Corporate ethics: a comparative analysis of the perception ...dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/JFGagno… · like those of Enron and WorldCom have revived

Corporate ethics: a comparative analysis of the perception of ethics

between two hotels managers: the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver and the

Fairmont Vancouver Airport

By

JEAN-FRANÇOIS GAGNON

Integrated Studies Project

submitted to Dr. Richard Marsden

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

August 2008

MAIS 702 Page 2 of 129

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .....................................................................................................................3

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................4

1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................5

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS RESEARCH .......................................................................................................5

1.2 KEY TERMS ................................................................................................................................6

1.3 WHY STUDYING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS ........................................................................................7

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT STUDY .........................................................................................10

1.5 METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................................11

1.6 LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................................12

2. RESEARCH FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................12

2.1 GENERAL DATA: PERCEPTION OF ETHICS BY FAIRMONT MANAGERS ...................................................12

3. DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................19

3.1 THE FHV AND THE FVA MANAGERS’ PERCEPTION OF ETHICS BY GENDER...........................................19

4. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................41

4.1 PERCEPTION OF ETHICS: RELATIVE TO VARIOUS FACTORS................................................................41

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................44

ANNEX 1 .........................................................................................................................................46

ANNEX 1 .........................................................................................................................................46

ANNEX 2: ........................................................................................................................................47

ANNEX 3: ........................................................................................................................................48

ANNEX 4 .........................................................................................................................................58

ANNEX 5 .........................................................................................................................................69

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 123


Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the involvement of all the individuals whom contributed to the making of this

research project: from Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, every manager who made time and effort to respond to

the survey; a special gratitude to Mr. Rick Corcoran and Ms. Elizabeth Duncan, respectively Fairmont

Hotel Vancouver Manager and Director of Human resources, and to Mr. Dan McGowan and Ms. Elizabeth

Forgie, Fairmont Vancouver Airport General Manager and Director of Human Resources, whose support

made this undertaking possible; from Athabasca University, the Research Ethics Board, in particular Dr.

Tom Jones, the Chairman of the Board, and his Research Ethics Administrator, Ms. Janice Green, who

made sure that this study corresponded with all the necessary ethical requirements regarding research

involving human subjects; the Masters of Arts in Integrated Studies Program Director and his Associate

Director, Dr. Mike Gismondi and Dr. Derek Briton, and their Administrative Assistant, Ms. Corinna Lewis,

who directed me toward an appropriate scholarly course of action; Dr. Richard Marsden, my

Professor/Research Supervisor, whose open-mindedness allowed me to explore avenues that I would not

have dared otherwise; and finally my family, whose unconditional support was a blessing in disguise.


Abstract

There is a lack of case studies regarding managers’ ethical views in their workplace, thus the need for

this research project. This paper explores the perceptions of ethics by managers from the Fairmont Hotel

Vancouver and the Fairmont Vancouver Airport. Managers from both hotels were given the same

questionnaire to answer. Mixed methods – quantitative and qualitative – are used to analyse the data via

a gender perspective. Although a minority of answers point towards a gender differentiation amongst

participants (from the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver and the Fairmont Vancouver Airport), there is overall no

common denominator indicating gender differentiation. The diversity of factors influencing perceptions

leads to a wide range of answers by participants. In conclusion, certain variations indicate that differences

seem to occur due to particular workplace contexts: i.e. the size of the hotels and the nature of labour

relations within each workplace. Further study is recommended: i.e. interviewing managers with similar

characteristics and backgrounds, to probe the significance of gender differentiation in the perception of

ethics; at the same time, inquiring about the easiness/hardship of working for in a small/large work unit

and for a unionized/non-unionized workplace, in order to clarify the implications of workplace contexts on

ethical perception; combining situational logic with the somatic-marker hypothesis would offer an

insightful framework to further investigate ethics in the workplace.

Keywords: Ethics; Managers, Organization; Perceptions; Workplace Context; Moral Relativism.


1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this research

While there is plenty to learn about ethics in business from organizational literature, there have been no

case studies looking directly at the perception of ethics by managers in their workplace. Super-scandals

like those of Enron and WorldCom have revived an interest in corporate ethics, although the issue has

long preceded these largely publicized matters. Scholars are just as interested about ethics in

organization as business people are, as we notice the number of papers written on the subject.

Organizational literature focuses on different aspects relating to behaviour in the workplace, with some

authors talking about the importance of: plainly communicating clearly established standards (Stevens &

Brownwell, 2000); showing the right example to subordinates and colleagues (Chung-Herrera, Enz &

Lankau, 2003; Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Fleckenstein & Huebsch, 1999); and education and training to

stimulate ethical behaviours. (Aristotle, 350 B.C.; Durkheim 1992 and 1993; Cahn and Pastore, 2001;

Grint, 2007)

But can knowledge and experience fix all the behavioural problems? Obviously, people’s various abilities

to adopt organizational culture have a direct impact on the success/failure of its implementation; the

emphasis put on instincts and emotions by many authors (Grant, 1988; Fisher & Chon, 1989; Gilligan,

1993; Damasio, 1994; Weick, 1995; Von Scheve & Von Luede, 2005; Sonenshein, 2007) underlines the

importance of individual dispositions.

The rise and fall of publicly traded companies such as Enron and WorldCom harmed a large number of

workers, competitors and other stakeholders. (Akhigbe, Martin,& Whyte, 2005; Gutman, 2002; Brubaker,

2005) Politicians and business people thus took some measures to re-establish the needed confidence in

the economical system that was shaken by the public’s perception of corporate executives’ lack of ethics.

The U.S. government voted laws to tighten the auditing process of companies traded on the stock market

(Cullinan, 2004) and prosecuted corporate executives. (Masters & Johnson, 2005; Flood & Patel, 2005)

Meanwhile, corporations adopted codes of ethics and new ways to portray themselves to the public as


socially responsible (Ranjan, 2006), by getting more involved in the communities they live in. (Entine,

1996)

Ethics in the corporate world is as fundamental as people’s need to trust the values and beliefs of those

they are doing business with. Most companies spend a lot of time and resources to make sure that their

managers and employees follow corporate guidelines that reflect what they stand for. But what is it that

makes the difference between the companies that we can rely on and those that we cannot? It is hiring

the right managers; giving them the appropriate training; mentoring them; motivating them; and giving

them opportunities to demonstrate their skills and knowledge. (Chung-Herrera, Enz & Lankau, 2003)

These are all important steps towards gaining the trust of customers, employees, shareholders and the

public at large. Despite an organization’s efforts to increase an individual’s awareness of corporate

values, it may prove ineffective if the resulting behaviour is contrary to the set standards. “Character

demonstrated by actions, not by intentions, is the only reliable measure of corporate ethics.” (Entine,

1996: 6)

1.2 Key terms

In order to avoid sounding redundant, I am using certain words with the same signification. For example,

Fairmont Hotel Vancouver is referred to as FHV, while FVA means Fairmont Vancouver Airport ; both of

them can be referred to as the hotel(s), the workplace(s), the work unit(s) or the workplace unit(s).

Fairmont as a whole may be called the company, the corporation or the organization. All the workers

employed by Fairmont that are on salary are deemed managers for the purpose of this paper – those that

are paid hourly wages at both hotels are non-manager employees. Note though that FVA is a non-

unionized workplace, in comparison to FHV which has a labour union. Managers may also be referred to

as respondents, participants, males and females. The terms perceptions, data, research findings,

responses and answers are synonymous.


1.3 Why studying organizational ethics

There is a definite need to look at how managers view ethical issues at work, to facilitate the

understanding of what lies behind their actions and decisions, and how they end up behaving the way

they do. This was the reason for my first study – The Perception of Ethics by a Corporation’s Managers:

Managerial and Organizational Ethics at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver. (Gagnon, 2008) The research

findings did not confirm a consensus amongst managers regarding their perceptions of ethics at work,

due to the great diversity of the study sample. However, female managers and respondents raised

outside Canada within FHV show consistent variations: a majority of both sub-groups share perceptions

indicating a greater predisposition to care for others, as well as a higher sense of belonging to their sub-

group and to their organization.

While the latter study sheds light on the perceptions of ethics within a specific workplace – the Fairmont

Hotel Vancouver – it raises the following questions: are the views of the respondents from the Fairmont

Hotel Vancouver (FHV) comparable to those of the managers from the rest of the corporation? So can the

reasons for the FHV respondents’ perceptions of ethics be used to explain how managers perceive ethics

in another Fairmont hotel? Or can we expect significant differences depending on a particular context,

preventing us from linking similar causes and effects regarding ethics in different workplace units? To

address these questions, the same questionnaire presented to the FHV managers was distributed to a

different hotel, the Fairmont Vancouver Airport (FVA). Both the FHV and the FVA are representative of a

typical corporation with long standing traditions of competing within a given market, and adapting readily

to an ever changing socio-economical context; these facts create a great framework for the seeking of

data, as well as their analysis and the dissemination of research findings.

However, there might be as many aspects setting the two hotels apart from one another, than there are

uniting them. To begin with, the FVA is a modern style establishment of 392 rooms that first opened its

doors in 1999; the hotel is non-unionized and is run by 43 managers. “The Fairmont Vancouver Airport is

the first hotel in the world to introduce satellite check-in kiosks and the first hotel in Canada to introduce

INNCOM, an advanced guest room control system.”


(http://www.fairmont.com/EN_FA/Property/FVA/AboutUs/HotelHistory.htm) The hotel is conveniently

located right next to the Vancouver Airport Terminal, so guests can make their way to the boarding area

without leaving the premises. The FVA also offers comfortable sound proof rooms, with floor-to-ceiling

marble bathrooms, and panoramic windows overlooking the airport runways and North Shore Mountains.

In contrast, the FHV – the third “Hotel Vancouver” – opened for business in 1939; there are 75 managers

overseeing the operations of the unionized hotel. FHV was built in the tradition of the luxurious railway

facilities, to accommodate travellers coast-to-coast. The construction of its 556 rooms took 11 years – its

structure remained unfinished for a long period of time, due to a lack of funding during the Great

Depression. The first “Hotel Vancouver” opened in 1887: the 60 room-brick hotel alongside the railroad

was meant to lodge business people and tourists using the recently built Canadian Pacific Railway.

(http://www.vpl.ca/cpr/history.html) The second “Hotel Vancouver” opened in 1916. This majestic Italian

Renaissance style hotel was considered by many the place to be seen in the 1920’s and 30’s; it was

abandoned for a while until it was reconverted into a temporary housing for World War II veterans and

their families, before its demolition in 1949. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmont_Hotel_Vancouver) Both

the first and second “Hotel Vancouver” were built one block down the street from the current location of

the third building.

FHV is located in downtown Vancouver, right across the Vancouver Art Gallery and Cathedral Place; its

proximity to shops, restaurants, the business quarters and many popular tourist attractions make it a very

convenient location for travellers. This Gothic style hotel has been deemed a historical landmark by the

City of Vancouver. Since then, FHV has also undergone renovations from the inside, to support the

growing advancement of technology and demands of its sophisticated customers. Seventy million dollars

were spent in 1996 to renovate the entire Lobby Level

(http://www.fairmont.com/EN_FA/Property/HVC/AboutUs/HotelHistory.htm): the Front Desk was moved,

the ceiling was elevated in the Lobby Lounge, the Restaurants were redesigned, luxurious shops were

built, etc. The results are impressive: the Italian marble countertops and grand chandeliers in the Lobby

and the Lounge are just a couple examples of the ostentatious accessories that were added to the decor.


Everything on this floor is designed to create a lasting first impression on visitors; guest rooms are also

constantly updated to maintain that feeling of grandiose.

Both the FVA and the FHV belong to Fairmont Hotels and Resorts. This hotel chain grew in a context of

globalization, where those who do not want to be bought out must grow bigger. Canadian Pacific Hotels

and Resorts owned around 28 to 30 hotels (including FHV and FVA) and became public by trading its

new shares on the stock exchange and before changing its name to Fairmont Hotels and Resorts in

1999. The company steadily grew and was later acquired through a joint venture between Kingdom

Hotels – owned by the Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal – and Colony Capital, a firm from Los Angeles,

for the sum of $3.9 billion US. (http://origin.www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/04/20/fairmont-060420.html)

The Toronto-based organization has about 80 hotels, in over 14 countries within the Middle East, Africa,

Asia, Europe, North America and the Caribbean’s. Fairmont is now part of a conglomerate which owns

Raffles International and Swiss Hotels, totalling 120 hotels and resorts.

FVA and FHV share a corporate culture that is meant to mould the attitudes and behaviours of their

managers and employees, to ensure that everyone is acting in accordance with the objectives of the

organization. This is where the code of ethics comes into play. In order to carry out the company’s ideal –

“turning moments into memories for our guests” – everyone is expected to adopt Fairmont’s core values:

Respect, Integrity, Teamwork and Empowerment; this is referred to as R.I.T.E.

(http://www.fairmontcareers.com/who/code_of_ethics.aspx) The code of ethics sets the parameters for

managers and employees choice and course of actions. Yet it does suggest different means to act upon

issues contrary to company standards: the use of an ethical hotline, an anonymous 1-800 number to

report potential wrongful activities within the company; to inform Human Resources of those issues; or to

talk about these matters with superiors.

“Fairmont is organized in the traditional hotel industry hierarchy: a top to bottom structure of managers,

who ‘... were trained in the classical management style, which emphasized the functions of planning,

organizing, leading, and controlling.’ (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994: 18) Authority is a function of hierarchy in the


organization, so important decisions are made at the top by executives, while mid-level and junior

managers implement these decisions (see annex 1 for a chart of Fairmont Hotel Vancouver managerial

organization and annex 2 for that of Fairmont Vancouver Airport, italic added). The corporate office

adopts policies to guide its managers across the company, to make decisions and take actions. However,

managers are expected to show leadership in various ways, to ensure profitability, to promote Fairmont in

all circumstances, and to effectively communicate the organization’s mission to its employees, while

making sure the latter execute their tasks according to plan.” (Gagnon, 2008)

1.4 Description of the current study

The current study is designed in the same way as The Perception of Ethics by a Corporation’s Managers:

Managerial and Organizational Ethics at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver. The questionnaire presented to

the managers was meant to find out how managers view ethics within their workplace and more

specifically, within their corporate organization. Attention was paid to the principles that shape the

decision making process of individuals, in relation to ethics that the corporation expects from its

managers. In addition, the current study involves a comparative analysis between the results obtained

from the same survey conducted at two different workplaces within the same corporation: the Fairmont

Hotel Vancouver (FHV) and the Fairmont Vancouver Airport (FVA). The following questions are central to

the data analysis: what are the differences/similarities between the perceptions of male and female

respondents and between those of managers from the two hotels? And how can we explain them?

The aim here is to uncover the motivations, decisions and actions of managers working at the FHV and

those at the FVA. This research process will help us understand how the perception of ethics – influenced

by personal, collective and corporate values – translates into different courses of actions by managers.

For example, research findings indicate some differences on the basis of gender, but not in the proportion

that I expected in the first place. In many cases, differences between perceptions occur on the basis of

workplace rather than on gender; meaning men and women alike within the same hotel are more in

agreement with one another than with managers from their sister hotel. Also, we take note of the

distinction between the managers’ intrinsic values and those expected from them by their employer. So


how we perceive ethics and how we use them are not necessarily one and the same, as workplace

context and individual background and experience vary from one manager to another.

1.5 Methodology

Data were sought through a questionnaire, distributed amongst 38 managers at the FVA; 12 of the

questionnaires were completed and mailed back, for a response rate of 32%. In the case of the FHV, 24

out of the 68 questionnaires were returned for a rate of 37% – 5 managers from FVA and 7 from FHV

were not given a questionnaire due to their absence from work (i.e. maternity leave, vacation etc.). Each

manager had three weeks to complete the questionnaire and return it – for more information about the

survey process, see annex 3 and 4. A combination of research methods is used to do the comparative

analysis between the results obtained from the two hotels. Utilizing both quantitative and qualitative

means to investigate the data contributes to facilitate the understanding of these research findings.

(Jonhson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) The mix-methods paradigm used for the survey analysis is

Interdisciplinary (Von Scheve & Von Luede), i.e. implying: Theory Construction (Weick); Functionalism

(Durkheim); the Ethics of Care (Gilligan); the Somatic-Markers Hypothesis (Damasio); the Sensemaking-

Intuition Model (Sonenshein); and Moral Relativism. (http://www.moralrelativism.info/index.html)

The use of a survey allows for an easy and efficient organization of multiple data. The latter were sorted

out on a spreadsheet (see annex 5), by separating the information on the basis of gender and of

workplace units (i.e. FVA and FHV). Prior to the partition of the data, it was planned to examine them from

the angle of gender as well as of country of origin; but once on the spreadsheet, it became obvious that

the multiplication of comparisons would only add complexity to the theoretical subject: the abstract nature

of ethics benefits from a simple approach to gain comprehension. In addition, the research findings did

not reveal significant variations on the basis of cultural origin.


1.6 Limitations

The variety of answers – either suggested by the researcher or by the respondents – does not allow for a

definitive evaluation of the perception of ethics – or of the experience of ethics – by managers. In other

words, the multiplicity of responses makes it difficult to categorize sub-groups one way or another.

Individuals, sub-groups and the organization as a whole may not be perceived on a united front. In these

circumstances, we must assume that there are various factors influencing the managers’ emotions,

reasoning, decisions and actions in different ways. Another drawback refers to the possible discrepancy

between perception and action: the way managers answer how they see things does not necessarily

correspond to what they would actually do when facing a factual ethical issue. Consequently their

perception might be influenced by what is expected from them but their actual experience of ethics can

vary depending on their actual situation.

2. Research findings

2.1 General data: perception of ethics by Fairmont managers

This paper compares and contrasts perception of ethics by managers from the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

(FHV) and from the Fairmont Vancouver Airport (FVA). The data from the surveys conducted at the FHV

and at the FVA are organized as follows: FHV general data; FVA general data; FHV male managers; FVA

male managers; FHV female managers; and FVA female managers (see annex 5). The general data are

underlining differences and similarities that call for an explanation; the data by gender is meant to

investigate how these differences and similarities can be explained.

The need to understand the causes of these differences and similarities pointed towards segregating the

data on the basis of gender: it felt like an appropriate angle to look at discrepancies amid different

variables. Once the data were organized by hotel and by gender, research findings seemed to justify the

choices made to use the mix- methods paradigm and to divide data between males and females.


Here is a description of the surveyed managers: 67% of the FHV respondents are female, while the ratio

male to female at the FVA is 50-50. A majority of participants from both hotels are between 18 and 35

years old: 63% for FHV and 67% for FVA, while the remainder are from 36 to 55. As much as 92% of

managers from both hotels have at least a College degree, while half of them have a University degree.

Only 4% of the FHV surveyed managers worked for the company more than 10 years, as opposed to

33% at the FVA.

Junior managers represent 46% of the respondents at the FHV (25% at the FVA), mid-level managers

33% (42% at the FVA) and the executives 17% (33% at the FVA). Those raised in Canada account for

79% of the FHV respondents (17% raised outside Canada) and for 58% of those from the FVA (42%

grew up abroad); 25% are considered a visible minority at the FHV and 33% at the FVA. Believing in God

or other forms of spirituality is confirmed by 67% of the surveyed managers at the FHV, as opposed to

92% at the FVA – 25 % of the FHV managers and 8% of the respondents from FVA believe to be

atheists.

The FHV participants deem – in order of importance – honesty, respect and trust the main values they

learned through upbringing, similarly to the FVA choices of respect, honesty and trust. The primary

sources of individual ethical beliefs are: at the FHV, family, friends, work, education and religion; and at

the FVA, family first, followed by health (i.e. a major disparity between the two hotels, added under other)

friends, work, education and lastly, religion/spirituality. The FHV participants consider upbringing, life

experience and corporate philosophy, the most influential aspects while making decisions and taking

actions at work; for the FVA respondents, upbringing, changes in industry context and life experience are

the key influences in their actions and decisions.

The importance of oneself behaving ethically in the workplace is similar for both hotels: 67% of the FHV

respondents find it very important as well as 75% of those from the FVA. However, there is a difference in

the perception of the ethical behaviour of other managers by participants of both workplaces: at the FHV,

46% think it is very important (58% at the FVA), 46% important (25% at the FVA) and 4% more or less


important (17% at the FVA). In the case where a manager has to react to the non-ethical behaviour of a

subordinate, a colleague and a superior, managers at the FHV are less likely to involve other parties than

respondents at the FVA (see figure 1, 2 and 3).

The acronym R.I.T.E. stands for Respect, Integrity, Teamwork and Empowerment and represents the

core values promoted by Fairmont. When asked about its meaning, 67% of the FHV respondents had the

right answer, 16% were wrong and 16% skipped the question altogether; similarly, 75% of FVA managers

knew the answer, 17% did not and 8% avoided responding. Work related decisions regarding ethical

matters are driven by both the company’s rules/ethics and personal gut instincts, according to 83% of the

FHV participants and 75% of the FVA managers; 13% of the FHV respondents use solely their gut

instincts (0% at the FVA) and 4% the company’s rules only (25% at the FVA).

Having to decide between the best interest of Fairmont and that of a customer, out of the FHV managers

surveyed, only 50% would find a middle ground between the two, as opposed to 83% of the FVA

participants; 17% would side with the customer (0% at the FVA), 21% would opt for Fairmont’s best

interest (8% at the FVA). In the case where the manager’s personal interest was contrary to that of

Fairmont: 42% of the FHV managers would find a middle ground between the two (50% at the FVA), 38%

would decide in favour of Fairmont (42% at the FVA), and only one respondent would favour him/herself

(0% at the FVA). In regards to the question relative to the handling of ethical matters at work, 96% of the

FHV managers said they had sufficient training, versus 75% of the FVA participants.

A large majority of both hotels managers believe that the values promoted by Fairmont and their personal

values are very similar: 84% at the FHV and 92% at the FVA; 75% of the FHV participants and 83% of

those at the FVA believe that it is not possible to work efficiently for Fairmont without sharing its corporate

values. Every surveyed manager at the FVA thinks that the ethics hotline is a positive asset for the

company, as it helps uncover irregularities; only 63% of participants at the FHV share that same opinion.

However, when the time comes to decide on a course of action when facing the non-ethical behaviour of


others (see figure 1, 2 and 3), at both hotels, in the large majority of cases, the ethics hotline is not the

means of choice.

Customer service, Fairmont ethics and profitability are the top three guides to actions and decisions in the

workplace for the FHV managers, unlike the FVA respondents who rank Fairmont ethics, customer

service and gut instincts. The FHV participants mention from first to last, role models – i.e. corporate

figures – parents and relatives through upbringing, current social circles and professors/academics

through education, as their major influences relative to actions and decisions in the workplace; as for the

FVA, parents and relatives, role models, current social circle and professors/academics matter in that

order.

Defining in a single word the most challenging aspect of ethics in their workplace, the FHV participants

answered accountability, integrity, trust, respect, consistency (8%), honesty (8%), cultural differences

(21%), liars, union (8%), seniority, fairness, equality and lack of followship (i.e. the inability to follow

directives); the FVA managers responded somewhat differently: trust, consistency (25%), profit, not to

take things personally, cultural differences, customer focus and I don’t see a challenge. Those who

skipped the question represent 17% of the FHV and 25% of the FVA participants.


Figure 1. Participants’ reaction to the non-ethical behaviour of a subordinate in the workplace.


Figure 2. participants’ reaction to the non-ethical behaviour of a peer/colleague managers in the workplace.


Figure 3. participants reaction to the non-ethical behaviour of a higher-rank manager in the workplace.


3. Discussion

3.1 The FHV and the FVA managers’ perception of ethics by gender

The male sample from the FHV is relatively older than that from the FVA: 63% of the FHV male

respondents are 18 to 35 years old and 37% are between 36 and 55, compared to 83% for the FVA and

only 17% of male respondents are over 36 years old; 63% of female respondents belong to the junior age

group at the FHV, while 37% are older than 36. As for the FVA, the ratio between the two age groups is

50-50. The educational level at the FHV shows a University graduate proportion of 50% for males and

50% for females, as opposed to 83% for males and 33% for females at the FVA.

Both hotels have 50% of male managers raised in Canada; whilst FHV had 94% of females raised in

Canada, compared to 67% at the FVA. For those considered visible minorities: FHV’s male participants

constitute 25% of the total surveyed managers, versus 50% of FVA male respondents, 25% of FHV

female participants and 17% of FVA female managers. God/spirituality is significant only for 63% of the

FHV male managers and as much as 83% at the FVA; measured alongside 69% of the female

respondents at FHV and 100% at the FVA.

Now that we have a better idea of who the surveyed managers are, we ought to ask ourselves two

questions – prior to digging deeper in the research findings – about the nature of gender differentiation.

Do men and women have the same motivations and aspirations in their career? And do they experience

ethics in the same ways? These questions appear intricate, as they imply no definitive response, due to

the uncertainty resulting from variable circumstances (i.e. socio-economical and workplace contexts, etc.).

Let us consider the following argument. What motivates people at work and what goals they are pursuing

should be similar, regardless of gender: female managers have the same level of motivation as their male

counterparts. (Powell, 1990)

For example, personal and collective achievements, ambition, the need to provide for our family, these

are all gender neutral reasons to aspire to success. Competencies ultimately determine the performance

of managers: those with knowledge, skills and abilities (Chung-Herrera, Enz, and Lankau, 2003) are


effective leaders. In addition to that, the importance of practical wisdom – which can only be experienced

as a leader, according to Aristotle – and of its complementarity with knowledge and skills (Grint, 2007)

seem to indicate that gender here is not significant. Nonetheless, in particular circumstances, it is

reasonable to think that gender plays a role in the perception of ethics in the workplace; after all, 39% of

all managers at the FVA are females, compared to 55% at the FHV.

But other factors also come into play. For example, other identity characteristics influence ethical

perception: 30% of all managers from the FVA grew up outside Canada (FVA Human Resources

Department); the same proportion goes for the FHV. (FHV Human Resources Department) Cultural

background and surrounding, as well as upbringing and spiritual beliefs must all have an impact on the

way managers view ethical matters in their workplace. That being said, every one of these factors has an

influence on both groups of managers, so they should not be seen as satisfying explanations for the

disparities between the two hotels. Therefore we will have to find alternative ways to clarify this matter.

There is no consensus in organizational literature about how men and women perceive or experience

ethics. There are three main hypothesis regarding fundamental differences between male and female

managers: 1. women are the same as men, because they have the same values, needs and leadership

style as their male counterparts (Powell, 1990); 2. women are different than men as managers, due to

early socialization, enhancing the stereotypes of the feminine model based of attachment, nurturance and

emotionality and the masculine model based on competitiveness, aggressiveness and self-reliance

(Grant, 1988); 3. women are different, but not due to sexist stereotypes: they have to be even better than

men to compensate for their early socialization, which differ from that of male managers. (Rosener, 1990)

For the sake of this paper, I will be using three hypotheses: I suggest that female managers are

sometimes the same as male managers, yet sometimes different; depending on circumstances,

managers decipher ethical issues differently. (Sonenshein, 2007; Weick, 1995) Also, individuals have

various abilities, so managers decide and act upon ethical matters in different ways. Gender may play an

important role in this process, but it is unlikely the sole determinant. There is a need to go beyond the


contemporary academic understanding of a dichotomy of management styles based on gender. I do not

suggest that important scholar work is obsolete but that it can be adapted to transcend the current social

theories of gender in organizations.

An influential view in the psychology of ethics is that of Carol Gilligan, the author of “In a different voice:

psychological theory and women’s development .” Gilligan claims that society encourages women to care

for others and for themselves; she refers to this concept as the ethics of care. (Gilligan, 1993) She shows

that early on in their life, women learn to value societal expectations, such as relationships, community

and solidarity. On the contrary, men are taught to develop individual and competitive ways to interact with

one another, even at another’s expense. As a result, men and women experience morality differently:

men are more inclined to seek equal rights while devoted to follow established rules, whereas women are

driven by fairness, compassion and equity. It is these dissimilarities between male and female that lead to

their differing sense of values, hence ethical/moral beliefs. However, Gilligan does not claim that men

cannot relate to the same ethics of care as women, but that society does not promote it; in fact, both

genders can develop the social skills to use the ethics of care.

Thus the approach used for this research work takes into account the following: men are not confined to

the male model of business management anymore than women are incapable to use the leadership

qualities generally attributed to men. “Despite a proliferation of studies focusing on gender differences,

cumulatively it is difficult to make blanket statements about what systematically differentiates female

managers from male managers in attitude toward work, personality and behaviour.” (Cox & Nkomo, 1996:

344-345) Other influential identity factors such as race and age, as well as workplace and economic

contexts can also be responsible for variations in managers’ perceptions, decisions and actions.

That being said, we can see similarities between the male managers’ answers from both Fairmont hotels

in figure 4: respect comes in first place, integrity and equality are respectively fourth and fifth; trust ranks

second for the FHV male respondents and honesty third, while the position of these two values in the

ranking are in the reverse order for the FVA male managers. Notice that these answers were not


suggested through multiple choices in the questionnaire but by the respondents themselves; so the fact

that the males from both hotels appraise the same five values in almost the same order appears hardly

coincidental.

The research findings underlined here seem to indicate uniformity amongst male managers regarding

moral values learned while growing up. But does this mean that the aforementioned values correspond to

the male stereotype of leadership? There is no evidence that independence, competitiveness,

forcefulness and analytical thinking (Powell, 1990) transpire from these moral values, even in the case of

a consensus amongst male managers; the similarities between the responses of men and women would

not stand up to such an argument, so we must look elsewhere to find reasons to that effect.

Various factors can contribute to the similarities amongst the two hotels’ answers from male managers,

such as, motivations, aspirations, needs, gut instincts, etc. Nevertheless, is the masculine command-and-

control type of management habitually linked to men the only means to success? (Rosener, 1990) It is

plausible that the younger and more educated generation of male managers – 63% of FHV male

managers are under 35 and 50% have a university degree, while 83% of the FVA male respondents are

under 35 and 83% have a University degree – is more open than its predecessor or older colleagues to

use management techniques associated with women. Perhaps this openness can explain that in certain

circumstances, males can adopt the same values and behaviours just like female managers. (Gilligan,

1993)

Figure 5 shows similarities and differences regarding values learned by female managers through

upbringing. The three highest ranked moral values are the same for both hotels, just not in the same

order: honesty, trust and respect for the FHV female managers (then fairness and equality), and trust,

respect and honesty for the FVA female respondents (then loyalty and fairness). Notice that the top three

moral values for the two hotels’ female and male managers are the same. This set of data is inconclusive

to validate the gender differentiation, as it points at similarities between males and females.


The primary sources of each manager’s own ethical beliefs are family, friends, work, religion and

education for FHV male respondents, and family, health, friends, work, education and religion for FVA

male participants; as for female respondents, family, friends, education, work and religion matter in that

order for participants from the FHV and family, work, friends, education and religion are the choices of the

female surveyed at the FVA. So family comes in first position for all gender sub-groups, unsurprisingly:

“...the family in some form has always been one of the central institutions in all societies.” (Ishwaran,

1983: 225)

Figure 4. Most significant moral values learned by male managers while growing up.


Figure 5. Most significant moral values learned by female managers while growing up.

Family has a tremendous influence on both men and women across cultures, during childhood but also

during adulthood; even the other suggested important sources of an individual’s personal beliefs –

friends, work, religion and education – are all influenced by the family. Interestingly enough, the FVA male

managers added health/well-being to the suggested answers, which makes it their second choice after


family (see annex 5, question 11); 33% of the FVA male respondents claim that any ethical belief that

might be unhealthy is not good for an individual. So if it does not feel right, it should not be done. I

suggest that this concern about health is explainable by the feeling rules, i.e. social norms shared by

individuals in society, guiding the way people try to feel or not to feel in their interactions with others.

(Hochschild, 2003)

Because women are more inclined to connectedness, community, affiliation and nurturance (Grant, 1988)

the feeling rules come to them more naturally. However, that does not mean that male managers are not

able to control their emotions: after all, society expects from them to be logical thinkers; thus men should

be capable of rationalizing circumstances to the necessity of adapting the way they feel, depending on

the context, to attain a certain objective. In the current example, the goal of some male managers from

the FVA is to justify their actions and decisions by relating to the way they feel: if it feels like a healthy

choice, something that is not detrimental to their well-being, therefore it must be the right thing to do. This

process is also linked to gut instincts, as “Emotions and feelings...are a powerful manifestation of drives

and instincts, part and parcel of their workings.” (Damasio, 1994: 115)

Instincts are essential means of making decisions (Sonenshein, 2007; Weick, 1995) which may also help

explain the way managers choose their priorities amongst various possibilities. For example, the three top

work ethics values for the FHV male respondents are honesty, respect and loyalty – the same as for the

FVA female participants; so there is no indication here that the research findings are justified by gender

differentiation. Can managers be influenced by their own motivations and expectations, prior to making

decisions? I support the claim that in a context of uncertainty and equivocality, people mak e intuitive

decisions that do not involve deliberate moral reasoning. (Sonenshein, 2007) As for the FVA male

managers, honesty, integrity and respect influence them the most when making decisions, and for the

FHV female participants, honesty, loyalty and integrity are most important.

The differences of opinions regarding what influences managers’ decisions and actions at work are not

staggering: all gender sub-groups put their upbringing in first place and life experience second, with the


exception of the FVA female managers who rank upbringing and corporate philosophy as their top two

influences. For FVA males and FHV females, education takes the third spot, while the FHV male

respondents rank labour/government regulations as number three on their influence list – the FVA female

respondents mention life experience in third place. So gender does not seem to be a major factor here;

however, there is an interesting fact regarding the ranking of education: the lower the level of education,

the least influenc e it has on the managers (see annex 5, question 13). But does education have a positive

influence on behaviour?

I suppose it depends on individuals, on their schools, on employers – who influence curriculums – and on

society as well; schooling only produces the raw material from which the labour market makes the final

product. (Gilbert, 1983) Thus the interaction of social forces is vital to understanding how people perceive

ethics in their organization and how they behave according to their perception. Life in society is the

derivative of a natural process, by which individual consciousnesses develop into a collective one,

through their mutual cooperation. Individuals learn through their contacts with one another, hence

improving their social skills. Society make up laws to control individual – and collective – actions but this

system appears spontaneously, as a result of evolution, to create a new form of life.( Durkheim, 1982)

Therefore living in society influences the perception of ethics by managers, through their institutions –

schools, churches, corporations, etc. Let us try to make sense of the following data on that basis. The

importance of a manager’s own ethical behaviour at work, and that of other managers, is detailed in table

1 and 2. It shows that male sub-groups in majority share a similar perception and that the females are

more split between two viewpoints; so men are relatively united on the issue, while women are divided.

Male managers find their own ethical behaviour in the workplace more important than female respondents

do; men also find the ethical behaviour of other managers more important compared to women.

How can we explain that female respondents are less concerned about the moral behaviour of people at

work – either their own behaviour or that of others – than male managers? I propose that females, who

are more into relationships than male managers (Rosener, 1990) are more inclined to bend the rules than


men, in order to please others (Gilligan, 1993) especially if it does not hurt anyone. This is facilitated by

the female managers’ pre-disposition to repress the way they feel about certain issues, to exert the

desired display of attitude to carry on their duties according to expectations; this is known as emotional

labour. (Hochschild, 2003)

The research findings from table 1 and 2 do not indicate that female managers behave in a less ethical

manner than male respondents, but that women perceive ethical behaviour as less important than men

do. Because male managers are competitive, forceful, independent analytical thinkers (Grant, 1988) they

tend to be less flexible than females, by sticking to the rule book. A sociological explanation of this gender

differentiation implies the interactions of various influences. Men and women experience ethics differently.

Society’s core sub-groups – family, friends, workplace’s colleagues and superiors, religious/spiritual

movements, etc – interact together to create expectations that are interpreted by managers, from a

gender perspective; this process contributes to give a direction to the behaviour of individuals, depending

on the meaning they give to these societal gendered based expectations (i.e. women need to nurture and

cooperate while men must be aggressive and independent).

Hence the courses of actions that managers are adopting – following their interpretation of social

expectations – are more than the total of their parts. (Durkheim, 1982) They can also result in unexpected

consequences due to unpredictable circumstances (Durkheim, 1993) and equivocality. (Sonenshein,

2007; Weick, 1995) Men are expected to be tough but women might have to be tougher in a business

world that still carries stereotypes, to compensate for unfair treatment (Rosener, 1990); it could imply that

to fulfill their mission, female managers must set aside certain ethical rules that they consider an

impediment to their success and to the need of customers. After all, if their motivations and aspirations

are the same as male managers (Powell, 1990) and they are at a disadvantage – due to discrimination –

while competing with men, women are justified to do what it takes to reach their goals, especially if no

one gets hurt in the process. (Gilligan, 1993)


FHV Males FVA Males FHV Females FVA Females

Very important 75.0% 83.0% 63.0% 67.0%

Important 12.5% 37.0% 33.0%

More or less important 12.5% 17.0%

Not important

Table 1. Surveyed managers’ perception of their own ethical behaviour at work.


Very important 75.0% 66.0% 31.0% 50.0%

Important 12.5% 17.0% 63.0% 33.0%

More or less important 12.5% 17.0% 17.0%

Not important 6.0%

Table 2. Surveyed managers’ perception of other managers’ ethical behaviour at work.

Unlike the previously discussed question, the research findings indicate no gender differentiation,

regarding the actions to take when facing the non-ethical behaviour of a subordinate and that of a

peer/colleague (see figure 6). There is a greater similarity between the male and female managers’

responses within their own workplace, rather than within the same gender compared for both hotels; as

for the reaction to the non-ethical behaviour of a superior, the variations between sub-groups does not

allow for a plausible interpretation. Maybe the difference in size of the workplace units and their labour

relation context can explain the variations between some of the answers from the two hotels. For

example, larger workplaces might encourage their managers to take more initiatives and to deal with

certain issues without having to consult with a superior.

The FHV has a bigger organizational structure than the FVA (see annex 1 & 2 for organizational charts);

consequently, it has much more managers: 75, compared to 43 for the FVA. A large workplace – like the


FHV – is difficult to change, due to its multiple human and financial resources, structures, means and

ends. On the contrary, a smaller work unit – like the FVA – can adapt quickly and efficiently to implement

the directives from its top executives. Also, smaller workplace executives probably prefer to be more in

control: it is easier to micro-manage a smaller group of managers than a larger one. Therefore, it is much

easier to lead a small group of people to work together towards a common goal, as opposed to a larger

number of managers, because of their various levels of commitment and backgrounds. (VanAuken, 2007)

In figure 6 & 7, we can see a greater disparity between the female managers from both workplaces than

between male and female respondents within the same hotel. For example, why do 17% of female

managers at FVA address the issue of non-ethical behaviour of a peer/colleague with Human Resources,

while none (0%) of their colleagues at FHV would address this issue in the same manner? And why do as

much as 81% of FHV female respondents address the issue directly with the person at fault, compared to

only 33% at the FVA? Also, why do 33% of the female respondents at FVA would talk to their own

supervisor compared to only 6% for the FHV? I suggest that the smaller the organization, the more

centralized its decisional process is: managers are closer to their superiors – and to Human Resources –

and they may feel they can consult them more freely on ethical questions. On the other hand, in a larger,

more decentralized organization, managers are not as close to their superiors, and thus use their

discretion to make more decisions on their own.

The more managers an organization has to deal with, the more diverse the opinions and abilities of those

people are; so there is less consensus amongst a larger group of managers– like at the FHV – than

amongst a smaller group – like at the FVA. The assumption here is that having a smaller group of

managers might make it easier to reach unity among individual attitudes and behaviours. The reverse is

also suggested: the larger the number of managers within a workplace, the more difficult it is to attain the

sought integration of ethical approach.


Figure 6. Managers facing the non-ethical behaviour of a subordinate

Another significant difference in workplace context between the two hotels regards labour union. Having

to manage employees that are members of a strong union – like at FHV – has a significant impact on

labour relations, as the employer and the union negotiate a collective agreement defining what is and

what is not proper behaviour; thus managers have a well defined framework to address unethical


behaviour in the workplace. “The cohesion of the union movement is about groups, not about individuals.

It is based on the practical knowledge that management listens to an organized group of workers

completely differently than it would listen to an individual rebel.” (Martin, 1995: 31)

As we implied already, decisions and behaviours are based on perceptions, instincts and emotions that

result from a variety of influences; adding to that the interactions of social forces like the corporation and

the union, might enhance our ability to explain certain differences in the perception of ethics between the

two hotels. Let us notice that the collective agreement and the corporate code of ethics must have a

symbiotic relationship, to prevent a conflict between the two. I suggest that because of the presence of a

labour union, the nature of the perception –and experience of – ethics at the FHV requires a different

outlook than at the FHV.

Amongst all the surveyed managers, female participants from the FVA were the ones who scored the

highest on correctly answering to the meaning of the R.I.T.E. acronym – Respect, Integrity, Teamwork

and Empowerment, the core of Fairmont ethics – at a rate of 83%, followed by the FHV males (75%), by

the FVA males (67%) and finally the FHV female (63%). Albeit the gender variation here is not significant,

notice that the FVA altogether scored a little higher for that question than the FHV. When making

decisions relating to ethical matters, 88% of FHV male respondents use both their gut instincts and the

company’s standards; while only 67% of the FVA males do the same, the remaining 33% use only the

company’s standards, compared to 0% for the FHV male managers. Here again, the disparity is greater

when comparing hotels rather than genders. As much as 81% of the FHV female respondents join their

gut instincts to the company’s standards to deal with ethical issues – 83% of the FVA female managers

also combine the two.


Figure 7. Managers facing the non-ethical behaviour of a peer/colleague.


Figure 8. Managers facing the non-ethical behaviour of a higher ranked manager.


Figure 9. Managers having to decide between the customer’s best interest and that of Fairmont.

There is a staggering discrepancy between the answers of male respondents for both hotels in figure 9.

Male managers from the FVA claim in the proportion of 100% that they would find a middle ground

between the customer’s best interest and that of Fairmont if there was a conflict, while only 38% of FHV

male respondents would do so; concurrently, 69% of females at FHV and 67% of females at FVA would

compromise. The difference on the basis of gender might be relevant here, but oddly enough, the

difference is between men from both hotels, while the female numbers are similar. Consistent with some

previous questions, the variation of answers is greater at the FHV – the larger hotel – than at the FVA;

this seems to indicate that the more managers in a workplace, the more diversity of opinions and

reactions to ethical issues. The same argument goes for figure 10.

I suggest that the aforementioned findings can be partially explained by social expectations towards

managers: male managers are expected to be tough and follow standards, while female managers are

encouraged to be compassionate and look for more equitable solutions. (Gilligan, 1993; Grant, 1988)

However, the significant variation between male respondent sub-groups from both hotels in figure 9

cannot be comprehended by the same logic; we must then assume that depending on particular


workplace contexts – i.e. labour relation and the size of the workplace unit – male managers can use the

same abilities as female managers to interact with others. (Gilligan, 1993)

But perhaps moral relativism can also help us understand differences based on various influences

affecting the perception of ethics amongst managers. Moral relativi sm suggests that the righteousness of

an action depends on individual or on cultural contexts. In other words, what is good for one person or

one culture can be bad for another and vice-versa. (http://www.moralrelativism.info/index.html) For

example, identity factors – i.e. age and ethnicity – can have a huge impact in the evaluation of

behaviours. (Cox & Nkomo, 1996); in a given workplace context, perceptions of ethics will vary

accordingly. Moral relativism claims that it is not important to ask ourselves if something is truly ethical,

but rather if it is morally acceptable in a particular set of circumstances; so differences in the perception of

morality are merely differences of opinions grounded in individual or cultural characteristics.

Thus moral relativism might be helpful to uncover disparities amongst managers from both hotels and

from both genders: a greater diversity in their answers/perceptions of ethics indicates that their individual

and cultural situation favour a greater diversity of opinions. That is not to say that a consensual answer

from the FVA managers means that there is no individual or cultural difference amongst them. However,

the data show a propensity toward more unity amongst the smaller group of managers – FVA – than

amongst the larger one – FHV. Similarly, the somatic-marker hypothesis (see definition p.44) might also

offer some explanation here. The combined work of emotions and reason in decision making indicates

that people living different experiences might also perceive ethics in different ways. (Damasio, 1994)

The influence of those around us plays an important role in what we decide to do in regards to ethics in

the workplace. “Even when we have individually and spontaneously shared in the common emotion, the

impression we have experienced is utterly different from what we would have felt if we had been alone.”

(Durkheim, 1982: 53) We are living with others, so we have to follow social expectations/norms, as we

must: fulfil our obligations toward ourselves and others, as per imposed to us by ourselves; respect others

like ourselves; and contribute to the community we belong to. We also have to look at ourselves as the


tools to accomplish good deeds, and make sacrifices to reach ethical goals, as our thoughts and actions

reflect who we are. (Durkheim, 1993) Both male and female managers are pressured by society to

conform to these norms, like everyone else.

Accordingly, many people can affect the managers’ perception of ethics at work. Individuals, communities

and corporations, through parents, friends, professors, authors, spiritual leaders, etc. all have the power

to influence the way managers see things, make decisions and take actions. Similarly, intricate workplace

circumstances such as socio-economical downturns, increased workloads, particular labour relations, etc.

can also have an impact on the views and behaviours of managers. Consequently, the complexity of the

interactions of various occurrences and of social actors makes the final outcome unpredictable.

(Durkheim, 1982) As a result, we take into account a context where we are unsure of the means and

ends resulting from the interactions of social forces.

Figure 10. Managers having to decide between their best interest and that of Fairmont.

How people interpret societal expectations vary depending on individuals, because interactions between

them through society generate different social norms; morality might vary according to gender, age, social

standing, spiritual beliefs and many other things. (Durkheim, 1993) That being said, the meaning and


importance of moral values should be similar for most people, regardless of gender. For example, a large

majority of participants from all surveyed sub-groups (the lowest is 81%) believe that their own values and

those of Fairmont are very similar. Also, between 75% and 83% of all gender sub-groups think that it is

not possible to work efficiently for Fairmont without sharing the company’s values.

FHV managers (males 100% and females 94%) believe to have sufficient training to face ethical

situations in the workplace; a lower proportion is indicated by FVA managers (males 67% and females

83%). The opinion on the ethics hotline shows no differences on the basis of gender, as both male and

female respondents from FVA answered the same thing unanimously, while the choices were divided in

the FHV sample (see question #25 in annex 5). Here again, the data point towards a differentiation

between hotels rather than between genders – the same conclusion can be reached looking at table 3;

these research findings support the claim that the size of the workplace and the nature of labour relations

within the hotel might be of interest to investigate further the perception of ethics at work.

Table 4 however shows a difference of opinion that might be linked to gender. The two most important

influences for male respondents – parents and relatives through upbringing – are listed in the reversed

order for female participants. The female managers’ answers illustrate a gender delineation not based on

stereotyped differences. But how can we explain it? Women must be outstanding managers to

compensate for early socialization (Rosener, 1990); this might be why their most important influences are

role models. To emulate powerful and successful corporate figures can help motivate female managers

achieving their goals and break free from society’s gender bias expectations.

Asked to define in one word the most challenging aspect of ethics in their workplace, here is what

participants had to say: FHV male managers, accountability, integrity, trust, respect, consistency,

honesty, cultural differences and liars; FVA male respondents, trust, consistency, profit and not to take

things personally; FHV female managers, cultural differences (25%), union (12.5%), consistency,

honesty, seniority, fairness, equality, lack of followship – i.e. the inability to follow directives – 25%


skipped the question; and FVA female participants, cultural differences, customer focus, and I don’t see a

challenge – 25% FVA female managers did not answer the question.


Fairmont's ethics 1 1 2 1

Customer service 1 2 1 2

Profitability at Fairmont 2 3 3 4

Personal interest 4 5 5 5

"Gut instincts" 3 4 4 3

Table 3. Guides to actions and decisions at work, in order of importance.


Role models, i.e. Corporate figures 2 2 1 1

Professors/academics through education 4 3 4 4

Parents and relatives through upbringing 1 1 2 2

Current social circle 3 4 3 3

Table 4. Influences to actions and decisions at work, in order of importance.

Male managers from both hotels all have different answers for the previous question, thus making it

difficult to draw conclusions. Are their answers consistent with the male managers style of leadership

(Grant, 1988), defined through assertiveness, competitiveness, self-determination and calculation?

Although it might be the case, it is uncertain: some of their answers correspond as much to the feminine

type of leadership based on relationship, emotionality, collaboration and nurturance (Grant, 1988;

Gilligan, 1993) as to the male associated pattern of management. In essence, the data confirm that males


are not limited to their leadership model any more than females are forced to solely use the style of

management that is associated with their gender.

On the other hand, gender probably has some influence over the managers’ definition of ethical challenge

at work. Are the answers of female respondents supporting the women’s learned ability to care for others

(Gilligan, 1993)? Possibly, however we cannot say how much, and to which extent other influences – like

age, cultural background, etc. – impact their perception. Also, the intertwined actions of various social

forces like employers, the labour union, governments, etc., influence the workplace context and the way

managers look at ethical issues. An organization is like a micro-society: people have to work together, so

they must be able to count on each other to perform their duties efficiently. It is no coincidence that

cultural differences (25% of FHV participants), trust, accountability and consistency (21% of FVA

respondents) were mentioned by managers from both hotels: those are all important aspects of being

together, and of doing what is needed to run a healthy business.

To define in one sentence their perception of ethics in the workplace: the FHV male participants brought

up “fairness; doing the right thing; to accept and respect differences in the workplace; ethics ties the

directing minds of the team; and doing the right thing for the right reasons” (25% of them skipped this

question). The FVA male managers referred to ethics at work as “extremely important, refresher

sometimes would be a good idea; respect; unwritten rules of the workplace; conducting yourself with

honesty and integrity; and living and working life to the highest degree of satisfaction by upholding our

morals” (17% did not answer).

The FHV female managers defined ethics at work as “staying true to oneself and honest with others;

being a good person versus someone who doesn't care; being able to trust co-workers and work together

as a team; treating people equally in the workplace; ethics define who you are and how you conduct

yourself in the workplace; I feel like a watch owl: subordinates not always trustworthy, I must be all over

them or I will be the one held accountable for their mistakes in the end; treat each other equally with the

same guidelines & rules; a comfortable and honest place to work, to be proud of your workplace; ethics is


a code of behaviours to assist us in day to day decisions; and ethics important to Fairmont but some

senior management should review R.I.T.E. and ensure they are living it at work” (38% chose to ignore

that question).

The FVA female respondents mentioned: “ethics in the workplace to me need to include traditional virtues

such as trust, loyalty, commitment, honesty and respect for one another and to avoid conflicts of interest;

ethics is a set of thoughtful guidelines that are used in our decision making process; a place to share

common cultural backgrounds & experiences; we act with professionalism to respect and work together to

do the best we can to achieve common goals; and a template to guide actions.”

The definitions of ethics by female managers seem consistent with their feminine means of nurturance

and cooperation with others. Themes like “being a good person, being able to work together as a team,

treat each other equally, respect for one another, to share common cultural backgrounds and

experiences” are pointing towards the females’ inclination toward relationships, community, emotions and

collaboration (Grant, 1988; Gilligan, 1993), and more broadly, to their early socialization. (Rosener, 1990;

Gilligan, 1993)

This does not mean that women are incapable of using masculine associated qualities, like

assertiveness, analytical thinking and individuation. But is the reverse also true: can male managers use

female associated virtues at times, to adapt their thinking and behaviour to particular situations? The

research findings seem to indicate the affirmative. When men are saying things like “doing the right thing,

respect differences in the workplace, living and working life to the highest degree of satisfaction...”, it

illustrates that they are in tune with some of the same motivations and aspirations as women.

How can we reason about morality if we cannot foresee its future implications, due to equivocality and

uncertainty? (Sonenshein, 2007; Weick, 1995) This is where the notions of gut instincts and emotions

show their usefulness. Damasio tells us that we do not make decisions using solely our logical reasoning.

Instead, the experiences we have stored in our brain are recalled instinctively upon new, similar


circumstances, reactivating emotions and feelings already lived; this is referred to as the somatic-marker

hypothesis. “When the bad outcome connected with a given response comes into mind, however

fleetingly, you experience an unpleasant gut feeling...It forces attention on the negative outcome to which

a given action may lead, and functions as an automated alarm signal which says: beware of danger

ahead...The signal may lead you to reject, immediately, the negative course of action...and thus allow you

to choose from among fewer alternatives.” (Damasio, 1994: 173) In summary, our emotions are clearing

the way for our reason to make an ethical decision, allowing us to choose amongst fewer and better

alternatives to act.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Perception of ethics: relative to various factors

Throughout this research project, the intent was to discover how managers regard ethics in their

workplace, and within their organization. We have compared the results of a survey distributed to

managers from two hotels belonging to the same corporation: the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver and the

Fairmont Vancouver Airport. The objective of this comparative analysis was to uncover the similarities

and differences of motivations, decisions and actions between the managers working at the FHV and

those from the FVA. A gender perspective – as well as a mixed methods paradigm – was used to look at

the data and see if it could help explaining the research findings; results were also compared between

hotels, especially in cases where there was no gender differentiation.

The managers’ perception of ethics is influenced by individual, collective and corporate values.

Upbringing, education, life experiences, cultural surrounding and personal interest all contribute to shape

the principles guiding the decisions and actions of managers. And there are other influences: identity

factors like age, gender, ethnicity, spiritual beliefs; workplace context; political and socio-economical

circumstances; corporate philosophy; changes in internal/external industry context; profitability;

accountability; competitivity; marketability; and many more. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing with

certainty which one of these influences are dominant in the managers’ mind when it comes to ethics; that


is because the research findings are inconclusive – for the most part, there is too much variation in the

answers of respondents.

Can we then explain differences and similarities in the data on the sole basis of gender differentiation? I

suggest that the interaction of the aforementioned are more meaningful together than separately;

therefore it is not helpful to suggest their study in isolation. “Moral issues are never raised for their own

sake; people raise them seeking a guide for action.” (Habermas, 1990: 179) The fact that so many

managers had various answers demonstrates that opinions are relative, depending on people and on

their environment. The distinctiveness of individual experiences, attitudes, feelings, emotions and

instincts influence the many ways in which managers view ethics in their workplace, contributing to a non-

linear path to explain their perceptions.

That being said, some expressed opinions are consistent across the board. For example, all managers’

gender sub-groups believe that: respect, trust and honesty are the most significant values they learned

while growing up; honesty is their top ethical value; family is the primary source of their own ethical

beliefs; the values and beliefs they acquired through upbringing are the most influential when taking

decisions and actions at work; Fairmont ethics and customer service guide their decisions and actions in

the workplace; role models and parents through upbringing are their main inspirations when facing ethical

issues.

These similarities do not substantiate the gender differentiation perspective, such as when we observe

variations between males and females; also it does not confirm the claim that the size of the organization

and the nature of labour relations play a significant role in the perception of ethics, like in the case of

variations between hotels. On the contrary, these research findings indicate that certain values might be

universal: managers from both genders, different cultural background, ages, educational level, spiritual

beliefs, etc. are granting an equal importance to the same values and beliefs. Moral values result from

society: their purpose is to allow individuals to cohabitate and to ensure the survival of the community.


(Durkheim, 1992) Thus values like honesty, trust and respect transcend any differentiation, whether

spiritual, philosophical, etc.

However, universalism does not go far within this research project – as there are so many discrepancies

in the ethical perceptions of the respondents – before giving way to moral relativism: “the position that

moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make

claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances” (Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) For example, female managers from both hotels were less

concerned about their colleagues’ ethical behaviour in the workplace than about their own ethics

behaviour. Another interesting finding revealed that male respondents indicated that parents and relatives

through upbringing comes first, and role models second, when it comes to influencing decisions and

actions at work, while female respondents ranked them in the reverse order.

I will not recapitulate here all the differences observed by gender; however, it is worth noticing that some

responses point towards stereotypical expectations – i.e. masculine and feminine style of management.

Other perceptions seem to point in another direction. Sometimes, female respondents make the same

judgment call as their male counterpart, indicating that their motivations and aspirations are similar and

that their decisions and actions should not be different than those of male managers. But if we start from

the premise that every individual is unique, then how can we label everyone within a sub-group – like that

of women or men – to be the same? Obviously, the whole point about doing a survey is to compare

groups between them; nonetheless, this evaluation must take into account the diversity amongst the

respondents and acknowledge that as a legitimate limitation.

Other differences are noticeable for certain questions, not between genders but between hotels, while

males and females within each workplace agree on the matters. I suggest that these research findings

underline a variation in workplace context, defined by labour relations (unionized vs non-unionized) as

well as by the difference in the size of the two hotels. There is an assumption here that these two

variations in the work environment influence the perception of ethics by managers, regardless of gender.


Managing employees that belong to a labour union, and coping with its means and ends influence

decisions and actions; not having to deal with these circumstances creates a totally different workplace

context. Also, working in a smaller hotel possibly eases the integration of managers into the corporate

philosophy; on the contrary, managers that work in a bigger hotel – because there are more managers –

are more likely to hold various opinions and values; that makes it more difficult to instill unity into the

workplace.

4.2 Recommendations

This research project was first planned to be a comparative analysis to be looked at from a diverse

perspective, i.e. by gender and by country of origin; the massive amount of data to analyse made it

unrealistic to focus on achievable significant results. Also, the complexity of having to compare and

contrast data from both surveys – while taking into account two major identity factors – contributed to the

change of direction of the original research process. This is why the plan was modified to only do an

analysis from a gender perspective. Throughout the writing of the report, another important aspect of any

sociological study, the interactions between individuals, made it clear that society itself had an impact on

the perception of ethics by managers, regardless of gender, cultural origin, and other meaningful identity

builders.

Thus the research progressed into a process that looked at the data not only from the angle of gender,

but taking into account the fact that living together, impacts on the way we perceive things, and on what

we end up doing. The difficulty of making sense of the data in this research lies in the intricacy of the

interactions of so many variables like identity factors, workplace context, global economy, etc.; so the mix-

methods paradigm used to probe the perception of ethics was the most appropriate in this case. Similarly,

the diversity of the samples studied seemed to justify that the way managers view – and experience –

ethic is relative. Basically, what works for one individual does not necessarily work for another, depending

on their intrinsic values and beliefs, but also on the pressure exercised by others in society. Everyone is

different, with some similarities, but not exactly the same; so we cannot assume that even people


belonging to certain sub-groups in society think the same way, let alone people belonging to different sub-

groups.

In order to verify the influence of gender on ethical perception, we should analyse data from a sample of

managers that we can compare with; that means select male and female managers about the same age,

with similar education level, similar cultural background, similar social status, similar workplace context,

etc. That is not to assume that their answers will be the same, but that we are evaluating comparable

managers; by reducing the number of dependant variables, we can look more accurately for gender

differentiation with regards to the perception of ethics by managers.

It would be interesting to do structured interviews, to allow the respondents to detail why they answer the

way they do. Also, to include questions regarding the ease or hardship of working in a small/large

workplace unit as well as a unionized/non-unionized workplace, it would shed light on these questions

raised throughout this research that remain unanswered. In a perspective where workplace context and

labour relations are fundamental, combining situational logic with the somatic-marker hypothesis would

offer an insightful framework to further investigate ethics at work.


Annex 1


Annex 2:


Annex 3:

L E T T E R O F C O N S E N T

The Perception of Ethics by a Corporation’s Managers: Managerial and Organizational Ethics at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

January 2, 2008

Dear Participant:

As you know ethics play an integral role in an organization’s ability to attract and retain the loyalty of employees as well as of its customers. My interest in ethics is to uncover how managers view ethics in their organization and the nature of the principles that shape the decision making process. I would like to invite you to participate in this research project that will enhance the understanding of the perception of ethics within the workplace.

Please note, my study will consist of two phases. Phase I will be conducted using data gathered from the Managerial Team of the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver. Phase II will consist of data obtained from the Managerial Team from another Fairmont located in the Vancouver area (to be determined). Each hotel will be presented with the exact same questionnaire in order for me to conduct a comparative analysis. Both studies will involve answering once a 30 questions questionnaire. I ask that you answer the written questionnaire to the best of your ability: there are no pre-conceived right or wrong answers.

The questionnaire can be completed at your convenience but must be returned no later than January 16, 2008. I have enclosed two sets of self-addressed stamped-envelopes: (1) for the return of the consent form; (2) for your completed questionnaire. The information from this study – as well as from the subsequent one – will be reported in general terms without reference to your particular results.

Please note also the following points:

? You may terminate your participation any time without penalty and you may choose to omit any questions that make you feel uncomfortable.

? All data from this study will be kept confidential – accessible only to myself and to my Research Supervisor.

? Risks to participants are minimum. However if you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to contact me via my email [email protected] or telephone at 604.277.4293. You may also contact my Research Supervisor – Dr. Richard Marsden, via e-mail: [email protected] or his toll free number: 1-866-676-5532.

? If you agree to participate in this research study, the survey will only take about 15 minutes to complete.

? Once you have completed the survey, I will be available to follow up with you about the progress of the study and any other questions you might have. The complete results of the study will be available in about six months. If you wish to obtain a copy of these results, you may contact me.

I hope you participate in this study and I thank you in advance for your time.

Jean-François Gagnon Athabasca University Masters Candidate


By signing below, you are attesting that you are 18 years or older and that you have indicated you are freely consenting to participate in the research study.

I _______________________________________consent to participate in the study entitled, “The

Perception of Ethics by a Corporation’s Managers: Managerial and Organizational Ethics at the Fairmont

Hotel Vancouver“ as described in the consent form dated January 2, 2008. I also agree that the findings

of this study can be used in a comparative analysis, alongside the results obtained – using the same

questionnaire – by the managerial team of another Fairmont property.

Signature Date

Please return page 2 of this consent form in the self-addressed stamped-envelop provided for you before completing the questionnaire.

Please print name clearly


January 2, 2008

The Fairmont Hotel Vancouver 900 West Georgia Street Vancouver BC – V6C 2W6

Dear Fairmont Managerial Team

RE: Managerial and Organizational Ethics at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

The perception of ethics in an organization is important. Just how ethics are perceived within an organization, allows an employer to understand how its employees think, feel and act in the workplace. The development of knowledge with regards to ethics and their perception benefits all managers, as it enhances work relations as well as gives a competitive edge and advantage.

In conjunction with Athabasca University, I am currently conducting research that will study the relation of ethics and the role they play between a Company and its employees. In essence, the purpose of this study is to discover how managers view ethics within their Company, but more precisely within their workplace. The Fairmont Hotel Vancouver has kindly agreed to participate – using its managerial staff – as a basis for this research project.

This questionnaire is submitted to you on a voluntary basis: you are not obliged to answer it. However, the advancement of social sciences greatly depends on the participation of volunteers, such as you. If you are willing to contribute to this research, you are guaranteed confidentiality. You can also answer the questionnaire but decide not to respond some questions. All information will be held in confidence, except when legislation or a professional code of conduct requires that it be reported.

Because I know some of you, it is not possible for me to guarantee complete anonymity, as I may recognize some individuals through these detailed sets of questions and answers. However, I would like you to keep in mind that besides having high standards of ethics, it is not in my interest to breach the trust granted to me by my peers and superiors at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver; therefore the risks involved in participation to this survey will be kept to a minimum. As for the publication of the research results, all


data will be gathered in clusters. The information from this study will be reported in general terms without reference to your particular results.

This project will be conducted in accordance to Athabasca University Research Policies and Procedures. The questionnaires will be handled solely by the Researcher and stored securely until the end of the project, after which they will be shredded. This guarantees minimum risk for all participants in this research.

The questionnaire consists of 30 questions, most of which are multiple choice answers. I have included a set of general instructions pertaining to the questionnaire. Please go over the general instructions before proceeding to the questionnaire. Please read each question carefully and answer them to the best of your ability.

I would like to thank you in advance for taking a moment of your time in being part of this project. I believe the resulting knowledge can broaden the scope of understanding between corporate organizations and their employees. If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please feel free to contact me via e-mail: [email protected] or at 604-277-4293 or my research supervisor, Dr. Richard Marsden, via e-mail: [email protected] or his toll free number: 1-866-676-5532.



General instructions

? Please write legibly and firmly, using either a black or blue ink.

? Please do not write your name on the questionnaire.

? For all multiple-choice questions, please choose only one answer.

? For question(s) that may be too personal for you, you may opt to skip question(s) altogether.

? For questions which ask you to rank items in order of importance, note that the order of importance is as follows: #1 being the most important and #5 being the least important.

? For questions that indicate “Other” as an item of choice, please note that this is optional. Feel free to leave the space blank if you feel it has no relevancy.

? Once you have completed your questionnaire, please place in self-addressed stamped-envelop and seal. All questionnaires must be completed by January 16, 2008.


Questionnaire on Managerial and Organizational Ethics at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

Please do not write your name on the questionnaire.

1. What is your gender? a) Male b) Female 2. How old are you? a) 18 – 35 b) 36 – 55 c) 56 – 65 3. What is your highest level of formal education? a) High School b) College c) Some College and/or University d) University 4. Were you born in Canada? a) Yes b) No 5. Were you raised in Canada? a) Yes b) No 6. Are you considered a visible minority? (ie. Asian, Middle Easterner, Aboriginal, etc.) a) Yes b) No 7. Do you believe in God or other forms of spirituality? a) Yes b) No 8. What are the most significant moral values you have learned growing up, through upbringing and

schooling. (ie. values such as equality, trust, etc.) Please place in order of importance with #1 being the most important and #5 being the least important.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 9. Place in order of importance the primary sources of your own ethical beliefs (#1 being the most

important and #6 being the least important). ( ) Family ( ) Friends ( ) Formal/Informal education


( ) Work ( ) Religious/Spiritual beliefs ( ) Other (please specify): 10. How long have you worked for Fairmont? a) 0 – 10 years b) 11 – 20 years c) 21 – 30 years d) 31 years and up 11. Please indicate in which echelon/category your managerial duties fall in: a) Junior Managers (ie. Assistant Manager) b) Mid-level Managers (ie. Banquet Manager, Sous-Chef, Service & Outlet Manager, etc.) c) Upper-level/Executive Managers (ie. Executive Chef, Controller, Director, etc.) 12. What are your 5 top work ethics values? (ie. honesty, loyalty, etc.) Please place in order of

importance with #1 being the most important and #5 being the least important. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 13. Using the items listed below, please indicate how they influence your decisions and actions at work

(#1 being the most important and #6 being the least important). ( ) Upbringing: values, moral, spiritual beliefs, etc. ( ) Formal/Informal education ( ) Life experience ( ) Cultural surrounding ( ) Personal interests ( ) Corporate philosophy/ideology (ie. message/meaning behind it’s Mission Statement) ( ) Labour/Governmental regulations, etc. ( ) Changes in internal/external industry context

(ie. Relations with your employees, customers, government regulations, etc.) ( ) Profitability, accountability, competitivity and marketability ( ) Other (please specify): 14. How would you evaluate the importance of your own ethical thinking/behaviour in your workplace – as

it pertains to your own personal, as well as the Fairmont’s beliefs? a) Very important b) Important c) More or less important d) Not important 15. How would you rank the importance of other managers’ ethical thinking/behaviour in your workplace –

as it pertains to his/her own personal, as well as the Fairmont’s beliefs? a) Very important b) Important c) More or less important d) Not important


16. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of one of the Fairmont’s employees (ie. a subordinate)

in your workplace, how would you react? For example: you witness an employee discreetly helping him/herself to a bottle of wine or a pack of office rewriteable CDs from the supply cabinet for his/her personal use. Would you:

a) Address the issue directly with the person at fault. b) Address the issue with your own superior. c) Address the issue with the department of Human Resources. d) Call the ethics hotline on an anonymous basis. e) Ignore the issue all together. f) Other (please specify): 17. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of one of your own colleagues/peer managers in your

workplace (using the same scenario as in question 16), how would you react? Would you: a) Address the issue directly with the person at fault. b) Address the issue with your own superior. c) Address the issue with the department of Human Resources. d) Call the ethics hotline on an anonymous basis. e) Ignore the issue all together. f) Other (please specify): 18. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of a higher-ranked manager in your workplace (using

the same scenario as in question 16), how would you react? Would you: a) Address the issue directly with the person at fault. b) Address the issue with your own superior. c) Address the issue with the department of Human Resources. d) Call the ethics hotline on an anonymous basis. e) Ignore the issue all together. f) Other (please specify): 19. The values promoted by Fairmont are synthesized by the acronym “R. I. T. E.” – what does it stand

for? R I T E 20. When making decisions or acting on an ethical matter, are you driven by: a) Your own “gut instincts” b) Company’s rules, regulations, code of ethics, etc. c) Both a) & b) 21. If you had to choose between the best interest of a customer and that of Fairmont, how would you

choose? a) I would decide in favour of the customer’s best interest. b) I would decide in favour of Fairmont’s best interest. c) I would try to find a middle ground to meet both the customer’s expectations and that of

Fairmont. d) Other (please elaborate on your decision)


22. If your personal interest(s) was contrary to that of Fairmont, what would you do? a) I would decide in favour of my best interest(s). b) I would decide in favour of Fairmont’s best interest(s). c) I would try to find a middle ground to meet both my interest(s) and that of Fairmont. d) Other (please elaborate on your decision) 23. Do you think that the values promoted by Fairmont and your personal values are: a) Exactly the same b) Very Similar c) Not the same at all 24. Do you think that it is possible to work efficiently for Fairmont without sharing its ethical values? a) Yes b) No 25. What is your opinion on the Fairmont ethics hotline? a) An anonymous ethics hotline is a good thing, because it can help uncover irregularities in a

Company, which could otherwise go unnoticed. b) An anonymous ethics hotline is unfair because those accused of wrong doing are unable to

face their accusers in order to defend themselves. c) Other (please elaborate on your decision) 26. Do you believe that you have enough training to deal with delicate situations involving ethics in your

workplace? a) Yes b) No 27. Using the list below, please indicate what guides your actions and decisions at work (#1 being the

most important and #6 being the least important). ( ) Fairmont’s ethics ( ) Customer service ( ) Profitability of your Department and/or of Fairmont/Shareholder’s value ( ) Personal Interest(s) ( ) “Gut instincts” ( ) Other (please specify): 28. Using the list below, please indicate what influences your actions and decisions at work (#1 being the

most important and #5 being the least important). ( ) The influence of role models, such as other corporate figures. ( ) The influence of professors and/or academics throughout your formal/informal education. ( ) The influence of your parents or other close relatives throughout your upbringing. ( ) The influence of your current social circle (ie. family, friends, colleagues, etc.) ( ) Other (please specify):


29. In one word, define the most challenging aspect of ethics in your workplace: 30. Define in one sentence your perception of ethics in the workplace. Essentially, what does it mean to

you?

Please complete by January 16, 2008. I have provided a self-addressed stamped-envelope for your convenience. Thank you for your time and participation in this study.


Annex 4

L E T T E R O F C O N S E N T

Corporate ethics: a comparative analysis of the perception of ethics between two hotel managerial teams.

March 17, 2008

Dear Participant:

As you know ethics play an integral role in an organization’s ability to attract and retain the loyalty of employees as well as of its customers. My interest in ethics is to uncover how managers view ethics in their organization and the nature of the principles that shape the decision making process. I would like to invite you to participate in this research project that will enhance the understanding of the perception of ethics within the workplace.

Please note, my study consist of two phases. Phase I is conducted using data gathered from the Managerial Team of the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver. Phase II will consist of data obtained from the Fairmont Vancouver Airport Managerial Team and that of the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver. Each hotel is presented with the exact same questionnaire in order for me to conduct a comparative analysis. Both studies involve answering once a 30 questions questionnaire. I ask that you answer the written questionnaire to the best of your ability: there are no pre-conceived right or wrong answers.

The questionnaire can be completed at your convenience but must be returned no later than March 31, 2008. I have enclosed two sets of self-addressed stamped-envelopes: (1) for the return of the consent

form; (2) for your completed questionnaire. The information from this study – as well as from the preceding one – will be reported in general terms without reference to your particular results. The existence of the research will be listed in an abstract posted online at the Athabasca University Library's Digital Thesis and Project Room (DTPR), and the final research paper will be available for public release. The research results may also be disseminated through future papers submitted to academic and

professional journals and conference presentations.

Please note also the following points:

? You may terminate your participation any time without penalty and you may choose to omit any questions that make you feel uncomfortable.

? All data from this study will be kept confidential – accessible only to myself and to my Research Supervisor.

? Risks to participants are minimum. However if you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to contact me via my email [email protected] or telephone at 604.277.4293. You may also contact my Research Supervisor – Dr. Richard Marsden, via e-mail: [email protected] or his toll free number: 1-866-676-5532.

? If you agree to participate in this research study, the survey will only take about 15 minutes to complete.


? Once you have completed the survey, I will be available to follow up with you about the progress of the study and any other questions you might have. The complete results of the study will be available in about six months. If you wish to obtain a copy of these results, you may contact me.

I hope you participate in this study and I thank you in advance for your time.



By signing below, you are attesting that you are 18 years or older and that you have indicated you are freely consenting to participate in the research study.

I _______________________________________consent to participate in the study entitled,

“Corporate ethics: a comparative analysis of the perception of ethics between two hotel

managerial teams“ as described in the consent form dated March 17, 2008.

Signature Date

Please return page 2 of this consent form in the self-addressed stamped-envelope provided for you before completing the questionnaire.

Please print name clearly


Date March 17, 2008

The Fairmont Vancouver Airport 3111 Grant McConachie Way Richmond, BC – V6X 3X9

Dear Fairmont Managerial Team

Re: Corporate ethics: a comparative analysis of the perception of ethics between two hotel managerial teams.

The perception of ethics in an organization is important. Just how ethics are perceived within an organization, allows an employer to understand how its employees think, feel and act in the workplace. The development of knowledge with regards to ethics and their perception benefits all managers, as it enhances work relations as well as gives a competitive edge and advantage.

In conjunction with Athabasca University, I am currently conducting research that studies the relation of ethics and the role they play between a Company and its employees. In essence, the purpose of this study is to discover how managers view ethics within their workplace and within their Company. I will use the information gathered via a questionnaire distributed to two Fairmont property managers as a basis for a comparative analysis between two hotels. The Fairmont Vancouver Airport and the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver have kindly agreed to participate – using their managerial staff – as a basis for this research project.

This questionnaire is submitted to you on a voluntary basis: you are not obliged to answer it. However, the advancement of social sciences greatly depends on the participation of volunteers, such as you. If you are willing to contribute to this research, you are guaranteed confidentiality. You can also answer the questionnaire but decide not to respond some questions. All information will be held in confidence, except when legislation or a professional code of conduct requires that it be reported.

I am a Fairmont Hotel Vancouver employee. However, I would like you to keep in mind that besides having high standards of ethics, it is not in my interest to breach the trust granted to me by my peers and superiors at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver; therefore the risks involved in participation to this survey will be kept to a minimum. As for the publication of the research results, all data will be gathered in clusters. The information from this study will be reported in general terms without reference to your particular results. The existence of the research will be listed in an abstract posted online at the Athabasca University Library's Digital Thesis and Project Room (DTPR), and the final research paper will be available for public release. The research results may also be disseminated through future papers submitted to academic and professional journals and conference presentations.


This project will be conducted in accordance to Athabasca University Research Policies and Procedures. The questionnaires will be handled solely by the Researcher and stored securely until the end of the project, after which they will be shredded, along with their consent forms. This guarantees minimum risk for all participants in this research.

The questionnaire consists of 30 questions, most of which are multiple choice answers; it is the exact same questionnaire that was presented to the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver managerial staff. I have included a set of general instructions pertaining to the questionnaire. Please go over the general instructions before proceeding to the questionnaire. Please read each question carefully and answer them to the best of your ability.

I would like to thank you in advance for taking a moment of your time in being part of this project. I believe the resulting knowledge can broaden the scope of understanding between corporate organizations and their employees. If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please feel free to contact me via e-mail: [email protected] or at 604-277-4293 or my research supervisor, Dr. Richard Marsden, via e-mail: [email protected] or his toll free number: 1-866-676-5532.



General instructions

? Please write legibly and firmly, using either a black or blue ink.

? Please do not write your name on the questionnaire.

? For all multiple-choice questions, please choose only one answer.

? For question(s) that may be too personal for you, you may opt to skip question(s) altogether.

? For questions which ask you to rank items in order of importance, note that the order of importance is as follows: #1 being the most important and #5 being the least important.

? For questions that indicate “Other” as an item of choice, please note that this is optional. Feel free to leave the space blank if you feel it has no relevancy.

? Once you have completed your questionnaire, please place in self-addressed stamped-envelope and seal. All questionnaires must be completed by March 31, 2008.


Questionnaire on Managerial and Organizational Ethics at the Fairmont Vancouver Airport

Please do not write your name on the questionnaire.

1. What is your gender? a) Male b) Female 2. How old are you? a) 18 – 35 b) 36 – 55 c) 56 – 65 3. What is your highest level of formal education? a) High School b) College c) Some College and/or University d) University 4. Were you born in Canada? a) Yes b) No 5. Were you raised in Canada? a) Yes b) No 6. Are you considered a visible minority? (ie. Asian, Middle Easterner, Aboriginal, etc.) a) Yes b) No 7. Do you believe in God or other forms of spirituality? a) Yes b) No 8. What are the most significant moral values you have learned growing up, through upbringing

and schooling. (ie. values such as equality, trust, etc.) Please place in order of importance with #1 being the most important and #5 being the least important.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 9. Place in order of importance the primary sources of your own ethical beliefs (#1 being the

most important and #6 being the least important). ( ) Family


( ) Friends ( ) Formal/Informal education ( ) Work ( ) Religious/Spiritual beliefs ( ) Other (please specify): 10. How long have you worked for Fairmont? a) 0 – 10 years b) 11 – 20 years c) 21 – 30 years d) 31 years and up 11. Please indicate in which echelon/category your managerial duties fall in: a) Junior Managers (ie. Assistant Manager) b) Mid-level Managers (ie. Banquet Manager, Sous-Chef, Service & Outlet Manager, etc.) c) Upper-level/Executive Managers (ie. Executive Chef, Controller, Director, etc.) 12. What are your 5 top work ethics values? (ie. honesty, loyalty, etc.) Please place in order of

importance with #1 being the most important and #5 being the least important. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 13. Using the items listed below, please indicate how they influence your decisions and actions at

work (#1 being the most important and #6 being the least important). ( ) Upbringing: values, moral, spiritual beliefs, etc. ( ) Formal/Informal education ( ) Life experience ( ) Cultural surrounding ( ) Personal interests ( ) Corporate philosophy/ideology (ie. message/meaning behind it’s Mission Statement) ( ) Labour/Governmental regulations, etc. ( ) Changes in internal/external industry context

(ie. Relations with your employees, customers, government regulations, etc.) ( ) Profitability, accountability, competitivity and marketability ( ) Other (please specify): 14. How would you evaluate the importance of your own ethical thinking/behaviour in your

workplace – as it pertains to your own personal, as well as the Fairmont’s beliefs? a) Very important b) Important c) More or less important d) Not important 15. How would you rank the importance of other managers’ ethical thinking/behaviour in your

workplace – as it pertains to his/her own personal, as well as the Fairmont’s beliefs?


a) Very important b) Important c) More or less important d) Not important 16. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of one of the Fairmont’s employees (ie. a

subordinate) in your workplace, how would you react? For example: you witness an employee discreetly helping him/herself to a bottle of wine or a pack of office rewriteable CDs from the supply cabinet for his/her personal use. Would you:

a) Address the issue directly with the person at fault. b) Address the issue with your own superior. c) Address the issue with the department of Human Resources. d) Call the ethics hotline on an anonymous basis. e) Ignore the issue all together. f) Other (please specify): 17. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of one of your own colleagues/peer managers

in your workplace (using the same scenario as in question 16), how would you react? Would you:

a) Address the issue directly with the person at fault. b) Address the issue with your own superior. c) Address the issue with the department of Human Resources. d) Call the ethics hotline on an anonymous basis. e) Ignore the issue all together. f) Other (please specify): 18. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of a higher-ranked manager in your workplace

(using the same scenario as in question 16), how would you react? Would you: a) Address the issue directly with the person at fault. b) Address the issue with your own superior. c) Address the issue with the department of Human Resources. d) Call the ethics hotline on an anonymous basis. e) Ignore the issue all together. f) Other (please specify): 19. The values promoted by Fairmont are synthesized by the acronym “R. I. T. E.” – what does it

stand for? R I T E 20. When making decisions or acting on an ethical matter, are you driven by: a) Your own “gut instincts” b) Company’s rules, regulations, code of ethics, etc. c) Both a) & b) 21. If you had to choose between the best interest of a customer and that of Fairmont, how would

you choose? a) I would decide in favour of the customer’s best interest.


b) I would decide in favour of Fairmont’s best interest. c) I would try to find a middle ground to meet both the customer’s expectations and that of

Fairmont. d) Other (please elaborate on your decision) 22. If your personal interest(s) was contrary to that of Fairmont, what would you do? a) I would decide in favour of my best interest(s). b) I would decide in favour of Fairmont’s best interest(s). c) I would try to find a middle ground to meet both my interest(s) and that of Fairmont. d) Other (please elaborate on your decision) 23. Do you think that the values promoted by Fairmont and your personal values are: a) Exactly the same b) Very Similar c) Not the same at all 24. Do you think that it is possible to work efficiently for Fairmont without sharing its ethical

values? a) Yes b) No 25. What is your opinion on the Fairmont ethics hotline? a) An anonymous ethics hotline is a good thing, because it can help uncover irregularities in a

Company, which could otherwise go unnoticed. b) An anonymous ethics hotline is unfair because those accused of wrong doing are unable to

face their accusers in order to defend themselves. c) Other (please elaborate on your decision) 26. Do you believe that you have enough training to deal with delicate situations involving ethics

in your workplace? a) Yes b) No 27. Using the list below, please indicate what guides your actions and decisions at work (#1 being

the most important and #6 being the least important). ( ) Fairmont’s ethics ( ) Customer service ( ) Profitability of your Department and/or of Fairmont/Shareholder’s value ( ) Personal Interest(s) ( ) “Gut instincts” ( ) Other (please specify):


28. Using the list below, please indicate what influences your actions and decisions at work (#1 being the most important and #5 being the least important).

( ) The influence of role models, such as other corporate figures. ( ) The influence of professors and/or academics throughout your formal/informal education. ( ) The influence of your parents or other close relatives throughout your upbringing. ( ) The influence of your current social circle (ie. family, friends, colleagues, etc.) ( ) Other (please specify): 29. In one word, define the most challenging aspect of ethics in your workplace: 30. Define in one sentence your perception of ethics in the workplace. Essentially, what does it

mean to you?

Please complete by March 31, 2008. I have provided a self-addressed stamped-envelope for your convenience. Thank you for your time and participation in this study.


Annex 5

FHV General Data Questions

Frequency Ranks Avg. % Rank

1. What is your gender?

Male 8 33% 1

Female 16 67% 2

2. How old are you?

18-35 15 63% 1

36-55 9 37% 2

56-65 0 0%

3. What is your highest level of formal education?

High School 2 8% 3

College 5 21% 2

Some College and/or Univ. 5 21% 2

University 12 50% 1

4. Were you born in Canada?

Yes 19 79% 1

No 5 21% 2

5. How long have you worked for Fairmont?

0-10 years 23 96% 1

11-20 years 1 4% 2

21-30 years 0 0%

31 + years 0 0%

6. Please indicate in which echelon/category your managerial duties fall in?

Junior Managers 11 46% 1

Mid-Level Managers 8 33% 2

Upper-Level/Exec. Managers 4 17% 3

Question skipped 1 4% 4

7. Were you raised in Canada?

Yes 19 79% 1

No 4 17% 2


8. Are you considered a visible minority?

Yes 6 25% 2

No 17 71% 1





9. Do you believe in God or other forms of spirituality?

Yes 16 67% 1

No 6 25% 2


10. What are the most significant moral values you have learned growing up?

Respect 14 30 2.14 2

Trust 14 36 2.57 3

Honesty 15 26 1.73 1

Integrity 11 34 3.09 4

Equality 8 34 4.25 5

Fairness 6 19 3.17 6

Loyalty

Question skipped 3 12%

11. Place in order of importance the primary sources of your own ethical beliefs.

Family 21 25 1.19 1

Friends 21 61 2.90 2

Formal/informal education 21 79 3.76 4

Work 21 78 3.71 3

Religious/spiritual beliefs 21 82 3.90 5

Other Health


12. What are your 5 top work ethics values?

Honesty 19 34 1.79 1

Respect 8 16 2.00 3

Loyalty 15 41 2.73 2

Responsibility 4 12 3.00 7

Accountability 5 16 3.20 6


Teamwork 3 13 4.33 9

Trust 7 22 3.14 5

Empowerment 3 13 4.33 9






Question skipped 1 4

13. Using the items listed below, please indicate how they influence your decisions and actions at work

Upbringing: values, moral, spiritual beliefs, etc 19 36 1.89 1 Formal/informal education 17 79 4.65 4

Life experience 19 57 3.00 2

Cultural surrounding 17 99 5.82 7

Personal interests 15 100 6.67 9

Corporate philosophy/ideology 19 88 4.63 3

Labour/government regulations 18 101 5.61 5

Changes in internal/external industry context 17 100 5.88 8

Profitability, accountability, competitivity & marketability

19 110 5.79 6


14. How would you evaluate the importance of your own ethical thinking/behaviour in your workplace?

Very important 16 67% 1

Important 7 29% 2

More or less important 1 4% 3

Not important 0 0%

15. How would you rank the importance of other managers' thinking/behaviour in your workplace?


Important 11 46% 1


Not important 1 4% 2

16. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of one of your subordinate, how would you react?

Address the issue directly with the person at fault

20 88% 1

Address the issue directly with your supervisor 3 12% 2

Address the issue with Human Resources 0 0%

Call the ethics hotline 0 0%

Ignore the issue all together 0 0%




Other 1

17. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of one of your colleagues/peer manager, how would you react?


18 75% 1


Address the issue with Human Resources 0

Call the ethics hotline 0

Ignore the issue all together 1 4% 3

Other 1 4% 3

18. If you were to witness a non-ethical behaviour of a higher-ranked manager in your workplace, how would you react?


2 8% 2


Address the issue with Human Resources 3 12% 3

Call the ethics hotline 3 12% 3


(B&C; C&D) 3 12% 4


19. The values promoted by Fairmont are synthesized by the acronym "R.I.T.E." What does it stand for?

Respect, Integrity, Teamwork & Empowerment 16 67% 1

Wrong 4 16% 2


20. When making decisions or acting on an ethical matter, are you driven by:

Your own "gut instincts" 3 13% 2

Company's rule, ethics, etc 1 4% 3

Both of the above 20 83% 1

21. If you had to choose between the best interest of a customer and that of Fairmont, how would you choose?

I'd decide in favour of the customer's best interest

4 17% 3




I'd decide in favour of Fairmont's best interest 2 21% 2

I would find a middle ground between the two 14 50% 1

Other

Fairmont and Customer best interest are the same

Would side with who wasn't being unethical

4 12% 4

22. If your personal interest was contrary to that of Fairmont, what would you do?

I'd decide in favour of my personal interest 1 4% 4



Other Personal interest not contrary to Fairmont

If personal interest would differ, it would be time to move on

2 8% 3


23. Do you think that the values promoted by Fairmont and your personal values are:

Exactly the same 1 4% 2

Very similar 20 84% 1

Not the same at all 1 4% 4


24. Do you think that it is possible to work efficiently for Fairmont without sharing its ethical values?

Yes 5 21% 2

No 18 75% 1


25. What is your opinion on the Fairmont ethics hotline?

It's a good thing 'cause it can help uncover irregularities

15 63% 1

It's unfair 'cause those accused of wrongdoing cannot face their accusers

0 0% 4

Other Ethics subjective, depending on individuals; no opinion

6 25% 2





26. Do you believe that you have enough training to deal with delicate situations involving ethics in your workplace?

Yes 23 96% 1

No 1 4% 2

27. Indicate what guides your actions and decisions at work, using the list beside.

Fairmont's ethics 21 47 2.24 2

Customer service 21 35 1.67 1

Profitability at Fairmont 21 65 3.10 3

Personal interest 21 90 4.29 5

"Gut instincts" 20 73 3.65 4

Question skipped 3

28. Indicate what influences your actions and decisions at work, using the list beside.

Role models, ie. Corporate figures 21 40 1.90 1

Professors/academics through education 21 64 3.05 4

Parents and relatives through upbringing 21 47 2.24 2

Current social circle 21 59 2.81 3


29. In one word, define the most challenging aspect of ethics in your workplace.

FHV FVA

Accountability Trust 1

Integrity Consistency 1

Trust Profit 1

Respect Not to take things personally

1 4%

Consistency Cultural differences 2 8% 3

Honesty Customer focus 2 8% 3

Culture differences I don't see a challenge

5 21% 1

Liars 1

Union 2 8% 3

Seniority 1

Fairness 1




Equality 1

Lack of followship 1


30. Define in one sentence your perception of ethics in the workplace. Essentially, what does it mean to you?

FHV FVA

Fairness Extremely important, refresher sometimes would be a good idea

1

Doing the right thing Respect 1

To accept and respect differences in the workplace

Unwritten rules of the workplace

1

Ethics ties the directing minds of the team

Conducting yourself with honesty and integrity

1

Doing the right thing for the right reasons

Living and working life to the highest degree of satisfaction, by upholding our morals.

1

Ethics define the quality of work you produce

1


Staying true to oneself and honest with others

Ethics in the workplace to me need to include traditional virtues such as trust, loyalty, commitment, honesty and respect for one another and to avoid conflicts of interest

1




Been a good person versus someone who doesn't care

Ethics is a set of thoughtful guidelines that are used in our decision making process

1

Been able to trust co-workers and work together as a team

A place to share common cultural backgrounds & experiences

1

Treating people equally in the workplace

We act with professionalism to respect and work together to do the best we can to achieve common goals

1

Ethics define who you are and how you conduct yourself in the workplace

A template to guide actions

1

I feel like a watch owl; subordinates not always trustworthy, I must be all over them or I will be the one held accountable for their mistakes in the end

1

Treat each other equally with the same guidelines & rules

1

A comfortable and honest place to work, to be proud of your workplace

1

Ethics is a code of behaviours to assist us in day to day decisions

1




Ethics important to Fairmont but some senior management should review R.I.TE. and ensure they are living it at work

1


FVA General Data Questions



1 Male 6 50% 1

Female 6 50% 1

2. How old are you?

18-35 8 67% 1

36-55 4 33% 2

56-65


High School 1 8% 3

College 4 33% 2

Some College and/or Univ.

University 7 58% 1


Yes 6 50% 1

No 6 50% 1


0-10 years 8 67% 1

11-20 years 4 33% 2

21-30 years

31 + years





Question skipped


Yes 7 58% 1

No 5 42% 2

Question skipped


Yes 4 33% 2

No 8 67% 1

Question skipped





Yes 11 92% 1

No 1 8% 2

Question skipped


Respect 7 13 1.86 1

Trust 6 10 1.67 3

Honesty 7 17 2.43 2



Fairness 1 3 3.00 7

Loyalty 1 1 1.00 6

Question skipped 1


Family 10 11 1.10 1

Friends 10 30 3.00 3


Work 10 34 3.40 4


Other Health 2 3 1.50 2

Question skipped


Honesty 11 27 2.45 1

Respect 8 24 3.00 2

Loyalty 6 18 3.00 3




Teamwork 1 4 4.00 9

Trust 4 10 2.50 5

Empowerment

Fairness 2 4 2.00 6

Equality 2 8 4.00 7

Question skipped





Upbringing: values, moral, spiritual beliefs, etc 9 15 1.67 1






Labour/government regulations 7 39 5.57 7 Changes in internal/external industry context 7 15 2.14 2

Profitability, accountability, competitivity & marketability 9 45 5.00 6

Question skipped



Important 2 17% 2


Not important



Important 3 25% 2


Not important


Address the issue directly with the person at fault 7 58% 1



Call the ethics hotline

Ignore the issue all together

Other 1 8% 3










Other 1 8% 3







Others (B&C; C&D)

Question skipped



Wrong 2 17% 2



Your own "gut instincts"

Company's rule, ethics, etc. 3 25% 2



I'd decide in favour of the customer’s best interest






Other



1 8% 2


I'd decide in favour of my personal interest





1 8% 3

Question skipped




Not the same at all

Question skipped


Yes 2 17% 2

No 10 83% 1

Question skipped



12 100% 1






Question skipped


Yes 9 75% 1

No 3 25% 2







Question skipped






Question skipped


FHV FVA


Integrity Consistency 3 25% 1

Trust Profit 1

Respect Not to take things personally 1

Consistency Cultural differences 1

Honesty Customer focus 1

Culture differences I don't see a challenge 1




Liars

Union

Seniority

Fairness

Equality

Lack of followship



FHV FVA


1



Unwritten rules of the workplace 1



1



1








1



1



1



1


A template to guide actions 1










FHV Males Questions



Male 8 33% 2

Female

2. How old are you?

18-35 5 63% 1

36-55 3 37% 2

56-65 0 0%


High School 1 12.5% 3

College 3 37% 2


University 4 50% 1


Yes 4 50% 1

No 4 50% 1


0-10 years 8 100% 1

11-20 years 0 0%

21-30 years 0 0%

31 + years 0 0%



Mid-Level Managers 0 0%


Question skipped 1 12.5% 3


Yes 4 50% 1

No 3 37% 2



Yes 2 25% 2

No 5 63% 1



FHV Males Questions



Yes 5 63% 1

No 2 25% 2



Respect 6 13 2.17 1

Trust 4 11 2.75 2

Honesty 3 7 2.33 3



Fairness 1 3 3.00

Loyalty


Family 6 7 1.17 1

Friends 6 18 3.00 2


Work 6 19 3.17 3


Other Health


Family 6 7 1.17

Friends 6 18 3.00

Formal/Informal education 6 24 4.00

Work 6 19 3.17

Religious/spiritual beliefs 6 20 3.33

Other Health



12 Honesty 6 14 2.33 1

Respect 5 8 1.60 2

Loyalty 5 13 2.60 3




FHV Males Questions



Teamwork 2 9 4.50 8

Trust 2 8 4.00 7


Fairness 0

Equality 0

Question skipped 1








Labour/government. regulations 4 15 3.75 3



Question skipped 3



Important 1 12.5% 2

More or less important 1 12.5% 3

Not important 0



Important 1 12.5% 2

More or less important 1 12.5% 2

Not important



7 88% 1


FHV Males Questions



Address the issue with Human Resources



Other







Other







Others (B&C; C&D) 1 12% 2

Question skipped



Wrong




Company's rule, ethics, etc. 0


FHV Males Questions




I'd decide in favour of the customer’s best interest 2 25% 2



Other



2 25% 2


I'd decide in favour of my personal interest 1 12% 3





1 12% 3



Exactly the same 0%


Not the same at all



Yes 2 25% 2

No 6 75% 1

Question skipped


It's a good thing 'cause it can help uncover irregularities 6 75% 1


FHV Males Questions



Other Ethics subjective, depending on individuals; no opinion 2 25% 2

Question skipped


Yes 8 100%

No 0







Question skipped 2








FHV FVA



Trust Profit 1


1



FHV Males Questions




Liars 1

Union

Seniority

Fairness

Equality

Lack of followship

Question skipped


FHV FVA


1




1



1



1


1



FHV Males Questions
















FHV Males Questions





FVA Males Questions



Male 6 50% 1

Female

2. How old are you?

18-35 5 83% 1

36-55 1 17% 2

56-65


High School

College 1 17% 2


University 5 83% 1


Yes 3 50% 1

No 3 50% 1


0-10 years 5 83% 1

11-20 years 1 17% 2

21-30 years

31 + years





Question skipped


Yes 3 50% 1

No 3 50% 1

Question skipped


Yes 3 50% 1

No 3 50% 1

Question skipped


FVA Males Questions



Yes 5 83% 1

No 1 17% 2

Question skipped


Respect 4 7 1.75 1

Trust 3 5 1.67 3

Honesty 4 10 2.50 2



Fairness

Loyalty

Question skipped 1


Family 6 7 1.17 1

Friends 6 17 2.83 3


Work 6 22 3.67 4


Other Health 2 3 1.50 2

Question skipped


Honesty 5 13 2.60 1

Respect 4 10 2.50 3

Loyalty 3 11 3.67 4

Responsibility

Accountability


Teamwork

Trust 2 5 2.50 5

Empowerment

Fairness 1 1 1.00 6

Equality 1 4 4.00 7

Question skipped 1


FVA Males Questions












Question skipped 1



Important


Not important



Important 1 17% 2


Not important



3 50% 1






FVA Males Questions


Other


Address the issue directly with the person at fault. 3 50% 1





Other


18 Address the issue directly with the person at fault 1 17% 3





Others (B&C; C&D)

18QS Question skipped


19 Respect, Integrity, Teamwork & Empowerment 4 67% 1

Wrong 1 17% 2







FVA Males Questions




I'd decide in favour of Fairmont's best interest


Other









Question skipped


Exactly the same


Not the same at all

Question skipped


Yes 1 17% 2

No 5 83% 1

Question skipped



FVA Males Questions



6 100% 1



Question skipped


Yes 4 67% 1

No 2 33% 2







Question skipped






Question skipped

29. In one word, define the most challenging aspect of ethics in your workplace

FHV FVA

29 Accountability Trust 1


Trust Profit 1


1


FVA Males Questions


Consistency Cultural differences

Honesty Customer focus

Culture differences I don't see a challenge

Liars

Union

Seniority

Fairness

Equality

Lack of followship

29QS Question skipped 2 33% 1


FHV FVA

Fairness

Extremely important, refresher sometimes would be a good idea

1



Unwritten rules of the workplace 1



1



1


Question skipped 1 17.0%


FVA Males Questions















FVA Males Questions






FHV Females Questions



Male

Female 16 67% 1

2. How old are you?

18-35 10 63% 1

36-55 6 37% 2

56-65 0 0%


High School 1 6% 4

College 2 13% 3


University 8 50% 1


Yes 15 94% 1

No 1 6% 2


0-10 years 15 94% 1

11-20 years 1 1 6% 2

21-30 years 0 0%

31 + years 0 0%





Question skipped


Yes 15 94% 1

No 1 6% 2

Question skipped


Yes 4 25% 2

No 12 75% 1

Question skipped





Yes 11 69% 1

No 4 25% 2



Respect 8 17 2.13 3

Trust 10 25 2.50 2

Honesty 12 19 1.58 1




Loyalty



11 Family 15 16 1.07 1

Friends 15 42 2.80 2


Work 15 55 3.67 4


Other Health



Honesty 13 20 1.54 1

Respect 3 8 2.67 7

Loyalty 10 28 2.80 2




Teamwork 1 4 4.00 11

Trust 5 14 2.80 4

















Profitability, accountability, competitivity & marketability

14 78 5.57 5




Important 6 37% 2

More or less important 0

Not important 0



Important 10 63% 1

More or less important 0

Not important 1 6% 3







Other 1 6%










Other 1 6% 3







Others (B&C; C&D) 2 12% 3




Wrong 4 25% 2








2 12% 2






Other



2 12% 2


I'd decide in favour of my personal interest 0





1 6% 2





Not the same at all 1 6% 2



Yes 3 19% 2

No 12 75% 1

Question skipped 1 6% 3 25. What is your opinion on the Fairmont ethics

hotline?


9 56% 1


Other Ethics subjective, depending on individuals; no opinion 4 24% 2






Yes 15 94%

No 1 6%







Question skipped 1








FHV FVA

29 Accountability Trust

Integrity Consistency

Trust Profit




Culture differences I don't see a challenge 4 25% 1

Liars

Union 2 12.5% 2




Seniority 1

Fairness 1

Equality 1

Lack of followship 1



FHV FVA

Fairness


Doing the right thing Respect











1






1



1



1




1


1


1


1





1


FVA Females Questions



Male

Female 6 50% 1

2. How old are you?

18-35 3 50% 1

36-55 3 50% 1

56-65


High School 1 17% 3

College 3 50% 1


University 2 33% 2


Yes 3 50% 1

No 3 50% 1


0-10 years 3 50% 1

11-20 years 3 50% 1

21-30 years

31 + years





Question skipped


Yes 4 67% 1

No 2 33% 2

Question skipped


Yes 1 17% 2

No 5 83% 1




Question skipped 9. Do you believe in God or other forms of

spirituality?

Yes 6 100% 1

No

Question skipped


Respect 3 6 2.00 2

Trust 3 5 1.67 1

Honesty 3 7 2.33 3

Integrity


Fairness 1 3 3.00 6

Loyalty 1 1 1.00 5

Question skipped


Family 4 4 1.00 1

Friends 4 13 3.25 3


Work 4 12 3.00 2


Other Health

Question skipped


Honesty 6 14 2.33 1

Respect 4 14 3.50 2

Loyalty 3 7 2.33 3




Teamwork 1 4 4.00 6

Trust 2 5 2.50 4

Empowerment

Fairness 1 3 3.00 5

Equality 1 4 4.00 6

Question skipped 1














Question skipped 1

14. How would you evaluate the importance of your own ethical thinking/behaviour in your workplace? 5.00


Important 2 33% 2

More or less important

Not important

15. How would you rank the importance of other managers' thinking/behaviour in your workplace? 3


Important 2 33% 2


Not important



Address the issue directly with your supervisor




Other 1 (a&b) 17% 2










Other 1 (b&c) 17% 2



1 17% 2





Others (B&C; C&D)

Question skipped



Wrong 1 17% 2

Question skipped




Both of the above 5 83% 1 21. If you had to choose between the best interest of a

customer and that of Fairmont, how would you choose?







Other



1 17% 2




I would find a middle ground between the two 3 50 % 1



1 17% 3

Question skipped




Not the same at all

Question skipped


Yes 1 17% 2

No 5 83% 1

Question skipped


It's a good thing 'cause it can help uncover irregularities 6 100% 1



Question skipped





Yes 5 83% 1

No 1 17% 2







Question skipped






Question skipped


FHV FVA

29 Accountability Trust

Integrity Consistency 2 33% 1

Trust Profit





Liars

Union




Seniority

Fairness

Equality

Lack of followship



FHV FVA

Fairness


Doing the right thing Respect








Question skipped 1






1



1



1


We act with profe ssionalism to respect and work together to do the best we can to achieve common goals

1












REFERENCES

Akhigbe, A., Martin, A.D. & Whyte, A.M. (2005, February). Contagion effects of the world's largest bankruptcy: the case of WorldCom. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 45 (1), 48-64. Retrieved May 16, 2007, from www.sciencedirect.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca

APA Style Guide. (2006). (5th ed.). Retrieved January 2, 2008, from The University of Southern Mississippi Libraries Web site: http://www.lib.usm.edu/index.php?id=81

Aristotle. (350 B.C.). Nicomachean Ethics. (W.D. Ross, Trans.). Retrieved February 5, 2003, from the Internet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

Athabasca University Policy: Policy for Research Involving Humans . (2001, March). Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.athabascau.ca/policy/research/ethicpolicy.htm

Cahn, S. & Pastore, J. M. (2001). Decision modelling: an objective approach to moral reasoning. Teaching Business Ethics. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://0-www.metapress.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/media/hf0bld3vtq5xylfrvvtk/contributions/k/3/1/1/k311381517861x31.pdf

CBCNews.ca. (2006, April 20). Fairmont hotel chain take over approved. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from http://origin.www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/04/20/fairmont-060420.html

Chung-Herrera, B.G., Enz, C.A. and Lankau, M.J. (2003, June). Grooming future hospitality leaders: a competencies model. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44 (3), 17-25. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/pqdweb?index=15&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=12302&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=380582701&ts=1183059270&vtype=PQD& rqt=309&TS=1183060164&clientId=12302

Brubaker, B. (2005, March 16). Verdict stirs up mix of emotion for employees. Retrieved November 21, 2006, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38704-2005Mar15.html

Colero, L. (2004, January). Five questions that corporate directors should ask . Retrieved June 2005, from http://www.ethics.ca/papers/invited/ 5questions.html

Cordeiro, W.P. (2003). The only solution to the decline in business ethics: ethical managers. Teaching Business Ethics. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://0-www.metapress.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/media/pflkplqvxje9dc2glftx/contributions/h/9/6/7/h967177619u15672.pdf

Cox, T. (1990). Problems with research by organizational scholars on issues of race and ethnicity. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26 (1), 5-23. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://0-ft.csa.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ids70/resolver.php?sessid=7d0985fc8740ec9d5431e4251b1b9414&server=www-md3.csa.com&check=22a4e4b329fa2772f8409db12fb98da6&db=sageman-set-c&key=0021-8863%2F10.1177_002188639002600103&mode=pdf

Cox, T. & Nkomo, S.M. (1996). Diverse identities in organizations. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W.R. Nord (Ed.), Handbook of Organization Studies (1st ed., pp.338-356). London: Sage Publications.


Cullinan, C. (2004, August-October). Enron as a symptom of audit process breakdown: can the Sarbanes -Oxley Act cure the disease? Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 15 (6-7), 853-864. Retrieved May 16, 2007, from www.sciencedirect.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Putnam.

De George, R.T. (2007). A history of business ethics. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/conference/presentations/business-ethics-history.html

Durkheim, E. (1992). Professional ethics and civic morals. (C. Brookfield, Trans.). London; New York: Routledge. (Original work published in English 1957)

Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. (W.D. Halls, Trans., and S. Luke, Ed.). New York: Free Press (Original work published 1895)

Durkheim, E. (2006). On suicide. (R. Buss, Trans., and R. Sennett, Ed.). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1897)

Durkheim, E. (1993). Ethics and the sociology of morals. (R.T. Hall, Trans.). Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W.R. Nord (Ed.), Handbook of organization studies (1st ed., pp. 526-542). London: Sage.

Entine, J. (1996, September-October). Corporate ethics and accountability. Corporate Governance. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://www.corpgov.net/forums/commentary/entine1.html

Experimental Philosophy. (2004). Moral responsibility experiment. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2004/10/moral_responsib.html

Fairmont Hotels and Resorts Official Code of Ethics.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts. (2008). Who we are. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://www.fairmontcareers.com/who/code_of_ethics.aspx)

The Fairmont Vancouver Airport. Hotel history. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from http://www.fairmont.com/EN_FA/Property/FVA/AboutUs/HotelHistory.htm

The Fairmont Hotel Vancouver. Hotel history. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from http://www.fairmont.com/EN_FA/Property/HVC/AboutUs/HotelHistory.htm

Fisher, G.A. & Chon, K.K. (1989). Durkheim and the social construction of emotions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52 (1), 1-9. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=115&sid=46cf489e-d7b0-4574-b665-8e92cea7a53b%40sessionmgr109

Fleckenstein, M. P. & Huebsch, P. (1999, March). Ethics in tourism – reality or hallucination. Journal of Business Ethics, 19 (1), 137-142. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/pqdweb?index=32&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=12302&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=40163429&scaling=FULL&ts=1183061907&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1183061997&clientId=12302


Flood, M. & Patel, P. (2005, March 16). WorldCom case may be omen for lay: former Enron chief’s lawyers closely watch Ebbers conviction. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/3087378.html

Frost, P. & Stablein, R. (Ed.). (1992). Doing exemplary research. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.

Furnham, A. (1990). The protestant work ethic: the psychology of work -related beliefs and behaviours . London; New York: Routledge.

Gagnon, J.F. (2008). The Perception of Ethics by a Corporation’s Managers: Managerial and Organizational Ethics at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver.

Gilbert, S. (1983). Education. In Shaffir, W.B, Rosenberg, M.M., Turowetz, A. & Weinfeld, M. (Ed.). An Introduction to Sociology. Toronto: Methuen.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grant, J. (1988, Winter). Women as managers: what they can offer to organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 16 (3), 56-63. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=3&sid=0180d516-dc62-40f8-8d63-3be0524d6c31%40sessionmgr7

Grint, K. (2007). Learning to lead: can Aristotle help us find the road to wisdom? Leadership, 3 (2), 231-246. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://0-ft.csa.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ids70/resolver.php?sessid=bbee1482743c9f3960598b8f8cc2402d&server=www-md3.csa.com&check=7ac907478d706ebbb51f8f8622211856&db=sageman-set-c&key=1742-7150%2F10.1177_1742715007076215&mode=pdf

Gutman, H. (2002, February 16). Enron scandal: the long, winding trail. Common dreams NewsCenter. Retrieved November 18, 2006, from http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0216-01.htm

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. (C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholson, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1983)

Haynes, K. (2006). A therapeutic journey? Reflections on the effects of research on researcher and participants. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 1 (3), 204-221. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/pqdweb?index=0&did=1164916251&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1206695056&clientId=12302&aid=1

Hochschild, A.R. (2003). The managed heart: commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1983)

Hoppe-Graff, S. & Lamm-Hanel, N. (2006). Diaries and questionnaires: mixed-methods research on maternal discipline techniques. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (4), 263-278. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=107&sid=50edbb3d-0704-4d7a-9a02-5182273400f8%40sessionmgr107

The International Development Research Centre. (2008). Module 32: writing a research report. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from http://www.idrc.ca/fr/ev-56466-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html


International Herald Tribune. (2006, January 31). Bid for Canada hotel firm surpasses Icahn’s . Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/31/business/hotel.php

Ishwaran, K. (1983). The family. In Shaffir, W.B, Rosenberg, M.M., Turowetz, A. & Weinfeld, M. (Ed.). An Introduction to Sociology. Toronto: Methuen.

Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from http://0-ft.csa.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ids70/resolver.php?sessid=6e9e5465c287ea98a3ef420357d09ce8&server=www-md3.csa.com&check=0a75dece5dbb85456f6c6530fb221704&db=sageduc-set -c&key=0013-189X%2F10.3102_0013189X033007014&mode=pdf

Joyner, B.E. & Payne, D. (2002, December). Evolution and implementation: a study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41 (4), 297-311. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/pqdweb?index=0&did=000000280110721&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1089404932&clientId=12302#fulltext

Lindfelt, L. L. (2006). Making sense of business ethics – about not walking the talk. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol11_no1_pages_10-16.pdf

Martin, D. (1995). Thinking union: activism and education in Canada’s labour movement. Toronto: Between The Lines.

McQuarie, D. (Ed.). (1995). Readings in contemporary sociological theory: from modernity to post-modernity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Masters, B.A. & Johnson, C. (2005, March 16). Verdict weakens ignorance defence. Retrieved November 21, 2006, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38404-2005Mar15.html

Michie, S. & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions and authenticity: will the real leader please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 441-457. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5N-4G0YTF6-2&_user=1067473&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=9&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236575%232005%23999839996%23597166%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6575&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=12&_acct=C000051252&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067473&md5=af6013fc1c8d6c47c61b623f023f4416

Mumford, M., Helton, W.B., Decker, B.P., Connelly, M.S., & Van Doorn, J.R. (2002). Values and beliefs related to ethical decisions. Teaching Business Ethics. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://0-www.metapress.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/media/4nc6a0bnrpcttwaeup4u/contributions/x/2/5/8/x25884v684376k08.pdf

Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. (2002). The field of applied ethics. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part3/III_preface.html

Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. George Orwell’s Library. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit


Peters, L.D. (2002). Theory testing in social research. The Marketing Review, 3 (1), 65-82. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=115&sid=b9d42bdd-d070-41f1-90d1-89197ff4c8bf%40sessionmgr106

Powell, G.N. (1990, August). One more time: do female and male managers differ? The Academy of Management Executive, 4 (3), 68-75. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=6&sid=01b36081-0257-49e2-ac4e-4f3c51b8c8fd%40SRCSM2

Prattis, J.I. (1978, October). Modernization and the problem of abstractive levels: situational logic as a means of bridging group structural and inter-personal relationships. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 37, (4), 381-395.

Prus, R. (2007, August). Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics: laying the foundations for a pragmatist consideration of human knowing and acting. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3 (2), 5-45. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume7/QSR_3_2_Prus.pdf

Questionnaires submitted to the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver’s managers.

Questionnaire submitted to the Fairmont Vancouver Airport’s managers.

Ranjan, R.K. (2006, April). Business Ethics. IndianMBA.com. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://www.indianmba.com/Faculty_Column/FC310/fc310.html

Rosener, J.B. (1990, November-December). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 119-125. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=14&sid=63931116-d419-4b9b-af22-bf838e809181%40SRCSM1

Ross, G. (2003, March). Ethical beliefs, work problem-solving strategies and learning styles as mediators of tourism marketing entrepreneurialism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (2), 119-136. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/pqdweb?index=17&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=12302&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=332989391&ts=1183060561&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1183060581&clientId=12302

Salopek, J. (2001). Do the right thing. T+ D, 55 (7), 38-44.

Scherer, A.G. & Palazzo, G. (2007).Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1096-1120. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://fk9vb2mp3t.search.serialssolutions.com/directLink?&atitle=TOWARD%20A%20POLITICAL%20CONCEPTION%20OF%20CORPORATE%20RESPONSIBILITY%3A%20BUSINESS%20AND%20SOCIETY%20SEEN%20FROM%20A%20HABERMASIAN%20PERSPECTIVE&author=Andreas%20Georg%20Scherer%3B%20Guido%20Palazzo&issn=03637425&title=Academy%20of%20Management.%20The%20Academy%20of%20Management%20Review&volume=32&issue=4&date=20071001&spage=1096&id= doi:&sid=ProQ_ss&genre=article&lang=en


Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: the sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1022-1040. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://fk9vb2mp3t.search.serialssolutions.com/directLink?&atitle=THE%20ROLE%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION%2C%20INTUITION%2C%20AND%20JUSTIFICATION%20IN%20RESPONDING%20TO%20ETHICAL%20ISSUES%20AT%20WORK%3A%20THE%20SENSEMAKING%2DINTUITION%20MODEL&author=Scott%20Sonenshein&issn=03637425&title=Academy%20of%20Management.%20The%20Academy%20of%20Management%20Review&volume=32&issue=4&date=20071001&spage=1022&id=doi:&sid=ProQ_ss&genre=article&lang=en

Stablein, R. (1996). Data in organization studies. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W.R. Nord (Ed.), Handbook of organization studies (1st ed., pp. 509-525). London: Sage.

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2005, July 1). Kant’s philosophy of religion. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#3.5

Stevens, B. and Brownwell, J. (2000, April). Ethics: communicating standards and influencing behavior. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,41 (2), 39-43. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/pqdweb?index=28&did=53966149&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1183060878&clientId=12302

Tracey, J B. & Hinkin, T. R. (1994, April). Transformational leaders in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35 (2), 18-24. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/pqdweb?index=52&did=274796&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1183062650&clientId=12302

Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. (2000). Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.nserc.ca./programs/Ethics/english/policy.htm

Vallen, G. & Casado, M. (2000, April). Ethical principles for the hospitality curriculum. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41 (2), 44-51. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://0-proquest.umi.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/pqdweb?index=27&did=53966153&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1183061306&clientId=12302

VanAuken, B. (2007, August 20). Brand management: organization age and size impact. Branding Strategy Insider. Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2007/08/brand-managemen.html

Von Scheve, C. & Von Luede, R. (2005). Emotion and social structures: towards an interdisciplinary approach. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35 (3), 303- 328. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=105&sid=adc3d815-0f84-4b74-8dcc-2ecc78f993f1%40sessionmgr108

Weick, K.E. (1989, October). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 516-531. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=115&sid=044bd5de-9038-473e-926f-fb58b210cc18%40sessionmgr108

Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations . Thousand Oak, Ca: Sage.


Wikipedia, Moral relativism, retrieved August 7, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Williams, M. (2004, Fall). Kant and Kierkegaard on faith: in service to morality and a leap for the absurd. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.rso.cornell.edu/logos/fall2004/Williams.pdf

Wishloff, J. (2003). Responsible free enterprise: what it is and why we don’t have it. Teaching Business Ethics. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://0-www.metapress.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/media/hb5c1xjkrpcttnfcrpfm/contributions/v/2/t/8/v2t828023263v870.pdf

Yahoo! Travel. (2008). Fairmont Hotel Vancouver – reviews . Retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://travel.yahoo.com/p-reviews-372873-prod-hotel-action-read-ratings_and_reviews-i;_ylt=AtGx.dRLk4cPx7PH0oKtgEPiphQBhttp://www.vpl.ca/cpr/history.html

Documents

Corporate ethics: a comparative analysis of the perception ...dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/JFGagno… · like those of Enron and WorldCom have revived