2.37 on Darwinism, 2.32 on Ethical Relativism,and 3.61 on Universalism. The higher the scores,the more in agreement the group was vsdth that

470 Paul Miesing and John F. Preble

TABLE II

Means, differences, and correlations

Machiavellian

Objectivism

Darwinism

Relativism

Universalism

Machiavellian

5=2.28(S.D. = 0.56)

( = 12.40(p < 0.001)

t =4.59(p< 0.001)

( = 1.37(n.s.)

( = 29.82( p < 0.001)

Objectivism

r = 0.44(p< 0.001)

x=2.60(S.D. = 0.52)

t = 8.45(p < 0.001)

t = 7.77(p< 0.001)

t = 25.80(p< 0.001)

Darwinism

r = 0.66(p< 0.001)

r = 0.38(p< 0.001)

i=2.37(S.D. = 0.54)

t = 1.78(n.s.)

t = 28.31{p < 0.001)

Relativism

r = 0.45(p< 0.001)

r =0.19(p < 0.001)

r = 0.47(p < 0.001)

3c=2.32(S.D. = 0.71)

t = 26.25(p < 0.001)

Universalism

r = -0.33(p < 0.001)

r = .-0.09(n.s.)

r = -0.31(p < 0.001)

r = -0.29( p < 0.001)

x=3.61(S.D. = 0.65)

cluster of items making up a particular businessphilosophy. All philosophies except Universalismwere positively correlated.

T-tests on these scores indicated that most ofthem were significantly different from oneanother at the 0.001 level. The exceptions werethat significant differences between Relativismand Darwinism or Machiavellianism did not oc-cur. With 3.00 representing a neutral or unsureposition, it appears that the first four philosophieswere not unanimously subscribed to. The excep-tion was the fifth philosophy, Universalism,which also had the highest 't' values. In additionto these overall tendencies, comparisons madeon these business philosophies by class type,sex, work experience, age, and religious con-viction revealed a number of interesting dif-ferences.

Maturity

A generation gap might exist between studentsand managers. Some believe that morals areformed by the time people reach college age orcomplete their formal education. Alternatively,people might change their values over time.One might then expect a development of en-lightened attitudes as a result of new and dif-

ferent situations. Conversely, people maybecome jaded and cynical. If society's valueshave changed, than the new values might bereflected by the younger respondents.

Baumhart (1961) found students to have alower opinion of the ethics of the businessperson than business people have of themselves.On the other hand, Arlow and Ulrich (1980) andHollon and Uhrich (1979) found students tohave lower personal ethics than business execu-tives do. These are explained in part by the busi-ness students' Machiavellian orientation (Christieand Geis, 1970, p. 354; Hollon and Uh-ich,1979, p. 21; Siegel, 1973) that can emerge fromthe socialization processes of business schools orstereotypical image students possess rather thanreflecting overall changes in social values.Purcell (1977) compared changes over time forone group and concluded "that these youngbusinessmen seem to have developed a greaterethical consciousness and sophistication aftertheir decade of business experience" (p. 51). Itis unclear if such differences are attributable tosocialization or are responses to popular percep-tions.

To assess these possibilities, respondents wereclassified by whether they were undergraduates,MBAs, or adults; their age; and the number ofyears they worked fuU-dme in a profit-makingorganization. The results are as follows:

A Gomparison of Five Business Philosophies 471

Class:Undergrad Policy (n = 136)Undergrad Bus Env (n = 68)Day MBAs (n = 109)Night MBAs (n = 92)Adults (« = 82)

Birth Year:1960s (n= 180)1950s (n= 203)1940s (n = 81)

Number of Years Worked:none (n = 233)l-5yrs. (n= 178)>6yrs. (« = 72)

Machiavellian

2.41"2.382.17"2.14°2.26

2.38"2.21"2.20

2.33°2.272.13"

Objectivism

2.562.502.622.632.67

2.542.622.66

2.612.582.58

Darwinism

2.53"-'^2.382.31"2.22'2.34

2.48"2.32"2.28

2.40"2.402.22'

Relativism

2.322.392.302.282.34

2.352.262.35

2.372.322.18

Universalism

3.47''3.653.693.51"2.84"'"

3.553.633.79

3.593.623.65

Note: ","", '^ denote pairs of groups significantly different at the following levels:" p < 0.05^ p< 0.01" p < 0.001

objectivism and Relativism were not signifi-cantly different for any of the measures ofmaturity. The undergraduate policy studentsreceived limited exposure to an ethical com-ponent and had significantly higher Machia-vellianism and Darwinism scores than bothMBA groups. The adult group had higher Uni-versalism scores than the undergraduate policyand night MBA groups. This same pattern holdswhen looking at age and corporate work ex-perience: undergraduate students and thosewithout work experience were significantlymore Machiavellian and Darwinian than graduatestudents or adults and those with six years ormore of work experience. On the other hand,undergraduate policy students had significantlylower Universalism scores than both adultgroups. Based on these results, maturity appears

to influence one's adherence to these businessphilosophies.

Undergraduate major

College experience might be expected to make alasting impression in forming values. Businessschools in particular have been criticized forforstering egocentric rather than society-cen-tered values. This would be consistent with the"cool, cognitive, situation-specific strategy" ofMachiavellians (Christie and Geis, 1970, p. 304).It is not known, however, if business schoolsattract individuals with certain characteristics ortrain them to be pragmatic and make detachedanalytical decisions. The evidence from thisstudy shows no significant differences in busi-ness philosophies by undergraduate major:

Undergraduate Major:Business (n = 234)Economics (n = 19)Physical Sci. (n = 52)Social Sci. (n = 46)Liberal Arts (n = 50)Health and Ed. (n = 17)

Machiavellian

2.312.302.272.192.182.03

Objectivism

2.552.692.742.482.622.57

Darwinism

2.432.412.402.222.302.08

Relativism

2.302.422.442.312.312.28

Universalism

3.583.653.583.633.683.75

472 Paul Miesing and John F. Preble

Sex

The stereotypical male is aggressive, dispas-sionate, and clear-headed. Tlie data cannotconfirm or deny this stereotype, but they do

show women agree significantly less than menwith all of the business philosophies except forUniversalism, where they scored somewhathigher although not significantly so:

Machiavellian Objectivism Danvinism Relativism Universalism

Sex: Male (« = 276)Female [n = 196)

2.35<=2.18 '

2.64 =2.53°

2 .45 '2 .26 '

2 .43 '2 .16 '

3.573.68

The respondents were also asked the extent towhich they beheved a course dealing with busi-ness ethics should be required of all managerson a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree). The results are significantly differentat the 0.05 level only by sex and for Machia-vellian and Objectivism:

Course should be required:

Sex: MaleMachiavellianObjectivism

FemaleMachiavellianObjectivism

Stronglydisagree

1

("=17)2.622.76

("=8)1.972.55

2

(n=35)2.562.61

(n=18)2.322.87

Notsure

3

(« = 34)2.412.61

[n = 16)2.152.17

4

(n=103)2.342.65

(" = 72)2.242.56

Stronglyagree

S

(«=71)2.152.63

("=72)2.072.49

A greater proportion of women than men (85%vs. 77%) believe that a course dealing with busi-ness ethics should be required. Furthermore,women are less Machiavellian and less Objectivistthan men for nearly every extent of response tothis statement. A clear and consistent pattern is

that men score less on the Machiavellian scale asthey show stronger belief that such a courseshould be required. The following are the resultsfor this same question for each of the value con-structs:

Should be required:1 strongly disagree [n = 27)2 (n = 58)3 not sure (n = 58)4 (n = 190)5 strongly agree (n = 153)

Machiavellian

2.422.50'2.332.31"2.10»''

Objectivism

2.712.712.522.612.56

Darwinism

2.502.55"2.482.382.23"

Relativism

2.452.57"2.362.322.18"

Universalism

3.463.27'3.553.66"3.74"-'

A Gomparison of Five Business Philosophies 473

Generally, Machiavellian, Darwinism, and Rela-tivism decrease for those who believe the courseshould be required, whereas Universalism in-creases. There are no signficant differences forObjectivism.

Authority

Business values might differ by the degree towhich individuals are wilhng to grant power orprivilege to others. This may be thought of inseveral ways. For instance, religious convictioncan affect altruism since the Bible has histori-cally provided rules of right or wrong conducttowards others. However, the Protestant ethicinterpretation of the Bible is that it is a moralduty to increase personal wealth because materialgoods are a deserved reflection of God's gloryand demonstrate salvation. There is then a coin-cidence of the spiritual vwth the material (Buch-holz, 1983). On the other hand, Puritanismopposes accumulating earthly possessions infavor of asceticism, and Lutheranism alsoquestions good works as a 'justification' forsalvation and its implication that people couldbargain with God the angry judge rather thancoming to terms with God the forgiving father.

Pohtics can also be viewed as the extent ofself-interest or altruism in the use of power.Walters (1977), however, argues that businessvalues are not a matter of political ideology but

are based on the merits of each particular case.Traditional conservatives believe that unilateraldecision-making authority requires limitedgovernment market intervention. The irony isthat proactive corporate social responsibilitykeeps such intervention to a minimum, andbusiness may solve social problems more effi-ciently than other institutions can. On the otherhand, traditional liberals tend to be pluralisticand look to government command and controlof the market to solve social iUs. But someliberals argue that corporate social responsibil-ity is an abuse of corporate power, whereasothers do no think business corporations havesufficent ability to effectively rectify socialproblems. Walters (1977) concludes

that the conservative and liberal arguments forcorporate social responsibility are in agreementon the fundamental concept and goals of socialresponsibility. Social responsibility is not a no ,̂-market goal, but it is a set of business policies tomost effectively achieve profitability and to assurefurther profitability (p. 49).

A final comparison of authority can be madeby looking at expected salaries. It can be arguedthat those desiring high salaries are vvriUing toachieve status and power at all costs. On theother hand, if salary does not matter, theneven high ambitions need not result in un-ethical conduct. The results are as follows:

Religious conviction:1 non-believer (n = 51)2 (n = 74)3 not sure (n = 128)4 (n=161)5 dedicated (n = 52)

Political persuasion:1 Uberal(n = 15)2 (n=131)3 not sure (« = 164)4 (n = 130)5 conservative (n = 25)

Machiavellian

2.292.37"2.34"2.222.03°

2.072.212.302.292.25

Objectivism

2.712.632.602.562.41

2.472.522.602.622.70

Darwinism

2.432.46°2.382.352.15"

2.032.362.342.422.38

Relativism

2.49*'2.49"2.35"2.241.97 »•''

2.242.312.352.331.94

Universalism

3.583.50"3.583.633.87°

3.683.623.593.613.78

continued on p. 474

474 Paul Miesing and John F. Preble

Expected salary:<$18K (fi = 92)

$18-21K (n=115)$22-25K («=114)$26-29K (« = 73)

>$30K (n = 67)

Machiavellian

2.382.302.242.172.24

Objectivism

2.562.552.612.662.62

Darwinism

2.442.422.302.362.30

Relativism

2.362.242.272.372.39

Universalism

3.603.533.703.633.64

The results based on authority are mixed.Generally, respondents who believe they havededicated religious convictions are less Machia-vellian, Darwinian, and Relative but moreUniversal than non-believers. This reflects amore contemporary interpretation and rejectsthe traditional Protestant ethic notion by thosewho have religious convictions. However, thereare no significant differences based on either

political persuasion or expected salary. Politicalideology, then, can be used as a rationale for oragainst social responsibility. Finally, the degreeof ambition does not influence ethical belief

Relativism also varied significantly (at the0.05 level) by religious conviction and the ex-tent to which respondents believed a coursedealing vnth business ethics should be requiredof all managers:

Religious conviction:1 non believer23 not sure45 dedicated

Course should be required:

Stronglydisagree

1

2.62 (n =2.65 (n =2.84 (n =2.50 (n =2.30 {n =

5)9)3)16)17)

2

2.152.662.712.532.38

{« =(« =

(" =(" ={" =

5)15)7)24)18)

Notsure

3

2.80 {n =3.25 (n =2.43 (n =2.33 (n =2.11 (n =

4)10)14)50)44)

4

2.402.012.112.282.24

(« =(« =

(« =(" =(n =

10)16)19)65)43)

Stronglyagree

5

1.79 (fl =2.16 (n =2.17 (n =1.83 (n =2.03 (« =

1)3)7)20)21)

Relativism scores are higher for those respon-dents who do not believe such a course shouldbe offered and who are indifferent as to theirreligious conviction.

Summary and conclusions

This study is consistent with current surveysthat find younger people tend to be less ethicalthan older people, and that women and those

with religious conviction are more ethical.Students without corporate work experience,and especially those not being exposed to ethicalideas, may be responding to the image they haveof businesspeople. But since there were no signi-ficant distinctions by undergraduate major, thealternative is that these managers-to-be may bereflecting future business philosophies. Thefindings can be summarized as follows:

(1) The overall group of respondents did notunanimously subsribe to the jungle

A Gomparison of Five Business Philosophies 475

philosophy of Darwinism, the ex-pediency of Machiavelliansim, nor theflexibility and satisfying of group normsassociated with Ethical Relativism.Stronger agreement with the real-worldorientation of Objectivism was demon-strated, but results were still below the3.00 neutral position. The strongestagreement was with the ultimate criteriaof duties that are universally valid {Uni-versalism).

(2) However, when comparisons were madeby class type, the undergraduate busi-ness policy students had significandyhigher Machiavellianism and Darwinismscores than both MBA groups. Similarly,undergraduate students and those with-out work experience were significantlymore Machiavellian and Darwinian thangraduate students or adults and thosewith six or more years of work ex-perience. Clearly, maturity reducesstrong adherence to these two busi-ness philosophies.

(3) No significant differences were shown onthe five business philosophies when stu-dents were compared by undergraduatemajor.

(4) While women agreed more than menwith Universalism, they agreed signifi-cantly less with the other four businessphilosophies than men did.

(5) A greater proportion of women thanmen believed that a course dealing withbusiness ethics should be required, whilemen who believed that such a courseshould be required scored less on theMachiavellian, Darwinian, and Relati-vism scales.

These profiles of business philosophies basedon the reported patterns of differences showthose agreeing with Universalism, or 'consequen-tial utilitarianism,' tend to be adults with de-dicated religious convictions who believe acourse dealing with business ethics should be re-quired for managers. Respondents disagreeingwith this value construct were the night MBAsand undergraduate policy students, have noreligious convictions, and do not feel a course

in business ethics should be required. The 'non-consequential utilitarians,' or those agreeingwith Relativism, tended to be men withoutstrong religious convictions and do not think abusiness ethics course should be required ofmanagers. The low scorers are women, have de-dicated religious convictions, and believe abusiness ethics course should be required. Thepatterns for Machiavellianism and Darwinism arevirtually identical, indicating egoists do notdifferentiate ends from means. In addition topossessing the same attributes as for Relativism,high scorers were undergraduates vwthout eitherexposure to the ethical issues or any experienceworking for a profit-making organization. Lowscorers tended to be MB^ , were bron in thesixties, and have more then six years of workexperience in a profit-making organization.

Today's business philosophies are derivedfrom anthropology, economics, sociology, psy-chology, political science, theology, and evenlaw. But there currendy does not exist a uniquebusiness philosophy relevant for economicorganizations in today's socio-political worldwhich corporate decision makers can relate to.In attempting to define business' 'complex net-work of moral relationships,' Hoffman andMoore posit the following:

Business ethics . . . deals with comprehensive questionsabout the justice of the economic context in whichbusiness operates and about the nature, function,structure and scope ... as well as ... the relationshipof business to government, the consumer, its em-ployees, and society at large (1982, p. 299).

Clearly, much work remains in developing acoherent and comprehensive business philo-sophy suitable for business situations.

References

Arlow, P. and Ulrich, T. A.: 'Business Ethics, SocialResponsibility and Business Students: An EmpiricalComparison of Clark's Study' Akron Business andEconomic Review 11 (1980) 17-22.

Barry, V.: Morallssues mBurine^i, Wadsworth PublishingCompany, Belmont, Ca., 1979.

476 Paul Miesing and John F. Preble

Baumhart, R. C : 'How Ethical Are Businessmen?',Harvard Business Review 39 (1961).

Brenner, S. N. and Molander, E. A.: 'Is the Ethics ofBusiness Changing?', Harvard Business Review 55(1977), 57-71.

Buchholz, R. A.: 'The Protestant Ethic as an IdeologicalJustification of Capitalism', Journal oj BusinessEthics 2 (1983), 51-60.

Calhoon, R. P.: 'Niccolo Machiavelli and the TwentiethCentury Administrator', Academy oJ ManagementJournal 12 (1969), 205-212.

Christie, R. and Geis, F.: Studies in Machiavellianism,Academic Press, New York, 1970.

Fletcher, J.: Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics atWork. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1967.

Friedman, M.: 'The Social Responsibility of Business isto Increase its Profits', The New York Times Maga-zine (September 13, 1970), 122-126.

Gilder, G.: Wealth and Poverty, Basic Books, Inc., NewYork, 1981.

Hoffman, W. M. and Moore, J. M.: 'What is BusinessEthics ? A Reply to Peter Drucker'. Journal oJ Busi-ness Ethics 1 (1982), 293-300.

Hollon, C.J. and Ulrich, T. A.: 'Personal BusinessEthics: Managers vs. Managers-To-Be', Southern Busi-ness Review 5 (1979), 17-22.

Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D.: USREL VI: Analysisof Linear Structural Relationships by the Method ofMaximum Likelihood (User's Guide), University ofUppsala, Sweden. Copyright by National EducationalResources, Inc., and distributed by InternationalEducational Services, Chicago, Illinois, 1984.

Novak, M.: Toward a Theology oJ the Corporation,American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Re-search, Washington, D.C., 1981.

Pichler, J. A. and DeGeorge, R. T.: 'Ethics: Principlesand Disclosures', World 13 (1979), 28-32.

Purcell, T. V.: 'Do Courses in Business Ethics Pay Off?'CaUJomia Management Review 19 (1977), 50-58.

Ricklefs, R.: 'Executives and General Public Say EthicalBehavior is Declining in U.S.,' WaU Street Journal(October 31, 1983), 33 and 42.

Siegel, J. B.: 'Machiavellianism, MBA's and Managers:Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effects',Academy of Management Journal 16 (1973),404-411.

Stevens, E.: Business Ethics, Paulist Press, New York,1979.

Sturdivant, F. D. and Ginter, J. L.: 'Corporate SocialResponsiveness: Management Attitudes and Econo-mic Performance', CaUJomia Management Review 19(1979), 30-39.

Walters, K. D.: 'Corporate Social Responsibility andPolitical Ideology', CaUJomia Management Review 19(1977), 40-51.

Weber, M.: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit oJCapi-talism, Transl. by Talcott Parsons, Scribner, NewYork, 1958.

School of Business,State University of New York at Albany,

Albany, NY 12222,U.S.A.

Gollege of Business and Economics,University of Delaware,

Newark, Delaware 19716,U.S.A.