Master thesis
Institution: University of Amsterdam Program: MSc Business Administration
Strategy Track
Date: June 24th, 2016
Supervisor: Mw. dr. F.M. Bridoux Student: Sophie Kranendonk
The impact of social-relational context on
individuals’ unethical intentions
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Sophie Kranendonk 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
Content
Statement of Originality 0Abstract ... 1
1. Introduction ... 2
2. Literature review ... 4
2.1 The ethical decision making process and moral intention ... 4
2.2 Organizational culture ... 7
2.3 Relational models ... 9
2.4 Heterogeneity in social preferences across individuals ... 13
2.5 Unethical intentions ... 15
2.6 Research gap and research question ... 17
3. Theoretical framework ... 18
3.1 Market Pricing relationship ... 19
3.2 Communal Sharing relationship ... 20
3.3 Authority Ranking relationship ... 22
3.4 Equality Matching relationship ... 25
3.5 Social value orientation ... 27
4. Research methods ... 29
4.1 Overall research design ... 29
4.2 Research sample ... 30
4.3 Operationalization ... 33
4.3.1 Independent variable: Relational models ... 33
4.3.2 Moderator: Social value orientation ... 35
4.3.3 Dependent variable: Unethical intention... 36
4.3.4 Control variables ... 37 4.4 Survey design ... 40 5. Results ... 43 5.1 Descriptive statistics ... 43 5.2 Reliability analysis ... 45 5.3 Correlations ... 46 5.4 Normality analysis ... 50
5.5 Direct effects on unethical intentions ... 50
5.5.1 Pro-organizational unethical intentions ... 50
5.6 Moderating effect ... 55
5.7 Additional results ... 62
5.7.1 Unethical intentions ... 62
5.7.2 Relational models ... 64
5.7.3 Social value orientation ... 67
6. Discussion ... 68
6.1 Discussion of the results ... 68
6.1.1 Direct effects ... 68
6.1.2 Interaction effects ... 71
6.1.3 Additional findings ... 75
6.2 Contributions of this research to the literature and practice ... 79
6.3 Limitations and future research ... 80
7. Conclusion ... 83
References ... 84
Appendices ... 99
Appendix A. Instrument relational models ... 99
Appendix B. Instrument unethical dilemmas ... 105
Appendix C. Questionnaire ... 106
Appendix D. Descriptive statistics ... 114
Appendix E. Normality analysis ... 115
Appendix F. Residuals hierarchical linear regression UPB ... 119
Appendix G. Residuals hierarchical linear regression SIUB ... 121
Keywords: Unethical behavior, pro-organizational and self-interested unethical intentions, relational models, Market Pricing, Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, social value orientation, individual preferences.
Abstract
This paper contributes to theory and practice by explaining unethical behavior in organizations.
To do so, an interactionist perspective is adopted and relational models theory is used as an
alternative explanation of how contextual factors affect ethical decision making. Relational
model theory states social action is constructed and coordinated by four elementary forms:
market pricing, communal sharing, authority ranking, and equality matching. In addition, how
those contextual factors interact with individual differences is studied. In particular, social value
orientation, which captures individual differences in preferences for the self or others, is
examined. Due to time and resource limitations unethical intentions were measured instead of
actual unethical behavior, but these intentions are considered an important step towards actual
unethical behavior. Two types of unethical intentions were measured: unethical intentions
benefitting the self (SIUB) and unethical intentions benefitting the organization (UPB).
An online questionnaire was used to collect information from a sample of 198
employees of Dutch organizations. The results indicate a positive relationship between market
pricing relationships and SIUB, and a positive relationship between authority ranking
relationships and both UPB and SIUB. In addition, social value orientation was found to
moderate several relationships between the relational models and unethical intentions. This
research contributed to academic research by showing that different forces drive unethical
behavior and that relational models theory can be used to explain differences in individuals’
unethical intentions. Furthermore, this research contributed to practice by showing the
importance to focus monitoring resources on individuals with stronger pro-self preferences to
keep SIUB in check; that emphasizing equality matching relationships yields potential to reduce
UPB for individuals with higher pro-self preferences; and that emphasizing hierarchies
1.
Introduction
Unethical behavior can damage organizations substantially, as shown by for example the recent
scandals surrounding Volkswagen, KPMG, and Rabobank. Unethical behavior in those
organizations led to fines, degraded reputations, or both (Zhang, 2015). If unethical behavior is
bad for organizations and individuals, than why do people behave unethically?
There are a number of reasons why individuals behave unethically. For example, they
may do so for their own benefit, to benefit or harm other individuals, or to benefit or harm the
organization (Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010). Either way, unethical decision are
illegal, or morally unacceptable to the larger community (Jones, 1991). For organizations it is
important to know how organizational factors can affect the ethical decision making process in
order to minimize unethical behavior. Because, why do individuals behave more unethically in
some organizations than in others? Organizational culture is one of the aspects argued to
influence individuals’ behavior in organizations (Jackson, Wood, & Zboja, 2013). For example, it has been found to affect job satisfaction (Lund, 2003) and efficient integration of knowledge
(Grant, 1996). Yet, research on how organizational culture influences the ethical decision
making process is still limited (Craft, 2013).
In order to advance our understanding of the impact of organizational culture on
employees’ ethical behavior, the present research builds on relational models theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992) and its recent applications in the management field (Boer, Berends, & van Baalen,
2011; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016; Giessner & Van Quaquebeke, 2010; Lin, Wu, & Lu, 2012).
Different types of organizational cultures can be expected to lead to different types of
relationships between employees and organizations, which could shed new light on the linkages
between organizational culture and ethical decisions. Relational models theory proposes that
is concerned with exploring how those relational models explain differences in individuals’ unethical intentions.
As an ethical decision has consequences for others (Jones, 1991), it can be argued that
an ethical dilemma is an example of a situation of interdependence. Research has shown that
decision makers have heterogeneous social preferences and those preferences affect the
behavior of decision makers in situations of interdependence (Murphy & Ackermann, 2014;
Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten, & Joireman, 1997). Extending this line of research it is suggested
that within a specific type of relationship, the behavior of individuals may vary according to
their social preferences. Social preferences refer to stable preferences for patterns of outcomes
for oneself and others (Van Lange et al., 1997). This research differentiates between individuals
with stronger pro-self or pro-social preferences (Bogaert, Boone, & Declerck, 2008).
Hence, this research empirically tests whether the salient relational model between
individuals and organizations affects individuals’ unethical intentions. In addition, it studies
whether this effect is moderated by individuals’ social preferences. In doing so this research
contributes to scientific literature by addressing the call of scholars to incorporate
organizational culture in research on ethics using relational models theory as an alternative
explanation. Furthermore, this study adopts an interactionists perspective by studying how
situational aspects and individual differences interact – which has been suggested to be
important in studying the ethical decision making process (Cohen & Morse, 2014; Lehnert,
Park & Singh, 2014) – and it addresses the call to elaborate on how social aspects affect
economic aspects (Freeman & Phillips, 2002). The research contributes to practice by showing
to managers how the type of relationship of their organization with its employees may, perhaps
unintentionally, affect employees’ intentions in ethical dilemmas. Overall, the contribution of
the present paper is to add explanatory power to the question why individuals behave more
2.
Literature review
This chapter introduces the current research relevant to the topic of this paper, shows an
important gap in this research, and ends with the research question this study aims to answer.
2.1 The ethical decision making process and moral intention
As illustrated in the introduction, it is important to study unethical decisions made by
individuals within an organization because they can be harmful for the organization and society.
Jones (1991) defined an unethical decision as “… a decision that is either illegal or morally
unacceptable to the larger community” (p. 367). The terms moral and ethical are often used
interchangeably (Cohen & Morse, 2014; Jones, 1991), and are considered to be synonymous in
this research as well.
Rest (1986) argued that when individuals are faced with an ethical dilemma, they pass
through the ethical decision making process: they become aware of the ethical dilemma, they
make moral judgement, formulate moral intentions, and consequently decide and behave
ethically or not. Moral recognition and judgement are considered cognitive processes, prior to
moral intentions and behavior (Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). Moral awareness is
concerned with the ability to interpret a situation as being moral, judgement is concerned with
the ability to decide on the morally correct course of action (Craft, 2013), intent is concerned
with the willingness or commitment to engage in moral instead of immoral behavior, and ethical
behavior is concerned with the actual action of an organizational member engaging in ethical
instead of unethical behavior (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010). Those steps continue
to be the foundation of research on ethical decision making, and one or more of those steps are
used in most studies as the dependent variables (Craft, 2013; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).
Most studies between 1996 and 2011 focused on moral judgement as dependent variable (Craft,
2013; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005), however, there is an increasing focus on moral intention as dependent variable (Craft, 2013).
Ultimately, research is interested in explaining individuals’ decisions and behavior. The theory of planned behavior is an empirically validated theory designed to predict and explain
human behavior in specific contexts (Ajzen, 1991). Similarly to Rest’s (1986) model – which
suggests that moral behavior is preceded by moral intentions – the theory of planned behavior
argues that individuals’ intention to perform behavior is a central factor in explaining actual behavior, especially when the intention to engage in the intended behavior is strong (Ajzen,
1991). Several studies confirmed that moral intention is a predictor of moral behavior
(Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Rabl & Kühlmann, 2008). However, in their meta-analysis, Kish-(Kish-Gephart
et al. (2010) showed that while the direction of the effect is the same when using moral intention
or moral behavior as dependent variable, the correlation with behavior is stronger than with
intention. As a consequence, the statistical power of studies using moral intention as dependent
variable is limited compared to using moral behavior as such. Clearly, studying actual moral
behavior is preferred. This can be done by using self-reports of personal behavior, social reports
of observed coworker behavior, and behavior based on archival records (Kish-Gephart et al.,
2010). Unfortunately, due to time- and resource constraints, this is not a feasible option for this
research project. Therefore, this research will concentrate on moral intention as the dependent
variable. Consistent with Kish-Gephart et al. (2010), moral intention is measured by asking
participants how likely it is that they would engage in specific behavior.
Together with moral judgement, moral intensity is a significant predictor of moral
intentions (Craft, 2013). Jones (1991) adopted a contingency perspective and identified six
characteristics of the moral issue he argued would determine the intensity of the moral issue:
the magnitude of its consequences, social consensus, probability of the effect, the time between
the decision and the following consequences, the relatedness to the ‘victims’ of unethical
decisions, and the magnitude of the unethical decision. Although a recent study proposed that
factors affecting moral intensity (McMahon & Harvey, 2006), the six characteristics proposed
by Jones (1991) are generally accepted by the field as the basic elements that determine the
moral intensity of an ethical dilemma (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). These six characteristics
indicate there is a great variety in ethical dilemmas. The ethical dilemmas used in this research
will be fully specified in paragraph 2.5. For now, it is important to know that this study focuses
on ethical dilemmas that have a limited magnitude of consequence, are likely to be often
encountered by employees, and for which there is consensus that the item represents unethical
behavior. While each item has limited consequences, the effect may still be important. Because,
if many employees make unethical decisions when they encounter such dilemmas,
consequences for organizations may be strategically significant.
Besides the conscious process as described by Rest (1986) and the theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991), an ethical dilemma can also give rise to an unconscious, more intuitive,
ethical decision making process (Haidt, 2007) or not lead to moral processes at all when
individuals do not see it as an ethical issue (Schwartz, 2015). Whether the ethical decision
making process is conscious or unconscious, the ethical decision making process can be
affected by the characteristics of the ethical dilemma (Jones, 1991), individual differences, and
contextual or organizational factors (Craft, 2013; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).
Contextual and, in particular, organizational factors matter because “…an individual does not work in a vacuum” (Craft, 2013, p. 222). Research on organizational factors that affect the ethical decision making process is limited, and a request is made to study the effect of
organizational factors in future research (Craft, 2013). So far, studies on organizational factors
concentrated mainly on rewards, ethical culture, code of ethics, subjective norms,
organizational size, and procedures, as shown in the review by Craft (2013). Looking at broader
situational factors, it was found that national culture and type of industry affect the ethical
influences ethical decision making as it influences the values of individuals. Similarly, it can
be suggested that organizational culture affects the values of individuals within an organization
(Marr, Schiuma, & Neely, 2004). In fact, multiple researchers point in the direction of
organizational culture as a factor that may affect ethical decision making (Cohn, Fehr, &
Maréchal, 2014; Haidt, 2007; Moberg & Caldwell, 2007).
2.2 Organizational culture
Schneider et al. (2013) defined organizational culture as “… the shared basic assumptions,
values, and beliefs that characterize a setting and are taught to newcomers as the proper way to
think and feel …” (p. 362). Organizational culture can reinforce the achievement of the overall goals of the organization (Marr et al., 2004), and is argued to provide a large part of the
information individuals use to determine proper behavior in a given setting (De Brentani &
Kleinschmidt, 2004; Jackson et al., 2013). Organizational culture is established by a multitude
of components, for example the employees of the organization, and the societal and industrial
culture surrounding the organization (Jackson et al., 2013). Research shows organizational
culture impacts organizations in several ways, for example, organizational culture has a
mediating effect on product innovation (Lau & Ngo, 2004), it influences individuals readiness
for change (Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths, 2005), it affects job satisfaction (Lund, 2003), and it
can be a source that contributes to the competitive advantage of an organization (Grant, 1996;
Marr et al., 2004).
Different types of cultures are expected to produce different sorts of behaviors, values,
assumptions, and beliefs, and lead to distinctive methods for processing information and
making decisions (Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011; Marr et al., 2004). Organizational culture can
be divided in four main types: clan, adhocracy, market or hierarchy culture (Hartnell et al.,
2011; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Schneider et al., 2013). Organizational cultures fit in one of
versus external focus, and according to the focus on means versus ends (Quinn & Rohrbaugh,
1983). Following Hartnell et al. (2011), a clan type organizational culture has a flexible
structure and internal focus. Organizations featuring this type of culture value collaboration and
the core belief is that organizations empower their employees because they trust their
employees and are committed to them. Employees collaborate closely, there is a strong focus
on employee development, and there is a lot of support (Hartnell et al., 2011). An adhocracy
type of organizational culture has a flexible structure and an external focus. Organizations
where this type of culture dominates feel a strong need for change, value creativity and pursue
adaptability (Hartnell et al., 2011). A hierarchy type of organizational culture has a control
structure and internal focus. Organizations featuring this type of culture have extended control
mechanisms and focus on consistency, measuring, and efficiency (Hartnell et al., 2011). Finally,
the market type organizational culture has a controlled structure and external focus.
Organizations featuring this type of culture are based on the premise of competition,
achievements and they usually have a strong customer focus (Hartnell et al., 2011).
Little research has focused on the effects of organizational culture on ethical decision
making, with the exception of a recent piece of research that found no significant differences in
employees’ ethical attitudes when comparing control- and flexibility-oriented organizational cultures (Holtbrügge, Baron, & Friedmann, 2014). Based on very limited results, research on
how organizational culture affects the ethical decision making process is not conclusive yet
(Lehnert et al., 2014).
In order to shed new light on this organizational factor, the present study will zoom in
on the relational models used by employees to represent the relationship within their
organization. Research found that organizational culture and structure are important influencers
of the prevalent relationships in organizations (Giessner & Van Quaquebeke, 2010). This is
others, and the meaning of stimuli changes with relationship contexts (Reis, Collins, &
Berscheid, 2000). Stakeholder theory even suggests that business can be understood as a set of
relationships and is about how stakeholders interact to jointly create and trade value (Parmar et
al., 2010). Therefore, it may be expected that relational context also influences the ethical
decision making process. Seeking an alternative explanation of how organizational culture
affects the ethical decision making process, the present research proposes that organizational
culture affects the ethical decision making process through the dominant relationship between
the organization and its employees.
2.3 Relational models
Fiske (1992) argued that individuals are fundamentally social and organize their life in terms
of relations with other individuals. Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) highlight that organizations
affect the actions of individuals within the organization through how employees perceive their
relationship with the organization and with other stakeholders, and argue that the relational
models proposed by relational models theory (Fiske, 1992) are useful to categorize the main
types of relationships employees perceive to have with the organization they work for.
Relational models are used by individuals to “… plan and to generate their own action, to understand, remember, and anticipate others’ action, to coordinate the joint production of
collective action and institutions, and to evaluate their own and others’ actions” (Bridoux &
Stoelhorst, 2016, p. 232). Fiske (1992) proposed four models which humans use to organize
and coordinate social action: the market pricing, communal sharing; authority ranking; and
equality matching model.
The Market Pricing (MP) model fits with the neoclassical economic assumptions of
self-interest and depicts a relationship in which competition is central and individuals match their
inputs with rewards (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). Individuals get payed for commodities in
made based on market supply and demand, and individuals are motivated by achievement
(Fiske, 1992). In the remaining models the assumption of self-interest is abandoned and
individuals are assumed to be more cooperative.
The Communal Sharing (CS) model emphasizes the community instead of the
individual (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). In this type of relationship individuals give and take
freely from pooled resources. What individuals receive is not dependent on what they
contribute, but on belonging to the group, and the relationships within the community are
idealized as eternal (Fiske, 1992). In decision making the objective is to seek consensus,
individuals feel the desire to be similar to their group members, and the group aims for
continuity (Fiske, 1992).
The Authority Ranking (AR) model links the identity and possible range of actions of
the individual to the individuals’ position within the organizational structure (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). In this type of relationships individuals with a higher rank have higher
decision power, but are at the same time responsible for individuals with lower rank (Fiske,
1992). The individuals with higher rank carry items that resemble their rank, control the work
of others, and delegate work, and individuals lower in rank are expected to be honored and
beholden, obey orders from individuals higher in rank, and be loyal (Fiske, 1992).
Lastly, in the Equality Matching (EM) model individuals are equal but individuals are
emphasized instead of the community, as in the CS model (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). In this
type of relationship everything is balanced between individuals, and individuals’ inputs are
matched as much as possible. Fairness is highly valued, individuals expect that on the long term
everything will be perfectly balanced according to the ‘tit-for-tat’ rule (Fiske, 1992).
Although several relational models are often present in a single relationship, relational
model theory proposes that one model is dominant (Fiske, 1992). When examining the
type organizational culture MP relationships are emphasized as both highlight competitive
elements; in a clan type of organizational culture CS relationships are emphasized as they both
emphasize collective effort; and in hierarchical organizational cultures AR relationships are
emphasized as both highlight bureaucracy. The comparison between adhocracy organizational
cultures and EM relationships is more ambiguous, but it could be argued that as the focus in
adhocracy cultures is on creativity and flexibility the individual is emphasized and therefore
EM relationships are more salient. However, the main feature of EM relationships is equality,
and this is not necessarily stressed in an adhocracy culture.
Among other effects, Fiske (1992) argued that people make moral judgements with
reference to relational models. Notably, multiple authors argue that morality is about regulating
the social-relational context (Cohen, Panter, Turan, Morse & Kim, 2014; Rai & Fiske, 2011).
In addition, Rai & Fiske (2011) argue that social relationships are not considered extensively
enough in research on moral motives. They argue that actions will be judged as morally correct
when they occur in their social-relational context, and judged as morally incorrect when they
occur in other social-relational contexts (Rai & Fiske, 2011). However, in doing so, they focus
on fundamentally different types of social relationships in geographically dispersed locations.
Giessner & Quaquebeke (2010) incorporate relational model theory in their research into ethical
leadership and propose that misunderstanding about the applicable relational model between
the leader and the follower; different understanding of appropriate behavior within a relational
model; and violation of agreed relational model, affect the perceptions of ethicality. This paper
proposes an alternative explanation of how relational models affect the ethical decision making
process. As the definition of relational models suggests, the relational models evoke different
actions. In addition, the relational models may lead people to have specific assumptions about
the behavior of other people. Research has shown that the expectations individuals have of other
Stahelski, 1970). Therefore, and in contrast to the papers discussed previously, this research is
concerned with whether unethical intentions differ between relational models.
Although it is expected in this paper that situational aspects are very important in
explaining unethical behavior, it is generally accepted that individual differences affect
behavior. Individual differences have been shown to influence the ethical decision making
process in different ways, such research has focused mainly on factors such as gender,
nationality, education, fairness, age, religion, and decision style (Cohen et al., 2014; Craft,
2013; Lehnert et al., 2014). Besides that differences between individuals can result in different
behavior in the ethical decision making process, individual differences may also affect behavior
due to the interaction with situational factors. For example, research has shown that when
individuals expect others not to cooperate, the cooperation of pro-social individuals is reduced,
but this has little impact on the cooperation of self-interested individuals (Balliet, Parks, &
Joireman, 2009). Furthermore, a reciprocal relationship is suggested between individuals and
situations (Cohen & Morse, 2014). This approach suggests that individuals select, create and
change situations according to their individual preferences (Cohen & Morse, 2014). Therefore,
the interaction between individual and situational factors is considered to be an important factor
affecting ethical decision making (Lehnert et al., 2014).
One approach to study individuals’ behavior has been to study individuals’ social preferences (Balliet et al., 2009). Among others, research has shown that decision makers have
social preferences, that such preferences affect behavior of decision makers in situations of
interdependence (Murphy & Ackermann, 2014; Van Lange et al., 1997), and that individuals
differ substantially in terms of which preference is most salient (Kuhlman & Wimberley, 1976).
As the ethical decision making process affects both the individual and another party, in which
at least the latter is dependent on the actions of the first, the present paper suggests ethical
So, as is elaborated on earlier in this review, the relationship between an individual and
the organization may affect individuals’ actions (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). Considering
behavior has been found to differ due to the interaction between situational context and social
preferences (Balliet et al., 2009), the present paper proposes that unethical behavior may not
only differ between salient relational models, but that these effects may in addition differ
according to individuals’ social preferences. Therefore, in addition, this paper will study the
moderating effect of heterogeneity in social preferences across individuals, on the relationship
between a relational model and individuals’ unethical intentions.
2.4 Heterogeneity in social preferences across individuals
Heterogeneity in social preferences across individuals has often been expressed in terms of their
social value orientation (Bogaert et al., 2008; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2002). Social value
orientation refers to stable preferences for patterns of outcomes for oneself and others (Van
Lange et al., 1997). Social value orientation have been shown to affect negotiation processes
(De Dreu & Boles, 1998), affect the way in which individuals cooperate and compete with other
individuals (Bogaert et al., 2008; Kuhlman & Marshello, 1975), and account for various other
behaviors and interaction patterns in domains of interdependence (Liebrand, Jansen, Rijken, &
Suhre, 1986; Nauta, De Dreu, & Van Der Vaart, 2002; Van Lange et al., 1997).
Broadly speaking, individuals can be said to have pro-self or pro-social preferences
(Bogaert et al., 2008). Research clearly shows that within both pro-self and pro-social
individuals, a further classification can be made. For example, pro-self individuals can be
inclined to maximize their own payoffs regardless of others, or they can be inclined to maximize
their payoffs in comparison to others (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001; De Dreu & Boles, 1998;
Van Lange, 1999). Among pro-social individuals there might be individuals who are, in
addition to being cooperative, willing to sanction others at their own costs when others violate
eight categories of social preferences (Liebrand, 1984). However, some of those categories are
marginally represented in the human population, therefore, the majority of research focuses on
individuals motivated to maximize their own payoff, maximize the difference between their
own and others payoffs, or maximize joint payoffs (Balliet et al., 2009; Messick & McClintock,
1968; Murphy & Ackermann, 2014; Nauta et al., 2002). These individuals are labeled
individualistic, competitive, or cooperative respectively (Deutsch, 1960). Research has shown
that most people can be classified as cooperators (46%), individualists (38%), or competitors
(12%) (Au & Kwong, 2004; Balliet et al., 2009), and among the Dutch population most
individuals are either individualistic or cooperative (Liebrand et al., 1986). Considering this
research will be conducted in the Netherlands, this research will differentiate between pro-self
– also referred to as individualistic or competitive –, and pro-social – also referred to as cooperative, reciprocal or altruistic – individuals.
Individualistic individuals are inclined to maximize their own outcomes, and they do
not consider the outcomes for others (De Dreu & Boles, 1998; Murphy & Ackermann, 2014)
as long as the outcomes for others do not influence their outcomes (Fehr & Gintis, 2007).
Individualistic individuals associate non-cooperative behavior with strength and intelligence
and cooperative behavior with weakness and unintelligence (Van Lange, 1999). Only under
conditions where cooperation maximizes their own payoffs, such individuals are inclined to
cooperate (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001).
Cooperative individuals are inclined to maximize joint outcomes (De Dreu & Boles,
1998; Murphy & Ackermann, 2014). This preference is dependent on the type of situation: these
individuals respond positively or negatively depending on the type of situation. The perception
of the type of situation is dependent on perceived fairness (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2002). The
majority of the reciprocators cooperate to the same extent they expect their counterpart to
to enhance both joint payoffs and the fairness of payoffs as long as the counterpart cooperates,
and that equality and collective payoffs are separate constructs that influence the behavior of
pro-social individuals (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001).
Recent research by Cohen et al. (2014) showed that individuals with high levels of moral
character consider the needs and interests of others, and how their actions affect other people,
more than individuals with low levels of moral character. In addition, they found that
individuals with low moral character committed more frequently counterproductive work
behavior and are less cooperative than individuals with high moral character. As moral
character is linked to moral behavior, this further suggests that social value orientation affects
the ethical decision making process. Therefore, the present research studies whether social
value orientation, simplified to individuals having higher pro-self or pro-social preferences,
moderates the effect between the relational models and unethical intentions.
The research discussed above clearly acknowledges that individuals have different
social preferences. This has not always been the case; in early theories about organizations the
motivation of individuals has largely been simplified into assumptions of self-interest, or even
self-interest with guile (Clegg, Hardy, Lawrence, & Nord, 2006; Eisenhardt, 1989). Where
research has shown that abandoning the assumptions of self-interest leads to different
organizational theories (Bridoux, Coeurderoy, & Durand, 2011; Fischbacher, Gächter, & Fehr,
2001; Hahn, 2015), the majority of the studies regarding unethical decision making still focuses
on unethical decisions in which only the decision maker his or herself benefits (Cohn et al.,
2014; Grover & Hui, 1994; Shepard & Hartenian, 1991). Just as nowadays the motivation of
individuals is considered to be more differentiated than solely based on self-interest, this paper
argues the motivation of individuals to act unethically should also be considered more broadly.
2.5 Unethical intentions
variety of ethical dilemmas. In his paper, Jones (1991) emphasized that an ethical decision has
consequences for others, and the decision maker has the choice to let others either harm or
benefit from his or her decision. The literature offers different explanations of why people
engage in unethical behavior (Krambia‐Kapardis & Zopiatis, 2008). A recent stream of research argues individuals also engage in unethical behavior for the sake of the organization or the team
(Thau, Derfler-Rozin, Pitesa, Mitchell, & Pillutla, 2015; Umphress et al., 2010; Umphress &
Bingham, 2011). To accommodate this recent insight, this research considers ethical dilemmas
where either the individual him or herself benefits, or in which the organization benefits. The
first can be referred to as the self-interest paradigm (SIUB), which predicts “… unethical
behavior occurs when such behavior benefits the actor” (Grover & Hui, 1994, p. 295). The latter can be referred to as pro-organizational unethical behavior (UPB), defined 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). It is important to note that by definition UPB is not
specified in formal job descriptions, nor is it ordered by superiors, and employees may not
personally benefit from UPB (Umphress et al., 2010).
The distinction between SIUB and UPB has not been made within the same research
before, but differentiating between motives is considered important as it has been shown that it
can explain differences in behavior. For example, research has shown individuals have different
motives to communicate with coworkers and superiors (Anderson & Martin, 1995). In addition,
the impact of relational models on ethical intentions is likely to be affected by it. For example,
in a CS relationships, acting in accordance with the interests of the group is emphasized. One
could thus expect that unethical behavior benefiting the self is less likely to occur than in an
MP relationship in which self-interest is more central than group interests. However, when the
differentiating ethical dilemmas as being either beneficial for the organization or beneficial for
the individual, new insights into unethical intentions could be generated.
2.6 Research gap and research question
Both for management and practice it is important to determine which organizational aspects
affect unethical behavior. This research adopts an interactionist perspective by suggesting that
unethical behavior stems from the interplay between situational and individual factors.
Organizational culture is a main influencer of human behavior in organizations. This
research suggests that different types of organizational cultures can be expected to lead to
different types of relationships between employees and organizations, and that different types
of relationships may provoke different behavior in ethical dilemmas. In addition, individual
differences may moderate this effect as it has been shown that individual and situational factors
interact and in doing so affect the ethical decision making process (Lehnert et al., 2014). One
way in which individuals differ, is in terms of their social preferences. Differences in
individuals’ social preferences have been shown to affect behavior in situations of interdependence. In addition, it has been shown that it is dependent upon the situation how
social preferences affect individuals’ behavior. Therefore, it is expected that individuals’ social
preferences moderate the relationship between the salient relationship between employees and
employers and unethical intentions. Finally, as nowadays individuals’ motivations are
considered more broadly than just serving self-interest, this paper argues that the motivation of
individuals to engage in unethical behavior should also be considered more broadly than solely
motivated to benefit the self. Therefore, when examining unethical intentions, the study
differentiates between unethical behavior that benefits the individual or the organization.
Hence, this research is concerned with two questions. First, do relational models explain
differences in individuals’ unethical intentions? And second, is this effect moderated by individuals having higher pro-self or pro-social preferences?
3.
Theoretical framework
In this chapter, for each relational model hypotheses are formulated regarding their effect on
unethical intentions. Subsequently, hypotheses are given regarding the moderating effect of
social preferences on those relationships. Figure 1 shows the conceptual model including the
hypotheses.
Figure 1: conceptual model including hypotheses
To facilitate hypothesizing about the effects of the relational models on UPB and SIUB, we
borrow from the literature in the field of organizational citizenship behavior and deviant
workplace behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is behavior that contributes to
the organization as it maintains the organizations social and psychological system (LePine,
Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ, 1997). This work behavior is not necessarily directly recognized
by the formal reward system, nor specified in job requirements (LePine et al., 2002; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). This behavior may be directed towards different units
of analysis, in this paper we are interested in behavior beneficial for the organization in general
(also labeled OCBO) (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Maynes, & Spoelma, 2014). This paper argues
that OCB is similar to UPB in the sense that UPB is a type of OCB, but limited to actions that
are illegal or not in accordance to the social norms.
Market Pricing Communal Sharing Authority Ranking Equality Matching Unethical intention: - Pro-organizational - Self-interested
Social value orientation:
- Pro-self - Pro-social
H5
,
To facilitate hypothesizing about SIUB, we use literature on deviant workplace
behavior. Deviant workplace behavior is “… voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members,
or both.” (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556). Therefore, this papers argues that deviant workplace behavior is similar to SIUB as both are harmful for the organization, but different as
in SIUB the individual benefits whereas this is not stressed in the definition of deviant
workplace behavior. Also, whereas unethical behavior is concerned with behavior that violates
societal norms and the law, deviant workplace behavior focuses only on behavior that is deviant
from organizational norms (Peterson, 2002). It is important to note that deviant workplace
behavior is not the same as counterproductive work behavior, which is the opposite of
organizational citizenship behavior, as deviant workplace behavior is not necessarily directed
against the organization which is the case for counterproductive work behavior (Robinson &
Bennett, 1995).
3.1 Market Pricing relationship
In MP relationships individuals contribute in proportion to rewards, in such relationships
competition is central (Fiske, 1992). Research suggests that highly competitive environments,
and egoistic climates weaken ethical intentions (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Valentine &
Bateman, 2011). However, those researches did not differentiate between UPB and SIUB.
It has been shown that egoistic climates – in which company norms support individuals
to satisfy their self-interested needs – are negatively related to organizational commitment
(Cullen, Parboteeah, & Victor, 2003). Organizational commitment is also characterized by the
willingness to exert a considerable effort for the organization (Cullen et al., 2003). Furthermore,
organizational commitment has been found to positively influence OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995).
The above suggests that MP relationships are negatively related to UPB. In addition, research
negatively influences factors such as altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship.
Although the research is inconsistent in showing how strong the relationship between those
aspects and OCB is, it is highly indicative that those aspects positively influence OCB
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). Measuring whether the motivational systems of the organizations
reward UPB is outside the scope of this research. However, considering that there is no demand
from the organization for the individual to behave unethically – as it is not demanded by a
supervisor, nor requested by job description – nor does the individual receive something in
return – as is the case in SIUB –, there is no incentive for the individual to behave unethically.
Therefore, it is assumed that the rewards for UPB are either low or non-existing. Hence;
Hypothesis 1a: There is a negative relationship between a MP relationship and UPB.
In organizations where decision making from an egoistic perspective is emphasized a positive
correlation was found with dysfunctional behaviors (Martin & Cullen, 2006; Peterson, 2002).
It was suggested that this effect is due to individuals in such organizations having less concern
for others and the organization as a whole (Martin & Cullen, 2006). In addition, in
self-interested unethical dilemmas all the benefits accrue to the individual, those benefits can be
seen as the rewards for engaging in unethical behavior. Therefore;
Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive relationship between a MP relationship and SIUB.
3.2 Communal Sharing relationship
In CS relationships individuals feel a high need to belong to the group, and they adopt the
perspective of the group in their behavior and decision making processes (Fiske, 1992).
Research found that organizations who focus employees’ attention on the well-being of multiple stakeholders – such as employees and the community – are less likely to encourage unethical
behavior (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). However, again, those researches did not differentiate
between UPB and SIUB.
Research showed that group cohesiveness is positively related to factors such as
altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship. Although the research is inconsistent
in showing how strong the relationship between those aspects and OCB is, it is highly indicative
that those aspects positively influence OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Research also showed that
employees in supportive organizations – in which organizations are concerned with the welfare
of their employees, look after their needs, and compensate them fairly – perform more OCB
(Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999). This suggests a positive relationship
between the CS model, where the group cohesiveness is high and there is extended
organizational support, and UPB. This is further supported by the results of De Groot and
Brownlee (2006), which, although they did not find a significant effect, suggest that in more
organic or unstructured organizational structures, the level of OCB increases. In addition, a
pro-organizational unethical dilemma provides the individual with an opportunity to increase the
value for the organization. Therefore;
Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between a CS relationship and UPB.
Self-interested unethical dilemmas offer an opportunity to increase the benefits for the
individual. In CS relationships the value of such actions is expected to be low as individuals
aim to be similar to other individuals in their organizations (Fiske, 1992), as opposed to being
better on an individual level. In addition, research showed that organizations that emphasize
concern for their employees and caring for others, there is less deviant workplace behavior
(Martin & Cullen, 2006; Peterson, 2002). Furthermore, group cohesiveness, expected to be high
Steel, & Bennett, 1998), and organizational commitment is negatively related to dysfunctional
behavior – accounting for a large effect (Martin & Cullen, 2006). Therefore;
Hypothesis 2b: There is a negative relationship between a CS relationship and SIUB.
3.3 Authority Ranking relationship
In AR relationships, status is central: superiors are responsible for subordinates, and the
subordinates are expected to be loyal to their superiors (Fiske, 1992). Such relationships imply
organizations that emphasize hierarchical structure. A hierarchy is an implicit or explicit ranked
order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued dimension (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
The two main functions of a hierarchy are to establish social order and facilitate coordination,
and to provide incentives for individuals by creating the opportunity to grow in rank (Magee &
Galinsky, 2008). The primary dimensions of hierarchical differentiation are status and power,
and the attitudes, behaviors and opinions of low-power individuals are argued to be shaped by
their high-power counterparts as they set the norms, rules, and standards (Magee & Galinsky,
2008). The base for expected behavior is set to the extent that individuals who do not behave in
accordance with the prediction are evaluated negatively or punished (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
When examining research on how hierarchy influences unethical decision making, there
is especially a great variety of research available into how the relationship between superiors
and subordinates influences the ethical decision making process. For example, research focused
on the effect of the integrity of the leader on employees (White & Lean, 2008), the effect of
leaders’ moral development on ethical climate and employees’ attitudes (Schminke, Ambrose, & Neubaum, 2005), and the effects of stress on leaders recognition of, and acting in, ethical
dilemmas (Selart & Johansen, 2011). In contrast, this research is not concerned with how the
relationship between a superior and subordinate influences the ethical decision making process,
compared to the other relational models. Therefore, this paper hypothesizes about the effect of
introducing a hierarchy – thereby differentiating between individuals based on status and
power, and enforcing rules, norms and standards – on unethical decision making.
In earlier days, unethical behavior and corruption has been reduced by standardization
and increased centralized decision making (Zimmerman, 2001). In addition, research showed
that when organizations emphasize rules and codes, individuals are less likely to engage in
unethical behavior (Barnett & Vaicys, 2000; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Martin & Cullen, 2006).
Following the rules and procedures is seen as the key to success in such organizations (Smith,
Thompson, & Iacovou, 2009). This suggests that, in general unethical decision making,
individuals in AR relationships are less likely to behave unethically.
Research on how hierarchy affects OCB are mixed (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Although
no significant effects were found, the results of De Groot and Brownlee (2006) suggest that
when the amount of structure in an organization increases, the level of OCB decreases. Also,
research in the sales industry found that bureaucracy, which included among others that an
organization had a hierarchical authority structure, was negatively related to OCB (Jelinek &
Ahearne, 2006). Both results suggest a negative relationship between the AR model and UPB.
Magee and Galinski (2008) argued that one of the reasons to establish a hierarchy is to
offer individuals incentives. Research indicated a positive relationship between salary
attainment and promotions, and OCB (Allen, 2006). This suggests that, as promotions are more
likely when individuals engage in OCB, AR relationships may lead people to engage in UPB
with the aim to grow in rank. As Podsakoff et al. (2000) argued, individuals are eventually
likely to be rewarded for OCB as either the employee or the manager consider it as an essential
part of performance. However, unethical behavior is illegal and/or morally unacceptable,
therefore, the link between promotions and UPB is argued to be dissimilar to the link between
The arguments above show that the relationship between AR relationships and UPB is
complex. As research clearly showed that increased structure and bureaucracy decreases OCB,
this paper hypothesizes:
Hypothesis 3a: There is a negative relationship between an AR relationship and UPB.
Research showed mixed results regarding the effects of hierarchical aspects on deviant
workplace behavior. Similar to the findings of the effect of rules and codes on unethical
intentions, research has shown that when organizations emphasize rules and laws, this reduces
organizational deviant behavior (Peterson, 2002). However, research in the sales industry
showed that bureaucracy, which included among others that an organization had a hierarchical
authority structure, was positively related to organizational deviant behavior (Jelinek &
Ahearne, 2006). This difference can be explained by the hypothesized motivational
backgrounds, specifically, whereas the first explains the effect as a result of individuals’
adhering to the imposed rules in the hierarchy, the latter research explains this effect as a result
of a reduced cooperative working environment and increased frustration in the workforce due
to rules and regulations. The above suggests a complex relationship between AR relationships
and SIUB as it could be negative when one assumes rules and regulations enforce ethical
behavior, but positive as one assumes the hierarchy evokes frustration and less cooperative
environments.
As discussed previously, unethical behavior may be perceived as a mean to grow in
rank. However, whereas UPB may not directly lead to benefits for the individual, SIUB does.
And, although in AR relationships loyalty to and obeying individuals higher in rank is
cooperating aspects are not stressed, individuals may feel acting according to individuals’
self-interest is justified. Therefore;
Hypothesis 3b: There is a positive relationship between an AR relationship and SIUB.
3.4 Equality Matching relationship
In EM relationships equality and fairness are emphasized. Organizational justice theory is
concerned with the way employees determine whether they have been treated fairly in their jobs
and how this influences work related variables (Moorman, 1991). Organizational justice is
divided in three distinct classes: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Greenberg, 1990).
Distributive justice is the result of a combination of equity theory and the justice judgement
model, and concerns judgements about the fairness of the input/output ratio, and the fairness of
outcomes or allocations (Cropanzano et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1990). Procedural justice is
concerned with the fairness of process elements, such as the procedures, used to determine the
outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2001; Moorman, 1991). Interactional justice is concerned with
judgements regarding the fairness of interpersonal interactions, for example the communication
by management to employees (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001). The
concepts of organizational justice are argued to influence, among others, individuals’ behavior. Specifically, distributive, procedural, and interactional justice are argued to affect behavior and
actions directed towards respectively the outcome, the organization, or the representative
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
Perceived distributive and procedural justice are positively related to OCB directed to
organizations (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). In their meta-analysis, there was insufficient
data to test for the effects of interactional justice on OCB (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
interactional justice is more predictive for OCB directed at the supervisor than for OCB directed
towards the organization, which is of interest for this paper (Cropanzano et al., 2001). As
pointed out by Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) individuals in EM relationships expect others in
the organization to reciprocate. If this is consistently not the case, individuals will eventually
frame the relationship according to another relational model (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016).
Following this line of reasoning, this paper similarly assumes that individuals and organizations
reciprocate fairly. Therefore, using distributive and procedural justice theory, it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4a: There is a positive relationship between an EM relationship and UPB.
In contrast of the predictions regarding OCB, research theorized that perceived distributive,
procedural and interactional injustice leads to deviant workplace behaviors. For example,
distributive injustice leads individuals to engage in deviant workplace behavior in order to make
the input/output ratio less negative from their perspective (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;
Greenberg, 1990). In their meta-analysis, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) provide evidence
of a negative effect of procedural and distributive justice on counterproductive work behaviors.
Again, there was insufficient data to test for the effect of interactional justice on deviant
workplace behavior. However, just as with OCB such counterproductive behaviors are expected
to influence behavior on a more local level, for example directed to the supervisor
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
From the perspective of distributive justice, SIUB can be seen as a way individuals can
positively affect their input/output ratio. Hence, this may predict a positive relationship between
EM relationships and SIUB when individuals perceive injustice. Following the line of reasoning
of Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) – and thus assuming the individual perceives the relationship
Hypothesis 4b: There is a negative relationship between an EM relationship and SIUB.
3.5 Social value orientation
In MP relationships competition is emphasized (Fiske, 1992). In doing so this relational model
further emphasizes that acting in one’s self-interest is legitimate. This creates a situation which
is in line with the initial preferences of individuals having higher pro-self preferences. However,
this is in contrast with the initial cooperativeness of individuals with higher pro-social
preferences. Therefore, it may be expected that in MP relationships the direction of the
hypothesized effects on both UPB and SIUB are thus stronger for individuals with higher
pro-self preferences as compared to individuals having higher pro-social preferences as the
situational and individual characteristics interact.
In AR relationships differences in terms of status and rank are emphasized (Fiske, 1992).
Although loyalty and acting according to individual’s status is emphasized in social
relationships, cooperativeness and socially desirable behavior is not necessarily stressed. In
contrast, acting in self-interest might provide individuals a way to enhance their status in the
hierarchy. Such behavior would be in line with the initial intentions of individuals having higher
pro-self preferences – i.e. enhancing one’s own payoffs – and in contrast to the initial intentions
of individuals having higher pro-social preferences – i.e. enhance joint payoffs.
Acting in a cooperative way in situations where competition or self enhancement
through self-interested behavior is fostered, would be irrational for both individuals with higher
pro-self preferences as for individuals with higher pro-social preferences. This is confirmed by
research showing that individuals with stronger pro-social preferences are more prone to
enhance joint payoffs only under the condition that their counterparts cooperate (De Cremer &
Van Lange, 2001). However, as the hypothesized behavior is more in line with the general
Hypothesis 5: The negative relationship between the MP and AR model and UPB and the
positive relationship between the MP and AR model and SIUB are stronger for individuals with higher pro-self preferences.
In CS relationships collectivity is emphasized. This creates a situation which is congruent to
the general inclination of individual’s with higher pro-social preferences to cooperate. The interaction between individual’s intrinsic intention to cooperate and the emphasized importance in relationships to cooperate are expected to further enhance the hypothesized effects between
CS relationships and UPB and SIUB.
In EM relationships equality and fairness are emphasized. Assuming cooperative
behavior in such relationships is rewarded by reciprocal actions resulting in a virtuous cycle, it
is suggested that the predicted relationships between the EM model and UPB and SIUB are
stronger for individuals with stronger pro-social preferences.
In situations where competition and self-enhancement is emphasized, acting cooperative
is irrational, as argued previously. However, in situations where cooperation and reciprocity is
emphasized, acting in one’s self-interest may be very beneficial (bigger piece of the pie is left). Therefore, it may be expected that individuals with higher pro-self preferences have higher
SIUB when CS of EM relationships are emphasized. Even though this effect may be less strong
as research has shown that individuals with strong reciprocal (cooperative) intentions are
willing to sanction and reward other individuals for their (un-)cooperative behavior it is
expected:
Hypothesis 6: The positive relationship between the CS and EM model and UPB and the
negative relationship between the CS and EM model and SIUB are stronger for individuals with higher pro-social preferences.
4.
Research methods
In this chapter a description is given of the research methods. In the first section, the overall
design of the study is discussed. In the second section the research sample. In the third section
the constructs are operationalized. Finally, in the fourth section, the design of the survey is
discussed.
4.1 Overall research design
In order to find out whether it is important to study the effect of relationships and social
preferences on ethical decision making, this research attempts to quantify such an effect by
adopting a positivistic research philosophy (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). A deductive approach is
adopted and quantitative research methods are used to test the theoretical propositions. In doing
so this research clearly demonstrates its explanatory purposes. Due to time restrictions, a
cross-sectional research design is chosen.
The overall design of the study is quantitative, data has been collected using a survey.
A survey is used to collect data from a sizeable population (Saunders & Lewis, 2012), in this
research the survey has taken the form of a self-completed internet mediated questionnaire
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). Questionnaires are considered well suited methods for
explanatory research (Saunders et al., 2012). A survey design offers several advantages. First,
a survey allows the collection of data from a large number of people on the same topics in a
cost- and time-effective way (Saunders & Lewis, 2012; Wright, 2005). Second, the standardized
questions make comparing easy and allow for statistical testing (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
Drawback of the survey method is that it does not allow for alternative answers, and it is less
detailed as data resulting from, for example, qualitative methods (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
The internet offers several advantages for administering questionnaires (Fan & Yan,
2010; Saunders et al., 2012). Administering a questionnaire via the internet has relatively low
2010). Also, research has shown that response bias for self-reported ethical conduct can be
reduced using anonymous and online techniques (Randall & Fernandes, 1991). In addition,
online survey software packages contain features that aid data collection and analysis (Wright,
2005). In this research Qualtrics was used, this software package is available via the University
of Amsterdam and offers several features to facilitate designing and collecting data through an
online survey, and facilitates formatting the data for subsequent statistical analysis. Although
administering questionnaires online is a popular method (Baruch & Holtom, 2008; Fan & Yan,
2010), there are two important limitations of using this method for this research. First,
administrating questionnaires online yields approximately 11% lower response rates than other
survey modes (Fan & Yan, 2010). Therefore, special attention was payed to increase response
rates by the design of the questionnaire. For example concerning time management, as research
showed thirteen minutes or less is considered to be the ideal length for a good response rate
(Fan & Yan, 2010). And regarding the personalization of the survey. Personalization has been
shown to increase the response rate, however, personalization also results in more socially
desired answers for sensitive questions (Heerwegh, Vanhove, Matthijs, & Loosveldt, 2005). As
ethical behavior can be considered a sensitive topic (Randall & Fernandes, 1991), the survey
has only been marginally personalized. Second limitation is that not everyone has access to the
internet and this causes bias in the population the online survey is administered too (Fan & Yan,
2010). The effect of this bias is considered to be limited as 97% of the Dutch population has
access to Internet (CBS, 2014).
4.2 Research sample
As research found differences in ethical intentions between nationalities (Craft, 2013), this
research focuses on the working population in the Netherlands. To be able to answer questions
regarding the relationship individuals have with the organization they work for, it was required
