Contents Page

1.0 Background information ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2 1.1 Company History in Brief................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 2 1.2 Vision ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 2.0 Objective of the assignment................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3 3.0 What is ethical behaviour?................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3 4.0 Unethical Behavior: Why Does It Occur In Organizations? ................................ ............................ 4 5.0 Organizational Culture And Ethical Behavior ................................ ................................ ................ 9 6.0 Ethical behaviour at DSI ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 16 7.0 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 17 8.0 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 18

1.0 Background information

The subject of this assignment is D Samson & Sons (Pvt) Ltd. (DSS), which is the leading footwear trading organization in Sri Lanka.

1.1 Company History in Brief

DSS was established on 12th May 1967. The founder chairman at the time was Mr. D. Samson Rajapaksa, JP. The current chairman is Mr. Nandadasa Rajapaksa alongside which Mr. R Nugaliyadda and Mr. Thusitha Rajapaksa act as the Managing Director and Joint Managing Director of the company respectively. The company is part of the DSI Samsons Group. The annual turnover of the company exceeds Rs. 10 Billion, and its core business is footwear trading. DSS handles the sales and marketing of well known local footwear brands such as DSI, Ranpa and Samsons via its island-wide showroom network, spanning to over 180 in number, and diversely expanded dealer network. DSS engages in the sale of 09 categories of footwear which has been categorized based on the target market. These include rubber slippers, gents sandals and slippers, ladies slippers, infants, children, boys school shoes, girls school shoes, sportswear and gents shoes. The company has also opened a series of International Brand showrooms with the objective of catering to the top end customers. These showrooms handle foreign brands such as Reebok, Fila, Proline, Pepe Jeans, Benetton, Liberty etc. DSS also sells footwear accessories such as socks, belts and polish.

1.2 Vision
To be the leading footwear marketing organizatio n in Sri Lanka & also be associated with life style related products, to complement the footwear marketing .

Picture: Showrooms managed by DSS

2.0 Objective of the assignment

The objective of the assignment is to ascertain as to whether there is a relationship between ethical behaviour and corporate performance with specific application to DSI.

3.0 What is ethical behaviour?

The imperatives of day-to-day organizational performance are so compelling that there is little time or inclination to divert attention to the moral content of organizational decision making. Morality is a very qualitative concept in that it lacks substantive relation to objective and quantitative performance. The word "ethics" is often in the news these days. Ethics is a philosophical term derived from the Greek word "ethos" meaning character or custom. This definition translates into effective leadership in organizations in developing a code of conduct conveying moral integrity and consistent values in service to the public. Certain organizations will commit themselves to a philosophy in a formal pronouncement of a Code of Ethics or Standards of Conduct.
3

Formally defined, ethical behavior is that which is mora lly accepted as "good" and "right" as opposed to "bad" or "wrong" in a particular setting. Is it ethical, for example, to pay a bribe to obtain a business contract in a foreign country? Is it ethical to allow your company to withhold information that might discourage a job candidate from joining your organization? Is it ethical to ask someone to take a job you know will not be good for their career progress? Is it ethical to do personal business on company time? The list of examples could go on and on. Despite one's initial inclinations in response to these questions, the major point of it all is to remind organizations that the public -at-large is demanding that government officials, managers, workers in general, and the organizations they represent all act according to high ethical and moral standards. The future will bring a renewed concern with maintaining high standards of ethical behavior in organizational transactions and in the workplace. In addition, we hear about illegal and unethical behavior on Wal l Street, pension scandals in which disreputable executives gamble on risky business ventures with employees' retirement funds, companies that expose their workers to hazardous working conditions, and blatant favoritism in hiring and promotion practices. Although such practices occur throughout the world, their presence nonetheless serves to remind us of the challenge facing organizations. The effective management of ethical issues requires that organizations ensure that their managers and employees know how to deal with ethical issues in their everyday work lives. Therefore, organizational members must first understand some of the underlying reasons for the occurrence of unethical practices.

4.0 Unethical Behavior: Why Does It Occur In Organizations?

The potential for individuals and organizations to behave unethically is limitless. Unfortunately, this potential is too frequently realized. Consider, for example, how greed overtook concerns about human welfare when the Manville Corporation suppressed evidence that asbestos inhalation was killing its employees, or when Ford failed to correct a known defect that made its Pinto vulnerable to gas tank explosions following low speed
4

rear-end collisions (Bucholz, I989). Companies that dump dangerous medical waste materials into our rivers and oceans also appear to favor their own interests over public safety and welfare. Although these examples are better known than many others, they do not appear to be unusual. In fact, the story they tell may be far more typical t han we would like, as one expert estimates that about two-thirds of the 500 largest American corporations have been involved in one form of illegal behavior or another (Gellerman, 1986). Unfortunately, unethical organizational practices are embarrassingly commonplace. It is easy to define such practices as dumping polluted chemical wastes into rivers, insider trading on Wall Street, overcharging the government for Medicaid services, and institutions like Stanford University inappropriately using taxpayer money to buy a yacht or to enlarge their President's bed in his home as morally wrong. Yet these and many other unethical practices go on almost routinely in many organizations. Why is this so? In other words, what accounts for the unethical actions of people in organizations, more specifically, why do people commit those unethical actions in which individuals knew or should have known that the organization was committing an unethical act? An example recently provided by Baucus and Near (1991) helps to illust rate this distinction. Recently, a federal court judge found Allegheny Bottling, a Pepsi -Cola bottling franchise, guilty of price fixing. The firm had ended years of cola wars by setting prices with its major competitor, Mid-Atlantic Coca-Cola Bottling (New York Times, 1988). Since evidence showed most executives in the firm knew of the illegal price-fixing scheme, the court not only fined Allegheny $1 million but also sentenced it to three years in prison --a sentence that was suspended since a firm cannot be imprisoned. However, the unusual penalty allowed the judge to place the firm on probation and significantly restrict its operations. In another case, Harris Corporation pleaded no contest to charges that it participated in a kickback scheme involving a defense department loan to the Philippines (Wall Street Journal, 1989). Although this plea cost the firm $500,000 in fines and civil claims, Harris's chief executive said the firm and its employees were not guilty of criminal conduct; he maintained that top managers pleaded no contest because the costs associated with litigation would have been greater than the fines, and litigation would have diverted management attention from firm operations.
5

Although both cases appear to be instances of illegal corporate behavior, there is an important distinction between them. In the first case, Allegheny's executives knew or should have known the firm's activities were illegal; price fixing is a clear violation of antitrust law. Further, the courts ruled that evidence indicated the firm had engaged in the illegal act. In contrast, it is not clear that Harris Corporations' managers committed an illegal act. Some areas of the law are very ambiguous, and managers may not at times know what it legal or illegal; thus, a firm may inadvertently engage in behavior that is later defined as illegal or unethical (Baucus and Near, 1991). One answer to the question of why individuals knowingly commit unethical actions is based on the idea that organizations often reward behaviors that violate ethical standards. Consider, for example, how many business executives are expected to deal in brib es and payoffs, despite the negative publicity and ambiguity of some laws, and how good corporate citizens who blow the whistle on organizational wrongdoing may fear being punished for their actions. Jansen and Von Glinow (1985) explain that organizations tend to develop counternorms, accepted organizational practices that are contrary to prevailing ethical standards.
Societal norms or ethics Be open and honest vs. Organizational counternorms Be secretive and deceitful

Follow the rules at all costs

vs.

D o whatever it takes to get the job done

Be cost-effective

vs.

Use it or lose it

Take responsibility

vs.

Pass the buck

Be a team player

vs.

Take credit for your own actions

Figure 1: Societal Norms vs. Organizational counternorms: an ethical conflict (Jansen and Von Glinow, 1985)
6

The top of Figure 1 identifies being open and honest as a prevailing ethical norm. Indeed, governmental regulations requiring full disclosure and freedom of information reinforce society's values toward openness and honesty. Within organizations, however, it is often considered not only acceptable, but des irable, to be much more secretive and deceitful. The practice of stonewalling, willingly hiding relevant information, is quite common. One reason for this is that organizations may actually punish those who are too open and honest. Look at the negative treatment experienced by many employees who are willing to blow the whistle on unethical behavior in their organizations. Also, consider for example, the disclosure that B. F. Goodrich rewarded employees who falsified data on quality aircraft brakes in order to win certification (Vandevier, 1978). Similarly, it has been reported that executives at Metropolitan Edison encouraged employees to withhold information from the press about the Three Mile Island nuclear accident (Gray and Rosen, 1982). Both incidents represent cases in which the counternorms of secrecy and deceitfulness were accepted and supported by the organization. Figure 1 shows that there are many other organizational counternorms that promote morally and ethically questionable practices. Because these practices are commonly rewarded and accepted suggests that organizations may be operating within a world that dictates its own set of accepted rules. This reasoning suggests a second answer to the question of why organizations knowingly act unethicall y namely, because managerial values exist that undermine integrity. In a recent analysis of executive integrity, Wolfe explains that managers have developed some ways of thinking (of which they may be quite unaware) that foster unethical behavior (Wolfe, 1 988). Wolfe also notes that managers tend to rely on an exploitative mentality--a view that encourages "using" people in a way that promotes stereotypes and undermines empathy and compassion. This is a highly selfish perspective, one that sacrifices concer ns for others in favor of benefits to one's own immediate interests. In addition, there is a Madison Avenue mentality--a perspective suggesting that anything is right if the public can be convinced that it's right. The idea is that executives may be more concerned about their actions appearing ethical than by their legitimate morality--a public relations--guided morality. It is this kind of thinking that leads some companies to hide their unethical actions

(by dumping their toxic wastes under cover of night , for instance) or otherwise justify them by attempting to explain them as completely acceptable. It is not too difficult to recognize how individuals can knowingly engage in unethical practices with such mentalities. Some common rationalizations used to justify unethical behavior are easily derived from Gellerman (1986): 1. Pretending the behavior is not really unethical or illegal. 2. Excusing the behavior by saying it's really in the organization's or your best interest. 3. Assuming the behavior is okay because no one else would ever be expected to find out about it. 4. Expecting your superiors to support and protect you if anything should go wrong. Within the literature on corporate illegality, the predominant view is that pressure and need force organizational members to behave unethically and develop corresponding rationalizations; however, according to recent research this explanation only accounts for illegal acts in some cases (Baucus and Near, 1991). In their data, poor performance and low organizational slack (the excess that remains once a firm has paid its various internal and external constituencies to maintain cooperation) were not associated with illegal behavior, and wrongdoing frequently occurred in munificent environments. According to the model developed from Baucus and Near's research, illegal behavior occurs under certain conditions. For example, results from their research showed that (1) large firms are more likely to commit illegal acts than small firms; (2) although the probability of such wrongdoing increases when resources are scarce, it is greatest when resources are plentiful; (3) illegal behavior is prevalent in fairly stable environments but is more probable in dynamic environments; (4) membership in certain industries and a history of repea ted wrongdoing are also associated with illegal acts; and, (5) the type of illegal activity chosen may vary according to the particular combination of environmental and internal conditions under which a firm is operating (Baucus and Near, 1991). Baucus and Near also suggest that conditions of opportunity and predisposition are antecedents of illegal behavior. That is, rather than tightening conditions creating pressure

for illegal acts, it may be that loosening ambiguous conditions create opportunities to behave illegally. Predisposition indicates a tendency or inclination to select certain activities --illegal ones-over activities because of socialization or other organizational processes. Baucus and Near (1991) recognize that organizations, and industries , can exert a powerful influence on their members, even those who initially have fairly strong ethical standards. As noted above, organizations operating in certain industries tend to behave unethically. Certain industry cultures may predispose organizations to develop cultures that encourage their members to select unethical acts. If an organization's major competitors in an industry are performing well, in part as a result of unethical activities, it becomes difficult for organizational members to choose only unethical actions, and they may regard unethical actions as a standard of industry practice. Such a scenario results in an organizational culture that serves as a strong precipitant to unethical actions. The next section looks at the organizational culture-ethical behavior relationship.

5.0 Organizational Culture And Ethical Behavior

"Do organizations vary in the 'ethical climates' they establish for their members? The answer to the question is yes, and it is increasingly clear that the eth ical tone or climate of organizations is set at the top. What top managers do, and the culture they establish and reinforce, makes a big difference in the way lower-level employees act and in the way the organization as a whole acts when ethical dilemmas are faced. For example, there was no doubt in anyone's mind at Johnson & Johnson what to do when the infamous Tylenol poisoning took place. Company executives immediately pulled their product from the marketplace they knew that "the J & J way" was to do the right thing regardless of its cost. What they were implicitly saying was that the ethical framework of the company required that they act in good faith in this fashion. The ethical climate of an organization is defined as the shared set of understandings about what is correct behavior and how ethical issues will be handled . This climate sets the tone for decision making at all levels and in all circumstances. Some of the factors that may be
9

emphasized in different ethical climates of organizations are (Hunt, 1991; Schneider and Rentsch, 1991): 1. Personal self-interest 2. Company profit 3. Operating efficiency 4. Individual friendships 5. Team interests 6. Social responsibility 7. Personal morality 8. Rules and standard procedures 9. Laws and professional codes As suggested by the prior list, the ethical climate of different organizations can emphasize different things. In the Johnson & Johnson example just cited, the ethical climate supported doing the right thing due to social responsibility --regardless of the cost. In other organizations--perhaps too many--concerns for operating efficiency may outweigh social considerations when similarly difficult decisions are faced. When the ethical climate is not clear and positive, ethical dilemmas will often result in unethical behavior. In such instances, an organization's culture also can predispose its members to behave unethically. For example, recent research has found a relationship between organizations with a history of violating the law and continued illegal behavior (Baucus and Near, 1991). Thus, some organizations have a culture that reinforces illegal activity. In addition, some firms are known to selectively recruit and promote employees who have personal values consistent with illegal behavior; firms also may socialize employees to engage in illegal acts as a part of their normal job duties (Conklin, 1977; Geis, 1977). For instance, in his account of cases concerning price fixing for heavy electrical equipment, Geis noted that General Electric removed a manager who refused to discuss prices with a competitor from his job and offered his successor the position with the understanding that management believed he would behave as expected and engage in price-fixing activities (Geis, 1977, p. 124; Baucus and Near, 1991).

10

What goes on behind the scenes of a company to make it one of the Worlds Most Ethical? Ethisphere, conducted a study to determine the Worlds Most Ethical companies in 2009. They asked a number of individuals directly responsible for the ethical direction of their company. Following are some excerpts from their responses: Accenture Douglas G. Scrivner, General Counsel, Secretary & Compliance Officer

In Accentures ethics and compliance program, the company uses six core values of stewardship, best people, client value creation, one global network, respect for the individual and integrity. Douglas Scrivner, General Counsel at Accenture, says that ethics and compliance cant be effective if theyre only seen as bolt-ons, or something that is only done at the end of the day after the regular work is complete. We aim to put ethics and compliance into the way our people work and lead. We seek to leverage existing processes, procedures, structures and functions to ensure the outcomes we are expecting and alignment with the goals of the organization, says Scrivner. To better understand how the companys ethics and compliance program is being received by employees, Accenture uses employee surveys, risk assessments and results of corporate investigations. Scrivner notes that in a recent survey, over 90 percent of employees feel that Accenture is highly ethical and that the companys commitment to integrity has been communicated to the whole company. Those are excellent scores for a company of more than 181,000 people, Scrivner says. We havent arrived at the end of our journey (and never will), but I am confident that we continue to move in the right direction and continually reinforce our commitment and our expectations in this area.
11

Caterpillar Ed Scott, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer

Ed Scott, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer at Caterpillar, says that the ethics at Caterpillar start at the top, beginning with CEO Jim Owens. Our leaders work to ensure that Our Values in Action [Caterpillars Code of Conduc t] are part of everyday life at Caterpillar, says Scott. They take various opportunities to incorporate Our Values in Action into their communications. In turn, Caterpillar employees are expected to know and live by Our Values in Action. Scott says that he is most proud of the way that the companys ethics program reaches out to the thousands of Caterpillar employees working in around 50 countries in all regions of the globe. Over the past few years, weve made significant strides in globalizing our approach, says Scott. One item in particular is our Annual Assessment and Questionnaire. It is offered in 14 languages and all of our employees are required to complete this. You can imagine that with so many employees, this is a major undertaking. Scott believes that any companys ethics and compliance program is only as strong as the culture behind it. You can have the best ethics and compliance program in the world, but if you dont have an ethical culture supported by strong leadership, the program wil l ultimately not succeed, Scott says. Generations of Caterpillar people built our honorable reputation and ethical culture through their words and deeds.

General Mills Roderick A. Palmore, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance and Risk Management Officer

12

As a well established global business, General Mills knows that ethics programs must be adaptable to the different regions in which the company operates. A strong ethics and compliance program must feel culturally relevant to employees, says Roderick Palmore, General Counsel of General Mills. A program that genuinely reflects the culture and values of a company helps employees understand and incorporate the messages of the program into their daily decisions. Employees experience them as part of the very fabric of the companys culture. To help employees learn from prior real-world decisionsboth good and badGeneral Mills developed a feature on its company Intranet that uses real examples that came from the companys Ethics Line. We continually look for opportunities to incorporate real stories from our history to bring to life our heritage of integrity and to respond to that feeling of pride we all have in working for General Mills, Palmore says. Palmore says that in order to remain relevant, General Mills makes sure that its ethics and compliance program is continually evolving in a real-time way to meet the needs of a constantly changing demographic-base of employees. We strive to be the best, Palmore says. That means we need to stay fresh in our thinking and be in touch with best practices.

Philips Electronics North America Brent Shafer, CEO

Above and beyond mere word play towards and ethics program, Philips links its sustainability and ethics programs with the comp anys core strategy. And, even more important, Philips grades its success by measurable results. By 2012, Philips aims to generate 30 percent of total revenue off Green Products, further increase energy efficiency of the company by 25 percent and double th e companys investment in Green Innovations to 1 billion.

13

Our performance in 2008 shows that we are well on track to achieve these goals with 25 percent of total sales coming from Green Products, investing 282 million euros in green innovations and reducing our carbon footprint by 5 percent, says Brent Shafer, CEO of Philips Electronics in North America. We communicate transparently on our sustainability performance through our annual report that is independently verified by a third party. Shafer notes the importance of transparency when it comes to reporting about the ethical environment of the company, especially in developing countries. It is important for anyone with an interest in Philips to know that any corporate targets, whether it is a sales g oal or growth ambition, will not happen at the expense of non -compliance with the Philips General Business Principles, Shafer says. This risk is heightened in emerging markets as corporate governance systems are less developed in emerging markets compared to mature markets.

Unilever Iskah C. Singh, Deputy Global Code & Compliance Officer, Associate General Counsel

Unilever uses a number of approaches to engage its employees in the company ethics and compliance program, according to Iskah Singh, Associate General Counsel for Unilever. Our employee training and education program raises awareness and reinforces the values of the Code of Business Principles, says Singh. Also, employees annually acknowledge understanding and compliance with our Cod e of Business Principles. In addition to traditional training modules, we have utilized smaller Ethical Moments 3 to 5 minute clips to raise awareness and strengthen the open ethics and compliance environment. Singh says that a strong ethics and compliance program provides many benefits: solid leadership; encourages and facilitates open communication; clearly articulates the

14

standards of business conduct; continually reinforces ethics awareness and actively demonstrates that the values are not just w ords on paper but are lived on a daily basis. Singh notes that a key differentiator in Unilevers ethics and compliance program is the fact that employees deep within the organization can look to their immediate supervisors as examples of ethical leadership. It is here that an ethical culture is cultivated and the standards and values of Unilevers Code of Business Principles is given meaning, says Singh.

T-Mobile USA Robert Dotson, President and CEO

Robert Dotson, president and CEO of T-Mobile USA says that the real test of a companys ethics program is the extent to which it is in the fabric of all employees. He says that happens through strong tone of the top. That emphasis also echoes through the halls of our parent company, Deutsche Telekom, says Dotson. However it also includes active participation and support from our employees. Our employees strive to get results the right way; they regularly raise issues or questions to management on our anonymous Integrity Line; and they take personal responsibility for how they live the values in their quarterly performance reviews. Its a top to bottom program that is owned at all levels of the company. Dotson adds that T-Mobile is a fast paced company in a competitive industry, and that brings a certain amount of pressure to develop game-changing products, outpace the competition, and drive excellent financial results. But, he says, that shouldnt affect how the products are developed or how the company operates. Our employees know that getting great results is only part of the equation, Dotson says. We expect everyone to get the right results, the right way. Performance and values are like two wings of an airplane they are both required for success, and you really would never try flying withou t one of them.

15

6.0 Ethical behaviour at DSI

We now look into the various practices carried out by D Samson & Sons (Pvt) Ltd in order to determine the extent of its ethical behaviour. In order to understand the practices carried out by DSS we interviewed its General Manager, Mr Rohan Somawansa. The following are some of the key highlights from the interview. a) It was stated during the interview that the company imposes a strict disciplinary code of conduct where every new employee is inducted on its Employee Code of Conduct. Further, an Employee handbook is provided to all employees which they can refer to. This Code is updated from time to time. A strict disciplinary procedure where a initial verbal warning, followed by a written warning and final disciplina ry action is adhered to.

b) It is said that rewarding the right actions can indirectly act as a deterrent to unethical behaviour. The company rewards high performing employees at its Annual Awards ceremony. Every employee is given an equal opportunity to sit for an examination. However, the final result depends on a range of factors in addition to the exam results such as behaviour, attendance, achievement of KPIs.

c) The finance department initiates strict controls using its established ERP system in order to prevent any frauds and mismanagement. Some of the measures taken include; 1. Checking of physical stock with system generated stock 2. Monitoring of shops with return cheque record and blocking it in the system in order to prevent goods being billed to them 3. Monitoring of pending sales (credit sales where a cheque is yet to be collected) 4. Annual stock take is carried out in all islandwide locations

d) It was highlighted during the interview that DSS is a ISO 9001:2000 certified company. There is a separate department to monitor internal processes and recommend improvements in both business and financial processes. Every department is required to maintain an ISO operational procedure manual which entails its procedures and to which its employees are required to adhere to. In addition, a broad quality manual is maintained by the company ISO representative which provides for the overall quality
16

direction of the company. Spot audits are made by the ISO team in order to identify deficiencies in existing processes, processes not documented and specifically highlight procedural breaches in order to take remedial action.

e) The company engages in a range of CSR activities such as the Danumai Wasanawai educational programme, Sithuvili art competition and sponsorship of National Vo lleyball tournament. In addition, it plays a major role in the organizing of the National Wesak festival and conducts the Raja Maha Viharaya programme (which seeks to protect ancient Buddhist temples). Through many of these activities the company has attempted to inculcate a sharing and caring culture at DSS, especially based on Buddhist principles.

f) Finally, the DSS maintains a strong customer service policy. All products are pre-tested prior to launch into the market at its state-of-the art laboratory facility. In addition, wear testing is done to identify unseen manufacturing defects. Despite, these defects may occur and the policy provides for rebates and repair of damaged items. Unlike, other footwear retailers the company accepts full responsibility for production defects and compensates the customer for any inconvenience caused.

7.0 Conclusion
Pressure, opportunity, and predisposition can all lead to unethical activities; however, organizations must still take a proactive stance to promote an ethical climate. What is important is to set the example and create the necessary culture that encourages ethical behaviour.

17

8.0 References
Baucus, M. S. and Near, J. P.: 1991, 'Can Illegal Corporate Behavior Be Predicated? An Event History Analysis', Academy of Management Journal 34(1), pp. 9 -36. Brenner, S. and Molander, E.: 1977, 'Is the Ethics of Bus iness Changing?', Harvard Business Review 55(1), pp. 55-71. Bucholz, R. A.: 1989, Fundamental Concepts and Problems in Business Ethics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Cooke, R. A.: 1991, 'Danger Signs of Unethical Behavior: How to Determine If Your Firm Is at Ethical Risk', Journal of Business Ethics 10, pp. 249 -253. Conklin, J.: 1977, Illegal But Not Criminal (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Ethisphere: 2009 WORLDS MOST ETHICAL COMPANIES http://ethisphere.com/wme2009/ Geis, G.: 1977, 'The Heavy Electrical Equipment Antitrust Case of 1961', in G. Geis and R. Meier, eds., White-Collar Crime: Offenses in Business, Politics, and the Profession (Free Press, New York), pp. 117 -132. Gellerman, S. W.: 1986, 'Why "good" Managers Make Bad Ethical Choices', Harvard Business Review (July August), pp. 85 -90. Gray, M. and Rosen, I.: 1982, The Warning (Norton, New York). Hunt, J. G.: 1991, Toward A Leadership Paradigm Change (Sage, Newbury Park, CA). Jansen, E. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1985) Ethical Ambivalence and Organizational Reward Systems, Academy of Management Review 10 (4), pp 814 -822 New York Times: 1988, 'Corporate Prison Term for Allegheny Bottling' (September 1), p. D2. Schneider, J. B. and Reitsch, J.: 199 1, 'Managing Climates and Cultures: A Futures Perspective', in J. Hage, ed., Future of Organizations (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA). Vandevier, K.: 1978, 'The Aircraft Brake Scandal: A Cautionary Tale in Which the Moral is Unpleasant', in A. G. Athos and J. J. Babarro, eds., Interpersonal Behavior: Communication and Understanding Relationships (Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)' pp. 529 -540. Wall Street journal: 1989, 'Harris Corp. Is Convicted in Kickback Plan', (June 5), p. A7.
18

Wolfe, D.: 1988, 'Is There Integrity in the Bottomline: Managing Obstacles to Executive Integrity', in S. Srivastva, ed., Executive Integrity: The Search For High Human Values in Organization Life (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), pp. 140-171.

19