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

70 John A. Weber

Business Ethics Training 71

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: john.a.weber.1@nd.edu

Business Ethics Training 85