Steve Shu brought my attention to a fascinating article reporting on a study of 5,000 MBA students from 11 graduate business schools in Canada and 21 schools in the U.S.
The study is entitled "Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs: The Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Actions". It was conducted by management professors at Rutgers, Washington State and Pennsylvania State universities, and will appear in the next issue of the Academy of Management Learning & Education journal.
The study found that 56 per cent of graduate business students admitted to cheating in the last year, compared with 47 per cent of non-business students.
Jim Fisher, vice-dean of MBA programs at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said he wasn't surprised by the results, since MBA students are highly competitive and have a high need for achievement.
To dampen the impulse to cheat, students at Rotman must sign a form every time they submit course work for grading to ensure they comply with academic honesty policies. When MBA students work in teams, they also must sign forms stating that they didn't cheat, nor did their team-mates.
"Those numbers are probably under-reported," said Donald McCabe, lead researcher on the study and business strategy professor at Rutgers. Since the survey was voluntary, more dishonest students were less likely to fill out the survey, and those who did complete it may have under-reported how much they cheated, McCabe said.
The study suggested that MBA students were more likely to cheat than others because they were focused on "getting the job done, versus how they got it done. They will suggest, in the business world the emphasis is on getting the job done at any cost."
"There is also employer pressure to get high marks," Larry Wynant of the University of western Ontario said. "The past few years there has been tremendous pressure to get jobs, because the employment outlook has not been as rosy (for MBA graduates) as in the past."
I read this at the same time that that the "20-something" daughter of some good friends was telling us about her new job as a personal assistant in the world of public relations. She pointed out, with great discomfort, that it was not unusual for her boss to say "I worked on the XYZ account for 4 hours but bill them for 20." There's even a word for this form of lying in PR firms, accounting firms, consulting firms and law firms: "value billing."
I have no problem billing a client BY AGREEMENT on what a project was worth, but the casual acceptance of lies astonishes me.
We have crossed over into dangerous territory. When there is the normal expectation that most other people will cheat (given the opportunity) things WILL rapidly descend into the expectation that everyone will. We then have a distrustful, society based on the expectation of corruption -- and everyone becomes super-defensive.
I won't say I have never, ever sinned, especially when I was young and stupid. But what kept me on the true path was the overwhelming sense of guilt and the consequent vow that I would never lapse again. It is one thing to succumb to temptation. It is another to give up one's very belief in principles and pass that cynicism and scepticism on to those around us and to those who report to us.
What happens if, in school and in the first job, we raise a generation of people who think lying, cheating and stealing are the ways you get ahead?
30 comments:
The key concern is that they will bring this same level of integrity with them into the workplace ... and that some of us might tolerate it.
Bullfeathers -- re: job competition/ high grades.
The would-be teacher, scientist, lawyer or artist also is a job seeker in a competitive marketplace.
It's a pleasure to work with "straight shooters" -- and profitable too.
Life's too short -- working with devious people just isn't worth is.
Interesting that when there's a cheating scandal at a military academy it's front page news -- at a B-school it hardly worth a yawn.
I believe this, unfortunately, reflects society's expectations.
I will not lie, cheat or steal -- or tolerate those who do.
Sound familiar?
Richard -- Is it fair to assume that taken together this study says that roughly 50% of all graduate students are cheaters?
(There are lots of non-MBA's in the business world too).
What occurs to me is that times are changing.
The command and control environment is giving way to greater collaboration and teamwork.
How can a bunch of cheaters collaborate?
They'd be stupid to trust each other!!!!
Ann
P.S. Earlier in my career I had a manager in a defense-contracting company tell me "our product is a signed time card" when I pointed out errors in our software that we needed to address.
I went nuts (and left the company within 6 months of that comment).
Ann,
My point in raising this topic now is that I am increasingly worrying that misrepresentation, mendacity, testing the limits ARE part of normal business.
I don't just mean the Enron's -- I mean the increasingly casual approach to padding bills that is rife (according to court cases and news reports) in law firms, accounting firms, PR firms, ad agencies.
The cause I believe in is that this all short-sighted, unprofitable and WRONG -- but I'm seriously worried that it's a losing cause.
I don't think business is becoming more ethical or honourable -- I think business (worldwide) is increasingly cynical, sceptical and willing to judge success (in dealing with clients, staff, each other) by what they can get away with.
The evidence is accumulating that the bad guys are winning.
Ann's point re: collaboration brings to mind an important distinction.
We're taught throughout our schooling probably from kindergarten that it is cheating to copy off of a peer.
And we carry this lesson forward.
Other cultures are taught more collaborative team approaches to solving problems.
I recall an article where a group of foreign students collaborated on homework believing that this was the proper thing to do only to find out that ...
The impact of "My work" vs. teamwork is visible at the job.
Some people don't know how to share and work as part of a team.
Richard -- I suppose that's one reason why I'm out on my own.
I don't subscribe to those activities and I tend to call them out when they're being rationalised as "the way we do business".
I also completely agree with you that one reason I have business is because I don't do these things and as a result are more cost effective for my clients (e.g., it is more profitable in the long run to be honest and trustworthy).
I don't work in the Law, Accounting realm, but I do work with many consulting companies and systems integrator -- they are being called to task on their estimates AND their billing.
At least some clients do see the difference.
Carl -- that's a great point!
I was assuming cheating to mean stealing or acting in a way that is self supporting and not team supporting -- but collaboration may very well look like cheating to some people!!!
You made me think of a situation in college when I teamed up with a classmate -- she researched two papers and wrote two -- she was better at research and I was better at analysis and writing.
We did two papers as a team and then turned them in -- were we cheating???
We weren't trying to!
Ooops -- That was supposed to say "I wrote two" -- she didn't do it all
:-)
Value billing.
The first time I encountered that term was at an accounting firm.
The firm's managing partner "practiced" value billing and it was always a topic at the firm retreat and it was encouraged.
Integrity is a priceless commodity in today's competitive business environment.
What can we do to preserve and encourage integrity in the professional workplace.
From today's Washington Post:
"The Centre for Academic Integrity, affiliated with Duke University's Kenan Institute for Ethics, surveyed 18,000 public and private high school students over four years and found that more than 60 percent admitted to some form of plagiarism, according to a 2005 report".
Looks like the problem starts well before we get to business school or the board room ... (Hat tip to Ypulse where I came across the link).
Richard Wood wrote "The evidence is accumulating that the bad guys are winning".
So we are putting people in jail (e.g., Enron) for violating ethics.
We plaster ethics violations across the front pages.
We put in legislation like Sarbox to handcuff us.
We put ethics courses in business school.
We implement zero tolerance programs (for ethical violations) in enterprises.
Yet the statistics (and I realise I am cutting many corners here) indicate the overall end results are still going in the wrong direction.
Maybe awareness has improved.
Maybe we have some better tools for dissecting problems, but do we have an idea of root causes, and perhaps more importantly, where the appropriate tipping point mechanism is to stop/ reverse the bad trend?
I have no understanding of how to affect a society.
But let's relate this to a concept that came up on a previous blogpost.
If we wanted to launch a movement -- people committed to professionalism in their dealings with others -- how would we do it?
Should we hold conferences
Launch our movement magazine.
Draw up the pledge and certification?
I'm serious here!
Let's begin a movement of personal accountability and high standards.
Anyone left over from the 1960s remember how you create a movement?
Things WILL rapidly descend into the expectation that everyone will.
We then have a distrustful, society based on the expectation of corruption -- and everyone becomes super-defensive.
Sadly, I think this is where we already are.
The bar for expectations is already low, and the ensuing distrustfulness and bad behaviour makes sense in context.
Rational conclusions aren't always the right conclusions.
One way to address this is for business leaders to reward ethical behaviour.
No one is going to be sanctioned for cheating in this environment, but at the very least it could be more rewarding to do the right thing.
There are actually a few allied movements who will be taking a stand on this: Social Venture Network -- http://www.svn.orgInvestor's Circle -- http://www.investorscircle.netBusiness for Social Responsibility -- http://www.bsr.orgNet Impact (Students for Responsible Business) -- http://www.netimpact.orgBALLE (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies) http://www.livingeconomies.orgThese came from a book by Ben Cohen and Mal Warwick called Values-Driven Business.
And of course Breakingranks.net would point out that rankism enables and fuels cheating and dishonesty in the workplace.
Richard, no wonder a large number of young people cheat and believe dishonesty is the path to success.
Our government and many corporate leaders set a very poor example for them to follow.
When I interview brilliant students, that will some day be political and corporate leaders in Canada, for the Canadian Merit Scholarship Fund, one question I always asked is,
"There are many attributes that make a great leader such as being creative, having foresight, being honest, being a great planner, being a coach/ mentor, etc. Which attribute do you feel is most important?"
Any student that doesn't answer "being honest" is automatically eliminated from my list as prospective winners of one of the yearly twenty $50,000 scholarships.
Even though recent surveys show a high percentage of students cheat, it has been rewarding to find the largest percentage of students in my experience said "being honest" was what they thought was the most important attribute of a leader ... there is still hope out there.
Well, at the risk of being the skunk at the garden party, let me say that these survey numbers are predictable.
Options back-dating, Enron, WorldCom, the Clinton scandals, etc. -- why are we surprised?
Isn't the message the "grown-ups" sent the same one that the MBA students got -- that it's OK to lie, cheat, and steal so long as the ends justify the means and, esp., so long as the perpetrator isn't caught?
I have a solution to this problem.
It's harsh, but I challenge anyone to say it wouldn't have the desired effect.
Capital punishment is probably no deterrent to a kid in a ghetto with no family, no education, and no hope.
But show me a CEO, a CFO, an investment banker, a CPA, or an attorney, and I'll show you someone who is d**ned sure deterred by capital punishment.
Fry a crook in one of those lines of work every ten years or so, and 99.99% of what occupies the SEC and the ethics police would stop on a dime.
Our MBA schools would be bastions of integrity, as they should be anyway.
If we want our young people to walk the walk, we must demand that their elders do the same.
A few years in Club Fed isn't severe enough.
Let these rip-off artists pay -- really pony up -- and a lot of what afflicts the business community will afflict us no longer.
In his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith wrote at length about the primacy of trust and ethics, but this classic is apparently not required reading in MBA programs.
It should be.
Some may remember Wall Street (the film) where Gordon Gecko defends greed.
That was at a time when de-regulation started on a global basis and managements saw the opportunity to reap disproportionate rewards.
We're now at the stage where the institutions we're supposed to be able to look at as our moral and ethical compass are presented as corrupt.
KPMG -- fined $456 million and 16 ex-partners on trial right now for criminal fraud.
Faced with that sort of behaviour and lack of accountability at the highest levels (senior parters still on post), I suspect "we've" raised a generation of people where getting away with it is the only criteria.
I have been arguing for months that the lack of direction by the regulators in the UK accounting profession is leading to a situation where it is possible for a body of people to emerge who do hold ethics as valuable.
Remember when Andersen was THE arbiter of what is true and fair in a set of accounts?
Who is filling the void?
No-one.
I have no simple answers but it will not prevent me from coontinuing to call for action.
This problem is not new.
The bad guys are not winning.
Richard -- one of the reasons you are so successful is because of the thousands of times you took the (more difficult) honest road.
Tell me I'm wrong.
A "movement" is a good idea.
You need a good name for it, people with the same vision and lots of energy, and of course, commitment.
I should have mentioned in relation to the movement, you may wish to check out the St James Ethics Centre -- http://www.ethics.org.au/
A similar study was also made in the Philippines and an article entitled "when executives misbehave" went out and shook the corporate world.
The value system in doing business has been cosistently eroding thru the years.
Bottom line is always the gauge of success, the rules on how to deliver the bacon is non issue, as long as the matter is under wraps.
Though we have movements that promotes ethics, values starts at home, educational institution and the gov't.
Interventions that will result to culture change must be effected but any changes will only be noticed after a generation or two.
Just my two cents.
Sonnie, welcome to the discussion.
I wish the news from other countries were better, but it's not.
The Economist does a regular survey on which are the most corrupt and least corrupt societies, but what is fascinating is that (as noted above) exposing corruption doesn't really seem to suppress it.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, not all the evil he did.
And the problem of crime in the prohibition era was solved not by better enforcement or better idealism -- the US just stopped making illegal things illegal!
And -- suppose -- much of the corruption went away.
The good guys did not win that battle -- they just retired from it.
The same approach seems to be happening today on things like drugs and immigration: we don't know how to stop (currently) illegal behaviour, so let's legalise it.
I'm not trying to take a political stand on the merits of either issue -- just commenting on our collective unwillingness to live up to our laws and standards, and the "loss of appetite" we seem to have for engaging with the forces of cynicism, scepticism, unconstrained pragmatism.
Sonnie, welcome to the discussion.
I wish the news from other countries were better, but it's not.
The Economist does a regular survey on which are the most corrupt and least corrupt societies, but what is fascinating is that (as noted above) exposing corruption doesn't really seem to suppress it.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, not all the evil he did.
And the problem of crime in the prohibition era was solved not by better enforcement or better idealism -- the US just stopped making illegal things illegal!
And -- suppose -- much of the corruption went away.
The good guys did not win that battle -- they just retired from it.
The same approach seems to be happening today on things like drugs and immigration: we don't know how to stop (currently) illegal behaviour, so let's legalise it.
I'm not trying to take a political stand on the merits of either issue -- just commenting on our collective unwillingness to live up to our laws and standards, and the "loss of appetite" we seem to have for engaging with the forces of cynicism, scepticism, unconstrained pragmatism.
In recent years, an idea of the largely-unpopular George Soros often comes to my mind whenever I think about the hot topic, "business ethics".
In his 1997 article "The Capitalist Threat" Soros outlined an idea that I took to mean this: It's a Bad Thing when money or wealth becomes the standard of value in society.
Wealth, properly measured, is certainly a result of people doing valuable things, but for a variety of reasons it is decidely not the measure to use if we're interested in things valuable to society as a whole.
One reason it's not a good measure is that it's certainly possible to steal money ... in all kinds of sophisticated, respectable, white-collar ways (certain professions come to mind here!).
The easiest way to see Soros' point (at least his point as I see it) is to think of an extreme example: If wealth becomes the only standard of value in society -- the only standard of What Is Good -- then it follows, tautologically, that poor people are "bad" and wealthly people are "good"; regardless of how either group became poor or wealthy.
Hence, wealth becomes a standard of ethical value.
Of course, there's nothing unique about the ethical standards of MBA students; they're just a microcosm of the business world (and society).
They've had more courses than one would care to imagine where maximising shareholder wealth, profits, revenue growth, etc. is a central topic; and, I might add, all without the caveat that maximising these things doesn't necessarily maximise social welfare (cf. Arrow's impossibility theorem).
From there it's a short jump to undetected cheating is OK if it get one into the desired career/ position.
So one question is, Why wouldn't MBA students become a little confused about whether wealth is a good standard on which to base a value system?
Quite a large part of the rest of U.S. society certainly thinks wealth is a measure of values.
I think the real problem is that in the U.S. and elsewhere, people generally have become a bit muddy in their thinking: They've selected the relatively easily measured construct wealth as a standard of value (and by this I mean ethical standard) with more difficult to measure standards of societal values.
Quote:
"We have crossed over into dangerous territory. When there is the normal expectation that most other people will cheat (given the opportunity) things WILL rapidly descend into the expectation that everyone will. We then have a distrustful, society based on the expectation of corruption -- and everyone becomes super-defensive".
This is a very good description of Italy (most of the times) along with taking pride for breaking the law; living in this country is sometimes exasperating, I love it but hate it too
:)
I'm delighted to hear from people in Italy (and elsewhere) but the message is not encouraging.
We've all been watching the Berlusconi adventures with amazement.
Is that where we are all heading?
I agree with Malcolm's point that none of this is about MBA's as a group.
As Shaula pointed out, it's all more general and societal.
If Italy or the Philippines are the poor examples, where in the world are the shining examples of civilised societies with respect for principle (and the law?)
Thomas, I've just noticed your comment.
Would everyone else please engrave his words on their brains: "we don't need new rules; we need enforcement of the rules we do have".
Amen.
That's what I've been trying to say about individuals, organisations and societies.
Well said!
Techdirt ran a related article today on collaborating vs. cheating.
They raise the salient point that current systems reward cheating vs following the rules: the point of a school assignment is to get practice doing the answers, not just to turn in the assignment, but students are rewarded for the latter, which is why that becomes their primary goal.
You get the results you reward, right?
To nip in the bud the issues of encouraging a culture of corruption, one good place to start might be rethinking how assignments and evaluation work as early as grade school.
"A greater problem is the unwillingness of some faculty and administrators to punish cheating in a substantive way".
That's interesting, since at our university, business school faculty are nearly the only ones interested in punishing cheaters.
Liberal arts faculty tend to either make excuses for students (the poor things didn't know! or They come from a disadvantaged culture!) or deny that their students cheat.
We, on the other hand, fail them and press academic dishonesty charges with the Dean of Students.
As others have commented, "A fish stinks from the top down" -- our leaders have set an example of mendacity and corruption.
Prohibition and the "War on Drugs", are actually part of the problem.
In both these cases, the law was used to attempt to force American society to meet the moral standards of a narrow subgroup.
That's a recipe for laws which are simply unenforceable.
When a law is unenforceable, it sets up a losing fight for the government, because law in general does depend on the consent of the governed.
When so few people are willing to obey a law that even the police and officials are trying to evade it, that breeds corruption and selective enforcement, both of which corrode respect for all law.
That was true of Prohibition, and it's true of the "Drug War".
When mere possession of drugs carries worse penalties than robbery, rape or murder, then drug users are liable to figure that they'd rather be shot for a lion than a lamb, and things just go downhill from there.
(Or does anyone think that, say, a heroin addict, is going to stop just because it's illegal?)
Which is how Prohibition gave the Mafia a strong hold in America, and how the "Drug War" has invited the mobsters of a dozen more countries to join them.
Can you tell me how to lie such way, that it could shown as true ... Erm ... Sorry for my poor english, if there is any mistakes.
I'm not an englishman
;)
What I find interesting in this article is that the vice-dean of the MBA program isn't surprised and attributes it to the competitive nature of MBA students.
If people believe competitive nature and cheating, go hand in hand -- this belief is what needs to change before MBA students can make progress.
Can you tell me how to lie such way, that it could shown as true ... Erm ... Sorry for my poor english, if there is any mistakes.
I'm not an englishman
:)
Post a Comment