Ethics Codes and Professionals' Tolerance of Societal Diversity

ABSTRACT. Companies often develop codes pre-scribing an ethical organizational environment.However, the ability of ethics codes to increase indi-viduals’ tolerance of diversity is not fully consideredin the ethics literature. This relationship was exploredusing a sample of 143 business and legal professionals.After accounting for the impact of several covariates,results indicated that professionals employed in orga-nizations that had an ethics code were more tolerantof societal diversity than were professionals workingin organizations that did not have an ethics code. Thefindings also showed that a traditional orientationtoward gender roles was also related to the acceptanceof diversity. These findings imply that companies tosome degree define societal norms, possibly throughtraining programs that make employees aware of theirdifferences.

KEY WORDS: code of ethics, diversity, social capital

Ethics codes are commonly used to createmoralistic corporate paradigms (Adams et al.,2001; Kaptein and Wempe, 1998; Sims, 1991),and the 1991 U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelinesprompt companies to utilize these programs(Adams et al., 2001; Rafalko, 1994). Such codesoutline sets of principles that ideally enhanceemployees’ ethical orientation (Farrell andFarrell, 1998). Sims and Keon (1999) point outthat codes can in many cases decrease unethicalconduct.

The ethics literature indicates that codes are akey component of ethical management (Adamset al., 2001; Farrell and Farrell, 1998; Kapteinand Wempe, 1998; Reichert et al., 2000; Wiley,2000). Ethics codes facilitate the creation of anethical environment by introducing the organi-zation’s basic ethical philosophies to managersand employees (Adams et al., 2001). Codes alsoshow that the company values moral businessconduct (Tucker et al., 1999) and is keenly inter-ested in socially responsible actions (Murphy,1995; Reichert et al., 2000).

Research indicates that an ethical organiza-tional context can positively impact employees.For instance, ethical business climates canincrease employees’ principled reasoning (Akaahand Riordan, 1989; Deshpande, 1996; Victor andCullen, 1988), and the standardization of ethicalbeliefs can augment individual commitment(Fritz et al., 1999; Hunt et al., 1989). Previouswork also shows that codes can increaseemployees’ ethical performance. For instance,Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990, 1991) determinedthat individuals employed in organizationswithout a developed code of ethics were moreinclined to select an unethical course of actionthan were those employed in organizations

Ethics Codes and Professionals’ Tolerance of Societal Diversity

Journal of Business Ethics

40: 301–312, 2002.© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Sean Valentine is Assistant Professor of Management in theCollege of Business at the University of Wyoming. Hehas a D.B.A. from Louisiana Tech University, and hisresearch has appeared in Journal of BusinessResearch, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal ofBusiness Strategies, and Employee Responsibilitiesand Right Journal. His research interests includebusiness ethics, gender issues in the workplace, and organizational culture.

Gary Fleischman, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor ofAccounting in the College of Business at the Universityof Wyoming. He has a Ph.D. from Texas TechUniversity, and his research has appeared in Journalof Accountancy, Journal of Public Budgeting,Accounting, & Financial Management, and CPAJournal. His research interests include the ethical assess-ment of the Innocent Spouse Rules, ethics and accountingpractice, and tax policy.

Sean ValentineGary Fleischman

utilizing codes. Adams et al. (2001) concludedthat codes of ethics increased individuals’ beliefsabout ethical company conduct. McCabe et al.(1996) using a sample of business school gradu-ates found that ethics codes decreased question-able conduct, while Weeks and Nantel (1992)found that codes inspired more respectable salesconduct.

The positive nature of an ethical organizationalenvironment might be further enhanced whenmanagement outwardly supports ethics programs.Chen et al. (1997) and Reidenbach and Robin(1991) believe that managers should create a“community-minded” environment using a“top-down” approach to business ethics. Ethicscodes appear to be more effectively developedthrough managerial action and emphasis (Joseand Thibodeaux, 1999). Hunt et al. (1989) alsoconclude that management must operateaccording to ethical expectations and rewardprincipled conduct when it occurs.

Even though organizational ethics is currentlyemphasized, little research examines the rela-tionship between ethics codes and employees’responses to the work environment (Adams et al.,2001). In particular, the ability of codes to influ-ence employees’ attitudes about socially respon-sible conduct such as the acceptance of workplacediversity requires further elucidation. Accordingto Gilbert et al. (1999, p. 72), “research whichspecifically addressed diversity is necessary toprovide understanding of diversity interventions,and to provide information to the practitioner onthe impact of diversity management.” Companiesmay be able to enhance both internal (company)and external (community) social systems byaccentuating in ethics codes the importance andacceptance of individual differences, and addi-tional research needs to explore how such “socialcapital” is prompted (Bourdieu, 1993; Nahapietand Ghoshal, 1998). Written codes of ethicsappear to be important tools for changingemployees’ attitudes, and organizations seriousabout increasing the tolerance of diversity mightconsider developing content that reflects a com-mitment to individual differences. Consequently,this study examines the relationship betweenethics codes and employees’ tolerance for diver-sity in society.

Ethics codes and beliefs about diversity

According to Andre (1995, p. 489), “today theclimate of the workplace has changed, and issuesof race and gender, indeed of multiculturalism,are in the foreground of many decisions,” andthere is a need “to establish an organizationalculture that is skilled in interpersonal processes”(p. 495). The supervision of diversity is in fact“predicted to be one of the most significant orga-nizational issues of the coming decades” (Soni,2000, p. 395). The blending of people from dif-ferent backgrounds is important because researchshows that diversity brings about positive conse-quences (Gilbert et al., 1999).

The supervision of diversity typically includes“multiple efforts, constant reinforcement, andbroad-scale change initiatives” that bring togetheremployees of many backgrounds (Gilbert andIvancevich, 2000, p. 93). Organizations advocatediversity by altering the internal context, byemphasizing the moral aspects of diversity, andby linking diversity initiatives to the planningprocess (Gilbert et al., 1999). Diversity-basedprograms such as “diversity counsels” and “sen-sitivity training” can also be used to facilitate theprocess (Gilbert et al., 1999). Top managers canstress the magnitude of diversity “through moralpersuasion, through personally surveying changeefforts, and through concerted efforts to changeemployees’ awareness of key issues” (Gilbert andIvancevich, 2000, p. 95).

Workplace diversity has a number of ethicalconsiderations (Trevino and Nelson, 1999).Diversity supervision “includes moral, ethical,and results-based reasons such as fairness,upholding the dignity of every person, and opti-mizing the full range of skills and abilities of theworkforce” (Gilbert and Ivancevich, 2000, p. 93).According to Gilbert et al. (1999, p. 65), mattersrelated to individual differences “have ethicalconsiderations as their underpinnings,” and judg-ments made about diversity “stem from indi-vidual, professional, and societal values,” whichmake the associated issues difficult and perplexing(Andre, 1995).

Since ethics codes can enhance the corporatecontext (Jose and Thibodeaux, 1999; Sims,1991), there is reason to believe that these

302 Sean Valentine and Gary Fleischman

guidelines increase acceptance of diversity bothinside and outside the company by convincingemployees that tolerance is a moral obligation(Gilbert et al., 1999). Indeed, codes of ethicsoften prescribe the development of favorableassociations with stakeholders (Adams et al.,2001; Farrell and Farrell, 1998). Adams et al.(2001) indeed found that some ethics codes high-light societal concerns, and this attention mayyield greater support for the community. Ifemployees are trained to value diversity at work,they may in fact value individual differences intheir daily lives outside of work.

It can also be argued that organizational,societal, and cultural principles collectively definethe content of companies’ ethical guidelines.Consequently, ethics codes may in turn affectindividuals’ conduct in both organizational andsocietal circumstances (Reno et al., 1993).According to Reno et al. (1993, p. 111), socialinteraction theory implies that individuals behaveaccording to societal viewpoints and that“injunctive norms are likely to lead to beneficialsocial conduct across the greatest number ofsettings.” Furthermore, social capital theoryimplies that people through their family unit,religious, and societal affiliations form helpfulrelationships with others (Etzioni, 1996;Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Putnam, 1995).There is reason to believe that organization-basednetworks may strengthen such social connected-ness. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p. 261) infact state that companies are collective arrange-ments “around which joint activities are orga-nized,” providing the requisite environmentneeded to build social channels. Consequently,the existence of an ethics code should causeemployees to be more tolerant of diversity, andthis position is highlighted in the study’s workinghypothesis.

Hypothesis: Individuals employed in organi-zations that have an ethics codeare more tolerant of diversity thanare those employed in organiza-tions that do not have an ethicscode.

Method

Data collection

The data for this study were collected as partof a larger study of business and legal profes-sionals’ ethical decision making. The samplewas captured from a list of human resource,accounting, and legal professionals registered withDun and Bradstreet, and a stratified randomsample of 500 human resource managers, 500accountants, and 2,000 attorneys working in theUnited States was taken from the database.Previous research indicates that individuals inthese professions experience a variety of ethicalsituations (Reynolds, 2000; Wiley, 2000), whichsuggests that ethics codes may be used in theseoccupations. This list of 3,000 professionals wasthen systematically split (every other name) intotwo smaller samples of 1,500, since two distinctsurveys, a long version and a short version, wereto be used to collect data for several differentprojects related to business, professional, andsocietal ethics. All subjects received only one ofthe surveys.

A survey packet was sent to one group of1,500 names by mail, and this packet containedthe long version of the survey, a cover letter guar-anteeing anonymity, and a postage-paid returnenvelope. The questionnaire included itemsrelated to the current study as well as other itemsunrelated to this study. After this initial mailingwas completed, a second wave of surveys wasmailed to the same respondents approximatelysix weeks later in order to encourage thosewho had not completed the survey to provideinformation.

A total of 143 individuals responded andreturned completed surveys, for a responserate of approximately 9.5 percent. While thenumber of surveys returned was moderatelylow, it is not unusual for business research anddoes not severely limit the study (Harmon et al.,1994; Hunt, 1990). However, “a low responserate increases the chance for bias arisingfrom nonresponse error” (Harmon et al., 1994,p. 989). Comparing early and late respondentson demographic and study variables thereforeenabled us to assess nonresponse bias (see

Ethics Codes and Professionals’ Tolerance and Societal Diversity 303

Armstrong and Overton, 1977). Significantdifferences between early and late subjects werefound only for age and occupational experience,indicating that nonresponse bias was not achallenge.

Measures

This study utilized instruments that were devel-oped previously for use in other research. Themeasures are known to have acceptable psycho-metric characteristics, reliability, and validity.Commonly used scaling methods were used torate each measure. These instruments are shownin the Appendix.

Tolerance of diversity. Professionals’ tolerance ofdiversity was measured with a scale developedby Onyx and Bullen (2000). The scale consistsof two items that estimate opinions about theimpact of “multiculturalism” and the acceptanceof individual differences. Responses are ratedon a four-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (no,not at all/no, not much) and 4 (yes, frequently/yes, definitely). Values for the two items wereaveraged in this study, which generated a rangeof scores from 1 to 4, with higher scoresindicating a greater degree of diversity accep-tance. The coefficient alpha for the scale was0.81.

Codes of ethics. Each respondent was asked toindicate whether his or her organization had anethics code. Firms that did not have a formalethics code were coded as “0” and those that didhave an ethics code were coded as “1.”

Covariates. Since other factors most likely affectindividuals’ tolerance of diversity, we included anumber of covariates in the analysis. Since edu-cation may be related to both ethical reasoningand social capital (Browning and Zabriskie, 1983;Putnam, 1995; Silver and Valentine, 2000;Trevino and Nelson, 1999), we included educa-tion level as a covariate. Since years in a profes-sion may also affect ethicality (Ford andRichardson, 1994), we included years of occu-pational experience as a covariate. Individuals’

gender beliefs may also influence opinions aboutdiversity in both company and society, so weincluded a gender role measure as a covariate.The Attitudes toward Women Scale was used tomeasure individuals’ gender orientation (Spenceand Helmreich, 1978), and the fifteen itemswere scored to represent traditional preferences(see Spence and Buckner, 2000; Valentine,2001 for similar procedure). Items from thisscale are commonly rated on a four-point scaleanchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 4 (stronglyagree), and scores were averaged in this study,generating a range of 1 to 4 where highervalues indicated a traditional orientation towardgender roles. The coefficient alpha for the scalewas 0.84.

Social desirability bias. Studies utilizing surveys arecommonly affected by social desirability bias(Ballard, 1992; Paulhus, 1984). The tendency torespond in a socially acceptable manner isbrought about by societal expectations aboutappropriate behavior (Randall and Fernandes,1991; Zerbe and Paulhus, 1987). The self-reportframework and controversial nature of somebusiness ethics research makes it particularly sus-ceptible to this bias (Randall and Fernandes,1991).

We correlated the measures of the study witha short version of the Marlowe-Crowne SocialDesirability Scale to check for impression ten-dencies (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960; Fischer andFick, 1993; Strahan and Gerbasi, 1972). Themeasure contains ten impression-related itemsthat are commonly rated with 1 (False) and 2(True), and item values were combined afterappropriate reverse scoring was performed.Values ranged from 10 to 20, with higher scoresimplying greater social desirability (M = 14.24,SD = 2.34). Correlation analysis indicated thattolerance of diversity was not related to thesocial desirability measure (r = –0.01, p < 0.95),while the Attitudes Toward Women Scale wasweakly related to the measure (r = 0.18, p <0.05). Consequently, the study did not appearto be adversely affected by social desirabilitybias.


Results

A summary of the professionals’ characteristicsis provided in Table I. The sample was predom-inantly white (93.7 percent) and male (61.3percent), and most of the respondents weremarried (67.1 percent) and somewhat older, witha mean age of just over 49 years. In general, therespondents were highly educated, with approx-imately 70 percent possessing a graduate, profes-sional, or law degree. Approximately 74 percentof the sample members were lawyers, 13 percentwere accountants, and 6 percent were humanresource managers. The respondents’ averageincome was almost $90,000, their average job

tenure was 15.1 years, and their average occupa-tional tenure was 18.5 years.

A summary of the organization characteristicsis presented in Table II. A majority of the respon-dents worked in the legal profession (74.8percent), but many were also employed in theservice industry (14 percent). Most of therespondents were employed in relatively smallorganizations with fewer than 100 employees(90.2 percent). Approximately 33 percent of thecompanies had a written code of ethics.

Table III presents the variable descriptivestatistics and correlation matrix. The mean scorefor tolerance for diversity was relatively high,indicating that respondents valued individual dif-


TABLE IProfessionals’ characteristics

Variable 00000000000Category 00000000000 M SD Frequency Valid %

Age 049.4 011.2Gross salary $89,498 $56,683Position experience (years) 015.1 009.3Occupational experience (years) 018.5 009.4

Gender Male 087 61.3Female 055 38.7

Marital status Single 018 12.6Married 096 67.1Separated, divorced 029 20.3

Education level Grade school 001 00.7High school graduate 001 00.7Some college 004 02.8College graduate 011 07.7Some graduate/professional education 005 03.5Graduate/professional/law degree 101 70.6Doctoral degree 020 14.0

Race Black 003 02.1Hispanic 002 01.4Oriental 002 01.4White 133 93.7Other 002 01.4

Job classification Human resource manager 008 05.6Lawyer 106 74.1Accountant 018 12.6Other 011 07.7

ferences. The mean score for the gender measureshowed that individuals’ attitudes were somewhatnontraditional. A traditional gender orientationwas negatively related to the tolerance of societaldiversity, while individuals employed in organi-zations that had an ethics code were moreaccepting of individual differences than werepeople working in firms that did not have a code.Additional analysis was exercised to furtherexplore these relationships.

We used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) totest the study’s hypothesis, and Table IV high-lights the findings. Tolerance of diversity wasspecified as the dependent variable in theANCOVA, and the effects of the covariates wereaccounted for while the impact of code of ethicson tolerance of diversity was examined. Theanalysis indicated that a traditional gender ori-entation was related to the tolerance of diversity

(F1,117 = 23.29, p < 0.001, Eta squared = 0.17).After accounting for all covariates, the meanscore for tolerance of diversity was higher infirms with a code of ethics than in firms thatdid not have an ethics code (3.44 versus 3.14,F1,117 = 4.38, p < 0.05, Eta squared = 0.04).The findings overall supported the researchhypothesis.

Discussion

The analysis showed that professionals’ tolerancefor diversity was related to both traditionalgender attitudes and the presence of an ethicscode. These findings suggest that codes maybe used to increase individuals’ ethical beliefsabout diversity (Cassell et al., 1997; Jose andThibodeaux, 1999), and that broadening indi-


TABLE IIOrganization characteristics

Variable 00 Category Frequency Valid %

Industry classification of employment Manufacturing/ 003 02.1construction Services 020 14.0Law 107 74.8Other 013 09.1

Number of employees Fewer than 100 129 90.2100 to 999 008 05.61,000 to 9,999 006 04.2

Company has ethics code Yes 045 33.3No 090 66.7

TABLE IIIVariable descriptive statistics and correlation matrix (N = 122)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

Tolerance of diversity 03.25 0.73 ––

**Education 06.76 1.06 –0.11** ––*Occupational experience (years) 17.93 9.51 –0.06** –0.21* –Attitudes toward women 01.71 0.44 –0.42** –0.05* 0.10 –Code of ethics 01.34 0.48 –0.19** –0.03* 0.02 –0.07 –

** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05.

viduals’ opinions regarding gender roles maybuild greater acceptance of individual differences.The study specifically conveys how codes andother ethics programs may impact societal beliefsabout women and minorities as a whole.

Written codes of ethics may, under somecircumstances, make employees more aware ofdiversity issues in both work and societal situa-tions. To the extent that companies successfullybuild employee diversity awareness with writtenethics codes, organizations may, to some degree,prompt modest social change, influencing indi-vidual growth and awareness of societal normsregarding diversity issues. While the presence ofan ethics code was not related to more traditionalattitudes about women, codes may be able toinfluence employees’ acceptance of women’sleadership roles in business, society, and familylife. These conclusions have a number of impli-cations that are discussed further in the followingsections.

Content of ethics codes

Codes should clearly communicate preferredcompany values and educate employees aboutwork expectations. Furthermore, codes shouldcomprehensively address issues that may cause anantagonistic working environment for womenand minorities. Nijhof et al. (2000) argue thatcodes need to embody company principles, andthe company’s support of individual differencescan be a key component of these ideas.

Written codes need to also be specific enoughfor practical application in the workplace. Codes

relating to tolerance of diversity may be toogeneral, so they should instead point to specificdiversity issues and situations. Written codesshould emphasize that all employees are to betreated with dignity and respect (Reidenbach andRobin, 1991). Gilbert and Ivancevich (2000)also argue that individuals are more likely tosupport diversity when multiple programs areintroduced. Consequently, building productiveworking relationships through mutual respectmust first be codified, and then these principlesmust be discussed extensively in diversity andethics training. Based on the study’s findings,such training may also highlight the challengesthat women and men face in business and society.

Communication and reinforcement of ethics codes

Based on our results introducing codes appearsto effectively communicate diversity principles toemployees. Unfortunately, Adams et al. (2001)note that individuals sometimes ignore writtenmaterial provided about their organization’spolicies, so companies may need to developprograms that educate employees. In order “foran ethical code to be available to organizationalmembers for adoption, that code and its impli-cations must be articulated by the organizationin its day-to-day routine activities” (Fritz et al.,p. 290).

Training is often used to enhance ethicality inthe workplace (Chen et al., 1997; Loe andWeeks, 2000; Minkes et al., 1999; Ponemon,1996; Sims, 1991). It may therefore be useful fororganizations to provide workshops that intro-


TABLE IVResults of ANCOVA with tolerance of diversity as dependent variable

Covariates and code of ethics M SD n F

Education 01.62**Occupational experience (years) 00.32**Attitudes toward women 23.29**Code of ethics Company has ethics code 3.44 0.59 42 04.38**

Company does not have ethics code 3.14 0.78 80

** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05.

duce ethical policies, and more specifically, thediversity principles embodied in codes. Trainingsessions can make individual more aware ofethical concerns and provide a platform for thediscussion of ethical challenges encountered atwork. Various role-playing exercises may be usedto sensitize individuals to the ethical componentsof organizational diversity.

Jose and Thibodeaux (1999) also recommendthat organizations try to communicate codes ofethics by installing “ethics offices,” “hotlines,”“newsletters,” and “committees” (p. 135), andChen et al. (1997) stated that interactive sessionsand suggestion boxes may facilitate further com-munication of business ethics. Soni (2000) favorsthe use of “diversity management programs” thatenhance the acceptance of individual differencesand these sessions can incorporate the ethicalimplications of diversity tolerance. Sessions canbe designed to cover men’s and women’s rolepreferences, as well as minority issues such as dis-crimination and race stereotyping.

Top managers must get involved in thecompany’s ethics and diversity programs. Gilbertet al. (1999) claim that management “lip service”does not facilitate the supervision of diversity.Furthermore, employees will be skeptical aboutethics codes if managers do not support theirbasic underlying principles through action(Adams et al., 2001; Bordwin, 1998). Managersmust therefore, act as ethical role models in theorganization and recognize employees when theybehave according to written codes (Trevino andNelson, 1999).

Societal norms

The key finding of this study is that organiza-tional codes of ethics may, to a small extent, alteremployees’ open-mindedness about societaldiversity. This relationship is noteworthy since itimplies that organizations may peripherally definesocietal norms through ethics programs andwritten codes. Therefore, to the extent that orga-nizations stress gender issues and overall diver-sity in written codes of ethics, this emphasis mayaffect how employees tolerate diversity in general.As the number of organizations that promote

diversity awareness increases, it is tautologicalthat larger numbers of sensitized employeesmay positively impact societal beliefs aboutdiversity.

These findings are consistent with theories ofsocial capital, social exchange, social control, andfunctionalist perspective (Clark, 1926; Comte,1893; Cooley, 1909; Durkheim, 1895; Parsons,1951, 1968; Ross, 1901) that imply that ethicscodes shape conduct in both corporate and socialsettings (Laufer and Robertson, 1997; Reynolds,2000). Ethics codes not only provide order to theorganizational environment, but they also appearto define some societal expectations aboutdiversity. Chen et al. (1997) point out thatethical situations must be noticed beforethe ethical decision-making process can begin.Organizations can augment employees’ recogni-tion of ethical situations related to diversity,which may affect individuals’ attitudes towardsocietal diversity.

Benefits of societal diversity tolerance

The results of the study have implications forspecific societal dilemmas, and the Innocent SpouseRules are one such example. Congress createdthese rules to protect persons that file joint taxreturns with a spouse who has cheated by eitheromitting income or manufacturing fraudulentdeductions. Because each spouse is jointly andseverally (totally) liable for the entire tax liabilityon the return, general tax law permits the IRSto collect the entire amount of tax deficiencyfrom either spouse, typically the “innocent”spouse who is easiest to locate and collect from.Ideally, the innocent spouse rules attempt torectify this unethical treatment of innocentspouses.

Fleischman and Bryant (2001) note that theseinnocent spouse rules are replete with issues thatrelate to social open-mindedness. For example,the vast majority of these cases involve aban-doned women, many of whom are now alsosingle mothers. Making matters worse, many ofthese women’s former husbands physically and/oremotionally abused them. The financial stressof unexpected IRS inquiries and assessments


compound the emotional burdens of thesewomen, which often lead to liens on personalassets and garnishment of wages. Further,Cascardi and O’Leary (1992) state that asthe number, form, and consequences ofphysical aggressive acts worsen, the woman’s(victim’s) depressive symptoms will increase whiletheir self-esteem will correspondingly decrease.Henderson (2000) emphasizes that partnerviolence was associated with disability, preventingwork as well as causing victim chronic pain,headaches, and stomach problems.

As corporations encourage diversity awarenessin society and the acceptance of women in non-traditional roles, innocent spouse legislation thatprotects women may be more forthcoming ingreater abundance. A sensitized society is lesslikely to tolerate the unjust treatment of personswho are less fortunate than are others. Tucker etal. (1999) concluded that ethics codes mightbenefit society through heightened corporateinvolvement and monitoring.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

While the findings of the study are noteworthy,the study has several key limitations. Thesample included only business and legal profes-sionals, which limits the generalizability of thefindings to other sectors of business and society.The response rate of 9.5% also introducespossible problems even though it was determinedthat nonresponse bias was not significant.Furthermore, information was compiled onlythrough self-report means, raising the possibilityof same-source bias.

The results of this study facilitate severalnew research directions. For instance, futureresearch needs to identify other social capitalfactors that are affected by an ethical organiza-tional context. Further exploration should alsoidentify code content that enhances attitudestoward diversity and lessens disparate treatmentin the workplace. By further elucidating the rela-tionship between ethical context and individualreasoning, organizations can more effectivelysupervise ethical conduct in both business andsocietal localities.

Appendix. Measures

Tolerance of diversity (Onyx and Bullen, 2000)

01. Do you think that multiculturalism makes life inyour area better?

02. Do you enjoy living among people of differentlifestyles?

Attitudes toward women (Spence and Helmreich, 1978)

01. Swearing and obscenity are more repulsive in thespeech of a women than a man.

02. Under modern economic conditions withwomen being active outside the home, menshould share household tasks such as washingdishes and doing the laundry. (R)

03. It is insulting to women to have the “obey” clauseremain in the marriage service. (R)

04. A woman should be as free as a man to proposemarriage. (R)

05. Women should worry less about rights and moreabout becoming good wives and mothers.

06. Women should assume their rightful place inbusiness and all the professionals along withmen. (R)

07. A woman should not expect to go to exactly thesame places or to have quite the same freedomof action as a man.

08. It is ridiculous for a woman to run a locomotiveand for a man to darn socks.

09. The intellectual leadership of a communityshould be largely in the hands of men.

10. Women should be given equal opportunitywith men for apprenticeship in the various trades.(R)

11. Women earning as much as their dates shouldbear equally the expense when they go outtogether. (R)

12. Sons in the family should be given more encour-agement to go to college than daughters.

13. In general, the father should have greaterauthority than the mother in the bringing up ofchildren.

14. Economic and social freedom is worth farmore to women than acceptance of the idealof femininity which has been set up by men.(R)

15. There are many jobs in which men should begiven preference over women in being hired orpromoted.


Social desirability (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960)

01. I like to gossip at times. (R)02. There have been occasions when I took advan-

tage of someone. (R)03. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a

mistake. 04. I always try to practice what I preach. 05. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive

and forget. (R)06. At times I have really insisted on having things

my own way. (R)07. There have been occasions when I felt like

smashing things. (R)08. I never resent being asked to return a favor. 09. I have never been irked when people expressed

ideas very different from my own. 10. I have never deliberately said something that hurt

someone’s feelings.

(R) = Reverse coded

References

Adams, J. S., A. Tashchian and T. Shore: 2001, ‘Codesof Ethics as Signals for Ethical Behavior’, Journalof Business Ethics 29, 199–211.

Akaah, I. P. and E. Riordan: 1989, ‘Judgments ofMarketing Professionals About Ethical Issuesin Marketing Research: A Replication andExtension’, Journal of Marketing Research 26(1),112–120.

Andre, R.: 1995, ‘Diversity Stress as Morality Stress’,Journal of Business Ethics 14, 489–496.

Armstrong, J. S. and T. S. Overton: 1977, ‘EstimatingNonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys’, Journal ofMarketing Research 14, 396–402.

Ballard, R.: 1992, ‘Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale’, PsychologicalReports 71, 1155–1160.

Bordwin, M.: 1998, ‘The Three R’s of Ethics’,Management Review 87, 1–3.

Bourdieu, P.: 1993: Sociology in Question (Sage,London).

Browning, J. and N. B. Zabriskie: 1983, ‘HowEthical Are Industrial Buyers?’, Industrial MarketingManagement 12, 219–224.

Cascardi, M. and D. O’Leary: 1992, ‘DepressiveSymptomatology, Self Esteem, and Self-Blamein Battered Women’, Journal of Family Violence(December), 249–260.

Cassell, C., P. Johnson and K. Smith: 1997, ‘Opening

the Black Box: Corporate Codes of Ethics in TheirOrganizational Context’, Journal of Business Ethics16, 1077–1093.

Chen, A. Y. S., R. B. Sawyers, and P. F. Williams:1997, ‘Reinforcing Ethical Decision MakingThrough Corporate Culture’, Journal of BusinessEthics 16, 855–865.

Clark, J. M.: 1926, The Social Control of Business(McGraw-Hill, New York).

Compte, A.: 1893, Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte(Chapman, London).

Cooley, C. H.: 1909, Social Organization (Scribner,New York).

Crowne, D. P. and D. Marlowe: 1960, ‘A NewScale of Social Desirability Independent ofPsychopathology’, Journal of Consulting Psychology24, 349–354.

Deshpande, S. P.: 1996, ‘The Impact of EthicalClimate Types on Facets of Job Satisfaction’, Journalof Business Ethics 15, 655–660.

Durkheim, E.: 1895, The Division of Labor in Society(Free Press, New York).

Etzioni, A.: 1996, ‘The Responsive Community: ACommunitarian Perspective’, American SociologicalReview 61, 1–11.

Farrell, H. and B. Farrell: 1998, ‘The Languageof Business Codes of Ethics. Implications ofKnowledge and Power’, Journal of Business Ethics17, 587–601.

Fischer, D. G. and C. Fick: 1993, ‘MeasuringSocial Desirability: Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale’, Educational andPsychological Measurement 53, 417–424.

Fleischman, G. M. and J. J. Bryant: 2001, ‘ACritique of the Innocent Spouse Equitable ReliefProvisions’, Tax Notes 90, 1716–1720.

Ford, R. C. and W. D. Richardson: 1994, ‘EthicalDecision Making: A Review of the EmpiricalLiterature’, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 205–221.

Fritz, J. M. H., R. C. Arnett and M. Conkel:1999, ‘Organizational Ethical Standards andOrganizational Commitment’, Journal of BusinessEthics 20, 289–299.

Gilbert, J. A., and J. M. Ivancevich: 2000, ‘ValuingDiversity: A Tale of Two Organizations’, Academyof Management Executive 14, 93–105.

Gilbert, J. A., B. A. Stead, and J. M. Ivancevich:1999, ‘Diversity Management: A New Organiza-tional Paradigm’, Journal of Business Ethics 21,61–76.

Harmon, H. A., G. Brown and K. L. Hammond:1994, ‘Replication of Sujan’s Attributional Analysis


of Salespeople’s Motivation to Work Smarter VersusHarder’, Psychological Reports 75, 987–992.

Henderson, C.: 2000, ‘Psychologically AbusedWomen Experience Significant Physical andMental Health Problems’, Medical Letter on theCDC & FDA (May 23).

Hunt, S. D.: 1990, ‘Commentary on an EmpiricalInvestigation of a General Theory of MarketingEthics’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science18, 173–177.

Hunt, S. D., V. Wood and L. Chonko: 1989,‘Corporate Ethical Values and OrganizationalCommitment in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing53, 79–90.

Jose, A., and M. S. Thibodeaux: 1999,‘Institutionalization of Ethics: The Perspective ofMangers’, Journal of Business Ethics 22, 133–143.

Kaptein, M. and J. Wempe: 1998, ‘Twelve GordianKnots When Developing an OrganizationalCode of Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 17,853–869.

Knouse, S. B. and R. A. Giacalone: 1997, ‘The SixComponents of Successful Ethics Training’,Business and Society Review 98, 10–13.

Laufer, W. S. and D. C. Robertson: 1997, ‘CorporateEthics Initiatives As Social Control’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 16, 1029–1048.

Loe, T. W and W. A. Weeks: 2000, ‘An ExperimentalInvestigation of Efforts to Improve Sales Students’Moral Reasoning’, Journal of Personal Selling andSales Management 20, 243–251.

McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino and K. D. Butterfield:1996, ‘The Influence of Collegiate and CorporateCodes of Conduct on Ethics-Related Behaviorin the Workplace’, Business Ethics Quarterly 6,461–476.

Minkes, A. L., M. W. Small and S. R. Chatterjee:1999, ‘Leadership and Business Ethics: Does ItMatter? Implications for Management’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 20, 327–335.

Murphy, P. E.: 1995, ‘Corporate Ethical Statements:Current Status and Future Prospects’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 14, 727–740.

Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal: 1998, ‘Social Capital,Intellectual Capital, and the OrganizationalAdvantage’, Academy of Management Review 23,242–266.

Nijhof, A., O. Fisscher and J. Looise: 2000,‘Coercion, Guidance and Mercifulness: TheDifferent Influences of Ethics Programs onDecision-Making’, Journal of Business Ethics 27,33–42.

Onyx, J. and P. Bullen: 2000, ‘Measuring Social

Capital in Five Communities’, The Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science 36, 23–42.

Parsons, T.: 1951, The Social System (The Free Press,Glencoe, IL).

Parsons, T.: 1968, ‘Professions’, in D. Sill (ed.),International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, XII(MacMillan and the Free Press, New York).

Paulhus, D. L.: 1984, ‘Two-component Modelsof Socially Desirable Responding’, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 46, 598–609.

Ponemon, L.: 1996, ‘Key Features of an EffectiveEthics Training Program’, Management Accounting78, 66–67.

Putnam, R. D.: 1995, ‘Tuning In, Tuning Out: TheStrange Disappearance of Social Capital inAmerica’, Political Science and Politics (December),664–683.

Rafalko, R. J.: 1994, ‘Remaking the Corporation:The 1991 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 13, 625–636.

Randall, D. M. and M. Fernandes: 1991, ‘The SocialDesirability Response Bias in Ethics Research’,Journal of Business Ethics 10, 805–817.

Reichert, Alan K., Marion Webb and EdwardThomas: 2000, ‘Corporate Support for Ethicaland Environmental Policies: A FinancialManagement Perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics25, 53–64.

Reidenbach, R. E. and D. P. Robin: 1991,‘A Conceptual Model of Corporate MoralDevelopment’, Journal of Business Ethics 10,273–284.

Reno, R. R., R. B. Cialdini and C. A. Kallgren:1993, ‘The Transsituational Influence of SocialNorms’, Journal of Applied Psychology 64, 104–112.

Reynolds, M. A.: 2000, ‘Professionalism, EthicalCodes and the Internal Auditor: A MoralArgument’, Journal of Business Ethics 24, 115–124.

Ross, E.A.: 1901, Social Control (Macmillan, NewYork).

Silver, L. and S. Valentine: 2000, ‘College Students’Perceptions of Moral Intensity in Sales Situations’,Journal of Education for Business 75, 309–314.

Sims, R. R.: 1991, ‘The Institutionalization ofOrganizational Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 10,493–506.

Sims, R.L., and T. L. Keon: 1999, ‘Determinants ofEthical Decision Making: The Relationship of thePerceived Organizational Environment’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 19, 393–401.

Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1990, ‘MarketingEthics: Factors Influencing Perceptions of


Ethical Problems and Alternatives’, Journal ofMacromarketing 10, 4–18.

Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1991, ‘Analyzing theEthical Decision Making of Sales Professionals’,Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 11,1–12.

Soni, V.: 2000, ‘A Twenty-First-Century Receptionfor Diversity in the Public Sector: A Case Study’,Public Administration Review 60, 395–407.

Spence, J. T. and C. E. Buckner: 2000, ‘Instrumentaland Expressive Traits, Trait Stereotypes, and SexistAttitudes: What Do They Signify? Psychology ofWomen Quarterly 24, 44–62.

Spence, J. T. and R. L. Helmreich: 1978, Masculinityand Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions,Correlates, and Antecedents (University of TexasPress, Austin, Texas).

Strahan, R. and K. C. Gerbasi: 1972, ‘Short,Homogeneous Versions of the Marlowe-CrowneSocial Desirability Scale’, Journal of ClinicalPsychological 28, 191–193.

Trevino, L. K. and K. A. Nelson: 1999, ManagingBusiness Ethics (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NewYork.

Tucker, L. R., V. Stathakopolous, and C. Patti: 1999,‘A Multidimensional Assessment of Ethical Codes:The Professional Business Association Perspective’,Journal of Business Ethics 19, 287–300.

Valentine, S.: 2001, ‘Development of a BriefMultidimensional Aversion to Women WhoWork Scale’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 44,773–787.

Victor, B. and J. Cullen: 1988, ‘The OrganizationalBases of Ethical Work Climates’, AdministrativeScience Quarterly 33, 101–125.

Weeks, W. A. and J. Nantel: 1992, ‘CorporateCodes of Ethics and Sales Force Behaviour: ACase Study’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 753–760.

Wiley, Carolyn: 2000, ‘Ethical Standards forHuman Resource Management Professionals: AComparative analysis of Five Major Codes’, Journalof Business Ethics 25, 93–114.

Zerbe, W. J. and D. Paulhus: 1987, ‘Socially DesirableResponding in Organizational Behavior: A recon-ception’, Academy of Management Review 12,250–264.

Sean ValentineDepartment of Management and Marketing,

University of Wyoming,P.O. Box 3275,

Laramie, Wyoming 82071,U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]

Gary FleischmanDepartment of Accounting,

University of Wyoming,P.O. Box 3275,

Laramie, Wyoming 82071,U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]


Documents

Ethics Codes and Professionals' Tolerance of Societal Diversity