Ethical Perceptions of Organizational Politics: A Comparative Evaluation of American and Hong Kong Managers

This paper presents a cross-cultural analysis of ethics with U.S. and Hong Kong Chinese managers as subjects. These managers were given the Strategies of Upward Influence instrument and asked to evaluate the ethics of using various political strategies to attain influence within their organizations....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of business ethics Vol. 13; no. 12; pp. 989 - 999
Main Authors Ralston, David A., Giacalone, Robert A., Terpstra, Robert H.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers 01.12.1994
D. Reidel Pub. Co
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Affirmative action
Behavioral sciences
Business ethics
Child labor
Comparative studies
Cross cultural studies
Cultural differences
Culture
Ethical behavior
Ethical codes
Ethics
Global economy
Hong Kong
Management
Managers
Military tactics
Multiculturalism & pluralism
Multivariate analysis
Organizational behavior
Organizational behaviour
Perceptions
Perceptual organization
Political behavior
Political ethics
Politics
Pragmatic ethics
Professional ethics
Research ethics
Social ethics
U.S.A
Values
Hong Kong China
United States > US
China
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0167-4544
1573-0697
DOI10.1007/BF00881669

Cover

More Information
Summary:This paper presents a cross-cultural analysis of ethics with U.S. and Hong Kong Chinese managers as subjects. These managers were given the Strategies of Upward Influence instrument and asked to evaluate the ethics of using various political strategies to attain influence within their organizations. Differences were found between Hong Kong and U.S. managers on a variety of dimensions, indicating important differences between these two groups on their perceptions of ethical behavior. In the paper, we identify potential reasons for the findings, and suggest directions for future work in this area.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0167-4544
1573-0697
DOI:10.1007/BF00881669