Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1860-6
Received: 31 December 2012 / Accepted: 24 July 2013 / Published online: 9 August 2013
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
meaningfulness, and courage. Findings revealed that participants in the business ethics treatment course experienced significant positive increases in each of the three
outcome variables as compared to the control group. The
largest increase was in moral efficacy, followed by moral
courage, and finally, moral meaningfulness. These findings
are discussed in the context of the current research on
business ethics education and POS. Implications for future
research are discussed.
Keywords Business ethics education Positive
organizational scholarship Moral efficacy
Moral meaningfulness Moral courage
Many top global graduate business schools are implementing business ethics, corporate social responsibility,
and sustainability courses in their programs (Christensen
et al. 2007; Evans and Marcal 2005; Evans and Weiss
2008; Rasche et al. 2013) to respond to the plethora of
business ethics-related scandals and calls from academics
to advance business ethics education in universities (see
Swanson and Fisher 2008). Christensen et al. (2007) found
that a majority of the top 50 Financial Times global MBA
programs require one or more of these topics be covered in
their MBA curricula. While studies have examined the
effects of such courses on moral recognition and moral
reasoning (see Lau 2010; Waples et al. 2009) and students
perspectives of effective teaching (Carroll 2005), methodologically rigorous research on other relevant psychological outcomes of business ethics courses has not kept pace
with the integration of such courses into curricula.
The emerging fields of positive psychology and positive
organizational scholarship (POS) have both argued for a
positive approach to ethics (Handelsman et al. 2002;
123
68
123
D. R. May et al.
Moral Efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as the belief that one can carry out a
task or set of behaviors successfully (Bandura 1986, 1997).
Extensive research has established the construct as a
positive and significant influence on a wide range of attitudes, intentions, behaviors, learning outcomes, and performance in numerous environments, including education
and training as well as work performance situations (Judge
and Bono 2001; Stajkovic and Luthans 1998). Work in
positive psychology has recognized the powerful role that
self-efficacy can play in ones life simply by believing
you can (Maddux 2002) and emphasizes the benefits of
self-efficacy for well-being as well as constructive working
strategies and outcomes.
Self-efficacy beliefs have been conceptualized and
investigated along a continuum of specificity with respect
to focal tasks or capabilities, from very task specific to
general human agency (Chen et al. 2000; Yeo and Neal
2006). While the latter is conceived as more dispositional
or trait-like, and the former a more state-like individual
difference, training and education interventions have been
established as mechanisms that can be designed to influence self-efficacy.
69
Self-efficacy beliefs have been found to be more malleable than initially thought (Gist and Mitchell 1992) and
can be enhanced through training methods that employ
such theoretically suggested influences as mastery experiences, vicarious learning, and social persuasion (Bandura
1986). While increases in mean levels of self-efficacy have
been found to result from training experiences (Eden and
Aviram 1993; Schwoerer et al. 2005), the effect of the
recent increase in business ethics education on efficacy
needs investigation.
Drawing on past research, we define moral efficacy as
an individuals belief in his/her ability to actively and
positively face the ethical issues that may arise in the
workplace and to overcome obstacles to developing and
implementing ethical solutions to ethical dilemmas (Hannah et al. 2011). This definition is consistent with a focus
on fostering positive ethical resources in individuals and
their organizations. It is related to work on moral competence in ethical decision-making by Desplaces et al. (2007)
in its focus on the belief structures surrounding an individuals skill level in resolving ethical issues. Moral efficacy has also been shown to be empirically distinct from
extant measures of moral reasoning such as the Defining
Issues Test (DIT) N2 index1 (May and Luth 2013; Rest
et al. 1999).
In their model of the development of a moral component
of authentic leadership, May et al. (2003) propose the
importance of a leaders beliefs in his/her skills, abilities,
and motivation, or efficacy, as a basis for converting
intentions to be ethical into actions, particularly when the
environment may provide opposition or pressures that
conflict with doing so. They also suggest that developmental activities can enhance leaders moral efficacy and
courage. Similarly, recent theoretical work by Hannah
et al. (2011a) explores moral efficacy and courage as elements of moral conation capacities that contribute to moral
motivation and action and can be developed through
training. Initial work in business education research has
found that required focused writing assignments can help
build efficacy for both ethics and diversity management
(Nelson et al. 2012).
While business ethics education may vary in its goals
and implementation, to the extent that it provides experiences of success or enactive mastery, models or vicarious
learning (e.g., in cases or through role plays), coaching and
encouragement or verbal persuasion, and provides a psychologically safe environment to reduce the emotional
threat that can be involved in meeting the challenges of
1
123
70
Moral Meaningfulness
Meaning is central to the human experience. Frankl (1992)
maintains that individuals have a primary motive to seek
meaning in their lives. Baumeister and Vohs (2002) similarly argue that individuals have four needs for meaning:
(a) need for purpose from which individuals draw meaning
from their connection with future events, (b) need for
values that lend a sense of goodness or positivity to life and
that justify certain actions, (c) need for a belief that one can
make a difference, and (d) a need for reasons to believe in
ones self-worth.
Meaningfulness has been studied as part of the job design
literature in organizational behavior and has been defined as
the value of a work goal or purpose, judged in relation to an
individuals own ideals or standards (Renn and Vandenberg
1995). Lack of meaning in ones work can lead to alienation
or disengagement from that work and absenteeism
(Aktouf 1992; Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). Research within
the POS domain has demonstrated that enhanced meaning in
the workplace is the strongest predictor of engagement (May
et al. 2004) and thus serves as a motivational engine at work.
Meaningfulness can come from perceptions of task significance (Grant 2008) or from the crafting of ones own job
(Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001).
In this study, we extend this research on meaning to the
business ethics domain and define moral meaningfulness as
the value of ethics in ones work life. It thus represents the
extent to which one gains meaning from behaving ethically. Such meaning should provide motivation to grapple
with the complexities of moral dilemmas and resolve them.
In order to understand the meaningfulness of ethics in
work settings, we need to discuss the foundational element
of moral identity. Morality has long been recognized as
central to ones understanding of the self (Blasi 1999).
Consistent with other authors (Aquino and Reed 2002;
Lapsley and Narvaez 2004), we adopt a social cognitive
perspective on moral identity. Such a view maintains that
moral identity is a cognitive representation (self-schema)
of moral values, traits, and behavioral scripts. To the extent
that such knowledge about the moral self is easily accessible to the individual, it should exert a strong influence on
actions (Shao et al. 2008). In addition, if this moral identity
is important in a persons overall self-definition, then
123
D. R. May et al.
Moral Courage
As noted above, courage is a concept identified in the
positive psychology movement (Lopez et al. 2003); it is
seen as a key human strength. Lopez et al. (2003) argue
that courage has multiple dimensionsmoral, physical,
and health or vital courage. Of key relevance here is the
moral dimension. Moral courage is defined as the fortitude to convert moral intentions into actions despite pressures from either inside or outside of the organization to do
otherwise (May et al. 2003, p. 255). Such a definition is
consistent with other scholars who note that while morally
courageous individuals are often lauded for standing up for
their principles or the greater good, they may face adverse
consequences and social disapproval (e.g., Comer and
Vega 2011; Hannah et al. 2011b; Putman 1997; Sekerka
et al. 2009). Lopez et al. (2003) note that many authors
have acknowledged that summoning and sustaining moral
courage requires incredible strength and are even so bold
as to maintain that moral courage is the platform on which
positive mental health rests (p. 187). Most recently,
Worline (2012) has argued that overall courage requires
both the simultaneous expression of individuation, an
individuals ability to stand apart from the crowd; and
involvement, an individuals ability to internalize the values and aims of the collective (p. 304).
Methods
Participants and Setting
Study participants were 84 students enrolled in graduate
business courses at a major public Midwestern University
in the United States. Graduate business students were
selected due to the lack of research on ethical attitudes and
behaviors among such students (McCabe et al. 2006). The
two experimental conditions were a control group and an
ethics education treatment group. The ethics treatment
group was comprised of participants enrolled in a course
dedicated to the topic of business ethics. The control group
consisted of participants who were enrolled in a human
resource management business class. All study participants
were currently pursuing a graduate degree in business.
71
123
72
D. R. May et al.
Moral Efficacy
Control Group
The control group condition consisted of an 8-week MBA
course in the human resource functions of training and
developing an organizations workforce. The objectives
were to develop knowledge and skills in instructional
systems design and delivery. Class methods included short
cases (written and video based) to be analyzed and discussed, practice exercises, and brief interactive lectures.
Course requirements included the creation and delivery of
a training session and report on this project, as well as a
final examination that was case-based. Ethics as a topic
was limited to a brief description of legal requirements and
ethical dimensions of training and development as workplace practices. The percentage of the course time used was
estimated at less than 5 %.
Measures
The items comprising the scales described generally below
are detailed in Table 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all
items were drawn from May and Luth (2013) and used a
seven-point Likert-type response scale anchored from 1
strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree.
123
Moral Meaningfulness
We measured moral meaningfulness using four items. A
sample item is maintaining high morals/ethics brings me
meaning at work. Cronbachs a for the measure were 0.91
for the pretest and 0.85 for the posttest.
Moral Courage
Moral courage was measured using four items that were
originally based on the work by Gibbs et al. (1986). A
sample item is: I would stand up for a just or rightful
cause even if the cause is unpopular and it would mean
criticizing important others. The Cronbachs a for the
pretest and posttest measures of moral courage were 0.60
and 0.62, respectively.
Control Variables
We controlled for three additional variables that could
affect the outcomes of ethics education. First, because
practical experience can alter an individuals ability to
assimilate educational materials (Kidwell et al. 1987), we
controlled for its effects by including it as a covariate in the
analyses. Second, we controlled for impression management by using 10 items from the Balanced Inventory of
Desirable Responding (Paulhus 1991). Impression management is the conscious and deliberate self-presentation
intended to present the most positive social image (Paulhus
1991). Following Paulhus work, the sum for extreme
responses (6 or 7) to the ten items provided the overall
social desirability index, with higher scores indicating a
greater level of social desirability bias. Cronbachs a for
the measure of impression management was 0.75.
Although we included scores of impression management
for the participants as covariates in our model, it is
important to note that social desirability cannot ever be
completely eliminated in any study. Third, we reasoned
that previous exposure to a stand-alone ethics course could
73
Posttest components
Moral meaningfulness
Maintaining high morals/ethics brings me meaning at work
0.92
0.85
I find that doing the right thing at work is personally meaningful for me
0.88
0.83
0.91
0.84
0.78
0.76
Moral courage
I would stand up for a just or rightful cause, even if the cause is unpopular and it would mean
criticizing important others
0.65
0.54
I will defend someone who is being taunted or talked about unfairly, even if the victim is only
an acquaintance
0.45
0.77
I would only consider joining a just or rightful cause if it is popular with my friends and
supported by important others (RC)
0.68
0.65
I would prefer to remain in the background even if a friend is being taunted or talked about
unfairly (RC)
0.83
0.73
Moral efficacy
Analyzing an ethical problem to find a solution
0.67
0.76
Representing your work unit in meetings with management regarding ethical issues
0.86
0.97
Designing new evaluation procedures for ethical issues in your work unit
0.71
0.79
Making suggestions to management about ways to improve the working of your section
concerning ethical issues
0.68
0.75
0.78
0.68
0.68
0.66
0.81
0.78
0.60
0.66
0.67
0.84
33.60
13.85
10.60
39.87
13.14
9.68
Results
Factor Analysis
Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted a principal
component analysis in order to investigate evidence for the
discriminant validity of the three dependent measures:
moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage.
We opted to use an oblique rotation (Promax) given our
expectation that the dependent variables would be correlated. Evaluation of the factor loading patterns across both
the pretest and posttest conditions provides evidence for
the measures discriminant validity. We originally included
all of the items for the three measures used by May and
Luth (2013), but following recommendations by Hinkin
(1998), we chose to retain only those items loaded above
0.40 on their appropriate factor and dropped items that
cross-loaded substantially on a second factor. Thus, we
dropped 5 items from the original 14-item moral efficacy
scale and 2 items from the original 6-item moral courage
scale and left the moral meaningfulness scale intact.
These factor analytic results, in conjunction with the
internal reliability analyses, provide evidence for the discriminant validity of the studys three outcome measures
and provide overall support for the use of the measures to
test our research hypotheses. All of the final items used in
this research study are listed in Table 1; the three specified
factors accounted for 58.05 % of the variance for the
pretest and 62.69 % of the variance for the posttest.
To further examine the relations among our three dependent variables, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) using LISREL 8.8. The hypothesized three-factor
123
74
D. R. May et al.
Analytic Procedures
Hypothesis Testing
SD
-0.22
-0.16
-0.13
0.50
0.51
8.10
5.39
0.28
(3) Impression
management
4.60
2.54
-0.03
0.45*
5.62
0.63
-0.11
0.10
0.16
(5) Moral
meaningfulness
5.72
0.93
-0.02
0.27
0.42*
0.20
5.17
0.77
-0.19
0.16
0.51**
0.40*
0.44*
5.58
0.71
-0.08
0.33
0.46*
0.64**
0.15
0.29
(8) Moral
meaningfulness
5.83
1.01
0.01
0.38*
0.43*
0.19
0.88**
0.29
0.23
5.27
0.87
-0.27
0.29
0.46*
0.23
0.39*
0.63**
0.29
SD
0.30
-0.10
-0.16
0.19
0.00
0.11
0.77
0.43
-0.10
-0.19
-0.03
0.05
-0.07
-0.13
3.57
2.60
0.54**
0.23
0.12
0.74**
0.32
2.80
2.78
0.15
0.09
0.37*
0.71**
0.09
0.37*
5.47
0.80
0.07
0.73**
0.35
5.68
0.94
0.04
0.15
0.50**
5.11
0.94
0.15
0.47**
5.54
0.87
0.33
5.86
0.79
5.77
0.76
Covariates
0.07
Pretest
Posttest
0.44*
Note control group means, standard deviations, and correlations (N = 30) are below the diagonal; treatment group means, standard deviations,
and correlations (N = 30) are below the diagonal. Previous ethics course (0 = no; 1 = yes)
** p \ 0.01; * p \ 0.05
123
75
Type III
SS
df
F statistic
p Value
17.54
8.48
7.60
0.00
1 18.36
0.00
Work experience
0.21
0.45
0.51
Impression management
1.33
2.89
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.87
7.53
5.10
1 16.30
1 11.05
Error
24.94
Total
1872.17
60
42.48
59
Corrected total
0.00
\0.001c
54
R2 = 0.413 (adjusted
R2 = 0.359)
Panel B: moral meaningfulness
Corrected model
Intercept
33.74
2.17
5 26.01
1
8.35
0.00
0.01
Work experience
0.59
2.26
0.14
Impression management
1.57
6.07
0.02
0.11
0.42
0.52
1 67.84
0.00
17.60
0.75
14.01
2095.25
54
60
47.75
59
2.89
\0.05c
R2 = 0.707 (adjusted
R2 = 0.679)
Since follow-up analyses based on Tabachnick and Fidells (2007) recommendations for pretestposttest
ANCOVA designs revealed a significant pretest covariate 9 treatment interaction only for moral meaningfulness
(F(1,60) = 5.87, p = 0.019), but not for moral efficacy or
moral courage, we ran additional recommended analyses to
see how to best interpret the findings for moral meaningfulness. These supplementary analyses revealed that the
treatment is significant for low levels of pretest moral
meaningfulness (25th percentile; F = 6.05, p = 0.017),
but not for the median (F = 0.74, p = 0.40) or high levels
(F = 0.09, p = 0.76). This means that ethics education is
most likely to enhance moral meaningfulness for those who
start at low levels when taking a business ethics course.
Hypothesis 3 predicts that individuals who complete a
business ethics treatment course will score higher than the
control group on the measure of moral courage. As shown
in Table 3, Hypothesis 3 was also supported. The treatment
dummy variable was significantly associated with posttest
moral courage, F(1,60) = 2.95; p \ 0.05; g2 = 0.05, and
the covariate-adjusted means were in the anticipated
direction (Mcontrol = 5.41; Mtreatment = 5.71).
In summary, we find support for all three of our research
hypotheses. Specifically, we find that business ethics education positively influences moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage. To further document the
findings, treatment and control group means for the three
dependent variables, adjusted for covariates, are illustrated
in Fig. 1.
Discussion
19.29
5 11.81
0.00
0.06
Intercept
1.19
3.65
Work experience
0.88
2.69
0.11
Impression management
0.80
2.45
0.12
0.02
0.06
0.82
15.78
Treatment dummy
variableb
1 48.31
0.96
Error
17.64
54
Total
1890.63
60
36.92
59
Corrected total
2.95
0.00
\0.05c
R2 = 0.522 (adjusted
R2 = 0.478)
a
Previous ethics course was coded 0 = no previous ethics course;
1 = previous ethics course
b
c
The p value identified is based on a one-tailed test since expectations are directional; the p values for all other variables are two-tailed
123
76
D. R. May et al.
6.50
Control
Treatment
5.98
6.00
5.88
5.71
5.71
5.50
5.41
5.17
5.00
4.50
Moral Efficacy
Moral Meaningfulness
Moral Courage
determine which particular instructional component contributed most to the studys largest effect on moral efficacy.
Similar to many business ethics courses, the instructional
methods in the treatment group were varied, including
interactive lectures, short written cases and video examples, team case analyses, a professional ethical issues
paper, and an integrative international case analysis.
Knowledge of the relative effectiveness of each instructional dimension in influencing moral efficacy could help
guide curriculum development in business ethics and
enhance its effectiveness. For example, recent research
suggests that emotionally rich cases help improve learning
(Thiel et al. 2013).
The significant effect of ethics education on moral
efficacy may have been due in part to the course objective
to develop the students abilities to analyze, develop, and
recommend solutions for ethical problems in business. This
involves practice of their skills in using both the philosophical and psychological elements of the ethical decision-making process. Research on self-efficacy suggests
that incremental mastery experiences can foster efficacious
beliefs (Bandura 2001; Tolli and Schmidt 2008). Student
teams were exposed to separate short written ethics cases
and given a chance to practice their ethical analysis using
the philosophical approaches (e.g., utilitarian, rights, and
virtue approaches). They accomplished these (and received
feedback) before moving on to do a professional ethical
issues paper as an individual assignment which had them
practice analyzing professionally relevant cases using the
philosophical and psychological approaches. After feedback on this assignment, the students progressed to a final
integrative case analysis that used all relevant course
material for the five major course objectives outlined in the
Methods section. Thus, this progressive instruction with
feedback may have been primarily responsible for the
development of students moral efficacy, yet more research
still needs to be conducted to determine what method may
123
consideration of how to deal with opposition, and whistleblowing steps) all contributed to the development of
willingness to be courageous.
Future researchers may explore how an individuals
ability to simultaneously express individuation and
involvement with the collective (Worline 2012) influences
morally courageous expressions in the workplace. Such
research could examine whether business ethics education
could train employees on how to strike that balance through
longitudinal analyses of successful expressions of moral
concern at work.
Future research that considers the theoretical relations
among moral courage and moral efficacy and moral
meaningfulness is also needed. As Hannah et al. (2011a)
have posited, the belief in ones abilities to recognize,
analyze, and develop solutions for ethical problems is
likely a determinant of actual intentions to act in a morally
courageous manner. In addition, moral meaningfulness
should directly influence the motivation to engage in such
actions. Individuals with strong convictions are often able
to find great meaning because their values are tied to their
identities and behaviors as individuals. The research here
found these three outcomes to be empirically distinct from
one another with no overarching latent construct through
CFA analyses. Future research should explore their relations in the extant ethical decision-making frameworks in
the field.
Fourth, Felton and Sims (2005) do a nice job of discussing how instructors should consider their targeted
outputs for business ethics courses. As outlined earlier,
the targeted objectives outlined in this studys focal
course were as follows: 1. an awareness of the reasons
why ethics is important in business; 2. an ability to analyze,
develop, and recommend solutions for ethical problems in
business; 3. an ability to recognize common ethical issues
faced by individuals, managers, and organizations in
business; 4. an ability to identify the dimensions of organizations that influence ethical behavior in order to effectively manage ethics in the workplace; and 5. an ability to
describe the approaches that multinationals might use to
manage ethics in an international context. Such objectives
are consistent with other prominent ethics scholars course
goals (e.g., Weber et al. 2008). Broader targets/goals by
some ethics scholars include environmental change or
global business citizenship (Collins 2008; Wood and
Logsdon 2008). Based on the findings of this study, business ethics instructors may wish to consider formally
targeting outcomes related to moral efficacy, moral
meaningfulness, and moral courage in order to achieve
these important positive psychological outcomes.
Fifth, future research should investigate the long-term
effects of ethics education on the enhancement of moral
efficacy, courage, and meaningfulness as well as on student
77
123
78
Conclusion
Overall, this research study and other recent advances in the
field of business ethics education leave the investigators
feeling positive and hopeful in outlook. Research to date
provides evidence that business ethics instructors are able to
not only build students skills in moral recognition and
reasoning, but also increase individuals beliefs in their
abilities to use these skills to grapple with complex moral
issues and to derive and recommend solutions. Instructors
are also able to encourage students to find meaning in
behaving ethically and to develop the courage to come forward even when pressures in organizations dictate otherwise. When occasionally discouraged in our teaching, we
must remind ourselves of the outcomes of this study and
those in the field who can provide the kind of inspiration we
need in our teaching!
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the individuals who
participated in the study.
123
D. R. May et al.
References
Aktouf, O. (1992). Management and theories of organizations in the
1990s: Toward a critical radical humanism. Academy of
Management Review, 17(3), 407431.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6),
14231440.
Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. A. (1985). Business ethics and business school
graduates: A longitudinal study. Akron Business and Economic
Review, 16(Spring), 1317.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 126.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 608618). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bergman, R. (2004). Identity as motivation: Toward a theory of the
moral self. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral
development, self and identity (pp. 2146). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blasi, A. (1999). Emotions and moral motivation. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 29(1), 120.
Blasi, A. (2004). Moral functioning: Moral understanding and
personality. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral
development, self, and identity (pp. 335347). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical
predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927940.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive
organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2012). Introduction: What is
positive about positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship (pp. 114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carlson, P. J., & Burke, F. (1998). Lessons learned from ethics in the
classroom: Exploring student growth in flexibility, complexity,
and comprehension. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11),
11791187.
Carroll, A. B. (2005, Jan/Feb). An ethical education. BizEd, 3640.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000).
Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 835847.
Christensen, L. J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L. P., Hoffman, W. M., &
Carrier, J. (2007). Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in
the Financial Times top 50 global business schools. Journal of
Business Ethics, 73(4), 347368.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, D. (2008). Creating environmental change through business
and society courses. In D. L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.),
Advancing business ethics education: A ethics in practice book
series (pp. 243264). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Comer, D. R., & Vega, G. (Eds.). (2011). Moral courage in
organizations: Doing the right thing at work. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Desplaces, D. E., Melchar, D. E., Beauvais, L. L., & Bosco, S. M.
(2007). The impact of business education on moral judgment
79
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core selfevaluations traitsSelf-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus
of control, and emotional stabilityWith job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(1), 8092.
Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. New York: HarperCollins.
Kidwell, J. M., Stevens, R. E., & Bethke, A. L. (1987). Differences in
ethical perceptions between male and female managers: Myth or
reality. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(6), 489493.
Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2004). A social cognitive approach to
the moral personality. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.),
Moral development, self and identity (pp. 189212). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lau, C. L. L. (2010). A step forward: Ethics education matters!
Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 565584.
Lopez, S. J., OByrne, K. K., & Peterson, S. (2003). Profiling courage.
In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological
assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 185197).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Luthar, H. K., & Karri, R. (2005). Exposure to ethics education and
the perception of linkage between organizational ethical behavior and business outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4),
353368.
MacFarlane, B. (2001). Developing reflective students: Evaluating the
benefits of learning logs within a business ethics programme.
Teaching Business Ethics, 5(4), 375387.
Maddux, J. E. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can.
In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 277287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003).
Developing the moral component of authentic leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247260.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. (2004). The psychological
conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the
engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 1137.
May, D. R., & Luth, M. T. (2013). The effectiveness of ethics
education: A quasi-experimental field study. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 19, 545568.
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic
dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes,
and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 5(3), 294305.
Nelson, J. K., Poms, L. W., & Wolf, P. P. (2012). Developing efficacy
beliefs for ethics and diversity management. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 11(1), 4968.
OFallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the
empirical ethical decision-making literature: 19962003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375413.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles
of job enrichment and other organizational interventions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835852.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In
J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.),
Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp.
1759). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Penn, W. Y., & Collier, B. D. (1985). Current research in moral
development as a decision support system. Journal of Business
Ethics, 4(2), 131138.
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in
working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.
E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 309327). San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc.
Putman, D. (1997). Psychological courage. Philosophy, Psychiatry
and Psychology, 4(1), 111.
123
80
Rasche, A., Gilbert, D. U., & Schedel, I. (2013). Cross-disciplinary
ethics education in MBA programs: Rhetoric or reality. Academy
of Management Learning Education, 12(1), 7185.
Renn, R. W., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1995). The critical psychological
states: An under-represented component in job characteristics
model research. Journal of Management, 21(2), 279304.
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S., & Bebeau, M. (1999). DIT-2:
Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644659.
Schulman, M. (2002). How we become moral: Sources of moral
motivation. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 499512). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Schwoerer, C. E., May, D. R., Hollensbe, E. C., & Mencl, J. (2005).
General and specific self-efficacy in the context of a training
intervention to enhance performance expectancy. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 16(1), 111129.
Sekerka, L. E., Bagozzi, R. P., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring professional moral courage. Journal of
Business Ethics, 89(4), 565579.
Sekerka, L. E., Godwin, L. N., & Charnigo, R. (2012). Use of
balanced experiential inquiry to build ethical strength in the
workplace. Journal of Management Development, 31(3),
275286.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental
and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inferences. Berkeley, CA: Houghton Mifflin.
Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral
reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4),
513540.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2002). Handbook of positive
psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work related
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2),
240261.
Stansbury, J. S., & Sonensheim, S. (2012). Positive business ethics:
Grounding and elaborating a theory of good works. In K.
S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
positive organizational scholarship (pp. 340352). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Swanson, D. L., & Fisher, D. G. (Eds.). (2008). Advancing business
ethics education: A volume in ethics in practice book series.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision
making: Where weve been and where were going. The
Academy of Management Annals, 2, 545607.
123
D. R. May et al.
Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L. D.,
Bagadasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., et al. (2013). Case-based
knowledge and ethics education: Improving learning and transfer
through emotionally rich cases. Science and Engineering Ethics,
19(1), 265286.
Tolli, A. P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, causal
attributions, and self-efficacy in goal revision. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(3), 692701.
Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral
ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management,
32(6), 951990.
Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford,
M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics
instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 133151.
Weber, J. (1990). Measuring the impact of teaching ethics to future
managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(3), 183190.
Weber, J., Gerde, V., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2008). A blueprint for
designing an ethics program in an academic setting. In D.
L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.), Advancing business ethics
education: A ethics in practice book series (pp. 85101).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Weber, J., & Glyptis, S. M. (2000). Measuring the impact of a
business ethics course and community service experience on
students values and opinions. Teaching Business Ethics, 4(4),
341358.
Williams, S. D., & Dewett, T. (2005). Yes, you can teach business
ethics: A review and research agenda. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 12(2), 109120.
Wood, D. J., & Logsdon, J. M. (2008). Educating managers for global
business citizenship. In D. L. Swanson & D. G. Fisher (Eds.),
Advancing business ethics education: A ethics in practice book
series (pp. 265284). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Worline, M. C. (2012). Courage in organizations: An integrative
review of the difficult virtue. In K. S. Cameron & G.
M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 304315). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning
employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of
Management Review, 26(2), 179201.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997).
Jobs, careers, and callings: Peoples relations to their work.
Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 2133.
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic
relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels
of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(5), 10881101.
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.