ethical decision making in multinational organizations: a culture-based model

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this paper is to analyzethe relationship between national culture and ethicaldecision making. Established theories of ethics andmoral development are reviewed and a culture-basedmodel of ethical decision making in organizationsis derived. Although the body of knowledge inboth cross-cultural management and ethics is welldocumented, researchers have failed to integrate theinfluence of cultural values into the ethical decision-making paradigm. A conceptual understanding ofhow managers from different nations make decisionsabout highly ethical issues will provide business ethicsresearchers with a sound theoretical foundation uponwhich future empirical inquiry can be based.

The term ‘ethics’ refers to the study of whateveris right and good for humans (Donaldson andWerhane, 1993). In recent years there has beena growing interest around the world surroundingthe topics of ethical behavior and social respon-sibility (Jones, 1991). As trade barriers continueto fall, differences in morality across bordersregarding such issues as human rights and envi-ronmental conservation are clearly going to gainmore recognition in both academic and profes-sional settings (Sikkink, 1993; Gowdy, 1994).

While research in the fields of ethics and cross-cultural management has received considerableand separate attention, there has been virtually

no attempt to establish either causal or correla-tional relationships between these two areas(Vitell, Nwachukwu and Barnes, 1994; Hofstede,1994). However, as organizations continue toshift their focus to incorporate the internationalsetting, the knowledge and understanding ofhow other cultures view ethical decisions willbecome invaluable to these multinational entities(DeGeorge, 1987).

The first goal of this paper is to demonstratethat a need for research in the area of ethicaldecision making from a cultural perspectiveclearly exists. The second objective is to fulfillthis need, as a culture-based consequentialistmodel of ethical decision making will beproposed. Summaries of the relevant literaturein the research fields of culture, moral develop-ment, and consequentialist behavioral views willsupport the derived model, and research propo-sitions regarding the effects of culture on ethicaldecision making will be delineated. Both themodel and proposals will provide multinationalorganizations with a representative and accurateframework of differences in ethical behavioracross cultures.

The need for a culture-based model ofethical decision making

As multinational enterprises extend theiroperations around the globe there will be anincreasing demand for an understanding of thecultural values of foreign cultures (Sundaramand Black, 1992; Ginsberg and Miller, 1991).According to Bochner and Perks (1971), peopletend to be much more uncomfortable wheninteracting with members of other cultures than

Ethical Decision Makingin Multinational Organizations: A Culture-Based Model

Journal of Business Ethics 19: 385–392, 1999.© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Chris RobertsonPaul A. Fadil

Chris Robertson previously taught at La Universidad SanFrancisco de Quito in Ecuador. His research focuses oncross-cultural ethics, corporate codes of conduct, andstrategy-based ethical issues.

Paul A. Fadil is an Assistant Professor of Management atValdosta State University. His research interests includeattribution theory, organizational culture and change,and cross-cultural management.

they are when interacting with members of theirown culture. Personal differences are often exag-gerated and disagreements consistently occurwhen members of diverse cultures are confrontedwith interpersonal situations (Pulakos andWexley, 1983). These misconceptions that occuracross cultures are due to diverse cognitive viewsof the world and society (Shaw, 1990). Thus,a working knowledge of these cultural andcognitive differences will not only enhancecross-cultural communication and interaction(Graham, 1985), it will also provide individualswith a general guideline of “proper” or ethicalbehavior in the specific countries where theirorganizations are currently engaging in businessactivities (Schneider, 1989).

Although business ethics has historically beenof little interest to organizations in the globalenvironment, the salience of this area hassignificantly increased over the past ten years(Ciulla, 1991). The recent approval of the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement, as well as othertrade pacts (i.e. E. C. 1992), should stimulateglobal interest regarding the influence of culturaldifferences on such moral matters as copyrightinfractions, business negotiations, environmentalviolations, etc. (Butler, 1993; Guiterrez, 1993;Sikkink, 1993).

In 1977, the U.S. Congress passed the ForeignCorrupt Practices Act in an attempt to legislatestandards of conduct for multinational enterprisesby making it a crime for U.S. based multinationalto make “sensitive payments”, or brides, to offi-cials of foreign governments. This act clearlyrecognizes the concern for unethical behavior byindividuals representing U.S. organizations intheir interaction with individuals from differentcultures (Donaldson and Werhane, 1993).

There has been extensive debate over theinfluence of culture on ethical values. Oneview supports the concept of “moral relativism”which states that each culture has its ownunique set of values (Rosen, 1980; B. F. Skinner,1971). Kohlberg (1984) offers “universalism” asa contrasting perspective to moral relativism.Universalism contends that all cultures aremade up of the same value-set but each culturedevelops at a different moral pace due to culturalsurroundings and other traits of the society

(Kohlberg, 1984; Turiel, Edwards and Kohlberg,1978). Certain immoral acts, such as thegenocide that took place in Nazi Germany,support Kohlberg’s (1984) position, whilebusiness activities such as bribes or “greasepayments” are used as examples of moral rela-tivism (Speer, 1981). Although Skinner (1971)and Kohlberg (1969, 1984) view the influence ofculture on ethical decision making from twodistinct paradigms, both philosophers clearlyacknowledge that culture does affect the moralstructure upon which individuals base ethicaldecisions.

As previously stated, it is the position of thecurrent authors that individuals from differentsocieties will view ethical issues differently. Inother words, are there specific cultures that createdifferent ethical climates which encourage or dis-courage what is generally considered ethicalbehavior? The culture-based consequentialistmodel attempts to explain how cultural value dif-ferences alter the ethical actions of individualswho are engaged in the ethical decision makingprocess.

The culture-based consequentialist model

The culture-based consequentialist model buildsupon previous models of ethical decision making.Our model focuses on the specific culturaldimension of individualism/collectivism and theclassic ethical philosophy of consequentialism.

386 Chris Robertson and Paul A. Fadil

Fig. 1. The culture-based consequentialist model ofethical decision making organizations.

Importantly, the model also incorporates otherkey stages in the ethical decision making processsuch as: education and training; moral develop-ment; the intensity of the ethical dilemma; andmoderating factors.

National culture: individualism versus collectivism

The first stage of the model focusses on theambiguous notion of culture and the distinctionbetween cultures utilizing values. Specifically, thework of Hofstede (1980, 1983, 1984) and hiscultural dimension of individualism/collectivismwill be employed as the measure of cultural vari-ation in this conceptual examination. The majoradvantage of using the cultural dimension indi-vidualism/collectivism as the catalyst of influencein this paper is that this dimension is explicit andmeasurable (Triandis et al., 1988). Specifically,the Individualism/Collectivism scale was devel-oped and tested by Hui and Triandis (1984) andis a sufficient and effective tool which can beutilized to dichotomize an individual’s positionon this polar continuum. Before exploring thepotential impact of individualism/collectivismon ethical decision making, a clarification anddefinition of the concept “culture” must beprovided.

Culture is a term that was originally developedin the field of anthropology, and has recentlybecome a prevalent research area in organiza-tional studies (Smircich, 1983). Unfortunately, aconsistent definition of this ambiguous conceptis extremely difficult to find, especially in amanagerial context. However, there are certainconcepts that are ubiquitous to attempted defi-nitions of culture and one of the more acceptedones comes from Kroeber and Kluckhohn:

Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit,of and for behavior acquired and transmitted bysymbols, constituting the distinctive achievementof human groups, including their embodiment ofartifacts; the essential core of culture consists oftraditional (i.e. historically derived and selected)ideas and attached values (1952, p. 181).

For years, scholars have called for research thatwould explain and analyze the relationship

between management, organizations and culture(Evans, 1980). Subsequently, culture is just begin-ning to be realized as an observable, tangibleaspect of human behavior (Adler, 1986).

Although the above “thick” description ofculture may be favored by anthropologists, socialpsychologists have concentrated on a moreapplicable, operational form of cultural value ori-entations. In his seminal study, through a factoranalytical treatment of country value measures,Hofstede (1980) derived four cultural valuedimensions related to basic anthropological,societal and organizational issues (individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femi-ninity, and uncertainty avoidance). Of Hofstede’sfour cultural dimensions, the individualism/collectivism bipolar continuum has stimulatedthe most empirical research (Hofstede, 1984;Triandis et al., 1985; Triandis et al., 1988). Sincethere has been significant empirical and theoret-ical support for the individualism/collectivismvalue orientation, this dimension will provide thetheoretical foundation necessary for the currentmodel.

According to Hofstede (1980, 1984), individ-ualist cultures are societies where individuals areprimarily concerned with their own interests andthe interests of their immediate family. In col-lectivist cultures, on the other hand, individualsbelong to ingroups or collectivities whichlook after them in exchange for their loyalty.Cultures that endorse individualism, such ascountries in North America and WesternEurope, place a high value on autonomy, com-petitiveness, achievement and self-sufficiency. Incontrast, cultures that endorse collectivism, suchas countries in Asia and South America, place ahigh value on interpersonal harmony and groupsolidarity.

Individualism/collectivism has been found tohave interesting, global effects on an individual’svalues. For example, Hegarty and Sims (1979)found that in the United States, an individualistsociety according to Hofstede’s work, thepersonal desire for wealth is positively related tounethical behavior. Similarly, Hui and Triandis(1984) discovered that people in individualisticcultures tend to be more pervasive in applyingtheir ethical value standards to all, while people

Ethical Decision Making in Multinational Organizations 387

in collectivistic cultures tend to be more partic-ularistic, applying differential ethical value stan-dards to members of their ingroups andoutgroups. Based on this literature, it is apparentthat people from different nations have distinctconceptions of ethical and unethical behavior.

P1: The cultural dimension of individu-alism/collectivism influences a manager’sethical decision making.

The Kohlberg stages of moral development

Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1969) work on moraldevelopment has made a major contribution tothe research on ethical decision making in orga-nizations and comprises the second stage of themodel. Kohlberg’s research focuses on moraljudgements and the cognitive processes ofindividuals confronted by ethical dilemmas. Amoral judgement, according to kohlberg (1984),is essentially the mental determination of rightand wrong which is based on values and socialjudgements involving people.

Kohlberg’s model of moral development assertsthat individuals pass sequentially through one ormore different stages as they morally develop.each stage reflects a level of moral maturity andKohlberg contends that ethical behavior can beunderstood by identifying an individual’s relativeposition on the scale.

Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development aresubdivided by three exclusive levels. The first

level, the “preconventional level” is where theindividual is concerned with his or her imme-diate interests and does not yet understand therules and expectations of society. In the secondlevel, the “conventional level”, people recognizesocietal laws, rules, and expectations. The thirdlevel, the “postconventional” level, is representedby people who accept society’s rules only if theyagree with the moral foundation that the rulesare based upon. Generally, children under the ageof nine appear in level I, adolescents and mostadults hit their plateau in level II, and only asmall percentage of people ever reach the thirdlevel of moral development (Kohlberg, 1984).

Standard open-ended interview questions,named “standard issue scoring”, are used tomeasure an individual’s relative position onKohlberg’s stages of moral development(Kohlberg, 1984). There have been numerousempirical tests of Kohlberg’s model whichinclude longitudinal and cross-cultural analyses.One study discovered that correlations betweenan adult’s moral judgement level and IQ rangefrom .37 to .57; which signifies that moraljudgement is not strictly based on mental devel-opment (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs and Lieberman,1983).

The extensive research that has been per-formed on Kohlberg’s model at the internationallevel adds to the understanding of other factorsthat may amplify an individual’s growth throughthe moral development stages. A longitudinalstudy of moral judgment in Turkey supportedKohlberg’s universalism claim and concluded thatthe six moral stages did not vary between cultures(Nisan and Kohlberg, 1982). However, it wasfound that people from villages morally devel-oped at a slower rate than people from the city.While the stages appeared to be the same in bothlocations, the city dwellers moved more quicklythrough the stages. Kohlberg credits this inter-esting difference to the varying cultural sur-roundings that village and city residents face.Studies by Kohlberg and his research colleaguesin countries such as Kenya, Honduras, and Indiahad similar findings (Kohlberg, 1984).

The impact of culture on the ethical reasoningof managers in Kohlberg’s stages has also beenempirically explored. Manning (1981), in a study


Fig. 2. The Kohlberg stages of moral development.

of performance appraisal, found that managersin stage one were likely to judge a situation inegocentric terms (an individualist trait) whilemanagers in stage four considered the employee’sloyalty to the organization (a collectivist trait).Apparently, exposure to diverse cultural envi-ronments explains a portion of the variability inmoral development rates (Kohlberg, 1984). Basedon this analysis, and the work of Hofstede, thefollowing propositions have been developed:

P2a: Managers from collectivist societies willreason about ethical dilemmas at higherlevels in Kohlberg’s stages of moraldevelopment than managers from indi-vidualist societies.

P2b: Managers from individualist societieswill reason about ethical dilemmasat lower levels in Kohlberg’s stages ofmoral development that managers fromcollectivist societies.

Education and training

Research on Kohlberg’s model also suggests thatmoral development is positively related to edu-cation and work experience (Colby et al., 1983).In an application of Kohlberg’s model to arandom sample of graduate business ethicsstudents, Penn and Collier (1985) concluded that37 percent of the students moved to a highermoral development stage as a result of ethicaltraining. Kohlberg’s work (1984) also supportsthat as individuals learn more about moral issuesthey tend to move faster through the six stagesof moral development. Therefore:

P3: Involvement in education and trainingcontinually increases a manager’s growththrough Kohlberg’s stages of moral devel-opment.

Intensity of ethical dilemma

An important factor that alters the variability ofan individual’s ethical decision is the intensity ofthe actual ethical dilemma. In an extensiveanalysis of previous models, Jones (1991)

proposed an issue-contingent model of ethicaldecision making in organizations. The founda-tion of this model is its focus on the impact ofmoral intensity on ethical decision makingbehavior. Moral intensity, according to Jones, isthe variance in response by individuals to dif-ferent moral issues based on the specific charac-teristics of the issue. Thus, this majorcontribution by Jones (1991) to the ethicaldecision making process is incorporated into thepresent model and we also agree that the inten-sity of the ethical dilemma clearly has an impacton an individual’s judgment and actions.

Moderating effects

The major limitation of Kohlberg’s model is thatit focuses on how individuals reason about ethicalmatters and not on actual behavior. In Trevino’s(1988) person-situation interactionist model ofethical decision making, individual and situa-tional variables are provided as moderators in theethical decision making process. Trevino proposesthat the individual moderators of ego strength,field dependence, and locus of control influencean individual’s ethical behavior. Other traits, suchas altruism, loyalty, and honesty, affect an indi-vidual’s action as well (Kohlberg and Candee,1984). Kohlberg’s work (1984) also supportsculture’s impact on an individual’s cognitivedecision making ability (an individual moderator)regarding ethical issues.

Trevino (1988) also purports that situationalvariables moderate an individual’s ethicalresponse. Factors such as job context, organiza-tional culture, and work characteristics are poten-tial situational moderators according to Trevino.Moreover, group influences on individual deci-sions are often an integral part of an organiza-tion’s culture (Trevino, 1988) and can alter thesituation in which an individual engages in anethical decision. Kohlberg’s (1984) research alsosupports that unethical behavior not only resultsfrom individual characteristics but also from theinteraction of the individual and the situation. Inaddition, Schneider and Meyer’s (1991) studyfound that national culture moderates the amountof crisis situations (a situational moderator) an


individual confronts, as well as his potential toreact effectively in these situations. Thus, basedon the above rationale:

P4a: The individual factors which moderateethical behavior are influenced by amanager’s national culture.

P4b: The situational factors which moderateethical behavior are influenced by amanager’s national culture.

Consequentialist theories of ethical behavior

The previous discussion reviewed the cognitivereasoning process that individuals engage in whenconfronted by an ethical dilemma. This mentalcontemplation of moral issues has been ponderedin the fields of philosophy and religion as farback as the times of Aristotle (Donaldsonand Werhane, 1993). However, there has beenminimal effort to make a conceptual linkbetween this cognitive activity and decisionmaking behavior in organizations (Fritzsche andBecker, 1984). To gain a better understandingof this relationship, one specific philosophicalparadigm of ethical decision making, the conse-quentialist approach, will now be examined.

Consequentialism focuses on the consequencesof human actions. Proponents of this theoryargue that all actions are evaluated in terms ofthe extent to which desirable results are achieved(Donaldson and Werhane, 1993; Vitell et al.,1993). Consequentialist theories, which are alsoknown as teleological theories, further argue thatthe end result of an action or behavior supersedesthe concepts of moral right and wrong. Thereare two basic types of consequentialist theoriesof ethical decision making: ethical egoism andutilitarianism.

Ethical egoism, as its name implies, views“right” action as that which emphasizes theindividual’s personal good. An ethical egoistbehaves in an egocentric manner which maxi-mizes individual benefits and while minimizingindividual harm (Donaldson and Werhane, 1993).Interestingly, Kohlberg’s stages of moral devel-opment have been applied to ethical decisionmaking situations. Manning’s (1981) findings thatmanagers reasoning in lower stages were more

likely to judge the ethical dilemma in individu-alistic terms than managers reasoning in higherstages supports that cultural differences exist inethical decision making logic. Thus, based on theprior analyses:

P5: Managers from individualist societies aremore likely to follow the ethical egoisttheory of ethical decision making thanmanagers from collectivist societies.

Utilitarianism is a theory that was popularizedby the nineteenth-century philosopher JohnStuart Mill. Supporters of this theory argue thatmoral action is concerned with more than justpersonal satisfaction. In utilitarianism, “right”action maximizes the good of the overall humancommunity, as opposed to ethical egoism whereindividual utility in maximized. A person fol-lowing a utilitarian approach behaves in a fashionwhich attempts to maximize the overall desiredbenefits of society (Donaldson and Werhane,1993). Therefore, the following propositionappears logical:

P6: Managers from collectivist societiesare more likely to follow the utilitariantheory of ethical decision making thanmanagers from individualist societies.

Discussion

The primary objective of this paper was to estab-lish a need for research in the area of ethicaldecision making from a cultural perspective. Webelieve that our proposed model, and the theo-retical foundation upon which it is based, hasclearly fulfilled this objective. The strength ofthe culture-based consequentialist model is thatit focuses on one cultural dimension, individu-alism/collectivism, and one established theoryof ethical decision making. Although thisnarrow scope has its empirical advantages, it alsocreates many opportunities for future conceptualresearch through the use of the many existingcultural dimensions and ethical philosophies.

The proposed model of ethical decisionmaking has many implications for organizationalresearchers. The opportunities for empirical


inquiry in this research paradigm are plentiful.Testing of specific hypotheses may add to theunderstanding of how members of differentcultures reason about ethical dilemmas. However,there are many limitations to any empiricalexamination of both culture and ethics.Generalizations about cultures are often difficultto make due to the existence of vast subculturesin many societies. These subcultures, which areoften diverse, should be considered whenattempting any cultural analysis. In the study ofethics the social desirability bias amongst thesubjects will be quite prevalent. This is com-pounded by the very nature of social desirabilityinherent within any collectivist culture. Properresearch design can protect against individualsresponding to questions in a socially desirablefashion.

Managers of multinational organizations mayalso find the propositions in this paper, if empir-ically tested, helpful in the understanding ofintrinsic differences in ethical decision making byworkers and managers from different cultures.Further, a knowledge of how certain societiesmorally develop may assist managers in interna-tional negotiations and corporate policy decisionsregarding ethical matters.

In conclusion, the purpose of this paper wasnot to question either cultural or ethical theory,but to work within the bounds of the chosentheories to develop an applicable model whichutilizes both culture and ethics as important con-structs within its framework. The derived modeland propositions attempt to fill a large gap inboth cross-cultural and ethical research. This gapconcerns the ability to relate differences incultural values to major ethical issues. Accordingto Negandhi (1974), cross-cultural managementis filled with too many conclusions and notenough conceptualizations. His position is stillcredible today. The Culture-Based Consequen-tialist Model provides a mechanism by whichcultural differences affect important ethicalvariables, which, in turn, influences how indi-viduals perceive, evaluate and react. The strongtheoretical nature of this paradigm, combinedwith its applicable nature, should prove to beindispensable to future researchers of cross-cultural business ethics.

References

Adler, N.: 1983, ‘A Typology of Management StudiesInvolving Culture’, Journal of International BusinessStudies (Fall), 29–47.

Bochner, S. and R. W. Perks: 1971, ‘NationalRole Evocation as a Function of Cross-CulturalInteraction’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2,157–164.

Butler, M.: 1993, ‘Strategic Management of WorkerHealth, Safety, and Environmental Issues inMexico’s Maquiladora Industry’, Human ResourceManagement 32(4), 479–503.

Ciulla, J.: 1991, ‘Why is Business Talking aboutEthics? Reflections on Foreign Conversations’,California Management Review 34(1), 67–87.

Colby, A., L. Kohlberg, J. C. Gibbs and M.Lieberman: 1983, ‘A Longitudinal Study of MoralDevelopment’, Monographs of the Society for Researchin Child Development 48, 1–124.

DeGeorge, R.: 1987, ‘The Status of Business Ethics:Past and Future’, Journal of Business Ethics 6,201–213.

Donaldson, T. and P. Werhane: 1993, Ethical Issues inBusiness (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Evans, W. M.: 1990, Organizational Theory (Wiley,New York).

Fritzsche, D. and H. Becker: 1984, ‘LinkingManagerial Behavior to Ethical Philosophy – AnEmpirical Investigation’, Academy of ManagementJournal 27, 166-175.

Ginsberg, L. and N. Miller: 1991, ‘Value-DrivenManagement’, Management Decision 29(4), 4–8.

Gowdy, J.: 1994, ‘Progress and EnvironmentalSustainability’. Environmental Ethics 16, 41–55.

Graham, J. L.: 1985, ‘Cross-Cultural MarketingNegotiations: A Laboratory Experiment’, MarketingScience 4, 130–146.

Gutierrez, S.: 1993, ‘Can You Make it in Mexico?’,Financial Executive 9, 20–23.

Hegarty, W. and H. Sims: 1979, ‘OrganizationalPhilosophy, Policies, and Objectives Related toUnethical Decision Behavior: An LaboratoryExperiment’, Journal of Applied Psychology 64(3),331–338.

Hofstede, G.: 1980, Culture’s Consequences: InternationalDifferences in Work-Related Values (Sage, BeverlyHills, CA).

Hofstede, G.: 1983, ‘Dimensions of National Culturein Fifty Countries and Three Regions’, in J. D.Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec and R. C. Annios (eds.),Expiscations in Cross-Cultural Psychology (Swets andZeitlinger, Lisse, Netherlands), 335–355.


Hofstede, G.: 1984, ‘The Cultural Relativity of theQuality of Life Concept’, Academy of ManagementReview 9, 389–398.

Hofstede, G.: 1994, ‘Management Scientists areHuman’, Management Science 1, 4–13.

Hui, C. H. and H. C. Triandis: 1984, What DoesIndividualism-Collectivism Mean: A Study of SocialScientists (Unpublished Manuscript, University ofIllinois, Department of Psychology).

Jones, T.: 1991, ‘Ethical Decision Making byIndividuals in Organizations; An Issue-ContingentModel’, Academy of Management Review 16(2),366–395.

Kohlberg, L.: 1984, Philosophy of Moral Development(Harper and Row, New York).

Kohlberg, L. and D. Candee: 1984, ‘The Relationshipof Moral Judgement to Moral Action’, in W. M.Kurtines and J. L. Gerwitz (eds.), Morality, MoralBehavior and Moral Development (Wiley, New York),52–73.

Kohlberg, L.: 1969, ‘Stage and Sequence: The cog-nitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization’,Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (RandMcNally, Chicago).

Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn: 1952, ‘Culture: ACritical Review of Concepts and Definitions’,Peabody Museum Papers 47, 12–22.

Manning, F. V.: 1981, Managerial Dilemmas andExecutive Growth (Reston, Reston, VA).

Negandhi, A. R.: 1979, ‘Convergence in Organiza-tional Practices: an Empirical Study of IndustrialEnterprise in Developing Countries’, in C. J.Lammers and D. J. Hickson (eds.), OrganizationsAlike and Unlike (Routledge & Kegan Paul,London), 323–345.

Nisan, M. and L. Kohlberg: 1982, ‘University andCross-Cultural Variation in Moral Development:A Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Study inTurkey’, Child Development 53, 865–876.

Penn, W. and B. Collier: 1985, ‘Current Research inMoral Development as a Decision Support system’,Journal of Business Ethics 4, 131–136.

Pulakos, E. D. and K. N. Wexley, 1983: ‘TheRelationship Among Perceptual Similarity, Sex andPerformance Ratings in Manager-Subordinatedyads’, Academy of Management Journal 26, 129–139.

Rosen, H.: 1980, The Development of SociomoralKnowledge (Columbia University Press, New York).

Schneider, S.: 1989, ‘Strategy Formulation: theImpact of National Culture’, Organization Studies10(2), 149–169.

Schneider, S. and A. Meyer: 1991, ‘Interpreting andResponding to Strategic Issues: The Impact of

National Culture’, Strategic Management Journal 12,307–320.

Shaw, J. B.: 1990, ‘A Cognitive Categorization for theStudy of Intercultural Management’, Academy ofManagement Review 15, 626–645.

Sikkink, K.: 1993, ‘Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America’,International Organization 47(3), 411–441.

Skinner, B. F.: 1971, Beyond Freedom and Dignity(Knopf, New York).

Smircich, L.: 1973, ‘Concepts of Culture andOrganizational Analysis’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 28, 330–358.

Speer, A.: 1981, Infiltration (MacMillan, New York).Sundaram, A. and J. Black: 1992, ‘The Environment

and Internal Organization of MultinationalEnterprises’, Academy of Management Review 17(4),729–757.

Trevino, L.: 1986, ‘Ethical Decision Making inOrganizations: A Person-Situation InteractionistModel’, Academy of Management Review 11,601–617.

Triandis, H., K. Leung, M. Villareal and F. Clark:1985, ‘Allocentric Versus Idiocentric Tendencies:Convergent and Discriminant Validation’, Journalof Research in Personality 19, 395–415.

Triandis, H., R. Bontempo, M. Villareal, M. Asaiand N. Lucca: 1988, ‘Individualism and Collec-tivism: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self-IngroupRelationships’, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 54(2), 323–338.

Turiel, E., C. Edwards and L. Kohlberg: 1978, ‘MoralDevelopment in Turkish Children, Adolescents,and Young Adults’, Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology 9, 75–85.

Vitell, S., S. Nwachukwu and J. Barnes: 1993, ‘TheEffects of Culture on Ethical Decision-Making: AnApplication of Hofstede’s Typology’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 12, 753–760.

Department of Management,College of Business Administration,

James Madison University,Harrisonburg, VA 22807,

U.S.A.

Department of Management & Information Systems,School of Business Administration,

Valdosta State University,1500 North Patterson Street,

Valdosta, GA 31698, U.S.A.


ethical decision making in multinational organizations: a culture-based model

Documents