Ethical considerations in frequent flier programs

An overwhelming majority of business travelers are now members of frequent flier programs operated by the airline industry. This article addresses relevant ethical issues, particularly employee perceptions of ethical issues, in such programs. A structured questionnaire technique, supported by personal interviews, was used to gather insights into frequent flier practices and attitudes. A fundamental conclusion of the research is that (1) significant ethical dilemmas are posed by frequent flier programs, (2) employees and employers generally choose to ignore these ethical dilemmas, and (3) employee perception of the ethical issues in frequent flier programs is not significantly influenced by employee attributes such as education level, salary, organizational position, age or sex. Recommendations are offered to reduce the inherent ethical dilemmas in frequent flier programs. Richard H. Deane is an Associate Professor of Management at Georgia State University in Atlanta. He earned his Ph.D. degree in Industrial Engineering from Purdue University. Dr. Deane also holds the J.D. degree and is licensed to practice law before the state and federal courts. His scholarly publication record includes articles in IEE Transactions, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Operations Research Quarterly, Production and Inventory Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Business, Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Review. He has also published in The Trial Lawyer's Quarterly, The Golden Gate Law Review, Professional Safety and The Journal of Rehabilitation. His recent publications include articles on employment discrimination, workplace smoking, and ethics in operations management.     

The effect of the recent insider-trading scandal on stock prices of securities firms

This paper addresses the impact of the unethical business conduct of a few individuals that shook the financial market in 1986. Specifically, in the study undertaken for this paper, the wealth status of the shareholders of securities firms was examined in relation to the public disclosure of the insider-trading scandals involving Dennis Levine, Ivan Boesky, and their confederates. It was hypothesized that the expected market-adjusted stock returns for the securities firms would be negative as a result of the scandals. The findings of the study supported the hypothesis. Khalil M. Torabzadeh is Associate Professor of Finance at Radford University in Virginia. He earned his DBA in Finance from Mississippi State University in 1984. He began his teaching career at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, in 1982, and joined the faculty of Radford University in 1985. He has had articles published in the Journal of Financial Research and the Journal of Applied Business Research. Dan Davidson is Professor of Business Law at Radford University in Virginia. He has five teaching awards, including the Razorback Outstanding Business Faculty Award from the University of Arkansas. He is the author of four textbooks published by PWS Kent Publishing Co., and his articles have been published in the Journal of Business Ethics, the Business Law Review, the Education Forum, and the Journal of Insurance Issues and Practices, among others.Hamid Assar is an Assistant Professor of Finance at Radford University in Virginia. His educational background includes a PhD in Financial Economics (expected in 1989) from Southern Illinois University, an MBA from Central State University in Oklahoma, and a Masters degree in Economics from the University of West Virginia. His research interests are in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, financial markets, and international finance.     

Employee testing: An ethical perspective

This paper deals with the conflict between the desire of an employer to test employees for honesty and chemical dependency, and the right of the employee to privacy. Not only is the physical privacy of the employee infringed upon, but the psychic privacy of the individual as well. It is the conclusion of the paper that such an invasion of privacy is not justified without serious and compelling reason, and not the mere chance that testing will reveal problems among some percentage of the tested persons. Dan Davidson is Professor of Business Law at Radford University in Virginia. He has five teaching awards, including Razorback Outstanding Business Faculty Award, University of Arkansas. He is the author of four textbooks published by Kent Publishing Co., and his articles have been published in the Education Forum, Journal of Insurance Issues and Practices, and the Business Law Review, among others.     

Affirmative action: An ethical evaluation

This paper examines four major arguments advanced by opponents of race and gender conscious affirmative action and rebuts them on the basis of moral considerations. It is clear that the problem of past racial/gender discrimination has not disappeared; its effects linger, resulting in a wide disparity in opportunities and attainments between minorities/women and whites/males. Affirmative action, although not the perfect solution, is by far the most viable method of redressing the effects of past discrimination. Thus it cannot be dismissed lightly by way of arguing for mere colorblindness. Bill Shaw is Professor of Business Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He is on the editorial board of the American Business Law Journal and the Midwest Law Review. Among his most recent publications are The Legal Environment of Business (with Art Wolfe), Environmental Law: Text and Cases, The Global Environment: A Proposal to Eliminate Marine Oil Pollution (With Frank Cross and Brenda Winslett, The Natural Resources Journal), and Comparable Worth and Its Prospects (The Labor Law Journal). Professor Shaw would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Ms. Sohni Z. Yousuff.     

Ethics of managing interpersonal conflict in organizations

Although managers spend over twenty percent of their time in conflict management, organization theorists have provided very few guidelines to help them do their job ethically. This paper attempts to provide some guidelines so that organizational members can use the styles of handling interpersonal conflict, such as integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising, with their superiors, subordinates, and peers ethically and effectively. It has been argued in this paper that, in general, each style of handling interpersonal conflict is appropriate if it is used to attain organization's proper end.M. Afzalur Rahim is Professor of Management at Western Kentucky University. He holds B.Com. (Hons.) and M.Com, M.B.A., and Ph.D. degrees. Dr. Rahim teaches courses on organizational behavior, strategic management, and management of organizational conflict. He is the author of over 65 articles and book chapters, five cases, and three research instruments on conflict and power. He is the author of six books, four of which are on conflict management. He is the editor of theInternational Journal of Conflict Management and theInternational Journal of Organizational Analysis. He is the founder of the International Association for Conflict Management and President of the International Conference on Advances in Management.Jan Edward Garrett is Associate Professor in the Philosophy and Religion Department at Western Kentucky University. His recent publications include Persons, Kinds and Corporations: An Aristotelian Perspective, which appeared inPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research, and Unredistributable Corporate Moral Responsibility, which appeared in this journal.Gabriel F. Buntzman is Associate Professor of Management at Western Kentucky University. His current research interests concern relationships between ethics, conflict and the strategic management of organizations. His work in the area of conflict management has appeared in theInternational Journal of Conflict Management, theJournal of Psychology, and three books.     

An ethical analysis of deception in advertising

This paper examines several issues regarding deception in advertising. Some generally accepted definitions are considered and found to be inadequate. An alternative definition is proposed for legal/regulatory purposes and is related to a suggested definition of the term deception as it is used in everyday language. Based upon these definitions, suggestions are offered for detecting and regulating deception in advertising. This paper additionally considers the grounds for the generally held but largely unquestioned assumption that deceptive advertising is unethical. It is argued that deceptive advertising can be shown to be morally objectionable, on the weak assumption that it is prima facie wrong to harm others. Finally, the implications of this analysis with respect to current regulation of deceptive advertising by the FTC are considered. Thomas L. Carson is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He was previously Lecturer at the University of California at Los Angeles and was holder of an NEH Fellowship for College Teachers. His most important publication is The Status of Morality, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984. Forthcoming (in Philosophy and Public Affairs) is: Bribery, Extortion, and The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.Richard E. Wokutch is Associate Professor of Management at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where he teaches in the social issues and policy areas. He previously held positions as Visiting Assistant Research Professor at the Values Center, University of Delaware, and as Visiting Fulbright Research Fellow, Science Center, Berlin, West Germany. He has published several recent articles in the areas of bluffing and deception in business and ethical/social investing. James E. Cox, Jr., is Assistant Professor of Management and Marketing at Illinois State University. Formerly, he was at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (from September 1979 until August 1983). He was a fellow at the 1979 American Marketing Association Ph. D. Consortium and his research has been published in the Journal of Forecasting, the Journal of Marketing Education, the Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, and the Proceedings of the National Council of Physical Distribution Management. He is also co-author of the book Sales Forecasting Methods: A Survey of Recent Developments.     

Application of distributive justice theory to the CEO pay problem: Recommendations for reform

An ethical analysis of chief executive officer (CEO) salaries can be approached via theory on distributive justice and an examination of some corporate codes of ethics. U.S. CEO salaries are compared with their Japanese and European counterparts, and factors behind the high U.S. CEO salaries are reviewed. The negative repercussions of high pay are discussed, including feelings of unfairness, declining morale and greater cynicism found in lower level employees. Reduced research and development budgets, and downsized organizations are related to the maintenance of high CEO salaries. After considering economic repercussions, recommendations for reform, which lead to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged, are made.Paul Wilhelm has a Ph.D. in Business in the area of Human Resource Management and is an Assistant Professor of Management at UTEP. He has taught Strategic Management, Compensation, Organization Behavior, Arbitration and Negotation, and Human Resource Staffing and Planning. He has published articles inJournal of Business Leadership, Journal of Social Psychology, Business Insights, Journal of Private Enterprise, andSAM Advanced Management Journal.     

Business ethics — A developmental perspective: The evolution of the free and mature corporation

Ethics in Business organizations is a multidimensional process involving decision-making, leadership and institution building. The relatively simpler ethics of day-to-day decisions has to be reflected upon in the context of corporate desire for continuity, embedded in the values of a progressive society. At the operating level, the multivalence of decision situations is emphasized in place of the simple good — bad or cost — benefit dichotomies. A decision tree framework is presented to reflect the richness of the decisions. At the corporate level, the concept of responsive strategy as a synthesis of vision, power, and responsibility is proposed. In this, the crucial role of leaders cannot be over-emphasized. Finally, at the societal level, the evolution of capitalism and its corporate forms is seen as a milestone in people's search for enlightened ways to achieve refined ends. As more businesses assert their rightful roles in society, progressive institutional forms more in tune with the values of the twenty-first century should emerge.L. L. Jayaraman is Associate Professor of Management at Montclair State College, New Jersey, U.S.A. He holds a Ph.D. and a Post-graduate Diploma in Management. His research interests include Corporate Strategy and Business Ethics. Recent publications includeHow to Compete in the Global Economy: A Fresh Look at Business Strategy, in the January 1993 issue of theAmerican Business Review. During the Summer of 1992, he was a visiting professor at the School of Management, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Federal Republic.Byung K. Min is Associate Professor of Management and Chairman of the Department of Management at Montclair State College, New Jersey, U.S.A. He holds a Ph.D. His research interests cover Corporate Strategy, Business Ethics, Organizational Behavior and Management Information Systems. His article has appeaed in theJournal of Applied Psychology.     

A validation and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale

Reidenbach and Robin (1988, 1990) proposed and refined a multidimensional ethics scale. This study replicates and extends their work by examining the generalizability of the scale beyond marketing to accounting, and to subjects from across the United States and other countries. Results indicate that, in general, the scale holds for this different sample and context. However, an additional utilitarian construct emerged in the current study as important for accounting academics in their ethical decision-making. We also found that when we refined Reidenbach and Robin's measure of intention to make a particular choice, a social desirability bias or halo effect was identified. Methodological implications for business ethics research are also presented.Jeffrey R. Cohen is Associate Professor of Accounting at Boston College. He is a C.M.A. and a KPMG Peat Marwick Faculty Fellow. His articles have appeared in theJournal of Accounting Research, Decision Sciences andThe Organizational Behavior Teaching Review. His work on Ethics has appeared inJournal of Business Ethics, Issues in Accounting Education, Management Accounting, andThe CPA Journal.Laurie W. Pant is Associate Professor of Accounting at Suffolk University. She holds an M.B.A. and a D.B.A. and an M.Ed. She serves on the editorial board ofIssues in Accounting Education. Her articles on Ethics have appeared inJournal of Business Ethics, Issues in Accounting Education, Management Accounting andThe Organizational Behavior Teaching Review.David Sharp is Assistant Professor of Accounting at University of Western Ontario. He holds a Ph.D. and an M.Sc. He serves on the editorial board of theJournal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation. His articles have appeared inThe Midland Corporate Finance Journal andSloan Management Review.     

Deceptive nature of Dial-a-Porn commercials and public policy alternatives

This research investigates consumers' perceptions of claims made in Dial-a-Porn commercials. The empirical findings support the view that some of the claims are deceptive. Based on research findings, preliminary public policy guidelines are suggested.Shaheen Borna is an Associate Professor, Department of Marketing, Ball State University. He received his DBA. His articles have appeared in theJournal of Business Ethics, Journal of Health Care Marketing, British Journal of Criminology, Journal of Accountancy, Akron Business and Economic Review, andProceedings of the American Marketing Associations.Joseph Chapman is an Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, Ball State University. He received his Ph.D. His research interests are in the areas of personal selling, promotion and business ethics. His articles have appeared in theJournal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Marketing Education Review, andJournal of Marketing Theory and Practice.Dennis Menezes is an Associate Professor, Department of Marketing, University of Louisville, Ky. He received his Ph.D. His articles have appeared in numerous journals includingJournal of Marketing Research.     

The Great Gatsby as a business ethics inquiry

The author argues for the use of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel,The Great Gatsby, as a text for studying business ethics. The author presents a documented analysis of the major ethics themes in the book including, for example, moral growth, Gatsby's life of illusion, the withering of the American Dream, and the parallels between the 1920s and the 1980s. Fitzgerald's fiction analysis is then tied to the '90s via current social science and philosophical evidence addressing Fitzgerald's 1920s concerns. Data examining the incidence of lying in contemporary American life, a review of Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development, and data-based studies of wealth distribution in America are among those strands of evidence. The article concludes with a brief look at students' responses toGatsby in a legal and social environment of business course.In effect, the author presents a lesson plan for teachingThe Great Gatsby as a general introduction to ethics and American values. As such, theGatsby discussion is designed to precede a more pragmatic and specific inquiry employing conventional business cases and the like.Tony McAdams is professor of business law in the Management Department at the University of Northern Iowa. Professor McAdams' articles have been published in theHarvard Business Review and theAcademy of Management Review, among other journals, and he is the principal author of the text,Law, Business, and Society. He received the 1978 Distinguished Teaching Award from the student government at the University of Kentucky.     

“Integrity testing” for personnel selection: An unsparing perspective

Federal legislation (the Employee Polygraph Protection Act) adopted in 1988 prohibits virtually all private sector employers from requiring or requesting preemployment polygraph examinations for prospective employees. Since then, written integrity testing designed to reliably distinguish those prospective employees who may steal from the company from those who are far less likely to do so has been something of a growth industry. Indeed, the American Psychological Association has recently noted that honesty tests have demonstrated useful levels of validity as an employee selection measure. We provide an alternative perspective. We argue that, even under the most charitable of assumptions, the propensity of integrity tests to generate false positives (i.e., to identify prospective employees as potential thieves when, in fact, they are not) is unsuitably large. Thus, the integrity test as currently configured is largely without merit as a personnel selection device.Dan R. Dalton is the Dow Professor of Management and Director of Graduate Programs, Graduate School of Business, Indiana University. Formerly with General Telephone & Electronics (GT&E) for thirteen years. Widely published in business and psychology, his articles have appeared in theAcademy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Executive, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Journal of Law and Public Policy, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Business Strategy, Behavioral Science, andHuman Relations, as well as many others.Michael B. Metzger is currently Professor of Business Law, Indiana University Graduate School of Business. Formerly Associate Dean for Academics and chair of the Business Law Department at I.U. He received his J.D. in 1969. Before entering academia he held a variety of positions, including Deputy Securities Commissioner, State of Indiana and Senior Legislative Analyst, Indiana Legislative Council. He also was in private practice in Indianapolis, Indiana with the firm of Baratz, Sosin, Jodka and Metzger. Widely published in legal and business and ethics journals, his work has appeared in theGeorgetown Law Journal theVanderbilt Law Review, theMinnesota Law Review, theEcology Law Quarterly, theBusiness Ethics Quarterly, and theSouthwestern Law Journal, as well as numerous others. Three times he has received theAmerican Business Law Journal's award for the best article of the year. He is a coauthor ofBusiness Law and the Regulatory Environment: Concepts and Cases (8th ed.), and is the winner of 12 awards for teaching at both undergraduate and graduate levels. He regularly addresses public and industry groups on business ethics issues.     

A reply to Thomas Mulligan's “critique of Milton Friedman's essay ‘The Social Responsibility of Business to Increase Its Profits’”

Professor Thomas Mulligan undertakes to discredit Milton Friedman's thesis that The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. He attempts to do this by moving from Friedman's paradigm characterizing a socially responsible executive as willful and disloyal to a different paradigm, i.e., one emphasizing the consultative and consensus-building role of a socially responsible executive. Mulligan's critique misses the point, first, because even consensus-building executives act contrary to the will of minority shareholders, but even more importantly, because he assumes that the mandate of a shareholder majority brings legitimacy to efforts of corporate managers to utilize corporate wealth in solving social problems. It is the role of our democratic institutions to deal with national agenda issues such as inflation, unemployment, and pollution, not that of the private sector. Corporations and private individuals do have a role to play in enhancing the quality of the human environment, however, and the author suggests a coherent means of developing that role in an effort rescue corporate social responsibility from Mulligan no less than from Friedman. Bill Shaw, Lynette S. Autrey Visiting Professor of Business Ethics at the Jesse H. School of Administration, Rice University, is Professor of Business Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He is staff editor of the American Business Law Journal and the Midwest Law Review. Among his most recent publications are The Structure of the Legal Environment (with Art Wolfe), Environmental Law: Text and Cases, The Global Environment: A Proposal to Eliminate Marine Oil Pollution (With Frank Cross and Brenda Winslett, The Natural Resources Journal), and Comparable Worth and Its Prospects (The Labor Law Journal).     

Business divestment in South Africa: In who's best interest?

In recent years, there has been considerable pressure on corporations doing business in South Africa to divest and withdraw from that country. While this moral view espouses withdrawal, this article seeks to provide insight into the practical consequences of divestment. One of the questions addressed is how does foreign divestment affect Black South Africans, those who are supposed to benefit from a divestment policy. Paul Lansing is Associate Professor of Business Law. Previous articles have appeared in the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Harvard International Law Journal, The International Lawyer, The Journal of Corporation Law and others Sarosh Kuruvilla is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Iowa.     

The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development

Marketers must first perceive ethics and social responsibility to be important before their behaviors are likely to become more ethical and reflect greater social responsibility. However, little research has been conducted concerning marketers' perceptions regarding the importance of ethics and social responsibility as components of business decisions. The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid scale for measuring marketers' perceptions regarding the importance of ethics and social responsibility. The authors develop an instrument for the measurement of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility (PRESOR). Evidence that the scale is valid is presented through the assessment of scale reliability, as well as content and predictive validity. Finally, future research needs and the value of this construct to marketing are discussed. Anusorn Singhapakdi is Associate Professor of Marketing at Old Dominion University. He received his Ph.D. in Marketing. His has published in the Journal of Macromarketing, the Journal of Business Ethics, the Business and Professional Ethics Journal, the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management and the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. He has presented papers at various professional conferences including the American Marketing Association and the Academy of Marketing Science. Scott J. Vitell is Associate Professor of Marketing and holder of the Phil B. Hardin Chair of Marketing at the University of Mississippi. He received his Ph.D. in Marketing. His work has previously appeared in the Journal of Macromarketing, the Journal of Business Ethics, Research in Marketing, the Business and Professional Ethics Journal and the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science as well as various other journals and proceedings. Kumar C. Rallapalli is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Troy State University. His research has been published in the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science and the Journal of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management as well as various national and regional proceedings. His research interests include marketing ethics, health care marketing, international marketing and direct marketing. Kenneth L. Kraft is Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Tampa. He received his DBA in Management. He has published numerous articles on Business Ethics, Organization Design and Strategic Planning in Journals such as the Academy of Management Review, America Business Review and the Journal of Business Ethics. His current research interest centers on the measurement of moral intensity.     

Cultural and socioeconomic constraints on international codes of ethics: Lessons from accounting

This paper provides a framework for the examination of cultural and socioeconomic factors that could impede the acceptance and implementation of a profession's international code of conduct. We apply it to the Guidelines on Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the International Federation of Accountants (1990). To examine the cultural effects, we use Hofstede's (1980a) four work-related values: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. The socioeconomic factors are the level of development of the profession and the availability of economic resources. We evaluate the applicability and relevance of the accounting guideline, and discuss the implications for accounting and other professions.Jeffrey R. Cohen is Assistant Professor of Accounting at Boston College. He is a CMA and a KPMG Peat Marwick Faculty Fellow. His articles have appeared in theJournal of Accounting Research, Decision Sciences, The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, andThe International Journal of Accounting. His work on ethics has appeared inJournal of Business Ethics, Issues in Accounting Education, Management Accounting andThe CPA Journal.Laurie W. Pant is Associate Professor of Accounting at Suffolk University. She holds an MBA and DBA and an M.Ed. She is a CMA and serves on the editorial board ofIssues in Accounting Education. Her articles have appeared inJournal of Business Ethics, Issues in Accounting Education, Management Accounting, The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, andThe International Journal of Accounting.David J. Sharp is Assistant Professor of Accounting at the University of Western Ontario. He received his Ph.D. and M.Sc. He is an ACMA and serves on the editorial board ofJournal of International Accounting Auditing and Taxation. His articles have appeared in theMidland Corporate Finance Journal, Sloan Management Review, andThe International Journal of Accounting.     

Undergraduate student attitudes about hypothetical marketing dilemmas

This study investigated the attitudinal responses of 403 undergraduate students with respect to nine hypothetical marketing moral dilemmas. Participants varied by gender, major, and age.It was found that undergraduate women responded more ethically on the hypothetical marketing moral dilemmas, as hypothesized. Secondly, chosen major did not make a difference on cognitive, affective, or behavioral responses. Further, the overall means for each scenario were in the morally correct direction in every case. Also, all intercorrelations for each story were significant. Finally, whenever there was a nonchance finding for age, the oldest participants answered more morally than the youngest subjects.Implications of these findings for the undergraduate curriculum and for organizational management were discussed. Carl Malinowski is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Pace University in Westchester, New York. He received his Ph.D. in social/personality psychology. His publications have appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and in Marketing News. His primary research interests are in the are of marketing ethics. Karen A. Berger is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Pace University. She received her Ph.D. in marketing. Her publications have appeared in the Journal of Marketing of Higher Education, Advances in Consumer Research, and the Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association. Her primary research interests are in marketing education and consumer behavior.     

Bribery,consent and prima facie duty: A rejoinder to Carson

Responding to my paper Bribery Tom Carson argues that bribe takers violate promisory obligations in a wider range of cases than I acknowledge and insists that bribe taking is prima facie wrong in all contexts. I argue that he is wrong on both counts. Michael Philips is a Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University. Recent papers by him have appeared in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Philosophical Studies, Nous, Law and Philosophy, The Journal of Business Ethics, and several other journals. He is currently at work an a book in moral theory.     

The ethics of leveraged management buyouts revisited

Although previous ethical analyses of management buyouts have presented useful insights, they have been flawed in three major ways. First, they define the transaction too narrowly, emphasizing the going private aspect and ignoring the leveraged aspect. Leveraging alters the nature of the transaction substantially and warrants additional ethical analysis. Second, these previous analyses ignore the impact of buyouts on non-stockholder constituents of the firm, an omission which renders their implicit utilitarian approach incomplete. Third, these analyses do not include Rawlsian, libertarian, or Kantian perspectives on ethics. This paper addresses these shortcomings and finds the ethical status of leveraged management buyouts to be highly suspect. Thomas M. Jones is a Professor of Organization and Environment in the School of Business Administration at the University of Washington in Seattle. He has written on such subjects as business ethics, corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, boards of directors, shareholder litigation, and business and society paradigms. His work has appeared in the Academy of Management Review, California Management Review, Boston University Law Review and the Hastings Law Journal.Reed O. Hunt, III is currently working for the Seattle Office of Peterson Consulting Limited Partnership, a national business dispute resolution consulting firm.     

An empirical and ethical analysis of factors motivating managers' merger decisions

This paper examines the role of managerial self-interest in the merger market. It looks at factors influencing managers' merger decisions by analyzing managerial expense preference factors on cross-sectional data employing non-parametric statistical methods. The same factors are examined for acquiring, acquired, and merging firms, and control groups used in each case. The results support the authors' contention that managerial discretion is a significant motivating factor for mergers. The changes in expense preference factors indicate management decisions which provide conditions allowing management to indulge in management preferred expenditures, while reducing risk to their career. The authors then provide a moral/philosophic framework of ethical analysis for examining manager's merger decisions, using teleological and deontological theories. They conclude that merger decisions motivated or influenced by self-interest are unethical and, in the process, provide managers facing a merger decision with a framework for making an ethical decision.Dr. Francis Achampong is a Professor of Business Law and Insurance at Norfolk State University, in Norfolk, Virginia. He is licensed to practice law in New York and Virginia. He has published in journals such as theJournal of Risk and Insurance, theInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly, Dickinson Law Review, and theAkron Law Review.Dr. Wold Zemedkun is an Associate Professor of Finance at Norfolk State University, In Norfolk, Virginia. He has published in journals such as theJournal of Business Strategies, theAkron Business and Economic Review,, theJournal of Financial Education, and theAtlantic Economic Journal.