Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No.

1, 2019

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business

Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jan.-April 2019): 91-108

Is University Students’ Value Orientation

toward Integrity Behind Their Decision
to Cheat or Not Cheat in Exams?

Anggara Wisesa,1 Dematria Pringgabayu,2* Adita Pritasari,1

Dany Muhammad Athory Ramdlany,1 and Nurfaisa Hidayanti1
1
School of Business and Management ITB, Bandung, Indonesia
2
Politeknik Pajajaran ICB, Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract: Organizational values characterize every activity, including the behavior of the mem-
bers of an organization, and their decision-making. However, there are moments in which the
members of the organization violate the values, even though they know they should not. It also
happens to university students. This fact brings us to reflect on how the values are interpreted in
value orientation. By employing the phenomenological method using Kohlberg’s constructivist
theory of moral development stages, this study explored the value orientation towards integrity in
business school students’ decisions to cheat or not. The result indicates that even for students who
face the same decision to cheat or not, their decision is affected by how they understand the value
of integrity, which depends on their value orientation and their cognitive moral development.
Most respondents had a mindset of egoistic value orientation, which is more concerned with the
benefits and payback when making a decision. Most cases happened without there being a prior
decision to cheat; the decision is made at the time of the exam by considering the emerging internal
or external situational factors.

Keywords: cheating; decision making; integrity; value orientation; situational factors

JEL classification: L290, Z000

* Corresponding author’s e-mail: demabayu5@gmail.com

91
ISSN: 1141-1128
http://journal.ugm.ac.id/gamaijb
 Wisesa et al.

Introduction intended or unintended, violations of the

values or actions which do not comply
The growing awareness of the impor- with those values are considered to be un-
tance of the value of integrity in organiza- ethical actions and behavior, and encour-
tions has made it one of the popular re- age all educational institutions to apply
search topics in recent years (Kolthoff et strict rules to uphold the value of honesty
al. 2013). As a fundamental of organiza- in every academic activity. Various at-
tional culture, the values held by an orga- tempts are being made to overcome these
nization are expected to inspire each indi- academic violations, but it seems that such
vidual in the way they think, make deci- violations have become a commonly ac-
sions, beha ve and finally affect the moti- cepted issue.
vation and performance of each individual In the midst of such an irony, it is a
and the organization (Paarlberg and Perry bitter finding that deviant behavior carried
2007; McGregor and Doshi 2015). Many out during the study period in university
researchers discovered how organizational is correlated with deviant behavior at the
values influence organizational structures workplace (Nonis and Swift 2001; Lawson
(Gorenak and Košir 2012), organizational 2004; Ma 2013; Dömeová and Jindrová
culture (Diskienë and Goštautas 2010; 2013); there is a strong relationship be-
Janiæijeviæ 2013; Robbins and Coulter tween cheating at college and unethical be-
2016), organizational commitment (Cohen havior at work. Simkin and McLeod (2010)
and Liu 2011; Arthaud-Day et al. 2012), even reported that students who had suc-
organizational identity (Aust 2004), orga- cessfully cheated during an exam or a term
nizational strategy (Bansal 2003), work paper might be cheating on their company
engagement (Dyl¹g et al. 2013), team behav- reports. Indeed, students are considered as
ior (Bardi and Schwartz 2003), and team future business leaders; their ethical pref-
performance, as well as organizational per- erences are likely to influence the defini-
formance (Arthaud-Day et al. 2012; James tion of acceptable business ethics. More-
2014). Lešnik (in Gorenak and and Košir over, their perceptions of what constitutes
2012) argued that organizations make deci- ethical behavior will affect their actions and
sions, think that what they think is right, business practices in the business world. It
have limitations on what they can do, have is more astonishing to know that students
moral boundaries, trust, rules, etc. who cheat are actually aware that it is pro-
In spite of organizational values be- hibited. They are aware that cheating is a
ing important for the organization, it is not wrongdoing, but they still consciously do
surprising that believed values are not as it (Wisesa 2010).
well actualized as may be expected within Exploring the students’ reasons for
the individuals in an organization (Wisesa violating the value of integrity, this paper
2010). The same phenomenon also occurs attempts to answer the question: “Why do
in the academic world, in which academic university students cheat during exams,
integrity is one of the most important val- even though they know it is wrong?”
ues that every educational institution re- Cheating is perceived to be a part of their
spects, but in fact cheating, as a form of decision-making process, in which their
academic infringement, still occurs. Either understanding of the value of integrity plays

92
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019

an important role. Thus, this paper aims core identity (Williams 1973, Calhoun
to explore the decision-making process by 1995).
looking at how students interpret the value However it should be criticized that
of integrity in the academic world. both approaches place too much focus on
which condition is referred to as integrity,
Literature Review making integrity a static condition, and ig-
noring the dynamic character of integrity
Integrity (Cox et al. 2003). Integrity should be seen
as a dynamic process in the formation of
Integrity is central to ordinary
self-identity, reflected in the coherence be-
thoughts about morality (Rosenbaum
tween self-chosen moral values and prin-
2015). Many people view it as a moral vir-
ciples, motivation, and actions, reinforced
tue (Cox et al. 2003) that is essentially re-
by a firm commitment to attain those val-
lated to other certain moral virtues
ues and principles and not for any other
(Palanski and Yamarrino 2007), such as
thing (Wisesa 2016a). For possessing integ-
honesty, fairness, sincerity, or even virtue
rity, a person needs to continually re-evalu-
itself in general. This virtue of honesty
seems to be one of the main features of in- ate the values and principles he holds, while
tegrity, it is so that acting with integrity and still directing it to the realization of univer-
acting ethically is often considered to be sal moral values.
synonymous, though literally there is no
moral connotation in it (Petrick and Quinn The Mental Process behind
2000; Six et al. 2007). A number of other Ethical Action
studies show a link between honesty and In the deontological perspective of
integrity, and also between ethical reason- morality, it is not the action itself that
ing and integrity (Berry et al. 2007). makes an action be perceived as ethical or
One classic but important and influ- unethical. There is nothing called an ethi-
ential work in conceptualizing integrity by cal action in itself, but the consistency be-
Cheshire Calhoun (1995) mentions that tween an action and a particular moral prin-
there are three major approaches to explain ciple held by an individual makes an action
what integrity is: integrated-self, identity, an ethical action (Wisesa 2016a). An action
and clean hands. In the integrated-self ap- is not simply physical activity, but it exists
proach, Taylor (1981) and McFall (1987) because of the mental activity behind it
see integrity as a form of harmony between (Piaget 1950/2001, Korsgaard 2009), in
various aspects that make up the human both the cognitive and affective aspects.
self: desire, will, commitment, values, and Any action exists for a reason or purpose,
actions, all of which are coherently inte- and will never exist without a decision to
grated as one wholeness. That wholeness act. Decision-making cannot be separated
is characterized by wholeheartedness from the psychological tendencies which
(Schoeman 1987). The identity approach lead an individual to face a certain decision
to integrity is characterized by an in-depth (Messick and Bazerman 2001). Without that
commitment to self-chosen values, prin- decision, there would be no structured ac-
ciples, and life projections that reveal one’s tivity to achieve a goal (Talloo 2007).

93
 Wisesa et al.

Therefore, it becomes important to note Cognitive Moral Development

that the ethical aspect of an action should and Value Orientation
not be seen from the action per se, but from
the moral values and principles that become Value orientation defines how a value
the foundation of the decision to act. is seen as a value in a person’s value sys-
tem (Wisesa 2016b). Value orientation
Rest (1986) described that the ethical
brings a person to the awareness of what is
decision-making process is generated
good in an object (or action); a condition
through four stages: ethical sensitivity, ethi-
that determines whether an object is good
cal reasoning, ethical motivation, and ethi-
to be pursued (as a value). It determines
cal implementation. It reflects that decid-
how a person sees a value as a result of the
ing which action to take is not simply a
random selection process, but it is based cognitive and affective responses to the
on accurate reasoning with regard to the object that has very strong relevance with
relevant principles in the reasoning stage. the construction of intelligence, and it is well
How a person makes a decision reflects reflected in the theory of cognitive moral
what he knows about the world. How he development by Lawrence Kohlberg
perceives the world affects how he acts, (1981). How a person acts when he is fac-
including his motivations for acting ing a moral dilemma is the result of com-
(Oyserman, Elmore, Smith 2012) as well plex interactions between variables such as
as his values and principles that become the individual characteristics (including values)
basis for acting. and the stage of moral development
(Robbins 2005).
How a person sees value in the action
leads him to the fulfilment of a particular Originally what Kohlberg did with his
need, and that need is the motive that drives theory is to describe the typology of struc-
the action (Piaget 1968). Thus, all actions tures and the forms of common ethical rea-
are moved because there is a need for some- soning that can be defined individually, re-
thing. Since the needs of one person may gardless of the ethical decisions and actions
differ from those of others, the same ob- that were taken in the process of making
ject can have a different value for different the ethical decision. The development of
persons. It explains why two persons can moral consciousness occurs in the process
have different views and attitudes toward of widening and deepening the aspects to
one similar object of value. It also explains consider when people give moral judg-
why two different persons can have differ- ments. The lower the cognitive moral stage,
ent motivations, even if the action they the narrower the criteria used in providing
conduct is similar (Wisesa 2016b). This moral judgments. As an individual increas-
motivation is what propels a decision to ingly matures, he becomes morally more
become an action (Rest 1986), and encour- competent in providing moral judgments
ages a person to perform certain actions or (Magnis-Suseno 2005).
behavior (Spector 2006).

94
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019

The typology consists of two pre-con- from disobedience. What people see as
ventional stages, two conventional stages, good, or ethically right, in stage one is dif-
and two post-conventional stages, as can ferent to what people see in stage two.
be seen in Table 1. Altogether there are six People in the second stage of moral devel-
stages of development. Each of these levels opment see that what is right is what serves
and phases can be seen as a particular form their own needs and satisfies their own de-
of moral thinking, or a different view of sires. Each stage defines what is good in
the socio-moral world. In stage one, for uniquely different ways, and the stages de-
example, people see that what is right is to termine how people reason for their deci-
be obedient to authority and therefore sions and actions.
avoid the punishment that may follow

Table 1. Stages of Moral Development

Level of Moral
Stage of Reasoning
Development

Stage 1 (Punishment and Obedience Orientation): individual and moral

judgment is motivated by a need to avoid punishment
Pre-conventional
Stage 2 (Instrumental Relativist Orientation): individual and moral
judgment is motivated by a need to satisfy one’s own desires

Stage 3 (Interpersonal Concordance Orientation): individual’s moral

judgment is motivated by a need to avoid rejection, disaffection, or
disapproval from others
Conventional
Stage 4 (Law and Order Orientation): individual and moral judgment is
motivated by a need not to follow the law to maintain the social order

Stage 5 (Rights and Social Contract Orientation): individual and moral

judgment is motivated by respect for the social contract and the rights
of others
Post-conventional
Stage 6 (Universal Moral Principle Orientation): individual and moral
judgment is motivated by one's own conscience, applying principles to
all humankind and respecting all human life

Source: Kohlberg 1986 (with adaptation)

95
 Wisesa et al.

This theory explains how moral in- the others, which enables him to see that
telligence is constructively developed and other people, as human beings, have rights
how it determines a person’s ability to per- that should be appreciated. Integrity re-
form ethical reasoning. The value orienta- quires this autonomy since it is related to
tion itself underlies this reasoning; that the the election of a moral principle autono-
reasoning reflects how the person sees and mously, and to acting based on that prin-
places a value (that becomes a consider- ciple, especially in a difficult situation. This
ation) in front of his need. Value orienta- means that people need to put commit-
tion explains how a value can serve a per- ment and motivation into that principle in
son to meet his need. As the decision is di- their action.
rected to the fulfilment of a need, it means The autonomy emphasized by
that the act of the decision is directed to a Putman (1996) actually reflects a more fun-
certain “good” because it serves to fulfil the damental thing. Compared to the mode of
need, whether it is for punishment avoid- moral reasoning in the pre-conventional
ance, self-interest, close friends, the social and conventional stages, the autonomous
order, rights, or universal moral values.
morality found at the post-conventional
stage encourages people to place value and
Value Orientation toward principle as the core values of their core
Integrity identity (Wisesa 2016a), so that they do not
Although Kohlberg’s typology is not have any other reason to manifest this value
to examine the normative ethical aspect of and principle except for the value/principle
a decision, Putman (1996) concludes that itself - as a terminal value instead of an in-
integrity cannot be formed at all the stages strumental value (see Rokeach 1977/2000).
of cognitive development. Egocentric be- The essence of integrity is the process of
havior (which is typical in the pre-conven- integrity itself, not the condition it produces
tional level of development) cannot sup- (Wisesa 2016a). Thus, an act of integrity is
port the formation of integrity. Conven- not an action taken, for example, to avoid
tional moral development stages are also certain sanctions, for self-benefit over risk,
not strong enough to support integrity, for the expectations of close-friends, or
since a person who is adhering to the close blind obedience to rules, but an action that
group and/or law does not show au- is directed toward the achievement of the
tonomy when acting. He puts himself un- chosen value (and principle), and solely for
der the power of others and society in blind the sake of that value.
obedience to the rules established by the
group. This condition, according to
Putman (1996), cannot be used as the basis
Methods
for integrity. This study employed phenomenol-
The signs of integrity appear in the ogy to discover the understanding and
last stage of moral development, in which meanings of the value of integrity behind
a person is considered as having moral au- cheating behavior as a phenomenon of aca-
tonomy (see Piaget 1968), when determin- demic infringement. In brief, phenomenol-
ing what is good or bad. This reflects his ogy, originated by Edmund Husserl, is a
ability to put himself in an equal state with philosophy and qualitative research meth-

96
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019

odology to gain the essence or meaning of The obtained data were transcendental-
a phenomenon, and how people experience phenomenologically reduced (Kockelmans
it. The idea is to get the meaning by reduc- 1994) and then texturally and structurally
ing that experience to its very meaning or analyzed following Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen’s
essence (Moustakas 1994). In this context, phenomenological analysis method, as sug-
phenomenology tries to describe the mean- gested by Creswell (1998). In the textural
ing of an individual’s experience by explor- analysis, the data were categorized into six
ing the structure of awareness involved in stages in Kohlberg’s typology of moral
the life experience. cognitive development, based on the way
each respondent reasoned to cheat or not
The study was conducted mainly to
to cheat. Following the textural analysis,
obtain information about the ethical deci-
the structural analysis was conducted, by
sion-making carried out by students in a
drawing meaning from the categorization
particular dilemmatic exam situation. The
to discover what integrity means for the
respondents were selected by employing
students.
the total sampling technique on students
from undergraduate classes of 2014 and
2016, and the graduate class of 2016, in a Results
business school in Indonesia. Data collec-
tion was done in two steps. The first step There were 442 valid questionnaire
was an open-ended questionnaire contain- responses from the three different classes.
ing a dilemmatic story following Kohlberg’s The data then were analyzed to identify the
method, with guidelines provided by reasoning mode shown in the given re-
Arbuthnot and Faust (1980). Each of the sponses, which illustrated how each student
respondents was given a story where they orientates the value of integrity, especially
when related to the context of cheating.
were positioned as the subject in the story.
Following Kohlberg’s taxonomy and the
The story was about a final exam and some-
six stages of cognitive moral development
how they could not answer the questions,
(see Table 1), the responses then were cat-
while the situation in the examination room
egorized into six categories based on the
was very conducive for them to cheat. A
modes of reasoning reflected in the answers.
dilemmatic option was presented to the
respondents; they had to choose whether In the textural analysis, the phenom-
to cheat or not, and they also had to ex- enological method was used to get the
plain the reason for their chosen decision. meaning of each response and to catego-
rize each response into a stage of cognitive
The second step was conducted using
moral development, for instance:
semi-structured in-depth-interviews with 24
randomly selected students through data “... karena saya takut ketahuan oleh pengawas
saturation sampling. Each interview was dan dapat nilai nol” (... because I am afraid
designed to explore the reason why the stu- of getting caught by the supervisor and get
dent decided to cheat or not, and the fac- zero score)
tors that might have influenced their deci- By acknowledging its meaning, the
sion. It was also to verify the findings from statement above reflects the mode of rea-
the first step. soning in stage one of the cognitive moral

97
 Wisesa et al.

development, as described by Kohlberg for self-interest becomes a very basic con-

(1981; 1986). It mainly considers the con- sideration when making the decision to
sequence of punishment for one’s actions. cheat or not to cheat, meaning that if cheat-
Responses in the same category then were ing benefits them, then cheating is the best
grouped, based on the similarity of their option to choose. Otherwise, if they see
mode of reasoning (the way how individu- that not cheating benefits them more than
als respond to a dilemma). The statement cheating, then not cheating is the best
above, for example, along with other simi- choice.
lar responses, was grouped into the “avoid- Placing the value of integrity as a
ing sanctions/punishment” mode of rea- means to avoid punishment consistently
soning. It reflects that he considered avoid- occupies the second ranks for both of the
ing the punishment in order to respond to undergraduate classes, but not in the gradu-
the dilemma of whether to cheat or not to ate class, indicating the need to avoid pun-
cheat. Table 2 shows the result of the tex- ishment may be less relevant for graduate
tural analysis, explaining how the respon- students than for undergraduate students.
dents made their decisions to cheat or not Respondents, who have value orientation
to cheat. towards a close friend/group, consider in-
Reflecting on the fact that every deci- tegrity and honesty as a value, as long as
sion is made to pursue a needs fulfilment, both are relevant to the social bond with
and needs are related to value (Piaget 1968, their close friend/group, either their fellow
2001) that might be different for different students or family, and they tend to follow
individuals, each mode of reasoning indeed what their peers are doing.
shows how the respondents orient their Almost all of the rest of the respon-
view of the value of integrity. The modes dents, who are orientated to universal rules,
not only show the difference in how the rights, and moral values, chose not to cheat.
students justify their decisions, but it indeed Their mindsets are dominated by the aware-
reflects their value orientation to honesty ness of their role as students, the rules, ap-
as a value that shows how integrity is im- preciation of others’ work, etc. Even
portant to them. It reflects the meaning of though some decide to cheat, they base that
the value of integrity to students as a result decision on the principle of mutualism and
of their perception of that value of integ- the consideration of respective rights. Ori-
rity in their daily academic life. entation towards universal moral values is
Table 3 shows the mapping of the translated as a commitment to a principle,
percentage of respondents with their value in which they have no other reason besides
orientation. Most of the respondents in all the principle per se to explain why they
the classes have an instrumental relativist decide to cheat or not to cheat. People who
orientation to the value of integrity. It sug- possess this value orientation do not see
gests that most respondents see integrity that there is a reason, for example not to
and academic honesty in an egoistic point cheat, other than because of the value of
of view, one where value can bring ben- honesty and upholding the value of integ-
efits or harm to themselves and lead to the rity. The value becomes the terminal value,
achievement of their self-interest. The need and at the same time, the instrumental value.

98
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019

Table 2. Value Orientations Toward (Academic) Integrity

Value Orientation Modes of Reasoning

 Avoiding sanctions/punishment
Punishment and  Distracting attention from other things, e.g. blaming the situation
Obedience  Not seeing or acknowledging that the actions taken affect others
 Nothing is wrong with the action

 Considering the benefits of action, including pride

 Comparing the efforts and the risks arising from the decision
Instrumental  The decision taken depends on the circumstances
Relativist  The own self is the most important measure of whether a decision
is taken, regardless of whether it impacts other people or not
 Making use of other people for one’s own benefit

 Considering close-person’s (e.g. parents) exhortation or advice

Interpersonal  Seeing what other people are doing
Concordance  Thinking about what a close-person feels about taking action
 Considering pressure of a close person/group

 Understanding one’s status and role (as a student) as part of

society
 Emphasizing the attention and adherence to the rules and norms
Law and Order of social institution (education)
 Considering what the public may say about his actions
 Emphasizing the obligations and responsibilities of a student
 Considering whether the action violates the religious rules (sin)

 Paying attention to the rights existence, either of others or of

themselves
Rights and Social  Considering rewards for efforts made by other people
Contract
 Considering whether the action harms other people
 Emphasizing property rights

 Emphasizing commitment to value or principle as a terminal

value
 Expressing empathy that puts oneself in the position of other
Universal Moral people (golden rule)
Principle
 Considering justice, and treating the others fairly and equally
 Emphasizing integrity: conformity and coherence between a
commitment to certain values and principles, as well as actions

99
 Wisesa et al.

Table 3. Mapping of Value Orientation

Undergraduate Undergraduate Graduate

Value Orientation Class of 2014 Class of 2016 Class of 2016
(%) (%) (%)

Punishment and Obedience 24.69 21.43 8.24

Instrumental Relativist 44.44 46.94 68.24
Interpersonal Concordance 8.02 13.27 8.24
Law and Order 6.79 8.67 1.18
Rights and Social Contract 6.17 8.67 4.71
Universal Moral Principle 8.64 1.02 9.41

From the interview, it was discovered are external factors, namely the negative
that almost all of the students said that their effect of the course, the negative effect of
decision to cheat in the exam was not lecturers during the course, the nature of
planned in advance, but the decision just the problems in the exam (their difficulty,
came at that very moment. There are cir- unattractiveness, and/or having a small
cumstances that cause a shift in the deci- percentage of the final score), limited time,
sion, which is characterized by the emer- supervisor’s attitude during the exam, not
gence of situational factors that became a conducive exam situations, and social en-
new consideration when making the deci- vironment (classmates).
sion. These situational factors do not ap- On the other side, there are 11 situ-
pear, or are not identified, before the mo- ational factors that encouraged the students
ment of the exam occurs, so the students not to cheat, which are divided into inter-
do not take those factors into account in nal factors and external factors. The inter-
their previous decisions. nal factors are being resigned to fate (related
There are 13 situational factors that to the exam result), positive self-confidence,
encourage students to cheat. Six of them positive perceptions of the preparation
are internal factors: negative mood, feeling made for the exam, and the students’ un-
lazy about doing the task, students’ readi- derstanding of academic rules. The six ex-
ness in the exam, physical health condition, ternal factors that encourage students not
self-confidence in completing the exam, and to cheat are the positive effect of the
wrong expectation about the problems courses, assertion of rules during the exam,
given in the exam. The other seven of the the enforcement of the rules, firm attitude
13 factors that encourage students to cheat of the supervisors, the exam has different

100
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019

Table 4. Situational Factors Affecting Decision to Cheat or Not to Cheat

Situational Factors Affecting Situational Factors Affecting Decision

Decision to Cheat Not to Cheat
Negative mood
Positive mood
Laziness
Resignation
Readiness in facing the exam
Self-confidence
Internal Factors Physical health condition
Positive perception of preparations
Self confidence
Understanding of academic rules
Wrong expectation about the
problems given in the exam

Negative effect of the course Positive effect of the course

Negative effect of lecturers Assertion of rules
Attributes of the exam Enforcement of rules
External Factors Limited time Supervisor’s attitude
Supervisor’s attitude Variation of problems among students
Surroundings Classmates
Classmates

types of problems for different students, should get good grades. Others prior-
and the social environment (classmates). itize completing the exam as soon as pos-
Table 4 describes the situational factors sible. That is more important than the re-
involved in the decision to cheat or not to sults they may obtain. From the in-
cheat. terview, it was revealed that not success-
fully completing a test causes an un-
pleasant situation for the student, so the
Discussion top priority is how to get out of this un-
There are two explanations that pleasant feeling as soon as pos-
answer why students violate academic in- sible, not about the grade.
tegrity by cheating. First, as is often and Facing this difficulty in achieving a
commonly alleged, it is because they want good grade, there is a shift in the value struc-
to get a good grade. A good grade is seen as ture in the students’ minds that usually
a value, something that is valued as academic happens unconsciously. They shift the
excellence. For that reason, it is worth the prioritized value from how to be a good
hard effort to achieve it. In fact, there are student by getting a good grade to simply
conditions that can make getting a good how to get the good grade. This places the
grade uncertain, which can be internal or good grade as the terminal value and opens
external factors. Facing this, some students the instrumental value to the choice of how
stick to the goal (getting a good grade) and to get that good grade, in this case by cheat-
place getting a good grade as their want, ing or by not cheating. In the case of cheat-
that they want to get a good grade; and not ing, the students placed cheating as the in-
that they want the good grade because strumental value, and the way to get a good
normatively to be good students they grade as the terminal value.

101
 Wisesa et al.

Students know that integrity is one of tendency to cheat is dominant in the group
the main values that must be upheld and of instrumental relativists (38.7%).
the act of cheating is a serious offense. An interesting thing in this phenom-
However, their stage of cognitive moral enon is that at the beginning the students
development determines how they see and did not have any plan to cheat, but in the
orientate their perspective toward the value realization, they cheated. The emergence
of integrity. It results in how they perceive of these situational factors (see Trope and
integrity differently, and this affects them Liberman 2003) has the potential to make
in making a decision regarding the realiza- students re-evaluate and change their early
tion of that value. Most students have an decisions about not cheating during the
instrumental relativist orientation, which exam, especially when their commitment
encourages them to see the importance of is not too strong. Its situational nature
the value of integrity, relative to their need, causes these factors to be difficult to pre-
which can be met by realizing the value of dict early on. Be it internal or external, they
integrity. Whether to act or not to act with all can influence an individual’s decision to
integrity (for example being honest) is de- cheat or not. As internal factors, people are
termined by the evaluation of how honest not always aware of these factors, making
behavior can lead to the fulfillment of their it difficult to presume that they exist. Deal-
need. ing with external factors is even more
Placing integrity on a selfless commit- difficult. A person may control their inter-
ment to certain universal moral values or nal factors because of their free will and
principles carries consequences that only commitment, which allows them to con-
a few of the students who have the poten- trol it, but it is not so with the external fac-
tial to gain integrity realize. They have no tors. External factors come from the exter-
other reason other than the value or prin- nal environment, and people cannot
ciple they uphold: honesty, fairness, integ- control their emergence.
rity, and others. Their value orientation is Finally, when the students make de-
only to those values and principles, not to cisions that are contrary to the norm, when
other things such as avoiding sanctions, they decided to cheat, they make a ratio-
gaining a good grade, being accepted by nalization for their actions. This rational-
friends, following rules, and so on. ization confirms that at that time cheating
Value orientation does not specify was the right thing to do, even it is wrong
what course of action a person will take. in accordance with the academic norm.
Two individuals who have the same value This rationalization is a form of self-attempt
orientation to integrity can commit either to recreate the consistency within oneself,
to the same action or different actions. It is which was disturbed because of the cogni-
difficult and not relevant to say that one tive dissonance (Festinger 1962) that arises
particular value orientation causes people from making a decision that is contrary to
to cheat or not to cheat. However, the re- the norm. In summary, the ethical decision-
sult of the textural analysis reveals that the making process behind this phenomenon
is described in Figure1.

102
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019

Figure 1. How Value Orientation Affects Decision

Rationalization
Value

Value
Judgment Decision
Orientation

Cognitive
Moral
Development Situational
Factor

Unlike the Platonic tradition of Business Implications

thought (which, for example, is continued
by Piaget 2001 and Korsgaard 2009), know- Issues of ethics have increasingly be-
ing what is good is not sufficient for a per- come more important in organizations and
son to do good (Mackie 1990). Making a one of the main challenges in the 21st cen-
decision, by itself, is not enough to move a tury business setting. Understanding why
person to act. It also explains why students students decide to cheat, in spite of their
commit to cheating during the exam, even acknowledgment that cheating is norma-
though they knew it is forbidden. The key tively wrong, can be an insight into how
is in the value orientation, namely how value orientation plays role in shaping an
they interpret a certain value, and this is individual’s ethical decisions and actions in
influenced by their moral intelligence. It is the larger scope of the organization.
the individual’s orientation to value, not the Lawson (2004) said that the belief that
value itself, which plays an important role unethical behavior in the business world is
in the judgment process that results in a prevalent could, in fact, lead to such behav-
decision and action. The decision is rein- ior. Thus the belief among many business
forced by rationalization, especially when students that unethical behavior is wide-
the decision is not in line with the norm. spread in the business world, and is neces-
Sometimes, the decision is re-evaluated, due sary in order to advance their careers, is a
to the emergence of situational factors cause for concern. The findings of many
driven by environmental and contextual studies (eg. by Simkin and MecLeod 2010,
changes, as a form of adaptation mechanism and Isakov and Tripathy 2017) could lead
(see Piaget 1968, 2001). Not infrequently, to this belief becoming a self-fulfilling
situational factors affect (either change or prophecy in the business world. It becomes
strengthen) the decision that has been taken crucial for business schools to help students
earlier. understand and internalize ethical values

103
 Wisesa et al.

and behavior, so they will carry over this and building a reward-punishment system
ethical behavior into their future (Ma are important, but they cannot be enough.
2013). The values instilled in the college, Organizations should be aware of this dif-
including those concerning ethical values, ference, so they can effectively manage
will influence the way students perceive their value-based organizational behavior,
that these values will not only benefit them- to prevent unethical behavior in the orga-
selves, but also benefit the organizations nization.
where they work later. Building the values’ initiation and in-
The key word is value orientation. An ternalization system is necessary. It can
inappropriate orientation process towards encourage every person in the organization
values will make a person gain different to understand what values are in the orga-
meanings about the boundaries of behav- nization, how those values should be in-
ior that are considered morally good or bad terpreted, why the values are required, what
in the organizational environment. Orga- behavior is expected from those values, etc.
nization members may become more fo- On the other hand, a working environment
cused on the desire to complete tasks that can support a better ethical climate
quickly than on how to achieve them in needs to be pursued; one which suppresses
ethical ways. An employee can develop the existence of situational factors that en-
coping mechanisms to justify behavior that courage unethical behavior, and strength-
might appear to be immoral, such as com- ens the factors that encourage ethical be-
mitting fraud for the company’s benefit. In havior. Both building the values’ initiation
the end, the decision made by the employee and internalization system and creating a
is not in line with their company’s values. better ethical climate must be managed on
Reflecting on this, it becomes important for the development of advanced cognitive
organizations to ensure that the value ori- moral awareness. Therefore individuals can
entation process is carried out well. It is not provide ethical judgments and make better
only about understanding the values at the ethical decisions in the dilemma situations.
cognitive level, but also developing a plan
to help all members of the organization
internalize these values appropriately, so Conclusion
they have the same view about expected Every person acts, based on the val-
behavior. ues that they perceive that underlie their
How people’s behavior is affected by reason to act. The decision of students to
how people orient their moral values (as cheat or not is based on a variety of rea-
reflected in their value orientation) criticizes sons, not merely about the academic
the conventional way used by managers to grade. When students cheat, it is not sim-
deal with people’s behavior in their orga- ply because they do not have integrity. It
nization. The reward and punishment is more about how students perceive the
method, for example, would only be effec- value of integrity, and that depends on their
tive for people whose value orientation is value orientation toward the value, which
to punishment and obedience, but it might is how they assign the value of integrity in
not be effective for people who have a dif- their decision. Most students who were re-
ferent value orientation. Socializing values spondents for this research orientate the

104
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019

value of integrity and honesty to the ful- more detailed questionnaire is suggested, to
fillment of their own self-interest. Most of measure the moral development stages that
the rest orientate their view on sanction/ reflect the value orientation. Second, this
punishment. A few perceive the value of study does not examine whether situ-
integrity and honesty from the perspective ational factors really affect the decision-
of rules and their position as students, the making process, and how much value ori-
consideration of rights, and as a terminal- entation affects the decision, compared to
valued principle. In some cases, the deci- the situational factors. Third, the proposed
sion to cheat appears without being decided model was built in the higher education
beforehand, because of emerging factors in context. How the model could be used in
the situation. other contexts should be investigated. Fu-
However, this study has some limita- ture research may investigate the validity
tions. First, this study only uses a single- of the model and may expand the usage of
question questionnaire that may lack in the method used in this research to other
identifying the exact moral development contexts, for example, business organiza-
stages mastered by the respondents. A tions or government institutions, where the
value of integrity matters.

Acknowledgememt
This work was supported by the Research Grant Program 2017 from the School of
Business and Management – Institut Teknologi Bandung (SBM – ITB) and was presented
in the International Conference on Management in Emerging Markets (ICMEM) 2017.

References
Arbuthnot, J. B., and D. Faust. 1980. Teaching Moral Reasoning: Theory and Practice. New York:
Harper and Row.
Arthaud-Day, M. L., J. C. Rode, and W. H. Turnley. 2012. Direct and contextual effects of
individual values on organizational citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy 97 (4): 792-807.
Aust, P. J. 2004. Communicated values as indicators of organizational identity: A method for
organizational assessment and its application in a case study. Communication Studies 55 (4):
515-534.
Bansal, P. 2003. From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational
values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science 14 (5): 510–527.
Bardi, A., and S. H. Schwartz. 2003. Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (10): 1207-1220.
Berry, C. M., P. R. Sackett, and S. Wiemann. 2007. A review of recent developments in integrity
test research. Personnel Psychology 60 (2): 271-301.
Calhoun, C. 1995. Standing for something. The Journal of Philosophy 92 (5): 235-260.
Cox, D., M. La Caze, and M. Levine. 2003. Integrity and the Fragile Self. London: Ashgate.

105
 Wisesa et al.

Creswell, J. W. 2006. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Diskienë, D., and Goðtautas, V. 2010. Relationship between individual and organizational values
and employees’ job satisfaction. Current Issues of Business and Law 5 (2): 295-319.
Dömeová, L., and A. Jindrová. 2013. Unethical behavior of the students of the Czech University
of Life Sciences. International Education Studies 6 (11): 77-85.
Dyl¹g, A., M. Jaworek, W. Karwowski, M. Ko¿usznik, and T. Marek. 2013. Discrepancy between
individual and organizational values: Occupational burnout and work engagement among
white-collar workers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (3): 225-231.
Festinger, L. 1962. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Frankfurt, H. 1987. Identification and Wholeheartedness - Responsibility, Character, and the Emo-
tions: New Essays in Moral Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gorenak, M., and S. Košir. 2012. The importance of organizational values for organization. Pro-
ceeding of Management, Knowledge, and Learning International Conference 2012: 563-569.
Isakov, M., and A. Tripathy. 2017. Behavioral correlates of cheating: Environmental specificity
and reward expectation. PLoS ONE 12 (10): e0186054. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0186054
James, P. S. 2014. Aligning and propagating organizational values. Procedia Economics and Finance
11: 95–109.
Janiæijeviæ, N. 2013. The mutual impact of organizational culture and structure. Economic An-
nals LVIII (198): 35-60.
Kohlberg, L. 1981. The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San
Francisco: Harper and Row.
Kohlberg, L. 1986. The just community approach to corrections. Journal of Correctional Educa-
tion 37: 57-58.
Kolthoff, E., M. Macaulay, and F. Anechiarico. 2013. Introduction: Integrity systems for safe-
guarding ethics and integrity of governance. International Review of Administrative Sci-
ences79 (4): 593-596.
Korsgaard, C. M. 2009. Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Lawson, R. 2004. Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the ‘real
world’? Journal of Business Ethics, 49 (2): 189-199.
Ma, Z. 2013. Business students’ cheating in classroom and their propensity to cheat in the real
world: A study of ethicality and practicality in China. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 2 (1):
65-78.
Mackie, J. L. 1990. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin Books.
Magnis-Suseno, F. 2005. Pemikiran Karl Marx: Dari Sosialisme Utopiske Perselisihan Revisionisme.
Jakarta: Gramedia.
McFall, L. 1987. Integrity. Ethics 1: 5-20.

106
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – Jan.-April, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019

McGregor, L., and N. Doshi. 2015. How company culture shapes employee motivation. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/11/how- company-culture-shapes-em-
ployee-motivation.
Messick, D. M., and M. H. Bazerman. 2001. Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision
making. Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations 3, 213-238.
Moustakas, C. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Nonis, S., and C. O. Swift. 2001. An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty
and workplace dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Journal of Education for Business 77
(2): 69-76.
Oyserman, D., K. Elmore, and G. S. Smith. 2012. Self, Self-Concept, and Identity - Handbook of Self
and Identity (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Paarlberg, L. E., and J. L. Perry. 2007. Values management: Aligning employee values and organiza-
tion goals. The American Review of Public Administration 37 (4): 387-408.
Palanski, M. E., and F. J. Yammarino. 2007. Integrity and leadership: Clearing the conceptual con-
fusion. European Management Journal 25 (3): 171-184.
Petrick, J. A., and J. F. Quinn. 2000. The integrity capacity construct and moral progress in busi-
ness. Journal of Business Ethics 23 (1): 3-18.
Piaget, J. 1968. Six Psychological Studies. New York: Random House.
Piaget, J. 2001. The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge.
Putman, D. 1996. Integrity and moral development. The Journal of Value Inquiry 30: 237-246.
Rest, J. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Prager.
Robbins, S. P., and M. Coulter. 2016. Management (13th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Rokeach, M. 2000. Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal. New York: The Free
Press.
Rosenbaum, S. 2015. Recovering Integrity: Moral Thought in American Pragmatism. Lanham: Lex-
ington Books.
Schoeman, F. (Ed.). 1987. Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions: New Essays in Moral Psychol-
ogy. Cambridge University Press.
Simkin, M. G., and A. McLeod. 2010. Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics 94
(2): 441-453.
Six, F. E., F. G. De Bakker, and L. W. Huberts. 2007. Judging a corporate leader’s integrity: An
illustrated three-component model. European Management Journal 25 (3): 185-194.
Spector, P. 2006. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Talloo, T. J. 2007. Business Organization and Management. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, G. 1981. Integrity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55: 143-159.
Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2003. Temporal construal. Psychological Review 110: 403–421.
Williams, B. 1973. Integrity - Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

107
 Wisesa et al.

Wisesa, A. 2010. Menerapkan integritas di dalam organisasi. MBA ITB Business Review 5 (1).
Wisesa, A. 2016a. Analisis kritis mengenai integritas diri sebagai posisi dinamis dalam kerangka
pikir konstruktivistik Jean Piaget. Doctoral Dissertation. Depok: Universitas Indonesia.
Wisesa, A. 2016b. Cognitive moral development and its relevance in establishing moral integrity in
organization. Sains Humanika 1-2: 53-57.

108