Marketing Education Review, vol. 22, no. 1 (spring 2012), pp. 4550.

2012 Society for Marketing Advances. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1052-8008 / 2012 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/MER1052-8008220108
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) encourages using various pedagogies to expose
students to issues that they are likely to face in the busi-
ness world (2004, p. 13). In a sales context, this creates
a unique challenge. While unethical sales behaviors can
lead to negative consequences (e.g., customer complaints,
negative publicity, loss of business) that affect multiple
stakeholders, signicant performance incentives may tempt
salespeople to consider unethical behaviors for their per-
sonal gain. This is a common dilemma in sales contexts,
and it exemplies why many agree that long-term success in
professional selling requires acute ethical decision-making
skills (Anderson et al. 2005).
Among the wide variety of methods for teaching ethics,
experiential approaches provide students with deeper un-
derstanding of ethical issues than the traditional, passive
learning approaches (Hunt and Laverie 2004, p. 11). The
Commission Game is an experiment-based experiential
learning activity that requires students to make a single
decision, sell RED or sell BLUE. The decision has tan-
gible, shared risks and rewards for students and conceptual
consequences for other actors (e.g., the customer, the
sales manager). In addition, because self-reection is
critical in ethics education (Hunt and Laverie 2004), the
Commission Game implementation process includes mul-
tiple opportunities for students to reect on the ethical
reasoning underlying their decision. This paper describes
the activity, details its procedural steps, provides necessary
materials to implement it, and outlines a method to assess
specic student learning outcomes.
LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR ETHICAL
DECISION MAKING
An effective ethical framework for experiential learning
pedagogy is the HuntVitell theory of ethics (Hunt and
Vitell 1986, 1993; see also Hunt and Laverie 2004). This
theory and its model of ethical decision making are the
basis of the learning outcomes for the Commission Game.
This section denes these outcomes and provides a brief
overview of the theory.
The theory posits that industry, professional, organi-
zational, and cultural environments have codied and
implicit norms that, together with an individuals personal
characteristics, inuence an individuals moral code. In
turn, personal moral codes inuence an individuals rec-
ognition of an ethical situation, and subsequently, the per-
ceived alternatives and perceived consequences of possible
decisions. Thus, the games rst learning outcome is for
students to understand the value of developing a personal
code of ethics and to know how their own personal code
(or lack of one) inuences their decision making. The objec-
tive is to have students taking ownership of their personal
convictions at the end of class rather than using ambigu-
ous statements such as depending on how ____ or some
people think ____. As boundary spanners, salespeople must
be conscious of their moral codes because other groups at-
tempting to inuence their decision making will often have
strong, yet competing, views of right and wrong.
Once an ethical situation, alternatives, and conse-
quences are perceived, the theory states that an individual
evaluates the alternatives, makes an ethical judgment, forms
Chad Milewicz (Ph.D., University of Central Florida), Assistant
Professor of Marketing, College of Business, University of South-
ern Indiana, Evansville, IN, cmmilewicz@usi.edu.
THE COMMISSION GAME: AN ETHICS ACTIVITY FOR
PROFESSIONAL SELLING COURSES
Chad Milewicz
The Commission Game is an experiment-based experiential learning activity designed to elicit students
sincere ethical decision making in an ambiguous sales context. The activity includes multiple relevant
stakeholders as well as tangible, shared risk/reward elements. The activitys design encourages students
to contemplate their own personal code of ethics and to evaluate the inuence of their ethical beliefs
on their decision making. This paper describes the activitys process and provides implementation and
assessment materials.
46 Marketing Education Review
behavioral intentions, and then acts. The evaluation process
has two potential elements: deontological and teleological.
Deontological evaluations refer to the inherent rightness
or wrongness of the behaviors implied by each alternative
(Hunt and Laverie 2004, p. 8). This type of evaluation is
based on predetermined moral norms. A teleological evalu-
ation is an evaluation of the sum of total goodness versus
badness likely to be provided by each alternative for all
relevant stakeholders (Hunt and Laverie 2004, p. 8). This
type of evaluation regards beliefs about the outcomes of
a decision in a given context. Thus, the second learning
outcome is for students to understand how their decisions
are inuenced by deontological and teleological evaluations
of choice options. The objective is to have students recog-
nize the extent to which their decision making might be
affected by evaluations of the favorability of the outcome
(i.e., teleological evaluations) and by predetermined morals
(i.e., deontological evaluations).
THE COMMISSION GAME
Table 1 outlines the procedural steps for implementing the
Commission Game, the objective of each step, the approxi-
mate time to complete each step, and the materials that are
needed. All the necessary class materials are provided in
this paper (see Figures 1 and 2).
In step 1, have a student randomly distribute the Nor-
mative Belief Questionnaire (Figure 1) at the end of the
class meeting just prior to the one in which the activity
will occur. Instruct the students to bring the completed
questionnaire to that class. This is the rst self-reection,
requiring each student to reect on his or her own norma-
tive deontological beliefs about sales-related decisions. To
reduce social desirability in this game, ask students to use
the unique number on their questionnaire, not their names,
for future written self-reections.
In step 2, begin the next class meeting with a discussion
on ethical decision making in professional selling, encour-
aging students to share their opinions and perspectives.
Step 3 involves getting buy-in and is the beginning of
the Commission Game. Start this step immediately follow-
ing the group discussion on ethical decision making. The
following suggestions are very effective at gaining buy-in
and making the activity feel realistic.
First, mention to the class that commission structures
are not necessarily aligned with customer satisfaction.
Table 1
Steps to Incorporate the Commission Game in Class
Step Theme Objective Approximate Time Materials Used
Pregame Steps
1 First Self-Reection Encourage students to reect on personal moral
code
1 minute and time
outside of class
Normative moral belief
questionnaire
2 First Group Discussion Introduce an ethical decision-making framework
and the ethical pressures faced by salespeople
as boundary spanners
20 minutes Ethical decision-making
framework
In-Game Steps
3 Buy-In Convince students that the scenario is plausible in
reality
5 minutes Real-world example
4 Rules of the Game Ensure that students know the potential outcomes
of their choices
3 minutes Payout table and
scenario
5 Decision Experience Require students to take ownership of their choice 2 minutes Blank paper for each
student
Postgame Steps
6 Second Self-Reection Encourage student to reect on their decision and
identication of ethical issues
10 minutes Blank paper for each
student
7 Second Group
Discussion
Have students connect their analysis of the
scenario and their decision to the HuntVitell
theory of ethics
20 minutes Model of the Hunt
Vitell theory of
ethics
8 Third Self-Reection Encourage students to reect on the process of
learning about ethics in personal selling
10 minutes Blank paper for each
student
9 Payday Tell students the game results and the
commissions they earn (or do not earn)
5 minutes Not applicable
Spring 2012 47
Second, briey explain that short-term prots can hurt
long-term gains if, in the process, customer relationships
are hurt and overall customer satisfaction levels decline.
Most marketing students accept this easily. Third, provide
a real-world example. I nd the most effective way to do
this is to briey tell students about the Joint SEC/NASD
Report on Examination Findings Regarding BrokerDealer
Sales of Variable Insurance Products (U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission 2004). This report is easily accessible
online. Provide a visual aid of the ofcial document (e.g.,
on a Web page or a printed copy) and read excerpts from
the executive summary. Stress phraseology such as high
commissions . . . help drive sales, these high fees . . .
make variable insurance products inappropriate for many
investors, and received a large number of complaints
(U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 2004, pp. 23).
Once students accept that the Commission Game scenario
is plausible, begin step 4.
In step 4, distribute and discuss the Decision Scenario
Student Handout (Figure 2). There are four key points to
make to the class prior to the decision. First, RED products
pay higher bonus commissions (10 bonus points in class
for students deciding to sell RED versus 5 bonus points
for those selling BLUEthis is the tangible outcome of the
decision). However, BLUE products lead to higher average
customer satisfaction. Second, if more than 40 percent of
the regions sell RED products (8 regions if there are 20 in
the class), then long-term prots (shown by expected stock
values) are likely to fall considerably. Third, if 40 percent
of the regions sell RED, then all bonus commissions are
immediately terminated and no one in the class receives
the bonus points associated with the product they chose
to sell.
Bonus point levels should lead students to perceive some
personal, tangible risk in their decision making. Based on
previous iterations of this game, the most effective com-
mission structure is for approximately 3 percent of the
total points for the class to be the bonus for selling RED
and 1.5 percent to be the payout for selling BLUE (10 and
5 points, respectively, in Figure 2). Also, if you have more
than 20 students in class, pair up some students such that
there are only 20 sales regions making decisions at the
beginning of step 4. If you have fewer than 20 students,
then adjust the nal bullet point in Figure 2 to reect that
if more than 40 percent of the classs regions sells RED,
then no commissions are awarded. Adjust Figure 2 as needed
to t each class.
Step 5 is the decision. After the rules are understood, ask
the students to write down what product they will sell, but
do not give any other instructions. Require the students to
experience the logical and emotional elements of interpret-
ing the decision scenario. Students must be challenged to
examine their own personal moral codes, including their
value systems deontological norms and teleological beliefs
(Hunt and Laverie 2004, p. 10). Is it okay to look at other
peoples choices or for the class to talk and coordinate deci-
sions? Let them decide.
In step 6, have the students turn in one sheet of paper
with their choice of what to sell and their name (to allow
you to award the bonus commissions) and to keep one
sheet with their choice and their number (taken from the
questionnaire). On the sheet of paper with their number,
Figure 1
Sample Normative Moral Belief Questionnaire
Random number assigned to me: ___________
Please read each statement below and indicate the extent to which you believe it is morally wrong, morally right, or neither by cir-
cling the number that best matches your belief:
Morally
Wrong Neither
Morally
Right
Making decisions that potentially hurt the company. 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Making decisions that potentially hurt your coworkers. 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Making decisions that earn the highest commissions. 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Always putting the customers best interests rst. 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Setting commission policies based on what is best for the
company.
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Setting commission policies based on what is best for the
salesperson.
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Setting commission policies based on what is best for the
customer.
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
48 Marketing Education Review
ask students to answer two questions: What decision did
you make, and why did you make it? and Were there any
ethical issues in the scenario (if so, please explain)? As they
write this self-reection essay, tally the total sales gures,
but do not reveal them until the end of class.
In step 7, discuss the basics of the HuntVitell theory of
ethics. Hunt and Laverie (2004) provide a thorough pedagog-
ical-based explanation of the theory. Encourage the students
to reect on and discuss the formation of their intentions
and behavior during step 5. After this discussion, ask the
students to respond to the question Have your perspectives
on ethical decision making adapted after the previous class
discussions and exercises? This is step 8. Have the students
put their number on this second self-reection essay and
turn it in with their original questionnaire and the rst self-
reection essay. Finally, reveal the results (step 9).
Figure 2
Decision Scenario Student Handout
Number of Regions
Selling RED
(Average Customer
Satisfaction = 7;
Salesperson Bonus
Commission = 10)
Cumulative Expected
RED Value
(Customer/
Salesperson)
Number of Regions
Selling BLUE
(Average Customer
Satisfaction = 10;
Salesperson Bonus
Commission = 5)
Cumulative Expected
BLUE Value
(Customer/
Salesperson)
Companys Expected
Stock Value
(Next Quarters Closing
Share Price)
0 0/0 20 200/100 $100
1 7/10 19 190/95 $100
2 14/20 18 180/90 $98
3 21/30 17 170/85 $98
4 28/40 16 160/80 $98
5 35/50 15 150/75 $95
6 42/60 14 140/70 $93
7 49/70 13 130/65 $90
8 56/80 12 120/60 $87
9 63/90 11 110/55 $83
10 70/100 10 100/50 $79
11 77/110 9 90/45 $75
12 84/120 8 80/40 $71
13 91/130 7 70/35 $66
14 98/140 6 60/30 $61
15 105/150 5 50/25 $55
16 112/160 4 40/20 $49
17 119/170 3 30/15 $43
18 126/180 2 20/10 $36
19 133/190 1 10/5 $29
20 140/200 0 0/0 $20
How the payout table relates to your commission:
You are hired by me to sell RED and BLUE products in a given region of the country. I have a commission scheme that rewards the sell-
ing of RED more than the selling of BLUE because it brings my company greater current net profts. As the sales manager, my quarterly
bonus is tied to current net profts. While I want to keep my job in the long term, I am still very interested in current profts.
As a regional salesperson in my company you must choose to focus your efforts on selling either RED or BLUE products this quarter. You
cannot focus your attention on selling both.
If you choose to sell RED, you can expect a 10 point bonus commission (paid as bonus points in this class) and you can expect an aver-
age customer satisfaction rating of 7 (out of 10) in your region.
If you choose to sell BLUE, you can expect a 5 point bonus commission (paid as bonus points in this class) and you can expect an aver-
age customer satisfaction rating of 10 (out of 10) in your region.
However, if more than 8 regions sell RED, then my company will likely see a noticeable increase in customer complaints (to us, other
customers, and regulators) and our stock value will likely drop more than 13 percent by next quarter. If the board of directors sense this
is going to happen, I will likely get fred and my commission scheme is terminated immediately. Thus, if more than 8 regions push RED,
no one receives their expected bonus commission points.
Spring 2012 49
Table 2
Sample Assessment of the Second Self-Reection Essays on Ethical Decision Making and
Sample Statements from the Final Self-Reection Essays (N = 20)
Assessment Item/
Assessment Measure Result Interpretation
Ownership of Ethical Reasoning Percent (S.D.)
Percentage of students clearly stating personal
convictions in the step 6 self-refection (e.g., not
saying depending on how . . .)
5% (0.22) 95 percent of students recognize that their personal
moral code is part of ethical reasoning and decision
making.
Bases for Ethical Evaluations Count (S.D.)
Average number of deontological statements made in
the step 6 self-reection
< 1 (0.44) In this situation, teleological reasoning drives ethical
decision making more than deontological beliefs.
Interestingly, class discussion before the decision in
this activity tended to reect more deontological
opinions of ethics.
Average number of teleological statements 2.10 (0.85)
Customer-Oriented Bases for Reasoning Percent (S.D.)
Customer identied as an important stakeholder in the
step 6 self-reection
35 (0.49) Most students minimize the customers inuence as a
key stakeholder in the decision process.
Count (S.D.)
Average number of stakeholders identifed 3.55 (1.01) Students perceive multiple stakeholders affected by
their decisions, but this tendency varied across
students.
Consistency with Deontological Beliefs* Count (Percentage of
Students
Labeled putting the customers best interests frst
as morally right and gave a customer-oriented
reasoning for decision
6 (30) Although students state they have certain
deontological beliefs, the teleological perspectives
tend to dominate decision making.
Labeled putting the customers best interests frst
as morally right and chose to sell a product with
higher customer satisfaction over higher commission
10 (50)
Labeled decisions that potentially hurt company as
morally wrong and chose to sell a product that
potentially hurt the company or coworkers
6 (30)
Sample Statements from Final Self-Reection
I learned to answer the why question in more detail because that is how the decisions are made.
More than anything, I have found out where I stand with my ethical decisions. I have found out what decisions I would most likely make
in the future.
Ive had a pretty good perception before, but to be fair it is was probably more deontological. Before, I thought mostly in those plain
black-and-white terms.
Choosing red or blue really said a lot about who we are as a person.
Helped us to learn to think through the decision-making process and how our decisions could impact others.
Notes: S.D. = standard deviation. *A student is identied as labeling a respective statement as morally right if he or she rated the statement as +2
or +3 and as morally wrong if he or she rated the statement as 3 or 2 on a scale that ranged from 3 to +3, with 0 indicating a state-
ment was neither morally right nor morally wrong.
ASSESSMENT, IMPLEMENTATION
CHALLENGES, AND ADAPTABILITY
Table 2 details a way to assess the learning outcomes, as well
as a sample assessment from a class. Sharing assessment data
with the class is a powerful learning tool. Reading the nal
student reections can help close the loop and improve
future iterations of the game.
The game is fun and easy to implement. The most dif-
cult challenge is to motivate self-reection, yet provide
anonymity. Allowing anonymity helps students to be hon-
est, but this also makes it difcult to assign grades, which
50 Marketing Education Review
can motivate participation. I recommend assigning a grade
value of approximately 2 percent of the total course points
for the reective essays and asking students to grade their
own self-reections based on their overall completeness.
This grade weight tends to ensure the essays are done but
does not inappropriately inate grades.
I have run this game 12 times and awarded the bonus
commission all but once, and students have never com-
plained. If adapting the game to teach ethics in other
courses, the key is to maintain the main pillars of the peda-
gogy: tangible consequences to students for their actions
and multiple opportunities for reection.
REFERENCES
AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business)
International (2004), Ethics Education in Business Schools:
Report of the Ethics Education Task Force to AACSB Inter-
nationals Board of Directors, Tampa, FL (available at www
.gfme.org/issues/pdfs/EthicsEducation.pdf).
Anderson, Rolph E., Andrea Dixon, Eli Jones, Mark W. Johnston,
Raymond W. LaForge, Greg W. Marshall, and John F. Tanner,
Jr. (2005), The Scholarship of Teaching in Sales Education,
Marketing Education Review, 15 (2), 110.
Hunt, Shelby D., and Debra A. Laverie (2004), Experiential Learn-
ing and the HuntVitell Theory of Ethics: Teaching Market-
ing Ethics by Integrating Theory and Practice, Marketing
Education Review, 14 (3), 114.
, and Scott J. Vitell (1986), A General Theory of Marketing
Ethics, Journal of Macromarketing, 6 (Spring), 515.
, and (1993), The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A
Retrospective and Revision, in Ethics in Marketing, N. Craig
Smith and John A. Quelsch, eds., Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin, 775785.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2004), Joint SEC/
NASD Report on Examination Findings Regarding Broker
Dealer Sales of Variable Insurance Products, Washington,
DC, June (available at www.sec.gov/news/studies/secnasdvip.
pdf).
Copyright of Marketing Education Review is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.