STRATEGY

THE ETHICAL ORIENTATION OF U.S. SMALL BUSINESS
DECISION MAKERS: A PRELIMINARY STUDY

Dianne H. B. Welsh
Nancy J. Birch

Eastern Washington University

ABSTRACT

Recent news reports ofescalating ethics violations in the workplace has produced growing
concern. This study surveyed small business decision makers concerning their ethical
otdentation. These results were then compared to general responses as reflected in the norms
for validating the threeinstruments. Small business decision makers perceived themselves as
less likely to engage in exploitative power behavior and perceived their organizations as
fostering a more collective and procedurally oriented climate ihat might be inierpreted as
attempting to institutionalizemorality. Additionally small businessdecision makers had lower
idealism and relativism scores, suggesting that they were more likely to use power to adj ust
personalinj usticesor to protect oneselffrom potential exploitation. Furtherimplicaiionofthis
preliminary study are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The airwaves are being permeated with heated discussions of family values. Values are
being equated, in part, with ethics. Almost every discipline has examined ethics. Indeed,
ethical considerationsaffect all forms of human activity, including business organizations. In
1978, Katz and Kahn determined that individual and organization values are important in
determining behavior. Since then, a number of authors have expounded on the importance of
ethical considerations in business decision making (Andrews, 1989; Berenbeim, 1987;
Beversluis, 1987; Evans, 1991; Frederick, 1988; Goddard, 1988; Hector, 1989; Henderson,
1982; Longenecker, McKinney, & Moore, 1988; Payne & Duhon, 1990; Shostack, 1990;
Stead, Worrell, & Stead 1990; Von der Embse & Wagley, 1988; and Wemer, 1992). The
Kellogg Foundation published a working paper series examining ethics and leadership (1996).
Recently, proposed frameworks or models of ethical decision making in business have been
introduced(Gatewood & Carol, 1991;Payne & Giacalone,1990; and Jones, 1991). Likewise,
unethical behavior has been studied in terms of the cost of employee dishonesty (Clark &
Hollinger, 1983; Walls, 1988); in addition to its causes and solutions (Bauman, 1988;
Bernstein, 1985; Buckley, 1986; and Carter, 1987). In 1992, Dees and Starr reviewed the
existing articles on ethics and small business and concluded that there were few studies that
explicitly examined this issue.

The vast majority of businesses in the United States are classified as small businesses.
The number of companies with fewer than one hundred employees has increased nearly fitly

41



percent since the early 1980s. According to the Small Business Administration, there are 20
million small businesses that account for more than half of all U.S. employment and contribute
more than a third to the gross domestic product (Dugan, 1996). The reasons for the
monumental growth of small business include the downsizing of corporations,disenchantment
of college-age students with long term career development, greater desire for independence and
self determination, increased outsourcing, an increased population starting their second career
atter retirement or to supplement their income, and an increased population of protected group
members desiring economic stability. Concerning the last point, women entrepreneurs are

formingsmall businesses at twice the rate of men. One in ten workers is now employed by a
woman-owned company (Zellner, King, Byrd, DeGeorge, & Birnbaum, 1994). The Bureau
of the Census reports that in 1992, 6.4 million women-owned firms were counted
("Highlights,"1996). As of 1996, women-owned firms is estimated to be 8 million ("Through
a Glass," 1996).

There have been a comparatively few number of studies that have examined the ethics
of small business owners and decision makers. Most of these studies have focused on the
differences in ethical considerations and attitudes between large and small business

decision-makers (Brown & King, 1982; Chrisman & Fry, 1982; Hills & Narayana, 1989;
Longenecker, McKinney, & Moore, 1988, 1989a, 1989b; Timmons & Stevenson, 1983; Ward,
1987 and Wilson, 1980; among others). A much larger body of research has focused on large
businesses and executives exclusively (Andrews, 1989; Bamett & Karson, 1987; Cadbury,
1987; Enz, Dol linger & Daily, 1990;Gel lerman, 1989;Giaca lone & Ashworth, 1988;Goddard,
1988; Kirrane, 1990; Reilly & Kyj, 1990; and Thompson & Smith, 1991). There have been
a few noteworthy exceptions of studies focusing only on small business. Smith and Oakley
(1994)compared small business owners in urban and non-urbanareas in one state. They found
that non-urban small business owners deemed ethicalbehavior more important than their urban

counterparts. They also found that ethical values were negatively correlated with formal

education. In other words, the higher the education level, the lower the ethical values. Other

studies have compared the ethics of small business owners and decision makers to the ethics
oftheircustomers. Humphreys, Robin, Reidenbach, and Moak (1993) used four scenarios of
ethical business dilemmas and concluded that as long as the manager is telling the truth, it is

the customer's responsibility to determine what is the meaning behind the communication.

H b,h *h y«b ~hi* i fh ti I «i f
small business decision-makers and workplace climate. The importance of a supportive
climate is well documented, beginning with Schneider(1973, 1975). Victor and Cullen(1988)
called for such additional research concerning specific types of organizations. In particular,
is there adifferencebetweenindividualattitudesofsmall businessdecision-makerstoward the

use of power and individual ethics, and perceptions of ethical climate and behavior in the work
place? This article reports the results of a preliminary national survey of small business
decision-makersusing three measuresofethicalorientation. Implications for further research

are discussed.

42



METHODOLOGY

The data for this study involved a nationwide survey of small business owners. Two
hundred small businesses were randomly selected from Dun 's Electronic Business Directory
of small businesses. This sample consisted of various types of businesses, all classified as
small according to 1)un's criteria, from all fitty states. In addition to sending postcard
reminders two follow up mailings of the survey were used to increase response rate. Several
questionnaires were returned because the small businesses no longer existed. As reported in
the literature, this group is particularly difficult to sample because of their low response rate
(Thompson and Smith, 1991). Mobility, failure rate, and the owner's limited time are some
of the factors that contributeto this problem. Additionally, the length of this survey may have
contributed to a lower response rate.

~Sam le

The subjects of this study were 26 owners and/or managers of small businesses in the
United States. Twenty-one, or Sl percent, were owners. Seventy-three percent of the
respondents were male, 77 percent were married, and 85 percent had completed a college
degree. The respondents had been involved in their company for an average of 5.2 years with
'a standard deviation of 5.3 years. Thirty-five percent of the companies had been in existence
for five years or less; 65 percent for six or more years.

The subjects were asked to complete a series of instruments and a demographic section.
Three specific instruments of interest for this study were: the Mach V Attitude Inventory, the
Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ), and the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ).

Mach V Attitude Invento

The Mach V Attitude Inventory consists of 20 items involving a choice among three
responses. Respondentsrank order the three items by indicating the item they most and least
agree with. The instrument measures individual attitudes towards power and the use/abuse of
power —particularly in the Machiavellian tradition of "the ends justify the means." The
instrument is validated (Christie and Geis, 1970). Scores range from a low of 40 (low
Machiavellianism) to a high of 160 (high Machiavellianism). Using the Mach V Attitude
Inventory score key, each question is given a score of either I, 3, 5, or 7. The scores are then
summed.

Ethical Position uestionnaire

The Ethical Position Questionnaire (Forsyth, 1980) measures individual ethical
perspectives along two dimensions. One —relativism —indicates the extent to which the
respondent engages in situational-based evaluations of ethical behavior. The
other-idealism —measures an individual's belief in the existence of universal principles
prescribing moral behavior. The instrument presents 20 statements (10 each scale) to which
respondents rate their agreement on a 9-point LikeN-type scale. The idealism score is obtained

43



by finding the mean of the ten questions relating to idealism. The relativism score is found by
computing the mean of the other ten questions.

The ethical perspective, relativism is the extent to which the individual rejects universal

moral rules in favor of relativism. Some individuals reject the possibility of formulating or
relying on universal moral rules when drawing conclusion about moral questions, whereas

others believe in and make use of moral absolutes when making judgments. The other ethical
perspective focuses on idealism in one's moral attitudes. Some individuals idealistically

assume that desirable consequences can, with the "right" action, always be obtained. Those

with a less idealistic orientation, on the other hand, admit that undesirable consequences will

oRen be mixed in with desired ones.

Ethical Climate uestionnaire

The Ethical Climate Questionnaire was developed by Victor and Cullen (1987, 1988)
to measure perceptions of the ethical climate, and resulting behavior, within an individual's
organization. The instrument presents 26 items measuring 5 dimensions of ethical climate.
Respondents rank their agreement with these items on a 6-point Likert-type scale. The five

dimensions are: professionalism, caring, rules, instrumentality, and independence.

C~iG
As an initial step it is appropriate to compare this sample of small business owners to

the general population before conducting sub-group comparisons. Therefore, the normative

statistics generated through the original development activities of each instrument were used.
The comparison group for the Mach V is the original sample used in the scale development and

validation procedures. This comparison group consists of responses from 764 male and 832
female respondents(Christie & Geis, 1970). The comparison group for the EPQ are the 241

subjects used to validate the instrument (Forsyth, 1980). The comparison group for the ECQ
are the 75 MBA students used in the original validation study (Victor & Cullen, 1987).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for the U S. sample were presented in the Methods section. Table

I presents the correlation matrix for the Mach V and ethical position variables. Table 2

presents the intercorrleations for the ethical climate variables.

Table I
Correlations for Small Business am le Mach V and Ethical Position

Item Mach V Idealism Relativism

Mach V 1.000
Idealism -0.146 1.000
Relativism -0.151 0.054 1.000

44



No significant correlations were found between Mach V, idealism, relativism and the
following demographicvariables: age of respondent, number of employees, number of years
in current position, and company age. That is there is no relationship between the use and
abuse of power or between ethical position and age of respondent, size of the organization,
experience of respondent or company age. No significant differences were found in the Mach
V, relativism, and idealism scores between males and females. In addition, there were no
significantdifferences in the Mach V, idealism, and relativism scores by company age (5 years
or less versus more than 5 years).

Table 2
Correlations for mall Business Sam le Ethical Climate

Item Professionalism Carin Rules Instrumental Inde endence
Professionalism 1.000
Caring 0.618 1.000
Rules 0.140 0.093 1.000
Instrumental -0.465 -0.265 0.251 1.000
Independence 0.450 0.415 -0.231 -0.429 1.000

For the ethical climate scale, a moderate positive correlation between caring and
professionalism was found. Weak positive correlations were detected for independence and
professionalism, and independence and caring. Instrumental and professionalism, and
instrumental and independence produced weak negative correlations.

Table 3 provides the results of the t-tests investigating the differences in ethical
orientation between small business owners and the norms.

Mach V Attitude Invento

A score of!00 is the center-point on the scale and represents a neutral perspective on
the philosophy that the use of power can be justified by the objective for which it is used. Our
analysis included a comparison by gender as reported in the original research. There was no
significant difference between male and female levels of Machiavellian orientation. That is,
there is no difference in how male and female small business owners use or abuse power.
However, both male and female small business owners/managers had significantly lower
orientation toward the use and abuse of power (mean for males = 76.18,t = 2.71,p & .01,mean
for females = 81.71,t = 3.81,p & .01)than the V.S. norms. This means that the self-perceptitn
among these small business owners is that they do not use or abuse power to obtain personal
or organizational objectives.

45



Table 3
Anal sis of Differences in Sam le Means for U S Small Business
Owner Mana ers versus U.S. Norms

Small Bus. Owners U.S. norms t -value

Mach V Attitude Invento

male 76.18 99.27 2.71 0.0000«»

(16.04) (11.17)

female 81.71 95.60 3.81 0.0003*»

(6.87) (10.09)

Ethical Position uestionnaire

relativism 4.74 6.18 -6.39 0.0000»«
(1.50) (1.13)

idealism 6.24 6.35 -0.49 0.63
(1.08) (1.17)

Ethical Climate uestionnaire

professionalism 3.66 3.60 0.32 0.7500
(0.84) (0.86)

caring 3.27 2.40 4.76 0.0000«*

(0.62) (0.89)

rules 3.35 3.00 1.87 0.062»
(0.83) (0.93)

instrumental 2.09 2.00 0.42 0.67
(0.71) (1.03)

independence 2.75 2.10 3.22 0.0013«»
(1.18) (0.99)

««significant at the .01 level
«significant at the .10 level

46



Ethical Position uestionnaire

No significant differences were found between small business owners and the U.S.
norms for the level of idealism they held regarding ethical behavior(t = -0 49, p & .60). In fact,
small business owners expressed a slightly higher adherence to behavioral standards that
protected the well-being and dignity of their employees. The difference in relativism scores
was significant(t = -6 39,p &.01). These results reflect a perspective in which ethical values
are considered to be somewhat universal in their relevance, and rigid in their application. No
significant differences in relativism or idealism scores were found between male and female
small business owners.

Ethical Climate uestionnaire

The final results illustrate the perception that these small business owners have
concerning the climate in which they work. In general, these respondents perceive a low level
of moral independence and instrumental (self-serving) behavior. That is, the ability to
determine right from wrong and to develop a personal code seems to be stifled. At the same
time, there is a strong perception that their organizations place a high emphasis on
professionalism, caring, and rules.

When compared to U.S. norms, there are significant (or marginally significant)
diITerences in 3 of the 5 ECQ dimensions. Both small business owners and U.S. norms
reported low perceived levels of instrumentalism. That is, small business owners are not any
more likely than the general U.S. population to place their own interests above the
organizations'. Small business owners and U.S. norms are not significantly different in their
perception of professionalism in their organizations. That is, there is no difference in legal,
professional, or customer based expectations or regulations in guiding behavior.

In terms of differences, small business owners perceived higher levels of caring,
independence,and rules. Specifically, small business respondents reported a greater sense of
employee concern among organizational members. These respondents reported a greater sense
of independence. That is, definitions of right and wrong were not totally explicated by the
organization. Finally, small business owners reported a greater emphasis on the extent to
which behavior was dictated by company rules, and other formal specifications of individual
activities.

CONCLUSION

This study's purpose was to explore potential differences in ethical orientation between
small business owners and general U.S. responses as reflected in the norms used for validating
each instrument. In general, small business decision makers perceived themselves as less
likely to engage in exploitative power behavior in order to meet personal or organizational
objectives. This, however, may be attributed to the fact that, because of their size and their
relatively weak bargaining power, they may not be ~ca a le of exercising exploitative power,
therefore they may perceive this as proof of their ethical behavior compared to their larger
business counterparts. Small business owners, in addition, perceived their organizations as

47



fostering a more collectively and procedurally oriented climate that might be interpreted as

attempting to institutionalize morality.

We found it interesting that higher Mach V scores corresponded with lower idealism and

relativism scores. One who is numbed in terms of their belief in a "just and fair society" may
be more likely to view the use of power as a way to adjust personal injustices, or to protect
oneself from potential exploitation.

In conclusion, this study provides a preliminary view of the ethical orientation of a
sample of small business owners. An obvious limitation of this study was its limited sample
size, thus the results should not be generalized to the entire population of small business
owners in the United States. As the environment in which small businesses operate changes,

both demographical lyand technologically, future research should consider longitudinal studies

on ethics and possible changes in ethical orientation. Further research should also include

comparisons of small business owners to other distinct groups such as mid-size and large
business owners or managers, home-based business owners, franchisees and franchisors and

familybusinessowners. Withincreasedaccesstothelnternetandwebpages,thesepopulatiora

should be easier to reach.

48



REFERENCES

Andrews, K. R. (1989). Ethics in practice. Harvard Business Review, 99-104.
Badaracco, J. L., Jr., & Webb, A. P. (1995, Winter). Business ethics: A view from the

trenches. California Management Review, 37(2), 8-28.
Bamett, J. H., & Karson, M. J. (1987). Personal values and business decisions: An

exploratory investigation. Journal of Business, 6(5), 317-382.
Bauman, R. (1988). It isn't stealing - is it? Supervision, 49(1), 6-8.
Berenbeim, R. E. (1987). The corporate ethics test. Business and Society Review, 63, 22-25.
Bernstein, P. (1985). Cheating - the new national pastime? Business, 35(4), 24-33.
Beversluis, E. H. (1987). Is there no such thing as business ethics? Journal ofBusiness Ethics,

6(2), 81-88.
Brown, D. J., & King, J. B.(1982). Small business ethics: Influencesand perceptions. Journal

ofSmall Business Management, 20(1), 11-18.
Buckley, J. P. (1986). Honesty, it's the truth. Security Management, 30(6), 87-92.
Cadbury, S. A. (1987). Ethical managers make their own rules. Harvard Business Review,

65(5), 69-73.
Carter, R. (1987). Employee theA oAen appears legitimate. Accountancy, l00 (1127), 75-78.
Chrisman,J.J.,& Fry, F.L.(1982). Publicversusbusinessexpectations: Two views on social

res pons ibi I i ty for small business. Journal ofSmall Business Management, 20(1), 19-26.
Christie, R. & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studiesin Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Clark, J. P., & Hoflinger, R. C. (1983). Theft by emptoyeet in work organizations. Rockville,

MD: National Institute of Justice.
Dees, J. G., & Starr, J. A. (1992). Entrepreneurship through an ethical lens: Dilemmas and

issues for research and practice. In D. L. Sexton, & J. D. Kasarda (Eds.), The state of
the art of entrepreneurship (pp. 89-116).Boston, Mass.: Kent Publishing.

Enz, C. A., Dollinger, M. J., & Daily, C. M. (1990, Fall). The value orientations of minority
and non-minority smafl business owners. EntrepreneurshtpTheoryand Practice, l5(1),
23-25.

Evans, R., & Sedgwick, P. (1991). Business ethics and changes in society. Journal of
Business Ethi cs, l 0(11),871-879.

Frederick, W. C. (1988). An ethics roundtable: The culprit is the culture. Management
Review, 77(8), 48-50.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(1), 175-184.

Gatewood, R. D. & Carroll, A. B.(1991).Assessment of ethical performance of organization
members: A conceptual framework. Academy ofManagement Review, l 6(4), 667-690.

Gellerman, S. W. (1989, Winter). Managing ethics from the top down. Sloan Management
Review, 30(2), 73-79.

Giacalone, R. A., & Ashworth, D. N. (1988, Summer). From lip service to community service:
How to foster an ethical atmosphere in the workplace. Business and Society Review, 66,
31-33.

Goddard, R. W. (1988). Are you an ethical manager? Personnel Journal, 67(3), 38-47.
Hector, G. (1989, April 24). Cute tricks on the bottom line. Fortune, 193-200.
Henderson, V. E. (1982). The ethical side of enterprises. Sloan Management Review, 23(3),

38-46.

49



Highlights of the 1992 economic census: Women-owned businesses. (1996, Spring). The
partnership. Washington, DC: Interagency Committee on Women's Business
Enterprise.

Hills, G. E., & Narayana, C. L. (1992). Profile characteristics, success factors, and marketing
in highly successful firms. In R. H. Brockhaus, Sr., et al. (Ed.), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, Mass.: Babson College Center for
Entrepreneurship Studies.

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Naffziger, D. W., LaFollette, W. R., & Hodgetts, R. M. (1994,
October). The ethical perceptions of small business owners: A factor analytic study.
Journal of Small Busiiiess Management, 32(4), 9-16.

Humphreys, N., Robin, D. P., Reidenbach, R. E., & Moak, D. L. (1993, July). The ethical
decision making process of small business owner/managers and their customers.
Journal af Small Business Management, 3/(3), 9-22.

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An
issue-contingent model. Academy ofManagement Review, /6'(2), 366-395.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychalogvaforganizatians New York, NY: Wiley.
Kellogg Leadership Studies ProjecL (1996, October). Ethics and leadership. College Park,

MD: University of Maryland.
Kirrane, D. E. (1990). Managing Values: A systematic approach to business ethics. Training

and Development Journal, 44(11), 52-60.
Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (1988, Winter). Egoism and

independence: Entrepreneurial ethics. Organizational Dynamics, /6(3), 64-72.
Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (1989a, Fall). Do smaller firms have

higher ethics? Business & Society Review, 71, 19-21.
Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (1989b). Ethics in small business.

Joitrnal ofSmall Business Management, 27(1), 27-31.
Mayo, M. A. (1991, April). Ethical problems encountered by U.S. small business in

international marketing. Journal ofSmall Business Management, 29(2), 51-59.
Payne, S. L., & Duhon, D. (1990). Hard time ethics and the small business entrepreneur.

Business Insights, 9(2), 29-32.
Payne, S. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (1990). Social psychological approaches to the perception

of ethical dilemmas. Human Relations, 43(7), 649-665.
Reilly, B.J., & Kyj, M. J. (1990). Ethical business and the ethical person. Business Horizons,

33(6), 23-27.
Shostack, G. L. (1990). Stand up for ethics. Journal ofBusiness Strategy, ll(3), 48-50.
Schneider, B. (1973). The perception of organizational climate: The customer's view.

Journal ofApplied Psychology, 57, 248-256.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates; An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28,

447-479.
Stead, W. E., Worrell, D. L., & Stead, J. G. (1990). An integrative model for understanding

and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal ofBusiness Ethics,
9(3), 233-242.

Smith, P. L., & Oakley, E. F., III. (1994). A study of the ethical values of metropolitan and
non-metropolitan small business owners. Journal of Small Business Management,
32(4), 17-27.

50



Thompson, J. K., & Smith, H. L. (1991). Social responsibility and small business:
Suggestions for research. Journal ofSmall Business Management, 29(1), 30-44.

Timmons, J. A., & Stevenson, H. S. (1983). Entrepreneurship education in the 1980s: what
entreprereurs say. In J. Kao, & H. H. Stevenson (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: What lt ls
and How to Teach lt. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Victor, B.,& Cullen, J. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations. In
L. Preston (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy (pp. 51-71).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(l), 101-125.

Von der Embse, T. J., & Wagley, R. A. (1988, Winter). Managerial ethics: Hard decisions on
so(I criteria. Advanced Management Journal, 53(1), 4-9.

Walls, J. D., Jr. (1988). Putting a premium on honesty. Security Management, 32(9), 81-84.
Ward, W. A. (1987, June). Some ethical considerations for small business. Paper presented

at the 1987 World Conference of the International Council for Small Business,
Vancouver, B. C., Canada.

Werner, S. B. (1992). The movement for reforming American business ethics: A twenty year
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, l l(l), 61-70.

Wilson, E. (1980). Social responsibility of business: What are the small business
perspectives? Journal ofSmall BusinessManagement, l8(3), 17-24.

Zellner, W., King, R. W., Byrd, V. N., DeGeorge, G., & Bimbaum, J. (1994, April 18).
Women entrepreneurs. Business WeeR, no. 3367, pp. 104-107.

51



What can you contribute to build on
the success of small business and

entrepreneurship?

ANT FE LMS

Announcement and Call for Papers:

National Small Business
Consulting Conference

February 4-7, 1998

Santa Fe, NM will play host to the 22nd Annual SBIDA conference, where history
and tradition merge with new ideas. We'e picked the perfect place for a conference
focusing on "building on success" of the past. The conference will include an assortment
of activities related to small business, entrepreneurship, learning and consulting, with a
program including competitive paper presentations, workshops, symposia, panels, poster
and plenary sessions.

Conference tracks include theme papers; case writing and development; accounting
and finance;entrepreneurshipand SBPM education; franchising, home-based and family
businesses;global issues; legal, environmental and social issues; marketing issues; MIS
and computer issues; professional development; small business strategy; and poster
sessions. Track chairs will be announced in Momentum and on our World Wide Web site
(www.cba.uc.edu/cbainfo/sbida/welcome.htm).

Competitive papers, symposia, panels, and workshop proposals are now being
solicited on topics related to the conference tracks. Submission date for papers and

proposals is September 15, 1997. The best papers in each of four tracks (empirical,
theoretical, applied, small business case) will be reviewed as candidates for the
Distinguished Paper Award and for possible publication in the Journal of Small Business
Strategy.

For program information, contact:
J. Douglas Frazer
SBIDA, Vice President-Programs
Millersville University

Millersville, PA 17551
Voice: (717) 871-5555
Fax:(717) 871-2464
E-mail: DFRAZER@marauder.millersv.edu

I
Small Business Institute
Directors'ssociation