Investigating Socialization,

Work-Related Norms,

and the Ethical Perceptions

of Marketing Practitioners

Nicholas McClarenStewart AdamAndrea Vocino

ABSTRACT. This study examines the influence of

socialization on work-related norms (WORKNORM).

We tested the hypothesis that organizational (ORGSOC)

and professional socialization (PROFSOC) are anteced-

ent influences on WORKNORM, employing a sample

of 339 marketing practitioners. The results of covariance

structural analysis indicate that ORGSOC and PROF-

SOC and WORKNORM are discriminant constructs

within the tested model. The study also reveals that the

influence of ORGSOC on WORKNORM is stronger

than the influence of PROFSOC on these same norms.

Because this social learning occurs in work-related

activities, in organizations, and in professional life, it is

important that managers appreciate that these three sep-

arate domains influence decision making under ethical

conditions. The limitations of the study and future

research directions are discussed.

KEY WORDS: ethics, marketers, marketing, norms,

organizational, professional, socialization

Introduction

Organizational (ORGSOC) and professional social-

ization (PROFSOC) reflect the social learning

of norms and behavior relevant to organizations and

professions. This study theorizes that PROFSOC can

be distinguished empirically from ORGSOC and

work-related norms (WORKNORM). Although

these constructs are conceptualizations of the learning

of norms, values, and work-related rules, it is argued

in this paper that they are separate constructs which

can be distinguished theoretically and empirically

from each other. Figure 1 describes these relation-

ships.

Understanding the socialization of employees

within organizations and professions is important for

organizations and society at large. The regulatory

nature of the socialization process is such that formal

and informal individual work-related, organiza-

tional, and professional norms are mechanisms that

influence ethical perceptions, and help maintain

individuals’ standards and behaviors, regardless of

their occupations, employer organizations, and

industries. These norms provide some explanation of

decision making under ethical conditions generally

(Jones, 1991; Trevino, 1986), and particularly in

marketing contexts (Hunt and Vitell, 1993). Argu-

ably, studies have not adequately established the

relative influence that ORGSOC and PROFSOC

Nicholas McClaren (Ph.D., Deakin University) is a Lecturer in

the Faculty of Business and Law at Deakin University. He is

published in the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of

International Consumer Marketing, and the Australian and

New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference proceedings.

Stewart Adam is Associate Professor in Electronic Marketing in

the Faculty of Business and Law at Deakin University,

Melbourne at Burwood, Australia. His research has appeared

in journals such as Electronic Markets, and Marketing

Intelligence and Planning. His current research interests in-

clude implicit attitudes and video-gaming as tools in the

reduction of risky-driving among the young.

Andrea Vocino is a Lecturer at the School of Management and

Marketing at Deakin University in Burwood, Australia. His

research interests include branding, retailing as well as mar-

keting research methods and marketing science. More details

about the author can be found at http://andrea.vocino.name.

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 96:95–115 � Springer 2010DOI 10.1007/s10551-010-0451-z

and WORKNORM exert as individuals develop

their ethical perceptions, and how this influences

decision making.

Occupational socialization and norms are impor-

tant foundations of decision making in organizational

contexts. Trevino (1986) describes the moderating

effect of individual characteristics, the immediate job

context, organizational culture, and characteristics of

the work on the influence of cognitive moral devel-

opment on ethical or unethical behavior. More spe-

cifically, she suggests that organizational culture

performs an important role in the moral development

of individuals and is a ‘‘common set of assumptions,

values and beliefs shared by organizational members

[… that] manifests itself in the norms, rituals, cere-

monies, legends, and organization’s choice of heroes

and heroines’’ (Trevino, 1986, p. 611). Following

Higgins and Gordon (1985), Higgins et al. (1984), and

Schein (1984), she also argues that organizational

culture provides the collective norms that guide

behaviour, and are values and goals shared by orga-

nizational members. Furthermore, she argues that

organizations may influence the ethical behavior of

employees by emphasizing the choice and behavior of

referent others within organizations, in the organi-

zation’s definition of authority, and in its ascription of

responsibility for consequences. Like Schwartz

(1968), she also suggests that the moral norms of

individuals are activated by the awareness and

ascription of responsibility for actions.

Jones (1991, p. 390) focuses on the nature of the

issue in moral reasoning and argues that ‘‘[m]oral

decision-making and behavior at the individual

level, though often difficult, at least are not com-

plicated by major organizational factors.’’ Like

Higgins et al. (1984), he notes that moral atmosphere

affects moral reasoning and judgment, that sociali-

zation processes may impede moral behaviour

(Smith and Carroll, 1984), and that socialization

processes influence the establishment of moral intent

and the engagement in moral behaviour. When

discussing the decision-making process, Hunt and

Vitell (1986, 1993) describe the influence of personal

experiences and cultural, industry, and organiza-

tional environments on the formation of deonto-

logical norms. They suggest the deontological

evaluation process ‘‘involves comparing the behav-

iors with a set of predetermined deontological

norms, representing personal values, or rules of

behavior’’ (Hunt and Vitell, 1986, p. 9) where such

norms range from general beliefs to issue-specific

beliefs. They also describe the influence of envi-

ronmental norms on the individual deontological

norms that are included in their explanation of

decision making. For Hunt and Vitell, one reason for

variance in ethical judgments is because individuals

‘‘may apply different deontological rules to the

problem situation or may differ in how they resolve

the situation when two or more rules conflict’’

(Hunt and Vitell, 1986, p. 13).

Hunt and Vitell (1993) saw the need to incorporate

a ‘‘Professional Environment’’ in their revised theory

where professional, industry, and organizational

environments included informal and formal norms

that ‘‘orient the model toward ethical situations for

business people and the professions’’ (Hunt and Vitell,

1993, p. 781). They asserted that there are complex

sets of formal, but mostly informal, norms that are

communicated as individuals are socialized in orga-

nizations, industries, and professional associations.

OrganizationalSocialization

ProfessionalSocialization

Work-RelatedMarketing

NormsEthical Perception H1

H2

H3

H4

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships among constructs.

96 Nicholas McClaren et al.

They recommended that further research was needed

to identify these different sets of norms and to

understand which norms influence moral reasoning in

specific contexts.

In order to summarize at this point, from Trevino

(1986) and Jones (1991) it can be inferred that

organizational culture manifests itself in the shared

organizational norms that perform an important role

in guiding ethical decision making. In Jones (1991),

it is proffered that both moral atmosphere and

socialization processes affect ethical decisions. In

Hunt and Vitell (1986), it is stated that professional,

industry, and organizational environments influence

deontological norms directly through the socializa-

tion of formal and informal norms. These studies

suggest clearly that socialization performs an

important role in the formation of WORKNORM.

However, where studies in marketing ethics have

focused on understanding the influence of norms in

ethical decision making, generally, they have not

examined the extent to which marketers are social-

ized into their organizations or their profession.

Typically, marketing ethics research has examined

factors such as organizational climate (frequently

adopting the existence and enforcement of a code of

ethics as a measure of the climate), rather than

examining the extent to which marketers are

socialized into their organizations and profession.

These studies have not examined the extent to

which such socialization may influence ethical per-

ceptions. For instance, the marketing ethics litera-

ture includes research into organizational culture

spanning several decades. Herndon et al. (2001)

examined the corporate culture of Taiwanese and

American marketers; finding a similarity in the

individual moral values held, and in the perceptions

of the ethicalness of corporate culture among sales

people and sales managers, they suggested that

‘‘[o]ne source of this consistency is likely to be the

existence of a strong and consistent corporate culture

and the implied existence of shared norms and other

social control systems to help produce this unifor-

mity’’ (Herndon et al., 2001, p. 79). Singhapakdi

and Vitell (1991a) and Vitell et al. (1993, p. 336)

examined marketing norms and organizational eth-

ical culture, where ethical climate was measured on

the existence of a formal, written code of ethics, and

where ‘‘ethical climate seemed to have little effect

on one’s acceptance of these various norms.

Apparently, this is an area where individual factors

dominate and whether or not one’s firm espouses

the importance of ethical behavior is irrelevant.’’

Two marketing ethics studies investigating the

extent of socialization are Sparks and Hunt (1998)

and Vitell and Singhapakdi (2008). The former

found that ethical sensitivity can be attributed to

learning the ethical norms of the profession through

organizational rather than professional socialization.

The latter found that the extent to which individuals

are socialized into their organization influences job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and esprit de

corps. They suggested it is essential that future re-

search investigates employees’ understanding of the

values and norms of the organization and examines

the relationships between the institutionalization of

ethics and the ethical decision-making process.

Although researchers theorize about the impor-

tance of socialization into organizational culture and

its influence on norms, researchers appear not to

have distinguished adequately between the roles of

socialization and such norms. The studies by Sparks

and Hunt (1998) and Vitell and Singhapakdi (2008)

appear to be the only research in the marketing

ethics literature directly measuring the extent of

socialization of marketers. Reviews of the literature

by O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005), McClaren

(2000), Loe et al. (2000), Ford and Richardson

(1994), and Tsalikis and Fritzsche (1989) support this

assertion.

Thus, the role played by the socialization process

in norm development among marketers has not been

established adequately. Because of this, and because

researchers such as Vitell and Singhapakdi (2008) call

for further research into the institutionalization of

ethics, this study examines the relative influence of

ORGSOC and PROFSOC on WORKNORM as

they relate to ethical decision making. Consistent

with Trevino (1986), it is reasoned herein that

socialization reflects the way marketers share orga-

nizational values, that this socialization is reflected in

the norms of individuals, and that these norms guide

their ethical perceptions. This study also examines

the socialization to which Jones (1991) refers, by

examining its influence on the antecedents of ethical

perceptions. More specifically, this study examines

the informal norms or socialization of marketers into

their organizations and the marketing profession,

since Hunt and Vitell (1986, 1993) suggest that these

97Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

factors play prominent roles in influencing deonto-

logical norms.

This article is important for theoretical and

practical reasons. First, it is necessary to clarify the

relationships between ORGSOC, PROFSOC, and

WORKNORM within ethical decision making.

Second, ORGSOC and PROFSOC are important

instruments in establishing and maintaining standards

of corporate and professional ethics. Understanding

PROFSOC is particularly important because many

governments use professional associations as a means

of implementing occupation and industry self-

regulation. This is done through use of such devices

as the registration, training, and assessment of prac-

titioners. These associations, and socialization into

the profession, have become increasingly important

aspects of work over several decades.

The power of professional bodies is provided by

governments as much as it is created by the activities

of the profession, where universities and professional

training institutions are important centers for the

development of organizational norms among pro-

fessional managers, and where professional associa-

tions define and promulgate the normative rules of

organizational and professional behavior (DiMaggio

and Powell, 1983). Professional bodies, such as the

American Marketing Association (AMA), the Direct

Selling Association, and the Direct Marketing

Association, provide effective industry self-regula-

tion for the sales profession (Ferrell et al., 2007).

Although the occupational socialization research

discussed in the following sections has focused on

practitioners in legally regulated industries (such as

accounting, teaching, nursing, and engineering), this

article focuses on marketers who require no man-

datory certification, and whose PROFSOC may

occur by exercising free choice to participate in

professional activities and/or becoming a member of

a professional association. In line with Sparks and

Hunt’s (1998) views, and those of Vitell and Sing-

hapakdi (2008), it is suggested that ethical compli-

ance is more likely to be enacted at the level of the

organization, rather than the individual. This study is

viewed as a first step in distinguishing between the

influence that ORGSOC and PROFSOC have on

WORKNORM and ethical decision making.

The article proceeds by outlining the theoretical

underpinnings of the constructs, and describing the

hypothetical relationships among them, in the next

section (Conceptual foundations and hypotheses).

The ‘‘Method’’ section presents the methodology

employed in empirically testing these relationships,

followed by a section on ‘‘Data analysis’’ and presen-

tation of the results. A discussion of these findings is

presented in section ‘‘Discussion,’’ which includes the

academic and managerial implications of the findings.

The article concludes by discussing the limitations of

the study and suggestions for future research.

Conceptual foundations and hypotheses

It is proposed herein that social learning occurs in

the conduct of work activity, from organizational

learning, and from learning about the profession.

More specifically, it is proffered that ORGSOC and

PROFSOC are interdependent, antecedent variables

that serve to predict WORKNORM. WORK-

NORM constitute an intervening variable that is

theorized to predict ethical perceptions, as hypoth-

eses H1–H4 indicate. A summary of the hypotheses is

presented in Figure 1.

Organizational and professional socialization

This section commences with a description of

ORGSOC before identifying important distinctions

between this construct and PROFSOC. ORGSOC

is defined as ‘‘the process by which an individual

acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to

assume an organizational role’’ (Van Maanen and

Schein, 1979, p. 211). The socialization of individ-

uals into organizations is influenced by factors such

as training, education, initiation to the job, perfor-

mance in the early years in an organization, and by

the dependence of individuals on the organization

beyond the initial years of employment. Individuals

may become socialized differently because of dif-

ferences in past experiences, motivations, and

capacities, and because of the social settings in which

they interact (Van Maanen, 1976). Nine models

describing the stages of socialization were combined

into an integrative approach by Wanous (1980,

pp. 211–212). ORGSOC is seen as a process that

reflects the extent to which employees accept or

have adapted to the various characteristics of their

organizations (Taormina, 1994, 1997, 2004).

98 Nicholas McClaren et al.

Studies of the socialization process usually mea-

sure what is learned during socialization. Schein

(1968), Feldman (1981), and Fisher (1986), have

suggested content areas or dimensions of ORGSOC.

However, Chao et al. (1994, p. 730) note that

‘‘although there is a great deal of conceptual overlap

among these proposed content areas, there has been

virtually no empirical research to verify the hypo-

thetical content of the socialization domain or to

relate content areas to socialization processes and

outcomes.’’ Although Fisher (1986) concluded that

the focus of early research into the construct had

been on the process rather than the content of

ORGSOC, researchers such as Chao et al. (1994)

subsequently measured the content of ORGSOC

empirically by developing and refining measurement

instruments. Taormina (1994, 1997, 1999) and Chao

et al. (1994) have identified areas such as training,

understanding, co-worker support, and future

prospects as content domains of the socialization

construct. Ashforth et al. (2007) provided evidence

that the impact of the process of socialization on

newcomer adjustment is greater than the content of

socialization.

Turning to some of the important distinctions

between ORGSOC and PROFSOC, it is notable

that the earliest research was conducted in socio-

logical, psychological, and managerial disciplines

(Bennis et al., 1958; Glaser, 1964; Goldberg et al.,

1965; Gouldner, 1957, 1958; Hughes, 1958; Merton

et al., 1957; Miller and Wagner, 1971; Moore, 1969;

Schein, 1965; Schein et al., 1965). Researchers

considered ORGSOC and PROFSOC to be similar

forms of social learning, to be interdependent, and to

occur as individuals became oriented into the work

place and occupation. Adult socialization involves

learning specific patterns of behavior rather than

basic values, whereas the socialization of profes-

sionals involves the subsequent development of

values and norms, such as professional ethical per-

ceptions (Brim and Wheeler, 1966).

Becoming part of a work group of professional

associates and transferring knowledge, abilities, and

motivation are aspects of professional careers that

constitute the ORGSOC process (Van Maanen,

1976). Professional schooling is a major socializing

institution and, although the interaction of profes-

sional and organizational cultures is most evident in

periods of induction to organizations, it continues

through life (Van Maanen, 1976). The integration of

new members into organizations is effective where

wider community, economic, industry, and profes-

sional norms are taken into account, often where a

main goal of the ORGSOC process is to gain the

acceptance of the attitudes, values, and motives or

normative system of the organization (Van Maanen,

1976). Socializing members to the norms or values

of organizations may be difficult when they differ

from those held by the individual’s reference group.

This may be the case when there are differences

between those of an employing organization and a

profession. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) theo-

rized that the socialization of newcomers is also

about newcomers understanding the unofficial yet

recognized norms and moral conduct expected in

organizations.

Consistent with Van Maanen and Schein (1979),

it is suggested herein that differences between

ORGSOC and PROFSOC, and their influence on

WORKNORM, are apparent in the following

ways. First, a comparison of PROFSOC and pro-

fessional membership may highlight differences in

the knowledge, strategy, and purpose required of

marketers in organizations. Second, professional

education will be reflected in the differences in

socialization. Third, compared with informal social-

ization, formal professional education and the training

and the licensing of marketing practitioners occurs

less because there is not a perception of a high level of

risk to the individual, the organization, and its

stakeholders. Fourth, the socialization process of

marketers is characterized by random and disjointed

activities (such as management education), rather than

sequential activities (as occurs in medical training).

Fifth, differences in the investing and divesting

of certain skills, values, and attitudes, particularly

through professional association and professional

training, will be reflected in differences in the

PROFSOC of marketers.

Wanous (1980) highlighted the conflict between

professionally trained organizational entrants having

loyalty to their employing organization and identi-

fying with a larger group of similar professionals. He

noted that some see the socialization of professionals

into organizations as negating pre-entry PROFSOC

(Gouldner, 1957, 1958), while others believe that

‘this conflict is avoided by self-selection into certain

parts of an organization (Miller and Wagner, 1971).

99Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

More recently, studies have shown no evidence of

selection-socialization among, for example, profes-

sional accountants (Abdolmohammadi and Ariail,

2009).

There is evidence of a consistent conceptualiza-

tion of ORGSOC. Studies by Sparks and Hunt

(1998), Yi and Uen (2006), Vitell and Singhapakdi

(2008), among many others, adopt the conceptual-

ization of ORGSOC based on early formulations by

Van Maanen and Schein (1979). For instance, Sparks

and Hunt (1998) follow the conceptualization of

ORGSOC and PROFSOC according to earlier

researchers, noting that studies have tended to focus

on outcomes of the socialization process (citing:

Allen and Meyer, 1990; Feldman, 1976). Like Bartol

(1979), they asserted that

Members of a profession can learn much more about

the ethical norms of their profession from their pro-

fessional association’s programs, activities, and formal

codes of conduct than from their employing organi-

zations. Because the promotion of high ethical stan-

dards is a high priority among professional associations,

the successful learning of professional norms and values

leads to greater ethical sensitivity. (Sparks and Hunt,

1998, p. 96)

The interdependent nature of ORGSOC and

PROFSOC was characterized recently by McGuire

et al. (2008). They noted that the socialization

process within organizations inculcates employees

with values, expected behaviors, and other impor-

tant features that may originate from both organi-

zational and professional contexts. They went on to

explain that socialization is a process that transforms

employees into members of both the organization

and the profession. The first hypothesis presented

reflects the interdependent relationship theorized to

exist between ORGSOC and PROFSOC.

H1: Organizational socialization and professional

socialization are related but distinct constructs.

Socialization and work-related norms

The rationale behind the influence of socialization

on WORKNORM is derived partly from the

conceptualizations of socialization already discussed,

and from empirical evidence, some of which is yet

to be presented. Conceptually, socialization into

organizations is a foundation of the ethical decision-

making models described previously. Here, sociali-

zation is about the way and the extent to which the

norms and values of organizational newcomers and

continuing employees fit with both the immediate

work group and the organization as a whole (Van

Maanen, 1976) and because it is ‘‘a process by which

an individual comes to appreciate the values, abili-

ties, expected behaviors, and social knowledge

essential for assuming an organizational role and for

participating as an organizational member’’ (Louis,

1980, pp. 229–230). Sparks and Hunt (1998) see the

norms of ethical behavior stemming from organi-

zations, professions, and industries, while Ferrell

et al. (2007, p. 294) noted that ‘‘[t]hrough sociali-

zation, individuals develop their own ethical pattern

of behavior, including judgments about right or

wrong actions.’’

The influence of ORGSOC on WORKNORM

is also predicated upon the findings of empirical

studies demonstrating that ORGSOC influences a

wide variety of decision outcomes. Researchers have

focused on the content and outcomes of socializa-

tion, rather than on the process of socialization,

where such outcomes are associated with the extent

to which employees have adopted or internalized

organizational values as their own. Such outcomes

include job satisfaction and job commitment (Allen

and Meyer, 1990; Baker, 1992; Baker and Feldman,

1990; Feldman, 1976; Taormina, 1999; Taormina

and Bauer, 2000), adjustment to jobs and the orga-

nization (Ashforth et al., 2007; Bauer et al., 1998;

Moreland and Levine, 2001), the propensity to quit

an organization (De Cooman et al., 2009; Saks and

Ashforth, 1997), the information-acquisition and

feedback-seeking behaviors of organizational new-

comers (Ashforth, 1986; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff

and Kozlowski, 1992), and organizational identifi-

cation and socialization tactics (Yi and Uen, 2006).

In this study, it is argued that the adoption of certain

WORKNORM is an outcome of the ORGSOC

process reflecting the extent to which employees

accept or have adapted to the various characteristics

of their organizations (Taormina, 1994, 1997, 2004).

As seminal and more recent research articles have

suggested, the ORGSOC domain involves the job

task itself, and includes the ability to do one’s task

(see Fisher, 1986). It is proffered in this study that

the social learning that occurs as part of the job task

100 Nicholas McClaren et al.

comprises different learning and norms to that

gained from being socialized into the organization

and profession. Further evidence for this is the

previously described conflict that arises between

organizational and professional norms in the conduct

of the task.

Although the influence of norms on ethical

judgments has been established in the literature, the

individual, organizational, and environmental ante-

cedents to these norms have received less attention.

This is addressed further in this section. Although

there appears to be no significant relationship be-

tween business experience and perceptions of the

severity of ethical problems (Singhapakdi and Vitell,

1991a), there is a relationship between business

experience and deontological norms (Singhapakdi

and Vitell, 1991b). The nature of the business

experience is not clearly understood. Despite there

being no relationship between organizational culture

and deontological norms, the enforcement of codes

positively influences deontological norms (Sing-

hapakdi and Vitell, 1991b). Such explanations may

be improved by accounting for the antecedent role

that socialization may perform in influencing

WORKNORM.

In their investigation of the relationship between

ethical sensitivity and cognitive moral development,

Sparks and Hunt (1998) examined socialization be-

cause Bebeau et al. (1985), in contrast to Volker

(1984), found that ethical sensitivity can be learned

through socialization processes, particularly sociali-

zation into the profession. Furthermore, a study by

Shaub (1989, cited in Sparks and Hunt, 1998) sug-

gests that the adoption of organizational or profes-

sional values presupposes the learning of those values

through socialization processes and is reflected in

qualities such as ethical sensitivity.

Given the preceding discussion that WORK-

NORM are learned through socialization processes

and influence ethical perceptions and decision

making, and if Sparks and Hunt (1998) are correct,

then, understanding the extent to which marketers

are socialized into their profession and employer

organizations is important as a means of under-

standing the formation of the norms which influence

ethical perceptions. Vitell and Singhapakdi (2008)

show that ORGSOC influences job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and esprit de corps. As

mentioned previously, they recommended that

understanding the values and norms of organizations

is essential and that future research should explore

the institutionalization of ethics and other compo-

nents of the ethical decision-making process, such as

moral intensity, perceived ethical problems, and

ethical judgments. This study addresses this issue by

examining the institutionalization of ethics in

WORKNORM through socialization.

H2: Organizational socialization influences work-

related norms.

Professional socialization and norms

In order to more fully understand decision making

under ethical conditions in occupations where

practitioners do not require certification, researchers

need to establish the extent to which practitioners

are socialized into their profession compared to their

organization, and to understand the influence this

often less formal socialization has on their

WORKNORM and ethical decision making. There

appears to be less research into PROFSOC, com-

pared to ORGSOC, and large differences exist in

the amount and type of research conducted within

various disciplines.

Early researchers investigated sociological, edu-

cational, and managerial aspects of PROFSOC (e.g.,

Larson, 1977; Olesen and Whittaker, 1966, 1968,

1977; Pooley, 1972). Some have highlighted the

influence of organizational structure on professional

values and the adoption of organizational values by

professionals within organizations (Kornhauser,

1962; Miller and Wagner, 1971). More recently,

Ashforth et al. (1998) noted the scarcity of research

about socialization practices in Human Resources

Management. In her review of the PROFSOC of

social workers, Barretti (2004) reported that the re-

search was relatively under-developed.

There is also a wide disparity about the concep-

tualization and operationalization of ‘‘professionals’’

and ‘‘professional socialization.’’ For example, Sud-

daby et al. (2009) characterized ‘‘professional’’ as the

strength of identification and involvement in the

profession, and measured this as a commitment to

reflect the extent of care, dedication, and pride

accountants expressed in being a member of their

profession. Du Toit (1995) developed her own

instrument to measure the PROFSOC of nurses, but

101Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

found few statistically significant relationships

between background variables and the main con-

struct. Fan et al. (2001) extended an unpublished

measure that does not appear to reflect PROFSOC.

Barretti (2004) noted that researchers, as well as the

Professional Opinion Scale (Abbott, 1988), focus on

the assimilation of values as the primary and often sole

dimension of PROFSOC. Sparks and Hunt (1998)

adopted the conceptualization and measurement

of PROFSOC based on formulations of early

researchers, including Van Maanen and Schein

(1979).

Professional socialization is seen as an outcome of

learning processes occurring not only among mem-

bers of a profession but across organizations. We

argue that the influence of PROFSOC on

WORKNORM is based on this construct being a

closely related, interdependent construct to ORG-

SOC, as described previously. Although contested,

such differences may arise because socialization into

professions reflects the self-selection of individuals

into certain organizations, arising from professional

training (Miller and Wagner, 1971). This self-

selection into particular jobs and choice of com-

patible parts of organizations reduces the potential

for individual versus organizational conflict, and

reduces the need for the organization to attempt

extensive socialization (Wanous, 1980). PROFSOC

operates in a similar way to ORGSOC, suggesting

that the character of the work rather than a specific

group of colleagues is what binds professionals to

their profession (Larson, 1977).

Extending our prior discussion of ORGSOC, we

argue that there are differences in the extent of

PROFSOC and ORGSOC, and that their influence

on norms arises from whether the loyalties of new

recruits will be oriented toward their organizations

or their profession and how closely professional

individuals identify with their organization or

continue to identify with the larger group of sim-

ilar professionals (Gouldner, 1957, 1958; Wanous,

1980).

Professional socialization has also been investi-

gated in a wide variety of contexts. The early

researchers typically examined students and new-

comers into the profession, and the standards of

certified professions, such as teaching, nursing,

medicine, and engineering. More recent research

concerns the development of a nursing identity

among nursing students (Du Toit, 1995), the ethical

perceptions of quantity surveyors (Fan et al., 2001),

and models of teacher socialization (Schoen, 2007).

Following earlier researchers, Sparks and Hunt

(1998) distinguished PROFSOC from ORGSOC

on the basis that the norms of professional behavior

can be learned through separate, but related, social

processes. They considered PROFSOC to be similar

to ORGSOC in that it is an outcome of the learning

process which they defined as ‘‘the degree to which

members learn the norms and values of their pro-

fession’’ rather than their organization (1998, p. 96).

Few investigations of the process of PROFSOC

have been reported in the marketing ethics litera-

ture. Fan et al. (2001) investigated the effect of

PROFSOC on the ethical perceptions of quantity

surveyors, but measured professional membership

rather than the extent of socialization of the

respondents. Izzo and Vitell (2003) found that pro-

fessional education influenced not only the general

level of the moral reasoning of salespeople, but also

their industry-specific moral reasoning. They con-

cluded that ‘‘it appears that professional education

can provide a learning environment that may im-

prove real estate practitioners’ moral reasoning skills

both in industry-specific as well as in general set-

tings’’ (Izzo and Vitell, 2003, p. 33). Specifically,

Izzo and Vitell reason that under certain circum-

stances, such as in the case of some agency rela-

tionships, socialization may need to be provided

through professional training.

Researchers have also examined the professional

education, training, self-image, and values aspects of

socialization. Singhapakdi and Vitell (1993) exam-

ined the influence of personal values and professional

values on the ethical judgments of marketers, finding

that the professional values of marketers partially

explained their ethical judgments. Marketers with

higher professional standards of ethics, compared to

those with lower standards, tended to disagree with

unethical action. They concluded that the influence

of professional values is relatively stronger than the

influence of personal values on the marketers’ ethical

judgments. Rallapalli et al. (1998) found professional

and organizational environments moderate the

influence of deontological norms on the ethical

judgments of marketers where, under certain deci-

sion-making conditions, members, compared to

non-members of professional associations, rely more

102 Nicholas McClaren et al.

heavily on teleological evaluations rather than

deontological norms when making ethical judg-

ments. Individuals in organizations with higher

ethical climates, such as those with codes and where

the codes are strictly enforced, rely more on deon-

tological norms rather than teleological evaluations

when forming ethical judgments and intentions.

Sparks and Hunt (1998) found that formal ethics

training was positively related to PROFSOC.

Although they argued that PROFSOC was an out-

come of the learning process that occurs among

professional members, they reported that PROFSOC

was not a predictor of ethical sensitivity. However,

they did find correlations between PROFSOC and

ethical sensitivity, and between PROFSOC and

formal ethics training. The relationship between

PROFSOC and ethics training is not surprising given

that the promulgation of ethical standards and

behavior occupies a central, normative place in the

missions of many professional associations (Bartol,

1979).

Eli and Shuval (1982) investigated the professional

self-image of dentists, noting that Sherlock and

Morris (1972) contradicted Brim and Wheeler

(1966) by concluding that most dental students ac-

quired only the technical skills necessary to their

profession, rather than professional norms and

values.

In many populations, including marketers, studies

have found relationships between education and

moral reasoning (Goolsby and Hunt, 1992; Kohl-

berg and Turiel, 1973). Because of this, it is argued

in the present article that the educational aspect of

PROFSOC increases moral reasoning and influences

WORKNORM. Lui et al.’s (2003) study of

socialization characterized this construct as having a

professional degree. Arguably, their findings may be

interpreted more correctly as being about the

influence of education on professionalism, rather

than socialization, or about a narrow aspect of

PROFSOC. Lui et al. (2003) examined the ante-

cedents and outcomes of professionalism for a sample

of accountants, developing a measure of profes-

sionalism based on Miner’s (1993) framework of

professional role requirements, and found that cur-

rent employment characteristics, such as job level

and professional tenure, had a significant impact on

professionalism when compared with early stage

socialization. Having a professional degree or

holding membership of a professional organization

did not affect the degree of professionalism (Lui

et al., 2003). They concluded that because PROF-

SOC is a cumulative and career-long process,

developed over the life of the professionals, it is

influenced more by current employment conditions

than by early career socialization, with recent (i.e.,

organizational) influences tending to be more

influential. They did not find that professionalism is

stronger for individuals with a professional degree or

that professionalism is stronger for individuals who

are members of professional bodies.

McGowen and Hart (1990) speculated that gender

differences in the professional identity of psycholo-

gists are attributable largely to early socialization

experiences. Parsons and Griffiths (2007) reviewed

the literature about the influence that PROFSOC has

on midwifery and Schoen (2007) provided an action

research agenda based on a developmental model of

PROFSOC for teachers. Crow (2007) identified the

content and methods used in the PROFSOC and

ORGSOC of educators, and the perceptions of

educators about the effect these processes have on

their roles.

H3: Professional socialization influences work-re-

lated norms.

Work-related marketing norms and ethical perceptions

Attention now turns to the theorized relationship

between WORKNORM and ethical perceptions. As

discussed in the introduction, socialization is included

implicitly or explicitly as part of the conceptual

foundation of many explanations of decision making

under ethical conditions. Such explanations focus on

interactions with reference groups, the immediate job

context, and the normative structures of organiza-

tional culture which potentially moderate the rela-

tionship between the cognition and behavior of

individuals and which influence their moral devel-

opment. Explanations, such as that by Hunt and Vitell

(1986, 1993), highlight the importance of deonto-

logical norms and teleological evaluations. They

postulate that personal characteristics, and cultural,

professional, industry, and organizational environ-

ments influence deontological norms directly. The

WORKNORM of individuals reflect the learning

that occurs, ranging from general to issue-specific

103Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

guiding principles for a wide range of work-related

activities. Hunt and Vitell (1993) also queried the way

in which, and the extent to which, informal and

formal industry and professional norms influence the

deontological norms of marketers. However, reviews

of the literature show there are few investigations of

ORGSOC and PROFSOC and the WORK-

NORM of marketing practitioners (McClaren, 2000;

O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2005).

In this study, it is suggested that WORKNORM

predict ethical perceptions. There is substantial sup-

port for the proposition that norms influence the

ethical judgments of individuals, including marketers

(see DeConinck and Lewis, 1997; Hunt and Vasquez-

Parraga, 1993; Rallapalli et al., 1998, 2000; Sing-

hapakdi and Vitell, 1993). This article also proffers the

view that although most explanations of decision

making under ethical conditions include norms as

partial predictors of moral judgments, none provides

an adequate explanation of the comparative influ-

ence, if any, of ORGSOC and PROFSOC on these

norms.

Further, when examining the influence of orga-

nizations on the decision making of employees,

researchers frequently use codes of ethics as measures

of organizational culture (Rallapalli et al., 1998;

Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1991b). This study argues

that the inability to find an influence from the

organizational culture on WORKNORM is partly

because the influence of the organization on indi-

vidual norms is through formal and informal

ORGSOC processes.

H4: Work-related norms influence ethical percep-

tions.

Method

Sampling and procedures

Data were obtained by self-administered question-

naires mailed to marketers sourced from two sampling

frames. All respondents gave their informed, prior

consent as part of the survey process. Every ith mar-

keter was drawn from a commercial list of approxi-

mately 25,000 individuals with marketing job titles

relevant to this study. In order to ensure the study

surveyed members of a professional marketing asso-

ciation, 780 marketers were selected on a similar basis

from the membership list of a professional marketing

institute. A total of 5000 questionnaires were mailed

together with postage-paid reply envelopes. After

accounting for non-deliverables (4%) and those re-

turned but not completed (1%), 415 (9%) of the 5000

questionnaires were included for the initial data

analysis. The final sample was reduced to 339 fol-

lowing exclusion of non-marketers, and after

screening the data for normality.

Respondents were predominantly male (73%), aged

between 30 and 49 years (70%), with over half having

completed a first degree or higher (56%). Most

respondents had been with their company between

‘‘1–9 years’’ (56%) and, although slightly more than half

the respondents had been in their current job between

‘‘1–4 years’’ (51%), most had been in their current job

between ‘‘1–9 years’’ (71%). Seventy-two per cent of

respondents worked in organizations with more than

100 employees. As intended, the study encompasses the

views of respondents from a range of industries, orga-

nizations, supply channel members, and marketing of a

variety of products. The activities represented in the

final sample covered more than 200 different product

offerings. Although 29% of respondents categorized

their company as ‘‘Manufacturers,’’ none of the 16

other industry categories contained a concentration of

more than 10% of respondents. Similarly, although 46%

of respondents indicated that their job involved activi-

ties with final users or buyers from retailers, the con-

centration in no other category of channel member was

greater than 10%. The job titles included in the sample

were: Selling and selling support (11%), sales manage-

ment (31%), sales and marketing management (48%),

product management (8%), and ‘‘Other’’ (2%). The

study included members of professional institutes (39%),

lapsed members (24%), those who had never been

members (36%), and 1% not indicating their member-

ship status. Of the 217 respondents who were lapsed or

current members of professional institutes, 100 (46%)

were members of at least one marketing institute, such

as the Australian Marketing Institute or the Australian

Sales and Marketing Institute, 107 (49%) were not

members of a marketing institute, and 10 (5%) did not

state their affiliation. Non-marketing associations of

which respondents were members included organiza-

tions such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants,

Real Estate Institutes, and the Australian Institute of

Engineers.

104 Nicholas McClaren et al.

Measures

ORGSOC and PROFSOC were each measured

using four items developed by Sparks and Hunt

(1998), as shown in the Appendix. Data were col-

lected on a nine-point, numeric scale where ‘‘1’’ was

‘‘Disagree strongly’’ and ‘‘9’’ ‘‘Agree strongly.’’

Sparks and Hunt developed their measures of

ORGSOC and PROFSOC because previous mea-

sures, such as those used by Buchanan (1974), Feld-

man (1976), and Jones (1986), focused on the affective

outcomes of socialization or the progress of individ-

uals through stages of the process of socialization,

rather than on the extent to which individuals learned

the norms and values of organizations or professions as

defined by Van Maanen (1976). They reported alpha

reliabilities of 0.74 for the ORGSOC, and 0.84 for

the PROFSOC constructs. The wording of their

instrument was modified slightly in this study to cater

also to practitioners other than marketing researchers.

Work-related norms were measured using the

instrument developed by Singhapakdi and Vitell

(1991a, b) which conceptualized and operationalized

deontological norms based on the Code of Ethics of

the AMA shown in the Appendix. They reasoned

that seven items from the AMA Code of Ethics re-

flected the work-related guidelines of marketers and,

therefore, could be used as a measure of their work-

related deontological norms. ETHPER was mea-

sured as the perception of an ethical problem using

one scenario adapted from Vitell and Singhapakdi

(see Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Singhapakdi and Vitell,

1990, 1991a, b; Vitell, 1986). Respondents were

asked to respond to the statement: ‘‘Generally

speaking, this situation involves a…’’ on a nine-

point, numeric scale where ‘‘1’’ was ‘‘No ethical

problem’’ and ‘‘9’’ was ‘‘A severe ethical problem.’’

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using Version 17 of SPSS and

AMOS 14. The guidelines adopted in the analysis

drew on the study of authoritative researchers (Ba-

gozzi et al., 1991; Byrne, 2001; Gerbing and Ander-

son, 1988; Hair et al., 1998; Kline, 2005).

Missing values analysis was performed on the 16

variables included in the study, and it was found that

missing data accounted for less than 1.9% of cases for

any single variable. Missing values were replaced with

the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm in SPSS.

The first stage of the analysis involved establishing

the adequacy of the measures of the constructs using

confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). The second

stage tested the relationships theorized between the

predictor variables of ORGSOC and PROFSOC

and WORKNORM as an intervening variable; and

the relationship theorized between WORKNORM

and ethical perception (ETHPER) as a dependent

variable. In all cases, normal asymptotic theory

(maximum likelihood estimation) was used.

Discrimination among the constructs

Initially, all 16 variables were included in a mea-

surement model. Based on the CFA and an assessment

of normality using the Mahalanobis statistic, two

outlier cases and six items were deleted. The mea-

surement model presented in Figure 2 suggests that

ORGSOC, PROFSOC, WORKNORM, and

ETHPER measure different constructs. Assessment

of discrimination among the constructs was then

conducted using CFA, and by examining the corre-

lations between each of the pairs of underlying con-

structs in separate models. The correlation matrix for

the latent variables is shown in Table I.

The correlations between the respective pairs of

constructs would not seem to be excessive, suggesting

discriminant validity. Also, a Dv2 test between the

constrained model and an unconstrained model (i.e.,

where the correlation is fixed to ‘‘1’’ or freely esti-

mated) was also performed (Anderson and Gerbing,

1988; Bagozzi et al., 1991). A statistically significant

Dv2 implies that the correlation is different from 1 and

that the constrained model then needs to be rejected.

Such a test confirms the latent variables being two

distinct domains. The Dv(1)2 values for the pairs of

constructs were: ORGSOC–PROFSOC 89.30 (p =

0.00); ORGSOC–WORKNORM 164.92 (p = 0.00);

PROFSOC–WORKNORM 150.95 (p = 0.00); and

WORKNORM–ETHPER 7.98 (p = 0.01).

Relationships among the constructs

The next stage of the analysis was the development

of the structural model shown in Figure 3. The

105Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

covariance matrix for this model is shown in Table II.

The relationship between the two exogenous vari-

ables ORGSOC and PROFSOC was at u = 0.63

(p = 0.001). The influence of ORGSOC on WORK-

NORM was moderate (c = 0.30, p = 0.002), and the

influence of PROFSOC on WORKNORM was

weak statistically at c = 0.25 (p = 0.005). The influ-

ence of WORKNORM on ETHPER was also

moderate at b = 0.31 (p = 0.002). All the other

parameter estimates were significant at p = 0.001.

Work-relatedNorms

OrganizationalSocialization

ProfessionalSocialization

Ethical Perception

.38Timelinesse4

.62

.63Importance of truthe3

.79

.78Importance of honestye2 .88

.34Guided by lawse1

.58

.53What is Importante7

.72

.54Behaviore6

.74

.43Conducte5

.65

.73Actions of a

good marketere9

.86

.59How to make a careere8 .77

.46

.44

.31.63

.14

.17

χ2DF χ2/DF P CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA

38.869 30 1.296 0.129 0.992 0.988 0.039 0.030

Figure 2. CFA fit summary for socialization, norms, and ethical perception. Note: DF Degrees of Freedom, CFI

Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index, SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, RMSEA Root

Mean Square Error of Approximation.

106 Nicholas McClaren et al.

Discussion

The results support the conclusion that ORGSOC,

PROFSOC, and the WORKNORM of marketers

reflected learning from different environments, as

hypothesized. The correlations between the con-

structs shown in Figure 2 describe ORGSOC,

PROFSOC, and WORKNORM reflecting sepa-

rate learning and behaviors. The discriminant anal-

yses among the predictor constructs also suggested

ORGSOC, PROFSOC, and WORKNORM

measure different constructs.

Because this measure of WORKNORM appears

to be unrelated to knowing how things are conducted

in organizations, knowing appropriate organizational

behavior, and knowing what is important to organi-

zations, the results suggest that the learning of

WORKNORM constitutes different social learning

from that which occurs as individuals are socialized

into their organizations. Further, the results also

suggest that the learning of these norms appears to be

different from the PROFSOC that occurs, such as

knowing how to make a career as a marketer and

knowing the actions of good marketers.

The measure of deontological norms developed

by Singhapakdi and Vitell (1991b) reflects the work-

related, marketing norms of marketers. The reli-

ability of the four-item measure in this study was

0.79 and is favorable, relative to 0.72 (Singhapakdi

and Vitell, 1991a) and 0.76 (Singhapakdi and Vitell,

1991b, 1992). The results of the present study sug-

gest that the importance of honesty in serving cus-

tomers, truthful communication, timeliness, and

being guided by laws and regulations, contribute to

the effective measurement of work-related deonto-

logical norms. The results demonstrate further that

this modified instrument is an appropriate measure

of work-related marketing norms for populations in

other contexts.

The measures of ORGSOC and PROFSOC also

appeared to be conceptually and empirically sound.

The results of the reliability analyses for the measures

of ORGSOC and PROFSOC in this study of

marketing practitioners were 0.73 and 0.79,

respectively. This compares to the reliabilities in the

Sparks and Hunt (1998) study of market researchers

which were 0.74 and 0.86. The results confirm the

findings of Sparks and Hunt, that ORGSOC and

PROFSOC can be conceptualized in the manner

described by Van Maanen (1976) as the extent of

learning that has occurred, and may be measured as

such. Importantly, this study confirms that these

constructs reflect, in part, the socialization of norms

from separate environments, and that they can be

distinguished conceptually and empirically, not only

from each other, but from the WORKNORM that

are learned in marketing contexts.

Therefore, it seems the social learning of mar-

keters can be grouped to reflect at least three dif-

ferent sets of norms. It appears that this study is the

first to distinguish empirically between the social

learning of these sets of norms of marketers. This

learning occurs from their work-related marketing

activities, from their organizations, and from their

profession. Importantly, these measures of socializa-

tion tap into the formal and informal norms of

organizations and the profession, rather than being

solely concerned with the written rules and

enforcement of codes. This was a problem identified

by Hunt and Vitell (1993). Arguably, these measures

of socialization reflect a wider range of factors within

the environment, such as training and education,

TABLE I

Correlation matrix – latent variables

Work-norm Organizational socialization Professional socialization Ethical perception

Work norm 0.814/0.531

Org. Soc 0.456 0.748/0.500

Prof. Soc 0.439 0.630 0.796/0.661

Ethical perception 0.309 0.145 0.169 –

Note: All coefficients were significant at p = 0.000. Diagonal: Composite reliability (CR)/average variance extracted

(AVE).

107Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

initiation to the job, performance, past experiences,

motivations, capacities, values, norms, and behav-

iors. Researchers who examine organizational and

professional environments may find these measures

of socialization useful when measuring the effect of

environmental elements such as the existence and

enforcement of codes of ethics.

The results of the structural modeling provided

support for H2 and H3. The influence of both types

of socialization on the WORKNORM of marketers

is positive. The influence of ORGSOC is statistically

moderate (c = 0.30, p = 0.002), compared to the

weak influence of PROFSOC (c = 0.25, p =

0.005) on the same norms. These findings suggest

that the learning that occurs as part of the socialization

of marketers into their organizations and profession

exerts a positive influence on their WORKNORM.

This study found that the norms of professional and

organizational environments reflect separate sociali-

zation experiences, findings which are consistent with

the explanations of decision making under ethical

conditions mentioned in the preceding sections.

One’s work, organization, and professional context

appear to provide three normative structures that can

be distinguished as two types of socialization and as

WORKNORM. In particular, the findings are

consistent with the explanation by Hunt and Vitell

(1993) who theorized that separate organizational and

.25

Work-relatedNorms

OrganizationalSocialization

ProfessionalSocialization

.10

Ethical Perception

.38

Timeliness

e4

.63

Importance of truth

e3

.78

Importance of honesty

e2

.34

Guided by laws

e1

.52What is Importante7

.72

.54Behaviore6

.74

.43Conducte5

.65

.73Actions of a

good marketer58.9e

.60How to make a careere8

.77

.58.88 .79 .62

.30

.25

.31

z11

z10

.63

χ2 DF χ2/DF P CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA

Figure 3. Model and model-fit summary for the structural model. Note: DF Degrees of Freedom, CFI Comparative

Fit Index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index, SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, RMSEA Root Mean Square

Error of Approximation.

108 Nicholas McClaren et al.

professional environments contributed to the forma-

tion of deontological norms.

Although Singhapakdi and Vitell (1991b) found

no significant relationship between the culture

of organizations and the deontological norms of

employees, this findings suggest that the influence of

the organization on marketers occurs through the

process by which they are socialized into their

organizations. This finding is consistent with Sing-

hapakdi and Vitell (1993) who found that marketers

with higher professional standards of ethics tended to

disagree with unethical action. It suggests that

PROFSOC contributes to higher WORKNORM

and, indirectly, to a greater likelihood of perceiving

the severity of an ethical problem. Consistent with

researchers who have examined the influence of

deontological norms on the ethical judgments of

individuals, there was support for H4. The results

suggest that the learning of these norms has a direct

influence on the perception of an ethical problem.

Managerial implications

The findings of this study suggest that managers

should give consideration to the formal and informal

ORGSOC and PROFSOC of their employees.

Although formal aspects of socialization, such as

training and codes of ethics, have received a great

deal of attention in the literature, marketing man-

agers should give attention to the informal sociali-

zation processes that affect WORKNORM and

ethical decision making. By also focusing on

ORGSOC and PROFSOC as part of the ethical

culture and climate of an organization, there should

be a commensurate increase in ethical perceptions

and actions by company employees.

Even though marketing is an occupation where

certification is not always mandatory, managers may

be able to increase the ethical compliance of their

companies by encouraging socialization involving

professional codes of practice. Making membership

of marketing associations compulsory at an organi-

zational level, and encouraging company and em-

ployee participation in such associations, is likely to

benefit companies and individuals ethically and to

improve industry self-regulation. Despite these

findings that support the notion of ethical compli-

ance being achieved through the organizational,

TA

BLE

II

Covar

iance

mat

rix

(n=

339)

Per

ception

of

ethic

alpro

ble

m

How

to

mak

ea

care

er

Act

ions

of

a

good

mar

ket

er

Conduct

Beh

avio

rW

hat

is

import

ant

Guid

ed

by

law

s

Import

ance

of

hones

ty

Import

ance

of

truth

Tim

elin

ess

Per

ception

of

ethic

alpro

ble

m4.4

66

How

tom

ake

aca

reer

0.2

22

1.6

38

Act

ions

of

agood

mar

ket

er0.4

49

1.0

34

1.5

10

Conduct

0.2

89

0.4

87

0.4

90

1.1

25

Beh

avio

r0.3

17

0.4

25

0.4

77

0.5

19

1.1

10

What

isim

port

ant

0.1

29

0.6

61

0.7

37

0.7

21

0.8

52

2.1

44

Guid

edby

law

s0.5

15

0.3

34

0.3

16

0.3

05

0.3

69

0.3

61

1.2

91

Import

ance

of

hones

ty0.4

59

0.3

25

0.3

23

0.2

49

0.2

85

0.2

41

0.4

68

0.6

72

Import

ance

of

truth

0.4

85

0.2

74

0.2

92

0.2

15

0.2

69

0.2

34

0.4

62

0.5

25

0.8

14

Tim

elin

ess

0.3

08

0.3

37

0.2

95

0.2

55

0.2

31

0.2

76

0.3

70

0.3

81

0.3

65

0.7

42

109Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

rather than simply the professional level, managers

should consider PROFSOC influences within their

companies. Managers may need to differentiate

between their employees according to their level of

prior PROFSOC and may need to adopt the

socializing activities described previously.

Antecedent studies have shown the conflict

between the organization and the profession, and the

shift of influence from the professional to the orga-

nization, as employees are organizationally social-

ized. The findings of this study suggest that managers

should recognize these as two separate, interdepen-

dent influences and manage the continuing formal

and informal socialization process accordingly. These

activities may include programmatic, rather than ad

hoc professional education; training and association

membership with a focus on socializing ethical

standards and behavior; socializing marketers to the

risks of certain unethical behavior; and greater

awareness of the investment and divestiture of eth-

ical values by employees.

Limitations and future research

This study employed a judgmental sampling tech-

nique and the findings may not be generalized to

other populations. Replication of this study may

confirm the extent to which the findings are appli-

cable to other groups of marketers and other pro-

fessionals. The extent to which conflict arises

because of contradictory and incompatible forces

that may be exerted on marketers as they are

socialized into organizations and the profession, is

one question that remains unaddressed. The findings

of this study could be extended by researchers

investigating how tenure in organizations and job

positions affect the relationships between ORGSOC

and PROFSOC and WORKNORM. Researchers

might investigate organizational variables that may

moderate the relationships found in this study, such

as the existence and enforcement of corporate codes

of ethics, training in corporate ethics, familiarity

with such codes, as well as personal variables, such as

moral intensity, moral perspective, and need-

for-cognition. Although this study found that

PROFSOC influences WORKNORM, research

needs to establish the effect of other influences, such

as company and job tenure, on this relationship.

Future research should also investigate aspects of

professional membership, such as the potential

moderating effect that type of membership, tenure in

professional associations, and involvement in insti-

tutes may have on the influence of PROFSOC on

WORKNORM. A feature of this study was that it

surveyed marketers who were members of different

associations. Because the socializing effect on work-

norms may differ between the type, length, timing,

and extent of involvement in such associations,

future research should seek to understand the

type and extent of the influence, if any, from these

professional associations on the ORGSOC and

PROFSOC of marketers.

The conceptualization of socialization and social

learning in this study followed the studyof early

researchers, such as Van Maanen and Schein (1979),

and its measurement followed those of more recent

researchers, such as Sparks and Hunt (1998) and Vitell

and Singhapakdi (2008). An implicit assumption in this

study was that marketers have learned this knowledge

because socialization was measured as ‘‘knowing’’

rather than ‘‘learning.’’ This assumption is also made in

the studies by Vitell and Singhapakdi (2008) and

Sparks and Hunt (1998) who used the same instru-

ment. In other words, this study investigated the

‘‘knowledge’’ of respondents, rather than their ‘‘social

learning.’’ Despite it being a strength of the study, it is

also a limiting feature of the study, and it will require

further investigations to clarify our understanding of

social learning as a facet of socialization.

It is also recognized that there are other per-

spectives from which to approach the subject matter

of this study. Social identity theory may provide

further and deeper insight into how marketers

identify with a group, and how they adopt the values

and norms of the group. Employees come to an

understanding of the moral codes of the organisation

through socialisation which is achieved by the

interaction of employees and managers in formal and

informal practices. Social identity theory perspec-

tives are dominant in organizational identification

(Ashforth et al., 2008; Dutton et al., 1994; Edwards,

2005). The understanding of moral codes may be

part of the situated identification of employees or

their deep structure identification, depending on the

level of interaction between managers who cham-

pion the ethical codes and employees (Rousseau,

1998). Studies which follow should examine the

110 Nicholas McClaren et al.

extent to which marketers are accepting rather than

learning these norms and values, and the influence

this has on ethical decision making.

Appendix

Organizational socialization survey items

Item Item wording in questionnaire

C32a I know the rules and regulations associated

with my job

C33 I know ‘‘how things are conducted

around here’’

C34 I know what’s considered (in)appropriate

behavior in my organization

C35 I know what’s considered (un)important

to my organization

Source: Adapted from Sparks and Hunt (1998, p. 99).aItems removed based on confirmatory factor analysis.

Professional socialization survey items

Item Wording of item in questionnaire

C28a I know the values of my profession

C29 I have a good idea of how to make a

successful career for myself as a marketer

C30 I know the things a good marketer should

and should not do

C31a I know the formal and informal codes

and guidelines that guide the actions

of a marketer

Source: Adapted from Sparks and Hunt (1998, p. 99).aItems removed based on confirmatory factor analysis.

Deontological norms survey items

Item Wording of item in questionnaire

C21 The professional conduct of business people

must be guided by the adherence to all

applicable laws and regulations

C22 It is important to be honest in serving consumers,

clients, employees, suppliers, distributors

and the public

Item Wording of item in questionnaire

C23 It is important to communicate in a manner

that is truthful and forthright

C24a It is important that all parties intend to

discharge their obligations, financial

and otherwise, in good faith

C25a It is important to reject high-pressure

selling tactics

C26a It is important not to manipulate the

availability of a product for the purpose

of exploitation

C27 It is important to meet obligations

and responsibilities in contracts and mutual

agreements in a timely manner

Source: Adapted from Singhapakdi and Vitell (1991b,

p. 41).aItems removed based on confirmatory factor analysis.

References

Abbott, A. A.: 1988, Professional Choices: Values at Work

(National Association of Social Workers, Silver Spring,

MD).

Abdolmohammadi, M. J. and D. L. Ariail: 2009, ‘A Test

of the Selection-Socialization Theory in Moral Rea-

soning of CPAs in Industry Practice’, Behavioral

Research in Accounting 21(2), 1–12.

Allen, N. J. and J. P. Meyer: 1990, ‘Organizational

Socialization Tactics: A Longitudinal Analysis of Links

to Newcomers’ Commitment and Role Orientation’,

Academy of Management Journal 33(December), 847–

858.

Anderson, D. and D. W. Gerbing: 1988, ‘Structural

Equation Modelling in Practice: A Review and Rec-

ommended Two-Step Approach’, Psychological Bulletin

103, 411–423.

Ashforth, S. J.: 1986, ‘Feedback-Seeking in Individual

Adaptation: A Resource Perspective’, Academy of

Management Journal 29, 465–487.

Ashforth, B. E., S. H. Harrison and K. G. Corley: 2008,

‘Identification in Organizations: An Examination of

Four Fundamental Questions’, Journal of Management

Development 34(3), 325–374.

Ashforth, B. E., A. M. Saks and R. T. Lee: 1998,

‘Socialization and Newcomer Adjustment: The Role

of Organizational Context’, Human Relations 51(7),

897–927.

Ashforth, B. E., D. M. Sluss and S. H. Harrison: 2007,

‘Socialization in Organizational Contexts’, International

111Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 22,

1–70.

Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Youjae and L. W. Phillips: 1991,

‘Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Re-

search’, Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), 421–458.

Baker, H. E.: 1992, ‘Employee Socialization Strategies

and the Presence of Union Representation’, Labor

Studies Journal 17, 5–17.

Baker, H. E. and D. C. Feldman: 1990, ‘Strategies of

Organizational Socialization and Their Impact on

Newcomer Adjustment’, Journal of Managerial Issues 2,

198–212.

Barretti, M.: 2004, ‘What Do We Know About the

Professional Socialization of Our Students?’, Journal of

Social Work Education 40(2), 255–283.

Bartol, K. M.: 1979, ‘Professionalism as a Predictor of

Organizational Commitment, Role Stress, and Turn-

over: A Multidimensional Approach’, Academy of

Management Journal 22(December), 815–821.

Bauer, T. N., E. W. Morrison and R. R. Callister: 1998,

‘Organisational Socialisation: A Review and Direc-

tions for Future Research’, in K. M. Rowland and

G. R. Ferris (eds.), Research in Personal, Human Resources

Management, Vol. 16 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT).

Bebeau, M. J., J. R. Rest and C. M. Yamoor: 1985,

‘Measuring Dental Student’s Ethical Sensitivity’, Jour-

nal of Dental Education 49(4), 225–235.

Bennis, W. G., N. Berkowitz, M. Affinito and M. Mal-

one: 1958, ‘Reference Groups and Loyalties in the

Outpatient Department’, Administrative Science Quar-

terly 2, 481–500.

Brim, O. G. and S. Wheeler: 1966, Socialization After

Childhood: Two Essays (John Wiley & Sons, New York).

Buchanan, B.: 1974, ‘Building Organizational Commit-

ment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organi-

zations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 19(December),

533–546.

Byrne, B.: 2001, Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS

Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, NJ).

Chao, G. T., A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, S. Wolf, H. J. Klein

and P. Gardiner: 1994, ‘Organizational Socialization:

Its Content and Consequences’, Journal of Applied

Psychology 79, 730–743.

Crow, G. M.: 2007, ‘The Professional and Organizational

Socialization of New English Headteachers in School

Reform Contexts’, Educational Management Adminis-

tration & Leadership 35(1), 51–71.

De Cooman, R., S. De Gieter, R. Pepermans, S. Her-

mans, C. Du Bois, R. Caers and M. Jegers: 2009,

‘Person–Organization Fit: Testing Socialization and

Attraction–Selection–Attrition Hypotheses’, Journal of

Vocational Behavior 74, 102–107.

DeConinck, J. B. and W. F. Lewis: 1997, ‘The Influence

of Deontological and Teleological Considerations and

Ethical Climate on Sales Managers’ Intentions to Re-

ward or Punish Sales Force Behavior’, Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics 16, 497–506.

DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell: 1983, ‘The Iron

Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Col-

lective Rationality’, American Sociological Review 48,

147–160.

Du Toit, D.: 1995, ‘A Sociological Analysis of the Extent

and Influence of Professional Socialization on the

Development of a Nursing Identity Among Nursing

Students at Two Universities in Brisbane, Australia’,

Journal of Advanced Nursing 21, 164–171.

Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich and C. V. Harquail: 1994,

‘Organizational Images and Member Identification’,

Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2), 239–263.

Edwards, M. R.: 2005, ‘Organizational Identification: A

Conceptual and Operational View’, International Jour-

nal of Management Reviews 7(4), 207–230.

Eli, I. and J. T. Shuval: 1982, ‘Professional Socialization

in Dentistry: A Longitudinal Analysis of Attitude

Changes Among Dental Students Towards the

Dental Profession’, Social Science & Medicine 16(9),

951–955.

Fan, C. N. L., M. H. C. Ho and V. Ng: 2001, ‘Effect of

Professional Socialization on Quantity Surveyors’

Ethical Perceptions in Hong Kong’, Engineering,

Construction and Architectural Management 8(4), 304–

312.

Feldman, D. C.: 1976, ‘A Contingency Model of

Socialization’, Administrative Science Quarterly 21(Sep-

tember), 433–452.

Feldman, D. C.: 1981, ‘The Multiple Socialization of

Organization Members’, Academy of Management

Review 6, 309–318.

Ferrell, O. C., M. W. Johnston and L. Ferrell: 2007, ‘A

Framework for Personal Selling and Sales Management

Ethical Decision-Making’, Journal of Personal Selling &

Sales Management 27(4), 291–299.

Fisher, C. D.: 1986, ‘Organizational Socialization: An

Integrative Review’, in K. M. Rowland and G. R.

Ferris (eds.), Research in Personnel, Human Resources

Management, Vol. 4 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT).

Ford, R. C. and W. D. Richardson: 1994, ‘Ethical

Decision-Making: A Review of the Empirical Litera-

ture’, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 205–221.

Gerbing, D. W. and J. C. Anderson: 1988, ‘An Updated

Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Uni-

dimensionality and Its Assessment’, Journal of Marketing

Research XXV(May), 186–192.

Glaser, B. G.: 1964, Organizational Scientists: Their Pro-

fessional Careers (Bobbs-Merrill, New York).

112 Nicholas McClaren et al.

Goldberg, L. C., F. Baker and A. H. Rubenstein: 1965,

‘Local-Cosmopolitan: Unidimensional or Multidi-

mensional’, American Journal of Sociology 70, 704–710.

Goolsby, J. R. and S. D. Hunt: 1992, ‘Cognitive Moral

Development and Marketing’, Journal of Marketing

56(1), 55–68.

Gouldner, A. W.: 1957, ‘Cosmopolitan and Locals:

Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles I’, Admin-

istrative Science Quarterly 2, 281–306.

Gouldner, A. W.: 1958, ‘Cosmopolitan and Locals:

Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles II’,

Administrative Science Quarterly 2, 444–480.

Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham and W. C.

Black: 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edition

(Prentice-Hall International, Inc., Upper Saddle Riv-

er, NJ).

Herndon, N. C., J. P. Fraedrich and Q. Yeh: 2001, ‘An

Investigation of Moral Values and the Ethical Content

of the Corporate Culture: Taiwan Versus U.S. Sales

People’, Journal of Business Ethics 30, 73–85.

Higgins, A. and F. Gordon: 1985, ‘Work Climate and

Social Moral Development in Two Worker-Owned

Companies’, in M. Berkowitz and F. Oser (eds.), Moral

Education: Theory and Application (Erlbaum, Hillsdale,

NJ).

Higgins, A., C. Power and L. Kohlberg: 1984, ‘The

Relationship of Atmosphere to Judgments of

Responsibility’, in W. Kurtines and J. L. Gerwitz

(eds.), Morality, Moral Behavior and Moral Development

(Wiley, New York).

Hughes, E. C.: 1958, Men and Their Work (The Free

Press, Glencoe, IL).

Hunt, S. D. and A. Z. Vasquez-Parraga: 1993, ‘Organi-

zational Consequences, Marketing Ethics, and Sales-

force Supervision’, Journal of Marketing Research

XXX(February), 78–90.

Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theory of

Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Macromarketing 8(Spring),

5–16.

Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 1993, ‘The General Theory

of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and Revision’,

in N. C. Smith and J. A. Quelch (eds.), Ethics in

Marketing (Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL).

Izzo, M. G. and S. J. Vitell: 2003, ‘Exploring the Effects

of Professional Education on Salespeople: The Case of

Autonomous Agents’, Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice 11(Fall (January)), 26–38.

Jones, G.: 1986, ‘Socialization Tactics: Self-Efficacy and

Newcomers’ Adjustment to Organizations’, Academy of

Management Journal 29(June), 262–279.

Jones, T. M.: 1991, ‘Ethical Decision-Making by Indi-

viduals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model’,

Academy of Business Review 16(2), 366–395.

Kline, R. B.: 2005, Principles and Practices of Structural

Equation Modelling (Guilford Press, New York).

Kohlberg, L. and E. Turiel: 1973, Moralization, the Cog-

nitive Development Approach (Holt, Rinehart & Win-

ston, New York).

Kornhauser, W.: 1962, Scientists in Industry (University of

California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA).

Larson, M. S.: 1977, The Rise of Professionalism: A Socio-

logical Analysis (University of California Press, Berke-

ley/Los Angeles, CA).

Loe, T. W., L. Ferrell and P. Mansfield: 2000, ‘A Review

of the Empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision-

Making in Business’, Journal of Business Ethics 25, 185–

204.

Louis, M. R.: 1980, ‘Surprise and Sense Making: What

Newcomers Experience in Entering Unfamiliar

Organisational Settings’, Administrative Science Quarterly

25(June), 226–251.

Lui, S. S., H.-Y. Ngo and A. W.-N. Tsang: 2003,

‘Socialized to be a Professional: A Study of the Pro-

fessionalism of Accountants in Hong Kong’, Interna-

tional Journal of Human Resource Management 14(7),

1192–1205.

McClaren, N. M.: 2000, ‘Ethics in Personal Selling and

Sales Management: A Review of the Literature

Focusing on Empirical Findings and Conceptual

Foundations’, Journal of Business Ethics 27(3), 285–303.

McGowen, K. R. and L. E. Hart: 1990, ‘Still Different

After all These Years: Gender Differences in Profes-

sional Identity Formation’, Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice 21(2), 118–123.

McGuire, D., T. N. Garavan, D. O’Donnell, S. K. Saha

and M. Cseh: 2008, ‘Managers’ Personal Values as

Predictors of Importance Attached to Training

and Development: A Cross-Country Exploratory

Study’, Human Resource Development International 11(4),

335–350.

Merton, R. K., G. G. Reader and P. L. Kendall: 1957,

The Student Physician (Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA).

Miller, G. A. and L. W. Wagner: 1971, ‘Adult Sociali-

zation, Organizational Structures and Role Orienta-

tions’, Administrative Science Quarterly 16(1), 151–163.

Miner, J. B.: 1993, Role Motivation Theories (Routledge,

New York).

Moore, W. E.: 1969, ‘Occupational Socialization’, in A.

D. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and

Research (Rand McNally College Publishing Com-

pany, Chicago).

Moreland, R. L. and J. M. Levine: 2001, ‘Socialization in

Organizations and Work Groups’, in E. M. Turner

(ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research (Erlbaum,

Mahwah, NJ).

113Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions

Morrison, E. W.: 1993, ‘Longitudinal Study of the Effects

of Information Seeking on Newcomer Socialization’,

Journal of Applied Psychology 78, 173–183.

O’Fallon, M. J. and K. D. Butterfield: 2005, ‘A Review of

the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature:

1996–2003’, Journal of Business Ethics 59(Spring),

375–413.

Olesen, V. L. and E. W. Whittaker: 1966, ‘Adjudication

of Student Awareness in Professional Socialization:

The Language of Laughter and Silences’, Sociological

Quarterly 7(3), 381–396.

Olesen, V. L. and E. W. Whittaker: 1968, The Silent

Dialogue (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Olesen, V. L. and E. W. Whittaker: 1977, ‘Charac-

teristics of Professional Socialization’, in L. R.

Blankenship (ed.), Colleagues in Organization: The

Social Construction of Professional Work (John Wiley

and Sons, New York).

Ostroff, C. and S. W. J. Kozlowski: 1992, ‘Organizational

Socialization as a Learning Process: The Role of

Information Acquisition’, Personnel Psychology 45, 849–

874.

Parsons, M. and R. Griffiths: 2007, ‘The Effect of Pro-

fessional Socialisation on Midwives’ Practice’, Women

and Birth 20(1), 31–34.

Pooley, J. C.: 1972, ‘Professional Socialization: A Model

of the Pre-Training Phase Applicable to Physical

Education Students’, Quest 18, 57–67.

Rallapalli, K. C., S. J. Vitell and J. H. Barnes: 1998, ‘The

Influence of Norms on Ethical Judgments and Inten-

tions: An Empirical Study of Marketing Professionals’,

Journal of Business Research 43(3), 157–168.

Rallapalli, K. C., S. J. Vitell and S. Szeinbach: 2000,

‘Marketers’ Norms and Personal Values: An Empirical

Study of Marketing Professionals’, Journal of Business

Ethics 24(1 March), 65–75.

Rousseau, D. M.: 1998, ‘Why Workers Still Identify with

Organizations’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 19(3),

217–233.

Saks, A. M. and B. E. Ashforth: 1997, ‘Organizational

Socialization: Making Sense of the Past and Present as a

Prologue for the Future’, Journal of Vocational Behavior

51, 234–279.

Schein, E. H.: 1965, Organizational Psychology (Prentice-

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Schein, E. H.: 1968, ‘Organizational Socialization and

the Profession of Management’, Industrial Management

Review 9, 1–16.

Schein, E. H.: 1984, ‘Coming to a New Awareness of

Organizational Culture’, Sloan Management Review

25(Winter), 3–16.

Schein, E. H., W. R. McKelevy, D. R. Peters and J. M.

Thomas: 1965, ‘Career Orientation and Perceptions of

Rewarded Activity in a Research Organization’,

Administrative Science Quarterly 9, 333–349.

Schoen, S.: 2007, ‘Action Research: A Developmental

Model of Professional Socialization’, The Clearing

House 80(May/June), 211–216.

Schwartz, S. H.: 1968, ‘Words, Deeds, and the Percep-

tion of Consequences and Responsibility in Action

Situations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

10(3), 232–242.

Shaub, M. K.: 1989, An Empirical Examination of the

Determinants of Auditors’ Ethical Sensitivity, Doctoral

dissertation, Department of Accounting, Texas Tech

University.

Sherlock, B. J. and R. T. Morris: 1972, Becoming a Dentist

(Thomas, Springfield).

Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1990, ‘Marketing Ethics:

Factors Influencing Perceptions of Ethical Problems and

Alternatives’, Journal of Macromarketing 12(Spring), 4–18.

Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1991a, ‘Analyzing the

Ethical Decision-Making of Sales Professionals’, Journal

of Personal Selling & Sales Management XI(4), 1–12.

Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1991b, ‘Research Note:

Selected Factors Influencing Marketers’ Deontological

Norms’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

19(1), 37–42.

Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1992, ‘Marketing Ethics:

Sales Professionals Versus Other Marketing Profes-

sionals’, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

XII(2), 27–38.

Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1993, ‘Personal and

Professional Values Underlying the Ethical Judgments

of Marketers’, Journal of Business Ethics 12, 525–533.

Smith, H. R. and A. B. Carroll: 1984, ‘Organizational

Ethics: A Stacked Deck’, Journal of Business Ethics 3,

95–100.

Sparks, J. R. and S. D. Hunt: 1998, ‘Market Researchers’

Ethical Sensitivity: Conceptualization, Measurement,

and Exploratory Investigation’, Journal of Marketing

62(April), 92–109.

Suddaby, R., Y. Gendron and H. Lam: 2009, ‘The

Organizational Context of Professionalism in

Accounting’, Accounting, Organizations and Society

34(3–4), 409–427.

Taormina, R. J.: 1994, ‘The Organizational Socialization

Inventory’, International Journal of Selection and Assess-

ment 2, 133–145.

Taormina, R. J.: 1997, ‘Organizational Socialization: A

Multidomain, Continuous Process Model’, Interna-

tional Journal of Selection and Assessment 5, 29–47.

Taormina, R. J.: 1999, ‘Predicting Employee Commit-

ment and Satisfaction: The Relative Effects of Sociali-

zation and Demographics’, International Journal of Human

Resources Management 10(December), 1060–1076.

114 Nicholas McClaren et al.

Taormina, R. J.: 2004, ‘Convergent Validation of Two

Measures of Organizational Socialization’, Human

Resources Management 15(1), 76–94.

Taormina, R. J. and T. N. Bauer: 2000, ‘Organizational

Socialization in Two Cultures: Results from the

United States and Hong Kong’, The International Jour-

nal of Organization Analysis 8(3), 262–289.

Trevino, L. K.: 1986, ‘Ethical Decision-Making

in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist

Model’, Academy of Management Review 11(3), 601–617.

Tsalikis, J. and D. J. Fritzsche: 1989, ‘Business Ethics: A

Literature Review with a Focus on Marketing Ethics’,

Journal of Business Ethics 8, 695–743.

Van Maanen, J.: 1976, ‘Breaking in: Socialization to

Work’, in R. Dubin (ed.), Handbook of Work, Orga-

nizations and Society (Rand McNally, Chicago).

Van Maanen, J. and E. H. Schein: 1979, ‘Toward a

Theory of Organizational Socialization’, in M. B. Staw

(ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (JAI Press Inc.,

Greenwich, CT).

Vitell, S. J.: 1986, Marketing Ethics: Conceptual and

Empirical Foundations of a Positive Theory of Decision

Making in Marketing Situations Having Ethical Content,

Doctoral thesis, Texas Tech University.

Vitell, S. J., K. C. Rallapalli and A. Singhapakdi: 1993,

‘Marketing Norms: The Influence of Personal Moral

Philosophies and Organizational Ethical Climate’,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21, 331–337.

Vitell, S. and A. Singhapakdi: 2008, ‘The Role of Ethics

Institutionalization in Influencing Organizational

Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Esprit de Corps’,

Journal of Business Ethics 81, 343–353.

Volker, J. M.: 1984, Counselling Experience, Moral Judg-

ment, Awareness of Consequences and Moral Sensitivity in

Counselling Practice (University of Minnesota, Minne-

apolis, MN).

Wanous, J. P.: 1980, Organizational Entry: Recruitment,

Selection, and Socialization of Newcomers, 2nd 1992 Edi-

tion (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading,

MA).

Yi, X. and J.-F. Uen: 2006, ‘Relationship Between

Organizational Socialization and Organization Identi-

fication of Professionals: Moderating Effects of Per-

sonal Work Experience and Growth Need Strength’,

The Journal of American Academy of Business 10(1), 362–

371.

Deakin University,

Melbourne, VIC, Australia

E-mail: nicmac@deakin.edu.au

115Socialization, WORKNORM, and the Ethical Perceptions