Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Decision Frames and Vision Priming on Decision Outcomes in Work Groups: Motivating Stakeholder Considerations

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizational leaders are increasingly emphasizing a stakeholder perspective in order to address concerns about business ethics. This study examined the choices of 94 groups in the context of a business decision-making simulation to determine how specific actions and communications can facilitate the consideration of different stakeholder perspectives. In particular, we examined whether generally framing the business situation as one involving diverse stakeholders versus a primarily profit-driven operation (referred to as framing), and whether specific suggestions that participants consider the concerns of stakeholders versus stockholders in maximizing the value of the firm (referred to as vision priming), would influence group choices and decision outcomes. We tested four experimental conditions against a control in a 2 × 2 experimental design to determine the effects that group choices had on decision outcomes when groups were exposed to stakeholder versus stockholder decision framing and stakeholder versus stockholder vision priming. The results revealed that the consistent conditions outperformed the control condition and that vision priming has a greater impact on decision outcomes than decision framing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdolmohammadi, M. J., Gabhart, D. R. L., & Reeves, M. F. (1997). Ethical cognition of business students individually and in groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1717–1725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdolmohammadi, M. J., & Reeves, M. F. (2003). Does group reasoning improve ethical reasoning? Business and Society Review, 108, 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. In R. M. Kraner & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 25 (pp. 1–52). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (2002). Normalizing emotions in organizations: Making the extraordinary seem ordinary. Human Resources Management Review, 12, 215–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N. M., Windsor, C. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Bad apples in bad barrels revisited: Cognitive moral development, just world beliefs, rewards, and ethical decision making. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 449–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T. L., & Hunt, T. G. (2003). An exploratory investigation into the effects of team composition on moral orientation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 106–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A. (1999). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer Jr (Ed.), Advances in social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. (1997). Judgment in managerial decision making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beams, J. D., Brown, R. M., & Killough, L. N. (2003). An experiment testing the determinants of non-compliance with insider trading laws. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B.S., Kanar, A.M., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2008). Current issues and future directions in simulation-based training in North America. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(8), 1416–1434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, L. (1984). Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influences of media events: A cognitive-neoassociation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 410–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, F. (1996). The muted conscience: Moral silence and the practice of ethics in business. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001). Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 471–499). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., Ganellen, R. J., Froming, W. J., & Chambers, W. (1983). Modeling: An analysis in terms of category accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Church, B., Gaa, J. C., Nainar, S. M. K., & Shehata, M. M. (2005). Experimental evidence relating to the person-situation interactionist model of ethical decision making. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cragg, W. (2002). Business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, A., & Van Knippenberg, A. V. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., & Stumpf, S. A. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global business. Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukerich, J. M., Nichols, M. L., Elm, D. R., & Vollrath, D. A. (1990). Moral reasoning in groups: Leaders make a difference. Human Relations, 43, 473–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, G.T., & Sarr, R.A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

  • Frank, R. H., Gilovic, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. H., Gilovic, T., & Regan, D. T. (1996). Do economists make bad citizens? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(1), 187–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business to increase its profits. New York Times, 13, 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and freedom (40th anniversary ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keys J. B., Fulmer, R. M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1996). Microworlds and simuworlds: Practice fields for the learning organization. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 36–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harting, T. R., Harmeling, S. S., & Venkataraman, S. (2006). Innovative stakeholder relations: When “ethics pays” (and when it doesn’t). Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Klein, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izraeli, D. (1988). Ethical beliefs and behaviors among managers: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 263–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, D. F., Hunt, T. G., & Munn, J. R. (1996). Ethical decision making: An extension to the group level. Journal of Managerial Issues, 8, 425–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. E., & Kavanaugh, M. J. (1996). An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 511–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. (1997). The link between ethical judgment and action in organizations: A moral approbation approach. Organization Science, 8, 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246, 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), The handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 31–53). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

  • Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development (vol. I): The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

  • Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. (Eds.). (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 78–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, Y., Rechner, P. L., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2005). Shaping ethical perceptions: An empirical assessment of the influence of business education, climate, and demographic factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthar, H., & Karri, R. (2005). Exposure to ethics education and the perception of the linkage between organizational ethical behavior and business outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 353–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society—a relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2009). Business leaders as citizens of the world: Advancing humanism on a global scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. A. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuberg, S. L. (1988). Behavioral implications of information presented outside conscious awareness: The effect of subliminal presentation of trait information on behavior in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Social Cognition, 6, 207–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M. L., & Day, V. E. (1982). A comparison of moral reasoning of groups and individuals on the defining issues test. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 201–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity climate: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, B. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision making process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39, 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Wildman, J. L., & Piccolo, R. F. (2009). Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 559–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saville, D.J. (1990). Multiple comparison procedures: The practical solution. American Statistician, 44, 174–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyrefitte, J., & Sebora, T. C. (2002). Leadership and ethics in work groups: A longitudinal investigation. Group and Organization Management, 27, 272–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrusel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. (2003). Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16, 285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, H., & Caspersz, D. (2011). Dissenting discourses: Exploring alternatives to the whistleblowing/silence dichotomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. R., Hochwater, W. A., & Mathys, N. J. (1997). Stretch targets: What makes them effective? Academy of Management Executive, 11, 48–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapp, L. (2011). Staff attitudes to talking openly about ethical dilemmas: The role of business ethics conceptions and trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 543–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., Brown, M. E., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 5–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influence on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: What hurts and what works. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallacher, R. R. (1993). Mental calibration: Forging a working relationship between mind and action. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp. 443–472). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. (1990). Managers’ moral reasoning: Assessing their responses to three moral dilemmas. Human Relations, 43, 687–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. E., Beckmann, J. F., & Birney, D. P. (2009). Simulations, learning, and real world capabilities. Education and Training, 41, 491–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zey-Ferrell, M. K., Weaver, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1979). Predicting unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. Human Relations, 32, 557–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Villanova School of Business, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA, 19085, USA

    Kevin D. Clark, Narda R. Quigley & Stephen A. Stumpf

Authors
  1. Kevin D. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Narda R. Quigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen A. Stumpf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen A. Stumpf.

Additional information

The authors are listed alphabetically; and each contributed equally to this article.

Appendix

Appendix

Vision Priming Statements Provided to Groups Prior to the Simulation

Ensuring stockholder value as you work through the issues in the simulation, keep in mind the importance of maximizing the value of the enterprise to its stockholders. Predictable future cash flows, including controlling risk, is key to your ability to maximize the value of the firm. Knowing the benefits and risks associated with your decisions, and then taking actions to minimize them, is essential to your success and performance on this project. When investors perceive lower expected returns, or greater risk to their expected returns, it has an adverse effect on stock prices.

Ensuring stakeholder value as you work through the issues in the simulation, keep in mind the importance of maximizing the on-going value of the enterprise to all stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, stockholders, and community members). Making ethical decisions which respect the rights of your stakeholders is key to your ability to maximize the value of the firm. Knowing the ethical boundaries and ensuring that every decision is clearly beyond reproach is essential to your success, as it is your duty as a manager and leader. When stakeholders question the conduct of an organization’s leaders, it has an adverse effect on their perceived performance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clark, K.D., Quigley, N.R. & Stumpf, S.A. The Influence of Decision Frames and Vision Priming on Decision Outcomes in Work Groups: Motivating Stakeholder Considerations. J Bus Ethics 120, 27–38 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1648-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1648-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation