Future global hospitality leaders: a comparison of European and US ethics
The Authors
Robert A. Brymer, Florida State University, Tallahasee, Florida, USA
LaChelle R. Wilborn, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Raymond S. Schmidgall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research paper is to describe the results and implications of an ethics survey completed by students attending hospitality schools in Europe and the USA.
Designmethodology/approach – A questionnaire containing ten scenarios with five oriented to work issues and five to school issues was given to students attending hospitality programs in Europe and the USA. For each scenario, the students indicated whether the action in the scenario was ethical, not ethical or not a question of ethics (NQE). In addition, students were queried regarding influences on their ethical beliefs.
Findings – The ethical beliefs of both groups of hospitality students were most influenced by their parents and least influenced by college courses in religion. The majority of European and US hospitality students indicated the actions in the scenarios were not ethical while a moderate minority indicated NQE. Overall, US students appear to be slightly less tolerant than their European counterparts.
Research limitations/implications – The majority of European students are within their third and fourth years of college while the majority of US students are in their first and second years of study.
Originality/value – Both hospitality executives and students should find these research results most interesting as they reveal students' ethical views in a variety of settings oriented to work and school. Further, influences of the students' ethical beliefs are clearly reported from most to least important.
Article Type:
Research paper
Keyword(s):
Ethics; Students; Hospitality education; Cross-cultural studies; United States of America; Europe.
Journal:
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Volume:
18
Number:
7
Year:
2006
pp:
546-553
Copyright ©
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:
0959-6119
Introduction
Recent heightened media coverage of the Enron, Royal Ahold, The Corporation Total, WorldCom and Tyco's criminal fraud incidents and other such tales of corruption and unethical business practices have created a new awakening in business ethics. This added to an already growing academic, corporate, and the public awareness of business ethics throughout the USA, Europe, and Asia based on the numerous violations of business ethics seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Vogel, 1992). Regardless of the causes for the awareness, interest in business ethics remains substantially higher in the USA then any other capitalist nation (Vickers, 2005; Whipple and Swords, 1992). Elevated concern of corruption and unethical business practices also sparked an interest in researchers to study cross cultural ethics studies and ethical studies involving students in an attempt to produce more ethical managers and employees. Much of the increased interest was due in part to the fact that modern day students face increasingly complex ethical situations in global business and that poses an interesting challenge to the teaching, training and exposure of business ethics (White and Taft, 2004).
A number of studies have surveyed hospitality professionals to determine how they evaluate ethical dilemmas. As professors in three hospitality programs, we were interested in how future hospitality leaders react to ethical problems and how hospitality students in European hospitality programs compare to their counterparts in US programs. Written questionnaires including both five academic and five business ethical scenarios were distributed by university instructors to students enrolled in six different hospitality programs in three European countries and six hospitality programs in the USA. These hospitality programs surveyed represented a broad spectrum of public and private colleges/universities, and all students were majoring in hospitality-related disciplines. The schools, cities, and countries in Europe providing data were: Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh and the University of Dundee, Dundee both in Scotland; Ecole Hoteliere De Lausanne, Lausanne, Glion Hotel School, Bulle and Leysin campuses and the International College of Hospitality Management, LeBouvert and Brig campuses in Switzerland; and the Stockholm Hotel and Restaurant School, Stockholm, Sweden. The hospitality programs in the USA were Appalachian State University, Florida State University, Georgia State University, Michigan State University, University of New Hampshire and Washington State University. Over 600 students completed the questionnaires including 395 enrolled in the European programs and 217 enrolled in the US programs.
Survey design
The ethics research questionnaire was divided into two major parts. Part I asked students to indicate the ethics of each scenario. For example Scenario 1 read as follows: Everyone at work runs his/her mail through the firm's postage meter even through this violates company policy, so you do, too. Students were then asked to indicate the “Ethics” of the scenario by selecting “Ethical”, “Not Ethical”, or “Not a question of ethics.” All of the scenarios related to school or work as shown below:
- Everyone at work runs his/her personal mail through the firm's postage meter even though this violates company policy, so you do, too.
- As a purchasing agent for your company, you recently signed a major contract with a supplier. Company policy forbids employees from accepting gratuities of any sort from persons or organizations with whom the company does business. The supplier has mailed you cash of $100 as a “gift” in appreciation of business transacted. You keep the money.
- Your brother-in-law, the chief financial officer of a major public company, informs you of a major acquisition in progress. This information is confidential, proprietary, and not available to the general public. The company's stock price is expected to double after the public announcement. You act quickly and purchase 1,000 shares prior to the news release.
- Recently you accepted a position which you will start shortly after you graduate in three months. You formally made a two-year commitment when you accepted the position. In the meantime, a major company, unaware of your decision, invites you to visit their corporate office in San Francisco. Feeling the yen to travel and since the major company is picking up the entire cost of your trip, you decide to go to San Francisco.
- In the middle of an accounting class, you realize you failed to prepare the solution to the short homework problem due. You copy your fellow student's solution and hand in the result at the end of class as your work.
- You missed Examination II in your marketing class since you left your university “early” to enjoy a longer fall break. Your Uncle Joe, a medical doctor practicing in the same city where your school is located, provides a written explanation of your “sickness”. You use your Uncle's false statement to support your explanation for missing the exam.
- In marketing class, you are a member if a five-person collaborative team whose report is due in two days. All team members will receive the same grade on the project. The professor has stated clearly that every team member is expected to contribute approximately equal research and writing toward the project. Your team is behind schedule and has asked you to complete a disproportionate share of the research and all the writing. You agree to do the extra work.
- After graduation you accept an entry-level management position with a medium-sized firm whose owner strongly supports a certain political candidate. You also believe this candidate is the best person for the job. The owner wants to circumvent campaign funding laws by funneling $1,000 contributions to the candidate through each of the managers. You agree to cooperate with the owner's plan.
- As a young entrepreneur, you have decided to establish a new firm that does business in foreign countries. You are aware that US laws and the laws of the countries in which you intend to do business forbid offering or accepting bribes. An official in one of the countries where you intend to do business has made it clear that the wheels of government will run more smoothly if you “express your appreciation for his efforts in your behalf.” In order to facilitate your business interests, you give the money to the official.
- Your school has a clear, well-publicized plagiarism policy, but the professor in your business course has not specifically addressed the issue in class or in the course syllabus. For one of your research projects you have found lots of relevant material on a web site that the professor is unlikely to know about. You do not have time to integrate the material into your project, so you use large sections of it without quotation marks and without documenting the source.
Part II of the survey gathered information on the personal characteristics of the students and their source and/or amount of influences on their belief system. A Likert scale was used to measure the amount of influence on individual belief systems. Influences on individual belief systems used the following Likert Scale: No influence=0; Very weak=1; Weak=2; Moderate=3; Strong=4; and Very strong influence=5.
Results
The personal characteristics of students and influences on their belief systems are shown in Tables I and II. There was no significant difference in the gender mix of the two groups. There was however, a significant difference in the grade level/academic year between European and US students. Of the European students, 84 percent were third and fourth year students, while US students were overwhelmingly (96 percent) represented by those in their first or second year of undergraduate studies.
In regards to the various influences on the students' individual belief system, both European and US students indicate the top four influences were the same: parents, family other than parents, friends and business courses. However, there was a significant difference in responses from European and US students on seven out of the eight potential influential people. Both groups of students stated that parents had the greatest impact on their belief system with mean scores of 4.21 and 4.51, respectively. Religious institution/clergy had the least impact on belief systems of both groups of students with mean scores of 1.82 and 2.60, respectively. Differences between the mean scores of European and US students are shown in Tables I and II. In general, US students appear to be influenced slightly more by family, friends, and their teachers/professors then their European counterparts. On the other hand, subjects studied by European students influenced their ethical beliefs to a somewhat higher degree than their US counterparts as also shown in Tables I and II. Both groups listed the same subjects for their highest and lowest mean scores. European and US students felt that business/management had the greatest impact on their belief system while religion had the least.
Table III lists the students' responses to each scenario. Scenarios are classified as work related (Scenarios 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9) and student/academic (Scenarios 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Overall, across the ten scenarios 15 percent of European students classified the scenarios as ethical compared to 12 percent of their US counterparts. Whether the scenarios related to students/academic or work the results were the same. Greater differences appear with classifications of not ethical and not a question of ethics. Overall Europeans classified 59 percent of the scenarios as unethical compared to 68 percent for the USA. Both European and US students classified a larger percentage of work scenarios as not ethical than student/academic scenarios. For the Europeans the results were 63 percent/55 percent for work/student scenarios – a 8 percent difference. For US student the results were 73 percent/63 percent for work/student scenarios – a 10 percent difference.
Differences were noted for the “Not a question of ethics” (NQE) response as well. For this response 26 percent of European students overall indicated NQE compared to 20 percent of the US students.
Summary and conclusion
Influential people appear to have a greater impact on the individual belief system of US students than their European peers. This was indicated in the present study by the higher means scores of US students on eight out of the eight possible questions regarding influential people. This may have been greatly influenced by the fact that nearly 96 percent of the US students were listed as being within their first or second year of college and may have possibly been of traditional college age, thus younger, impressionable and more dependent on their parents than their older European peers. The reverse was seen when it came to the impact of subjects studied during college years. European students were more influenced by the classes (higher mean scores on five out seven possible subjects) than their US peers. Again, college/university classification (European students representing 84 percent third and fourth year), thus age may be a factor.
When questioning whether or not the scenario was “Ethical” seven out of the ten were significantly different, that is, one of the three possible responses varied by more than 5 percentage points. US students were less tolerant on six out of the seven scenarios where significant differences were found. For example, consider Scenario 7 ∼ School: Doing more than your fair (assigned) share of work was significantly different and was seen as “Not a question of ethics” by 57 percent US students and 44 percent European ones. Nearly one in five European students view the actions as ethical compared to less than one in ten of their US counterparts.
On a whole, the results of the present study indicate that US students were less tolerant than their European peers. These results are similar to cross cultural comparison of ethical perspectives and decision approaches of business students from the US and New Zealand (Okleshen and Hoyt, 1996). These differences in tolerance level may be attributed to the fact that US students are more sensitive to ethical issues because of heightened media coverage of such issues (Okleshen and Hoyt, 1996). It may be due in part to the unique institutional, legal, social, and cultural context of business within the USA which is more individualistic, legalistic, and universalistic than other capitalist societies (Vogel, 1992).
Cultures socialize their young differently, accordingly to what is acceptable behavior, thus students develop different ethical frameworks in part due to differences in their cultural backgrounds (Okleshen and Hoyt, 1996), but because values are continually shaped as one goes through life (Tinker, 2005), there is the potential for ethical principles to be internalized during college in hopes of being readily carried into the workplace (Vallen and Cadado, 2000).
The ethical beliefs of future hospitality leaders are shaped in multiple ways, in large part from the influences of other significant people in their lives. It is not surprising that people who have a high level of interaction with college students from early childhood to the present day, play an influential role in their approach to life – including ethics. Parents, other family members, and close friends make-up a significant portion of a college student's history and current life. These young aspiring hospitality leaders are impacted by what they hear and see from these important role models and teachers.
It appears from this study that the ethical beliefs of future hospitality leaders are also effected by their college environment. Close friends in college are important, while business management courses and college professors contribute to their developing ethical framework and decision making process. The results of this study seem to indicate that as students branch-out from their families and build an individual life in college (and eventually in their hospitality careers) away from their parents and other family members, these new experiences begin to further refine their view of ethics.
We cannot change the past and what our future hospitality leaders have learned from their parents, other family members, and close friends. However, if we assume that other people will continue to influence the ethical beliefs of future hospitality leaders just like significant people have in the past, we have two opportunities to help impact the ethical approaches they may take.
- Current leaders in the hospitality industry should recognize that they will serve as mentors for young college graduates entering the field. Today's industry leaders can take heart of the impact they may have, lead with ethics, and provide newly minted graduates with positive and ethical role models.
- College hospitality programs must be mindful of the business courses they offer and the professors, and how they can make a difference in the ways students formulate ethical and unethical decisions. The colleges can prepare courses that present, discuss, and illustrate the impact of ethics for career success.
Industry and college experiences can influence ethical principles that may be carried into future leadership careers. These experiences from industry mentors, courses, professors, colleagues, fellow students, etc., may help develop future leaders in the hospitality industry to make decisions that are more ethically grounded.
So why is business ethics necessary and why must students be taught and exposed to business ethics and the average employee instructed codes of what is good and fair behavior? In an article on telling the truth, Grover (2005) simply state people lie in negotiations and make unethical decisions to benefit self. Tinker (2005) went a step further and stated that “people involved in unethical behavior know full well they're doing something wrong – they simply don't have the personal fortitude and courage to make the right choice”.
Table IPersonal characteristics
Table IIInfluences on individual belief system
Table IIIStudents evaluation of scenarios
References
Grover, S.L. (2005), "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: the causes and management of workplace lying", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No.2, pp.148-57.
Okleshen, M., Hoyt, R. (1996), "A cross cultural comparison of ethical perspectives and decision approaches of business students: United States of America versus New Zealand", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No.5, pp.537-49.
Tinker, H. (2005), "Ethics in business: the heart of the matter", Executive Speeches. Dayton, Vol. 19 No.5, pp.14-18.
Vallen, G., Cadado, M. (2000), "Ethical principles for the hospitality curriculum", Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No.2, pp.44-51.
Vickers, M.R. (2005), "Business ethics and the HR role: past, present, and future", HR, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 28 No.1, pp.26-32.
Vogel, D. (1992), "The globalization of business ethics: why America remains distinctive", California Management Review, Vol. 35 No.1, pp.30-49.
Whipple, T., Swords, D.F. (1992), "Business ethics judgments: a cross-cultural comparison", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 No.9, pp.671-8.
White, J., Taft, S. (2004), "Frameworks for teaching and learning business ethics within the global context: background of ethical theories", Journal of Management Education, Vol. 28 No.4, pp.463-77.
Corresponding author
Raymond S. Schmidgall can be contacted at: schmidga@msu.edu