Importance of Values for Success in Future Careers: Students’ Perspective

A/P Nasir Butrous

Australian Catholic University,

Brisbane Campus, Australia

PO Box 456, Virginia, QLD 4014

T: +61 7 3623 7208 F: +61 7 3623 7361

Email: nasir.butrous@acu.edu.au

Brief Bio

A/P Butrous was the foundation Head of the School of Business -Qld 1999-2004 and has been a

member of various faculty boards for more than ten years. In May 2004, Nasir was elected to

the ACU Senate for two years and in 2005 he was appointed as the Campus Community Engagement

Coordinator in addition to his position as A/P in Management. Nasir has been on the Executive Board

of the AUCEA (2009-2011) and the RDA Moreton Bay Management Committee since 2009. A/P Butrous’s research areas include Management & Leadership, and Strategic Decision-Making. He

has published in these areas and his interests are further enhanced by both voluntary and consultancy

activities.

Importance of Values for Success in Future Careers: Students’ Perspective

Abstract

Unethical behaviour has created an increasing number of headlines all around the world

during the past decade. Scandals in business, government, education, science, and religion

have decreased the public’s opinion that institutional leaders behave ethically. This amoral

attitude may be a reflection of a combination of many factors, such as personal and family

background, the values demonstrated in a particular organisational culture, and the impact of

the educational system, in particular the higher education sector. Given that most of the

leaders are graduates of higher educational institutions, there is a need to investigate what

values higher educational students perceive important in their future careers and to what

extent these values are reinforced by higher educational institutions as identified by the

students.

This research reports on the outcomes of using Maccoby’s (1976) Head and Heart survey of

character traits. The instrument involved more than 1100 students on four campuses of four

different universities in one capital city. This equates to 10% of student population on each

university campus taking part in this project.

This research affirms the relevant literature findings regarding higher educational

institution’s ability to do a good job, at different levels, of emphasising and

developing analytical skills (Head traits). However, it disagrees in relation to findings

that educational institutions do a poor job of developing the qualities of the heart

(Heart traits) that are normally associated with ethical behaviour.

Key words:

Values, character traits, career success, higher education institutions

Introduction

Ethical behaviour issues have created headlines all around the world during the past decade

and various scandals have decreased the public’s expectations that institutional leaders

behave ethically. The year 2002, for instance, witnessed corporate ethics challenged. Arthur

Anderson was convicted of obstructing justice, Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom and

others tumbled to bankruptcy (McRichie, 2007). In this era of Enron, WorldCom and other

despicable business behaviour, there isn’t a more important topic for business school

graduates to study than ethics. Many executives witnessed their company's employees go

from being internet millionaires on paper to standing empty-handed when the bubble burst.

Some unethical behaviour is committed by people who are self-indulgent, greedy,

and, in their attempt to gain personal wealth and power, may know but do not care how their

decisions may affect others. However, Carroll, (1987), concluded that most unethical

behaviours are committed by managers, while pursuing personal goals or corporate

profitability, who are basically unaware of the effects of their decisions on others.

This amoral attitude may be a reflection of a combination of many factors such as

personal and family background, the values demonstrated in a particular organisational

culture in addition to the impact of educational systems, and in particular the higher

educational sector, given that most of the leaders are graduates of higher educational

institutions. Thus, the need to investigate what values higher educational institutions

reinforce by their teaching, role modelling, controlling and rewarding (Ruhe, 2003).

Value development and measurements

Critiques of ethical decision-making indicated that a finely tuned ability to examine ethical

questions is not enough to keep future leaders on the “straight and narrow path”. Knowing

what is right is not enough, doing what is right depends more on an individual’s values and

the organisational reinforcement of these values (Ruhe, 1998, p 11).

A number of researchers have developed typologies of personal values. Among the

most significant contributors to the values literature are those typologies developed by

Rockeach, (1973), Maccoby (1976) and Schwartz (1992). Rockeach’s typology included

“terminal values”, desirable ends-states of existence and “instrumental values”, preferable

modes of behaviour with eighteen individual value items in each category. From among a

larger sample of character traits, Maccoby chose nine traits or modes of conduct that were

classified as qualities of the “head” and ten traits that were classified as qualities of the

“heart”. Schwartz attempted to identify ten types of values related to different human needs

such as biological, social co-ordination and needs related to the welfare and survival of

groups.

Several other authors reviewed applied research value measures such as Payne,

(1988), Baron, (1998), and Oishi, Hahn, Schimmack, Radhakrishan, Dzokoto, & Ahadi,

(2005), to determine how the individual’s values and the organisation’s reinforcement can be

measured. One of the most used methods is “direct utility measurement” that involves

ratings, instead of rankings, and measure intensity levels of values. Maccoby (1976) in his

study of business executives, managers, and engineers used such method and argued that the

“Heart” or feeling qualities are the seeds of consciousness while the “Head” or thinking

qualities are related to conceptualisation. According to Maccoby, the imbalance between

head and heart values reflects the importance of achieving success in all aspects of life. He

also argued that individual values or ethical tendencies are a result of organisational culture

that determines and reinforces acceptable modes of conduct, values, and ethics. Maccoby

contends that Head and Heart traits should be balanced to ensure sensitivity to ethical

implications of business decisions (Ruhe, 1991).

On the other hand, Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell (2013) contend that individual values

are learned from the socialisation in the institutional climates of educational systems,

business experiences as well as through family and religion.

Regardless of how values are developed, there seems to be an agreement amongst

most business ethics scholars that personal values are instrumental in ethical decisions-

making. While higher educational institutions have been found to do good jobs, at different

levels, of emphasising and developing analytical skills (Head traits), a number of studies

suggest that they have done a poor job of developing the qualities of the heart (Heart traits)

associated with ethical behaviour (Patten, 1990, Booth, Corriher, & Geurin, 1995, Ruhe,

2003 & 2008, Krambia-Kapardis, & Zopiatis, 2008 & 2011).

Research methods

Aims and objectives:

The research project seeks to gain an insight into values affecting student’s development and

assess their importance for success in their respectful future careers. It aims to determine

whether different students (male or female), enrolled in different courses, in different

disciplines, and at different university campuses perceive the importance of character traits

and the reinforcement of these traits differently. The research also seeks to compare the

importance of character traits and their reinforcement amongst the four campuses of the

universities. Comparisons of students by university campus will also give some indication as

to whether student characteristics and context determine what students’ value.

Research design:

The research is designed to incorporate Maccoby’s Head and Heart survey instrument of

character traits. Since 1980 this instrument has been used by various scholars and outcome of

their research has been published in in highly respected journals including Journal of

Business Ethics, Journal of Business Education, International Journal of Value-Based

Management, etc. and found to have high reliability and validity in various university settings

(Zikive & Zikive, 1993, Ruhe, 2003 & 2008, Hess, 2002, Krambia-Kapardis & Zopiatis,

2008 & 2011). Students are asked to rate each trait as to its perceived importance in

achieving career success and identify those traits that they consider have been stimulated or

reinforced by the relevant higher education institution during their course of study.

This study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Australian

Catholic University, thus, aggregate data only will be reported and the identity of the

university/campus will not be revealed at any stage.

Sample participants

Sample participants in this research were drawn from four campuses of different universities

in one capital city. Students in undergraduate courses on each campus have been invited to

participate voluntarily in the survey. Students have been recruited outside the lecture time and

during class breaks while in the library, canteen, etc. Completed questionnaires have been

collected directly by the researcher within three weeks of approval being granted by the

relevant Senior Officer on each campus.

One thousand one hundred and ten completed and valid questionnaires were received

from the four campuses representing approximately 10% of the student population on each

campus/university. Each campus contributed between one-fifth to just above one-fourth to the

overall sample with campus two having the largest share of the sample accounting for 29%

followed by campuses one and four (26% each) whereas campus three amounting to 20% of

the sample. Figures show more than three-quarters (77%) of the sample being females and

the remaining one-fourth (23%) males. Figures also reveal more than three-quarters (77%)

were born in Australia and approximately one-fourth (23%) were born overseas.

Considering the field of the study, figures reveal Society & Culture contributed to

around one-third of the sample (30%) followed by Education and Health sciences (24%

each), Management & Commerce (18%) and Information Technology accounted for only 4%

of the sample students. Figures indicate more than one-third of the sample students (39%)

were in their first year of study followed by second year (37%) and the final year accounted

for 24%. Considering the age of the surveyed students, figures show 19 years or under were

the largest group in the sample accounting for 39% followed by those aged 20-24 years

(37%) whereas those aged between 25-34 years accounting for 15% and those aged 35 years

and over representing 9% of the sample.

Research outcomes:

Data collected have been entered onto SPSS for Windows version 19.0 and appropriate

analysis has been conducted to achieve the research aims and objectives. Descriptive

statistics have been employed to describe and compare responses in relation to the

importance of character traits and their reinforcement within each university campus based on

the degree discipline, gender, and place of birth. Differences amongst the four campuses of

the four universities regarding the importance of character traits and their reinforcement have

also been explored as follows:

Overall findings:

Participants were asked to indicate the extent to what they believed the traits of character help

one achieve success in a career. Ability to take initiative and self-confidence were regarded

as the most important traits of character by the vast majority in the sample (86.8% & 86.5%

respectively). Other Head traits that were regarded very important by more than three-

quarters of the sample included open-mindedness, cooperativeness, tolerance of people with

different beliefs and backgrounds, flexibility, in addition to honesty (83%, 81%, 79%, 79%

and 77% respectively) as illustrated in Figure 1. As to the least important traits, participants

cited strength of religious beliefs as the least important trait followed by generosity, idealism

and critical attitude toward authority with around one-third or less of the sample perceiving

these as important. The remaining traits of character were perceived as very important by

approximately half to two-thirds of the sample.

Figure 1: The overall importance of Head and Heart traits of character needed to achieve

successes in a career and the perceived reinforcement

Source: A Survey of Student Opinion

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strength of religious beliefs

Generosity

Idealism

Critical attitude toward authority

Sense of humour

Openness, spontaneity

Loyalty to Colleagues

Satisfaction in creating something …

Compassion

Friendliness

Independence

Pleasure in learning something new

Pride in performance

Honesty

Flexibility

Tolerance

Cooperativeness

Open-mindedness

Self-confidence

Ability to take the initiative

Importance

Reinforced

Considering which traits of character have been stimulated or reinforced during the

course of their study at the university level, more than half of participants revealed that

tolerance of people with different beliefs and backgrounds in addition to ability to take

initiative, open-mindedness and cooperativeness were mostly reinforced (62%, 59%, 56% &

56% respectively). As to the least reinforced traits, less than one-fifth of students surveyed

signalled strength of religious beliefs, idealism and generosity as being least reinforced

during the course of their study at the university level.

Character traits by university campus:

As indicated earlier, participants have been drawn from four campuses at four different

universities in one capital city. Figure 2 reveals that participants on each campus assigned

different importance to the traits of character helping to achieve success in a career and they

also perceived different levels of reinforcement at each campus. Despite differences amongst

the responses based on their university campus, none of Head traits of character were

perceived statistically different in their importance to help one achieve success in a career.

Participants indicated different levels of reinforcements by each campus with significant

differences in relation to open-mindedness, compassion, openness, friendliness,

independence, tolerance of people with different beliefs and backgrounds, and strength of

religious beliefs. Most of the Heart traits of character were perceived statistically different in

relation to their perceived importance to help one achieve success in a career and

reinforcement during their studies at various campuses (P>0.05 or higher).

For the Campus 1 sample, ability to take the initiative was the highest important Head

trait to achieve success in a career followed by self-confidence and open-mindedness (88%,

86% and 84% respectively). Tolerance of people with different beliefs and backgrounds was

perceived as the highest important Heart traits by Campus 1 sample followed by honesty and

independency (80%, 79% and 67% respectively). Figures show Campus 1 participants stated

higher importance to pleasure in learning something new, satisfaction in creating something

new, sense of humour, idealism, and generosity compared to other campuses. Regarding

reinforcement of character traits, Campus 1 participants perceived tolerance of people with

different beliefs and backgrounds as the highest reinforced character traits followed by

cooperativeness and ability to take initiative (56%, 56% and 54% respectively). The idealism

trait was perceived the least reinforced character by Campus 1 participants during their

studies followed by generosity and openness. It is worth noting that participants from

Campus 1 stated higher reinforcement to traits character of honesty, sense of humour and

strength of religious beliefs compared to other campuses as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Highest and least importance and reinforced of traits of character by campus

Source: A Survey of Student Opinion

The vast majority of participants from Campus 2 assigned more importance to self-

confidence trait of character that helps one achieve success in their career, compared to other

campuses, followed by ability to take the initiative, open-mindedness, cooperativeness and

tolerance of people with different beliefs and backgrounds (87%, 85%, 82%, 82% and 82%

0

20

40

60

80

100 C 1 Imp

C 1 Rinf

C 2 Imp

C 2 Rinf

C 3 Imp

C 3 Rinf

C 4 Imp

C 4 Rinf

respectively). Figure 2 shows Campus 2 participants stated higher importance to honesty,

friendliness, compassion, loyalty to colleagues, openness, and critical attitude to authority

compared to other campuses. Campus 2 sample perceived tolerance of people with different

beliefs and backgrounds as the highest reinforced character traits, and significantly higher

than other campuses, followed by cooperativeness and ability to take initiative. Campus 2

participants, shared with other campuses, the least perceived reinforcement of strength of

religious beliefs, idealism and generosity. Figures also show participants from Campus 2

outscored other campuses regarding perceived reinforcement of flexibility, self-confidence,

loyalty to colleagues, compassion and openness.

Figure 2 shows more than three-quarters of participants from Campus 3 sample

assigned more importance to ability to take the initiative, self-confidence, tolerance of people

with different beliefs and backgrounds, flexibility, and cooperativeness (89%, 86%, 85%,

85% and 82% respectively) compared to other campuses to achieve success in a career. More

than half of Campus 3 participants observed open-mindedness, independence, tolerance of

people with different beliefs and backgrounds and ability to take the initiative as the highest

reinforced character traits (66%, 62%, 61% and 59% respectively). Figures also reveal

strength of religious beliefs was perceived the least reinforced trait compared to other

campuses followed by generosity and idealism. Participants from campus 3 outscored their

counterparts in other campuses in relation to perceiving highest reinforcement of pride in

performance, satisfaction in creating something new and critical attitude towards authority.

Open-mindedness was given significantly more importance (85%) by Campus 4

participants compared to other campuses. Sample 4 participants shared with other campuses

the high importance of self-confidence, ability to take the initiative, flexibility and

cooperativeness to achieve success in a career (87%, 86%, 78% and 76% respectively).

Campus 4 participants also joined other campuses in allocating significantly least importance

to strength of religious beliefs and generosity to help achieve success in a career. Figure 2

indicates Campus 4 sample reported highest reinforcement of ability to take the initiative

during their university studies followed by tolerance of people with different beliefs and

backgrounds, independence, and open-mindedness (64%, 58%, 57% and 57% respectively).

Campus 4 sample also shared with others the least reinforcement of strength of religious

beliefs, generosity and idealism during their course of study.

It is worth pointing out that there is an imbalance between what students perceived

important for success in a future career and what they reported being reinforced during their

studies at the university level. Percentage of students who perceived a character trait

important far exceeded the percentage who perceived the same character trait being

reinforced. This is the case for all campuses and for all the Head and Heart character traits

apart from strength of religious beliefs where 18% of students in Campus 1 perceived this

trait important for a career success whereas 25% of students reported this trait being

reinforced.

Character traits by field of study:

Participants in this research have been drawn from five major disciplines: society & culture

(30%), education (24%), health (24%), management & commerce (18%), and information

technology (4%). Figure 3 indicates that participants from each field of study assigned

different importance to traits of character needed to achieve success in a career and they also

perceived different levels of reinforcement. Significant differences were perceived regarding

the importance of three Head character traits compared to seven of the Heart traits. Similar

numbers of differences were also revealed in relation to the reinforcement of the Head and

Heart character traits. The society and culture sample indicated the highest importance to

only one character trait (strength of religious beliefs) but they reported highest reinforcement

in eight traits with seven of them recording significant differences (open-mindedness,

tolerance, honesty, self-confidence, critical toward authority, openness, generosity and

idealism).

Figure 3: Highest and least importance and reinforcement of traits of character by discipline

Source: A Survey of Student Opinion (Place figure 3 here)

The education sample outscored other fields of study samples in five of each of the

Head and Heart character traits with four of them recording significant differences

(cooperativeness, ability to take the initiative, self-confidence, flexibility, tolerance, pride in

performance, independence, friendliness, compassion, and generosity) but they only reported

higher reinforcement in three traits with two of them recording significant differences

(flexibility, loyalty, and strength of religious beliefs). The health sample reported the highest

importance for five character traits with four of them recording significant differences

(honesty, pleasure in learning something new, loyalty to colleagues, openness, and critical

attitude toward authority) and also higher reinforcement in four traits but only two of these

were significant (pleasure in learning something new, independence, compassion, and

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 IT Importance

IT Reinforced

Health Importance

Health Reinforced

Education Importance

Education Reinforced

Manag & Com Importance

Manag & Com Reinforced

Soc & Culture Importance

Soc & Culture Reinforced

strength of religious beliefs). The IT sample outscored other field of study samples

considering the importance of three traits with only one of them recording significant

differences (satisfaction in creating something new, sense of humour and idealism) whereas

this sample reported higher reinforcement in six character traits with two of them recording

significant differences (flexibility, cooperativeness, satisfaction in creating something new,

pride in performance, friendliness, and sense of humour). The management and commerce

sample allocated the highest importance to open-mindedness and indicated highest

reinforcement in ability to take the initiative compared to other campuses.

Major gaps have been found between what character trait each discipline in the

sample perceived important for success in a career with what they reported as being

reinforced during their study apart from two occasions. IT students in the sample reported the

reverse situation and indicated higher reinforcement regarding flexibility compared to the

importance assigned to it. In the same way, education students in the sample indicated higher

reinforcement in relation to strength of religious beliefs compared to the importance given to

this character trait help one achieve success in a career. Self-confidence was signalled as the

character trait with the highest gap as perceived by the sample students from health,

education, management & commerce, and society and culture disciplines whereas pleasure in

learning something new was the trait with the highest gap identified by the IT sample.

Character traits by gender:

Analysing sample responses in relation to the importance of Head and Heart traits of

character to achieve success in a career and perceived reinforcement during their studies at

the university level, the figures reveal differences in sample responses based on their gender.

Females in the sample, signalled higher importance to fifteen of the Head and Heart twenty

character traits with eleven of these differences significant to the level of P>0.05 or higher.

Males outscored their female counterparts by only five traits and none of them amounted to a

significant difference. The picture was not different regarding reinforcement of the Head and

Heart character traits during their studies where females in the sample reported higher

reinforcement for seventeen out of the twenty traits and eight of these were significantly

different compared to only one significant trait (idealism) where males in the sample

outscored females as per figure 4.

Figure 4: Highest and least importance and reinforcement of traits of character by gender

Source: A Survey of Student Opinion

More than three-quarters of the female sample perceived that ability to take the

initiative, self-confidence, open-mindedness, cooperativeness, and tolerance of people with

different beliefs and backgrounds, and honesty are very important character traits that help

one achieve success in a career (89%, 86%, 85%, 83% 82% and 79% respectively). Figure 4

also shows more than two-thirds of female sample also indicated that pride in performance,

pleasure in learning something new, independence, and friendliness as important character

traits. In addition, only one-third to one-fifth of the female sample perceived critical attitude

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Female Importance

Male Importance

Female Reinforced

Male Reinforced

toward authority, generosity and strength of religious beliefs as important traits although they

outscored their male counterparts regarding the first and the last traits.

Considering male responses in the sample, more than three- quarters perceived self-

confidence as the most important character trait needed to achieve success in a future career

followed by ability to take the initiative and open-mindedness (88%, 82% and 77%

respectively). The importance that males in the sample placed on the first two character traits

is in reverse to their female counterparts but both agreed on placing the open-mindedness trait

in third place. Figures also show more than two-thirds of the male surveyed indicated the

importance of cooperativeness, flexibility, pride in performance, honesty, tolerance of people

with different beliefs and backgrounds, independence and pleasure in learning something new

as important character traits needed to achieve a career success (73%, 72%, 71%, 70%, 68%,

66% and 66% respectively). In addition, males in the sample agreed with their female

counterparts regarding placing critical attitude toward authority, generosity and strength of

religious beliefs as the least important character traits as illustrated in figure 4.

Regarding reinforcement of the Head and Heart character traits, figure 4 reveals

around two-third of the females in the sample reported tolerance of people with different

beliefs and backgrounds as the highest reinforced trait followed by ability to take the

initiatives, open-mindedness, independence and cooperativeness (65%, 61%, 60%, 58% and

57% respectively). Approximately half of the males in the sample regarded cooperation and

ability to take the initiative as the most reinforced traits followed by tolerance of people with

different beliefs and backgrounds and flexibility (52%, 51%, 48% and 48% respectively).

Both females and males in the sample agreed regarding reporting strength of religious beliefs

as the least character trait reinforced during their university study followed by idealism and

generosity.

When analysing what females and males in the sample perceived important for

success in a career with what they reported as being reinforced during their study, there was a

clear imbalance equally shared by both genders in the sample. The biggest imbalance for both

genders was regarding the honesty character trait whereas females reported the least

difference in relation to critical attitude toward authority compared with strength of religious

beliefs for males in the sample as illustrated in figure 4.

Character traits by place of birth:

Differences were found in sample responses born in Australia compared to those born

overseas regarding the importance of the Head and Heart traits of character helping one to

achieve success in a career and perceived reinforcement during their studies at the university

level. Considering the importance of character traits, the sample born in Australia shared with

those born overseas in the number of highest scores given to the character traits. However,

those born in Australia reported higher reinforcement to fourteen of the Head and Heart

character traits compared to those born overseas with three of these differences statistically

different. Both parts of the sample sharing in the level of reported reinforcement (56%) of the

open-mindedness trait as illustrated in figure 5.

The vast majority of the sample (90%) born in Australia perceived ability to take the

initiative as the most important character trait needed for success in a career followed by self-

confidence, open-mindedness, and cooperativeness (86% 83% and 82% respectively). Those

born overseas signalled self-confidence as the most important trait followed by open-

mindedness and pleasure in learning something new (87%, 85% and 79% respectively).

Figure 5 also shows more than three-quarters of the sample born in Australia indicated the

importance of cooperativeness, tolerance of people with different beliefs and backgrounds,

flexibility, honesty, and pride in performance. More than three-quarters of those born

overseas indicated the importance of honesty, flexibility, tolerance of people with different

beliefs and backgrounds, cooperativeness and ability to take the initiative. Sample surveyed

(those born in Australia and overseas) regarded strength of religious beliefs and generosity as

the least important traits needed to achieve success in a career although those born overseas

outscored their Australian counterparts as evidenced in figure 5.

Figure 5: Highest and least importance and reinforcement of traits of character by place of

birth

Source: A Survey of Student Opinion

In relation to reinforcement of the Head and Heart character traits, figures show more

than half of the sample surveyed (born in Australia and overseas) perceived tolerance of

people with different beliefs and backgrounds, ability to take the initiative, cooperativeness,

open-mindedness, flexibility, independence, and pleasure in learning something new as the

highest character traits reinforced during their course of study although those born in

Australia outscored those born overseas for most of the traits. Both parts of the sample

agreed in reporting strength of religious beliefs, idealism, and generosity as the least

character traits to be reinforced during their studies.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Australia Importance

Australia Reinforced

Overseas Importance

Overseas Reinforced

Analysing what those born in Australia and those born overseas in the sample

perceived important for success in a career with what they reported as being reinforced, there

is higher imbalance in the perception of those born overseas (the mismatch was evidence in

13 traits) compared to those born in Australia as illustrated in figure 5. The biggest difference

between what was perceived to be important and what has been reinforced for those born in

Australia was in relation to self-confidence compared to honesty for those born overseas.

Discussion and Conclusion

Using Maccoby’s (1976) Head and Heart survey instrument of character traits, this study

reports on research involving more than 1100 students in four campuses of four different

universities in one capital city. The three most important character traits perceived important

to help one achieve success in their career were all Head character traits whereas the least

three important were all Heart traits. Ability to take the initiative was regarded by the sample

students as the most important character trait needed to achieve success in a career. It was

also perceived the highest important character trait by females, campuses 1 & 3, Australian

born, and by health, education, and management & commerce students in the sample. Self-

confidence was seen as second highest important character trait by the overall sample but it

was perceived the most important character trait that helps one achieve success in a career by

males, campuses 2 & 4, overseas born and society & culture students in the sample whereas

information technology students perceived cooperativeness as the most important trait.

Strength of religious beliefs was reported as the least important character trait by the sample

students regardless of their campuses, gender, fields of study and place of birth.

The above findings are similar to Patten, 1990, Booth, Corriher, & Geurin, 1995,

Ruhe, 2003 & 2008, Krambia-Kapardis, and Zopiatis, 2008 & 2011 in relation to the ability

of higher educational institutions to do a good job, at different levels, of emphasising and

developing analytical skills and achieving success in all aspects of life that are founded on the

Maccoby’s Head values. It is possibly not surprising that students of different courses in

different campuses would have different views and perceptions about the importance of

character traits in achieving future success. However, it is not clear how students’ surveyed

developed these values or what impacted on them in perceiving Head traits most important

for future career success. It is also not clear if students’ surveyed had developed these values

prior to joining their respective courses through their family and friends’ environment or

secondary education as contends by Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell (2013). There is also

uncertainty in relation to what impact their faculty staff, campus culture, and other students,

has had on developing such values (Booth, 1995), and if there were differences across first

year compared to final year students. Importance given to the Head values by students in

different campuses, enrolled in different courses and regardless of their gender and place of

birth could not be matched to the emphasis given to the Head traits by potential employers or

if it does meet their demands of university graduates. However, what could be concluded

from the importance given to the Head traits is that this is not only perceived by business

students in the sample, as documented by business ethics scholars, rather, students in other

disciplines do share with business students the importance of developing analytical skills in

order to achieve success in future careers. These findings also raise questions and doubts

about university claims that they develop unique graduate attributes in their students. These

findings could be highlighting more of the commonalities amongst the universities than

differences in their graduate attributes. These commonalities could be driven more by their

respective profession rather than the training institution and its culture.

Among the three most important character traits perceived to be reinforced during

university studies by the student sample was a Heart trait followed by two Head traits.

Tolerance of people with different beliefs and backgrounds was perceived, by the overall

sample, as the highest character trait that was reinforced during university studies. It was also

regarded as the highest reinforced trait by the sample regardless of place of birth, campus 1 &

2, females, education, and society & culture students. Ability to take the initiative was

reported as second highest reinforced character trait by the sample and perceived the highest

reinforced trait by campus 4, males, health, and management & commerce students in the

sample. Open-mindedness was seen as the most reinforced character trait by campus 3

students compared to cooperativeness as seen by information technology students in the

sample. Strength of religious beliefs was reported as the least reinforced character trait by the

sample students regardless of their, place of birth and by campus 2, 3, 4, IT, management &

commerce, and society & culture students in the sample. Campus 1, health, and education

students in the sample perceived idealism as the least reinforced character trait during their

university study.

These perceived reinforcement findings do not conform to the relevant literature,

especially that reported by business ethics scholars in relation to the reinforcement and

stimulation of Head traits by higher institutions (Patten, 1990, Booth, Corriher, & Geurin,

1995, Ruhe, 2003 & 2008, Krambia-Kapardis, & Zopiatis, 2008 & 2011). These findings are

in contrast to the imbalance between “Head and Heart values” that Maccoby, 1976, found in

his studies of business executives, managers and engineers. The findings reflect the needed

balance between “Head and Heart values” that Maccoby contends is needed to ensure

sensitivity to ethical implications of business decisions. Despite the importance of these

findings, it is not clear what influenced students in arriving at and in the development of this

perception and what other factors, if any, contributed to this development. These findings

raise doubt to the argument that business leaders (students today) are self-indulgent and

greedy. What could be concluded is that business students are no different to students

undertaking other courses. If leaders commit unethical behaviour, while pursuing personal

and corporate goals, they are more likely unaware of the effects of their decisions on others

as concluded by Carroll in his 1987 study. Despite this, one could not conclude that there is a

causation relationship between the balanced reinforcement of the “Head and Heart values”

and the role or impact of the higher educational institutions’ culture given that sample

students from all four campuses of four different universities reported similar result.

However, this may also reflect changes in overall societal perceptions in Australia and

worldwide rather than contributed to by the educational institutions alone (although they

played a significant role).

There is an imbalance between what students perceived important for success in a

future career and what they reported being reinforced during their studies at the university

level. In other words, the percentage of students who perceived a character trait important far

exceeded the percentage who perceived the same character trait being reinforced. Thus, an

imbalance has been identified between what the student perceived to be important and what

they experienced being reinforced and stimulated during their studies at the university level.

However, the extent of the imbalance does vary from one character trait to another with

greater imbalance in the Head character traits compared to the Heart. This imbalance was

evidenced in the sample responses regardless of their campuses, gender, discipline and place

of birth. In this sense, it could be concluded that universities are failing their student

populations by not meeting their expectations in relation to the reinforcement and stimulation

of character traits that they perceive important for success in future careers.

Findings of this research will impact and shape training of the next generation of

leaders in various disciplines, enhancing success and promoting ethical leadership in

organisations. More research is needed to validate the above findings and identify training

implications for each discipline; explore the relevancy of importance given to each of the

character traits by students to those assigned by employers of discipline graduates; and then

determine to what extent this matches the higher institutional expectations as highlighted by

their graduate attributes.

References:

Allen, W.R., Bacdaya, P., Kowalski, K.B. & Roy, M. (2005). Examining the impact of ethics

training on business student values. Education and Training, 47, (2/3), 170-182.

Allen, W.R., Davis, J.H., Ruhe, J.A. & Geurin, V.T. (1998). Character traits importance and

reinforcement for future leaders: a longitudinal assessment. Journal of Contemporary

Business, 6, (1), 5-22.

Booth, R., Corriher, S.E. & Geurin, V.S. (1995). The head rules the heart in business

education. Sam Advanced Management Journal, 60, (3) 40-47.

Caroll, A. (1987). In search of moral managers. Business Horizons, March-April, 44-45.

Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J. & Ferrell, L. (2013). Business ethics: ethical decision making and

cases, 9th Ed, Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio.

Hess, G.F. (2002). Heads and hearts: The teaching and learning environment in law school,

Journal of Legal Education, 52 (1-2), 75-111.

Kochunny, C.M. & Rogers, H. (1994). Head-heart disparity among future managers:

implications for ethical conduct, Journal of Business Ethics, 13, (9), 719-729.

Kochunny, C.M., Rogers, H., Ogbuehi, A.O. (1996). Head and heart orientation: a measure of

marketers’ predisposition for ethical conduct. Journal of Applied Business Research, 56

(1), 25-29.

Krambia-Kapardis, M. & Zopiatis, A. (2008). Investigating “head” and “heart” value traits of

tertiary students studying in Cyprus, EuroMed Journal of Business, 3 (2), 163-178.

Krambia-Kapardis, M. & Zopiatis, A. (2011). Personal values of accountants and accounting

trainees in Cyprus, Business Ethics, A European Review, 20 (1), 59-70.

McRichie, J. (2005). Corporate governance: what’s inside? Accessed, August 2012 on line

www.corpgov.net/inside/corporate-ethics-class.html.

Oishi, S., Hahn, J., Schimmack, U., Radhakrishan, P., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S., (2005). The

measurement of values across cultures: a pairwise comparison approach, 299-305.

Maccoby, M. (1976). The gamesman. Simon & Schuster, New York.

Maupin, R. & Lehman, C. (1994). Talking heads: stereotypes, sex roles and satisfaction of

female and male auditors. Organisations and Society, 19 (4/5), 427-437.

Pascarella, R. & Terenzinin, P. (1991). How college affects students: findings and insights from

twenty years of research, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Patten, D.M. (1990). The differential perception of accountants to Maccoby’s head/heart

traits. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, (10), 791-798.

Payne, S. (1988). Values and ethics related measures for management education. Journal of

Business Ethics, (7), 273-277.

Rockeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. The Free Press, NY.

Ruhe, J. (1991). Value importance for success: a longitudinal study, SAM, Advanced

Management Journal, Vol. 56, (1), 10-15.

Ruhe, J., Allen, W., Davis, J., Geurin, V., & Longenecker, J. (1998). Value traits reinforcement

and perceived importance: does context matter? International Journal of Value-Based

Management, Vol.11, (2), 103-124.

Ruhe, J. & Nahser, F. (2003). A Pedagogical Model and Practice, Paper presented at the 5th

International Symposium on Catholic Social Thought and Management Education, 15-

18/July 2003. Bilbao, Spain.

Ruche, J. & Lee, M. (2008). Teaching ethics in international business courses: the impact of

religion. Routledge.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances

and empirical test in twenty countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,

25, 1- 65.

Zikive, R & Zikive, A. (1993). The Japanese value system & Colon; an application of

Maccoby’s head and heart traits, Management Decision, 31, (4).