Striving for Status; A Different
Perspective on Unethical
Pro-Organizational Behavior
Master Thesis by Dana Voorma
MSc Business Administration: Strategy Track Academic year: 2015-2016
Supervisor: mw. dr. F.M. Bridoux Second reader: dr. ir. J.W. Stoelhorst Student number: 10141073
Statement of originality
This document is written by Dana Voorma who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and
that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have
been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the
supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
A
BSTRACT
This study aimed to examine employees’ motivations to engage in unethical acts that are intended to benefit the organization its members or both; a construct termed unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). Given the relative novelty of this construct, it remains far from clear what exactly motivates employees to engage in these unethical pro-organizational acts. In an effort to bridge this gap, I built on social dominance theory that highlights the role of an individual-difference variable, Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), or the extent to which one’s desires superior status and inequality among social groups. I proposed that higher levels of SDO would lead to an increase in UPB. Furthermore, I proposed that organizational identification could serve as a mechanism to explain the relationship between SDO and UPB. In addition, I hypothesized that the perceived status of the organization would strengthen the relationship between SDO and UPB, as well as the mediation effect via organizational identification. Data was collected from 118 employees of different Dutch organizations. The results supported my contention that higher levels of SDO influences employees’ willingness to engage in UPB. Yet, no support was found for the other propositions. The findings indicate that employees may perceive UPB as a mean to satisfy their need for superior status. By providing evidence for this alternative insight in the motives of UPB, this study contributes significantly to the existing literature. Lastly, I discuss a number of interesting avenues for future research.
Key words: Social dominance orientation; unethical pro-organizational behavior; organizational identification; perceived status of the organization
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
1. Introduction ... 9
2. Literature Review ... 12
2.1. Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior ... 12
2.2 Organizational Identification ... 18
2.3 Social Dominance Orientation ... 21
2.4 Status of the Organization ... 24
2.5 Research Question ... 25 3. Theoretical Development ... 27 3.1 Hypotheses ... 28 4. Method ... 33 4.1 Survey Design ... 33 4.2 Data collection ... 34 4.3 Sample ... 35 4.4. Measures ... 35 5. Results ... 39 5.1 Reliability ... 39
5.2 Descriptives and Correlations ... 40
5.3 Normality Analyses ... 41
5.4 Hypothesis Testing ... 42
5.5 Exploratory Analysis ... 48
6. Discussion ... 55
6.1 Theoretical Implications ... 56
6.2 Limitations and avenues for future research ... 64
6.3 Practical Implications ... 67
6.4 Conclusion ... 69
7. References ... 70
8. Appendix ... 79
8.1 Questionnaire (in Dutch) ... 79
1.
I
NTRODUCTION
“During two weeks of giving evidence during the trial, [he] argued that he was not dishonest because Libor rigging was commonplace in the industry and that all of his actions were “transparent” and with the full knowledge of his bosses and colleagues. He said that he was trying only to do his job well and did not look at what he was doing as wrong.” (Furtado, L., 2015, Financial Times, July 27)
The Libor scandal (2012) and the more recent case of Volkswagen (2015) are iconic cases of organizations engaging in large-scale fraud and corruption. Like the above quote illustrates, employees that are asked to explain their own unethical behavior often say they do it because ‘it is commonplace’ or they intended to benefit the organization with their actions. Benefitting the organization with unethical acts is identified by Umphress, Mitchell and Bingham (2010) as Unethical Pro-Organizational behavior (UPB). Although these intentions may seem to benefit their organization on a short-term perspective, at the time these acts are discovered by outsiders, they violate widely accepted norms in our society and harm the reputation of these organizations in the long run (Sullivan, Haunschild & Page, 2007). This research aims to contribute to a more thorough understanding of employees’ motives to engage in this type of unethical behavior, thereby providing insights in how these harmful acts can be reduced and eliminated.
Given the relative novelty of the construct, researchers have only recently begun to explore the motives for UPB (Umphress et al., 2010; Umphress & Bingham, 2011; Matherne & Litchfield, 2012; Effelsberg, Solga & Kurt, 2014). However, to my knowledge, a profound theoretical explanation for UPB has not yet been proposed. In an effort to bridge this gap, I built on social dominance theory that highlights the role of an individual-difference variable
to explain intergroup behavior, Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994). SDO refers to the basic desire to have one’s own group be considered better than, superior to, and dominant over relevant outgroups (Sidanius, 1993; Sidanius & Pratto, 1993; Pratto et al., 1994). To the degree that employees desire their organization to have superior status and are motivated to protect this status at the expense of others, I expect that people high in SDO are more willing to engage in unethical acts that benefit their organization.
In addition, I propose that SDO can influence UPB indirectly trough the process of organizational identification. Organizational identification is referred to as an employees’ perception of belonging to his or her organization and is well associated with several pro-organizational behaviors (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). On the basis of social identity theory, people act to achieve positive group distinctiveness in order to create or maintain a positive social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). At the same time, people high in SDO seek roles within institutions that can help them expend their capacity of group domination because organizations can often allocate resources or costs on a far larger scale than individuals can (Pratto et al., 1994). Trough the process of identification with the organization, I argue that people high in SDO perceive UPB as a means to increase their superior group status.
Furthermore, the magnitude of the effect of SDO on UPB trough organizational identification may depend on the perceived status of the organization. Previous research has found for example, that the status of the group and SDO interact on outgroup discrimination; high SDO-subjects who belonged to artificially high-status groups especially denigrated outgroup members. In addition, Tyler and Blader (2001) showed that the status of the group can determine the degree to which employees identify with their organization and cooperate in ways that benefit their organization. Building on these notions, I argue that people who have a strong preference for status and are within such high-status organizations, are that
motivated to maintain or promote this status that they engage in unethical behavior to benefit their organization, more than members of low-status organizations. In other words, these people intend to help their organization in such a way that it becomes possible, yet at the expense of others, to achieve and maintain superior group status. In turn, the success and status of the organization can reflect upon the individual, which may result in a positive evaluation of the self.
Given this potential new perspective on the motives of people to engage in unethical behavior, the present study contributes to the existing literature in the following ways. First, by exploring a relatively new form of unethical behavior for the benefit of the organization (UPB), it advances our understanding of why people engage in unethical behavior at work. Second, although SDO has been frequently researched to explain the nature of group-based hierarchies and oppression in society, it has not yet been researched within the organizational context to explain the nature of unethical behaviors. This study extends therefore not only our knowledge of UPB, but it also provides insight of the potential consequences of SDO within organizations. Furthermore, on the basis of social dominance theory as well as social identity theory, I provide a new approach to unethical behavior that highlights the important role of people’s desire for status. At the same time the findings of this study can contribute to effectively minimizing this behavior as well as its negative impact in the long run.
The remainder of this study will unfold as follows. First, I define UPB; review the literature and discuss the most relevant findings of UPB, organizational identification and social dominance orientation; and finish with the formulation of the research question of the present study. Subsequently, I describe the theoretical framework and provide the hypotheses that are investigated. Then the methodology will be discussed followed by the analyses of the results. Finally, I discuss the most important conclusions and implications for both theory and practice of this study, together with some interesting avenues for future research.
2.
L
ITERATURE
R
EVIEW
This chapter reviews the previous literature on a specific form of unethical behavior that this study seek to explain, unethical behavior that is intended to benefit the organization, or unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). First, the key concept of UPB will be outlined, followed by the most important findings of previous studies that explored various antecedents of this behavior. As will become clear from these findings, a clear theoretical explanation for UPB has not yet been proposed nor has it been empirically tested. The chapter continues by discussing the literature on organizational identification that has been frequently argued to relate to this type of behavior. Yet, as will become clear, a relatively large portion of variance in UPB remains unexplained. In order to add to this unexplained portion of UPB, I propose another approach to social behavior that highlights the influence of individual’s social dominance orientation, or the extent to which one desires its group to achieve superior status. Subsequently, this chapter outlines how the perceived status of the organization could play a moderating role in the proposed relationships. This chapter ends with the formulation of a research question that aims to bridge the gap in the literature on UPB and provides an explanation for this behavior that has not yet been proposed in the present literature.
2.1. UNETHICAL PRO-ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
The Concept of Unethical Pro-Organizational BehaviorWhen people engage in unethical behavior, they are acting either in an illegal or in a morally unacceptable way for to the larger community (Jones, 1991). Like conventional models of the rational, self-interested actor suggest, one reason for employees to engage in unethical acts is for their own, often financial, benefit (Frey & Oberholzer-Gee, 1997; Gneezy
& Rustichini, 2000; Greenberg, 2002).Yet, empirical evidence of behavioral economics suggests a much more complex spectrum of motivations to explain behavior (Bridoux,
Coeurderoy & Durand, 2011). For example, recent research by Gino and Pierce (2009) has
shown that financial self-interest cannot fully explain people’s tendency to dishonestly help or hurt others. Rather, such dishonesty is influenced by emotional reactions to wealth-based inequity, even when the dishonesty bears a financial cost (Gino & Pierce, 2009). Importantly, people seem even more likely to behave unethically when their acts benefit others as well (Wiltermuth, 2011; Gino, Ayal & Ariely, 2013).
Indeed, several studies have acknowledged that people engage in unethical acts not only on behalf of their own but also on behalf of the organization (Knoll & van Dick, 2013; Ashforth & Anand, 2003, Brief, Buttram, & Dukerich, 2001). Cullinan, Bline, Farrar and Lowe (2007) distinguish between ‘organization-harm’ issues, that refer to a decision of in which the individual decision-maker enjoys a benefit while at the same time the individual’s employing organization suffers harm; and ‘organization-gain’ issues, in which the
organization benefits while others outside the organization (e.g. customers, capital providers) are harmed. Because in organization-gain issues the individual decision-maker is part of the organization, he or she is also likely to enjoy the gain (Cullinan et al., 2007).
Umphress et al. (2010) continued on this basis and identified a new concept to explain this separate form of unethical behavior that seeks to benefit the organizations, called
unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). UPB is defined by these authors as ‘actions that are intended to promote the effective functioning of the organization or its members (e.g. leaders) and violate core societal values, mores, laws or standards of proper conduct’
(Umphress & Bingham, 2011, p.622). The definition of UPB consists of two main definitional components. The first is component of UPB is unethical behavior, as defined by Jones (1991) and includes acts of commission (e.g. falsifying financial figures to boost analyst projections
and stock values) and omission (e.g. withholding information about the hazards of a pharmaceutical product) that are considered unethical by larger society (Umphress et al., 2010). The second component of UPB is pro-organizational behavior, meaning that while the behavior is not specified in formal job description nor ordered by supervisors, it is intended to benefit the organization (Umphress et al., 2010). Furthermore, UPB can be differentiated from other conceptually related constructs such as illegal corporate behavior (Baucus & Baucus, 1997), necessary evils (Molinksky & Margolis, 2005), organizational misbehavior (Vardi & Weitz, 2004), positive deviance (Warren, 2003), and pro-social rule breaking (Morrison, 2006). Only those unethical acts that are conducted to benefit the organization, at the expense of the larger community (e.g. customers, clients) and that are neither specified in job
descriptions, nor encouraged by management, constitute UPB (Umphress et al., 2010).
Consistent with theoretical work by e.g. Vardi and Weitz (2004), this form of
unethical behavior intended to benefit the organization, may extend the literature on unethical behavior beyond the hostile and self-interested views of unethical behavior (Umphress et al., 2010). However, in line with Cullinan et al. (2007), Umphress et al. (2010) argue that it is possible that benefitting the organization may ultimately also benefit the individual decision-makers’ themselves. On this basis is their conception of UPB not entirely divorced from self-interested views of unethical behavior (Umphress et al., 2010).
By having identified UPB and its conceptualizations, I proceed by discussing the most important findings of previous research that explored potential antecedents of UPB.
Previous Research on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior
An emerging body of literature is concerned with understanding the antecedents of UPB (Liu & Qiu, 2015). At present, researchers have focused mainly on employee attitudes
such as organizational identification and organizational commitment to explain UPB. The following section will discuss the main findings of the most important studies of UPB.
Umphress et al. (2010) introduced UPB and were therefore the first researchers that investigated its potential motives. Using a survey approach, they empirically explored
whether employees’ organizational identification was positively related to both willingness to engage in UPB (study 1) and actual engagement in UPB (study 2) and whether positive reciprocity beliefs moderated the relationship between organizational identification and both forms of UPB. Individuals who hold strong reciprocity beliefs consistently feel the need to reciprocate beneficial behavior from exchange partners (Clark & Mills, 1979; in Umphress et al., 2010). Based on this, Umphress et al. (2010) proposed that employees who strongly identify with their organization feel obligated to protect and maintain their membership in the organization and that this feeling will intensify when they hold strong reciprocity beliefs. Against expectations, they did not find evidence for a direct relationship between
organizational identification and UPB in both studies. They did however find evidence for a moderating effect of positive reciprocity beliefs on the relationship between organizational identification and UPB in both studies. At high levels of positive reciprocity beliefs they found a positive relationship between organizational identification and UPB, whereas at low levels of positive reciprocity beliefs the relationship between organizational identification and UPB was non-significant. Umphress et al. (2010) concluded that employees with high
reciprocity beliefs feel obligated to protect and maintain their membership in the organization and therefore engage in UPB. Although the interaction was significant, the effect size
associated with it was relatively modest in both studies. Therefore the authors suggest that future research should further investigate other potential factors that influence UPB.
Furthermore, the authors mention that their results “may reflect an overarching organizational culture that promotes unethical behavior. That is, if employees believe that they will be
rewarded for engaging in unethical behavior, they will likely do so” (Umphress et al., 2010, p. 777). Their study delivers a major contribution as it is among the first that identifies the existence of UPB in the workplace. Yet, by showing an interaction between organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs, their results seem to indicate that it is in fact the organizational culture that is important to minimize unethical behavior, as opposed to an explanation for individual motives to engage in UPB.
In addition to this first research, Umphress and Bingham (2011) propose a model that focuses more on the individual rather than on the organization. Although their propositions still require empirical testing to provide corroborating evidence, they suggest as in the first study, that positive social exchange and organizational identification could motivate employees to conduct acts to benefit their organization. However, the authors add that neutralization, a process by which the moral content of an unethical action is masked or overlooked, could mediate these interaction effects. Furthermore, they consider the
connection between potential severity of the unethical act and neutralization and suggest that employees are more likely to engage in neutralization when UPB yields more severe
consequences.
Extending the findings by Umphress et al. (2010), Matherne and Litchfield (2012) looked at a similar construct to organizational identification, affective commitment. Affective commitment is identified as an employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in, the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990, in Matherne & Litchfield, 2012). Matherne and Litchfield (2012) found that affective commitment is positively related to UPB and that alternatively, higher levels of moral identity contribute to reduced occurrences of unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Of specific interest for the researchers was the
moderating effect of moral identity on the relationship of affective commitment and unethical pro-organizational behaviors. It was observed that even at high levels of affective
commitment, the effect of low versus high moral identity had a significant effect in reducing the occurrences of unethical pro-organizational behaviors (Matherne & Litchfield, 2012). The results indicate that individual’s behavior and decision frames are regulated by a sense of morality, which can reduce the potential negative effects of high levels of attachment (Matherne & Litchfield, 2012).
Furthermore, the research by Effelsberg et al. (2014) showed that leaders that engage in transformational leadership can also contribute to the (unintended) occurrence of UPB by creating elevated levels of organizational identification on the part of their employees. In addition, the relationship between organizational identification and UPB was moderated by employees’ personal disposition toward ethical and unethical behavior. More precisely, they found that employees who strongly identify with their organization and are prone to engage in unethical behavior are most inclined to act in unethical ways that serve the organization. In contrast, employees that are committed to ethical standards shall be less likely to engage in UPB, even though they identify with their organization (Effelsberg et al. 2014). Interestingly, these findings indicate that when organizational identification is influenced by the style of the leader, it can serve as an explanation for the occurrence of UPB. With regard to the study of Umphress et al. (2010), this provides an alternative insight in how organizational
identification could be used to explain unethical behavior for the benefit of the organization.
To conclude, the literature on UPB is emerging and some interesting findings have surfaced. Although an emerging body of literature on UPB exists, a profound theoretical explanation of this behavior has not yet been proposed, nor has the framework by Umphress and Bingham (2011) been empirically tested. Building on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) as well as on social dominance theory (Pratto et al., 1994), I propose an alternative perspective to investigate the potential motivators for UPB. The next section will discuss on the basis of social identity theory, the concept of organizational identification.
2.2. ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION
Organizational identification is rooted in social identity theory and emphasizes self-definition via organizational membership (Mael & Ashforth, 1989). This section will first describe the postulations of social identity theory and consequently outlines organizational identification and its relation with UPB.
Social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) provides an important
motivational explanation that enhances our understanding of people within the organizational context (Blader & Tyler, 2009). According to SIT, people tend to classify themselves and others in various social categories to make sense of the social environment (Tajfel, 1982). Individuals derive their self-concept from the membership of a social group (e.g. an
organization), resulting in their social identity (Tajfel, 1982). The basic motive for identifying with a group is the enhancement of one’s sense of collective self-esteem; in other words, “people identify to provide the basis for thinking of themselves in a positive light” (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008). In addition, when individuals have defined themselves with an organization that they perceive as attractive, it can provide a basis for the behavioral effects of group membership since it motivates people to act in ways that benefit their groups, i.e. cooperate with their groups (Tyler & Blader, 2001). Helping the group in beneficial ways can in turn create and enhance a favorable sense of self since the success of a group is reflected onto its members (Tyler & Blader, 2001).
Another way individuals seek to achieve positive social identity is by comparing the ingroup to relevant outgroups (Terry & O’Brien, 2001; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005). According to SIT, identification can provide the basis for distinctiveness relative to others, a basic need of people (Hogg & Turner, 1985). When people define or categorize themselves as members of a self-inclusive social group, distinctions between ingroup and outgroup members are
typically accentuated and distinctions between ingroup members are often minimized (Turner et al., 1987; in Terry & O’Brien, 2001). This in turn can result in intergroup bias, or the tendency for members to favor their own group over the outgroup as a way to maintain a positive view of self (i.e. ingroup favoritism) (Tajfel, 1982).
Rooted in SIT lies the construct of organizational identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Organizational Identification refers to the psychological bonding between individuals and the organization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) and it is considered a critical construct to explain behavior in organizations (van Knippenberg, 2000; He & Brown, 2013; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994). On the basis of SIT, people tend to associate with an organization that they perceive to be attractive in order to acquire a more positive evaluation of self and to enhance their self-esteem (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Organizational identification has been associated with numerous positive outcomes for the organization, such as increased performance, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior and extra-role behavior (Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; van Knippenberg, 2000). An individual that identifies with the organization is assumed to work instinctively to benefit the organization (Ouchi, 1980). Given these positive implications, organizational identification is often viewed by scholars and practitioners as a desirable attachment by individuals to their organizations (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004).
In spite of the general emphasis in the literature on the beneficial aspects of
organizational identification, some theorists have explored its potential ‘dark side’ (Dukerich, Kramer, & McLeanParks, 1998; Michel & Jehn, 2003). When an employee ‘overidentifies’, he or she develops an automatic trust in other members, and an inability to question the ethicality of organizational behavior (Ashforth et al., 2008). Defining oneself in terms of the organization encourages one to enact the values, norms and behavior of the organization
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Individuals who strongly identify with the organization may even choose to disregard their personal moral standards and engage in acts that favor the
organization, such as lying to protect the organization or covering up evidence that could harm the organization (Ashforth & Anand, 2003). Therefore, when the organization encourages unethical practices, organizational identification has been argued to foster
unethical behaviors of employees (Ashforth et al., 2008). Dukerich et al. (1998) suggests that this process of overidentification, when the needs of the actor become secondary to the needs of the organization, can influence unethical acts performed on behalf of the organization. Given this potential, Umphress and Bingham (2011) proposed that individuals who strongly identify with their organization might disregard their own moral standards in favor of unethical acts that protect or help the organization.
In addition to the process of ‘overidentification’ that can cause members to engage in UPB, I suggest that on the basis of SIT, that the desire for self-enhancement and positive group distinctiveness can be responsible for this behavior. In that case, employees may perceive UPB as a mean to achieve positive social identity because engaging in UPB can on a short term contribute to the success of the organization. SIT posits that the degree to which organizational behaviors are performed, might be due the differences in the degree to which individuals identify with their ingroup (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Therefore, the social identity needs that form the basis for behaviors, should be the strongest among those whose identities are most heavily invested in a given group membership (Hogg & Terry, 2000). On the basis of SIT, organizational identification can explain UPB as acts that are carried from the intent of ingroup favoritism; they benefit the own organization to ensure positive social identity and enhance the self-esteem. However, ingroup favoritism is considered primarily a function of favoritism towards the ingroup rather than hostility towards the outgroup (Brewer, 1979). With regard to UPB, unethical acts that are intended to benefit the organization harm a larger
function of individuals outside the organization in return (Matherne & Litchfield, 2012; Cullinan et al., 2007). Such forms of unethical acts seem therefore difficult to understand as instances of ingroup favoritism alone. To address this issue, I propose another approach to intergroup relations that may account for the motives of people to engage in UPB. Social dominance theory is regarded as a further extension of SIT and suggests that a basic desire of people is to actively dominate and subjugate outgroups (Sidanius, Pratto & Mitchell, 1994). The next section will review the literature on this theory and will discuss its potential relationship with UPB.
2.3 SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION
Social Dominance Theory (SDT) is originally developed by Sidanius and Pratto (1993) to explain the ubiquitous nature of group-based prejudice and oppression. SDT maintains that all large scale social systems tend to be organized as hierarchies of socially constructed groups, with one or more dominant groups enjoying a disproportionate level of power and status relative to one or more subordinate groups (Levin, Frederico, Sidanius & Rabinowitz, 2002; Sidanius et al., 1994). The theory’s major focus is an attempt to explain the mechanisms by which these group-based hierarchies are established and maintained (Sidanius et al., 1994). Central to SDT is the individual-difference variable Social Dominance
Orientation (SDO) that refers to the basic desire to have one’s own group be considered better than, superior to, and dominant over relevant outgroups (Sidanius, 1993; Sidanius & Pratto, 1993; Pratto et al., 1994).
With regard to intergroup relations, SDO reflects whether an individual generally prefers such relations to be equal or hierarchical, along a superior-inferior dimension (Pratto et al., 1994). Like SIT, SDT can account for the motives to attempt to achieve positive group
distinctiveness. Yet, achieving positive group distinctiveness may in the case of SDT serve the purpose of perpetuating group-based hierarchies (Levin et al., 2002). People who are more social-dominance oriented will tend to favor hierarchy-enhancing beliefs that justify practices and policies that preserve social inequality (Pratto, Sidanius & Levin, 2006). In contrast, people low in SDO reject these beliefs and support hierarchy-attenuating policies (e.g. welfare, affirmative action, redistributive tax policies) that reduce group-based inequality (Pratto et al., 2006).
A considerable body of research has found that SDO is associated with higher levels of intergroup bias, discrimination and anti-egalitarianism (e.g. Pratto et al. 1994; Sidanius, Pratto & Bobo, 1992; Sidanius, Levin, Liu & Pratto, 2000). Furthermore, empirical research has demonstrated that SDO is related to social attitudes against outgroups, in terms of political conservatism, racial prejudice, support of military invention, and opposition to busing and affirmative action (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1993). In addition, Sidanius et al. (1994) examined three varieties of differential intergroup social allocation as a function of social dominance orientation within a standard minimal-groups experimental paradigm. The results showed that subjects with higher levels of social dominance orientation tended to display a greater desire for social distance from, and less willingness to cooperate with a minimally defined outgroup (Sidanius et al., 1994). This study showed that SDO is not only related to social attitudes against outgroups in the real world, but can also account for the differential allocation in a minimal-groups experiment.
Furthermore, people high in SDO are likely to become members of institutions and choose organizational roles that contribute to their dominance and increase social inequality (Pratto et al., 1994). Pratto et al. (2006) pointed out, that some organizations tend to support the allocation of positive resources to members of dominant groups and negative resources to low-status groups, this way constituting hierarchy-enhancing environments. Therefore the
higher one is on SDO, the higher the preference of these hierarchy-enhancing environments (Pratto et al., 2006). People high in SDO are therefore likely to become members of
institutions and choose organizational roles that contribute to their dominance and increase social inequality (Pratto et al., 1994).
Based on the previous findings, I propose that the logic of SDT could be used to explain the motives of employees to engage in UPB. While UPB is intended to benefit the organization and its members, it will automatically come at the expense of concurrent organizations and the larger societal community. By engaging in UPB, employees high in SDO may intend to enhance or maintain the superior status of the organization. Furthermore, by becoming members of institutions, people high in SDO may enhance the potential to extent their influence on a larger scale than would individually be possible. This way they can meet their desire for hierarchy enhancing environments. On the basis that people vary in their social dominance orientation, I suggest that this personal difference variable can add a great deal to the largely unexplained variance in UPB.
In addition, people high in SDO desire status inequalities and will therefore likely tend to favor being a member of high status organization as opposed to low status organizations. The difference in status may lead to different motivations with respect to the protection of the organizational status. With regard to organizational identification, an important need that causes individuals to identify with an organization is the need for self-enhancement (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). To the extent that they are motivated to enhance this self-image, individuals tend to identify with high status organizations, as this status will reflect upon them (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Bartels et al., 2007; Fuller et al., 2006). Status of the organization could therefore account for the influence that SDO has on UPB as well as on the process of
organizational identification. The role of status of the organization will therefore be discussed in the following section.
2.4 THE PERCEIVED STATUS OF THE ORGANIZATION
The effect that SDO and organizational identification could have on UPB may vary according to the perceived status of the organization. The status of the organization can be assessed by perceived external prestige (Smidts et al., 2001). Perceived external prestige (hence referred to as perceived status) is based upon the individual’s evaluation of the extent to which people outside of the organization hold the firm in high regard or esteem (Fuller et al., 2006). In the degree to which people desire to maintain a positive view of self-worth, people are motivated to join and identify with organizations that are perceived as high status organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth,1992; Tyler & Blader, 2001).
According to research, the greater the status of the organization, the more likely the individual will identify with the organization because this connection has the potential to enhance their self-esteem (Smidts et al., 2001). In other words, being a member of an organization with high status will lead people to believe that they themselves are perceived as having a high status. Status thus reflects the categorical self and is related to the motivation to achieve and maintain a positive social identity (Tyler & Blader, 2003).
Because SIT is concerned with maintaining a positive self-image, it posits ingroup favoritism as a device to maintain this self-image (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When the positive self-image is based on high status evaluations, the individual is expected to be more
motivated to perform behavior intended to maintain the high status of the own group than when this is based on low status evaluations (Tyler & Blader, 2001). In addition to this, a number of studies have found that members of high-status groups have a greater tendency to favor social allocations and intergroup evaluations that benefit the ingroup than members of low status groups (Pratto et al., 2006; Turner & Brown, 1978). Moreover, Tyler and Blader (2001) found that group members exhibit more cooperate behavior on behalf of their group to
the extent they feel they are members of high status groups. For example, Tyler et al. (1999) examined the influence of status on extra-role behavior. The results of this study show that when members of the group perceive that they belong to a group with high status, perform more extra role behaviors than when they belonged to low status groups.
Furthermore, the status of the group has also been found to relate to the behaviors associated with social dominance orientation. Levin and Sidanius (1993, in Pratto et al., 1994) found for example that when people are high in SDO and belong to high status groups,
especially denigrate outgroup members. It seems therefore that members of high status firms, having the most status to loose, act to protect the status of the organization they associate with, more than members of low status firms. Therefore I suggest that understanding the circumstances under which people have a high need for superior group status (i.e. high level of SDO), identify with their organization and perceive the status of their organization as high, could be important for explaining when motivations for unethical behavior in the name of the company are especially likely to occur. The following section will proceed by identifying the gap in the present literature and formulates a research question that aims for a new
perspective on the motivations of employees to engage in unethical behavior for the benefit of the company.
2.5 RESEARCH QUESTION
Given the overwhelming impact unethical behavior has on the business landscape, organizational scholars have since long theorized on the motivations of individuals to engage in this detrimental behavior. Umphress et al. (2010) have moved beyond the assumption that unethical is performed by self-interested individuals solely with the intent to harm the organization. Instead, they contributed greatly to the literature by identifying a separate form
of unethical behavior, unethical pro-organizational behavior that is intended to benefit the organization and its members. Given the relative novelty of this construct, researchers have only recently begun to identify potential motivators of employees to engage in this type of unethical behavior. Yet, a clear theoretical foundation has not yet been proposed nor has it yielded any convincing evidence. With this study, I attempt to bridge this gap by suggesting that levels of SDO influences employees’ motivation to engage in UPB. In addition, I propose that organizational identification is the underlying mechanism of this behavior. Moreover, I suggest that the perceived status of the organization has a moderating effect on the
relationship between SDO and UPB, as well as on the mediation effect trough organizational identification. On these assertions, the following research questions are investigated:
‘Are individuals with higher levels of SDO more likely to engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior?’
‘Is identification with the organization responsible for the effect of SDO on unethical pro-organizational behavior?’
‘Does the magnitude of the effect of SDO on unethical pro-organizational behavior, as well as the mediation trough organizational identification depend on the perceived status of the organization?’
The following chapter continues with the theoretical development of the literature and will provide arguments for the hypothesized relationships as well as a graphically illustrated research model.
3.
T
HEORETICAL
D
EVELOPMENT
Since long, scholars have explored drivers of unethical actions in organizational settings. This study aims to provide further understanding of the motivations of individuals to engage in a specific form of unethical behavior, unethical behavior that is performed to benefit their organization. Building on social identity theory as well as social dominance theory, I argue at first that the desire for superior group status (SDO) drives employees’ motivation to engage in UPB. Secondly, I propose that the relationship between SDO and UPB can in part be explained by organizational identification. Third, it is expected that the perceived status of the organization could play a moderating role on the former proposed relationships. Drawing from several literatures, I elaborate on these assertions below and will formulate the corresponding hypotheses. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the hypothesized relationships.
Figure 1. Research model
H1 H2
H3 H4
3.1 HYPOTHESES
The Positive Relationship between SDO and UPB
According to SDT, there is an important individual difference in general preference for group domination, which is called social dominance orientation (Pratto et al., 1994). Because people with high levels of SDO have the basic desire to have one’s own ingroup (i.e. organization) be considered better than, superior to, and dominant over relevant outgroups (Sidanius, 1993), it not only affects ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination, but also a whole host of other behaviors toward outgroups and their members (Levin et al., 2002; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius et al., 1994). People high on SDO not only aim to achieve positive group distinctiveness, they are also motivated to constitute these hierarchy-enhancing environments (Pratto et al., 2006). The higher one is in SDO, the higher their preference of these hierarchy-enhancing environments (Pratto et al., 2006). These environments are in turn achieved by the supporting of positive resources to members of the own (high status) group and negative resources to other (low status) groups (Pratto et al., 2006). On the basis of this preference, it can be expected that within the organizational context, people high in SDO are motivated to achieve superior group status for their organization. In turn, supporting positive resources to the own organization and negative resources to other organizations can contribute to achieving these hierarchical enhancing environments. I suggest that unethical
pro-organizational behavior can be seen as a way to contribute to these hierarchical enhancing environments. UPB is regarded as unethical behavior that benefits the organization while at the same time these acts harm a larger function of individuals in return or violate inherent societal codes (Matherne & Litchfield, 2012). On these notions, I propose that people who have a preference for superior group status (i.e. people high in SDO) may perceive UPB as a
means to achieve this status as well as to constitute the status difference between the own organization and its competitors. As such, the first hypothesis is formulated as followed:
Hypothesis 1: Social dominance orientation is positively related to unethical pro-organizational behavior.
The Mediation Effect of Organizational Identification on the Relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior
Employees that have a preference for superior group status and hierarchical enhancing environments (i.e. report high levels of SDO), may perceive that they can achieve these hierarchical-enhancing environments by engaging in unethical acts that benefit their
organization. The mechanism that could explain why employees are motivated to increase the status of the organization is the process of identification with the organization. From a social identity perspective, the extent to which a person identifies or self-categorizes as a group member is the central mediating variable in explaining group phenomena, given that it reflects the psychological importance of the group membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Terry & O’Brien, 2001). Individuals’ levels of SDO in turn, can influence their contribution to social inequality in the kinds of social roles they take on, in particular, roles that can enhance inequality (Pratto et al., 1994). Pratto et al. (1994) conclude from their study that ‘by performing organizational roles, individuals greatly expand their capacity for group discrimination because collective institutions can often allocate resources or costs on a far larger scale than individuals can’. Those higher on SDO are therefore likely to become members of organizations and choose roles that maintain or increase social inequality.
Furthermore, organizations function as social groups so they can offer the opportunity to their employees to connect to something bigger than their self, potentially to address their need for belonging, prestige, and distinctiveness (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). People that have a basic
desire to have one’s own primary ingroup (i.e. organization) be considered better than,
superior to, and dominant over relevant outgroups could therefore be more inclined to identify with their organization than people that don’t have this desire. Sidanius et al. (1993) argue that SDO as an individual-difference variable could explain why some people identify with their ingroups more than others do and how the strength of this ingroup identification might vary across situations. As their experiment showed, even with fictional and minimal ingroups, some people display identification with such ease and alacrity that it seems to relate to a somwhat stable individual difference across situations and that may also be related to an individual’s tendency to discriminate against outgroups (Sidanius et al., 1993).
Furthermore, as social identity posits, individuals are motivated to enhance their self-esteem and to perceive themselves favorably in relation to other people (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). These social identity processes shape the degree to which people are motivated to act in ways that benefit their groups (Tyler & Blader, 2001). Since the perceived quality of the group literally reflects on their sense of self and their feelings of self-worth, the group’s success can bring about benefits for their identity and vice versa (Tyler & Blader, 2001). The success of the group is therefore linked to the maintenance of a positive sense of self (Tyler & Blader, 2001). Via this process, organizational identification can provide the basis for
employees to engage in acts that benefit their organization.
To conclude, I have argued that the influence of the individual level factor of SDO could account for the degree of organizational identification because identification with the organization provides the possibility for people that desire superior group status to be part of something bigger and to increase their influence on a larger scale. In turn, driven by social identity needs, organizational identification could be responsible for the motivations of employees to engage in unethical acts that benefit their organization and harm others outside the organization. This leads to the formulation of the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between social dominance orientation and unethical pro-organizational behavior is mediated by organizational identification.
Status of the Organization as a moderator
Third, I propose that the positive relationship between social dominance orientation and unethical pro-organizational behavior is moderated by the perceived status of the
organization. I have argued that individuals with high levels of SDO desire to have one’s own ingroup be considered superior to relevant outgroups and that they are more inclined to engage in UPB to maintain this superior status. Several researches have found that employees tend to cooperate more for the benefit of the group to the extent that they feel they are
members of a group with high status as opposed to a low status group (e.g. Tyler & Blader, 2001). Furthermore, Levin and Sidanius (1993, in Pratto et al., 1994) have found that when people were high in SDO and belonged to an artificially high status group, they especially denigrated outgroup members. Next to this, SDO has been found to relate more positively to ingroup favoritism within high status groups versus low status groups (Levin et al., 2002). On the basis of these results it can be concluded that high status groups tend to be more ingroup serving than lower status groups, and to remain this high status, are more discriminatory against members that are not from the same group (Pratto et al., 1994). For the present study, I expect that to the degree that people perceive themselves as members of high status
organizations, having the most status to loose, will act to protect the status of their organization, more than members of low status firms. Therefore when employees have a strong desire for superior status and they perceive the status of the organization as high, they will be more inclined to engage in UPB to protect this status. Hence, the formulation of the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between social dominance orientation and unethical pro-organizational behavior is moderated by the perceived status of the organization, so that the higher the status of the organization is perceived to be, the stronger the relationship between social dominance orientation and unethical pro-organizational behavior becomes.
Furthermore, I propose that the perceived status of the organization can also
strengthen the mediation effect of organizational identification on the relationship between social dominance orientation and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Because SDO refers to the basic desire for one’s group to be considered better than others, SDO may have a differential relationship to organizational identification depending on the status of the
organization. Sidanius, Pratto and Rabinowitz (1994) found that SDO and identification with the group were more positively correlated in higher status than in lower status groups. In addition, Crocker and Luthanen (1990) demonstrated in their experiment that people who had a strong identification with their ingroup and whose status was threatened especially
denigrated outgroups. In turn, a considerably amount of research has found that people tend to identify more with high-status organizations (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Smidt et al., 2001; Carmeli, 2005). In line with social identity theory, this identification takes place because it could increase someone’s self-esteem (Dutton et al., 1994). Since levels of SDO account for the degree to which one’s desires status, I expect that individuals high in SDO are more willing to engage in UPB as a result of organizational identification when the status of the organization is high than when the status is low. Therefore the fourth hypothesis is formulated as followed:
Hypothesis 4: Status of the organization strengthens the mediation effect of
organizational identification between social dominance orientation and unethical pro-organizational behavior.
4.
M
ETHOD
This chapter describes the research approach and design that is used to collect the data in order to empirically test the hypothesized relationships. It proceeds with a description of the sample characteristics and concludes with the measurement instruments that are used in this study to gather the data.
4.1. SURVEY DESIGN
All hypothesized relationships between the variables in this study (i.e. employees’ SDO, employees willingness to engage in UPB, employees identification with their organization and employees’ perception of status), were tested by means of a
self-administered online survey. Web surveys are widely used and allow for the possibility to collect large amount of data, have shorter transmitting time, lower delivery cost, more design options, and less data entry time (Fan & Yan, 2010). Therefore I considered this as an
appropriate tool for testing the hypothesized relationships between the variables. An 11-question survey instrument with a total of 48 discrete answers was developed. Before distribution, I sent the survey to peers for a review to ensure that there were no faults in the developed survey. Survey administration started on April 5th and was closed on May 13th.
4.2 DATA COLLECTION
Although online surveys have several advantages as mentioned, they have the drawback of a possible low response rate (Fan & Yan, 2010). To address these concerns, I approached 40 Dutch working acquaintances, of which 11 hold an important (HR) managerial function with a pre-notification of the survey in which I explained the nature of my study and asked if they were willing to complete the survey as well as distribute the survey among their network. The pre-notification helped me to increase the response rate as well as to identify people that were truly motivated to contribute to the study (Fan & Yan, 2010). The
approached acquaintances each worked within organizations so that the survey questions were applicable to the respondents’ situation and which allowed me to assess the validity of my model in an actual organizational context (Bono & McNamara, 2010). To collect the data I used my own network and a snowball technique to distribute the questionnaire. This form of data collection is called convenience sampling (Landers & Behrend, 2015). This method however, could form a threat to the external validity of the results (e.g. Landers & Behrend, 2015). In order to address these concerns, I approached as many different people as possible, working at different organizations in multiple industries on different positions. Of the
approached people, 90 percent responded that they would be willing to complete my questionnaire as well as distribute it among their network. As followed, I sent them the questionnaire via e-mail complemented by a short introduction in which I assured anonymity and confidentiality among other information and a request if they could distribute the survey among their network.
4.3 SAMPLE
After distribution of the surveys, 161 respondents opened the survey, of which 114 people completed the questionnaire (70 percent). Among these 114 respondents, 53 percent were male and the average respondents’ age was 42 years with some variation (SD = 14.77). The majority of the respondents were employee (46.5 percent), whereas 26.3 percent had the position of top manager. The rest of respondents were spread among the position of
supervisor, middle manager and upper manager. The size of most of the respondents’ companies consisted of over 250 employees (39.5 percent) and the majority of respondents worked between 5 and 10 years within the same company (38.6 percent).
4.4. MEASURES
To measure the variables in this study I adopted scales from prior research to ensure validity. The questions were translated in Dutch in order to facilitate the respond and to minimize the risk that Dutch employees could misunderstand any questions. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in the appendix of this study.
Dependent variable. To measure respondents’ agreement of their willingness to
perform UPB, a six-item measure, originally developed by Umphress et al. (2010) and translated into Ducth by Kalshoven, Van Dijk & Boon (2013) was used. Items assessed respondents’ agreement of their willingness to perform UPB on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (entirely disagree) to 7 (entirely agree). The scale constituted the following questions: “If it would help my organization, I would misrepresent the truth to make my organization look good”, “If it would help my organization, I would exaggerate the truth about my company’s products or services to customers and clients”, “If it would benefit my organization, I would
withhold negative information about my company or its products from customers and clients”, “If my organization needed me to, I would give a good recommendation on the behalf of an incompetent employee in the hope that the person will become another organization’s problem instead of my own”, “If my organization needed me to, I would withhold issuing a refund to a customer or client accidentally overcharged”, “If needed, I would conceal information from the public that could be damaging to my organization. I would do whatever it takes to help my organization” (α = .89, in Umphress et al., 2010).
Predictor variable. Social Dominance Orientation, defined as the tendency to hold non-egalitarian values to support hierarchically structures relationships among social groups, was assed with the new 4-item Short Social Dominance Orientation (SSDO) scale by Pratto et al. (2013) and validated by the authors in Dutch. The response scale was very negative (1) to very positive (10) on the following questions: “Some people are simply inferior to other people”, “It’s OK if some people have more of a chance in life than others”, “We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible” (R), “We should have fewer problems if we treated people more equally” (R).
In case the SSDO scale failed to be effective, I included another measure in the survey that showed some overlap with items of the SSDO, the Schwartz’ Portrait Value
Questionnaire (PVQ). Schwartz’ (1994) basic human values define desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance that serves as guiding principles in people’s lives. Of the ten basic values that Schwartz describes, I included two higher order values. The first was self-enhancement that consisted of four items of achievement (personal success trough
demonstrating competence according to social standards) and three items of power (social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources). And the second was self-transcendence that consisted of six items of universalism (understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature) and four items of
benevolence (preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘ingroup’). The PVQ (Schwartz, 2001) described 17 portraits that each described a – hypothetical – person’s goal or aspirations that point implicitly to the
importance of a value, e.g. 'Getting ahead in life is important to him. He strives to do better than others.” describes a person to whom achievement values are important. Gender in the portraits was adapted to respondent’s gender. For each portrait respondents were asked: “Think about how much each person is or not is like you”. The 6-point answer scale ranged from: “very much like me”, “like me”, “somewhat like me”, “a little like me”, “not like me” and “not like me at all”.
Mediating variable. Organizational Identification was assed with a six-item measure developed by Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) and translated into Dutch by Kalshoven, van Dijk & Boon (2015). Respondents could answer 1(entirely disagree) to 7 (entirely agree) on the following questions: “When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult”, I am very interested in what others think about my organization”, “When I talk about this organization, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’”, “My organization’s successes are my successes”, “When someone praises my organization, it feels like a personal compliment”, “If a story in the media critics my organization, I would feel embarrassed”.
Moderating Variable. Perceived Status of the Organization, defined as the degree to which the institution is well regarded both in absolute and comparative terms, was assessed by a three-item scale from Bartels et al. (2007). Respondents could answer ranging from 1 (entirely disagree) to 7 (entirely agree) on the following questions: “My organization has a good reputation”, “My organization is regarded as pleasant to work for”, “When talking with family and friends about my organization, they often display positive attitudes towards my organization”. No validated translation into Dutch was available for this scale. However I regarded the risk of misinterpreting the items rather small since the items appeared to me as
straightforward. Therefore I translated the questions in Dutch myself.
Control variable. Six potential control variables that could account for any of the proposed relationships based on theoretical ground were included (e.g. Atinc, Simmering & Kroll, 2011). This resulted into the inclusion of age, gender, size of the organization, tenure with the organization, position within the organization and several sectors. Specifically, age has been argued to relate positively to other- and negatively to self-orientated behavior, so that a younger age is associated with more self-interested behavior (van Lange et al. 1997). Gender is included as control since SDO exhibits a gender difference, so that men typically report higher levels of SDO than women (Sidanius et al., 1994; Pratto et al., 1994). Job level is associated with organizational identification, whereas top managers often display more identification with the organization than employees (e.g. Lange, Boivie, Westphal, 2015) as well. Furthermore, since SDO is found to relate positively to sectors of the economy that provide hierarchy-enhancing professions and negatively to hierarchy attenuating professions, I controlled for several sectors of the economy (Pratto et al., 1994).
Additionally, because measuring UPB might be a challenge since these behaviors are ill advised from a legal perspective (Umphress et al., 2010), I controlled for Social
Desirability Response Bias (SDRB) with the 12-item Marlow-Crowne Scale (Reynolds, 1982). To account for SDRB on the self-report measures on UPB, I used a recommended method by Saunders (1991) to statistically adjust for bias. First, I derived the unstandardized regression coefficient in predicting the unadjusted score from the Marlowe-Crowne Score. Second, I derived the adjusted score by multiplying the regression coefficient by the SDRB score, followed by subtracting this from the unadjusted score for the dependent variable (Y’ = Y – b x SDRB score) (Saunders, 1991).
5.
R
ESULTS
This chapter gives an overview of the results of the hypothesized relationships that have been found after the statistical procedures. It begins with the reliability of the scale, followed by the descriptives of and correlations between the variables. Consequently, the four hypotheses are tested and the results are presented in tables respectively. Finally, this chapter describes the explanatory analysis that I performed in order to test for another interaction as well as to explore the influence of Schwartz basic value self-enhancement on UPB replacing SDO.
5.1 RELIABILITY
The 6-item scale of UPB (α = .81), the 6-item scale of organizational identification (α = .86) and the 3-item scale of perceived organizational status (α = .78) demonstrated high internal consistency, i.e. all Cronbach’s alphas were above the recommended 0.7 (Field, 2009). After reverse coding item 1 and item 3 of the 4-item scale of SDO, this scale showed a low Cronbach’s alpha (α = .53). With deletion of item 2, the Cronbach’s alpha improved slightly until α = .59, but the SSDO scale could therefore not be considered as being very reliable in this study. The first higher order value of Schwartz’s basic personal values, self-enhancement, consisted of four items of achievement (personal success trough demonstrating competence according to social standards) and three items of power (social status and
prestige, control or dominance over people and resources). This 7-item scale showed a sufficient Cronbach’s alpha (α = .75). The other higher order value self-transcendence (α = .79) consisted of six items of universalism (understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature) and of four items of benevolence
(preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact) and could also be considered as reliable.
5.2 DESCRIPTIVES AND CORRELATIONS
The means, standard deviations and reliability of the scales are presented in Table 1. After adjusting the scores of UPB for SDRB the average score of UPB rose from 3.2 (SD = .10) till 3.8 (SD = .10). Indicating that on average, respondents did not show a great tendency to bias their scores on UPB questions (Saunders, 1991). Six potential control variables were considered, gender, size of the organization, tenure with the organization, job level and several sectors, of which only those control variables that showed a significant correlation with one of the other variables in the model were retained. This resulted in the inclusion of age, gender, and job level of employee and top manager as control variables in this study.
Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliability
Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1. Gender1 0.54 0.50 2. Age 41.93 14.77 .60 3. Employee 0.46 0.05 -.22* -.43** 4. Middle manager 0.27 0.04 .01 -.01 .09 5. Top Manager 0.26 0.04 .24* .49** .02 .34** 6. UPB 3.79 1.06 .08 -.12 -.09 .09 .02 (.81) 7. OID 5.04 1.13 .13 .23* -.41** .13 .34** .071 (.86)
8. Status of the firm 5.63 0.97 .00 .16 -.19* -.11 .33** -.04 .44** (.78) 9. SDO 3.44 1.54 .23* .12 -.15 .09 .08 .25** .15 .06 (.53)
10. Self-enhancement 3.76 0.73 .06 -.53** -.02 .20* -.21* .28** .19* .04 .21* (.79) 11. Self-transcendence 4.50 0.59 -.23* -.13 -.20* -.12 -.10 -.21* .01 .01 -.53** -.16 (.75)
Note. N =114; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001, two-tailed test. a Cronbach alpha’ are shown on the diagonal. 1 Gender was dummy
First of all, in line with expectations, UPB was positively related to SDO (r = .25, p < .01). Furthermore, UPB was positively related to self-enhancement (r = .28, p < .01) and negatively to self-transcendence (r = -.21, p < .05). Contrary to the expectations, UPB and organizational identification (OID) were not significantly related. The same holds for the relationship between SDO and organizational identification.
Additionally, SDO related positively to self-enhancement (r = .21, p < .05) and negatively to self-transcendence (r = -.33, p <. 01), as expected. In contrast with the correlation between SDO and organizational identification, self-enhancement did correlate with organizational identification (r = .19, p <. 05). In line with previous studies (e.g.
Sidanius et al. 1994), the control variable gender related positively to SDO (r = .23, p < .05), so that men scored higher on SDO than women in this sample. The control variable age related positively to organizational identification (r = .23, p < .05) and negatively to self-enhancement (r = -.53, p < .01), which corresponded to the findings of the study of van Lange et al. (1997). Additionally, people reported to be employee showed a negative relationship with organizational identification (r = -.41, p < .01). In contrast, top-managers showed a positive relationship with organizational identification (r = .34, p < .01), which is in line with research by Lange et al. (2014).
5.3 NORMALITY ANALYSES
Before testing the hypotheses, I assessed whether the variables met the assumption of normalization. Skewness and kurtosis of the variables are presented in Table 2. Importantly, the dependent variable UPB had skewness and kurtosis close to zero, indicating a normal distribution of the scores of the dependent variable (Field, 2009). The same holds for the scores of SDO, self-enhancement and self-transcendence as indicated by their skewness and
kurtosis close to zero. Both variables organizational identification and the perceived status of the organization had substantial negative skewness, indicating too many high scores in the distribution. The absence of a normal distribution of these variables could indicate that the questions on both scales of perceived status of the organization (Bartels et al. 2007) and organizational identification (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) bias respondents towards answering in high values. This will be taken into account in the discussion of this study.
Table 2.
Skewness and Kurtosis of Variables
Skewness Kurtosis
UPB 0.08 -0.50
OID -1.01 1.67
SDO 0.28 -0.29
Status of the organization -1.24 1.76
Self-enhancement -0.37 0.03
Self-transcendence -0.90 1.80
5.4 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Social Dominance Orientation and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior
The first hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between SDO and UPB. To investigate this hypothesis, hierarchical multiple regression was performed controlling for gender, age, position of top manager and employee (see Table 3). In the first step of the hierarchical multiple regression, the four control variables were entered. This model was not statistically significant F (4,109) = 1.24, p = .30, and accounted for R2 = 4.3% of the variance in UPB (model 1, Table 3). After entry of SDO in step 2, the hierarchical regression analysis
