Ethics, Personality, and Proximity

Running Head: ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMTY Ethics, Personality, and Proximity
Marla Fowler Applied Research Drake University

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 2 Abstract Ethics, Personality, and Proximity
By Marla Fowler, [email protected] Numerous factors may impact ethical decision making, including individual personality traits, proximity to the situation, and the ethical theory being employed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which specific personality traits and proximity have a relationship in ethical decision making. This study examined the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and all sub-traits and use of ethics of justice and ethics of care. All personality traits and sub-traits applied were used from the Big Five Model. For this study a survey invitation was extended to members of Linked:HR, with a membership of more than 800,000. There were 1,284 responses and after eliminating missing data, 1,079 completed surveys were used for the final analysis The survey included three parts: the demographics of participants, personality questions from the Big Five Model, and one of three ethical decision making dilemmas.. Results identified that relationships exist between personality and the ethics of justice and care scales; however, they were not strong. Although statistical significance was identified in this study the correlations were weak, suggesting that personality does not matter significantly in ethical decision making. Results also indicated that proximity has more of an impact on ethical decision making than one’s personality traits. The results of this study could contribute to fostering moral and ethical development which may be used to help produce a more informed perspective in ethical decision making by recognizing that proximity to the situation may influence the way in which one comes to a decision. Key terms: Personality including Accommodation, Others’ needs, Agreement, Humility, Reserve, Ethics of Justice and ethics of Care, and Proximity

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 3 Table of Contents Section 1:
Introduction ..................................................................................................................4 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................4 Purpose Statement and Guiding Questions ..........................................................................5 Key Definitions ....................................................................................................................5 Framework for Research ......................................................................................................9 Limitations .........................................................................................................................10 Delimitations ......................................................................................................................10 Section 2: Review of Literature ................................................................................................. 11 Personality .........................................................................................................................11 Ethical Decision Making................................................................................................... 15 Proximity ...........................................................................................................................17 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 18 Section 3: Research Methodology.............................................................................................. 20 Data Collections Methods ................................................................................................. 20 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 23 Confidentiality and consent .............................................................................................. 23 Section 4: Findings and Discussion ........................................................................................... 24 Demographics and Data .................................................................................................... 24 Proximity Findings............................................................................................................ 25 Personality Findings.......................................................................................................... 28 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 31 Section 5: Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 33 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................33 Implications .......................................................................................................................34 Limitations and Suggestions for future research .............................................................. 35 References ....................................................................................................................................37 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 39 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 40 Appendix C ..................................................................................................................................42

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 4 Ethics, Personality, and Proximity The
Greek philosopher Plato, suggested that people only do what is wrong because they do not see it as wrong (Mackinnon, 2013). The study of ethics involves defining actions that are good or moral compared to those actions which are bad or immoral (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012). The study of ethics has numerous points of view and theories. There are, however, numerous factors that may impact ethical decision making, including individual personality traits, proximity to the situation, and the ethical theory being employed. The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which specific personality traits and social proximity have a relationship in ethical decision making. The strength and direction of the relationship between variables was explored, including the variables of level of proximity, traits and sub-traits of personality, and use of the ethic of justice and ethic of care ethical frameworks. Statement of the problem Given that we, as employees, are confronted with ethical dilemmas on a daily basis, it is often difficult to make an ethical decision when there is no one “right” or “wrong” answer (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2009). An ethical dilemma is a situation in which there is no definite answer and it is very likely that the decision will result in some kind of a negative impact (Morscher, 2002). Many organizations have been plagued with the outcomes of ethical choices in the past few decades. A lack of ethical decisions has led to the collapse of some organizations (Premeaux, 2009). These ethical failures have led to the creation of new laws and regulations to ensure transparency of corporations’ information (Premeaux, 2009). While this may seem

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 5 extreme, the way in which
organizations treat ethical development for their employees can impact the overall performance of the organization. Research indicates personality traits consist of specific behavior patterns which can impact thoughts and emotions (Allemand, Steiger, & Hill, 2013). Ethical decisions are influenced by internal and external factors (Krishnakumar & Rymph, 2012). Could one’s personality traits and level of proximity to the situation ultimately influence the ethical decision? By identifying potential relationships between the personality trait, Accommodation, including all sub-traits, and level of social proximity in ethical decision making the results of this study may impact the resolution of ethical dilemmas. Purpose Statement and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which specific personality traits and social proximity have a relationship in ethical decision making. This study will expand upon existing knowledge of personality, proximity, and ethical decision making. The study may help contribute to a better understanding of ways in which personality moderates a person’s experience. Hence, the results could contribute to fostering moral and ethical development. The following questions guided this study: 1. What percentage of participants will choose to report a policy violation (ethical dilemma) under (a) high proximity circumstances, (b) medium proximity circumstance, and (c) low proximity circumstances? 2. What is the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and the scores in the Ethic of Care Scale?

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 6 a. What is the strength
and direction of the relationship between all sub-traits of Accommodation (others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve) and the scores in the Ethic of Care scale? 3. What is the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and the Ethic of Justice Scale? a. What is the strength and direction of the relationship between all sub-traits of Accommodation (others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve) and the scores in the Ethic of Justice scale? Key Definitions For the purposes of this study, the following definitions were used: Ethical dilemma. Merriam Webster defines an ethical dilemma as a situation having two or more equally unpleasant or undesirable choices (Merriam-Webster, 2013). An ethical dilemma is a situation in which there is no definite answer and it is very likely that the decision will result in some kind of a negative impact. An ethical dilemma can be described as a situation requiring an individual to perform an action and at the same time not perform that action (Morscher, 2002). Personality traits. Personality traits can be defined as a set of behaviors, thoughts, and emotions which differ from person to person (Mencl & May, 2009). Personality traits comprise of specific behaviors in which individuals show a preference for certain mannerisms (Howard & Howard, 2011). The behaviors correlate with specific defined traits which can then be measured to help

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 7 define one’s personality (2011). For
the purpose of this study the focus was on one specific trait: Accommodation and all of its sub-traits: others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve. Accommodation. Accommodation can be described as the tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than distrustful and antagonistic towards others (Howard & Howard, 2011). Accommodation can be seen as one being more or less dominant. The higher the score reflected the higher the concern for social harmony; while lower scores reflect individuals who are more skeptical and can be seen as aggressive (2011). Examples of this trait include sympathizing with others, being friendly towards others, and being compliant. The Accommodation trait can be divided into three categories. Those with low Accommodation scores are considered challengers. Challengers tend to be cynical, shielded, competitive, and, at times, even aggressive (Howard & Howard, 2011). Those with scores in the middle are considered negotiators. Negotiators tend to be able to change between being challenging and accommodating. Lastly, those who score higher in this trait are adapters. Adapters are known for being accepting and helpful. Adapters may allow others to be right. Adapters may be seen as passive or unprincipled (2011). Others’ needs. The others’ needs sub-trait focuses on “how readily we inconvenience ourselves for others” (Howard & Howard, 2011, p.34). This sub-trait can be related to tender heartedness and self-sacrifice. Those who score high in this sub-trait tend make their own needs secondary and focus on the needs of others (2011).

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 8 Agreement. The agreement sub-trait focuses
on dealing with conflict. Those who score low in this sub-trait are not focused on the needs of others therefore they will be less compliant when dealing with conflict (Howard & Howard, 2011). Persons scoring higher in this sub-trait may be perceived as someone who is considerate and may concede to the needs of others to avoid conflict (2011). Humility. Humility can also be described as modesty (Howard & Howard, 2011). This sub-trait reflects one’s desire for recognition and praise (2011). Persons scoring low in this sub-trait have a strong need for acknowledgment and public praise. Those who score high in this category may be uncomfortable with public recognition (2011). They do not desire to be singled out, but insist the credit be shared as a team. This sub-trait measures the opposite ends of the spectrum of pride and humility (2011). Reserve. Reserve can be defined as how comfortable one is sharing his or her opinions (Howard & Howard, 2011). Those who score higher in this category may be more reluctant to express their opinions. Though, scoring high in this sub-trait does not necessarily mean the person is introverted as much as they just may not be willing to invite others to listen to their opinions (2011). Those scoring lower in this category may be more comfortable being in the limelight and readily share their opinions (2011). Proximity.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 9 Another factor that can influence
ethical decision making in the workplace is proximity to a situation or the relationship with individuals in that situation (Mencl & May, 2009). Proximity can be defined as the degree of closeness, either in relationship or vicinity, between the decision maker and the recipients (Mencl & May, 2009). The type of proximity may have differing impacts on ethical decision making elements (2009). Framework for Research Personality has been previously researched and Howard and Howard (2011) provide the framework and development of the Big Five model. According to research by McCrae and Costa Jr., (2007) the Big Five instrument is well validated. The Big Five model provides the foundational knowledge of personality traits and how these traits may influence an individual’s behavior. This model has been used extensively in research (2011). The Big Five model was selected to be used in this project due to the accessibility to the primary researcher. According to Agerstrom, Bjorklund, & Allwood (2010) research indicates the construal level theory and proximity does affect one’s decisions. The construal level theory purports that people think differently and make judgments differently based on the psychological distance to a given situation (Bar-Anan, Liberman, & Trope, 2006). Specifically, certain factors influence how concretely or intangibly they perceive the situation. These factors include: spatial distance or actual distance from the situation; temporal distance or how much time has lapsed since the occurrence of the event; and social distance or the level of emotional closeness the person has to those involved (2006). These factors all make up proximal distance or proximity. For this study the focus was on the social proximity one has with the individual in the ethical dilemma.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 10 Personality traits can give people
a better understanding of who they are and their tendency to react a certain way (Howard & Howard, 2011). These traits may be an indicator of how one will react when faced with an ethical dilemma (Agerstrom, Bjorklund, & Allwood, 2010). It may be possible that these internal factors could include personality traits and external factors could include level of proximity. Limitations As with any survey one limitation is that participants may or may not provide honest answers. They may respond how they think they should answer in an ethical dilemma. Another limitation is the response rate of the population. The primary investigator has no way to ensure the response rate. Delimitations Participation is delimited to workplace professionals who received the survey via Linked:HR. Other delimitations include focusing on one specific personality trait, Accommodation, and its sub-traits: other’s needs, agreement, humility, and reserve. This particular trait was selected due to its role in how compassionate and cooperative one may be towards others (Howard & Howard, 2011). Another delimitation is the degree of social proximity in the ethical dilemma. While the scenario was randomly assigned to the participant the level of proximity (HP, MP, or LP) was manipulated in the survey. This study may not be generalizable to all workplace professionals.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 11 Section 2: Review of Literature
The study of ethics involves defining actions that are good or moral compared to those actions which are bad or immoral (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012). The study of ethics dates back to ancient times and has numerous views and theories (Matthews, Dreary, & Whiteman, 2003). There are, however, numerous factors that may impact ethical decision making, including individual personality traits, proximity to the situation, and the ethical theory being employed. Ancient philosopher and ethicist Aristotle drew connections between people’s dispositions such as the tendency to be more modest or more vain with how morally or immorally they behaved (2003). The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which specific personality traits and level of proximity have a relationship in ethical decision making. This section will review prior research surrounding personality and personality traits. It will also provide an outline and review of the Ethic of Justice and Ethic of Care ethical frameworks. These frameworks are two models on which ethical decisions can be based (Botes, 2000). Lastly, it will review research around proximity and the role it plays in decision making. Personality According to Allemand, Steiger, and Hill (2013) personality traits consist of specific patterns of behavior, thoughts, and emotions which remain relatively consistent across differing situations and in a multitude of contexts. Personality traits are the basic characteristics that individuals display and these characteristics fluctuate greatly between people. According to the Five-Factor or Big Five Model the five major personality traits are: Need for Stability, Extraversion, Originality, Accommodation, and Consolidation (Howard & Howard, 2011).

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 12 Personality traits encompass specific characteristics
in which individuals show a preference for certain behaviors (Howard & Howard, 2011). For example one may prefer to recharge after a long day by spending time alone or by spending time with friends depending on how high or low the person scores in the extraversion trait. Likewise, some people are much more likely to be sociable and talkative while others tend to be more reserved and quiet. The specific behaviors correlate with traits which can then be measured to help define one’s personality (2011). In general these traits are believed to influence the individual’s behavior (Matthews, Dreary, & Whiteman, 2003). The Big Five Model has been studied extensively and is believed by many to be a comprehensive instrument in which to measure human personality differences (Matthews, Dreary, & Whiteman, 2003). Each of the traits in the Big Five Model reflects specific physiological activities that then elicit a response either positively or negatively for that trait (2011). For the purpose of this study the focus was on Accommodation and its sub-traits consisting of others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve. Accommodation, sometimes referred to as agreeableness, affects one’s interpersonal interactions (Frydenberg & Reevy, 2011). This trait reflects a person’s propensity for being trusting, modest, and caring (Allemand, Steiger, & Hill, 2013). Accommodation can be described as the tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than distrustful and antagonistic towards others (Howard & Howard, 2011). The higher the score reflected the higher the concern for social harmony; lower scores reflect individuals who are more skeptical and can be seen as aggressive (2011). Examples of this trait include sympathizing with others, being friendly towards others, and being compliant.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 13 The Accommodation trait can be
divided into three categories. Those with low Accommodation scores are considered challengers and are seen as competitive (Howard & Howard, 2011). Challengers tend to be cynical, shielded, competitive, and, at times, even aggressive (2011). Challengers may be seen as challenging authority. Challengers may make themselves an advocate for those who need support. This group tends to ask the tough questions and then double check the answers they get (2011). Those with scores in the middle are considered negotiators. Negotiators tend to be able to change between being challenging and accommodating. Negotiators tend to look for a “win-win” approach and are seen as collaborators (2011). Negotiators are likely to be known as the “peacemakers,” neither too aggressive nor too passive. Lastly, those who score higher in this trait are adapters. Adapters are known for being accepting and helpful. They are likely known as being a “team player.” Adapters may find those who are close to them needing help and take the initiative to help them. Adapters may allow others to be right and could be seen as passive or unprincipled (2011). The Accommodation sub-traits are others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve. The others’ needs sub-trait focuses on “how readily we inconvenience ourselves for others” (Howard & Howard, 2011, p.34). This sub-trait can be related to tender heartedness and self-sacrifice. Those who score high in this sub-trait tend make their own needs secondary and focus on the needs of others (2011). The others’ needs sub-trait indicates how foucsed one is on meeting the needs of someone else. The agreement sub-trait indicates one’s driving force during conflict (Howard & Howard, 2011). This sub-trait focuses on whether one prefers direct engagement of conflict, seeking resolution, or seeking harmony (2011). Those who score low in this sub-trait are not concerned

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 14 with others therefore they will
be less compliant when dealing with conflict (2011). Persons scoring higher in this sub-trait seek harmony. They may be perceived as someone who is considerate and may concede to the demands of others to avoid conflict (2011). Humility can also be described as modesty (Howard & Howard, 2011). This sub-trait reflects one’s desire for recognition and praise (2011). Persons scoring low in this sub-trait have a strong need for acknowledgment and public praise. Those who score high in this category may be uncomfortbale with public recognition (2011). They do not desire to be singled out, but insist the credit be shared as a team. This sub-trait measures the opposite ends of the spectrum of pride and humility (2011). Reserve can be defined as how comfortable one is sharing his or her opinions (Howard & Howard, 2011). Those who score higher in this category may be more reluctant to express their opinions. It does not necessarily mean the person is introverted as much as they just may not be willing to invite others to listen to their opinions (2011). Those scoring lower in this category may be more comfortable being in the limelight and readily share their opinions (2011). Personality traits are interrelated with several aspects of life including personal relationships and work relationships. Personality traits, therefore, could very likely impact the way people interact with colleagues in the work place (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). These interactions may also impact one’s propensity for making ethical decisions or the preference to use one ethical framework over another. According to Kalshoven, Den Hartog, and De Hoogh (2011) if one is seen as conducting him or herself appropriately in the workplace, especially when related to interpersonal relationships, this indicates the person may be

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 15 reasonably ethical. The assumption would
be that he or she would practice good moral judgment and treat others equitably when making an ethical decision. Ethical Decision Making In general, the decision making process is complex and certain factors may increase the complexity of this process including being faced with making an ethical decision (Mencl & May, 2009). Individuals are influenced by such things as time, moral judgment, and emotional factors (Mencl & May, 2009). These emotional factors can be related to specific personality traits such as Need for Stability which affects one’s nervous systems, Accommodation which can affect how likely one is to agree with others, and Consolidation which can affect how flexible one is in a situation. Making ethical decisions based on what is morally “right” or “wrong” can be influenced by any of these aspects (Mencl & May, 2009). Ethical decisions are made every day in the workplace. Ethical decisions may need to be made when one is faced with an ethical dilemma (Kozitza, 2012). One encounters a moral or ethical dilemma when faced with a complex situation that involves an apparent mental conflict between moral imperatives, where obeying one would result in transgressing another. Said another way, an ethical dilemma is a situation in which there is no definite answer and it is very likely that the decision will result in some kind of a negative impact. Moreover, an ethical dilemma can be described as a situation requiring an individual to perform an action and at the same time not perform that action (Morscher, 2002). When faced with making ethical decisions there are numerous and differing ethical theories to use which can create inconsistency in the decision making process. In order to address

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 16 complex ethical issues in the
workplace two of these ethical frameworks may be employed: ethic of justice and ethic of care (Botes, 2000). These constitute a different ethical framework on which ethical decisions can be based; however, these perspectives are frequently seen as polar opposites (2000). Kohlberg and Hersch (1977) examined the six moral stages created by Lawrence Kohlberg which show a progression in moral development that increases in both knowledge and cultural values as one moves through the stages. The model is designed to show progression from a punishment-obedience stage toward a universal-ethical principle in which a person develops their own moral reasoning as progression is made to the next stage (1977). It is upon this model that the framework for ethics of justice is based. Ethic of justice provides an ethical framework which focuses on fair and equitable treatment of all people (Botes, 2000). Employing the ethic of justice perspective bases ethical decisions on common rules and principles. This perspective focuses on using verifiable and reliable decision making methods. It relies on using impartiality and objectivity to make ethical decisions regardless of the situation (2000). Justice ethics apply the principles of rules, laws, and fairness (White, 1992). In response to the ethics of justice theory, Carol Gilligan developed the ethics of care theory. Care ethics focus on not treating everyone the same, but treating everyone as individuals with differing thoughts and reasoning (White, 1992). Gilligan specifically illuminates the differences in ethical reasoniong between the genders. Gilligan observed that much of the research done around ethics of justice focused on the male moral perspective (1992). Gilligan

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 17 suggests that women have a
different ethical viewpoint that centers around relationships and therefore use different ethical reasoning when solving moral dilemmas (1992). Care ethics focus on fulfilling the ethical needs of all people involved in the ethical situation (Botes, A, 2000). Ethic of care provides a framework to make ethical decisions which maintain balance in the situation. This perspective focuses on a holistic approach to ethical decision making resulting in maintaining harmony of all parties involved (2000). According to Lekan (2004) contextual frames may impact any situation requiring a moral decision and therefore must be considered. Moreover, a strong sense of compassion or sympathy could provide one with a motive for making a certain decision over another (2004). Proximity Another factor that can influence ethical decision making is proximity to a situation or the relationship with individuals in that situation. According to Agerstrom, Bjorklund, and Allwood (2010) research indicates the construal level theory and proximity can affect one’s decisions. Proximity may have differing impacts on ethical decision making elements (2009). The construal level theory purports that people think differently and make judgments differently based on the psychological distance or proximity to a given situation (Bar-Anan, Liberman, and Trope, 2006). There are specific factors that may influence how concretely or intangibly persons perceive the situation. These factors include spatial distance or actual distance from the situation, temporal distance or how much time has lapsed since the occurrence of the event, and social distance or the level of emotional closeness the person has to those involved (Bar-Anan,

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 18 Liberman, and Trope, 2006). These
factors all make up proximal distance or proximity. For this study the focus was on the social or emotional proximity one has with the individual in the ethical dilemma. Social proximity may impact one’s reaction in a situation (2006). For example one may react differently to an emergency involving a stranger than a loved one or close friend. It is likely the person would be able to remain more detached and less emotional during an accident involving a stranger. Emotional responses may impact how moral dilemmas are resolved (Krishnakumar & Rymph, 2012). Considering the influence of specific personality traits it is feasible that individuals may be more prone to using either the ethic of justice or ethic of care as a basis for solving an ethical dilemma. Depending upon one’s degree of agreement and empathy to others one may be more prone to focus on others’ need when making an ethical decision. The individual’s propensity to be cooperative may impact the decision when involved in an ethical situation (2012). Likewise, depending on the degree of Accommodation this trait may impact which ethical theory is employed, especially if the decision maker is concerned about maintaining harmonious work relationships. For example if relationships are extremely important to the decision maker he or she may consider using ethics of care when contemplating an ethical decision. Conclusion Personality traits can give people a better understanding of who they are and why they tend to react a certain way (Howard & Howard, 2011). This knowledge can also empower them to make appropriate judgment calls and ethical decisions in any number of situations. Individuals make these decisions based on two types of factors: internal factors and external factors

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 19 (Krishnakumar & Rymph, 2012). It
may be possible that these internal factors include personality traits and external factors may include proximity. Likewise, understanding how relationships may impact their decision making process can help to acknowledge potential barriers in certain situations (2012). Based on previous research it is possible that there is a relationship between specific personality traits and proximity to the situation in ethical decision making which needs further exploration.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 20 Section 3: Research Methodology Each
day in the rapidly changing workplace employees are faced with ethical decisions. It is often difficult to make an ethical decision when there is no one “right” or “wrong” answer (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009). An ethical dilemma is a situation in which there is no definite answer and it is very likely that the decision will result in some kind of a negative impact (Morscher, 2002). Could one’s personality and level of proximity to the situation ultimately influence the ethical decision? By identifying potential relationships between a specific personality trait including its sub-traits and whether the situation is high, medium, or low proximity when making an ethical decision could provide a better understanding into how certain behaviors may impact the resolution of ethical dilemmas. Data Collections Methods For this study an online survey was distributed. An online survey was selected due to the capability to reach a larger population. The purpose of the survey was to gather quantitative data which was analyzed to examine the strength and direction of the relationship between several variables. The survey was administered using Qualtrics.com. Qualtrics.com was also used to gather the data anonymously and store the data once it was compiled. The variables of this study included the participant’s decision whether or not to report a policy violation (ethical dilemma) in each of the following: a high proximity situation (HP), a medium proximity situation (MP), and a low proximity situation (LP). For example the LP situation provided the participant basic information about the situation and the employee

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 21 involved. The MP provided the
participant more information including personal information about the employee. Lastly, the HP situation provided detailed information about the employee’s personal life and assumes a friendship between the participant and the employee. Other variables will include the participant’s score in the ethic of justice scale and the ethic of care scale as well as the score of each participant in the personality trait Accommodation and its sub-traits. Participants. Participants for this study were professionals who are members of Linked:HR which was a convenient sample available to the primary investigator. Participants included members of Linked:HR who are over 18 years of age. Dr. Cris Wildermuth, Assistant Professor at Drake University and manager of the Linked:HR group, distributed the survey through Linked:HR (see Appendix A). There is a potential relationship between the primary researcher and the participants due to all parties being members of the Linked:HR site; however, the survey will remain anonymous. The primary researcher does not know who chose to participate and who did not. There was minimal risk to the participants. The risk that participants may have felt was mild mental or emotional discomfort as they responded to questions or thought about prior ethical choices they have made. The risks were no greater than what a person might normally experience on a daily basis.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 22 Survey development. The survey was
adapted from an existing graduate student’s survey (used with permission). The survey began with a statement of implied consent (see Appendix B). The survey was designed with three parts. The first part of the survey contained demographic questions to obtain specific information about the participant including gender, age, and country of origin, and whether or not the participant has a managerial role. All data was obtained using Qualtrics. The second part of the survey included the long form of the Big Five Personality Profile (used with permission), which is a set of six questions with randomized order to measure the personality trait Accommodation and its sub-traits (see Appendix B). The score for the personality traits and sub-traits were calculated according to the instructions of the Professional manual for the workplace Big Five profile version 4 (Howard & Howard, 2011). Finally, participants were asked to study an ethical dilemma and respond to the dilemma along with a series of eight open-ended and closed-ended questions. The eight questions pertain to the dilemma and the ethical decision made by the participant. The survey randomly assigned one of three ethical dilemmas to each participant. The dilemmas were designed to replicate real life workplace scenarios. The degree of proximity was manipulated to be either High Proximity, Medium Proximity, or Low Proximity in each of the dilemmas by altering the information received by the participant. The survey was piloted with a small group of graduate students to ensure quality of the questions. For the larger population the survey link was sent to participants through Linked:HR by Dr. Cris Wildermuth, Assistant Professor at Drake University and manager of the Linked:HR

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 23 group. The survey was open
for ten days with one reminder message being sent to participants on the seventh day. All data was recorded and stored using Qualtrics. Data Analysis The study used Qualtrics for descriptive quantitative statistical data to describe the demographics of the study population. Qualtrics was used to determine what percentage of the participants chose to report a policy violation in a High Proximity, Medium Proximity, or Low Proximity situation. Additionally, further analysis was conducted using SPSS as an analysis tool. For the study analysis included running a frequency distribution for High Proximity, Medium Proximity, and Low Proximity in the ethical dilemma, calculating the personality scores according to the instructions of the manual, calculating the Justice and Care scale scores using SPSS, and running a Pearson’s Correlations to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and its sub-traits and the scores in the Justice and Care scales. Confidentiality and consent Qualtrics.com was used for data storage. Raw data will be retained for 3-6 months after project completion, after which the data will be destroyed. The data will be stored using password protected files on a password protected personal laptop computer until all data is destroyed. Research reports were created for course completion of a Master’s program at Drake University. No identifying characteristics were included in the reports and all findings were reported in aggregate.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 24 Section 4: Findings and Discussion
This section of the document outlines the results of the statistical analyses and findings of this study. The purpose of this study was to address the following research questions: 1. What percentage of participants will choose to report a policy violation (ethical dilemma) under (a) low proximity circumstances, (b) medium proximity circumstance, and (c) high proximity circumstances? 2. What is the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and all sub-traits (others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve) and the scores in the Ethic of Care Scale? 3. What is the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and all sub-traits (others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve) and the Ethic of Justice Scale? Demographics The original number of responses was 1,284. Data was visually checked for missing and incomplete information which revealed 205 cases with missing data; those cases were eliminated from the data set. After eliminating the missing cases 1,079 cases remained which were used in the final analysis. The demographic data collected included information such as gender, country of origin, and whether or not the participant held a managerial role. Of the1,079 participants 77% were female and 23% were male. The study participants indicated 59% were from the United States while 41% were from other countries including Canada, England, and India. Participants

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 25 indicated 71% held a managerial
role while 29% indicated they did not. The age of the participants varied: 3% were 18-24, 16% were 25-34, 26% were 35-44, 28% were 45-54, 23% were 55-64, and 4% were 65 and older. See figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 1. Age range of participants by percentage. Proximity Findings This section will outline the responses of participants to one of three ethical dilemma questions outlined in the survey determining what percentage of participants will report a policy violation.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 26 The chart below represents the
summary of participant responses in the low proximity (LP) scenario. Of the 373 participants who answered this question 73% responded that they would report the policy violation (see figure 2). For details of the low proximity scenario see Appendix C. Figure 2. Figure 2. Percentage of participants who would report a policy violation under low proximity circumstances.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 27 The medium proximity (MP) scenario
is the same as the LP scenario, but provides more detail about the associate. The chart below represents the summary of participant responses in the medium proximity (MP) scenario. Of the 372 participants who answered this question 59% responded that they would report the policy violation (see figure 3). For details of the medium proximity scenario see Appendix C. Figure 3. Figure 3. This figure illustrates what percentage of participants will report a policy violation under medium proximity circumstances.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 28 The high proximity (HP) scenario
is the same as the LP and MP scenarios, but provides more detail about the associate. The chart below represents the summary of participant responses in the high proximity (HP) scenario. Of the 402 participants who answered this question 46% responded that they would report the policy violation (see figure 4). For details of the high proximity scenario see Appendix C. Figure 4. Figure 4. This figure illustrates what percentage of participants will report a policy violation under high proximity circumstances. Previous research indicated that gender may influence the use of Ethics of Care when making an ethical decision (White, 1992). Additional descriptive analysis was conducted to verify whether or not gender played a role in using the ethic of care framework for reporting the policy violation. A Pearson’s Correlation analysis was performed using SPSS to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between gender and the ethics of justice and ethics of

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 29 care scales. This study found
no significance between gender and the ethical framework used for making a decision in this scenario. See table 1. Table 1 Gender Care Pearson Correlation .028 Sig. (2-tailed) .364 N 1079 Personality Findings To address the remaining research questions statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS. In order to ensure the statistical analysis was computed accurately the following steps were completed to prepare the data for analysis. The values of the reverse scored items in the personality portion of the survey were recoded to compute scores for Accommodation and its sub-traits following the instructions of the Big Five Model. The variables were computed using the Transform and Compute Variable function in SPSS. Table 2 summarizes the mean and standard deviation of the computed personality scores. The mean indicates the central value of the data set. The standard deviation indicates how much dispersion between the values. A low standard deviation score indicates the data points are very close to the mean and a high standard deviation score indicates a larger dispersion from the mean. The standard deviation of the computed personality scores indicate a broad dispersion from the mean signifying the responses varied significantly between the

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 30 participants. A large standard deviation
indicates the participants personality traits varied greatly. Analysis was done to check for outliers and none were found indicating the data is on a normal curve. Tests were conducted to determine skewness and kurtosis distributions which were found to be within an acceptable range. See Table 2. Table 2 Personality Traits Mean Std. Deviation N Others’ Needs 13.5826 2.5723 1126 Agreement 19.8597 2.81391 1126 Humility 10.7558 2.4887 1126 Reserve 13.0613 2.77813 1126 Accommodation 25.8703 3.83887 1126 Next scores were computed for the ethic of justice and care scales using the Compute Variable function in SPSS. Table 3 summarizes the mean and standard deviation of the computed ethic of justice and care scale scores. The standard deviation for both the justice and care scales was low indicating the data points are very close to the mean. The low standard deviation in this data signifies there is little variance in the participants’ answers. Analysis was done to check for outliers and none were found indicating the data is on a normal curve. Tests were conducted to determine skewness and kurtosis distributions which were found to be within an acceptable range, as indicated in Table 3.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 31 Table 3 Care and Justice
Mean Std. Deviation N Care 3.0198 0.6322 1079 Justice 3.5949 0.7827 1079 To address the remaining research questions a Pearson Correlation analysis was performed to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and all of its sub-traits and the ethics of justice and ethics of care scales. Research Question #2. What is the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and all sub-traits (others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve) and the scores in the Ethic of Care Scale? 1. There was a negative correlation between Others’ Needs and the Ethic of Care Scale, r = -.91, n=1079, p =.003. 2. There was a positive correlation between Agreement and the Ethic of Care Scale, r = .139, n=1079, p =.000. 3. There was a negative correlation between Humility and the Ethic of Care Scale, r = -.100, n=1079, p =.001. Research Question #3. What is the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and all sub-traits (others’ needs, agreement, humility, and reserve) and the Ethic of Justice Scale?

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 32 1. There was a positive
correlation between Others’ Needs and the Ethic of Justice Scale, r = .62, n=1079, p =.043. These results of showed an overall correlation between specific sub-traits of Accommodation (others’ needs, agreement, and humility) to the ethic of justice and care scales; however, the correlations were weak. See Table 4. Table 4 Personality traits and Pearson Correlations Care Justice Others Needs Pearson Correlation -.091** .062* Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .043 N 1079 1079 Agreement Pearson Correlation .139** -.044 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .152 N 1079 1079 Humility Pearson Correlation -.100** .015 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .624 N 1079 1079 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 33 Discussion The findings of this
study add to the existing body of knowledge on personality as it relates to ethical decision making, specifically how it relates to the ethic of justice and ethic of care models. This study examined what percentage of participants would report a policy violation under low proximity, medium proximity, and high proximity circumstances. It also examined the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and all sub- traits and the ethic of justice and ethic of care scales. Based on the responses of the participants in each of the ethical dilemma scenarios (HP, MP, and LP) it does appear that the degree of social proximity can influence the outcome of an ethical decision. As the degree of proximity increased the percentage of those reporting the policy violation decreased from 73% reporting the policy violation in the low proximity scenario to 46% reporting the policy violation in the high proximity scenario. The results of this study confirm the findings of a study conducted by Kozitza (2012) indicating that proximity has an impact on the way one reaches an ethical decision. This study also confirms previous research based on the construal theory which purports that people think differently and makes judgments differently based on the proximity to a given situation (Bar-Anan, Liberman, & Trope, 2006). Accommodation may affects one’s interpersonal interactions (Frydenberg & Reevy, 2011). The findings indicate specific aspects of Accommodation correlate with using justice and care in ethical decision making. The results of the study showed an overall correlation between specific sub-traits of Accommodation (others’ needs, agreement, and humility) to the ethic of justice and care scales; however, the correlations were weak indicating personality does not matter significantly in ethical decision making.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 34 Previous research indicated that gender
may influence the use of Ethics of Care when making an ethical decision (White, 1992). According to the findings of this study gender did not influence the way in which the ethical decision was made. Based on the results of the study personality and gender may impact the ethical decision less than the ability to empathize with the persons in the ethical dilemma scenario. This study showed that the participants may respond differently based on the degree of proximity which also increases the amount of empathy felt for the individual. This study showed that proximity has more of an impact on the way one reaches an ethical decision than personality traits or gender.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 35 Section 5: Conclusion Conclusion The
purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which specific personality traits and proximity have a relationship in ethical decision making. The findings of this study add to the existing body of knowledge on personality as it relates to ethical decision making, specifically how it relates to the ethic of justice and ethic of care models. This study examined the strength and direction of the relationship between Accommodation and all sub-traits and the ethic of justice and ethic of care scales. There were relationships identified between personality and the ethics of justice and care scales; however, they were not strong. Although statistical significance was identified in this study the correlations were weak suggesting personality does not matter significantly in ethical decision making. This study also examined if participants would report a policy violation under low proximity, medium proximity, and high proximity circumstances. The results of this study support the role of proximity in ethical decision making. The degree of proximity may affect ethical decision making. As the degree of proximity increased the number of those reporting the policy violation decreased suggesting the degree of proximity does matter in ethical decision making. The results confirm the findings of previous studies indicating that proximity has an impact on the way one reaches an ethical decision. This study showed that the participants may respond differently based on the degree of proximity which also increases the amount of empathy felt for the individual. These findings suggest that individuals are more likely to employ the ethics of care when the degree of empathy is increased in a situation. Previous research indicated that gender may be a reason one would

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 36 chose to use either ethics
of justice or ethic of care; however, this study found no significance between gender and the use of justice or care. Rather, the findings of this study suggest that empathy may actually prompt the use of justice or care in ethical decision making. The results of this study support a recent study exploring ethics and gender where research found that when gender is treated as dichotomous that there was not a difference in ethicality between men and women (McCabe, Ingram, & Dato-on, 2006). The present study showed that proximity has more of significance on the way one reaches an ethical decision than one’s personality traits. The results of this study may be used to guide ethical development. The results could contribute to fostering moral and ethical development by recognizing that proximity to the situation may influence the way in which one comes to a resolution by employing both justice and care reasoning to reach a decision. One example of the use of care and justice reasoning concurrently would be parents who may feel compelled to give into their child’s desire, but as parents they also want to ensure their child’s needs are met. So the parents may use both care and justice to make a decision that is in the best interest of the child while still showing empathy and compassion. Likewise, in a business setting managers need to balance their personal feelings toward a subordinate to meet the needs of the employee as well as meet the needs of the organization. Implications The results of this study confirm the findings of previous studies indicating that proximity has an impact on the way one reaches an ethical decision. One possible implication of this study may be used to guide ethical development. The results could contribute to fostering moral and ethical development. This may be used to help produce a more informed perspective in ethical decision making by recognizing that proximity to the situation may influence the way

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 37 in which one comes to
a decision. As workplace professionals it can sometimes be difficult to separate personal perspective from professional perspective when making an ethical decision. In a situation where we may have more empathy for the individual we could make an exception to a policy based on the level of empathy. While examining each situation on a case by case basis is acceptable in most organizations it is also important to look at how the overall policy is intended to be applied. Both ethic of justice and ethic of care should be examined when making an ethical decision. As human beings we must be aware of our own proximity to the situation so we can moderate our empathy or apathy towards an individual. Too much empathy or too much apathy could be detrimental in ethical decision making. While ethic of justice allows for making impartial decisions; ethic of care allows for treating each person as an individual. Limitations and Suggestions for future research Several limitations may have impacted the results of this study including the study sample. This study focused on business professionals who are members of a social networking site. Future research conducted around what factors influence ethical decision making might include other participant groups. The sample also represented viewpoints from a variety of countries which could be impacted by the interpretation of the questions as well as cultural differences. Future research could focus on the difference and similarities of global ethical decision making compared to domestic ethical decision making. Ethics and ethical development has been studied for centuries. There continues to be a need to study the effects of human complexity such as personality and proximity and how it impacts one’s reasoning and decision making. This study focused on one personality trait of the

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 38 Big Five Model. Studies could
yield more robust findings if all of the personality traits represented in the Big Five Model were included instead of focusing on Accommodation. The degree of social proximity may influence how one makes a decision (Bar-Anan, Liberman, & Trope, 2006). Empathy for others may influence the ultimate decision positively on behalf of the associate. One consideration for future research would be to create apathy instead of empathy towards the associate in the ethical dilemma. Potentially manipulating the scenario to provide negative information about the associate may influence the way in which participants respond to the scenario causing them to use more of a justice approach than a care approach to reach their ultimate decision. Another consideration for future studies could include the use of qualitative data instead of quantitative data. Using qualitative data may lead to better comprehension of how empathy may impact making ethical decisions. This would allow participants to describe past dilemmas they have encountered in their own words and eliminate any leading questions created by the study. This study included open-ended qualitative questions in the survey; however, due to the time constraints of the project qualitative analysis was not possible.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 39 References Allemand, Steiger, & Hill,
(2013) Stability of personality traits in adulthood: Mechanisms and implications.Geropsych: The Journal Of Gerontopsychology And Geriatric Psychiatry5- 13 Botes, A (2000) A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 1071-1075 Frydenberg, E., & Reevy, G. (2011) Personality, Stress, and Coping: Implications for Education, Charlotte, N.CInformation Age Pub. Howard & Howard (2011) Professional Manual for the Workplace Big Five Profile Version 4.0. United States of AmericaCentACS - Center for Applied Cognitive Studies Kalshoven, Den Hartog, and De Hoogh (2011) Ethical leader behavior and big five factors of personality. Journal of Business Ethics. 349-366 Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H (1977) Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory Into Practice. 53-59 Kozitza, T. (2012) The impact of psychological proximity on ethical decision-making. Unpublished Graduate Research Drake University Des Moines, Iowa Krishnakumar, S. & Rymph, D. (2012) Uncomfortable ethical decisions: The role of negative emotions and emotional intelligence in ethical decision making. Journal of Managerial Issues. 321-344 Lekan, T. (2004) Integrating justice and care in animal ethics. Journal Of Applied Philosophy. 183-195 MacKinnon, B. (2013) Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues 2nd edition.Boston, MAWadsworth Matthews, G., Dreary, I., & Whiteman, M. (2003) Personality TraitsCambridge, U.KCambridge University Press McCabe, A. A., Ingram, R., & Dato-on, M. (2006) The business of ethics and gender. Journal Of Business Ethics.64(2), 101-116. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-3327-x Mencl, & May (2009) The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-aking: An exploratory investigation. Journal Of Business Ethics. 201-226 Merriam-Webster Inc. (2013) merriam-webster.com

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 40 Morscher, E. (2002) The definition
of moral dilemmas: A logical confusiotn and a clarification. Etjical Theory and Moral Practice. 485-491 Premeaux, S. (2009) The link between management behavior and ethical philosophy in the wake of the enron convictions. Journal Of Business Ethics.13-25 Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer (2006) Personality traits change in adulthood: Reply to Costa and McCrae. Psychological Bulletin. 29-32 Thiroux, J.P. & Krasemann, K.W. (2012) Ethics: Theory and Practice 11th edition. Upper Saddle, NJPrentice Hall White, T. I. (1992) Business, ethics, and Carol Gilligna's "Two Voices". Business Ethics Quarterly. 51-61

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 41 Appendix A Participation Invitation Greetings!
My name is Marla Fowler and I am a graduate student at Drake University. You are invited to participate in an online survey on personality and ethical decision making. The survey should take you approximately 10 - 13 minutes. Thank you in advance for your participation! I will be happy to share the results of the study with the Linked:HR community – results will be entered in a website developed with two of my classmates for the study of ethics. I also plan to write an article for the Human Resources Certification Institute Magazine. For more details on the study and to participate, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/LHRMarla.

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 42 Appendix B Implied Consent Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which there is a relationship between a specific personality trait and all its sub traits in ethical decision making. Time It should take you approximately 10 - 13 minutes to complete the survey. Risks/Confidentiality There is minimal risk to the participants. There is a risk that participants may feel mild mental or emotional discomfort as they respond to questions or think about prior ethical choices they have made. The risks will be no greater than what a person might normally experience on a daily basis. Your participation in the survey is completely anonymous and there is no way to link your name or email address to your responses. Data will only be reported in aggregate only. Only the principal investigator and her advisor have access to the data. The data collected will be stored securely in Qualtrics until it has been deleted by the primary investigator. The data will be deleted 3-6 months after the study has been completed. Benefits There are no direct benefits or compensation for participants. However, it is hoped that through your participation, researchers will be able to identify the potential relationships between

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 43 personality, proximity, and ethical decision
making styles. Such information may be used to gain insight into how certain personality traits and ethical decisions impact the work place. Participation Participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any time or refuse to participate entirely. If you desire to withdraw, please just close your internet browser. Results Results will be published by September 30, 2013 to the following website: drakemsldethics.weebly.com. The link will take you to an online ethics training created by Drake University graduate students Marla Fowler, Liz Lawrence, and Cheryl Mentzer. Please feel free to navigate through the ethical theory training available on the website. Questions about your Rights as a Research Participant For questions or comments on this survey, kindly contact the principal investigator, Marla Fowler at 515-238-6737 or [email protected]. If you have questions you do not feel comfortable asking the researcher, you may contact supervisor Dr. Terri Deems at 515-988-5559 or [email protected]. Alternatively, please contact the Institutional Review Board at Drake University at 515-271-DIRB (3472) or [email protected]

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 44 Appendix C Ethics and Personality
Survey I have read and understood the above consent form and desire of my own free will to participate in this study. Yes (1) No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey 1 I received this survey through.... Linked:HR (Central Group) (1) Other (2) ____________________ 2 Are you a Linked:HR member? Yes (1) No (2) 3 Please indicate your age 18-24 (1) 25-34 (2) 35-44 (3) 45-54 (4) 55-64 (5) 65-74 (6) 75 and over (7) 4 What is your gender? Male (1) Female (2)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 45 5 What is your country
of origin? United States (1) Afghanistan (2) Albania (3) Algeria (4) Andorra (5) Angola (6) Antigua & Barbuda (7) Argentina (8) Armenia (9) Australia (10) Azerbaijan (11) Bahamas (12) Bahrain (13) Bangladesh (14) Barbados (15) Belarus (16) Belgium (17) Belieze (18) Benin (19) Bhutan (20) Bolivia (21) Bosnia & Herzgovina (22) Botswana (23) Brazil (24) Brunei Darussalam (25) Bulgaria (26) Burkina Faso (27) Burma (Myanmar) (28) Burundi (29) Cambodia (30) Cameroon (31) Canada (32) Cape Verde (33) Central Africa Republic (34) Chad (35) Chile (36) China (37) Colombia (38)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 46 Comoros (39) Congo (40) Congo,
Democratic of the (41) Costa Rica (42) Cote d'Ivoire (43) Croatia (44) Cuba (45) Cyprus (46) Czech Republic (47) Denmark (48) Djibouti (49) Dominica (50) Dominican Republic (51) Ecuador (52) East Timor (53) Egypt (54) El Salvador (55) England (56) Equatorial Guinea (57) Eritrea (58) Estonia (59) Ethiopia (60) Fiji (61) Finland (62) France (63) Gabon (64) Gambia, the (65) Georgia (66) Germany (67) Ghana (68) Greece (69) Grenada (70) Guatemala (71) Guinea (72) Guinea-Bissau (73) Guyana (74) Haiti (75) Honduras (76) Hungary (77) Iceland (78)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 47 India (79) Indonesia (80) Iran
(81) Iraq (82) Ireland (83) Israel (84) Italy (85) Jamaica (86) Japan (87) Jordon (88) Kazakhstan (89) Kenya (90) Kiribati (91) Korea, North (92) Korea, South (93) Kosovo (94) Kuwait (95) Kyrgystan (96) Laos (97) Latvia (98) Lebanon (99) Lesotho (100) Liberia (101) Libya (102) Liechtenstein (103) Lithuania (104) Luxembourg (105) Macedonia (106) Madagascar (107) Malawi (108) Malaysia (109) Maldives (110) Mali (111) Malta (112) Marshall Islands (113) Mauritania (114) Mauritius (115) Mexico (116) Micronesia (117) Moldova (118)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 48 Monaco (119) Mongolia (120) Montenegro
(121) Morocco (122) Mozambique (123) Myanmar (124) Namibia (125) Nauru (126) Nepal (127) Netherlands, the (128) New Zealand (129) Nicaragua (130) Niger (131) Nigeria (132) Norway (133) Northern Ireland (134) Oman (135) Pakistan (136) Palau (137) Palestine State (138) Panama (139) Papua New Guinea (140) Paraguay (141) Peru (142) The Philippines (143) Poland (144) Portugal (145) Qutar (146) Romania (147) Russia (148) Rwanda (149) St. Kitts & Nevis (150) St. Lucia (151) St. Vincent & The Grenadines (152) Samoa (153) San Marino (154) Sao Tome & Principe (155) Saudi Arabia (156) Scotland (157) Senegal (158)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 49 Serbia (159) Seycelles (160) Sierra
Leone (161) Singapore (162) Slovakia (163) Slovenia (164) Soloman Islands (165) Somalia (166) South Africa (167) Spain (168) Sri Lanka (169) Sudan (170) Suriname (171) Swaziland (172) Sweden (173) Switzerland (174) Syria (175) Taiwan (176) Tajikistan (177) Tanzania (178) Thailand (179) Togo (180) Tonga (181) Trinidad & Tobago (182) Tunisia (183) Turkey (184) Turkmenistan (185) Tuvalu (186) Uganda (187) Ukraine (188) United Arab Emirates (189) Uruguay (190) Uzbekistan (191) Vanuatu (192) Vatican City (Holy See) (193) Venezuela (194) Vietnam (195) Western Sahara (196) Wales (197) Yemen (198)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 50 Zaire (199) Zambia (200) Zimbabwe
(201) 6 Do you have a managerial role? Yes (1) No (2) Personality Questions - The following series of questions asks about how you see yourself. Please answer openly and honestly.7 I see myself as someone who... (click on the appropriate location to make a choice) ______ ...Enjoys competing (1b) (1) ______ ...Enjoys persuading others (1a) (2) ______ ...Avoids direct conflict (1a) (3)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 51 8 I see myself as
someone who... (click on the appropriate location to make a choice) ______ ...Prefers expressing opinions over listening to them (1b) (1) ______ ...Prefers own agenda to focusing on others' needs (1b) (2) ______ ...Can't keep his/her opinion out of discussion (1b) (3) 9 I see myself as someone who... (click on the appropriate location to make a choice) ______ ...Can make unpleasant or unpopular decisions (1b) (1) ______ ...Backs off in an argument (1a) (2) ______ ...Is a follower (1a) (3) ______ ...Needs to win (1b) (4) 10 I see myself as someone who... (click on the appropriate location to make a choice) ______ ...Gives opinions readily (1b) (1) ______ ...Holds his/her tongue in meetings (1a) (2) ______ ...Is comfortable staying in the background (1a) (3)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 52 11 I see myself as
someone who... (click on the appropriate location to make a choice) ______ ...Takes credit when deserved (1b) (1) ______ ...Declines personal credit for successes (1a) (2) ______ ...Enjoys getting credit in front of others (1b) (3) ______ ...Is uneasy when receiving praise (1a) (4) 12 I see myself as someone who... (click on the appropriate location to make a choice) ______ ...Speaks out in meetings (1b) (1) ______ ...Prefers for others to talk in meetings (1a) (2) ______ ...Interrupts others (1b) (3) Moral Dilemma Questions - The following series of questions asks you to respond to a moral dilemma and how you reached your decision. Please answer openly and honestly. 13 As HR manager one of your responsibilities is to set up and support the monthly all- associate’s meetings. Driven by the guiding principles of associate involvement and communication, leadership has made this monthly meeting for all 200 associates mandatory. Just as the meeting begins you step out to grab a pile of handouts on the copier. You walk out of the meeting room, grab the copies, and as you are returning to the meeting you see your best friend – also an associate at your organization - walking the opposite direction. You remind your friend about the mandatory meeting. Your friend explains: “I’m sorry, but something personal and very important has come up – I’ll need to take an early lunch to stop by home.” Then your friend walks out. You and your friend have known one another for many years. This person has helped you through many a bind and was even instrumental in getting you to work for this organization. You know one another’s families – your children play together often. In fact, you are so close that you may be the only person who knows this associate’s personal situation: Your friend's child is seriously ill, and the child’s treatment has greatly strained the family’s financial resources. Your friend has missed two other mandatory meetings this year and has been formally reminded that associates who miss more than two meetings in a year will not be eligible for the annual bonus. The annual bonus is typically more than a month’s paycheck and your friend relies on it as part of their pay. One other associate who missed three meetings in the past was not awarded the annual bonus. Your friend, however, has always been very conscientious and highly reliable at work. This is the final meeting of the year and your friend will not be missed in a meeting of 200 people. You are the only person who knows your

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 53 friend isn’t in attendance and
it will become known that it was you who reported the incident. You may assume as you make your decision that no one else would find out about it. You may further assume that you will suffer no negative professional consequences; regardless of the decision you choose to make. In this scenario would you report the absence? Definitely Yes (1) Probably Yes (2) Probably Not (3) Definitely Not (4) 14 As HR manager one of your responsibilities is to set up and support the monthly all- associate’s meetings. Driven by the guiding principles of associate involvement and communication, leadership has made this monthly meeting for all 200 associates mandatory. Just as the meeting begins you step out to grab a pile of handouts on the copier. You walk out of the meeting room, grab the copies, and as you are returning to the meeting you see an associate walking the opposite direction. You remind the associate about the mandatory meeting. The associate explains: “I’m sorry, but something personal and very important has come up – I’ll need to take an early lunch to stop by home.” Then the associate walks out. You know that this associate has dealt with very serious personal family problems over the last year. Specifically, this associate’s child is seriously ill, and the child’s treatment has greatly strained the family’s financial resources. You also know this associate has missed two other mandatory meetings this year and has been formally reminded that associates who miss more than two meetings in a year will not be eligible for the annual bonus. The annual bonus is typically more than a month’s paycheck and many associates rely on it as part of their pay. One other associate who missed three meetings in the past was not awarded the annual bonus. This particular associate, however, has always been very conscientious and highly reliable at work. This is the final meeting of the year and the associate will not be missed in a meeting of 200 people. You are the only person who knows the associate isn’t in attendance and it will become known that it was you who reported the incident. You may assume as you make your decision that no one else would find out about it. You may further assume that you will suffer no negative professional consequences; regardless of the decision you choose to make. In this scenario would you report the absence? Definitely Yes (1) Probably Yes (2) Probably Not (3) Definitely Not (4)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 54 15 As HR manager one
of your responsibilities is to set up and support the monthly all- associates meetings. Driven by the guiding principles of associate involvement and communication, leadership has made this monthly meeting for all 200 associates mandatory. Just as the meeting begins you step out to grab a pile of handouts on the copier. You walk out of the meeting room, grab the copies, and as you are returning to the meeting you see an associate walking the opposite direction. You remind the associate about the mandatory meeting. The associate explains: “I’m sorry, but something personal and very important has come up – I’ll need to take an early lunch to stop by home.” Then the associate walks out. You know this associate has missed two other mandatory meetings this year and has been formally reminded that associates who miss more than two meetings in a year will not be eligible for the annual bonus. The annual bonus is typically more than a month’s paycheck and many associates rely on it as part of their pay. One other associate who missed three meetings in the past was not awarded the annual bonus. This particular associate, however, has always been very conscientious and highly reliable at work. This is the final meeting of the year and the associate will not be missed in a meeting of 200 people. You are the only person who knows the associate isn’t in attendance and it will become known that it was you who reported the incident. You may assume as you make your decision that no one else would find out about it. You may further assume that you will suffer no negative professional consequences; regardless of the decision you choose to make. In this scenario would you report the absence? Definitely Yes (1) Probably Yes (2) Probably Not (3) Definitely Not (4)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 55 17 Regardless of your ultimate
decision, please indicate the importance of each of the following lines of reasoning as you consider your options (slide the button to the position desired - decimal points are available). ______ Your decision could create an enemy (1) ______ Not getting the bonus could result in a financial burden for the individual (2) ______ Your decision could impact your ability to establish or strengthen your relationship with the individual (3) ______ You must consider the fairness of the situation for everyone involved including those who attended the meeting and the one who needs to leave (4) ______ People should be willing to accept the consequences of their choices (5) ______ The impact of your decision on the people is more important than following a policy (6) ______ Everyone should be treated equally (7) ______ The organization cannot thrive without fairness (8) Is it possible someone might have another line of reasoning? If so, create space for ‘other’ – but that’s not a have-to, as you can certainly simply ask people to respond to only these items

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 56 18 Regardless of your ultimate
decision, please indicate the importance of each of the following lines of reasoning as you consider your options (slide the button to the position desired - decimal points are available): ______ The situation could generate unnecessary conflict (1) ______ As a manager, you must consider the personal issues experienced by your associates (2) ______ The associates must abide by the rules of the organization (3) ______ Your managerial role obliges you to observe your managerial duties above all else (4) ______ Your relationship with the other associates participating in the meeting must be considered (5) ______ The employee's absence from an important meeting is not fair to the employer (6) ______ The organization cannot thrive without managerial impartiality (7) ______ Relationships are more important than a policy (8)

ETHICS, PERSONALITY, AND PROXIMITY 57 19 Please list any additional
factors that you might consider when making your decision: 20 OPTIONAL: In a moral dilemma, there are no easy decisions - any decision may potentially hurt someone or impact the organization or society at large in some way. Can you describe a moral dilemma you’ve faced at work and the factors you considered as you made your decision? Thank you for participating in this survey! Please click to submit your results. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to this survey. I truly appreciate the time you took to help me out. If you wish to contact me about this research, including receiving a copy of the final report, please do so using the email address below. Sincerely, Marla Fowler [email protected]

Ethics, Personality, and Proximity

Ethics, Personality, and Proximity

Other Decks in Education

Featured

Transcript