business ethics training: insights from learning theory
TRANSCRIPT
Business Ethics Training: Insights
from Learning Theory John A. Weber
ABSTRACT. This paper explores research in educa-
tional psychology and learning theory in a search for in-
sights to enhance business ethics training Useful
educational principles uncovered are then applied to the
development of an ethics training initiative for sales
professionals. The paper concludes with suggestions for
future research to help enrich business ethics training.
KEY WORDS: business ethics, business ethics training,
ethical decision-making, facilitator–participant interac-
tion, inductive learning, self-discovery, selling ethics,
unethical selling behavior
Introduction
We are living through an unprecedented explosion
in knowledge and technology. Accompanying that
phenomenon is the evolution of evermore complex
economic, social and political issues. Within this
environment, the range of moral business challenges
is constantly expanding. To operate effectively in
this dynamic environment, business leaders today
need to think and react with more overt awareness
of the moral issues surrounding everyday business
decisions.
Unfortunately, recent years have witnessed a
proliferation of well-publicized corporate scandals in
which morality has been clearly compromised in
highly visible, wide-ranging business decisions. This
has tarnished the reputation of the corporate world
in general. As a result, projecting an image of
integrity has become a more important concern for
many companies. To portray such an image, cor-
porations are actively seeking vehicles for both
enhancing and publicizing integrity in their dealings
with internal and external stakeholders, including
customers, suppliers, partners, investors and others.
To accomplish this, farsighted companies commit-
ted to integrity are appointing integrity officers,
developing or refining codes of corporate conduct,
issuing integrity directives to all employees, and
launching training programs to help ensure that a
commitment to ethical conduct is taken seriously at
all levels in their companies.
This paper focuses on corporate ethics training.
Borrowing from research on educational psychology
and learning theory, the paper explores for insights
that may help companies to enhance ethics training.
Educational principles uncovered are then applied to
the development of an ethics training initiative for
sales professionals.
Designing business ethics training
Formal business ethics training, often mandatory, is
now common in companies around the globe.
Ethics training can also occur less formally through
publicizing ethics policies and codes and encourag-
ing all employees to carefully review ethics hand-
books and related videotapes. Online assistance and
ethics newsletters have also become common ethics
training supplements. Research suggests that business
ethics training can positively influence ethical
behavior in the workplace (Ferrell et al., 2002;
National Business Ethics Survey, 2000).1
Goals of business ethics training
Many business ethics experts suggest that Kohlberg’s
theory of ‘cognitive moral development’ provides
useful perspectives for identifying appropriate goals
for business ethics initiatives, including ethics train-
ing programs (Kohlberg, 1969; Murphy andJohn A. Weber, PhD, University of Wisconsin, is Associate
Professor of Marketing at the University of Notre Dame.
Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 70:61–85 � Springer 2006DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9083-8
Laczniak, 2005; Narvaez and Rest 1995; Ferrell et al
2002). The inference of Kohlberg’s model for
business ethics is that some managers are less
sophisticated than others in terms of the consider-
ations they bring to bear on business decisions with
potential moral consequences. Managers at the low
end of the cognitive moral development spectrum
(Kohlberg suggests six ‘stages’) tend to make moral
judgments as to what is ‘right’ based primarily upon
egoistic self-interest. Managers at higher levels of
moral development take more factors into consid-
eration in determining what is right – factors such as
potential impact on others, both inside and outside
of their immediate corporate environment.
The theory suggests that values, ethical sophisti-
cation and related ethical behavior of managers can
advance over time with maturity, experience and
education. Ethics training can play an important role
in that moral maturation process. For business
researchers, as well as those charged with designing
corporate ethics initiatives, the critical question be-
comes whether measures of individual cognitive
moral development are good predictors of ethical
behavior in a business organization. Most experts do
agree that an individual’s cognitive moral develop-
ment does indeed play a role in how his or her values
and actions are shaped in the workplace (Ferrell
et al., 2002). We move forward making that
assumption. Therefore, to the degree that one
accepts Kohlberg’s theory, a reasonable operational
goal of corporate ethics training initiatives is to help
individual managers move out on the cognitive
moral development spectrum – taking more ‘other-
oriented’ factors into consideration in determining
what is ‘right.’ That progression should, in turn,
enhance the ethical business behavior of affected
managers by stimulating them to go well beyond
self-interest when making business decisions that
have moral implications.
Insights from learning theory for designing
and implementing business ethics training
Assuming the goal described above (i.e., stimulating
managers to become more ‘other-oriented’ when
making business choices having potential moral
implications), the challenge is to design more
effective initiatives for accomplishing that goal.
Many ethics training programs, like other edu-
cational programs, tend to rely on sequential, verbal
presentations, combined with private reading and
writing activities. Participants’ learning can be lim-
ited by this narrow training approach. The loss of
opportunities to engage participants from a variety of
orientations is an obvious flaw, given the possibility
of diverse backgrounds and points of view. Lack of
motivation, resistance, misperceptions, failure, and
uninspired intellectual involvement can result from
many participants simply not being able to learn well
within the limited orientation provided them using
traditional pedagogy (ISU, 2003).
Research in learning styles offers useful insights
for enhancing corporate ethics training programs.
This research is drawn from studies about the
psychological, social, and physiological dimensions
of the educational process (ISU, 2003). While many
of the mechanisms by which people learn are still
unknown to us, learning research has yielded a range
of working principles that can help design educa-
tional environments, materials, and pedagogy for
learning more effectively. In fact, as considered be-
low, learning theory and related educational psy-
chology research can provide many useful insights
for designing business ethics training initiatives that
can help to move participants out on the moral
development continuum, thereby becoming more
ethical when addressing the moral dilemma often
present in business decisions. Consider the following
relevant findings and related suggestions.
Combine pedagogical approaches and use flexible physical
settings
Each individual has a unique approach that is used to
perceive, understand, and plan his or her inter-
actions. One’s personal way of learning can be
described as one’s ‘learning style.’ The aim of
learning style research is to find clusters of people
who use similar patterns for perceiving and inter-
preting situations. Based on this information, one
can adjust educational environments and pedagogy
to make accomplishing a learning objective more
efficient and successful (ISU, 2003).
For example, ‘auditory learners’ tend to learn best
in lecture settings. ‘Private learners’ gain knowledge
more effectively from quiet reading. These are but
two of a broad array of potential pedagogical ap-
proaches found to be most effective among a full range
62 John A. Weber
of intellectually capable people. Where one rates
along Myers – Briggs Type Indicators (extroverts/
introverts, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and
judging/perceiving) indicates one’s tendencies in
attitudes toward engaging the world and can make it
difficult to be successful when limited to pedagogical
activities that are not compatible with one’s individual
personality traits and related attitudes (Quenk, 2000).
Therefore, when the learning experience is limited to
a single approach (e.g., lecture), targeted learners who
benefit more from other styles tend to be less suc-
cessful. So too, any physical limitations of ‘classroom
flexibility’ in which the educational experience takes
place can inhibit one or more clusters of students
whose preferred styles are impacted by those physical
limitations (e.g., no or limited technology, no easy
accommodation for group discussions, etc.). Using
singular pedagogical approaches or physically limited
settings risks wrongfully attributing non-optimal edu-
cational achievement to low ability or low motivation.
Reflecting the above observations, variances in
personality traits call for variety in both pedagogy
and classroom setting. Among other potential strat-
egies, adding variety might be accomplished by:
varying facilitator-participant roles and interaction
(more on this below); using both small and large
group discussions; discussing a wide variety of ethical
dilemma in real life business situations; developing
and using a variety of fundamentally different ap-
proaches in the cases (see discussion and examples of
different case types in the sample ethics training
initiative for sales professionals reviewed below);
setting up a flexible physical classroom environment,
suitable for effectively using different pedagogical
approaches in a single session (e.g., lecturing, dis-
cussion groups, role playing, and other approaches);
and providing a variety of supporting materials such
as video tapes, streaming video, and well-organized,
written supplements (for example, a supplement on
business ethics and the law or other structured
material that may help private learners better
accomplish program goals).
Leverage organizational influences
Business ethics decision-making within a company
does not rely strictly on the moral development
of individual employees. Research shows that indi-
vidual choices when facing ethical business
dilemma reflect not only individual value judgments
(cognitive moral development), but also one’s
understanding of acceptable patterns of behavior in a
given corporate environment (Ferrell et al., 2002).
Therefore, companies having their own values or
‘ethical conscience’ (codified or not) are encouraged
to promulgate those values (and the company’s
‘moral stance’ on ethical business dilemma in gen-
eral) as an integral and important component of
formal business ethics training. By making employ-
ees more overtly aware of the company’s stance on
moral values, a company can exert significant
influence on business ethics decision-making
throughout the organization.
Reflecting this important phenomenon, company
sponsored ethics training initiatives with imbedded
organizational reinforcement (e.g., review of the com-
pany’s code of conduct) offer opportunities not only
to build awareness of the company’s moral values and
commitment to integrity, but also to significantly
influence the criteria which individual managers and
other employees will subsequently use when evalu-
ating business choices having moral ramifications.
Use group discussions
Research indicates that, in addition to individual
cognitive moral development, perceived ethicalness
of one’s peer group and superiors may also exert
considerable influence on ethical behavior of indi-
vidual managers (Fraedrich et al., 1994; Ferrell et al.,
2002). Given these collective forces influencing
moral choices in real world situations, it makes sense
to train in a collective environment – including
active discussions with subsets of peers and man-
agement colleagues. This supports incorporating
group discussions as an important pedagogical
component in business ethics training. Both large
and small group discussions can be appropriate. For
example, small sub-groups can be effective for pro-
viding each individual manager ample stimulus and
opportunity for engagement, while larger groups can
be effective for reporting the learning and progress of
sub-group discussions.
Furthermore, randomly forming subgroups of
participants for discussion purposes will yield dis-
cussions among individuals at different stages of
cognitive moral development. This helps to ensure
that all discussants are exposed to the views of peers
and others at higher and lower levels of cognitive
moral development.
Business Ethics Training 63
Discuss real life situations (e.g., Business ethics cases)
Research verifies that experience in resolving real
moral conflicts accelerates progress in moral devel-
opment (Ferrell et al., 2002; Zion et al., 2004). This
argues for including discussions of real business
ethical dilemma cases as a centerpiece of business
ethics training. Discussions of ethical choice dilemma
in real business situations provide a particularly
effective vehicle for stimulating the critical and
reflective thinking that is essential for moving for-
ward toward the goal of moral development (Ferrell
et al., 2002; Zion et al., 2004). As discussed below,
discussions of real cases are particularly effective
when overlaid with inductive learning pedagogy.
Integrate stakeholder analysis
A stakeholder is any individual or group that can
affect or be affected by a relevant decision. From a
corporate interest point of view (that is, going be-
yond ethics per se), companies find it helpful to
distinguish among more important and less impor-
tant stakeholders in terms of their potential impact
(positive or negative) on the company and its per-
formance. Typical corporate stakeholders might in-
clude stockholders, managers, peers, other
employees, suppliers, customers, family, friends,
industry groups, host communities, and other par-
ties. Since most stakeholder groups can potentially
affect a company’s business for better or worse, it is
no accident that more and more companies are
accepting the stakeholder concept and are develop-
ing pro-active strategies for important stakeholder
groups (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2003; Murphy and
Laczniak, 2005). To implement this ‘stakeholder
analysis’ and related strategies, a company might take
steps such as: identifying more important stake-
holders and the company’s responsibilities to each;
identifying potential opportunities or conflicts with
each stakeholder group; and developing and imple-
menting creative, pro-active strategies for taking
advantage of opportunities and eliminating potential
conflicts with each stakeholder group.
While this approach to ‘stakeholder analysis’ is
driven by corporate self-interest, a commitment to
such analysis can directly support both company and
individual commitments to higher integrity in
decision-making. That is, the ultimate results of
committing to move out on the moral development
continuum are similar to the results of proactive
stakeholder strategies because both focus on taking
others into more careful consideration when making
business choices. At the extreme positive end of the
moral development continuum, the difference be-
tween ‘‘ethical stakeholder analysis’’ and ‘‘corporate
stakeholder analysis’’ is that in the former analysis, all
stakeholders should receive equal consideration,
regardless of relative potential impact (positive or
negative) on the company and its performance.
One effective way to use stakeholder analysis in
business ethics training is to pose specific business
ethics dilemma (e.g., in short case format) and then
ask participants to identify and discuss how alterna-
tive choices might potentially impact different
stakeholder groups. (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2003;
Weber, 2003). This approach offers an opportunity
to stimulate participating managers to draw from
their previous experience. In doing so, they can
provide specific, explicit examples of negative
business, professional or personal impacts that can
result from ignoring certain stakeholder groups
when making business choices. The over-riding
lesson should be clear to participants – not consid-
ering others can be bad for company business and
can also negatively impact one’s professional career
and personal life.
Positive potential lessons to be drawn from
stakeholder analysis are even more important. The
discussions of stakeholder impacts should also bring
to the floor examples and general recognition of
how considering others when making difficult moral
choices can engender the trust and confidence of
relevant stakeholder groups. That trust and confi-
dence, in turn, can yield significant long-term div-
idends for one’s business, career, and personal life.
In sum, stakeholder analysis discussions provide a
good opportunity for managers to realize that
becoming more ‘other-oriented’ in evaluating
alternatives (i.e., moving out on the cognitive moral
development continuum) makes good sense from
both business and personal points of view.
Assign participants an active role in designing the inquiry
and reporting results
When facilitators provide participants with full
instructions concerning the procedure of an inquiry,
and provide minimal opportunity for the participants
64 John A. Weber
to help design how the inquiry will be undertaken,
participants often fail to achieve the goal of the in-
quiry. This argues for allowing participants in busi-
ness ethics training programs to help select: which
specific ethical business issues to consider (i.e., which
cases); which case types to emphasize (see discussion
of alternative types of cases in the application
example below); how to break out and set up the
small discussion groups; and the order and method to
be used for debriefing (Champagne et al., 1985;
Tamir et al., 1998; Gott and Duggan, 1996; Zion
and Slezak, 2005).
For example, one method proven to be effective
in stimulating learner involvement is to let learners
pose questions for conducting the relevant inquiry
(Zion et al., 2004). Research suggests that higher
interest and involvement in study group discussions
can be stimulated by encouraging participants, in
smaller sub-groups, to develop and discuss questions
to help the overall study group explore the phe-
nomenon under question. For business ethics train-
ing, this might involve discussion of real life business
ethics cases, where sub-groups develop and discuss
questions for exploring the integrity of any moral
dilemma perceived to be potentially relevant in the
cases. Higher interest and involvement occur be-
cause formulating and discussing these questions
requires participants to think of the logic connecting
questions to the moral dilemma, connecting ques-
tions to other questions, and connecting the ques-
tions to the learning internalized from previous,
similar case discussions. Interest and involvement can
be further stimulated by having selected sub-groups
of participants bring questions and discussion sum-
maries to the floor for the whole group to hear and
discuss (Zion et al., 2004).
Use inductive learning
Inductive learning is essentially learning by example.
Learners reach their own conclusions based upon
observations of specific instances (Chalmers, 1976;
Eysenck, 1990; University of Alberta, 2005). An old
adage states: ‘‘Tell me and I forget, show me and I
remember, involve me and I understand’’ (Benjamin
Franklin, 1706–1790). The last part of this statement
is the essence of inductive learning. This approach
makes the participant a partner in learning, thereby
providing a more challenging, satisfying and effec-
tive opportunity for enriching participant under-
standing (Windschitl, 2003). While additional
research opportunities (considered later) are available
to further enhance our understanding of how
inductive learning works to change attitudes and
behavior, evidence to date suggests that this ap-
proach can provide a particularly challenging, satis-
fying and productive learning experience for
participants and facilitators alike (Keys and Bryan,
2001; Windschitl, 2003; Cobb, 1994; Zion and
Slezak, 2005).2
Centering business ethics training about inductive
learning principles represents a particularly attractive
pedagogy for attempting to move individual man-
agers forward along the cognitive moral development
continuum (our assumed goal). To accomplish this,
ethical guidelines, procedures, codes, etc. are not
handed down for discussion and internalization.
Rather, ethical dilemmas are posed in the form of real
business ethics cases. Participating managers become
actively involved in the learning process through
small group discussions of the cases. Case questions
and related discussions are carefully designed and
facilitated with the intent of having participants move
from specific facts and observations to inferences – in
this instance, hopefully self-concluding that it makes
sense to use richer perspectives (than previously used
by the individual) to evaluate alternative potential
choices when facing ethical dilemma (Joyce and
Weil, 1986; Zion and Slezak, 2005).
Using a small group case discussion environment
such as that described above, and attending to the
suggestions below regarding ‘effective facilitation,’
comprise the keys to effective application of induc-
tive learning principles to business ethics training, as
described here. The peer group discussions of real
life ethical dilemma are used to stimulate individual
moral development through self-discovery. For the
individual manager, the breadth and depth of the
self-discovery suggests the breadth and depth of
cognitive moral development that occurs. Exactly
how this transformation occurs becomes more
transparent in the application below (example of an
ethics training initiative for sales professionals).
Participants’ active role in inductive learning
The inductive learning approach described above
involves complex role changes for facilitators and
participants, redistributing the responsibility of
learning to participants (Osborne, 1996; Polman and
Business Ethics Training 65
Pea, 2001; White, 1988). The participant’s role
changes from passive recipient to active, constructive
contributor to the moral enhancement process. The
depth of participant transformation (i.e., enhanced
moral development) achieved through the inquiry
process described depends upon factors such as:
intrinsic motivation for learning, the ability to
internalize the process, openness to the experience,
and flexibility in the specific learning activities
(Watson et al,. 1999; Skager, 1984). Thus, each of
these factors should be encouraged and facilitated.
Participants tend to enjoy learning more using this
approach, at least partially because they believe that
they learn best when they play an active part in their
own learning. Thus, it makes sense to provide a
learning environment and process that encourages
participants to assume more responsibility for their
own learning (Woolnough et al., 1999).
Facilitator’s subtle role in inductive learning
Effective facilitation is a necessary ingredient for
successful inductive learning in ethics training pro-
grams. Indeed, while likelihood of goal achievement
is enhanced by good training materials and by a
well-thought-out program design, informed and
well-prepared facilitation is critical for success. Con-
siderable research has been done to sort out the factors
that most differentiate more effective from less
effective group facilitation. While this research has not
focused on facilitating corporate ethics training per se,
the principles uncovered are relevant for this discus-
sion. Among the most relevant research findings on
facilitation for purposes here are the following.
For an effective inductive learning experience in
the type of group discussions outlined and recom-
mended above, the facilitator guides, focuses, chal-
lenges, and encourages participant learning, while
simultaneously working together with participants as
a learning team. In fact, research has shown that it is
the interaction, between the facilitator and the par-
ticipants, which best promotes successful inductive
learning (Zion and Slezak, 2005). The cooperative
process creates a learning community of facilitator
plus participants, functioning in association with
each other to move forward toward learning goal
achievement. For example, because of the wide-
range of dynamic business ethical dilemma that may
come to light in a group discussion with managers,
the facilitator may not be equally familiar with the
full range of dimensions of all these dilemmas. To
the extent that any moral business dilemma is not
familiar to the facilitator, the facilitator can acquire
new perspectives along with the participants. This
emphasizes that the most significant role of the
facilitator is guiding, and not functioning as the
exclusive source of knowledge (Bolhuis and Voeten
2001; NRC, 2000; Zion and Slezak, 2005).
Instead of explaining, demonstrating, and cor-
recting, the more effective facilitator emphasizes
guiding participants’ active, inductive learning pro-
cess (Lunenberg and Volman, 1999; Rossman,
1993). The facilitator focuses, challenges, and
encourages participant self-learning, while acting as
motivator, innovator, and mentor. In the affective
domain, a good facilitator displays flexibility and
actively encourages individual and small team crea-
tivity, originality, and initiative. The facilitator is
enthusiastic and is actively encouraging to impart
confidence in all participants. Reflecting this set of
desirable traits, better facilitators are effective at:
– encouraging participants to analyze and mod-
ify their views as a result of insights gained
from others in group discussions (Zion and
Slezak, 2005);
– encouraging participant critical thinking and
inquiry skills (for example, critical thinking is
likely to emerge when a facilitator encourages
participants to consider why their individual
views vary from views of others regarding the
morality of specific business choice alternatives);
– supporting development of participant self-con-
fidence by encouraging small participant groups
to be independent in managing their discussions
and in arriving at conclusions, while simulta-
neously encouraging individual creativity; and
– establishing a timetable and stages along the
inductive learning process, including a
planned close and logical wrap-up, where
participants are encouraged to help evaluate
their own progress toward learning goals
(American Association for the Advancement
of Science Project 2061, 1993; Crawford,
2000; Osborne and Freyberg, 1983; NRC,
2000; Zion and Slezak, 2005).
The effective facilitator also challenges participants
to identify their own personal code of selling
66 John A. Weber
conduct, including assessment of specific changes in
their personal code resulting directly from the ethics
training experience. Finally, the facilitator provides
an effective training session wrap-up. The wrap-up
should include post-session measurement (see
below) and related discussion of personal progress
in moral development. The wrap-up should also
include personal time for contemplating and devel-
oping a concrete plan for continuing moral
enhancement of individual attitudes and planned
business behavior well beyond the time frame of the
training session.
Transparently measure and share before-after results
Developing and using innovative methods for
quickly and transparently measuring progress made
through a business ethics training program can have
several important benefits. For program designers
and facilitators, the benefits are readily apparent.
Before-after monitoring provides immediate feed-
back and perspectives on the effectiveness of the
program and its various components in moving the
participants morally forward (as a group and indi-
vidually). This is important input for improving the
training over time.
Well-thought-out, immediate and transparent
before-after measures also help participants. ‘Before
measures’ can stimulate initial participant interest by
providing a brief overview of the types of ethical
business dilemma that will be discussed. Before
measures also provide an opportunity for each par-
ticipant to quickly register one’s ‘before’ views on
sample ethical issues that will be addressed.
The program design should also include an up-
front promise to take ‘after measures’ and a promise
to openly review those measures and their inferred
results (individual and group) near the conclusion of
the program. The promise of the post-program open
review of results puts the designers’ and facilitators’
reputations squarely on the line for participants right
from the start, thus building initial credibility in the
program and enhancing the probability of participant
buy-in from the very beginning. The ‘after measure’
results are immediately tabulated (participants
themselves can help with this – another opportunity
for involvement). The ‘after measures’ are compared
with the ‘before measure’ results (for the group as a
whole and for individuals). Participants are encour-
aged to help evaluate the meaning of the results for
the group as a whole and for each individual.
Assuming moral progress has been made during the
program, reviewing and discussing ‘after measure’
results can build take-away credibility and enthusi-
asm among participants.
Training wrap-up
A logical wrap-up for a business ethics training
program such as that described here is for the facil-
itator to challenge participants to assess specific
changes that may have occurred in their ‘personal
code of conduct’ resulting directly from the training
experience and to encourage an open discussion of
that personal progress in moral development. Par-
ticipants are then allowed personal time (10–
15 minutes) for contemplating and developing a
concrete plan for continuing moral enhancement of
individual attitudes and planned business behavior
once leaving the training session. A few willing
participants are encouraged to share their plan with
the overall group, thereby stimulating discussion of
ideas that others may choose to emulate.
As the session concludes, the superior(s) spon-
soring the training initiative should overview for the
group whatever follow-up reinforcement materials
and strategies are available to help participants to
continue their moral development as they return to
their everyday work environments. For example, a
program may be instituted and launched to period-
ically seek feedback from participants on personal
application of lessons learned as new ethical dilemma
emerge in day-to-day business operations after the
program. These favorable experiences (de-personal-
ized) may be related to other employees through
summaries in the company’s regular ‘Ethics News-
letter.’ Periodic follow-up on discussion sessions
may also be arranged for considering old and new
ethical challenges with business colleagues. A natural
close is to stimulate participants themselves to
become active sponsors of the program, encouraging
peers and superiors to participate in the same ethics
training they themselves have just experienced.
Example: an ethics training initiative
for sales professionals
Described below are proposed key components of
an ethics training initiative for sales professionals.
Business Ethics Training 67
The design applies the learning principles reviewed
above.
Why ethics training for sales professionals?
Since the sales force most directly connects the
company and the customer, the relationship be-
tween the sales person and the customer offers each
company an important potential opportunity to
demonstrate a commitment to integrity. Unfortu-
nately, however, this key relationship between
company and customer has been compromised in
many ways. The selling profession in general has
long been plagued with rampant criticisms for mal-
intention, manipulation, fraud, lying, and generally
compromised behavior. Whether or not justified,
sales persons and professional selling have been
heavily and regularly criticized by the public at large.
The negative perceptions and negative stereo-typing
of sales persons have resulted from anecdotal stories
of flagrant sales abuse in selected industries. Uneth-
ical selling behavior gains further exposure and
credence from stories of alleged selling abuse regu-
larly appearing in newspaper reports and evening
news stories, from multiple horror stories of friends
and colleagues and, perhaps above all, from one’s
own unsatisfactory personal experiences with sales
persons in everyday life.
Overall, the sales person suffers from a general
image as one who is too willing to compromise
integrity for company or personal gain. This sullied
reputation in the primary link between the company
and the customer is hardly a formula for building an
overall image of corporate integrity. The goal here is
to apply the learning principles reviewed above in an
effort to design a training program that can help a
company to enhance the morality of everyday selling
decisions. This, in turn, can potentially help com-
panies to witness a culture of integrity.
Targeting the sales force for ethics training
through application of the principles outlined above
seems appropriate for several reasons. First, sales
professionals, in general, currently have an ethically
compromised reputation among many constituen-
cies for multiple forms of documented unethical
behavior. Second, positive changes in the ethical
behavior and reputation of a company’s sales force
would be highly visible to many important business
constituencies. A final reason for attempting to apply
the principles above for the ethics training for the
sales force is because sales professionals represent a
particularly challenging group to influence (Izzo,
2000) – thus providing a good ‘test’ for applying
those principles.
Warmup exercise & before-after measures
To stimulate initial interest of an overall group of
sales professionals, a sales ethics training initiative
might begin by having all participants take a short
‘quiz,’ such as the one appearing in Exhibit One.
That particular quiz asks each participant to rate the
degree to which he or she feels each compactly
described selling practice compromises integrity (or,
is ‘ethical’ or ‘unethical’). The participants are made
aware that at the end of the session (ideally, several
hours), they will be asked to retake the same quiz.
Participating sales persons are also informed that
the before/after results will be used to provide
immediate feedback on whether or not and to what
degree moral development has occurred for partic-
ipants, individually and as a group.
Description – Integrating Learning Principles into the
Selling Ethics Training Initiative
Active small group discussions of selling ethics cases
form the heart of selling ethics training initiative
outlined here. Participants assign themselves to small
sub-groups to explore the ethical dimensions of the
specific cases under question (actual or prospective
compromised selling behavior). The case discussion
approach provides participants with a feeling of
satisfaction by providing a stimulating, thought
provoking, reflective environment for critically
thinking about and deciphering wide ranging,
everyday moral selling choices. To encourage
interest, involvement, and learning, the facilitator
provides a very flexible case discussion format and
actively encourages creativity and ‘out-of-the-box’
thinking by the small groups and individuals.
To implement this case discussion approach,
immediately following the introductory exercise (i.e.,
the quiz – Exhibit One), the facilitator asks partici-
pants to break into small sub-groups (4–5 is ideal) and
68 John A. Weber
provides a brief overview (one line summaries pro-
vided – e.g., see Exhibit One) of several potential
‘integrity in selling’ cases. The participants select cases
that are of greatest interest to the group as a whole.
After distributing the initial short case, the facili-
tator allows a few minutes for the participants to
review the case. The facilitator then subtly intro-
duces questions that provide clues to help partici-
pants identify the multiple potential moral
ramifications that can be involved in what, at first,
may seem to be straight-forward selling decisions. In
the case discussions, individual participant’s initial
views are informed and enriched by the views of
others within the small group setting. Causal rela-
tionships, stimulated by specific case questions, are
discussed. Moral development begin to occur as
views emerge regarding what criteria are felt (indi-
vidually and by the small groups) to be most
important for determining whether or not a specific
selling practice crosses self-set or group-set ‘ethical
boundaries.’
Depending upon the time available in the session,
two, three or more cases and related discussions
follow.
After each small group case discussion of twenty
to thirty minutes (time allowed depends upon the
complexity of the issue and how the case is formu-
lated – see different types of cases, immediately
below), the facilitator pulls the overall group
together and asks each small group to report on their
deliberations. The facilitator mines for both majority
and minority views as each small group reports.
Divergent thinking and answers or views are
encouraged and nurtured as participants recognize
early on that few moral selling issues have one ‘right’
answer. If any small group or any individual has
come up with a particularly creative alternative(s) to
the would-be compromised selling behavior, the
facilitator lauds such initiatives – thereby hoping to
encourage similar thinking by all participants in the
discussion of all subsequent cases.
In the wrap-up before going to the next case, the
facilitator is careful to summarize only what was
specifically heard from and agreed to by the various
small groups. If important factors have been over-
looked by all of the small groups in the group
de-brief of the first case, the facilitator has the option
of hinting that participants may want to consider
Heather’s
Career
ProfessionalFriends
H.C Hunt’s Reputation
Sales Staff
Ron Blakenship
VP of Sales
Partners
Reputation of the
Industry
Supplier Relationships
Regulations
DistributorRelationships
Customer Relationships
Competitors
Reputation and Credibility of Profession
Stakeholder Impact Chain for
“Golfing for Dollars” Case
The Pep Guys
Jeff Snyder
HIGHLY AFFECTED
MODERATELY AFFECTED
LEAST AFFECTED
Customer
Exhibit One
Business Ethics Training 69
additional specific factors in their discussions of
subsequent cases (e.g., expand stakeholder analysis;
search for creative alternatives; etc.)
The overall group then helps to select the next
‘integrity in selling case’ from a number of available
alternatives and the same small groups are sent off to
discuss that next case. After another twenty to thirty
minute small group discussion, the small groups again
report back to the overall group. In the debriefing
following the second and subsequent cases, in addition
to repeating the process described above for debriefing
the initial case, individuals participants are encouraged
to try to begin formulating more clear explanations,
conclusions, and generalizations regarding what, to
each individual, is and is not morally acceptable selling
behavior. Again, the facilitator praises (and thus
encourages) creative alternatives mentioned by
groups and individuals – particularly those that clearly
resolve any potential moral selling dilemma without
any business compromise.
After the third case discussion, individual partic-
ipants are also asked to report any changes they may
be observing in their own personal attitudes
regarding what is and is not morally acceptable
selling behavior. Where change is acknowledged,
the facilitator searches for explanations, asking rele-
vant individuals to try to decipher why the change
seems to be occurring. For example, have the
opinions expressed by colleagues in the small or large
group discussions come into play? Has using stake-
holder analysis stimulated changing personal atti-
tudes regarding how one determines what is
‘acceptable’ moral behavior? Have opinions heard
from any superiors present influenced change? Has
the search for creative alternatives turned up good
alternatives (i.e., alternatives clearly resolve any po-
tential moral selling dilemma without any business
compromise) consistently enough to convince one
to think things out before jumping in response to
predisposed attitudes?
As the overall session nears conclusion, the partic-
ipants retake the ‘quiz’ (Exhibit One) taken as the
‘warm-up’ exercise at the beginning of the session.
The ‘after measure’ results are immediately tabulated
with the help of participants, thus providing another
opportunity for involvement. The ‘after measure’ re-
sults are compared with the ‘before measure’ results for
the group as a whole and for individuals. Participants
are encouraged to help evaluate the meaning of the
results for the group as a whole and for each individ-
ually. As part of the discussion and interpretation of the
results, the facilitator challenges participants to assess
specific changes that may have occurred in their
individual ‘personal codes of selling conduct’ resulting
directly from the training experience. This should
stimulate an open discussion of personal progress in
moral development. Participants are then allowed
personal time (10-15 minutes) for contemplating and
developing a concrete plan for continuing moral
enhancement of individual attitudes and planned
selling behavior once leaving the training session. A
couple of willing participants are encouraged to share
and discuss their plan with the overall group.
As the session concludes, the superior(s) spon-
soring the training program overviews for the group
whatever follow-up reinforcement materials and
strategies are available to help participants to con-
tinue their moral development as they return to their
everyday work environments. The superior and
facilitator close the session by encouraging partici-
pants themselves to consider becoming active
sponsors of the program, stimulating peers and
superiors to participate in the same ethics training
they themselves have just experienced.
Case materials – various types of selling cases
In the case set for enhancing moral development
among sales professionals, various types of selling
cases should be included in order to add variety and
interest and to help enrich learning.3 For example,
some cases might end leaving the participants facing
selling choices, reflecting moral selling dilemma and
asking participants to brainstorm for alternatives.
Other cases might have dual-endings, with the first
ending taking participants only up to the decision
point and the second ending assuming some moral
compromise has already occurred. Most cases
should ask participants to consider developing a
‘Stakeholder Impact Chain’ to help sort out con-
sequences as part of the moral reflection on specific
selling practices (for example, see the Stakeholder
Impact Chain in the Mock Case Discussion
Example in the Appendix I). Some cases might
include a single selling moral dilemma while
others include several more complex, inter-related
dilemma.
72 John A. Weber
This mix and variety of case types makes case
discussions more interesting for participants and
helps to enliven and enrich the case discussions.
Furthermore, should a company, a facilitator, or
participant groups favor cases taking a particular
approach (e.g., open-ended cases, leaving the deci-
sion to participants), the overall group is free to se-
lect those types of cases for group discussion.
Sales management cases
One can realistically assume that some current or
prospective sales managers, as well as currently active
sales professionals, may be involved in the ethics
training program for sales professionals. Since sales
managers face their own set of moral temptations
when dealing with customers and with the sales
force itself, the available case set should also include
cases focusing specifically on ethical dilemma likely
to be faced by sales managers. This broadens the
relevance of the overall training initiative.
Lessons learned: Revisiting learning
principles applied in the business ethics
training program described above
Here we review how the recommended ethics
training components described earlier are integrated
into the proposed ethics training initiative for sales
professionals.
Integrating variety
Variety is used to waylay potential lack of motiva-
tion, resistance, misperceptions, failure, and unin-
spired intellectual involvement of participants.
Variety is built into the ethics training initiative for
sales professionals described above in several ways.
First, small group breakouts as well as overall group
discussions are used. Facilitator wrap-ups and de-
briefs are also included. The cases also vary signifi-
cantly. Some cases involve clear ethical compro-
mises. Some take the participant only up to the point
where a decision has to be made, and then ask the
participant to make and justify his or her choice.
Some ask participants for opinions on dual endings/
choices. Cases also vary by industry, by product and
service, and by stage of the selling cycle. Some cases
focus on ethical dilemma faced specifically by sales
management, rather than by the sales professionals.
By catering to the different types of learning styles
that may be represented in the overall group,
building in variety helps to enhance relevance for
most participants. Furthermore, a flexible physical
learning environment can further aid the learning
process (e.g., movable seating, tables, partitions; use
of breakout rooms, etc.).
Leveraging organizational influences
If a company sponsoring the ethics sales training
initiative has taken a ‘moral stance’ (codified or not)
on certain selling practices, that stance is likely to
come to the floor during some of the small group
discussions. Furthermore, if the company has a for-
mal written code of selling conduct, then near the
close of the program, that code of conduct should be
explicitly introduced and discussed – in the context
of individual and group findings about morality that
have emanated from the program in general. By
making employees more overtly aware of the com-
pany’s stance on moral values, a company can rein-
force the progress made by the training experience.
Emphasizing group discussions
Active small group discussions of selling ethics cases
with subsets of peers and superiors is an important
component of the selling ethics training approach
described above. Randomly forming the subgroups
yields discussions among individuals at different
stages of cognitive moral development. This helps to
ensure that all discussants are exposed to the views of
peers and superiors at higher levels of cognitive
moral development. Also, the breakout into small
sub-groups provides individual participants ample
stimulus and opportunity for engagement, while the
case de-briefings held with the overall larger group
encourage both sharing and reinforcement of indi-
vidual learning at the sub-group level.
Focusing on real life ethical selling dilemma
Real ‘integrity in selling’ cases are the centerpiece of
the ethics sales training initiative described above.
Business Ethics Training 73
Discussions of these real moral selling dilemma help
to stimulate the critical and reflective thinking that is
essential for moving forward toward the moral
development goal (Ferrell et al., 2002; Zion et al.,
2004). Overlaying the consideration of real cases
with an inductive, discussion-based approach further
enhances effectiveness (i.e., individual moral devel-
opment).
Integrating stakeholder analysis
The cases used should include questions that stimulate
participants to search out and discuss the wide-range
of internal and external stakeholder groups that can
possibly be affected (negatively or positively) by a
specific selling choice. This stimulates participants to
draw from personal experiences to provide specific,
explicit examples of negative business, professional or
personal impacts that they have witnessed from
ignoring certain stakeholder groups when making
selling choices. Others may relate how they have built
trust and related benefits for their company and / or
professional career from taking into consideration
potential impacts on a broader range of stakeholders
when making morally difficult selling choices.
Actively involving participants in designing the inquiry
and in reporting results
Allowing considerable leeway in the small group
discussions, encouraging groups to go well beyond
the ‘questions for discussion’ provided, can generate
additional interest and involvement. This approach,
properly facilitated, can also stimulate more critical
thinking by the group as a whole with resulting
group self-discovery of whole new insights for
reflecting on the ethical selling dilemma posed.
Having the small groups report their insights to the
overall group helps to reinforce the independent
thinking that is so critical for each individual to
advance along the cognitive moral development
continuum (assumed goal of the program).
Using inductive learning
This is the underlying approach used in the ethics
training initiative example reviewed above, as moral
dilemma are posed in the context of real selling
scenarios. Participants become actively involved in
the learning process through small group discussions
of the cases. Case questions and related discussions
are then carefully crafted and facilitated to stimulate
participants to move from specific facts and obser-
vations to inferences. The goal is to stimulate the
overall self-conclusion that it makes sense to use
richer (more ‘other-oriented’) perspectives to eval-
uate alternative potential choices when facing any
moral selling dilemma. Transformation in the indi-
vidual’s breadth and depth of cognitive moral
development occurs as one case after another is
discussed, and as learning from earlier cases is
brought to bear as insight for discussing later cases.
Positive group influences also take hold as more
cases are explored in both the small group and
overall group settings.
Actively involving participants in the inductive process
The participants are actively involved throughout
the program. They measure their own ‘before’
starting point. They participate in selecting cases.
They run their own small group discussions of cases.
They report majority and minority views to the
group as a whole. They regularly monitor their own
progress in moral development. They are encour-
aged to reflect carefully to develop creative alterna-
tives. They measure and interpret their own group
and individual ‘after’ results. They develop their
own personal plan for continuing moral develop-
ment after the session. In all these ways, participants
are a true partner in the inductive learning process
proposed.
Facilitator’s subtle role in inductive learning
The ethics training program for sales professionals
will not be successful without informed and well-
prepared facilitation. Instead of explaining, demon-
strating, and correcting, the facilitator guides the
participants’ active learning process – always
encouraging participants to contribute their own
ideas, approaches, and examples regarding any
dimensions of the moral selling dilemma under dis-
cussion. Individual sub-groups are encouraged to be
74 John A. Weber
independent in managing their discussions and ac-
tively seeking out creative alternatives for resolving
ethical dilemma presented in the cases. The facilitator
also stimulates participants to analyze and modify
their own views in context of insights from their
colleagues in the small and large group discussions.
The facilitator challenges each participant to identify
his or her own personal code of selling conduct,
including assessment of specific changes in that code
resulting directly from the training experience. Fi-
nally, the facilitator provides an effective training
session wrap-up, including post-session measurement
of personal progress in moral development and per-
sonal time to contemplate and develop a concrete
plan for continuing moral enhancement of individual
selling attitudes and planned selling behavior once
leaving the training session.
Transparently measuring and sharing before-after results
In the ethics training example above, the selling
ethics ‘quiz’ (Exhibit One) is used to provide a
simple before-after measurement of moral develop-
ment. This before-after monitoring provides
immediate feedback and perspectives on the effec-
tiveness of the program and its various components
in moving the participants morally forward. For
participants, the ‘before measurement’ process
stimulates initial interest as well as providing a quick
overview of the types of ethical selling dilemma that
will be discussed in the program. The facilitator’s
up-front promise of immediate post-program ‘after
measurement’ and post-program open review of
results helps to build initial credibility in the program
and to enhance the probability of participant buy-in
from the start. Implementing and discussing the re-
sults of the ‘after measurement’ benefits participants
by building take-away credibility, satisfaction and
enthusiasm for the program.
Wrapping up the training initiative
Near the conclusion of the session, the facilitator
challenges participants to assess specific changes in
their ‘personal codes of conduct’ and stimulates an
open discussion of personal progress in moral
development. Participants are then allowed personal
time for developing a plan for continuing moral
enhancement once leaving the training session –
with two or three encouraged to share their plans
with the overall group. The superior sponsoring the
training program closes with a summary of whatever
follow-up reinforcement strategies are available for
helping participants to continue their moral devel-
opment as they return to their everyday selling
responsibilities. The superior and facilitator close the
session by stimulating participants to become active
sponsors of the program, encouraging peers to also
experience the training program.
In Sum, the selling ethics training initiative de-
scribed integrates the various learning principles
discussed earlier.
Research opportunities and challenges
The paper has suggested that the application of se-
lected principles from learning theory and educa-
tional psychology can help in developing effective
business ethics training initiatives. More research is
needed to confirm, expand and refine the insights
described above. For example, empirical research is
needed for comparing the relative effectiveness of
the proposed inductive approach for business ethics
training with the effectiveness of more traditional
training methods. Other potential research oppor-
tunities and challenges include prospective research
efforts to more closely examine alternative measures,
formats, and content of business ethics training ini-
tiatives. Next, we review some of these research
opportunities and challenges.
Research challenging the inductive approach to business
ethics training
This paper uses logical persuasion rather than hard
evidence to propose an inductive approach to
business ethics training. Inductive reasoning itself is
recognized as an imperfect technique for at least two
reasons. First, the example set may be an incomplete
representation of the true population. Second, the
example set may correctly represent the true popu-
lation, but inappropriate rules may be derived which
apply only to the example set (Chalmers, 1976;
Eysenck, 1990; University of Alberta, 2005). If
Business Ethics Training 75
either of these cases apply, then the generalizations
learned from the inductive training experience are
flawed. Particularly in light of these potential logical
pitfalls, what proof do we have that results realized
through using the proposed inductive approach
would be any ‘better’ than prospective results real-
ized through using more traditional deductive
learning approaches?
Also, learning theory and related research cited
earlier on ‘learning styles’ suggests that, while an
inductive approach works well for some, for others it
is not optimal (i.e., see earlier citations calling for
‘variety’). Simply put, one approach does not fit all.
For example, if a training participant’s personal
learning style is oriented around abstraction, then that
person’s best learning will occur in an abstract,
deductive learning environment. This reflects the
reality that an individual may not ultimately confirm
knowledge until that knowledge appears in strongly
trusted modalities.
Furthermore, some may contend that inductive
reasoning may be particularly inappropriate for
addressing moral issues. In this case, some moralists
may suggest that the very notion of using inductive
reasoning to try to enhance cognitive moral devel-
opment (assumed goal of ethics training in this pa-
per) denies the existence of moral absolutes.
Perceived moral risks are involved. For example,
might the inductive approach described allow the
facilitator too much freedom, without adequate
checks and balances? Furthermore, can moral ‘codes’
or moral guidelines for business behavior potentially
flowing from inductive discussions too easily con-
flict with or compromise a hypothetical ‘moral
absolute’ (‘what is right and what is wrong under
any circumstance’)?
Inductive approach advocates might counter by
stressing that informed facilitation can enhance
moral development without compromising the
moral ‘quality’ of views engendered. They can
also respond by reciting traditional arguments for
the ‘circumstantial/situational’ ethical approach
versus the ‘virtue/duty based’ approach (e.g., see
Murph and Laczniak, 2005). Research and related
empirical evidence is needed to support, refute,
or refine such defenses for using an inductive
approach for business ethics training.
In sum, empirical research is needed to compare the
results of inductive approaches versus more traditional
approaches as applied to business ethics training. As
indicated above, the need for research on relative
effectiveness immediately suggests other research ini-
tiatives as well for attempting to decipher alternative
possible measurement, format and content of different
approaches to business ethics training. Consider re-
search opportunities such as the following.
Research on measurement: assessing the results
of the business ethics training
The paper has proposed a very simplistic way for
quickly assessing the ‘results’ of business ethics
training – namely, having participants register their
attitudes toward a fixed list of specific moral business
dilemma before and after the relevant training ini-
tiative (by simply rating the degree to which each
business practice described is felt to be ‘unethical’).
Much richer before and after measures are appro-
priate for assessing the desired results (‘enhanced
cognitive moral development’) actually achieved
through the ethics training initiative outlined (Polman
and Pea, 2001; Zion and Slezak, 2005). For example,
more complete assessment of progress made by par-
ticipants through an ethics initiative might be cap-
tured through careful content analysis of answers to
post-initiative open-ended queries such as: why did
you decide to participate in the training initiative;
what did you learn through interactions and team-
work with your small group and the larger overall
group; was your sense of independence inhibited or
improved by the inquiry group approach and team-
work; did you change your ‘personal code’ of conduct
(moral stance) as a result of participation and, if so,
what specific changes occurred and why; in retro-
spect, what would you do differently if you began
your involvement in this training over again, and why;
how would you compare the approach used with
other learning experiences you have had – in terms of
your enjoyment and your acquisition of perspectives
and skills; did the facilitator’s approach, demeanor,
etc. help or inhibit your personal progress and why;
did you learn to think more critically about moral
business issues; and, finally, do you think this learning
experience will influence your moral business choices
in the future?
A more thorough evaluation of results should also
include detailed content analysis of open-ended
76 John A. Weber
questions for each facilitator, including questions
such as: what progress do you feel the overall group
made toward the objectives of the training initiative
(i.e., personal cognitive moral development); what
new perspectives did you gain from hearing the
group reports and subsequent discussions; which
specific case discussions did you feel were more
productive vis a vis the objectives of the training,
and why; what specific changes will you make in
your facilitation design and implementation next
time your manage a similar training initiative; what
was the single greatest change you observed in any
particular individual or subset of individuals that you
would attribute directly to the training session; and
finally, are you satisfied with the individual plans for
‘continuing moral development’ that you heard at
the end of the training – why or why not, and what
will you change next time if not satisfied?
Well-planned, detailed content analysis of answers
to these sets of questions for participants and facili-
tators should be conducted over a series of training
sessions. Combining the analysis of control variables
along with different experimental variables should
yield better overall measures of results together with
significant potential insights for enhancing both
facilitator and participant performance in subsequent
ethics training initiatives.
Research on format and content
Research on facilitator–participant interactions
Research shows that facilitator–participant interac-
tion itself is a key ingredient to success in inductive
learning experiences (Zion and Slezak, 2005).
Delving further into this interaction may contribute
to a deeper pedagogical understanding of the
inductive learning process itself. An in-depth analysis
of the functioning of facilitator-participant interac-
tions might subsequently help to refine learning
principles for enhancing inductive learning (such as
those identified earlier in this paper). Such principles
might explore and explain how facilitator function-
ing can best support and encourage participant
learning activity while simultaneously enhancing
other participant factors such as teamwork, motiva-
tion, perseverance, initiative and creativity.
To move toward such objectives, logical research
initiatives would involve a systematic search for
causal determinants of more successful facilitator-
participant relationships in inductive learning set-
tings. Specific inquiries toward that end might in-
volve exploration of how facilitators can best guide
participants in open inquiry tasks (Polman and Pea,
2001; Zion and Slezak, 2005) and whether facilita-
tor-participant interaction effectiveness is affected by
variations in cognitive style of participants, variations
in authority relationships between facilitator and
participant, and differences in experience of either or
both facilitators and participants (Mahlios, 1981;
Zady et al., 2002).
Research on facilitator effectiveness
To date, more successful facilitators have been
described as having many, wide-ranging leadership
skills and affective attributes. Among the allegedly
most important leadership skills are standout abilities
such as (Zion and Slezak, 2005): to formulate logical
connections between the inquiry questions; to
delegate responsibility according to both the partic-
ipants’ performance and the stage of the develop-
ment; to learn along with participants throughout the
course of the exercises; to closely monitor the par-
ticipants’ progress; to assess and correct participants;
to stimulate participants to analyze their own over-
sights and mistakes and to make relevant corrections;
to encourage participant autonomy, while simulta-
neously encouraging teamwork. Among the alleg-
edly most important affective attributes of more
successful facilitators are standout abilities in areas
such as the following (Zion and Slezak, 2005): to
exhibit flexibility – being ever open to changes
and self-corrections; to exhibit originality and crea-
tivity and to encourage same from participants;
to encourage and impart confidence, especially when
correcting; and to monitor and exhibit overt aware-
ness of progress being made by each participant.
A natural extension of the research initiatives
above (on facilitator–participant interaction) would
be to sort out which of these specific leadership skills
and affective attributes are most important for more
effective facilitation in inductive learning environ-
ments. An important integrated research challenge
would be to develop valid and reliable scales and
procedures for measuring the effectiveness of these
skills and attributes. Given credible findings on
which skills and attributes are most important for
effective facilitation, follow-up research on how to
Business Ethics Training 77
stimulate and enhance formation of such skills and
attributes would be appropriate.
Additional research questions on the inductive training
format
Additional dimensions of the proposed inductive
training format also beg for further exploration. For
example, empirical studies could explore questions
such as: what is the optimal small group size and
makeup so that intra and inter-group discussions and
debriefs are as rich as possible; which types of cases
(see case types, described earlier) engender the most
progress in the cognitive moral development of
participants; how can the process of identifying and /
or building a personal code of moral conduct be
modeled and actively encouraged; and what re-
sources, if any, on ‘Ethics in Business’ should be
made available to participants before, during and
after the inductive case study experience.
Research on ethics of sales professionals
Yet additional research opportunities flow from the
proposed design of ethics training initiatives specif-
ically for sales professionals. Interesting queries to
explore regarding the ‘ethics of sales professionals’
might include: what specific integrity in selling issues
cause the greatest moral dilemma for sales profes-
sionals (Jones, 1991); do those issues vary depending
upon sales experience, industry, value of the pro-
spective sale, complexity of the selling process, etc.;
what specific integrity in selling issues cause greatest
concern, frustration, and dissatisfaction for customers
of these same sales professionals and for business
customers and final consumers in general; for specific
ethical selling compromises that are of greatest
concern to customers, what are some creative po-
tential win-win strategies that sales professionals can
use to forego ethical compromise while still
achieving selling objectives; what are some alterna-
tive effective ways to stimulate sales professionals to
start using those creative win-win alternatives in
place of their ‘traditional’ morally compromised
selling behavior? The prospective research initiatives
reviewed above regarding ‘ethics of sales profes-
sionals’ are ultimately intended to help a company to
enhance its image for integrity for all of its constit-
uencies, especially for its customers.
Summary and conclusions
In recent years, corporate scandals have created a
negative view of large corporations and their leaders.
As a response to this crisis, companies are renewing
efforts to practice and publicize their integrity in
their dealings with all constituencies. Companies
have appointed integrity officers for the purpose of
policing and promoting ethical behavior. Companies
have also created rules or codes of ethical conduct
and developed mandatory ethics training initiatives
to help ensure that the commitment to integrity is
taken seriously at all levels of the organization.
The paper has suggested that the application of
selected principles from learning theory and educa-
tional psychology can help in developing effective
business ethics training initiatives. The specific
training approach described in this paper uses an
inductive, carefully guided, case-based discussion
process to help participants come to their own
personal conclusions about what are ‘right’ and
‘wrong’ business decisions. Progress is measured
from start to finish, and when the session is com-
plete, the participant should recognize the devel-
opment he or she has achieved as a result of
inductive reasoning and self-discovery. A complete
example of the proposed approach is provided, in
the form of an ethics training initiative designed
specifically for sales professionals.
As reviewed, empirical research is needed for
comparing the relative effectiveness of the proposed
inductive approach for business ethics training with
the effectiveness of more traditional training
methods. Other potential research opportunities
and challenges are highlighted and described,
including prospective research initiatives for more
closely examining alternative measures, format and
content of prospective business ethics training ini-
tiatives.
Appendix I:
An Integrity in Selling Case Discussion
Example
Case Example: Negotiation & Closing Different
Dimensions of Gift Giving (Timing, Amount, Intention)
Golfing for Dollars - H.C. Hunt
78 John A. Weber
Heather Danner has just moved from Grand
Rapids to Kalamazoo, Michigan to become the
new National Accounts Sales Manager at H. C.
Hunt, a brake parts manufacturer. Hunt sells brake
pads and related parts to OEM brake manu-
facturers, directly to the new automobile makers,
and in the aftermarket. Currently, Heather is trying
to get distribution for Hunt brake pads in Pep
Guys, a national retail auto parts distributor serving
the automobile aftermarket. This could be a huge
step forward for Hunt. Heather’s immediate boss,
Hunt President Ron Blankenship, has instructed
Heather to ‘pull out all the stops’ to try to get this
business.
On Monday morning, Heather meets with Jeff
Snyder, VP of Procurement for Pep Guys. Fifteen
minutes into the meeting, it has become clear to
Heather that Jeff is quite pleased with his two cur-
rent brake pad suppliers and feels he does not need
yet another one. During this brief introductory
discussion, Heather sees several golf trophies as well
as a putter and a practice cup along one side of Jeff’s
office. Heather is the reigning Lady’s City Cham-
pion in Grand Rapids and can really talk the game.
She tries to build rapport with Jeff by talking about
golf in general, revealing that she has a three hand-
icap and asking him about local courses where she
might play now that she has moved to Kalamazoo.
After this cordial side discussion, Heather then
enthusiastically launches into a short presentation
showing the comparative wearability of Hunt pads
versus the competition. Swayed by their rapport as
well as by the convincing statistics, Jeff agrees to tour
the Hunt plant later this week (on Friday) and to
continue the discussion with Hunt about possibly
becoming a Pep Guy’s supplier.
Upon her return to the office, Heather reports her
tentative success to her boss, Ron Blankenship.
Ron, also a golfer, suggests that Heather select an
appropriate golfing related gift to send to Jeff just
prior to his upcoming visit to Hunt. The purpose is
to soften Jeff up and make him more favorably dis-
posed toward approving Hunt as a new Pep Guys
supplier.
Questions for Discussion
1. Would it be an inappropriate gratuity and,
therefore, compromise integrity if:
• Heather sent Jeff a $15 book by Bob Ros-
burg on Putting? Why or why not?
• Heather sent Jeff a dozen Titliest Pro V golf
balls (worth about $50)?
• Heather and Ron invited Jeff and a friend
for a round of golf at Ron’s exclusive golf
club in Kalamazoo (worth about $280)?
• Heather and Ron invited Jeff and a friend to
the second round of the Masters golf tourna-
ment, all expenses paid (a $2000 value)
2. Discuss whether or not the amount of a gift or
the timing of a gift can influence whether or
not a gift compromises integrity.
• Amount of gift
• Timing of gift
3. Assume Heather and Ron invited Jeff and
a friend to the second round of the
Masters golf tournament, all expenses paid (a
$2000 value), and Hunt subsequently got the
contract.
• Did any integrity compromise occur?
• If so, what, and why?
4. Assume that after getting the contract,
Heather and Ron invited Jeff and a friend to
the second round of the Masters golf tourna-
ment, all expenses paid (a $2000 value), to
express their appreciation for the new busi-
ness.
• Did any integrity compromise occur?
• If so what, and why?
• Referring to that example, discuss the affect
timing may have on whether or not a gratu-
ity is inappropriate.
Additional Potential Questions for Coverage as Time
Allows
5. Can intention itself cause a specific selling
practice to compromise integrity? Discuss.
6. Assume a simple book on Putting ($15 value)
was sent, the visit to Hunt completed, and
Hunt did not get the new contract. Did any
Business Ethics Training 79
integrity compromise occur?
7. Assume the Masters golf trip was provided,
the visit to Hunt completed, and Hunt did
not get the new contract.
• Did any integrity compromise occur?
• Does whether or not Hunt gets the business
affect the integrity of the gratuity offer?
Why? Discuss.
8. Assume the trip to the Masters was offered
before the contract, but the offer was de-
clined by the would-be buyer.
• Did any integrity compromise occur?
• If so, what, and why? Discuss.
Case Discussion
The case example presented above deals with the
subtle practice of gift giving. In this instance, a sales
person is trying to win a new national account and
has been told by her boss to ‘pull out all the stops.’
Partially because the seller uncovers a mutual passion
for golf during the rapport building process, she is
successful in convincing the buyer to take a plant
tour of her company’s facilities. She reports her
tentative success to her boss, who suggests that she
select an appropriate golfing related gift to send to
the buyer just prior to the upcoming plant visit. The
questions following this case explore whether such a
gift might compromise integrity because of intention
or timing. Also explored is the integrity of giving
gifts of different sizes and under alternative circum-
stances. A Stakeholder Impact Chain (below) is in-
cluded with this case.
Case Debrief – Inductive Learning Results
Lessons inductively learned or ‘self-discovered’
through the discussion in the case example were
drawn out from the group and concisely summarized
by the facilitator in the debriefing. These lessons
included the following.
Wide Range of Integrity Issues. The first lesson is
self-discovering the benefits of becoming more aware
of the wide range of integrity dilemma that can arise
as a normal part of the selling process. The minority
who felt no integrity issue was involved in this case
(even with the trip to the Masters) were surprised to
learn that some colleagues felt an integrity issue was
indeed involved – even if the gift was only a relatively
inexpensive book or a dozen golf balls.
Challenge to Re-think One’s Own Personal
Views on What Is & Is Not Morally Acceptable
Selling Behavior. The next potential lesson, one
related to the first lesson, is self-discovery of the
benefit of becoming more aware of colleagues’
contrasting views concerning the integrity of specific
selling practices. In this case, roughly one-half of the
participants indicated surprise that any of their col-
leagues would profess either extreme – either that
gift giving of any sort is inappropriate or that a
sizeable gift (in this example, valued at say $1000 or
more) given to build rapport and enticement would
not be considered inappropriate.
Identifying One’s Own Integrity Guidelines,
Standards or Principles. Another potential lesson is
self-discovery of the benefit of identifying what
principles (if any) one is currently using to try to
address moral selling dilemma (virtue/duty-based,
golden rule, newspaper test, circumstantial, net
positive result, etc. – see Murphy and Laczniak
2005). Nearly everyone participating in the session
was surprised that even one of their colleagues held
to a value/duty based integrity standard that disal-
lowed all prospective gift giving as a vehicle for
trying to influence a sale. Most recognized that they
tended more toward a ‘circumstantial integrity
standard’ – feeling that gift size and timing are the
primary determinants of whether or not a specific
gift offer compromises integrity. Few were surprised
that several in the group held a very loose integrity
standard that allowed them to feel comfortable doing
pretty much whatever is necessary to get the busi-
ness, as long as it does not violate the law.
Wide-ranging Potential Stakeholder Impacts. The
next potential lesson is self-discovery of the benefits
of methodically considering how a single integrity
compromise can potentially impact a very wide
range of stakeholders. By building and discussing the
‘Stakeholder Impact Chain’ for this case, surprise
built in the group as they realized the wide range of
stakeholders who can potentially be negatively im-
pacted by gift giving.
Benefits of Creative Search for Alternative
Behaviors or Approaches. Another potential is self-
discovery of the benefits of pausing and brain-
storming for alternatives when facing difficult moral
selling dilemma. The facilitator asked each small
80 John A. Weber
group to brain-storm for creative alternative selling
tactics that would clearly not compromise integrity
while still moving the selling process forward.
Individual groups came up with creative positive
alternatives not thought of by other groups. This
experience highlighted the benefits of stopping,
pausing, thinking, and talking with colleagues about
alternatives before jumping at the easiest alternative
when facing potential moral selling dilemma.
Benefits of a Corporate Code of (Selling) Con-
duct in Domestic & Foreign Markets. Yet another
potential lesson is self-discovery of the benefits of
having a corporate code of selling conduct. Sales
professionals from two of the companies represented
at the session gave positive testimony regarding the
benefits of their companies’ aggressive enforcement
of detailed codes of selling conduct. These profes-
sionals emphasized that the existence of specific
standards not only made their moral selling choices
much easier with respect to gift-giving, but also had
not hurt their business – stimulating them to think of
other, more positive ways to influence customers. The
group as a whole was also impressed to hear one sales
professional relate how the very existence of his
company’s Code of Selling Conduct had actually
helped him nurture more solid, longer term, pro-
ductive relationships with his best distributors in
foreign markets.
Appendix II:
Forty-Four ‘Integrity in Selling’ Case
Topics & Related Cases Available
Overview of the ‘Moral Selling Dilemma’ Covered in the
Cases
A number of professional selling organizations have
developed selling models to help companies improve
sales force productivity. Such models are available
from sales training organizations such as Complex
Sale, DSI Consulting, Holden International (Power
Base Selling), Huthwaite (Spin Selling), Miller
Heiman (Conceptual Selling), On Target / BRS
(Target Account Selling), Sales Performance Inter-
national (SPI) (Solution Selling), and Selling Com-
munications (Target Selling). While the models do
vary from system to system, they generally agree
upon the common stages in the selling process.
These stages include the following:
Identifying Opportunities
Background Research & Pre-call Planning
Stimulating Interest
1st Sales Call
Vision Building
Finding and Accessing Power
Proof Management
Negotiations & Closing
Implementation (Including Success Measures)
Managing the Process (Sales Management)
The case set summarized below includes several cases
falling into each of the above categories, presenting
moral selling dilemma over the entire selling cycle
(including sales management).
CASES
1 Identifying Opportunities
1.1 Identifying Opportunities – Targeting to Sell
Over Stocked Products
Jake’s Dilemma: How to Sell Out of Date Inventory
without Marking Down the Price - The Computer
Store
1.2 Identifying Opportunities – Inefficient Use
of Selling Time
Separating Business from Personal Time - Jansonn
Pharmaceuticals
1.3 Identifying Opportunities – Customer Pro-
filing and Related Prejudice
Alexa’s Strategy: Judging and Profiling Customers to
Maximize Commission - Ellington’s Boutique
1.4 Identifying Opportunities – Variable Offers
Give a Coupon or Not? - EZ Shoes
2 Background Research & Pre-call Planning
2.1 Background Research & Pre-call Planning –
Accessing Information about Competitors –
Using Illegal Methods to Get Inside Information
Should Cindy Blow the Whistle? - Inotech
2.2 Background Research & Pre-call Planning –
Distorting Information and Data about Compet-
itors
1 See http://www.nd.edu/�jweber/ or contact author atweber.1@nd,.edu for information on available ‘integrity inselling’ case sets.
Business Ethics Training 81
Stretching the Truth to Win a Sale - Panther Motors
2.3 Background Research & Pre-call Planning –
Presenting False or Misleading Information
About Your Company’s Own Products or Ser-
vices
Sure, It Can Do That Too! - CHT Cleaning
2.4 Background Research & Pre-call Planning –
Vaporware / Offering False Upgrades
Andy’s Dilemma: Promise the Feature or Lose the
Business - Century Computers
3 Stimulating Awareness and Interest
3.1 Stimulating Awareness and Interest – Setting
out to Cause Concern by Bringing Pain from
Unconsciousness to Consciousness (Whether or
Not the Buyer Actually Has That Pain)
Latent Pain to Pain: What Would Happen to Your
Wife and Family if You Had a Tragic Accident -
Metro Life Insurance
3.2 Stimulating Awareness and Interest –
Through Unproven, Exaggerated, or False Ref-
erence Stories:
Nicole Exaggerates Her past Experience - Gadgets on
the Go
3.3 Stimulating Awareness and Interest –
Through Using Unauthorized Proprietary Infor-
mation
Wes’ Dilemma: Should He Use Unauthorized Infor-
mation - Simple Solutions
3.4 Stimulating Awareness and Interest – Tech
Talk to Take Advantage of an Uninformed
Buyer
Up Selling with Tech Talk / Taking Advantage to
Upsell an Uninformed Buyer - Megamart Computers
4 First Sales Contact
4.1 First Sales Contact – Insincerity in Rapport
Building
George Lies to Build Trust - Long Lasting Roofs
4.2 First Sales Call – Presenting Your Company
in the Best Light and Hiding Shortcomings
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell! - Icon Lighting, Inc.
4.3 First Sales Call – Purposefully Delaying or
Distorting Total Cost(also see Icon Lighting case)
And the Total Cost Is.... - Heat Treated Roofing
Solutions
5 Vision Building & Re-engineering
5.1 Vision Building & Re-engineering – Poten-
tial for Insincerity as Well as for Manipulating
and Misguiding the Buyer
If We Don’t Have That Feature, You Don’t Need
it! - JIT4 Systems
5.2 Vision Building & Re-engineering – Does
Biasing a Search for & Evaluation of Alternatives
Compromise Integrity?
What You Really Need Is What I Have Over-
stocked! - Wave Runners Galore
5.3 Vision Building & Re-engineering –
Enhancing Pain & Anxiety Building as an In-
tegral Part of the Solution Selling Process
Dona’s Over-the-Top Anxiety Building: Tough Love
or Gross Insensitivity? - Global Gym
5.4 Vision Building & Re-engineering – Sug-
gesting That Your Capabilities Match Customer’
s Vision
Yes, We Can Do That (I Think!!) - College Storage
6 Finding and Accessing Power
6.1 Finding and Accessing Power – Bargaining
for Power Using False References
‘Stimulating a Reference’ to Push a Big Sale - Hi-
School Software
6.2 Finding and Accessing Power – Distortions
in the Sponsor or Power Sponsor Summary Let-
ters (Trying to Distort what the Potential Buyer
Told You)
Some Slight of Hand by Perfect Circle - Perfect Circle
CRM
6.3 Reference Client’s Accessed – Potential for
Additional Practices That Compromise Integrity
John Cherry-Picks His Reference Clients - On the
Move, Inc.
7 Proof Management & Evaluation Plan
7.1 Proof Management (Evaluation Plan) –
Enhancing the Operating Vision by Partnering
with Your Power Sponsor
If You Help Me, Maybe I Can Help You! - Baron
Leaf Printing
7.2 Proof Management (Evaluation Plan) –
Enhancing the Transition Vision by Providing
False Assurances for Those Concerned with
Transition Issues
82 John A. Weber
At the End of the Day, the End Justifies the Means,
as the Customer Will Be Happy - Academy Books
7.3 Proof Management (Evaluation Plan) –
Enhancing the Financial Vision by Distorting
Revenue Projections
At the End of the Day, the Customer Will Be Glad
They Made this Investment - Vitality Solutions
7.4 Proof Management (Evaluation Plan) –
Enhancing the Financial Vision by Distorting
the Projected Payback Period and ROI
Stuart’s Twist: How Small Adjustments Got Him a
Big Sale - E-Com, Inc.
8 Negotiation & Closing
8.1 Negotiation & Closing – Pre-Proposal Re-
view
Trying to Close at a Pre-proposal Review - Digi-
World
8.2 Negotiation & Closing – Gifts of Apprecia-
tion
Influencing the Media Buyer - The Daily Ledger
8.3a Negotiation & Closing – Outright Bribes
to Secure a Contract
Always Be Ready to Buy the Business! - Office
Solutions
8.3b Negotiation & Closing – International
Markets / Outright Bribes to Secure a Contract
When in Rome ... Bribery as a Way of Life in
Newly Industrializing Countries - Typo Int’l
8.4 Negotiation & Closing – Different Dimen-
sions of Gift Giving (Timing, Amount, Inten-
tion)
Golfing for Dollars - H.C. Hunt
8.5 Negotiation & Closing – Kickbacks
What Can You Do for Me to Make Buying from
You Worthwhile? - Datamax
9 Following Through on a Sale
9.1 Following Through on a Sale – Abandoning
the Customer after the Sale
A Chance to Do the Right Thing - Splash Pools
9.2 Following Through on a Sale – Implementa-
tion (Including Success Measures) / Using Mis-
leading Measures to Monitor the Results of a Sale
Look How Much You Are Now Saving Since
Switching to Our Service! - Telco
9.3 Following Through on a Sale – Post Sale
Up-Charges / Purposefully Unclear Terms of an
Agreement
Buyer Misunderstanding: Oh, You Wanted Tires
with that Car? - Premier MDC
10 Managing the Process
10.1 Managing the Process – Sandbagging as
Response to Ever-Increasing Quotas
Mike Stuffs the Order to Reduce His Quota for Next
Year - K. L. Wooding
10.2 Managing the Process – Stealing Clients
From Another Rep
Veronica Gets the Whole Commission / Dilemma
Caused by Company Policy - Perfection Boutique
10.3 Managing the Process – Misleading or Ly-
ing to Sales Management
The Sunshine Pump: Linda Misleads Her Sales
Manager - Indigo Technologies
10.4 Managing the Process – Artificial Quotas
from Sales Management
Equine Heaven Lives! Susan Sets Artificial Quotas
and Misleads Her Sales Force - QuickStart Computers
10.5a Managing the Process – Favoritism by
Sales Manager
Dilemma: Which Game Should He Try to Win? -
Adcock Labs
10.5b Managing the Process – Favoritism by
Sales Managers
Nepotism: Do or Don’t? - Omnitek
10.5c Managing the Process – Favoritism by
Sales Manager
Favored Treatment for a Friend - Little Brats Toys
10.6 Managing the Process – Setting Unattain-
able Quotas
And for Next Year, We Want You to Do the
Impossible! - GEH Printing
10.7 Managing the Process – Sales Manager
Misleads New Salesperson
Todd’s Eye’s Light Up at the Prospect of a Potential
$140,000 Compensation Package - Emma Gibb
Corp.
Notes
1 In the National Business Ethics Survey (NBES), 55
percent of employees in for-profit organizations re-
ported that their organizations provide ethics training,
Business Ethics Training 83
while 70% of government employees and 65% of
employees in nonprofit organizations indicated the pres-
ence of ethics training. An 84% of the employees who
reported the presence of ethics training in their organi-
zations said that the training was mandatory (Ferrell
et al., 2002, p. 109).2 Inquiry learning has been researched from a variety
of perspectives, including coordination of cognitive
constructivist and sociocultural perspectives (Cobb,
1994), content base for inquiry, how inquiry is prac-
ticed in a variety of different learning situations (e.g.,
question generation activities, etc.), and enhancement of
learning from inquiry-based learning (Keys and Bryan,
2001; Zion and Slezak, 2005).3 See http://www.nd.edu/�jweber/ or contact author
at weber.1@nd,.edu for information on available ‘integ-
rity in selling’ case sets.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) & Project 2061: 1993, Benchmarks for Science
Literacy (Oxford University Press, New York).
Bolhuis, S. and M. J. M. Voeten: 2001, �Toward Self-
Directed Learning in Secondary Schools: What Do
Teachers Do?�, Teaching and Teacher Education 17(7),
837–855.
Carroll, A. B. and A. K. Buchholtz: 2003, Business and
Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management 5th Edition,
(SouthWestern Publishing Co., Cincinnati).
Chalmers, A. F.: 1976, What is this Thing Called Science?
(University of Queensland Press, Australia)
Champagne, A. B., R. F. Gunstone and L. E. Klopfer:
1985, �Instructional Consequences of Students’
Knowledge About Physical Phenomenon�, in L. H. T.
West and A. L. Pines (eds.), Cognitive Structure and
Conceptual Change (Academic Press, New York), pp.
61–68.
Cobb, P.: 1994, �Where is the Mind? Constructivist and
Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Develop-
ment�, Educational Researcher (23), 13–20.
Crawford, B. A.: 2000, �Embracing the Essence of In-
quiry: New Roles for Science Teachers�, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 37(9), 916–937.
Eysenck, M. W., (Ed.): 1990, The Blackwell Dictionary of
Cognitive Psychology (Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA)
Ferrell, O. C., J. Fraedrich and L. Ferrell: 2002, Business
Ethics: Ethical Decision-making and Cases (Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston) pp. 444.
Fraedrich, J., D. M. Thorne and O. C. Ferrell: 1994,
�Assessing the Application of Cognitive Moral Devel-
opment Theory to Business Ethics�, Journal of Business
Ethics 13, 829–838.
Gott, R. and S. Duggan: 1996, �Practical Work: Its Role
in the Understanding of Evidence in Science�, Inter-
national Journal of Science Education 18(7), 791–806.
Indiana State University (ISU): 2003, Learning Styles,
(http://www.indstate.edu/ctl/styles/ learning. html#
LSTEACH).
Izzo, G.: 2000, �Compulsory Ethics Education and the
Cognitive Moral Development of Salespeople: A
Quasi - Experimental Assessment�, Journal of Business
Ethics 28:Dec, 223+.
Jones, T. M.: 1991, �Ethical Decision-Making by Indi-
viduals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model�,Academy of Management Review 16(Feb), 366–395.
Joyce, B. and M. Weil.: 1986, Models of Teaching. 3rd
Edition, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey).
Keys, W. C. and A. L. Bryan: 2001, �Co-Constructing
Inquiry-Based Science with Teachers: Essential
Research for Lasting Reform�, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 38(6), 631–645.
Kohlberg, L.: 1969, �Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive
Developmental Approach to Socialization�, in D. A.
Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Re-
search (Rand McNally, Chicago), pp. 347–480.
Lunenberg, M. L. and M. Volman: 1999, �Active
Learning: Views and Actions of Students and Teachers
in Basic Education�, Teaching and Teacher Education
15(4), 431–445.
Mahlios, M. C.: 1981, �Relationships of Cognitive Style
to Teacher–Student Interaction and Student Learning�,Journal of Classroom Interaction 17(1), 26–30.
Murphy, P. E. and G. Laczniak: 2005, Marketing Ethics:
Cases and Readings (Pearson - Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ) pp. 172.
Narvaez, D. and I. Rest: 1995, �The Four Components
of Acting Morally�, in W. M. Kurtines and J. L.
Gewirtz (eds.), Moral Development.-An Introduction
(Allyn and Bacon, Boston), pp. 385–99.
National Research Council (NRC): 2000, Inquiry and the
National Science Education Standards (National Academy
Press, Washington, DC).
Osborne, R. and P. Freyberg: 1983, �Roles for the
Science Teacher�, in R. Osborne and P. Freyberg
(eds.), Learning in Science: The Implication of Children’s
Science (Heinemann, Birkenhead, Auckland), pp. 91–
99.
Osborne, J. F.: 1996, �Beyond Constructivism�, Science
Education 80(1), 53–82.
Polman, J. L. and R. D. Pea: 2001, �Transformative
Communication as a Cultural Tool for Guiding In-
quiry Science�, Science Education 85(3), 223–238.
Quenk, N. L.: 2000, Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indi-
cator Assessment (J Wiley & Sons, New York) pp. 197.
84 John A. Weber
Rossman, A. D.: 1993, �Managing Hands-On Inquiry�,Science and Children 31(1), 35–37.
Skager, R.: 1984, Organizing Schools to Encourage Self-
Direction in Learners (UNESCO Institute for Education,
Hamburg, Germany).
Tamir, P., R. Stavy and N. Ratner: 1998, �Teaching
Science by Inquiry: Assessment and Learning�, Journal
of Biological Education 33(1), 27–32.
University of Alberta: 2005, Dictionary of Cognitive Sci-
ence, (http://www.bcp.psych.ualberta .ca/%7emike /
Pearl_Street/ Dictionary /dictionary.html).
Watson, R., A. Goldsworthy and V. Wood-Robinson:
1999, �What is Not Fair with Investigations?�, School
Science Review 80(292), 101–106.
Weber, J. A.: 2003, Integrity in Selling, Special session,
American Marketing Association Summer Educators’
Conference (8/18/03).
White, R. T.: 1988, Learning Science (Blackwell, Oxford).
Windschitl, M.: 2003, �Inquiry Projects in Science Tea-
cher Education: What can Investigative Experiences
Reveal about Teacher Thinking and Eventual Class-
room Practice?�, Science Education 87(1), 112–143.
Woolnough, E. B., S. McLaughlin and S. Jackson: 1999,
�Learning by Doing – Two Classroom Studies of
Pupils’ Preferred Ways of Learning Science�, School
Science Review 81(294), 27–34.
Zady, M. F., P. R. Portes and V. D. Ochs: 2002,
�Examining Classroom Interactions Related to Dif-
ference in Students’ Science Achievement�, Science
Education 87(1), 40–63.
Zion, M., M. Slezak, D. Shapira, E. Link, N. Bashan, M.
Brumer, T. Orian, R. Nussinowitz, D. Court, B.
Agrest and R. Mendelovici: 2004, �Dynamic, Open
Inquiry in Biology Learning�, Science Education 88,
728–753.
Zion, M. and M. Slezak: 2005, �It Takes Two to Tango:
In Dynamic Inquiry, the Self-Directed Participant Acts
in Association with the Facilitating Facilitator�, Teach-
ing and Facilitator Education 21(7), 875–894.
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN, U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
Business Ethics Training 85