Ó Springer 2006
Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 73:219–229
DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9202-6
A Model of Ethical Decision Making:
The Integration of Process and Content
ABSTRACT. We develop a model of ethical decision
making that integrates the decision-making process and
the content variables considered by individuals facing
ethical dilemmas. The process described in the model is
drawn from Janis and Mann’s [1977, Decision Making: A
Psychological Analysis of Conflict Choice and Commitment
(The Free Press, New York)] work describing the decision process in an environment of conflict, choice and
commitment. The model is enhanced by the inclusion of
content variables derived from the ethics literature. The
resulting integrated model aids in understanding the
complexity of the decision process used by individuals
facing ethical dilemmas and suggests variable interactions
that could be field-tested. A better understanding of the
process will help managers develop policies that enhance
the likelihood of ethical behavior in their organizations.
KEY WORDS: decision making, ethical framework,
ethics, process, stress
Roselie McDevitt Sc.D. is Assistant Professor of Accounting
at the Charles F. Dolan School of Business at Fairfield
University in Fairfield, Connecticut. Dr. McDevitt teaches
financial and managerial accounting. Her Primary areas of
research are accounting education and accounting ethics.
Catherine Giapponi is an Assistant Professor of Management at
the Charles F. Dolan School of Business at Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut. Dr. Giapponi teaches
courses in management, organizational behavior, and strategy. Her primary areas of research are corporate governance
and business ethics.
Cheryl Tromley, Ph.D., is a Professor of Management
at Fairfield University where she has taught management,
organizational behavior, organizational communication,
organizational culture, organization development, and
diversity for 19 years. She has co-authored two editions of the
text ‘‘Developing Managerial Skills in Organizational
Behavior’’ as well authored or co-authored a significant
number of professional articles and presentations related to
management and management education.
Roselie McDevitt
Catherine Giapponi
Cheryl Tromley
The interest in ethical decision making has heightened as a result of recent scandals such as Enron and
WorldCom. However, for more than 20 years
researchers from many disciplines have examined the
variables that influence business managers when
making ethical decisions. These researchers have
identified and explored individual and situational
variables that impact ethical decision making in
organizations (Loe et al., 2000). Individual variables
that have been identified include level of cognitive
moral development (Trevino and Youngblood,
1990), age (Brady and Wheeler, 1996; Kohut and
Corriher, 1994), gender (Brady and Wheeler, 1996;
Whipple and Swords, 1992), locus of control
(Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1990; Trevino and Youngblood, 1990), and level of education (Kohut and
Corriher, 1994). Examples of situational variables
that have been studied include job context variables
(McDevitt and Van Hise 2002), organizational culture (Jones and Hiltebeitel, 1995), and environmental
influences (McDevitt and Van Hise 2002). All agree
that it is important for management to understand the
variables used by individuals when making decisions
in the face of ethical conflict in the workplace.
While it is important to understand what influences the decisions of individuals, it is equally
important to understand how they derive solutions to
their dilemmas. A great deal of research focuses on
the content variables and moderators that impact
ethical decision making, but there is less that
explores that process itself. There are models that
discuss general decision influences or variables that
are important in making ethical choices (Ferrell and
Gresham, 1985; Ferrell et al., 1989; Trevino, 1986),
but none provide a complete understanding of how
the variables might be used in a step by step process.
There are models that identify steps leading to moral
behavior, from the recognition of the moral issue to
engaging in moral behavior (Jones, 1991; Rest,
220
Roselie McDevitt et al.
1986), but they do not wrestle with the process of
resolving ethical conflict. This paper looks outside
the ethics literature and suggests that a general
decision-making model can be used to help explain
ethical/unethical decision processes. Janis and Mann
(1977) developed a comprehensive ‘‘Conflict Theory Model of Decision Making’’ that is applicable to
all types of consequential decisions. They identified
the antecedent conditions of conflict situations, the
mediating processes used to make decisions, and the
consequences that result. This conflict model has
much to offer the researcher who is seeking to
understand decision making and conflict resolution.
Although Janis and Mann address general conflict
issues, not specifically ethical conflicts, their model
can be adapted to and integrated with the variables
identified in the ethics literature to develop an
integrated model of ethical decision making.
Thus, this paper extends the ethics literature by
creating an integrated model that describes the
decision-making process used and the decision
variables considered by managers. The result is a
model that describes the process and the content of
the information search that a manager might complete when faced with an ethical dilemma. This
understanding is the first step in forming a basis upon
which organizations can develop policies and procedures to enhance the likelihood of ethical behavior
by their managers.
The content variables
Researchers have described numerous content variables in an attempt to understand ethical decisions.
For this study, we selected those variables for which
there is the most consistent and widespread support.
We have divided the selected variables into two
major categories, individual and situational. As
shown in Figure 1, the situational variables are further subdivided into the job context, organizational
context, and external environment. Each of these is
described in detail below.
Individual variables
There are many individual variables that can influence the ethical decision-making process. Among
those identified by researchers are age, religious
beliefs, and gender (Hegarty and Simms, 1978). The
level of an individual’s moral maturity has also been
identified as an important variable in the ethical
decision process (Kohlberg, 1969; Rest, 1986).
Some variables are related to the confidence and
personal beliefs of the individual decision maker.
When individual action is required, strong decision
makers will be confident in following their judgment.
Those who are weaker are more likely to rely on team
members, or those in authority for action confirmation. For example, ego strength is related to strength
of conviction or self-regulatory skills. Individuals
high in ego strength are more likely to do what they
think is right (Trevino, 1986). On the other hand,
field dependence examines a person’s independence
from referent others. An individual who is field
dependent will look to referent others to help remove
the ambiguity in ethical dilemmas (Trevino, 1986).
The causes to which individuals attribute their
successes and failures are often referred to as locus of
control (Forte, 2004). Locus of control can be
internal or external. Those with an external locus of
control believe ethical dilemmas are beyond their
control, while those with an internal locus believe
that they can control the things around them and are
willing to take responsibility for their behavior
(Forte, 2004; Trevino, 1986). Research shows that
those with an internal locus of control will take
action to settle the ethical dilemmas and resist social
pressure to perform unethical acts (Singhapakdi and
Vitell, 1991; Trevino and Youngblood, 1990).
Individuals with an internal locus of control choose
the ethical path more often than those who respond
to ethical pressure (Hegarty and Simms, 1978, 1979).
Thus, as shown in Figure 1, the individual variables
included in the model are age, religion, gender,
moral maturity, ego strength, field dependence and
locus of control.
Situational variables
In addition to individual characteristics that influence the decision-making process, the situation the
individual is facing is also important to the decision.
For instance, individuals operate within a job context, an organizational context, and an environment
external to the organization.
Model of Ethical Decision Making: Process and Content
Job context
Job context is important because such things as peer
pressure and management expectations can influence
an individual’s judgment (Jones, 1985; Sheidahl,
1986; Stead et al., 1990). In addition, operating
practibilities, such as the competition for scarce resources among employees, must also be considered
as a potential influence (Trevino, 1986).
Organizational context
The organizational context in which an individual
operates has many facets. For instance the organizational culture is a system of shared norms, values, and
expectations that exist throughout the organization
(Deal and Kennedy, 1999; Schein, 2004). As such,
221
organizational culture includes both formal codes of
ethics and non-codified expectations of behaviors that
may influence ethical choices (McCabe et al., 1996).
Other variables include obedience to authority
and the responsibility for consequences. For instance, executive leadership is important in setting
the tone at the top, and is integral to organizational
culture (Trevino et al., 2003; Vitell and Festervand,
1987; Weaver et al., 1999). In addition, the reward
systems and sanctions are created in the organization
to motivate employee behavior. Unfortunately these
incentives can sometimes motivate unethical actions
by managers who are under pressure to meet
deadlines or financial goals (Carson, 2003; Hunt and
Vasquez-Parraga, 1993; Trevino et al., 2003).
EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENT
Personal/Family
Obligations
Industry
Norms
ORGANIZATIONAL
CONTEXT
Organization
Culture and
JOB
CONTEXT
Ethic
Rewards
Peer
Influence
and
Sanctions
INDIVIDUAL
Operating
Age
Gender
Religion
Ego Strength
Field Dependence
Locus of Control
Level of Moral Development
Practibilities
Management
Behavior and
Expectations
Competitive/
Economic
Political
and Legal
Executive
Leadership
Societal
Norms
Professional
Codes of Ethics
Figure 1. Content variables.
222
Roselie McDevitt et al.
External environment
Some situational variables exist outside the organization. For instance, societal norms create a group of
external environmental factors. Cross-cultural studies have revealed how differences in societal norms
can lead to different ethical practices and decisions
(Donaldson and Dumfee, 1999; Sims and Gegez,
2004). Further, the legal system and political institutions in the environment influence individuals
facing difficult decisions.
Another important set of external forces facing
corporate managers are industry norms and competitive economic factors. Such factors can create
environmental uncertainty that may lead to unethical business decisions (Morris et al., 1995).
Finally, other environmental variables include
professional codes of conduct and personal and
family obligations. In some professions, codes of
conduct are created to give guidance to decision
makers facing ethical problems. They are meant to
act as a deterrent to unethical decisions (Bommer
et al., 1987; Patterson, 2001). Personal and family
obligations also exist outside the organization and are
idiosyncratic to each individual. Their impact on an
individual’s behavior within an organizational setting
can be a powerful motivator (McDevitt and Van
Hise, 2002).
Thus, the model presents a comprehensive picture
of the information an individual considers in the
ethical decision-making process. The variables point
to places of possible conflict, the differences in
individual and organizational interests, the pressures
brought to bear by peers and external forces, and the
individual’s internal battles over values and objectives. While defining the content variables is necessary, it is insufficient for a complete understanding
of how individuals arrive at ethical or unethical
decisions. To complete the picture, it is necessary to
examine how these variables are used in the
decision-making process.
The decision-making process
As noted previously, the Janis and Mann (1977)
model, while not an ethical decision-making model,
is broad enough to provide a sound basis for
understanding the process of resolving ethical conflicts. The decisions required of business managers
and leaders facing ethical dilemmas fit into Janis and
Mann’s characterization of consequential decisions
(1977). Janis and Mann present a clear definition of
consequential decisions as decisions that
‘‘include those that evoke some degree of concern
or anxiety in a decision maker about the possibility that he may not gain the objectives he is
seeking or that he may become saddled with costs
that are higher than he can afford, either for
himself personally or for a group or organization
with which he is affiliated .... Also included are
uncertain risks as well as known costs with regard
to money, time, effort, emotional involvement,
reputation, morale, or any other resource at the
disposal of the decision maker or his organization.
These risks or potential losses are perceived as
threats to important utilitarian, social, or ethical
goals within the decision makers’ value system.’’
(1977, p. 69)
The influence of unpleasant emotions on intellectual
decisions must be understood when human beings
are dealing with highly ego-involving issues like
ethical conflicts. This and other factors such as
uncertainty, irreversibility, and guilt can result in
different levels of stress. An extremely high or low
stress level will interfere with the decision process.
Low stress results in insufficient concern and high
stress can lead to avoidance or malfunction of the
process. An intermediate level of stress is the best
motivator for Janis and Mann’s (1977) seven point
vigilant decision process. Stress is a key part of their
conflict model and it is an important factor in
understanding how individuals resolve ethical
dilemmas.
In order to apply this model specifically to ethical
decision making, it is necessary to understand Janis
and Mann’s (1977) ‘‘ideal’’ procedural criteria. The
authors use anecdotal information to describe criteria
that give decision makers a better chance of attaining
their objectives. Decision makers who follow all of
these procedural criteria are judged to have made a
vigilant information search and will reach the best
decision under the circumstances. Janis and Mann
(1977) do not present the decision result as good or
bad. Rather the omission of one of the criteria leaves
the decision process open to defect. The decision
makers use the following seven criteria to the best of
Model of Ethical Decision Making: Process and Content
ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS
MEDIATING PROCESSES
223
D ECISION OUTCOMES
START: Ethical Dilemma
PHASE I:DECISION BEHAVIOR
Possible Variables Considered:
Individual
Job Context
Organizational Context
External Environment
Question 1:
How serious are the risks if I
insist on ethical action?
Minimal
No Conflict
Ethical
Minimal
No Conflict
Unethical
Defensive
Rationalization
Unethical
Very`
Possible Variables Considered:
Individual
Job Context
Organizational Context
External Environment
Question 2:
How serious are the risks if I
accept an unethical action?
Very
Possible Variables Considered:
Individual
Job Context
Organizational Context
External Environment
Question 3:
Is it realistic to think the
unethical action is justified?
Yes
No
Possible Variables Considered:
Individual
Job Context
Organizational Context
External Environment
Choice:
Choose to face conflict.
Go to Phase II.
PHASE II: DECISION BEHAVIOR
Complete the Information
Search.
Rationalized
Vigilance
Ethical/Unethical
Vigilance
Unethical
Define the problem and draft
alternative solutions.
Figure 2. A model of ethical decision making: the integration of process and content.
their abilities and within their information processing capabilities when conducting a vigilant information search:
1. ‘‘thoroughly canvases a wide range of alternative courses of action;
2. surveys the full range of objectives to be
fulfilled and the values implicated by the
choice;
3. carefully weighs whatever he knows about
the costs and risks of negative consequences,
as well as the positive consequences, that
could flow from each alternative;
4. intensively searches for new information relevant
to further evaluation of the alternatives;
5. correctly assimilates and takes account of any
new information or expert judgment to
which he is exposed, even when the infor-
mation or judgment does not support the
course of action he initially prefers;
6. reexamines the positive and negative consequences of all known alternatives, including
those originally regarded as unacceptable,
before making a final choice;
7. makes detailed provisions for implementing
or executing the chosen course of action,
with special attention to contingency plans
that might be required if various known risks
were to materialize.’’ (Janis and Mann 1977,
p. 11)
The core of the Janis and Mann (1977) model is
the mediating process prompted by the four basic
questions: ‘‘Q1 Are the risks serious if I don’t change?
Q2 Are the risks serious if I do change? Q3 Is it
realistic to hope to find a better solution? Q4 Is there
224
Roselie McDevitt et al.
sufficient time to search and deliberate?’’ (p. 70).
These questions move the individual through the
decision-making process. Although it is clear that
each individual approaches these questions differently, Janis and Mann (1977) assume that all decision
makers have five coping patterns available to them to
use during the mediating process: (1) unconflicted
adherence, (2) unconflicted change, (3) defensive
avoidance, (4) hypervigilance, and (5) vigilance. At
any point, ‘‘The pattern that is temporarily dominant
depends upon external and internal cues that influence the answers to the four basic questions’’ (Janis
and Mann, 1977, 75). Their model helps to identify
some key issues when trying to understand consequential decisions, and the criteria of a vigilant
information search lend structure to the examination
of the ethical decision-making process.
Janis and Mann (1977) provide definitions of the
conflict situation, alternative behaviors, and antecedent conditions. While the Janis and Mann model
was not specifically designed as an ethical decision
making model, it provides a sound foundation for
the development of a model that explains the process
an individual may use when facing an ethical
dilemma and is the foundation of the proposed
integrated model.
The proposed integrated model
The proposed model integrates an adaptation of the
Janis and Mann (1977) model with ethical decisionmaking variables presented in Figure 1. This integrated model describes the process of ethical decision
making and defines the content variables influencing
decision makers during the process. A flowchart of
the model showing its progressive steps and variables
is shown in Figure 2.
The process consists of three main categories,
antecedent conditions, mediating processes, and
decision outcomes. While the steps are similar to
those in the Janis and Mann (1977) model, additional information is included in this integrated
process model. Specifically, the content variables are
integrated under antecedent conditions and specify
the categories of information that influence the
decision. This model moves beyond the individual
variables addressed in the Janis and Mann model to
include organizational and external environmental
variables. In addition, the answers to the critical
questions are rated by the individual as to the seriousness of the risk they pose, thereby impacting the
decision outcomes. Each step in the process is
prompted by circumstances and/or the need to
consider additional variables. The decision outcome
is the result of the process. Unlike the Janis and
Mann (1977) approach, this integrated model is
divided into two phases of the decision process.
In Phase I, less complex dilemmas can be decided,
while more complex problems move the decision
maker to Phase II. In Phase II a vigilant information
search is required and more complex alternative
solutions are considered.
Phase I processes
Antecedent conditions
Antecedent conditions begin with the ethical
dilemma that initiates the process. It should be noted
that the model assumes that the decision maker
recognizes which action is ethical or unethical. As
the decision maker progresses through the model,
consideration of additional variables becomes more
and more important for a good decision outcome.
Although behavioral variables, such as ego strength,
locus of control or field dependence, may come into
play, the individual might consider other factors such
as personal or professional values. One may find that
a satisfactory solution needs a more extensive
information search. This information search could
include further self-examination, reconsideration of
the circumstances as they are known, and exploration for new or updated information. Such information may be related to job context and include
peer influence or extend to organizational ethic and
culture. The search might move outside organizational boundaries to industry norms or legal considerations. The flow of the model suggests that the
more complex the ethical dilemma, the more
vigilant the information search should be to reach
the best decision and to minimize post decision
regret in the event of a mistake.
Mediating processes and decision outcomes
The mediating processes of Phase I begin with an
assessment of the risk of choosing either the ethical
or unethical action. Decision behavior may begin
with the question, ‘‘How serious are the risks if I
Model of Ethical Decision Making: Process and Content
insist on ethical action?’’ or ‘‘How serious are the
risks if I accept unethical action?’’ Using the first
question of ethical action as a starting point, consider
the classic dilemma of division managers when their
divisions’ operating results are less than the budget
projections. They know that they can easily
manipulate the results and report more profitable
operations. If there is no threat to their jobs, no
consideration of a lost bonus, and/or they are confident that their division performance was the best it
could be based on the current market conditions,
there is no conflict and an ethical outcome results.
However, if their professional career objectives demand continued successful performance improvement, managers may see the risks as very serious,
move on to the next question, and consider additional variables.
The decision maker then moves on to the second
question and addresses the risks of unethical action.
It is important to note that individuals may reverse
the order of the questions and actually begin the
process by addressing the second question first. In
both cases the manager must evaluate the implications of manipulating the results of operations.
Additional individual variables may be considered.
For example, how does the manager feel about
authority or prior experiences with similar situations? In addition, situational variables such as the
behavior of other division managers, or the behavior
and expectations of superiors may be considered. If a
manager has seen manipulation of operating results
go unnoticed in the past, or perhaps be rewarded,
assessment of the risks may be minimal. When
managers perceive very little conflict, they can slide
into an unethical decision.
At this point in the model, conflicting standards
can have an impact. Consider the case of an auditor
who has discovered an ethical issue. The code of
professional ethics requires the exercise of professional judgment using criteria such as materiality. In
applying the materiality principle, financial statement
errors do not have to be corrected unless they have a
material impact on the financial position, cash flow,
or results of operations of the reporting company.
This is an example of a circumstance that can result
in ethical outcomes based on professional standards,
but might be seen as unethical based on a different
standard.
225
If it is risky to pursue unethical action, the decision maker must decide if unethical action is justified
in this particular situation. The information search
can be expanded at this point to include additional
variables. Managers may reconsider the role of
management and their peers. They may be influenced by their feelings of role-conflict, an undefined
organization ethic, or unrealistic company goals. If
they can feel justified in this situation, they have
prepared a good case of defensive rationalization that
will result in an unethical decision. If instead, they
cannot justify their actions, they must move on to
Phase II or go back to Question I and reconsider
their position.
If, as a result of Phase I, decision makers choose to
face the conflict, they will move to Phase II. When
making this choice, they must consider the cost/
benefit issues, and be prepared to pay the emotional
costs of solving the problem.
Phase II processes
Phase II decisions are more difficult to face and
complex to think about. Sufficient time is required
to consider all relevant variables and affected parties.
Janis and Mann’s (1977) notion of creative thinking
enters the picture here. There is the possibility that
the problem has not been fully defined. It may be a
‘‘below budget performance’’ problem, because
other considerations may have expanded it. For
instance, the fuel price increase that resulted from
hurricane Katrina could not be controlled by the
manager, but would shatter any budget that included
oil products. After the definition of the problem has
been clarified, the information search is continued
and one or more possible solutions are formed.
These solutions fall into two categories. First, when
the decision maker is not fully prepared to face the
problem, rationalized vigilance may result. Typical
behavior in rationalized vigilance could include an
information search for supporting evidence only, or
information avoidance when encountering negative
evidence. Rationalized vigilance could result in an
unethical decision. However, under ideal circumstances, an ethical decision will result if the information
search is vigilant and follows the seven criteria of a
good decision.
226
Roselie McDevitt et al.
The integrated model can help describe the process of decision making in an ethical conflict situation. There is, however, a category of variables that
may prove problematic in the model. This category
of variables can be coined the ‘‘wild card’’ and includes unpredictable changes in personal or family
circumstances. This ‘‘wild card’’ can cause interference in the model at any stage. It is not controllable
by business, but cannot be eliminated when investigating the circumstances surrounding the decision
process. These variables may dramatically alter the
way an individual would normally respond to an
ethical dilemma and may help to explain what seems
like irrational ethical/unethical behavior. Examples
could include extreme financial stress caused by a
serious illness in the family, gambling debts, or other
exigent events. Thus, while these variables are not
part of the business environment, they must be
considered when examining the decision process.
Operationalizing the model
As a preliminary step, the model is applied to
an ethical dilemma involving accounting issues
that reflect current financial reporting problems.
Although this is not an empirical test of the model,
this examination will accomplish two things. First,
applying the model to a realistic case should point
out its strengths and weaknesses. Second, it should
increase our understanding of how ethical conflicts
interact with other variables during the decisionmaking process.
An ethical dilemma
In September of this year, John accepted the position
of Chief Financial Officer of MGA Manufacturing
Corporation. MGA is a young dynamic company. It
is a no-bid, set aside, minority contractor that has
been awarded several lucrative government contracts. To date the reported results of operations
indicate a growth level that supports the market
price of the stock and maintains the credibility of the
company in the investing community. John was
hired at an excellent salary with perks that included
options to buy a large number of shares at founders’
prices, a luxury automobile, and a potential bonus
based on the successful operations of MGA. John is
35 years old, married and has two children. He lives
in a new house in the suburbs that he bought after
accepting the position with MGA. He has an
excellent education. His last job was as a manager
with a major accounting firm (he would have been
made partner in the next year). His experience with
minority contractors is extensive. He was aware that
the accounting system at MGA was not as strong as it
should be, but was sure he could easily whip it into
shape.
Soon after he began working in his new position,
John discovered that there were large amounts of
excess cash that had been made available through
public stock and debt offerings and government
funding. He was concerned about the security of the
cash, since he knew that the internal control system
at MGA was essentially non-existent. His first
activities included implementing internal controls
and tracing the major recent cash transactions. These
activities caused some friction between John and
Bob, the Chief Executive Officer. Bob was not
accustomed to justifying his actions or policies; in
the past his orders were followed without question.
During John’s investigation of the accounting
records he discovered that MGA had been accused
of fraudulent billing practices in the past, but this
problem had been corrected to the satisfaction of all
interested parties. More disturbing, however, was
the finding that many of the contracts received by
the company required ‘‘gifts’’ to people with government influence. No matter how it was worded,
he had discovered the payment of illegal bribes by
company officials.
The payment of illegal bribes by MGA’s CEO is
posing an ethical dilemma for John. This is the
starting place for the model. There are several possible ethical conflicts going on. First, all the illegal
payments could have occurred prior to John’s joining the organization, with no new bribes taking
place during his tenure with the company. Or, the
bribes could be the continuing policy of management. For the purpose of this analysis, the second
situation is assumed.
John’s first question is, ‘‘how serious are the risks to
me and my job or to the continued success of the
company if I insist that the payment of bribes cease?’’
Any combination of the individual variables may be
brought into the process. For example, his personal
Model of Ethical Decision Making: Process and Content
and professional values that support ethical behavior
may conflict with his career objective of being a CFO
of a large publicly traded corporation. MGA could
grow into that company. His views toward authority
(Bob, his superior) and toward the law may also be in
conflict. He must look as some situational variables.
At a minimum he must consider his perception of
Bob’s reaction to his demand to cease illegal payments. If John perceives no adverse reaction from
Bob and no loss in the ability to gain future government contracts (no damage to growth), his conflict
will be minimized and the ethical decision to stop
illegal payments would result. However, if he sees
serious risks, he would move on to the next question.
How serious are the risks to John’s career and to
the continued success of the company if John ignores
the problem? John can see the choice of continuing
bribes as ‘‘safe’’ as far as his career with the management of MGA is concerned. However, the success of his career also depends on the success of
MGA. He may feel that all government contracting
companies must start out by paying bribes or must
continue to pay bribes to stay in business. Thus, as a
practical matter, he may feel that any repercussions
will be minimal. The decision, then, causes no
conflict and the outcome is unethical. On the other
hand, if discovery of such bribes caused severe
repercussions for other companies and their management in the recent past, the legal issues make the
risks very serious.
His next question is, ‘‘Can the unethical action be
reasonably justified under the circumstances?’’ Assume that Bob has assured John that after two more
contracts are awarded to MGA, there will no longer
be a necessity for illegal payments. John is reminded
that fraudulent billing practices in the past have been
discontinued and when the time is right the bribes
will also stop. Bob reminds John, that he (Bob) takes
the full responsibility for authorizing and delivering
these payments. The goal of the organization is
continued growth, which agrees with John’s career
goals. John must go back to his personal and
professional values and exercise professional
judgment during his information search. If he can
justify continuing the policy in this situation, his
decision outcome based on defensive rationalization
will be unethical. If justification is not possible he
must think further. He must, at this stage, choose to
face the conflict or return to Question 1 and begin
227
the process again. He may feel the risks to his
personal integrity are too great to pass Question 1
again. In this case he would have to minimize the
risks to his career.
If he chooses to face the conflict, he must
reevaluate the problem and draft alternative solutions. A thorough information search is required. He
may decide that the real problem is that he cannot
compromise his ethics and allow the company’s
policy to continue, but he can live with what has
happened in the past. If he can convince Bob to stop
the practice, he will, in effect, have added to the
integrity of the company and feel successful. He may
proceed by seeking only information that supports
Bob’s position. In this case he will be guilty of
rationalized vigilance that results in the decision to
let the payments continue. However, if he is diligent
in his search and open to positive and negative
information, the best ethical decision should result.
His solution alternatives may include resigning his
position or blowing the whistle. Each tentative
solution must be evaluated. If he has decided that
uncompromising behavior is in his own best interest,
then quitting is the best solution. But, what is his
duty to the stockholders and creditors? Whistle
blowing could possibly mean the end of the company. Is it his duty to maximize profits for the
benefit of interested parties, or to enforce ethical
behavior? He may see no clear definition of what the
best interests of the principals are. This complexity
could send the decision maker back to Question 1 or
to rationalized vigilance. In the rationalized vigilance
stage, a decision to quit would be ethical, but possibly not the best ethical decision considering the
interests of all parties. For the manager, a controversial decision can have serious ramifications to his
future self-image or career success. He must weigh
many variables to arrive at the best ethical decision
for all interested parties.
Thus, the model enables us to follow John through
his decision making process. The variables he considered and his alternative choices become more
transparent when viewed through the model’s lens.
Conclusions and future research directions
The integrated model shows the complexity of the
decision process used by individuals facing ethical
228
Roselie McDevitt et al.
dilemmas and suggests variable interactions that could
be field-tested. For example, what role do individual
variables play in Phase I or Phase II decisions? What
role do organizational rewards play in Phase I decisions? As each of these questions is addressed, a piece
of the model will be illuminated. When the interactions are understood, organizations can more
appropriately design and implement programs that
foster better ethical decision making and choice.
Although the integrated model helps to describe
decisions made in the face of ethical conflict, it may
not be able to help managers anticipate the ‘‘wild
card,’’ or how the personal or family life of every
individual is going to influence his or her business
behavior. There is no way to determine when the
wild card will be activated and how it will affect
ethical decisions. Serious illness and huge medical
costs, for example, can cloud anyone’s decision
process. The model may help managers understand
the need for programs that support ethical decision
making thereby reducing activation of some of these
wild cards. For instance, a good employee health
benefit program can provide support to employees
facing difficult personal situations that may conflict
with their organizational responsibilities.
The model does not take into account the impact
of time on the decision process. Certainly, time
constraints will limit the degree and extent of the
search and personal reflection on the variables. The
impact of time on the decision process, however,
can be tested in future empirical research.
The descriptive nature of the model provides a
methodology from which to study reactions to
ethical dilemmas. The model can be tested using
ethical dilemmas from varying disciplines. Studies
can be designed that incorporate interview methods
such as individual personal interviews and focus
groups. In addition, variables defined by researchers
in the future can be incorporated into the model to
continue to increase our understanding of the ethical
behavior of business managers.
Therefore, the proposed model extends the literature by integrating established content variables
into the actual decision-making process employed
by individuals facing ethical dilemmas. With further
study, this understanding can help managers develop
policies and procedures that promote ethical
behavior in their organizations.
References
Brady, E. N. and G. E. Wheeler: 1996, ÔAn Empirical
Study of Ethical PredispositionsÕ, Journal of Business
Ethics 15(9), 927–940.
Bommer, M., C. Gratto, J. Gravander and M. Tuttle:
1987, ÔA Behavioral Model of Ethical and Unethical
Decision MakingÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 6(3),
265–280.
Carson, T. L.: 2003, ÔSelf-Interest and Business Ethics:
Some Lessons of the Recent Corporate ScandalsÕ,
Journal of Business Ethics 43(4), 389–394.
Deal, T. E. and A. Kennedy: 1999, The New Corporate
Cultures (Perseus, New York).
Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dumfee: 1999, ÔWhen Ethics
Travel: The Promise and Peril of Global Business
EthicsÕ, California Management Review 41(4), 45–64.
Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ÔA Contingency
Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision
Making in MarketingÕ, Journal of Marketing 49(3),
87–96.
Ferrell, O. C., L. G. Gresham and J. P. Fraedrich: 1989,
ÔA Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for MarketingÕ, Journal of Macromarketing 9(2), 55–64.
Ferrell, O. C, L. G. Gresham and J. P. Fraedrich: 1989, ÔA
Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for MarketingÕ,
Journal of Macromarketing 9(2), 55–64.
Forte, A.: 2004, ÔBusiness Ethics: A Study of the Moral
Reasoning of Selected Business Managers and the
Influence of Organizational Ethical ClimateÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 51(2), 167–173.
Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Simms, Jr.: 1978, ÔSome
Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An
ExperimentÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 63(4),
451–457.
Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Simms, Jr.: 1979, ÔOrganizational Philosophy, Policies, and Objectives Related to
Unethical Decision Behavior: A Laboratory ExperimentÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 64(3), 331–338.
Hunt, S. D. and A. Z. Vasquez-Perraga: 1993, ÔOrganizational Consequences, Marketing Ethics, and Sales Force
SupervisionÕ, Journal of Marketing Research 30(1), 78–90.
Janis, I. L. and L. Mann: 1977, Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict Choice and Commitment
(The Free Press, New York).
Jones, E. E.: 1985, ÔMajor Developments in Social Psychology During the Past Five DecadesÕ, in G. Lindzey
and E. Aronson (ed.), The Handbook of Social Psychology
(Random House, New York), pp. 47–107.
Jones, T. M.: 1991, ÔEthical Decision Making By
Individuals In Organizations: An Issue Contingent
ModelÕ, Academy of Management Review 16(2), 366–395.
Model of Ethical Decision Making: Process and Content
Jones, S. K. and K. M. Hiltebeitel: 1995, ÔOrganizational
Influence in the Moral Decision Process of AccountantsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 14(6), 417–431.
Kohlberg, L.: 1969, ÔMoral Stages and Moralization: The
Cognitive Developmental ApproachÕ, in T. Lechona
(ed.), Moral Development and Behavior: Theory Research
and Social Issues. (Hall, Rinehart, and Winston, New
York), pp. 6–28.
Kohut, G. F. and S. E. Corriher: 1994, ÔThe Relationship
of Age, Gender, Experience and Awareness of Written
Ethics Policies to Business Decision MakingÕ, SAM
Advanced Management Journal 59(1), 32–39.
Loe, T. W., L. Ferrell and P. Mansfield: 2000, ÔA Review
Of Empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision
Making In BusinessÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 25(3),
158–204.
McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino and K. D. Butterfield:
1996, ÔThe Influence of Collegiate and Corporate
Codes of Conduct on Ethics-Related Behavior in the
WorkplaceÕ, Business Ethics Quarterly 6, 461–476.
McDevitt, R. and J. Van Hise: 2002, ÔInfluences in
Ethical Dilemmas of Increasing IntensityÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 40(3), 261–274.
Morris, S. A., K. A. Rehbein, J. C. Hosseini and
R. L. Armacost: 1995, ÔA Test of Environmental, Situational, and Personal Influences on the Ethical Intentions of CEO’sÕ, Business and Society 34(2), 119–147.
Patterson, D. M.: 2001, ÔCausal Effects of Regulatory,
Organizational and Personal Factors on Ethical SensitivityÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 30(2), 123–159.
Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research
and Theory (Praeger, New York)
Schein, E. H.: 2004, Organizational Culture and Leadership
(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA)
Sheidahl, T. K.: 1986, ÔEthical Dilemmas in Managerial
AccountingÕ, Management Accounting 64, 34–41.
Sims, R. L. and E. Gegez: 2004, ÔAttitudes Towards
Business Ethics: A Five Nation Comparative StudyÕ,
Journal of Business Ethics 50(3), 253–262.
Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1990, ÔMarketing Ethics:
Factors Influencing Perceptions of Ethical Problems
and AlternativesÕ, Journal of Macromarketing 10(1),
47–65.
Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1991, ÔResearch Note:
Selected Factors Influencing Marketers’ Deontological
229
NormsÕ, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
19(1), 37–42.
Stead, W. E., D. L. Worrell and J. G. Stead: 1990, ÔAn
Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing
Ethical Behavior in Business OrganizationsÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 9(3), 233–242.
Trevino, L. K.: 1986, ÔEthical Decision Making in
Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist
ModelÕ, Academy of Management Review 11(3),
601–617.
Trevino, L. K., M. Brown and L. P. Hartman: 2003, ÔA
Qualitative Investigation of Perceived Executive Ethical Leadership: Perceptions from Inside and Outside
the Executive SuiteÕ, Human Relations 56(1), 5–37.
Trevino, L. K. and S. A. Youngblood: 1990, ÔBad Apples
in Bad Barrels: A Causal Analysis of Ethical Decision
Making BehaviorÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 75(4),
378–385.
Vitell, S. and T. Festervand: 1987, ÔBusiness Ethics:
Conflicts, Practices and Beliefs of Industrial ExecutivesÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 6(2), 111–1222.
Weaver, G. R., L. K. Trevino and P. L. Cochran: 1999,
ÔControl Ethics Programs as Control Systems: Influences of Executive Commitment and Environmental
FactorsÕ, Academy of Management Journal 42(1), 41–57.
Whipple, T. W. and D. F. Swords: 1992, ÔBusiness Ethics
Judgments: A Cross-Cultural ComparisonÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 11(9), 671–678.
R. McDevitt
Accounting, The Charles F. Dolan School of Business,
Fairfield University
1073 North Benson Road,
Fairfield, CT, 06824,
U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
C. Giapponi and C. Tromley
Management, The Charles F. Dolan School of Business,
Fairfield University
1073 North Benson Road,
Fairfield, CT, 06824,
U.S.A.