Ethics Training and Workplace Ethical Decisions of MBA Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>We recruited 15 MBA professionals in the St. Louis, Missouri metropolitan area to explore experiences and perceptions of classroom ethics training and ethical experiences in the workplace. Telephone interviews were conducted using open-ended questions to collect data that were uploaded to NVivo 10 for qualitative analysis. As a result of the data analysis, seven themes were recognized: (a) effective decision-making; (b) combining classroom instruction with real-world experience; (c) reasoning through an ethical issue; (d) resolution of workplace ethical issues; (e) feelings about ethics and corporate fraud; (f) fear of employer retaliation; and (g) expectations of management. One unexpected finding was that managers do not resolve ethical issues that the participants expect and that managers need more ethics training. The importance of human resources department was noted in dealing with ethical issues. A disturbing finding was the strong fear of retaliation for reporting an unethical issue. The self-assessment of the quality of ethics training in their MBA programs was mixed.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".