- Email: [email protected]
Opportunistic behavior in marketing research organizations
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
327
Opportunistic Behavior in Marketing Research Organizations Scott W. Kelley University
of Kentucky
Steven J. Skinner University
of Kentucky
0. C. Ferrell Memphis
State University
This research considers employee perceptions of the interorganizational relationships that exist between three types of marketing research organizations. Significant findings from this study support previous work in the field of ethics and point out the importance of the relationships between opportunistic behavior, ethical climates, and ethical profiles in different types of marketing research organizations.
Introduction The empirical research on ethical issues in marketing has focused predominantly upon the examination of specific practices employed by marketers. Unfortunately, this approach has not resulted in an understanding of the ethical decision-making process. However, recent work in the field of marketing ethics has attempted to build upon previous research in an effort to provide an understanding of the ethical/ unethical decisions marketers make (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Robin and Reidenbach, 1987; Skinner et al., 1988). The purpose of this paper is to consider the relationship between the intra- and interorganizational perceptions of marketing research employees, and the level of opportunism existing in the exchange between research organizations. Our research tests aspects of the contingency framework proposed by Ferrell and Gresham (1985), the ethics model of Hunt and Vitell (1986), and the work of Skinner et al. (1988), while incorporating the work of Robin and Reidenbach (1987). These models, which are subsequently reviewed, state that specific individual moral evaluations are influenced by intra- and interorganizational environments. In the present study, opportunistic behavior, a specific type of unethical behavior, is examined.
Address 40506.
correspondence
to Scott W. Kelley, Marketing Department,
Journal of Business Research 18, 327-340 (1989) 0 1989 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1989 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
University of Kentucky, Lexington,
KY
0148-2963/89/$3.50
328
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
S. W. Kelley et al.
The objectives of this paper are to assess the relationships between opportunistic behavior, ethical climates/cultures, and ethical profiles in three types of research organizations.
Literature
Review
Ethical Decision Making Ferrell and Gresham (1985) developed a contingency framework that proposes that ethical behaviors are influenced by individual factors such as socialization, education, and cultural backgrounds; organizational factors such as management influence and interaction; and the opportunity to make ethical decisions. Hunt and Vitell (1986) proposed a descriptive model of ethical behavior incorporating teleological and deontological frameworks for ethical decision making. Briefly, teleological frameworks focus on the consequences of a behavior in determining its moral worth, while deontological frameworks are concerned with the methods or intentions connected with a behavior. These moral philosophies have been previously discussed in detail in the marketing literature (e.g., Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Skinner et al., 1988). The cultural environment, industry environment, organizational environment, and personal experiences were proposed to impact ethical decision making in the Hunt and Vitell (1986) model. Both of these frameworks/models provide initial attempts at explaining ethical decision making among marketers at a conceptual level. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) considered the ethical implications inherent in marketing strategy. They took a strategic approach to ethics that integrated the issues of ethics and social responsibility into the strategic-marketing-planning process. This work stressed the importance of corporate cultures when ethical considerations are incorporated into the strategic-planning process (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987). Skinner et al. (1988) offer a series of propositions designed to delineate key linkages among ethical constructs relevant to organizational and interorganizational relationships in the marketing-research process. Their research stresses the importance of developing an understanding of the determinants of ethical behavior prior to the initiation of any attempts to control such behavior.
Unethical Behavior and Opportunism Unethical behavior and opportunism are two types of closely related yet distinct behaviors that have been identified in the marketing literature. These behaviors are subsequently defined, and comparisons between the two types of behaviors are made to distinguish the unique attributes of opportunism, which is the focus of this research. Unethical Behavior. “Ethics is not only a matter of legality or morality, but a series of perceptions of the ‘rightness’ involved in daily issues” (Ferrell and Weaver, 1978, p. 69). It requires that the organization or individual behave according to the rules of moral philosophy (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987). The
Opportunistic
Behavior in Marketing Research
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
philosophical traditions of teleology and deontology provide the two major frameworks used to guide ethical behaviors. Although the teleological and deontological philosophical frameworks provide “there is no totally accepted, absolute statement of what general ethical guidelines, is ethical and what is not ethical-nly important and carefully reasoned traditions” (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987, p. 47). However, in extension of a definition of ethical conflict proposed by Hunt et al. (1984, p. 310), unethical behavior can be defined as the performance of duties and responsibilities by an individual that are inconsistent with his/her duties and responsibilities toward another group or organization (including one’s self). Opportunism. Opportunism is one of the key behavioral variables inherent in the exchange between organizations (Williamson, 1975). Opportunistic behavior or opportunism is defined as “self-interest seeking with guile,” and involves making threats and promises, which are self-disbelieved in hope of gaining an advantage over others (Williamson, 1975, p. 26). It involves deceit with the intent to enhance one’s position at the expense of the other party involved in the exchange. Based upon these definitions, it is possible to make a distinction between opportunism and unethical behavior. Opportunistic behaviors are performed with the intention of helping one’s self or organization at the expense of others. The Code of Ethics of the American Marketing Association (AMA) addresses the issue of opportunistic behavior in item 4, under organizational relationships, which states, “Avoid manipulation to take advantage of situations to maximize personal welfare in a way that unfairly deprives or damages the organization or others.” Unethical behaviors can be distinguished from opportunism in that, depending upon the moral philosophical approach utilized, unethical behaviors are not necessarily performed with the intent of improving one’s standing at the expense of the other party involved in the exchange. On the other hand, opportunistic behaviors are always performed with the intent of helping one’s self or organization at the expense of others. Therefore, opportunism can be viewed as a specific form of unethical behavior. Opportunism, an extreme demonstration of unethical behavior, is the major focus of the present study.
Research
Hypotheses Research
Organizations
and Opportunism
In the marketing research industry there are several types of organizations that interact with each other. These include: corporate research departments, marketing research firms, and data subcontractor organizations (Ferrell and Skinner, 1988; Skinner et al., 1988). Examples of typical interorganizational exchange in the marketing research industry might include the following: 1) corporate research departments purchasing research services from marketing research firms, 2) corporate research departments managing their own research and using data subcontractors for research activities such as data collection and coding, or 3) data subcontractor organizations carrying out a variety of research tasks for either corporate research departments or marketing research firms. Three types of research organizations were considered in this study-data sub-
330
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
S.
W. Kelley et al.
contractor organizations, marketing research firms, and corporate research departments. The employees of data subcontractor organizations and marketing research firms are performing research tasks in organizational relationships that tend to be relatively short-term. In addition, data subcontractors and marketing research firms may also have interests and objectives that differ from those of their clients (Hunt et al., 1984). On the other hand, the individuals employed in corporate research departments are conducting research in relatively long-term relationships in an environment in which some degree of common purpose exists. The relatively long-term relationships and sense of common purpose experienced by corporateresearch employees tends to reduce the opportunistic tendencies inherent in this type of organizational exchange (Ouchi, 1980). Based upon the nature of the interorganizational relationships experienced by the employees of data subcontractor organizations, marketing research firms, and corporate-research departments, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hl: Employees of corporate research departments demonstrate lower levels of opportunism than their counterparts in data subcontractor organizations and marketing research firms. Ethical Climate and Opportunism Ouchi (1980) suggested three possible mechanisms of exchange mediation or control. These mechanisms provide a means through which organizational exchange efficiency can be enhanced through the reduction of opportunistic tendencies. These mechanisms of exchange mediation include markets, bureaucracies, and the formation of clans or cultures (Ouchi, 1980). Jones (1983) recognized that a bureaucratic structure may be ineffective in organizations, such as research organizations, in which there is task nonroutineness and where task variety and task coping difficulty are high. These types of organizations depend primarily upon the skills of specialized personnel in the performance of the organizational function, and it is generally difficult to monitor the performance of employees. The development of a professional culture is a more effective means of controlling the transaction costs of the organization and monitoring the opportunistic behavior of those involved in the exchange between research organizations. Ferrell and Skinner (1988) empirically assessed the impact of bureaucratic structure upon the ethical behavior of marketing researchers and found that bureaucratic structure explained only a small portion of the variance in the ethical behavior of individuals. This finding is supportive of the earlier work of Jones (1983). Robin and Reidenbach (1987) specifically consider the impact of organizational culture upon the socially responsible and ethical/unethical behavior of marketing organizations. They note that “A major factor in developing successful socially responsible and ethical marketing programs is management’s ability to integrate ethical core values throughout the organization’s culture” (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987, p. 48). While the present research does not consider the culture of marketing research organizations, it does consider their organizational climate. The concepts of organizational culture and climate are very similar (Glick, 1985). Organizational
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
Opportunistic Behavior in Marketing Research
331
culture refers to the organizational values and norms and the meaning placed on them by individuals. The construct organizational climate can be viewed as a manifestation of the construct organizational culture (Schneider, 1986). Several organizational climate researchers have noted that when the organizational climate construct is considered, only the dimension(s) of organizational climate that is (are) likely to influence, or be associated with the constructs of interest, should be considered (Glick, 1985; Schneider and Reichers, 1983). The specific dimension of climate considered in the present research was the ethical climate of the research organization. Ethical climate, which has been previously considered by Victor and Cullen (1987), can be defined as an employee’s beliefs of what is viewed as ethically correct behavior within the organization. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) contend that the culture of an organization offers a means that individuals can use to direct their behaviors. The climate or culture of an organization provides a cognitive map that helps an individual define his/her context within the organization and provides a guideline of the norms and values of the organization through which behavior is then enacted (Jones, 1983; Weick, 1969). It also offers an ad hoc means of specifying the specific activities viewed as appropriate by the organization (Schneider, 1986). Based upon the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2: Employee perceptions of ethical climate are inversely related to the level of opportunism displayed by the employee. Ethical Profiles,
Opportunism,
and Ethical Climate
The ethical profile of an organization “is a projection to external publics with whom the organization interacts, identifying how the organization chooses to interact with those publics” (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987, p. 53). The ethical profile of an organization can be viewed as the ethical climate of an organization as perceived by nonmembers of the organization. When organizations interact, each individual develops an ethical profile of external organizations based upon his/her beliefs regarding the ethical behavior of that organization and its members. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) discuss the relationship between the ethical profile of a marketing organization and the social responsibility and ethical behavior of the organization. In H2, ethical climate was hypothesized to be inversely related to the degree of opportunistic behavior of individuals internal to an organization. Similarly, the ethical profile of an organization may be inversely related to the degree of opportunistic behavior elicited during interorganizational exchange. Based upon the work of Robin and Reidenbach (1987), and in extension of previous climate research (Schneider and Reichers, 1983; Victor and Cullen, 1987) the following hypothesis is proposed: H3: The ethical profiles of client and agency organizations held by research employees are inversely related to the level of opportunism displayed by the employee. Ferrell and Weaver (1978) assessed the ethical beliefs of individuals and compared personal beliefs to the individuals’ perceptions of their peers and managers. The results of this study indicated that individuals believe their intraorganizational
332
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
S. W. Kelley et al.
decision-making environment includes peers and managers who have lower ethical standards than their own. The present study extends the previous work of Ferrell and Weaver (1978) to the interorganizational context. In this situation, one would expect an individual’s perception of the ethical climate of his/her employing organization to be more favorable than the ethical profile for other research organizations. H4: Employee ethical
perceptions of ethical climate are more profile for client or agency organizations.
favorable
than
his/her
There are three client-agent relationships that exist between the types of research organizations considered in this study. These include 1) data subcontractor organizations acting as agents for marketing research firm clients, 2) data subcontractor organizations acting as agents for corporate research department clients, and 3) marketing research firms acting as agents for corporate research department clients. In order to reduce the level of transaction costs incurred during interorganizational exchange, client research organizations may interact with agents that are believed to be trustworthy and ethical (Williamson, 1986, pp. 97-98). On the other hand, agent research organizations may be more concerned with carrying out the marketing research tasks contracted to them and less concerned with the ethical or unethical tendencies of their clients (Skinner et al., 1988). As a result, the ethics of client organizations may not be a strong consideration among research agents when interorganizational exchanges are conducted. Based upon this, one might contend that in an attempt to reduce the amount of effort devoted to the monitoring of agent behaviors, research clients will tend to conduct interorganizational exchanges with agent organizations believed to have stronger ethical profiles. Specifically, in the context of the three types of clientagent exchanges in the marketing research industry, this would seem to indicate the following: 1) The ethical profiles of data subcontractors (agents) held by marketing research firm employees will be more favorable than the ethical profiles of marketing research firms (clients) held by data subcontractor employees, 2) the ethical profiles of data subcontractors (agents) held by corporate research department employees will be more favorable than the ethical profiles of corporate research departments (clients) held by data subcontractor employees, and 3) the ethical profiles of marketing research firms (agents) held by corporate research department employees will be more favorable than the ethical profiles of corporate research departments (clients) held by marketing research firm employees. H5: The ethical profiles of agency organizations held by client organization employees will be more favorable than the ethical profiles of client organizations held by agency organization employees. Methodology
Data Collection To test the hypotheses, a self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 1,500 marketing researchers. These researchers represented three different types of organizations: data subcontractors, marketing research firms, and corporate research departments. Respondents were selected based on a systematic sample of the
Opportunistic
Behavior in Marketing Research
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
333
Marketing Research Association (MRA) and the American Marketing Association (AMA); sampling procedures eliminated duplication of respondents belonging to both associations. A total of 550 completed questionnaires were returned, and 52 questionnaires were returned by the post office, yielding a 37.9% response rate. The three types of organizations sampled were represented as follows: 30% were respondents from data subcontractors, 45% were respondents from marketing research firms, and 25% were respondents from corporate research departments. Additionally, those responding held a variety of positions including: owner (13%), president (22%), vice-president (14%), director/manager (41%), and analyst (10%). More females (64%) than males (36%) comprise the sample. Most respondents (74%) had at least a bachelor’s degree. Finally, 19% of the respondents were below 31 years of age, 30% were between 31 and 40, 27% were between 41 and 50, and 24% were over 50.
Measurement Measures of opportunism, ethical climate, and ethical profiles were ascertained in this study. All of the scales were purified based on the criteria of item-to-total correlations and internal consistency. The appendix contains the scale items utilized in this study. The level of opportunistic behavior of an individual was measured through a scale that was initially developed by John (1984). Items were deleted using itemto-total correlations; items correlated with the total score below .25 were deleted (Nunnally, 1978). The purified scale consisted of six items and followed a Likerttype format with six points and anchors of definitely agree (1) and definitely disagree (6). Factor analysis confirmed a single-factor structure, enabling these items to be treated as a single scale. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .71. The respondents’ beliefs regarding ethical climate and the ethical profiles of other research organizations were measured through three identical five-item scales to which participants from all three types of research organizations responded. For example, the items to which data subcontractor employees responded assessed the individual’s beliefs about his/her own data subcontracting organization (ethical climate), his/her marketing research firm clients (ethical profile), and his/her corporate research department clients (ethical profile). Respondents indicated their agreement (1) or disagreement (2) with each item. In the case of dichotomous scales alpha is equivalent to the reliability coefficient Kuder-Richardson-20 (Nunnally, 1978). The alpha coefficients for the ethical climate and profile measures were .68 and .64, respectively. Although the reliabilities for the climate and profile measures are relatively low, this can be explained by the fact that dichotomous items were used (Nunnally, 1978).
Results
Research Organizations and Opportunism The first hypothesis the three different
focused on the level of opportunism displayed by members of types of research organizations included in this study. This
334
J BUSN RES
S. W. Kelley et al.
1989:18:327-340
hypothesis was tested through an analysis of variance. The opportunism means for each organization type were as follows: data subcontractors-l 1 Sl, marketing research firms-10.46, and corporate research departments-10.04. Analysis of variance results confirm a difference among these means (F = 4.36, p < 0.01). While the relative magnitudes of the opportunism means are in the hypothesized direction, a Scheffe test was conducted to further assess these relationships. The results of the Scheffe test indicated that the data subcontractor and corporate research department group means were significantly different at the .05 level of significance. The results of this analysis indicate that the employees of data subcontractors do exhibit significantly higher levels of opportunistic behavior than corporate research department employees. The differences between the level of opportunism displayed by data subcontractor employees and marketing research firm employees, and marketing research firm employees and corporate research department employees, were not significant. As a result, Hl was partially supported; corporate research department employees were found to be less opportunistic than the employees of data subcontracting organizations.
Ethical Climate and Opportunism H2 focused on the relationship between the ethical climate and the level of opportunism displayed by an individual. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed for this analysis. The results are supportive of the hypothesized inverse relationship between opportunism and ethical climate perceptions (r = - .27, p < 0.01). In addition, the relationship between opportunism and ethical climate perceptions was examined for each organization type. The Pearson correlation coefficients for data subcontractors (r = - .34, p < O.Ol), marketing research firms (r = - .23, p < O.Ol), and corporate research departments (r = - .37, p < 0.01) were all supportive of the hypothesized inverse relationship. This indicates that if an employee believes that his/her organization emphasizes ethical behavior, lower levels of opportunistic behavior tend to be exhibited.
Ethical Projiles and Opportunism H3 proposed the existence of an inverse relationship between respondents’ beliefs regarding the ethical profiles of other organizations and the level of opportunistic behavior demonstrated. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to test this hypothesis. The ethical profile held by research employees was inversely related to the level of opportunism displayed by these individuals (r = - .22, p < 0.01); providing evidence in support of the proposed hypothesis. In general, individuals tend to behave less opportunistically if they believe that the external organizations they interact with emphasize ethical behavior.
Ethical Climate and Ethical Profiles In H4 it was anticipated would be more favorable or agency organizations.
that the employees’ beliefs concerning ethical climate than their beliefs regarding ethical profiles of their client The ethical profiles of two types of organizations were
Opportunistic
Behavior
in Marketing Research
J
BUSN RJZS 1989:18:327-340
Table 1. Group Means and t-Values Type of Research Firm Data subcontractors
Marketing research firms
Corporate research departments
Beliefs Compared
Mea@
Ethical climate Ethical profile for research firms Ethical climate Ethical profile for corporate departments
9.97 (0.16)
Ethical climate Ethical profile for corporate departments Ethical climate Ethical profile for data subcontractors
9.90 (0.40)
Ethical climate Ethical profile for research firms Ethical climate Ethical profile for data subcontractors
9.49 (1.03)
n
r-Value
75
3.44’
52
3.05’
113
6.9W
106
4.82’
9.52 (1.16) 9.98 (0.14) 9.75 (0.56)
9.19 (1.14) 9.87 (0.37) 9.42 (1.03) 70
-1.08
9.61 (0.86) 9.62 (0.82) 65
1.02
9.49 (0.94)
“Mean values vary between comparisons because study participants did not respond to items that did not apply to their organizations. %tandard deviations are included in parentheses. ‘p < 0.01.
for each employee. For example, data subcontractor employees provided responses regarding the ethical profiles of their marketing research firm clients and corporate research department clients. Table 1 contains the means and f-values that were used to test for significant mean differences for each type of research organization considered in this study. The employees of data subcontractor and marketing research firms both held more favorable beliefs for the ethical climate of their employing organization than they did for the ethical profiles of other organizations. This supports H4. In addition, the ethical profiles of marketing research firms and corporate research departments held by data subcontractor employees were not significantly different, nor were the ethical profiles of data subcontractors and corporate research departments held by marketing research firm employees. These findings indicate that the employees of data subcontractors and marketing research firms believe that their organization is more ethical than others and that there are not any differences in the beliefs of these employees regarding the ethics of other types of research organizations. Respondents from corporate research departments did not indicate any statistically significant differences among the beliefs regarding the ethical climate for their organization and the ethical profiles of other types of research organizations. A potential explanation of this finding is subsequently offered in the Discussion and Implications section. assessed
336
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-3&I
S. W. Kelley et al.
Table 2. Client and Agent
Ethical
Profile
Means
and
Profile Mean of Client (Agent Beliefs)
t-Values Profile Mean of Agent (Client Beliefs)
Client
Agent
Corporate research departments
Data subcontractors
9.65
Corporate research departments
Marketing research firms
9.15 (1.17)
9.59 (0.87)
- 2.83”
Marketing research firms
Data subcontractors
9.51 (1.15)
9.36 (1.07)
.96
“Standard deviations hp i 0.01.
are included
(0.72)
9.49
(0.93)
r-Values 1.04
in parentheses.
Client and Agency Ethical Projiles H5 focused upon the beliefs held by research clients and agencies with regard to the ethical profiles of the research organizations they interact with. It was hypothesized that the ethical profiles of agencies held by client employees would be more favorable that the ethical profiles of clients held by agency employees. Table 2 contains the means and t-values used to test the client-agency interorganizational ethical profiles considered in this hypothesis. Three different forms of the client-agent relationships were possible among the research organizations considered. First, it was expected that the ethical profiles of data subcontractors (agent) held by corporate research department employees would be more favorable than ethical profiles of corporate research departments (client) held by data subcontractor employees. These mean values are not significantly different (t = 1.04) and, therefore, do not support the hypothesis. Second, it was expected that ethical profiles of marketing research firms (agent) held by corporate research department employees would be more favorable than the ethical profiles of corporate research departments (client) held by marketing research firm employees. These ethical profile means are significantly different in the expected direction (t = - 2.83). This finding indicates that when client-agent beliefs regarding the ethical profiles of interacting organizations are compared in the relationship between corporate research departments and marketing research firms, the clients believe the agents are more ethical. Therefore, the second form of the client-agent relationship tested in H5 provides support for the hypothesized relationship. Finally, it was expected that the ethical profiles of data subcontractors (agent) held by marketing research firm employees would be more favorable than the ethical profiles of marketing research firms (client) held by data subcontractor employees. These mean values, which are reported in Table 2, are not significantly different (t = .96) and do not support H5. In summary, three client-agent relationships were tested in H5. It was hypothesized that agent profiles would be more favorable than client profiles held by employees in the marketing research industry. The client-agent relationships ex-
Opportunistic
Behavior in Marketing Research
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
isting between corporate research departments and marketing research firms provided support for the hypothesized relationship. The other two relationships tested were not significantly different. Discussion
and Implications
The relationships among opportunism and employee beliefs regarding ethical climates and profiles in three types of research organizations were assessed in this study. Prior to discussion of the findings of this study, several limitations should be pointed out. First, the data used in this study consisted of self-report measures. Therefore, the potential for data inaccuracies due to item misinterpretation or predispositions to certain responses on the part of the subject does exist. Second, some of the findings of this study that were statistically significant should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively large sample size (e.g., H2 and H3). Finally, while the sampling methods utilized in this study provide relatively strong external validity, the generalizability of the findings would be enhanced through replication. Several significant findings resulted from this study. First, it was found that there were significant differences in the level of opportunism demonstrated by employees in different types of research organizations. Specifically, corporate research department employees were less opportunistic than data subcontractor employees. It seems that the relatively long-term relationship between a corporate research department employee and his/her organization makes opportunistic behavior less likely than in the case of the relatively short-term interorganizational relationships experienced by the employees of data subcontractors. A significant inverse relationship was found between ethical climate and opportunism. This is interesting in that it provides evidence indicating that individual beliefs concerning what is important to an organization are related to the behavior of the individual. In order to reduce the levels of opportunistic behavior, the ethical climate of an organization may have to be improved. This supports previous conceptualizations in marketing ethics which stress the importance of organizational factors in ethical behavior (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986). It also specifically supports the Robin and Reidenbach (1987) hypothesis that corporate culture is important in incorporating ethical behavior into marketing strategy. This study also found that when individuals believe their client or agency organizations emphasize ethics, they tend to behave less opportunistically. This finding stresses the importance of the ethical profile of an organization. Lower levels of opportunism will result in lower transaction costs for the organization; hence, more efficient organizational exchanges occur. Another significant finding of this study is that employees of data subcontractor organizations and marketing research firms believe that their organizations stress ethics more than do the corporate research departments with whom they interact. The beliefs of corporate research department employees with regard to ethical climates and profiles are not significantly different. This may be because in the role of a client in their interactions with marketing research firms and data subcontractors, they are dependent upon these firms to behave ethically. The tasks involved in the exchange between marketing research organizations have a great deal
338
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-W
S.
W. Kelley et al.
of performance ambiguity inherent in them and are very difficult to monitor. In the case of the employees of corporate research departments, it may be easier to believe that other organizations are just as ethical as their organization, rather than incurring the extremely high transaction costs that would be encountered in an attempt to closely monitor the levels of opportunism of their agency organizations. Finally, three client-agent relationships in the marketing research industry were examined. It was expected that across these three types of relationships that agent profiles would be more favorable than client profiles held by employees. Only in the client-agent relationship existing between corporate research departments and marketing research firms were the ethical profiles of agent organizations more favorable than the ethical profiles of client organizations. A potential explanation for this finding is that ethical profiles held by clients may be dependent upon the marketing research functions being performed by the agent organization. Marketing research firms generally perform a wide variety of tasks with greater discretion, while data subcontractor organizations generally have less discretion in the task of data collection. This may lead corporate research departments and marketing research firms as research clients to place less importance upon the ethical profiles of their data subcontractor agents due to the nature of the task being performed by the agent. Conclusions The results provide new insights in evaluating recent frameworks/models of ethical decision making. These frameworks/models stress different aspects of the decisionmaking process, but all view the climate/culture of the organization as influencing ethical behavior. This study supports this view from two perspectives. Specifically, as the ethical climate of one’s organization and the profile of external organizations were perceived to be more ethical, less respondent opportunism was reported. Hunt and Vitell’s (1986) descriptive model focused on the personal moral evaluation process and proposed that industry environment and organizational environment are factors impacting ethical/unethical behavior. Both of these variables were significantly related to opportunism in this study. Ferrell and Gresham (1985) proposed that organizational perceptions influence ethical decisions. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) stressed the influence of corporate cultures on ethical behaviors. The results of our study support these components of both of these frameworks. This research was not a comprehensive test of these frameworks/models. More research needs to be directed toward individual moral evaluations and information processing. Also, the relative importance of the variables in these frameworks/ models needs to be assessed. This research provides empirical support for environmental and organizational factors that influence ethical behavior in marketing research organizations. More research needs to be conducted to determine the importance of ethical climates and profiles in different types of organizations and industries. Another issue of interest that was not addressed in this study is how important organizational climates and profiles are relative to the current state of an individual’s personal moral development. In conclusion, this study found that opportunistic behavior, which is a specific type of unethical behavior, is influenced by environmental and organizational variables that are components of the leading frameworks/models of ethical decision making in marketing.
Opportunistic
Behavior
in Marketing
J BUSN RES
Research
339
1989:18:327-340
Appendix Measurement Scales Scale Items
Scale
I feel that it is OK to do anything within my means that will help further my
Opportunism”
own interest? I carry out my duties even if my clients do not check up on me Sometimes I have to alter the facts slightly in order to get what I needb Complete honesty does not pay when dealing with my clientsb On occasion, I have to lie to my clients about certain things in order to protect my interests* My clients are not always truthful with me, so I am not always completely candid with themb Ethical climate and profile’
Has an ethical codeb Enforces an ethical codeb Sometimes deletes parts of data sets to improve Keeps confidential data confidentialb Misrepresents statistical accuracy of data
results
‘Measured using a six-point scale, 1 = Definitely Agree, 6 = Definitely Disagree. %em was reverse scored. ‘Measured using a dichotomous scale, 1 = yes, 2 = no.
References Ferrell, 0. C., and Gresham, Larry G., A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing, Journal of Marketing 49 (Summer 1985): 8796. Ferrell, 0. C., and Skinner, Steven J., Ethical Behavior and Bureaucratic Structure in Marketing Research Organizations, Journal of Marketing Research 25 (February 1988): 103-109. Ferrell, 0. C., and Weaver, K. Mark, Marketing 42 (4 1978): 69-73.
Ethical
Glick, William H., Conceptualizing and Climate: Pitfalls in Multilevel Research, 601-616. Hunt, Shelby Marketing
D., Chonko, Researchers,
Beliefs
Measuring Academy
Managers,
Organizational of Management
Journal of
and Psychological Review 10 (3 1985):
Lawrence B., and Wilcox, James B., Ethical Problems Journal of Marketing Research 21 (August 1984): 309-324.
Hunt, Shelby D., and Vitell, Scott, A General Mucronuzrketing 6 (Spring 1986): 5-16. John, George, Marketing
of Marketing
Theory
of Marketing
An Empirical Investigation of Some Antecedents Channel, Journal of Marketing Research 21 (August
Ethics,
of
Journal of
of Opportunism 1984): 278-289.
in a
Jones, Gareth R., Transaction Costs, Property Rights, and Organizational Culture: An Exchange Perspective, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (September 1983): 454-467. Nunnally, Ouchi,
Jum C., Psychometric
Theory. McGraw-Hill
William G., Markets, Bureaucracies, 25 (March 1980): 129-141.
and Clans,
Book Company, Administrative
Robin, Donald P., and Reidenbach, R. Eric, Social Responsibility, Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application, (January 1987): 44-58.
New York,
1978.
Science Quarterly
Ethics, and Marketing Journal of Marketing 51
Schneider, Benjamin, Notes on Climate and Culture, in Creativity in Services Marketing: What’s New, What Works, What’s Developing. M. Venkatesan, Diane M. Schmalensee, and Claudia Marshall, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1986, pp. 63-67.
340
J
BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
S. W. Kelley et al.
Schneider, Benjamin, and Reichers, Arnon Psychology 36 (Spring 1983): 19-39.
E., On the Etiology
of Climates,
Personnel
Skinner, Steven J., Dubinsky, Alan J., and Ferrell, 0. C., Organizational Dimensions Marketing-Research Ethics, Journal of Business Research 16 (2 1988): 209-223.
of
Victor, Bart, and Cullen, John B., A Theory and Measure of Ethical Climate Organizations, in Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. William Frederick, ed., JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, 1987, pp. 51-71.
in C.
Weick, Karl E., 1969.
The Social Psychology of Organizing.
Addison-Wesley,
Reading,
MA,
Williamson, Oliver E., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. The Free Press, New York, 1975. Williamson, 1986.
Oliver
E., Economic
Organization. New York University
Press,
New York,
327
Opportunistic Behavior in Marketing Research Organizations Scott W. Kelley University
of Kentucky
Steven J. Skinner University
of Kentucky
0. C. Ferrell Memphis
State University
This research considers employee perceptions of the interorganizational relationships that exist between three types of marketing research organizations. Significant findings from this study support previous work in the field of ethics and point out the importance of the relationships between opportunistic behavior, ethical climates, and ethical profiles in different types of marketing research organizations.
Introduction The empirical research on ethical issues in marketing has focused predominantly upon the examination of specific practices employed by marketers. Unfortunately, this approach has not resulted in an understanding of the ethical decision-making process. However, recent work in the field of marketing ethics has attempted to build upon previous research in an effort to provide an understanding of the ethical/ unethical decisions marketers make (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Robin and Reidenbach, 1987; Skinner et al., 1988). The purpose of this paper is to consider the relationship between the intra- and interorganizational perceptions of marketing research employees, and the level of opportunism existing in the exchange between research organizations. Our research tests aspects of the contingency framework proposed by Ferrell and Gresham (1985), the ethics model of Hunt and Vitell (1986), and the work of Skinner et al. (1988), while incorporating the work of Robin and Reidenbach (1987). These models, which are subsequently reviewed, state that specific individual moral evaluations are influenced by intra- and interorganizational environments. In the present study, opportunistic behavior, a specific type of unethical behavior, is examined.
Address 40506.
correspondence
to Scott W. Kelley, Marketing Department,
Journal of Business Research 18, 327-340 (1989) 0 1989 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1989 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
University of Kentucky, Lexington,
KY
0148-2963/89/$3.50
328
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
S. W. Kelley et al.
The objectives of this paper are to assess the relationships between opportunistic behavior, ethical climates/cultures, and ethical profiles in three types of research organizations.
Literature
Review
Ethical Decision Making Ferrell and Gresham (1985) developed a contingency framework that proposes that ethical behaviors are influenced by individual factors such as socialization, education, and cultural backgrounds; organizational factors such as management influence and interaction; and the opportunity to make ethical decisions. Hunt and Vitell (1986) proposed a descriptive model of ethical behavior incorporating teleological and deontological frameworks for ethical decision making. Briefly, teleological frameworks focus on the consequences of a behavior in determining its moral worth, while deontological frameworks are concerned with the methods or intentions connected with a behavior. These moral philosophies have been previously discussed in detail in the marketing literature (e.g., Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Skinner et al., 1988). The cultural environment, industry environment, organizational environment, and personal experiences were proposed to impact ethical decision making in the Hunt and Vitell (1986) model. Both of these frameworks/models provide initial attempts at explaining ethical decision making among marketers at a conceptual level. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) considered the ethical implications inherent in marketing strategy. They took a strategic approach to ethics that integrated the issues of ethics and social responsibility into the strategic-marketing-planning process. This work stressed the importance of corporate cultures when ethical considerations are incorporated into the strategic-planning process (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987). Skinner et al. (1988) offer a series of propositions designed to delineate key linkages among ethical constructs relevant to organizational and interorganizational relationships in the marketing-research process. Their research stresses the importance of developing an understanding of the determinants of ethical behavior prior to the initiation of any attempts to control such behavior.
Unethical Behavior and Opportunism Unethical behavior and opportunism are two types of closely related yet distinct behaviors that have been identified in the marketing literature. These behaviors are subsequently defined, and comparisons between the two types of behaviors are made to distinguish the unique attributes of opportunism, which is the focus of this research. Unethical Behavior. “Ethics is not only a matter of legality or morality, but a series of perceptions of the ‘rightness’ involved in daily issues” (Ferrell and Weaver, 1978, p. 69). It requires that the organization or individual behave according to the rules of moral philosophy (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987). The
Opportunistic
Behavior in Marketing Research
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
philosophical traditions of teleology and deontology provide the two major frameworks used to guide ethical behaviors. Although the teleological and deontological philosophical frameworks provide “there is no totally accepted, absolute statement of what general ethical guidelines, is ethical and what is not ethical-nly important and carefully reasoned traditions” (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987, p. 47). However, in extension of a definition of ethical conflict proposed by Hunt et al. (1984, p. 310), unethical behavior can be defined as the performance of duties and responsibilities by an individual that are inconsistent with his/her duties and responsibilities toward another group or organization (including one’s self). Opportunism. Opportunism is one of the key behavioral variables inherent in the exchange between organizations (Williamson, 1975). Opportunistic behavior or opportunism is defined as “self-interest seeking with guile,” and involves making threats and promises, which are self-disbelieved in hope of gaining an advantage over others (Williamson, 1975, p. 26). It involves deceit with the intent to enhance one’s position at the expense of the other party involved in the exchange. Based upon these definitions, it is possible to make a distinction between opportunism and unethical behavior. Opportunistic behaviors are performed with the intention of helping one’s self or organization at the expense of others. The Code of Ethics of the American Marketing Association (AMA) addresses the issue of opportunistic behavior in item 4, under organizational relationships, which states, “Avoid manipulation to take advantage of situations to maximize personal welfare in a way that unfairly deprives or damages the organization or others.” Unethical behaviors can be distinguished from opportunism in that, depending upon the moral philosophical approach utilized, unethical behaviors are not necessarily performed with the intent of improving one’s standing at the expense of the other party involved in the exchange. On the other hand, opportunistic behaviors are always performed with the intent of helping one’s self or organization at the expense of others. Therefore, opportunism can be viewed as a specific form of unethical behavior. Opportunism, an extreme demonstration of unethical behavior, is the major focus of the present study.
Research
Hypotheses Research
Organizations
and Opportunism
In the marketing research industry there are several types of organizations that interact with each other. These include: corporate research departments, marketing research firms, and data subcontractor organizations (Ferrell and Skinner, 1988; Skinner et al., 1988). Examples of typical interorganizational exchange in the marketing research industry might include the following: 1) corporate research departments purchasing research services from marketing research firms, 2) corporate research departments managing their own research and using data subcontractors for research activities such as data collection and coding, or 3) data subcontractor organizations carrying out a variety of research tasks for either corporate research departments or marketing research firms. Three types of research organizations were considered in this study-data sub-
330
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
S.
W. Kelley et al.
contractor organizations, marketing research firms, and corporate research departments. The employees of data subcontractor organizations and marketing research firms are performing research tasks in organizational relationships that tend to be relatively short-term. In addition, data subcontractors and marketing research firms may also have interests and objectives that differ from those of their clients (Hunt et al., 1984). On the other hand, the individuals employed in corporate research departments are conducting research in relatively long-term relationships in an environment in which some degree of common purpose exists. The relatively long-term relationships and sense of common purpose experienced by corporateresearch employees tends to reduce the opportunistic tendencies inherent in this type of organizational exchange (Ouchi, 1980). Based upon the nature of the interorganizational relationships experienced by the employees of data subcontractor organizations, marketing research firms, and corporate-research departments, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hl: Employees of corporate research departments demonstrate lower levels of opportunism than their counterparts in data subcontractor organizations and marketing research firms. Ethical Climate and Opportunism Ouchi (1980) suggested three possible mechanisms of exchange mediation or control. These mechanisms provide a means through which organizational exchange efficiency can be enhanced through the reduction of opportunistic tendencies. These mechanisms of exchange mediation include markets, bureaucracies, and the formation of clans or cultures (Ouchi, 1980). Jones (1983) recognized that a bureaucratic structure may be ineffective in organizations, such as research organizations, in which there is task nonroutineness and where task variety and task coping difficulty are high. These types of organizations depend primarily upon the skills of specialized personnel in the performance of the organizational function, and it is generally difficult to monitor the performance of employees. The development of a professional culture is a more effective means of controlling the transaction costs of the organization and monitoring the opportunistic behavior of those involved in the exchange between research organizations. Ferrell and Skinner (1988) empirically assessed the impact of bureaucratic structure upon the ethical behavior of marketing researchers and found that bureaucratic structure explained only a small portion of the variance in the ethical behavior of individuals. This finding is supportive of the earlier work of Jones (1983). Robin and Reidenbach (1987) specifically consider the impact of organizational culture upon the socially responsible and ethical/unethical behavior of marketing organizations. They note that “A major factor in developing successful socially responsible and ethical marketing programs is management’s ability to integrate ethical core values throughout the organization’s culture” (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987, p. 48). While the present research does not consider the culture of marketing research organizations, it does consider their organizational climate. The concepts of organizational culture and climate are very similar (Glick, 1985). Organizational
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
Opportunistic Behavior in Marketing Research
331
culture refers to the organizational values and norms and the meaning placed on them by individuals. The construct organizational climate can be viewed as a manifestation of the construct organizational culture (Schneider, 1986). Several organizational climate researchers have noted that when the organizational climate construct is considered, only the dimension(s) of organizational climate that is (are) likely to influence, or be associated with the constructs of interest, should be considered (Glick, 1985; Schneider and Reichers, 1983). The specific dimension of climate considered in the present research was the ethical climate of the research organization. Ethical climate, which has been previously considered by Victor and Cullen (1987), can be defined as an employee’s beliefs of what is viewed as ethically correct behavior within the organization. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) contend that the culture of an organization offers a means that individuals can use to direct their behaviors. The climate or culture of an organization provides a cognitive map that helps an individual define his/her context within the organization and provides a guideline of the norms and values of the organization through which behavior is then enacted (Jones, 1983; Weick, 1969). It also offers an ad hoc means of specifying the specific activities viewed as appropriate by the organization (Schneider, 1986). Based upon the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2: Employee perceptions of ethical climate are inversely related to the level of opportunism displayed by the employee. Ethical Profiles,
Opportunism,
and Ethical Climate
The ethical profile of an organization “is a projection to external publics with whom the organization interacts, identifying how the organization chooses to interact with those publics” (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987, p. 53). The ethical profile of an organization can be viewed as the ethical climate of an organization as perceived by nonmembers of the organization. When organizations interact, each individual develops an ethical profile of external organizations based upon his/her beliefs regarding the ethical behavior of that organization and its members. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) discuss the relationship between the ethical profile of a marketing organization and the social responsibility and ethical behavior of the organization. In H2, ethical climate was hypothesized to be inversely related to the degree of opportunistic behavior of individuals internal to an organization. Similarly, the ethical profile of an organization may be inversely related to the degree of opportunistic behavior elicited during interorganizational exchange. Based upon the work of Robin and Reidenbach (1987), and in extension of previous climate research (Schneider and Reichers, 1983; Victor and Cullen, 1987) the following hypothesis is proposed: H3: The ethical profiles of client and agency organizations held by research employees are inversely related to the level of opportunism displayed by the employee. Ferrell and Weaver (1978) assessed the ethical beliefs of individuals and compared personal beliefs to the individuals’ perceptions of their peers and managers. The results of this study indicated that individuals believe their intraorganizational
332
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
S. W. Kelley et al.
decision-making environment includes peers and managers who have lower ethical standards than their own. The present study extends the previous work of Ferrell and Weaver (1978) to the interorganizational context. In this situation, one would expect an individual’s perception of the ethical climate of his/her employing organization to be more favorable than the ethical profile for other research organizations. H4: Employee ethical
perceptions of ethical climate are more profile for client or agency organizations.
favorable
than
his/her
There are three client-agent relationships that exist between the types of research organizations considered in this study. These include 1) data subcontractor organizations acting as agents for marketing research firm clients, 2) data subcontractor organizations acting as agents for corporate research department clients, and 3) marketing research firms acting as agents for corporate research department clients. In order to reduce the level of transaction costs incurred during interorganizational exchange, client research organizations may interact with agents that are believed to be trustworthy and ethical (Williamson, 1986, pp. 97-98). On the other hand, agent research organizations may be more concerned with carrying out the marketing research tasks contracted to them and less concerned with the ethical or unethical tendencies of their clients (Skinner et al., 1988). As a result, the ethics of client organizations may not be a strong consideration among research agents when interorganizational exchanges are conducted. Based upon this, one might contend that in an attempt to reduce the amount of effort devoted to the monitoring of agent behaviors, research clients will tend to conduct interorganizational exchanges with agent organizations believed to have stronger ethical profiles. Specifically, in the context of the three types of clientagent exchanges in the marketing research industry, this would seem to indicate the following: 1) The ethical profiles of data subcontractors (agents) held by marketing research firm employees will be more favorable than the ethical profiles of marketing research firms (clients) held by data subcontractor employees, 2) the ethical profiles of data subcontractors (agents) held by corporate research department employees will be more favorable than the ethical profiles of corporate research departments (clients) held by data subcontractor employees, and 3) the ethical profiles of marketing research firms (agents) held by corporate research department employees will be more favorable than the ethical profiles of corporate research departments (clients) held by marketing research firm employees. H5: The ethical profiles of agency organizations held by client organization employees will be more favorable than the ethical profiles of client organizations held by agency organization employees. Methodology
Data Collection To test the hypotheses, a self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 1,500 marketing researchers. These researchers represented three different types of organizations: data subcontractors, marketing research firms, and corporate research departments. Respondents were selected based on a systematic sample of the
Opportunistic
Behavior in Marketing Research
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
333
Marketing Research Association (MRA) and the American Marketing Association (AMA); sampling procedures eliminated duplication of respondents belonging to both associations. A total of 550 completed questionnaires were returned, and 52 questionnaires were returned by the post office, yielding a 37.9% response rate. The three types of organizations sampled were represented as follows: 30% were respondents from data subcontractors, 45% were respondents from marketing research firms, and 25% were respondents from corporate research departments. Additionally, those responding held a variety of positions including: owner (13%), president (22%), vice-president (14%), director/manager (41%), and analyst (10%). More females (64%) than males (36%) comprise the sample. Most respondents (74%) had at least a bachelor’s degree. Finally, 19% of the respondents were below 31 years of age, 30% were between 31 and 40, 27% were between 41 and 50, and 24% were over 50.
Measurement Measures of opportunism, ethical climate, and ethical profiles were ascertained in this study. All of the scales were purified based on the criteria of item-to-total correlations and internal consistency. The appendix contains the scale items utilized in this study. The level of opportunistic behavior of an individual was measured through a scale that was initially developed by John (1984). Items were deleted using itemto-total correlations; items correlated with the total score below .25 were deleted (Nunnally, 1978). The purified scale consisted of six items and followed a Likerttype format with six points and anchors of definitely agree (1) and definitely disagree (6). Factor analysis confirmed a single-factor structure, enabling these items to be treated as a single scale. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .71. The respondents’ beliefs regarding ethical climate and the ethical profiles of other research organizations were measured through three identical five-item scales to which participants from all three types of research organizations responded. For example, the items to which data subcontractor employees responded assessed the individual’s beliefs about his/her own data subcontracting organization (ethical climate), his/her marketing research firm clients (ethical profile), and his/her corporate research department clients (ethical profile). Respondents indicated their agreement (1) or disagreement (2) with each item. In the case of dichotomous scales alpha is equivalent to the reliability coefficient Kuder-Richardson-20 (Nunnally, 1978). The alpha coefficients for the ethical climate and profile measures were .68 and .64, respectively. Although the reliabilities for the climate and profile measures are relatively low, this can be explained by the fact that dichotomous items were used (Nunnally, 1978).
Results
Research Organizations and Opportunism The first hypothesis the three different
focused on the level of opportunism displayed by members of types of research organizations included in this study. This
334
J BUSN RES
S. W. Kelley et al.
1989:18:327-340
hypothesis was tested through an analysis of variance. The opportunism means for each organization type were as follows: data subcontractors-l 1 Sl, marketing research firms-10.46, and corporate research departments-10.04. Analysis of variance results confirm a difference among these means (F = 4.36, p < 0.01). While the relative magnitudes of the opportunism means are in the hypothesized direction, a Scheffe test was conducted to further assess these relationships. The results of the Scheffe test indicated that the data subcontractor and corporate research department group means were significantly different at the .05 level of significance. The results of this analysis indicate that the employees of data subcontractors do exhibit significantly higher levels of opportunistic behavior than corporate research department employees. The differences between the level of opportunism displayed by data subcontractor employees and marketing research firm employees, and marketing research firm employees and corporate research department employees, were not significant. As a result, Hl was partially supported; corporate research department employees were found to be less opportunistic than the employees of data subcontracting organizations.
Ethical Climate and Opportunism H2 focused on the relationship between the ethical climate and the level of opportunism displayed by an individual. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed for this analysis. The results are supportive of the hypothesized inverse relationship between opportunism and ethical climate perceptions (r = - .27, p < 0.01). In addition, the relationship between opportunism and ethical climate perceptions was examined for each organization type. The Pearson correlation coefficients for data subcontractors (r = - .34, p < O.Ol), marketing research firms (r = - .23, p < O.Ol), and corporate research departments (r = - .37, p < 0.01) were all supportive of the hypothesized inverse relationship. This indicates that if an employee believes that his/her organization emphasizes ethical behavior, lower levels of opportunistic behavior tend to be exhibited.
Ethical Projiles and Opportunism H3 proposed the existence of an inverse relationship between respondents’ beliefs regarding the ethical profiles of other organizations and the level of opportunistic behavior demonstrated. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to test this hypothesis. The ethical profile held by research employees was inversely related to the level of opportunism displayed by these individuals (r = - .22, p < 0.01); providing evidence in support of the proposed hypothesis. In general, individuals tend to behave less opportunistically if they believe that the external organizations they interact with emphasize ethical behavior.
Ethical Climate and Ethical Profiles In H4 it was anticipated would be more favorable or agency organizations.
that the employees’ beliefs concerning ethical climate than their beliefs regarding ethical profiles of their client The ethical profiles of two types of organizations were
Opportunistic
Behavior
in Marketing Research
J
BUSN RJZS 1989:18:327-340
Table 1. Group Means and t-Values Type of Research Firm Data subcontractors
Marketing research firms
Corporate research departments
Beliefs Compared
Mea@
Ethical climate Ethical profile for research firms Ethical climate Ethical profile for corporate departments
9.97 (0.16)
Ethical climate Ethical profile for corporate departments Ethical climate Ethical profile for data subcontractors
9.90 (0.40)
Ethical climate Ethical profile for research firms Ethical climate Ethical profile for data subcontractors
9.49 (1.03)
n
r-Value
75
3.44’
52
3.05’
113
6.9W
106
4.82’
9.52 (1.16) 9.98 (0.14) 9.75 (0.56)
9.19 (1.14) 9.87 (0.37) 9.42 (1.03) 70
-1.08
9.61 (0.86) 9.62 (0.82) 65
1.02
9.49 (0.94)
“Mean values vary between comparisons because study participants did not respond to items that did not apply to their organizations. %tandard deviations are included in parentheses. ‘p < 0.01.
for each employee. For example, data subcontractor employees provided responses regarding the ethical profiles of their marketing research firm clients and corporate research department clients. Table 1 contains the means and f-values that were used to test for significant mean differences for each type of research organization considered in this study. The employees of data subcontractor and marketing research firms both held more favorable beliefs for the ethical climate of their employing organization than they did for the ethical profiles of other organizations. This supports H4. In addition, the ethical profiles of marketing research firms and corporate research departments held by data subcontractor employees were not significantly different, nor were the ethical profiles of data subcontractors and corporate research departments held by marketing research firm employees. These findings indicate that the employees of data subcontractors and marketing research firms believe that their organization is more ethical than others and that there are not any differences in the beliefs of these employees regarding the ethics of other types of research organizations. Respondents from corporate research departments did not indicate any statistically significant differences among the beliefs regarding the ethical climate for their organization and the ethical profiles of other types of research organizations. A potential explanation of this finding is subsequently offered in the Discussion and Implications section. assessed
336
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-3&I
S. W. Kelley et al.
Table 2. Client and Agent
Ethical
Profile
Means
and
Profile Mean of Client (Agent Beliefs)
t-Values Profile Mean of Agent (Client Beliefs)
Client
Agent
Corporate research departments
Data subcontractors
9.65
Corporate research departments
Marketing research firms
9.15 (1.17)
9.59 (0.87)
- 2.83”
Marketing research firms
Data subcontractors
9.51 (1.15)
9.36 (1.07)
.96
“Standard deviations hp i 0.01.
are included
(0.72)
9.49
(0.93)
r-Values 1.04
in parentheses.
Client and Agency Ethical Projiles H5 focused upon the beliefs held by research clients and agencies with regard to the ethical profiles of the research organizations they interact with. It was hypothesized that the ethical profiles of agencies held by client employees would be more favorable that the ethical profiles of clients held by agency employees. Table 2 contains the means and t-values used to test the client-agency interorganizational ethical profiles considered in this hypothesis. Three different forms of the client-agent relationships were possible among the research organizations considered. First, it was expected that the ethical profiles of data subcontractors (agent) held by corporate research department employees would be more favorable than ethical profiles of corporate research departments (client) held by data subcontractor employees. These mean values are not significantly different (t = 1.04) and, therefore, do not support the hypothesis. Second, it was expected that ethical profiles of marketing research firms (agent) held by corporate research department employees would be more favorable than the ethical profiles of corporate research departments (client) held by marketing research firm employees. These ethical profile means are significantly different in the expected direction (t = - 2.83). This finding indicates that when client-agent beliefs regarding the ethical profiles of interacting organizations are compared in the relationship between corporate research departments and marketing research firms, the clients believe the agents are more ethical. Therefore, the second form of the client-agent relationship tested in H5 provides support for the hypothesized relationship. Finally, it was expected that the ethical profiles of data subcontractors (agent) held by marketing research firm employees would be more favorable than the ethical profiles of marketing research firms (client) held by data subcontractor employees. These mean values, which are reported in Table 2, are not significantly different (t = .96) and do not support H5. In summary, three client-agent relationships were tested in H5. It was hypothesized that agent profiles would be more favorable than client profiles held by employees in the marketing research industry. The client-agent relationships ex-
Opportunistic
Behavior in Marketing Research
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
isting between corporate research departments and marketing research firms provided support for the hypothesized relationship. The other two relationships tested were not significantly different. Discussion
and Implications
The relationships among opportunism and employee beliefs regarding ethical climates and profiles in three types of research organizations were assessed in this study. Prior to discussion of the findings of this study, several limitations should be pointed out. First, the data used in this study consisted of self-report measures. Therefore, the potential for data inaccuracies due to item misinterpretation or predispositions to certain responses on the part of the subject does exist. Second, some of the findings of this study that were statistically significant should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively large sample size (e.g., H2 and H3). Finally, while the sampling methods utilized in this study provide relatively strong external validity, the generalizability of the findings would be enhanced through replication. Several significant findings resulted from this study. First, it was found that there were significant differences in the level of opportunism demonstrated by employees in different types of research organizations. Specifically, corporate research department employees were less opportunistic than data subcontractor employees. It seems that the relatively long-term relationship between a corporate research department employee and his/her organization makes opportunistic behavior less likely than in the case of the relatively short-term interorganizational relationships experienced by the employees of data subcontractors. A significant inverse relationship was found between ethical climate and opportunism. This is interesting in that it provides evidence indicating that individual beliefs concerning what is important to an organization are related to the behavior of the individual. In order to reduce the levels of opportunistic behavior, the ethical climate of an organization may have to be improved. This supports previous conceptualizations in marketing ethics which stress the importance of organizational factors in ethical behavior (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986). It also specifically supports the Robin and Reidenbach (1987) hypothesis that corporate culture is important in incorporating ethical behavior into marketing strategy. This study also found that when individuals believe their client or agency organizations emphasize ethics, they tend to behave less opportunistically. This finding stresses the importance of the ethical profile of an organization. Lower levels of opportunism will result in lower transaction costs for the organization; hence, more efficient organizational exchanges occur. Another significant finding of this study is that employees of data subcontractor organizations and marketing research firms believe that their organizations stress ethics more than do the corporate research departments with whom they interact. The beliefs of corporate research department employees with regard to ethical climates and profiles are not significantly different. This may be because in the role of a client in their interactions with marketing research firms and data subcontractors, they are dependent upon these firms to behave ethically. The tasks involved in the exchange between marketing research organizations have a great deal
338
J BUSN RES 1989:18:327-W
S.
W. Kelley et al.
of performance ambiguity inherent in them and are very difficult to monitor. In the case of the employees of corporate research departments, it may be easier to believe that other organizations are just as ethical as their organization, rather than incurring the extremely high transaction costs that would be encountered in an attempt to closely monitor the levels of opportunism of their agency organizations. Finally, three client-agent relationships in the marketing research industry were examined. It was expected that across these three types of relationships that agent profiles would be more favorable than client profiles held by employees. Only in the client-agent relationship existing between corporate research departments and marketing research firms were the ethical profiles of agent organizations more favorable than the ethical profiles of client organizations. A potential explanation for this finding is that ethical profiles held by clients may be dependent upon the marketing research functions being performed by the agent organization. Marketing research firms generally perform a wide variety of tasks with greater discretion, while data subcontractor organizations generally have less discretion in the task of data collection. This may lead corporate research departments and marketing research firms as research clients to place less importance upon the ethical profiles of their data subcontractor agents due to the nature of the task being performed by the agent. Conclusions The results provide new insights in evaluating recent frameworks/models of ethical decision making. These frameworks/models stress different aspects of the decisionmaking process, but all view the climate/culture of the organization as influencing ethical behavior. This study supports this view from two perspectives. Specifically, as the ethical climate of one’s organization and the profile of external organizations were perceived to be more ethical, less respondent opportunism was reported. Hunt and Vitell’s (1986) descriptive model focused on the personal moral evaluation process and proposed that industry environment and organizational environment are factors impacting ethical/unethical behavior. Both of these variables were significantly related to opportunism in this study. Ferrell and Gresham (1985) proposed that organizational perceptions influence ethical decisions. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) stressed the influence of corporate cultures on ethical behaviors. The results of our study support these components of both of these frameworks. This research was not a comprehensive test of these frameworks/models. More research needs to be directed toward individual moral evaluations and information processing. Also, the relative importance of the variables in these frameworks/ models needs to be assessed. This research provides empirical support for environmental and organizational factors that influence ethical behavior in marketing research organizations. More research needs to be conducted to determine the importance of ethical climates and profiles in different types of organizations and industries. Another issue of interest that was not addressed in this study is how important organizational climates and profiles are relative to the current state of an individual’s personal moral development. In conclusion, this study found that opportunistic behavior, which is a specific type of unethical behavior, is influenced by environmental and organizational variables that are components of the leading frameworks/models of ethical decision making in marketing.
Opportunistic
Behavior
in Marketing
J BUSN RES
Research
339
1989:18:327-340
Appendix Measurement Scales Scale Items
Scale
I feel that it is OK to do anything within my means that will help further my
Opportunism”
own interest? I carry out my duties even if my clients do not check up on me Sometimes I have to alter the facts slightly in order to get what I needb Complete honesty does not pay when dealing with my clientsb On occasion, I have to lie to my clients about certain things in order to protect my interests* My clients are not always truthful with me, so I am not always completely candid with themb Ethical climate and profile’
Has an ethical codeb Enforces an ethical codeb Sometimes deletes parts of data sets to improve Keeps confidential data confidentialb Misrepresents statistical accuracy of data
results
‘Measured using a six-point scale, 1 = Definitely Agree, 6 = Definitely Disagree. %em was reverse scored. ‘Measured using a dichotomous scale, 1 = yes, 2 = no.
References Ferrell, 0. C., and Gresham, Larry G., A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing, Journal of Marketing 49 (Summer 1985): 8796. Ferrell, 0. C., and Skinner, Steven J., Ethical Behavior and Bureaucratic Structure in Marketing Research Organizations, Journal of Marketing Research 25 (February 1988): 103-109. Ferrell, 0. C., and Weaver, K. Mark, Marketing 42 (4 1978): 69-73.
Ethical
Glick, William H., Conceptualizing and Climate: Pitfalls in Multilevel Research, 601-616. Hunt, Shelby Marketing
D., Chonko, Researchers,
Beliefs
Measuring Academy
Managers,
Organizational of Management
Journal of
and Psychological Review 10 (3 1985):
Lawrence B., and Wilcox, James B., Ethical Problems Journal of Marketing Research 21 (August 1984): 309-324.
Hunt, Shelby D., and Vitell, Scott, A General Mucronuzrketing 6 (Spring 1986): 5-16. John, George, Marketing
of Marketing
Theory
of Marketing
An Empirical Investigation of Some Antecedents Channel, Journal of Marketing Research 21 (August
Ethics,
of
Journal of
of Opportunism 1984): 278-289.
in a
Jones, Gareth R., Transaction Costs, Property Rights, and Organizational Culture: An Exchange Perspective, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (September 1983): 454-467. Nunnally, Ouchi,
Jum C., Psychometric
Theory. McGraw-Hill
William G., Markets, Bureaucracies, 25 (March 1980): 129-141.
and Clans,
Book Company, Administrative
Robin, Donald P., and Reidenbach, R. Eric, Social Responsibility, Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application, (January 1987): 44-58.
New York,
1978.
Science Quarterly
Ethics, and Marketing Journal of Marketing 51
Schneider, Benjamin, Notes on Climate and Culture, in Creativity in Services Marketing: What’s New, What Works, What’s Developing. M. Venkatesan, Diane M. Schmalensee, and Claudia Marshall, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1986, pp. 63-67.
340
J
BUSN RES 1989:18:327-340
S. W. Kelley et al.
Schneider, Benjamin, and Reichers, Arnon Psychology 36 (Spring 1983): 19-39.
E., On the Etiology
of Climates,
Personnel
Skinner, Steven J., Dubinsky, Alan J., and Ferrell, 0. C., Organizational Dimensions Marketing-Research Ethics, Journal of Business Research 16 (2 1988): 209-223.
of
Victor, Bart, and Cullen, John B., A Theory and Measure of Ethical Climate Organizations, in Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. William Frederick, ed., JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, 1987, pp. 51-71.
in C.
Weick, Karl E., 1969.
The Social Psychology of Organizing.
Addison-Wesley,
Reading,
MA,
Williamson, Oliver E., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. The Free Press, New York, 1975. Williamson, 1986.
Oliver
E., Economic
Organization. New York University
Press,
New York,