Expert answer:Cross-Cultural Decision Making
Expert answer:Need 200-250 words for each part in APA format with Scholarly (Journals) references within the last 4 years (No Google Scholar books) to answer the following: Part 1 Pascale’s findings on culture and decision-making differ from those of Olie, Van Iterson, and Simsek? Which author(s) presented the stronger argument for their position? Why? Part 2 Beckun and Westerman found that Norwegians who were more spiritual also made more ethical decisions, whereas Americans who were more spiritual made less ethical decisions. What is the most significant of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions for defending these findings? Why? Supplemental Material Beckun, R., & Westerman, J. (2012). Spirituality and national culture as antecedents to ethical decision –making: a comparison between the United States and Norway. Journal of Business Ethics 110(1), 33-44. Pascale, R. T. (1978). Communication and decision making across cultures: Japanese and American comparisons. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 91-110. Lam, S. K., Chen, X. P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 905-914. Strutton, D., & Carter, W. (2013) Reducing biases in cross-cultural top management team decision-making processes. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(3), 1-13.
beckun__r.____westerman__j.__2012_._spirituality_and_national_culture_as_antecedents_to_ethical_decision____making_a_comparison_between_the_united_states_and_norway..pdf
lam__chen__x._p._schaubroeck_2002__participative_decision_making_and_employee_performance_in_different_culturesthe_moderating_effects_of_allocentrismidiocentrism_and_efficacy.pdf
olie__r.__van_iterson__a.____simsek__z.__2012_._when_do_ceo_s_versus_top_management_teams_matter_in_explaining_strategic_decision_making_processes.pdf
olie__r.__van_iterson__a.____simsek__z.__2012_._when_do_ceo_s_versus_top_management_teams_matter_in_explaining_strategic_decision_making_processes.pdf
pascale__r._t.__1978_._communication_and_decision_making_across_cultures_japanese_and_american.pdf
strutton__d.____carter__w.__2013__reducing_biases_in_cross_cultural_top_management_team_decision_making_processes..pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
J Bus Ethics (2012) 110:33–44
DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1145-x
Spirituality and national culture as antecedents to ethical decisionmaking: a comparison between the United States and Norway
Rafik I. Beekun • James W. Westerman
Received: 2 September 2011 / Accepted: 5 December 2011 / Published online: 23 December 2011
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract We investigate the cross-cultural relationships
between spirituality and ethical decision-making in Norway and the U.S. Data were collected from business students (n = 149) at state universities in Norway and the
U.S. Results indicate that intention to behave ethically was
significantly related to spirituality, national culture, and the
influence of peers. Americans were significantly less ethical than Norwegians based on the three dimensions of
ethics, yet more spiritual overall. Interestingly, the more
spiritual were Norwegians, the more ethical was their
decision-making. By contrast, the more spiritual were
Americans, the less ethical was their decision-making. The
research also found that peer influences were more
important to Norwegians than to Americans in making
ethical decisions. Finally, spiritual people from the U.S.
were more likely to use a universalistic form of justice
ethics, as opposed to a more particularistic form of justice
ethics used by Norwegians.
Keywords Ethics Spirituality National culture
Religion Peers
This study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and
has therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards
laid down in the 1964 declaration of Helsinki. All persons gave their
informed consent prior to their inclusion in this study.
R. I. Beekun
Managerial Sciences Department/28, University of Nevada,
Reno, NV 89557-0206, USA
e-mail: rafikb@unr.edu
J. W. Westerman (&)
Appalachian State University, ASU Box 32089, Boone,
NC 28608-2089, USA
e-mail: westermanjw@appstate.edu
Introduction
In light of the recent rise in unethical business conduct, the
need to understand the antecedents to ethical decisionmaking has become more critical. Although many have
recognized the impact of the social context or the environment within which an individual makes ethical decisions (Hunt and Vitell 1992; Jones 1991; Robertson and
Crittenden 2003; Trevino 1986), the influence of internal
factors on ethical decision-making needs further study. In
this article, data from Norway and the U.S. are utilized to
examine three sources of influence on ethical decisionmaking, personal spirituality, and peer pressure (which
represent two micro-level influences) as well as national
culture (a macro-level influence). Taking into account the
bombing and mass shooting which occurred on July 24,
2011 in Norway—with the Norwegian suspect claiming
both religious and nationalistic motivations for his egregious behavior—an improved understanding of relationships between spirituality and ethical decision-making in
Norway may have taken on an increased importance.
Examining cross-cultural differences with the U.S. in
regards to any relationships may be illuminating in determining the consistency, pervasiveness, and potential relevance of spirituality to business ethics.
Social Identity Theory and Ethical Behavior
To examine the relationship between ethical decisionmaking and behavioral norms, we use social identity theory
(Tajfel 1982; Westerman et al. 2007). According to Stets
and Burke (2000), this theory suggests a social identity is
‘‘a person’s knowledge that he or she belongs to a social
category or group’’ (p. 225). A social group is a group of
individuals who perceive themselves as part of the same
123
34
R. I. Beekun, J. W. Westerman
social category. Part of the process of social identity formation involves individuals striving to highlight the perceive commonalities between the self and other in-group
members. These commonalities include their religion, their
families, communities, professions, and nations (Dworkin
1986; Gewirth 1988; Scheffler 2001; Stets and Burke 2000).
If an individual were to say, ‘‘My faith would not allow me
to that,’’ or ‘‘In my country, we wouldn’t do that,’’ he or she
is asserting that behaving in a way contrary to spiritual or
country norms and values would weaken one’s social coupling (Charney 2003). As a result, people abstain from tasks
seen as incompatible with their identity (Steele et al. 2002).
The Importance of National Culture to Social Identity
Kymlicka asserts that national identity is particularly suited
to serving as a primary focus of identification, and it ‘‘prioritizes nationalist identity over and above all of the other
‘identities’ that an individual might have and the nation over
and above all other possible cites of identity formation’’
(Charney 2003, p. 301). National identifications have been
argued to possess a transcendent quality in that, through
national membership, our individual accomplishments take
on an additional meaning by becoming part of a continuous
creative effort (Tamir 1993). Identifying with one’s country
also suggests that our daily activities have meaning in that
they fit into a pattern of norms and behaviors which are
culturally recognized as appropriate ways of leading one’s
life. Thus, national culture plays a major role in determining
identity and social referents. Kymlicka (1995) claims that
individuals identify so closely with their cultural-national
communities that assimilation into other cultures is very
difficult: ‘‘Cultural membership affects our very sense of
personal identity and capacity. The connection between
personal identity and cultural membership is suggested by a
number of considerations….Why cannot members of a
decaying culture simply integrate into another culture?…
[B]ecause of the role of cultural membership in people’s selfidentity….[N]ational identity…provides a secure foundation of individual autonomy and self-identity’’ (p. 105).
Thus, national membership represents a bond that individuals cannot decouple from and they ‘‘regard it as unthinkable
to view themselves without’’ (Rawls 1980, pp. 544–545).
Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions are designed to
describe cross-cultural differences in behavior. This study
examines the influence of national culture on ethical
decision-making by examining two countries (Norway and
the U.S.) with significant differences on two cultural
dimensions with the potential to have a significant impact
on ethical decision-making: masculinity/femininity and
individualism/collectivism (see Fig. 1).
The individualism/collectivism cultural dimension varies from individualism on one end to collectivism at the
123
Fig. 1 Cultural differences between the U.S. and Norway
other. Individualism describes the inclination of people to
place their own interests and those of their immediate
family ahead of the interests of any other stakeholder. By
contrast, collectivism describes a culture where people form
part of strong, cohesive groups, and care for each other.
‘‘We’’ is important in collectivist cultures (such as Norway)
where members tend to safeguard each other’s interests in
return for their loyalty. In a highly collectivistic country,
decision-makers are looking out for the good of the maximum number of people and are more likely to adhere to
macro-level norms (Hofstede 2001); hence, their ethical
behavior is likely to more closely reflect their national
culture. In an individualistic country like the U.S., it can be
expected that decision-makers will be less concerned with
achieving outcomes that result in the greatest benefit for the
largest number of people, and therefore be more likely to
use ethical criteria adopted on a more individual basis.
The second Hofstede (1980) dimension on which the U.S.
and Norway are reported to possess significant differences,
masculinity/femininity, examines the degree to which a
country embraces achievement or nurturing. In a masculine
culture, ‘‘social gender roles are clearly distinct. Men are
supposed to be assertive, tough, and this type of society
values material success and achievements, women are supposed to more modest, tender and concerned with the quality
of life’’ Hofstede (2001, p. 297). Thus, masculine cultures
(like the U.S.) tend to place importance on ambition, ego,
higher pay, and the pursuit of ‘‘things.’’ Femininity ‘‘pertains
to societies in which social gender roles overlap (i.e., both
men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and
concerned with the quality of life)’’. As indicated by
Spirituality and ethicsin Norway and the United States
Arrindell et al. (2003), feminine cultures (such as Norway)
tend to place importance on people and warm relationships,
and the dominant values in society are caring for others and
preservation. In a masculine country, it can be expected that
decision-makers will be less concerned with achieving outcomes that take into account the needs of others, will
therefore be less likely to use ethical criteria adopted from
those closest to them, namely their peers, and will emphasize
using more self-serving ethical criteria when making decisions. Feminine cultures, with their emphasis on relationships, can be expected to be the exact opposite and more
strongly include peers in decision-making (Beekun et al.
2010). It is anticipated that these Hofstede (1980) cultural
differences between Norway and the U.S. will have significant effects on ethical decision-making.
Spirituality and Ethics
Another major source of individual values that is increasingly linked to ethical thinking and behavior is spirituality.
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003) define spirituality as ‘‘the
individual’s drive to experience transcendence, or a deeper
meaning to life, through the way in which they live and
work.’’ Ashmos and Duchon (2000, p. 137) define spirituality at work as ‘‘the recognition that employees have an
inner life that nourishes and is nourished by meaningful
work that takes place in the context of community.’’ They
stress that ‘‘spirituality at work is not about religion,
although people may sometimes express their religious
beliefs at work.’’ Mitroff and Denton (1999) summarize
some key elements of spirituality as follows:
•
•
•
•
Spirituality is ‘‘highly individual and intensely personal.’’
Spirituality revolves around the conviction that ‘‘there
is a supreme power, a being, a force […] that governs
the entire universe.’’
Our purpose on earth is ‘‘to do good.’’
Spirituality is non-denominational.
Research has explored this theoretical connection
between ethics and spirituality at work (Velasquez 1996;
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003), although the empirical
research on this relationship is limited to the relationship of
work values which have been correlated with spirituality
(benevolence (Adams et al. 2006); and integrity (Kouzes
and Posner 1995; George et al. 2002)). We focus on three
specific ethics dimensions in relating spirituality to ethics:
justice, utilitarianism, and relativism.
Justice, Spirituality, and Culture
The justice perspective is oriented to ensure fairness—fair
treatment according to ethical or legal standards. It suggests that society imposes rules to protect all individuals
35
from the basic selfish desires of others resulting in tension
between the needs of society as a whole and the freedom of
the individual. However, as Faver (2004) points out, people
of faith perceive justice, especially social justice, as being
an integral part of their spirituality, and often use the
resources of their religious institutions to provide services
and to strive for social change.
While more spiritual people may emphasize justice in
their actions at work and elsewhere, the application of justice may not be uniform across national borders. Inhabitants
from countries that are high in individualism may be more
likely to use a different approach to justice when compared
to those from countries that are high in collectivism.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) have proposed
two views of justice: particularistic and universalistic. Particularism suggests that moral standards may be idiosyncratic and may vary among groups within a single culture,
among cultures, and over time. Thus, an action’s ethicality is
gaged solely on rules, but rather from the personal experiences of individuals and groups. Ascertaining ‘‘right’’ from
‘‘wrong’’ is done in terms of one’s in-group or kinship
network (Ting-Tomey 1998). In collectivistic cultures,
individuals view themselves as fundamentally and interdependently connected to others, where the self is defined in
terms of its relationships with others (Markus and Kitayama
1991). Members of collectivist countries become members
of cohesive in-groups from birth onward that protect and
support them throughout their lifetimes. As a result, they are
more sensitized to their social context, rely on their ingroups to reduce uncertainty, and are more likely to adopt a
particularistic form of justice ethics.
Universalism is the reverse of particularism, using
objective rules and regulations to separate right from
wrong; it tends to be oblivious to idiosyncrasies that
obviate rules (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). In
individualistic and masculine cultures such as the U.S.,
there is a strong emphasis on individual competitive success, and a reliance on a fair playing field of systemsoriented justice norms that provide rules and procedures for
guidance. Thus, when confronted with the same ethical
dilemmas, one would expect the Norwegian feminine/collectivists to adopt a particularistic approach, whereas the
U.S. masculine/individualists may prefer a universalistic
approach.
Utilitarianism, Spirituality, and Culture
As suggested by Velasquez (1996) and Hartman and Desjardins (2008), utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach
to ethics. An action is deemed ethical if it is achieves the
greatest benefit or ‘‘good’’ for the largest number of people.
Given that spiritually oriented people tend to want to help
others, one would expect collectivist cultures to accentuate
123
36
this utilitarian aim even more than individualistic cultures
due to their emphasis on caring for others.
Relativism, Spirituality, and Culture
Ethical relativism suggests that ‘‘ethical values are relative
to particular people, cultures, or times’’ (Hartman and
Desjardins 2008, p. 67). Velasquez (1996, p. 15) defines
ethical relativism as ‘‘the view that the only standards
determining the ethical quality of a particular act or type of
act, are the moral norms present in the society within which
the act takes place.’’ Sjöberg (1991, pp. 24–27) suggests
that a universal code of ethics may not be practical since
because day-to-day ethical decisions are dependent on our
cultural background, local customs, and context. Ethical
relativism is frequently contrasted with moral absolutism.
Moral absolutism contends that moral standards are not
relative but absolute and universal whether these involve
general moral principles or codes of behavior (El-Astal
2005). As indicated by Husted et al. (1996), a strong case
can be made for convergence of managerial values in the
face of dubious international business practices. Unlike
organized religion’s orthodoxy which is generally founded
on absolute and universal principles, one would expect
ethical relativism to be positively correlated with spirituality since it is, by definition, nurtured through each person’s personal life and work experiences.
Peers and Ethical Decision-Making
It has been asserted that organizational peers provide the
normative structure and serve as the guides for employee
decision-making (Schein 1984), and that they set the
standards and serve as the referents for behavior within
organizations (Jones and Kavanagh 1996). Prior research
has demonstrated this important influence of peers in
determining an employee’s intention to behave ethically
(Westerman et al. 2007). Overall, peers have a greater
influence on employees’ ethical behavior than managers
(Keith et al. 2003; Zey-Ferrell et al. 1979). Physical
proximity and frequency of direct physical contact have
been shown to be primary predictors of comparative referents (Gartrell 1982) which are used for ethical decisions.
The enhanced reliance on in-groups and personal relationships for ethical decision-making in collectivistic and
feminine cultures leads us to believe that Norwegians will
rely more on their peers for ethical judgments. In contrast,
masculine and individualistic U.S. decision-makers, with
an emphasis on objectivistic system-oriented justice norms
are less likely to be influenced by peers in ethical decisionmaking. Thus, in addition to our focus on national culture
and spirituality as sources of influence on ethical decisionmaking, our research examines the influence of one’s peers
123
R. I. Beekun, J. W. Westerman
to determine their relative impact on an employee’s ethical
decision-making, and whether national culture plays a role
in this relationship.
Based on the above discussion, we suggest the following
hypotheses:
H1 There is a relationship between intention to behave
ethically and spirituality, national culture and peer
pressure.
H2 Choice of ethical criteria will be a function of the
degree of spirituality and national culture:
H2.a Spiritual people from a masculine and individualistic culture will use universalistic justice when faced
with an ethical dilemma.
H2.b Spiritual people from a feminine and collective culture will use particularistic justice when faced with
an ethical dilemma.
H3 Acceptance of peer pressure will be a function of the
degree of spirituality and national culture:
H3.a Spiritual people from a masculine and/or
individualistic culture will be less likely to yield to peer
pressure when faced with an ethical dilemma.
H3.b Spiritual people from a feminine and/or collective culture will be more likely to yield to peer pressure
when faced with an ethical dilemma.
To test these hypotheses, we have chosen two countries
(The U.S. and Norway) representing different quadrants of
the individualism/collectivism and masculinity graphic plot
(Hofstede 1980) (see Fig. 1). As indicated in Fig. 1, Norway represents a collectivistic, feminine culture. Respondents from this culture would be expected to rely on
(a) criteria based on a particularistic approach to justice
(Hypothesis 2b), utilitarianism and relativism (Hypothesis
1), and (b) to use peers as their primary referents for ethical
decision-making behavior (Hypothesis 3b). The U.S. represents the opposite quadrant, an individualistic, masculine
culture in which we would expect respondents to rely on
(a) criteria based on a universalistic approach (Hypothesis
2a) to justice, utilitarianism, and relativism (Hypothesis 1),
and (b) to use peers relatively less as their primary referents
for ethical decision-making behavior (Hypothesis 3a).
Methodology
Sample
Data were collected from a convenience sample of respondents (116 from Norway, 33 from the U.S.) who were
invited to participate as a result of enrollment in selected
Spirituality and ethicsin Norway and the United States
37
Table 1 Sample statistics
Gender
Nationality
U.S.
Norway
19
36
6
61
10
19
20–24
9
89
25–29
10
8
30–34
35–39
4
1
2
10–12
1
13
13–15
1
64
16–18
23
20
Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker
1
71
Generally trained office worker or secretary
4
11
Vocationally trained
2
8
Academically trained professional
7
1
Manager of non-managers
6
4
Manager of managers
5
2
Male
Female
Unreported gender
Age
Years of education
Job type
classes. The participants included graduate business students
at universities located in the two countries. Graduate business …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades