Role-set configuration is examined as a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior among two random samples of advertisers [corporate clients and ad agency account executives]. The specific reported behaviors analyzed are intraorganizational behaviors available to most employees. The conceptual framework is based on differential association theory and role set configuration analysis. The three dimensions of role-set configuration used to predict ethical/unethical behavior are organizational location, relative authority and referent others' beliefs and behaviors as perceived by the focal person. The focal person's opportunity to participate in unethical behavior is also a predictor variable. Eighty-nine corporate clients and 136 agency advertisers responded to a questionnaire [a 33% return rate] consisting of a slightly revised version of Newstrom and Ruch's ethics scale. Seven types of predictors of ethical/unethical behavior, "What I do," are developed through principal component factor analysis. These seven variables include the beliefs and behaviors of referent others in various locations and authority positions which affect the focal person: [1] the focal person's beliefs, "What I believe"; 12] what the focal person thinks his/her peers believe, "Peer beliefs"; [31 what the focal person thinks his/her top management believes, "What top management believes"; [4] what the focal person thinks his/her peers do, "What my peers do"; [5] the opportunity the focal person thinks he/she has to become involved in ethical/unethical behavior, 'My opportunity"; [6] and [7] what the corporate client thinks the advertising agency believes, "What the agency believes" and what the ad agency thinks the corporate client believes, "What the corporate client believes. " Focal persons were asked to respond to either variable [6] or [7] depending on which was a referent. This research demonstrates the influence of role-set proximity in predicting the ethical/unethical behaviors of both the corporate clients and the ad agency account executives with intraorganizational relationships being more important than interorganizational relationships. Interorganizational role-set of corporate clients for ad agency account executives and vice versa is not a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior. Opportunity is a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior for both respondent types. The relative authority and attitude/behavior dimensions influence ethical/unethical behavior of both respondent types, although corporate advertiser's ethical/unethical behavior is predicted by top management's beliefs and the ad agency account executives' ethical/unethical behavior is predicted by the behaviors of peers.
A differential association model of unethical behavior was utilized to predict unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. The data were collected through a systematic random sample of 280 marketing managers selected from the 1975 American Marketing Association roster. Newstrom and Ruch 's 17-item ethics scale was used to develop six types of predictors of unethical behavior, "What I do, " among marketers. These six types of variables included (1) the marketer's beliefs, "What I believe"; (2) what the marketer thought his peers believed, "Peer beliefs"; (3) what the marketer thought top management believed, "What top management believes"; (4) what the marketer thought his peers did, "What my peers do"; (5) the opportunity the marketer thought his peers had to become involved in un-ethical behavior, "Opportunity for peers"; and finally (6) the opportunity the marketer himself had to become involved in unethical behavior, "Individual opportunity." In the case of these marketing practitioners, their perceptions of what their peers do and their own opportunity to become involved in unethical behavior that involved others were better predictor variables than were any of the other variables analyzed.
The major criticisms of the dominant comparative structural and structural contingency approaches to organizations were examined and found to possess at least ten major limitations. These structural approaches have resulted in an emphasis on organizational efficiency, goals, consensus, statics, and constraints of the environment, size, and technology which perpetuate the status quo; but the analysis of power, change, conflicts of interest, and individual volition have been obscured. Although structural analysis has resulted in some limited abstract generalizations concerning the form of organizations, these generalizations do little to contribute to understanding organizational processes, strategic choice, and power relationships. These important aspects of organizations could be unmasked by viewing organizations as arenas of micro-individual and group interests as well as arenas through which macrosocietal, class, and multinational interests and conflicts are played out. To minimize these limitations in the analysis of organizations, triangulations of perspectives, levels of analysis, sources of data, and methodologies are suggested.
To a large extent, the adequacy of physical conditions of housing is considered to be associated with the consumer's preferences for alternative consumption items and various socioeconomic characteristics of that consumer. The relationships of housing adequacy to race, town, tenure, wife's education, occupational prestige of the head of household, family income, and preferences for long‐ and short‐range alternatives to housing were analyzed to determine which socioeconomic conditions and preferences were related to housing adequacy. The sample consisted of 361 females in two culturally different, small Louisiana communities with less than 6,500 populations. Orthogonal factor analysis of the attitude items, followed by least squares analysis of variance or simple linear correlations, where statistically appropriate, was used to determine significant differences in the adequacy of housing factor scores. Housing was significantly less adequate for blacks, for those living in the north Louisi ana community, and for those who lived in rented houses. The families of females who possessed lower levels of education and the families of males who worked at jobs with lower occupational prestige also lived in less adequate housing. The females who did not prefer to spend their resources on long‐range alternatives to housing lived in less adequate housing. Thus, both socioeconomic variables and consumer preferences were directly associated with housing adequacy. The theoretical proposition that consumer preferences serve as an attitudinal link between the socioeconomic variables and housing adequacy was not supported by our data. The socioeconomic variables were related to housing adequacy but not generally related to consumer preferences. Only the socioeconomic variable, town, was related to consumer preferences.
Baldridge, Cutis, Ecker, and Riley (1978) posit that differences in academic rewards for men and women faculty are largely due to differences in the type of employing institution, with males being employed in more prestigious institutions than females. To examine their hypothesis that sex differences do not exist in a single type of institution, we construct four regression models, one each for the rewards of type of appointment, tenure, rank, and salary. Twenty-three background characteristics including sex, work activities, and productivity variables are used as predictors. Reward variables which theoretically precede in time the reward being analyzed are also included as predictors of that reward. Data were collected from personnel files, institutional records, interviews with administrators, and faculty questionnaires. The analyses produced four strong but heterogeneous models of faculty rewards. Thus, there is no single academic reward structure; rather, four different reward structures exist. The heterogeneity of variables within the models demonstrates the need to develop multi-level, multi-trait models of rewards drawing from social, psychological, group, and organizational characteristics. Of the four rewards, only salary differs by sex; thus, our findings partially support Baldridge and associates' hypothesis. Males are paid significantly more than their female counterparts. Male and female salary models differ, with males being more likely to receive rewards for achieved characteristics than females.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.