WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IS UNETHICAL
BEHAVIOR CONTAGIOUS?
MASTER THESIS,MSCBA, SPECIALIZATION HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN,FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
June 5, 2016 TIJN VAN LIER Student number: 2770083 Bataviastraat 16B 9715 KN Groningen tel.: +31 (0)6-51397624 e-mail: t.van.lier.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor/ university Dr. L.B. Mulder
2
ABSTRACT
The current work explores antecedents of unethical behavior, with a special interest in when and under what circumstances such behavior spreads in organizations. Expected was that team unethical behavior would induce moral disengagement of the observer, especially so when task interdependence was high, which in turn would lead to unethical behavior of the observer. Via an online questionnaire 203 respondents from 39 teams in various sectors, answered questions on the variables of interest and several control and demographic items. Regression analysis showed a positive and expected direct relation between team and
3
INTRODUCTION
Unethical behavior such as fraud, cheating, lying and stealing are worrying practices in organizations. They can cost a lot of money, a company’s reputation can suffer badly and ultimately a company can be ruined by its employees as they operate unethically. A recent example where unethical behavior had detrimental effects is Volkswagen, who committed fraud with CO2 emission-measuring software. Fines for this fraud in the US can go up to 16 billion euro, repair and software fixes can go up to 8.5 billion euro, and share values have dropped by 36%. All in all a whopping 27 billion euro in costs, as a result of fraud, let alone that the image of Volkswagen has suffered tremendously. (http://www.nu.nl/volkswagen-schandaal) Globally, fraud costs go up to 3.7 trillion dollars annually, which is roughly 5% of all business revenues (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2015). Fraud is just one of the unethical behaviors that can spread in an organization and stands out in news coverage, but is definitely not the only one. Lying, stealing and violent behavior are present in our companies, and have the potential to spread (Gino, Ayal & Ariely, 2009). These practices come at a cost as well, although it is much harder to put an exact number on them.
4
self-concept, which acting unethically is in direct conflict with. Therefore, this paper focuses on the potential explanatory mechanism of moral disengagement. Moral disengagement can best be introduced as a way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance we experience when we (plan to) act unethically. As we have internalized standards of right and wrong and breaching those standards would induce self-condemning (Bandura, 2002), we use rationalizing tactics by which we describe our devious acts as ethical and in doing so, do not view ourselves as unethical. As such, employees are disconnecting their behavior from moral norms and rules, by which somehow these rules no longer apply for them (Moore, Detert & Treviño, 2012).
I expect that task interdependence is an environmental factor strengthening the relation between team unethical behavior and moral disengagement. Although moral disengagement is an individual endeavor, it is not isolated from our environments, but rather an exchange between environment and individual. Bandura suggests that the interplay of person and situational factors are needed to explain human behavior in this regard (Bandura, 2002). This implies that working together closely, exchanging information (consciously and
unconsciously) and being a model for others, is probably a predictor for the spread of unethical behavior. Therefore, to further explain under which circumstances moral
disengagement takes place, I will tap into the effect of depending on team members for task completion.
5
counter the copying-effects, by for instance designing socialization processes and raising awareness among team members on copying behavior or moral disengagement.
In sum, the observing of unethical behavior will induce a disconnection from the observers moral standards, especially when team members rely on each other for task completion, which in turn leads to unethical behavior of the observer.
In this thesis, I will provide a theoretical framework which describes the proposed relationships and offer testable hypotheses. Next, I will present a method through which I will study the proposed relations and I will present the results of that study. Lastly, I will discuss my results and theoretical contributions, along with some practical implications, suggestions for future research and will elaborate on the strengths and weaknesses of my research.
THEORY Copying unethical behavior
Defining unethical behavior
Unethical behavior is a broad concept: cheating, lying, injuring, stealing, fraud and so forth have all been mentioned as indicators for, or equivalents of unethical behavior. The nature of the behavior can take many forms, such as: corruption in organizations (Ashforth, Anand & Joshi, 2005), cheating and lying (Pasqual-Ezema, dunfield, Gil-Gomez de Liaño & Prelec, 2015; Schweizer, Ordóñez & Douma, 2004), the opposite of fair and honest sales behavior (Román & Munuera, 2004), acts violating widely held moral principles (Ruedy, Moore, Gino & Schweizer, 2013), choosing for a unethical option, where the ethical
alternative is present (Street & Street, 2006). However, in this research, there is no focus on specific unethical behavior, but on a broad range of possible behaviors.
Kish-6
Gephart’s (2014) review discussing current advances in the field of (un)ethical related
research, a broad definition is offered: “[unethical] behavior that is contrary to accepted moral norms in society”. However, I choose an organization-focused definition, as I will do this research in an organization. I define unethical behavior using the definition by Teviño et al. (2014): Unethical behavior is that behavior that is contrary to the organizations moral norms, internal regulations and applicable legislation. This broad definition is chosen, first, to be able to include any behavior that is deemed unethical and not focus on specific behaviors. Second, as my research focuses on a variety of organizations and sectors, I expect that there may be some difference between organizations and sectors in what is deemed unethical. A broad definition has the power to cover all differences between organizations and sectors. Third and last, my thesis focuses on the interplay person and organization-environment, therefore an organization-focused definition is chosen.
From my definition, it becomes clear that a distinction between deviant and unethical behavior is not made. Previous research focused on either unethical behavior (that behavior that is inconsistent with societal norms) or on deviant behavior (that behavior that is
inconsistent with organizational norms) (Treviño et al., 2014). My definition of unethical behavior resembles Treviño’s et al. (2014) deviant behavior description most.
Copying unethical behavior
7
Gino et al. (2009) found that cheating got copied when peers observed cheating of others. Pascual-Ezema, Dunfield, Gil-Gómez de Liaño & Prelec’s (2015) study found that under low supervision and high competitive circumstances, unethical behavior gets copied, when there is a promise for a social reward. In sum, observing unethical behavior, can result in the unethical behavior of the observer.
A question of interest in this thesis is under which circumstances or through which psychological mechanisms the unethical behavior gets copied. Gino et al. (2009) describe three ways a perpetrator influences unethical behavior of the observer. The first way is that observing unethical behavior can lower the estimation of getting caught. If the observer feels that the chance of getting caught, is outweighed by the benefit of unethical behavior, he or she will tend to copy unethical behavior sooner. For instance, Leming (1980) found that under low likelihood of getting caught, students were more prone to copy cheating behavior, and it is reasoned that this especially the case for students of lower academic, as they have lots to gain by cheating.
8
persuade a dispassionate observer (Kunda, 1990). By motivated reasoning, people can avoid unpleasant cognitive dissonance and avoid lowering self-worth, as Kunda (1990) and Kunda & Sinclair (1999) described. Gino et al.’s (2009) reason for this second mechanism depends largely on the absence of information on moral standards. If however, information about the moral standards is made salient, by for instance drawing attention to moral norms, people tend to categorize their behavior in the right way, as there is less leeway to construct a self-serving explanation (Mazar Amir & Ariely, 2008). However, Tsang (2002) and Graça, Calheiros & Oliveira (2015) noted that this saliency is also fuel for motivated reasoning. When confronted with their own unethical act, people tend to construct a reason that exonerates them from negatively updating their moral self-concept, and that allows them to keep their self-interested goal. In sum, this second mechanism holds that when the situation is absent of information on the ethicality of behavior, there is leeway to use motivated reasoning to construct a
self-serving explanation for copying deviant behavior.
The third explanation offered by Gino et al. (2009) holds that an unethical act can change the observers understanding of social norms. As Cialdini, Reno & Kallgren (1990) noted, the behavior of others in a natural environment changes the way we understand norms. In a study where littering was done by a confederate, people tended to litter as well, in
contrast where a confederate walked by and did nothing. This study also relates to the second mechanism explained, as the environment was presented either with litter or clean. The environment, as such, communicated a standard of ethicality (or not). Indeed, clean environments lead to less littering than already littered environments.
9
explanation was also offered in some degree by Hanna, Critenden & Critenden, (2013), who showed that people learn social norms by observing role models. In line with this, Pierce & Snyder (2008) found a similar process in the introduction phase, an employee tends to copy unethical behavior as perceived in their new environment. They partly explain this copying behavior through Ashforth & Anand’s (2003) ‘normalization of corruption’, which holds that perceiving unethical behavior seems to change the perception of what is ethical behavior. Also, Street & Street (2006) found that when observed escalating unethical situations, this resulted in making an unethical decision alternative by that observer.
Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly (1998) and O’Leary- Kelly, Griffin & Glew (1996) have noted a similar processes. First, social information processing in work groups holds that the work environment conveys standards about the types and levels of deviance that are
acceptable. Secondly, in social learning theory role models play a key role. Especially in group settings, group members serve as examples for others. If an observer is confronted with aggressive behavior which is rewarded, the observer will be more likely to engage in
aggressive behavior as well.
The copying of unethical behavior is a learning effect which, in conclusion, comes down to adapting or altering one’s own social norms, through processes mentioned above. The presence of others that act unethically, fuel this learning process. Summarizing, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: Team unethical behavior is positively related to the unethical behavior of the observer.
Moral disengagement
10
complex cognitive process, by which we create consistent but harmful justifications that alter or disconnect from our standards of acceptable behavior. If people engage in unethical acts, first they have to apply a psychological mechanism to maintain their self-concept of ethicality (Mazar, Amir & Ariely, 2008). Moral disengagement is a psychological way of coping with the feeling of guilt, when transgressing in an unethical act (Bandura, 1999). Tsang (2002) noted that before we engage in an unethical act we need to disengage from our moral standards, to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from acting unethically. We also know that people have a need to maintain their self-concept, and therefore can refrain from unethical acts (Bandura, 2002). The detachment, moving away from or disconnecting from moral standards is not an immediate effect, it happens through moral disengagement. (Moore, Detert & Treviño, 2012; Hanna et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 1996; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly,1998).
An individual can use a wide variety of disengagement mechanisms to perceive
himself as ethically operating, when in fact his conduct is amoral, self-interested, or otherwise unethical. Bandura introduced moral disengagement as an extension on social cognitive theory (Moore et al., 2012; Johnson & Buckley, 2014). To maintain a moral self-concept, people monitor their behavior and produce behavior that they perceive as ethical. People tend to reflect their behavior on internalized moral standards and thereby regulate the ethicality of their behavior. This self-regulatory principle can be disturbed by mechanisms, which
11
Cognitive reconstructing refers to creating a new, more positive, story of unethical acts, so that a negative explanation is avoided and substituted by a positive explanation. Producers of toxic waste, for instance, may compare their deeds to much worse deeds and, in doing so, explaining why the act is an excusable exception to a norm (Bandura, 1999;
Ashforth & Anand, 2003).
By obscuring or distorting effects an individual tries to minimize consequences of their acts or shift responsibilities to others for their behavior, so that they can remain to view
themselves as morally justified while acting in a self-interested manner. For instance, Eichmann claimed to have a clear conscience after the second world war, as he was just following orders and thereby obscuring his own responsibility by placing the blame to a higher officer. (Bandura, 1999)
Blaming and dehumanizing the victim and is necessary for the victimizer to counter the difficulty felt when mistreating another human being (Bandura, 2002). The tobacco industry blames smokers for their health risks, stating that it is a matter of adult choice or inhaling too deeply (Johnson & Buckley, 2014). These cognitive mechanisms, free the employee from self-sanctioning. (Barsky, 2011).
Moore (2008) has suggested moral disengagement as a predictor for unethical behavior, preceding the unethical act. The general reason she argues for is that a choice between ethical and unethical behavior creates cognitive dissonance and that we use moral disengagement techniques to counter that dissonance, before transgressing in the act. Several studies found that moral disengagement precedes unethical behavior, For instance, in a study where children who were highly morally disengaged, were more prone to aggression and behaved more aggressively (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara & Pastorelli, 2001). Furthermore, White-Ajmani & Bursik (2014) found that relation in a laboratory study: moral
12
(2011) studied the effects of moral disengagement on the propensity to make unethical decisions and found a positive relation. In a study by Moore et al. (2012), a positive relationship was found between the propensity to disengage morally and several work-relevant unethical behaviors. Lastly, Bersoff (1999) found that if participants who were ‘accidentally’ paid more than promised and were given the opportunity to displace their responsibility, were more prone not to report overpayment and keeping the extra money. These studies suggest that there is a direct effect of moral disengagement on the likelihood that employees transgress in unethical behavior.
Copying unethical behavior and moral disengagement
Moral disengagement as a mediator for the relation between a several predictors of unethical behavior and unethical behavior is also studied. In the following, I will argue that observing unethical behavior leads to moral disengagement of the observer and subsequently in unethical behavior of the observer.
Studies where a moderating role for moral disengagement was argued for, were for example a study on envy and social mistreatment of others, which was found to be mediated by moral disengagement (Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper & Aquino, 2012). Also, in the relation between several individual antecedents – such as empathy, moral identity and locus of control - and unethical decision making, a mediating role for moral disengagement was found,
(Detert, Treviño & Schweizer, 2008). To illustrate how this process takes place, I now present an example.
13
this, it’s not my responsibility to keep track of the office supplies! If I take home a stapler and some filing folders, no one will notice. Besides, compared to the total revenues of our team it’s peanuts!” The next day, absent of feeling guilty or morally unjustified, she returns home with some office supplies, the same as her colleagues were doing.
We see the following relations at work: an unethical act is perceived, this act is perceived as a change in the moral standards, the observer disconnects from her ethical standards by diffusing her responsibility and minimizing the consequences of her potential actions and starts copying behavior. The example shows that an incentive for unethical behavior is assumed. It is common to presume that there is something to gain by acting unethically. Indeed, the promise of monetary incentives can lead to more unethical behavior (Hegarty & Sims, 1978; Bellizzi, 1995; Gino & Mogilner, 2014). Furthermore, a non-monetary incentive like gaining personal status has shown to be a driver for unethical
behavior. (Pascual-Ezema,, Gil-Gómez de Liaño & Dunfield, 2015; Pascual-Ezema, Prelec & Dunfield, 2013). As noted before, people can engage in motivated reasoning, they search for those reasons in their memories that could support their desired conclusion. (Kunda 1990). The construction of this reasoning is such that an illusion of objectivity remains. In my example, the desired conclusion would be: ‘I can take these supplies and continue to see myself as justified for doing so.’ The motivated reasoning technique closely resembles moral rationalizations in that sense that a narrative is created that exonerates the individual from self-blaming or negatively updating their moral self-concept. Thereby, an individual has disengaged from her own morality. The difference, however, is that motivational reasoning explicitly relies on previous memories, whereas moral rationalizations do not.
The constructing of an inner narrative in which the copier of unethical behavior avoids self-blaming, then, is seen as mechanism of moral disengagement. The observing of an
14
disengagement of this employee. This process has not been researched in depth, and there is much to gain by proposing the relationship between team unethical behavior, moral
disengagement of the observer and the subsequent unethical behavior of the observer. It may prove to be a powerful explanatory mechanism for the relation peer unethical behavior and unethical behavior of the observer. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: The indirect effect of peer unethical behavior on unethical behavior of the observer is mediated by moral disengagement by the observer
Next, I argue in the following, that whether unethical behavior of peers triggers moral disengagement, depends on the circumstances. I focus on the circumstance of task
interdependence.
Task interdependence
Ashforth, Gioia, Robinson & Treviño (2008) suggest that research should tap into organizational circumstances that induce unethical behavior and their infectious nature. There is a plethora of research addressing all sorts of organizational circumstances in that direction. For instance (but certainly not exhaustively), working in unsupervised and highly competitive conditions can cause group members to copy unethical behavior. (Pascual-Ezama et al., 2015). In a manuscript by Ponsioen, Molleman & Mulder (2015) a positive relation was found between low status of the agent showing unethical behavior and the copying of unethical behavior.
15
and fostering interpersonal relationships (overview given in Hershcovis, Reich, Parker & Bozeman, 2012). However, task interdependence may also have negative outcomes, such as unethical behavior.
The moderating role of task interdependence
Depending on each other for task completion and working together closely will increase the chance that group members will view each other as role models for their own unethical behavior. A relation between groups acting unethically and individuals copying this behavior has been shown to be moderated by task interdependence in an article by Robinson and O’Kelly-Leary (1998); if subjects were dependent on each other for completing their task the proposed relationship was stronger. The evidence found was in line with social learning theory and therefore of interest for this thesis.
So the rationale of introducing task interdependence as a moderator would be that when working together, people are more susceptible to copying behavior. In working closely together there is more room for copying behavior, opposed to working separately, as in the latter situation the necessary ‘other’ is missing from whom unethical behavior can be copied. As noted before, a moderating effect of task interdependence was already found by Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly (1998), I suspect that if we interact, we also convey how we morally disengage, my reasoning is threefold.
First, moral norms are highly influenced by others, especially through modeling (Bandura 1977). In behaving (a)morally, a message of what is right and wrong is conveyed. This message can fuel the techniques by which team members can morally disengage (Moore et al., 2013) As task interdependence is a measure of how much we can perceive of an
16
Secondly, social comparison can fuel moral disengagement, in our general inclination to compare ourselves to others and to perceive them as comparable, we tend to adapt to behavior of others to fulfill that comparison (Moore et al. 2013). This, I suspect, means that not only the outcome behavior is adapted, but also the cognitive reasoning behind that behavior. A construct, for instance, like euphemistic labeling is easily conveyed by
communicating with each other about the reasons why we behave like we do. To elaborate a little bit on this second reason, in the example given before the employee advantageously compares the cost of office supplies to the teams total revenue to justify her deeds. It is not unlikely that people, by talking to each other, also spread mechanisms through which we can disengage morally.
Thirdly, when operating interdependently with others, a stronger psychological bond is formed. Gino & Galinsky (2012) argue that if psychological closeness forms, properties of the other get taken over. Such a property, Gino & Galinsky (2012) found, was moral
disengagement, the more close we feel to another who behaves unethically, the more we morally disengage. This closeness, can, for instance be strengthened by task interdependence. Indeed, Chen, Tang & Wang (2009) argued and found that when team members are
depending on each other for task completion, are motivated to maintain positive relations. These positive relations, I believe, can induce the copying of the moral disengagement ‘property’ of others, as argued for above.
Therefore I expect that in teams in which task interdependence is high, this will lead to more moral disengagement when perceiving an unethical act.
17
Hypothesis 3b: Task interdependence moderates the relation between team unethical behavior and moral disengagement, such that when task interdependence is high (low), moral disengagement will be high (low) as well.
Hypothesis 3c: Team unethical behavior influences observer unethical behavior, through its relation with moral disengagement, and the indirect effect will be stronger (weaker) when task interdependence is high (low).
All in all, my hypotheses result in the theoretical model below, where hypothesis 3c is the entire model:
METHODS Sample and procedure
For this research 49 companies were approached, a selection of 16 companies were willing to participate with one or more teams, resulting in 39 participating teams. The organizations and teams were situated in various sectors [industry: 3.6%, financial industry: 5.9%, IT industry: 4.4%, education: 25.6%, government: 3.4%, healthcare: 42.4% and
Figure 1. Theoretical model
Team unethical behavior
Task interdependence Moral disengagement
18
science: 10.3%] Team managers were then asked for the names, e-mail addresses of the team members. Team members (adding up to 320 participants in total) were then entered in panels, via the Qualtrics survey website, and per team were assigned a unique number. The teams consisted of 4 to 40 employees, with a mean of 18.59 (SD 14.59). The 320 participants were invited to fill in a questionnaire. Two-hundred-three of all approached participants filled out the online questionnaire [63%]. Male to female ratio was 23.6% male, 73.9% female.
Measurements
The data was collected via an online anonymous questionnaire, which employees received via a personalized e-mail link. The first part of the questionnaire included demographic measures and the second part consisted of the aforementioned variables and were tested through items as described below.
Own unethical behavior
Participants (members from organizational teams) reflected on their own unethical behavior. Unethical behavior was measured on individual level, using organizational deviance items from Bennet & Robinson (2000). These items were chosen, as they reflected my
definition of unethical behavior best. Items were adapted for this study, to match the other questions. The original items were formulated such that respondents had to indicate how often in the last year they had displayed behavior as described. My scale consisted of 19 items (statements) and participants were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement, in line with the other questions. For example: “I have taken an additional or a longer break than is
acceptable at my workplace”; “I have left work early without permission” ; “I have dragged out work in order to get overtime” All answers were given on a Likert scale from 1
19
Team unethical behavior
The response for own unethical behavior was used to comprise a measure for team unethical behavior. All team members were assigned a team number, thereby I could see who was part of what team (anonymously). By calculating for each individual the mean teams’ unethical behavior, excluding the measurement for own unethical behavior, the measure for team unethical behavior was constructed.
Task-interdependence
Perceived task-interdependence was measured on individual level on a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). In the questionnaire, the following five items were presented: “The other team members and I are dependent on each other for
information and resources in order to complete our tasks.”; “I have to consult with other team members and work together in order to properly perform.”; ”I can complete the tasks alone. I hardly need to work with other team members in order to complete my tasks.” The
scales and items constructed by Van der Vegt et al. (2001) were used. The statements were translated into Dutch for the Dutch respondents and was reliable with a Cronbach α of .76.
Moral disengagement
Moral disengagement was measured on individual level with 8 items. All answers were given on a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Example items are: “It doesn’t really hurt to speak ill of other teams, when it benefits your own team”
“ People cannot be blamed for misbehaving if their team members pressured them to do it.”. ”If a group decides together to work slowly, it is unfair to blame any one member of the group for it” “If someone leaves something lying around, it’s their own fault if it gets stolen”. “Stealing something cheap from work is not too serious compared to those who steal a
20
mechanisms of moral disengagement. Items were adapted such that the behaviors from the own unethical behavior-scale were reflected in the items for moral disengagement. Thereby a meaningful connection was made between the behaviors and how one can morally disengage. The scale was moderately reliable with a Cronbach of .66. The items were translated into Dutch for the Dutch respondents.
Other measurements
To prevent that participants from concluding the main interest of the questionnaire was to measure unethical behavior, the items were mixed with OCB measurements, based on Podsakoff et al. (1990). In doing so, I tried to avoid a negative overall sentiment, that the items about unethical behavior may trigger. As such, I wanted to prevent negative reactions during filling in the questionnaire.
Several control variables were measured in the questionnaire. Team tenure was
measured, as well as the number of contact moments team members had with their colleagues. These were entered to control for the degree to which team members were in contact with one another, which I hypothesized would be best measured with task interdependence. Several personality questionnaires were added to control for intrapersonal predictors of ethical and unethical behavior. These were: Locus of control, empathy, moral identity, and need for cognition. (Moore et al. , 2008)
RESULTS
21
task interdependence was aggregated from individual to team level and the proposed relations were tested with the PROCESS macro regression analyses (Hayes, 2012)
Prior analysis and sample characteristics
Before testing correlations and hypotheses, I tested for the applicable assumptions (Field, 2009). The assumptions that all variables should be quantitative, continuous and unbounded and that the outcome variable should be independent, hold. Also, the assumption of non-zero variance holds for all variables (task interdependence, s2=1.02; team unethical
behavior s2=.30; moral disengagement s2=.52; individuals unethical behavior, s2=.58) Next, a
visual inspection of the residual plots showed that the assumption of linearity also holds. Also, the outcome variable values were independent. The data met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson = 2.07). Furthermore, no perfect multicollinearity was found in the data, so the assumption that the predictors should not correlate too highly, holds (task
interdependence, Tolerance = .99, VIF=1.001; team unethical behavior, Tolerance = .99, VIF = 1.003; moral disengagement, Tolerance = .99, VIF = 1.003).
To check for normal distribution, a Shapiro-Wilks test and a visual inspection of probability and quantile plots was performed on all variables of interest, see table 1 for results. Skewness was found in team unethical behavior and task interdependence, Kurtosis was found in none of the variables. All variables of interest were non-normally distributed, according to table 1. Some outliers were detected in the histograms, therefore
Log-transformation was performed to reduce impact of outliers. This slightly improved skewness, but were still above acceptable levels, also the aforementioned correlations did not change.
An analysis of homogeneity showed that this assumption was violated (2, 3=8.30
p<.05) After correcting for heteroscedasticity of the b-values, the significance of the
22
and homogeneity hold that the analyses lose power and the produced significance levels can be biased.
Statistic p Skewness Kurtosis
Team unethical behavior ,98 <.01 .492 (z=2.78) .597 (z=1.69) Task interdependence ,98 <.01 -452 (z=2.55) .034 (z=.01) Moral disengagement ,99 <.05 .16 (z=.90) -.417 (z=1.85) Individuals unethical behavior ,98 <.01 .33 (z=1.88) -.355 (z=-1.01)
(SE=.171) (SE=.352)
Table 1: Shapiro-Wilks, skewness and kurtosis test results
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 shows means, standard deviations and correlations for all variables measured. Significant correlations in line with my hypotheses were found between team unethical behavior and individuals unethical behavior (r=.22, p<.01). Also correlation between moral disengagement and individuals unethical behavior was significant (r=.38, p<.01). All other hypothesized correlations were non-significant.
23
Table 2: Means, standard deviations and correlations
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 Age 42.20 12.24
2 Gender (1=male, 2=female) 1.76 0.44 -.150*
3 Education level (1=primary education, 7=PhD) 4.03 1.01 .023 -.191**
4 OCB 5.32 0.53 .055 -.015 -.021
5 Team tenure (months) 3.97 6.01 .428** .034 .036 .040
6 Need for cognition 5.36 0.89 -.086 -.076 .314** .217** .037
7 Empathy 5.44 0.52 .076 .117 .079 .320** -.047 .148*
8 External locus of control 3.18 0.53 -.129 .023 -.129 -.150* -.147* -.128 -.263**
9 Number of contact moments 1.71 1.08 -.021 .072 -.219** -.087 -.044 -.162* -.131 .105
10 Multiple team membership 1.67 0.47 .024 .204** -.224** -.047 .104 -.224** .022 -.034 -.008
11 Moral identity 4.88 0.75 -.203** .221** -.028 .305** -.186** .126 .317** -.002 -.083 -.040
12 Teams unethical behavior 2.35 0.55 .087 -.096 .057 -.198** -.028 .076 -.030 .075 -.108 .043 -.020
13 Task interdependence 5.10 1.01 .056 -.098 .093 .287** .005 .153* .205** -.023 -.156* -.128 .226** .007
14 Moral disengagement 2.38 0.72 -.121 -.060 .112 -.148* -.134 -.064 -.288** .352** .075 -.098 .063 .050 -.025
15 Individuals unethical behavior 2.31 0.76 .000 -.148* .079 -.218** -.134 -.011 -.192** .205** -.034 .050 .024 .224** -.001 .384**
Hypothesis testing
All tested relations are summarized in table 3, on page 26.
Hypothesis 1: Direct effect Team Unethical Behavior and Individual Unethical Behavior
My H1 was: team unethical behavior is positively related to unethical behavior of the
observer. The correlation was r=.22, p<.01. In essence: when teams behave unethically, individuals will behave unethically as well.
Hypothesis 2: Mediating effect of moral disengagement
In my H2, I proposed that moral disengagement mediated the relationship between
team unethical behavior and individual unethical behavior. Individual unethical behavior was regressed on moral disengagement and team unethical behavior with a PROCESS model 4 regression analysis. The direct effect of team unethical behavior on individual unethical behavior was significant (b=.20, p<.01), however the direct effect of team unethical behavior on moral disengagement was not significant (b=.05, p=.55). The direct effect of moral disengagement on individual unethical behavior was significant (b=.20, p<.01). Lastly, the proposed mediation did not occur (LLCI=-.04, ULCI=.08).
Hypotheses 3a&b: Moderating effects of task interdependence
In my H3a I proposed that task interdependence moderated the relation between team
and individual unethical behavior. Individual unethical behavior was regressed on task interdependence, team unethical behavior and the interaction between the two with a PROCESS model 1 regression analysis. Task interdependence and team unethical behavior were standardized prior to analysis. The results show that team unethical behavior
significantly predicted individual unethical behavior (b=.22, p<.01). However task
25
In my H3b, I proposed that task interdependence moderated the relation between team
unethical behavior and moral disengagement. Moral disengagement was regressed on task interdependence, team unethical behavior and the interaction between the two with a PROCESS model 1 regression analysis. Task interdependence and team unethical behavior were standardized prior to analysis. The results show that team unethical behavior did not significantly predict moral disengagement (b=.05, p=.56). Task interdependence was not a significant predictor for moral disengagement (b=-.03, p=.72). Also the interaction effect was not significant (b=-.04, p=.66)
Hypothesis 3c: The moderated mediation effect
Finally, I tested my H3c: Team unethical behavior influences observer unethical
behavior, through its relation with moral disengagement, and the indirect effect will be stronger (weaker) when task interdependence is high (low). Individuals unethical behavior was regressed on team unethical behavior, task interdependence, moral disengagement and the interaction of the latter two with a PROCESS model 8 regression analysis. Variables were standardized prior to analysis. The direct effect of team unethical behavior was significant (b=.20, p<.01) also the direct effect of moral disengagement on individuals unethical behavior was significant (b=.37, p<.01). However, the direct effect of task interdependence on individuals unethical behavior was not significant (b=.01, p=.88) nor was the interaction effect (b=.06, p=.37). Last, the moderated mediation effect did not occur (LLCI=-.08,
ULCI=.07).
26 Mo ra l d is en g ag em en t In d iv id u al u n et h ic al b eh av io r b p b p Constant .0003 .99 -.0004 .99
Team unethical behavior .05 .56 .20 <.01
Task interdependence -.03 .72 .01 .87
Interaction task interdependence * team
unethical behavior. -.04 .66 .06 .37
Moral disengagement (M) - - .37 <.01
R2=.19, F(4,198) 10.12 p<.01
Conditional direct effect of IV on DV at different levels of the moderator
95% Confidence interval LLCI ULCI -1 SD -.0839 .3691 M .0569 .3527 +1 SD .0934 .4407
Conditional indirect effect of IV on DV at different levels of the moderator
95% Confidence interval LLCI ULCI -1 SD -.0617 .1163 M -.0414 .0832 +1 SD -.0905 .1005
27
Exploratory variables
I tested team tenure as a moderator in the relationship between team unethical behavior and individual unethical behavior. Individual unethical behavior was regressed on team unethical behavior, team tenure and the interaction of the two. Variables were standardized prior to analysis. The main effect of team unethical behavior on individuals unethical behavior was significant (b=.24, p<.01). The interaction effect between teams unethical behavior and team tenure on individuals unethical behavior, was significant as well (b-.15, p<.05). This means that the longer an individual participates in a team, the lower the influence from teams unethical behavior on that individual. See table 4 and figure 2.
28
Team tenure b p
Constant -.0041 .96
Interaction team tenure *
unethical behavior team -.15 <.05
Conditional direct effect of IV on DV at different values of the moderator 95 % Confidence Interval LLCI ULCI - 1SD .1881 .6076 M .1123 .3866 + 1SD -.0902 .2922 Contact moments b p Constant -.01 .87
Interaction contact moments *
unethical behavior team -.11 .31
Conditional direct effect of IV on DV at different values of the moderator 95 % Confidence Interval LLCI ULCI - 1SD .0998 .5083 M .0759 .3878 + 1SD -.1484 .3923
Table 4. Linear model of exploratory predictors for individuals unethical behavior
Figure 2. interaction effects of team unethical behavior and team tenure
Low Team unethical behavior High Team unethical behavior
Low Team Tenure -0.2481 0.5475
High Team Tenure -0.2589 -0.0569
29
DISCUSSION
I suggested that when working in a team, the observed unethical behavior of peers can get copied by observers of that behavior. I furthermore expected that people rationalize their behavior morally, before the act. Lastly, I proposed that the degree to which people are dependent on each other for completing their task, would enhance their moral disengagement, which, in turn, would lead to higher levels of individual unethical behavior.
Main findings
Results have partly supported the expected relations. Indeed, when teams in general behave more unethically, individuals do so as well. Also, moral disengagement was related to individuals unethical behavior. This replicates the results of Moore (2008), Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara & Pastorelli (2001), Bersoff (1999) Moore et al. (2012) and Barsky (2011). However, the results did not support the hypothesized mediating relation. Also, task interdependence did not influence people’s moral disengagement.
Although Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly (1998) found a moderating effect of task interdependence, in my results the copying effect of unethical behavior was not stronger with high task interdependence. Furthermore, the hypothesized moderating effect of task
interdependence and team unethical behavior on moral disengagement was not found. Last, I expected moral disengagement to mediate the copying of unethical behavior from teams to individuals and the moderating effect of task interdependence on the relation team unethical behavior and moral disengagement. This was not confirmed.
Theoretical contribution and implications
30
settings. Their research was done among of industry, services and administrative sectors, whereas the current work was done among education and healthcare sector mostly. The proposed relations were equal in strength. It seems that the relations do not vary a across different sectors.
As noted before, a correlational effect was found: the results suggest that unethical behavior is indeed contagious. However, this contagion can also be ascribed to attraction-selection-attrition framework. In short, groups with unethical tendencies tend to attract individuals with the same tendencies and select those individuals for their group. Those individuals that are willing and able to adapt to the unethical environment, are more likely to stay in the group than those who cannot These groups, therefore, tend to get homogenous in terms of unethical behavior (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Thus, the positive correlation may be a result of the attraction-selection-attrition process, instead of the contagion of
unethical behavior from groups to individuals. Future research may construct methods where individuals entering groups are tested for their previous unethical behavior, and testing the unethicality of the group. After certain amount of time, the individuals may be tested again to see whether there are changes in his or her unethical behavior.
31
task interdependence induces contact moments, by which employees exchange behavior which can get copied. However, it is a possibility that sharing resources and information does not mean team members interact more, in this regard business and sectors may vary. It is not impossible, for instance, that sharing expertise happens via e-mail, sharing information is done via memo’s or passing on unfinished products and documents is done via an internal post-system. Then task interdependence is possible, without interacting. Therefore, future research may try to look at the exact role of task interdependence in behavior-copying by also testing the actual interactions that take place when being dependent on each other for task completion.
Surprisingly and contrary to expectation (Robinson & O’Leary Kelly, 1998), team tenure was negatively influencing the relation team unethical behavior and individual unethical behavior. The surprise is all the bigger when realizing that both task
interdependence and team tenure were introduced as measures for inter-colleague contact, enhancing the possibility of copying behavior. It seems that interdependency and team tenure might be unrelated. They are in fact different constructs, but this discrepancy needs some further explanation. As noted before: my sample was different from Robinson &O’Leary-Kelly’s. It could be that sectors do differ in this regard. Future research could explore this option.
Moral disengagement predicted individuals unethical behavior, this is in line with Detert et al. (2008) and Moore et al. (2008). Their research primarily focused on
32
form group unethical behavior. After all, seeing others acting unethically may lead an individual to think that the entire team is responsible for the unethical behavior, being ‘just a part of a group behaving this way’. However, the items related to responsibility did not correlate to group unethical behavior. This may have been due to a lower reliability of the scale when items were deleted. Still, for future research I suggest measuring moral
disengagement for those constructs that seem relevant for the situation.
Another issue for the found relation between moral disengagement and individuals unethical behavior is that my data are correlational, I cannot be sure that moral disengagement actually caused individual unethical behavior. Another possibility is that moral disengagement takes place after the unethical act, this may explain the weak relation. This calls into question whether including moral disengagement as an outcome would have been a possibility. Future research may explore when the effect of moral disengagement is present. Furthermore, several variables I tested for, other than included in the model, predicted individuals unethical behavior, or were correlated with the independent variables. This means that, according to my results, other variables could have predict the outcome variable, so the conclusions drawn from the model may be unreliable.
As far as I know, this is the first paper to suggest that task interdependence moderates team unethical behavior and moral disengagement and is a contribution of this paper. The fact that the data do not support this relation may suggest that moral disengagement does not underlie the effect of team unethical behavior on individual unethical behavior. An
33
techniques for all unethical behaviors of interest for the research. The rationale for such a method is that moral disengagement techniques are applied to specific behaviors.
The theoretical foundation for an effect between task interdependence and moral disengagement was not easily argued for. Task interdependence was argued to be a measure for numerous interactions. These interactions had previously shown to be predictors for moral disengagement and were therefore summarized into the variable task interdependence.
Although team tenure and contact moments, also measures for how much interaction employees have, were explored, controlling for other variables was omitted. For instance, psychological bonding and social comparisons were not controlled for. I suggest future research includes such measures, to determine what the precise effect of task interdependence actually is.
Another interesting finding was that OCB correlated to all variables of interest. First, OCB was positively correlated to task interdependence. This finding is in line with results of Bachrach, Powell, Bendoly & Richey (2006), who found that task interdependence moderated the potency of OCB. Furthermore, OCB negatively correlated to moral disengagement, team and individual unethical behavior. A potential explanation for these negative correlations may be that some authors argue that OCB is a measure for extra-role behavior, which is not
rewarded and is selfless and can therefore be viewed as the manifestation of ethical behavior (Turnipseed, 2001; Baker, Hunt & Andrews, 2006). To my knowledge, the role of OCB on unethical behavior has not been studied, albeit that OCB and its direct opposite
34
Practical implications
Copying unethical behavior is a major concern for managers and organizations. Unethical behavior of employees comes with enormous costs, a better understanding of when and how that happens can lead to better ethical management, which can counter costly
unethical behavior (Moore, Detert Trevino, 2008). Below, I offer some thoughts on this matter.
As noted before, observing and modeling are facilitators of influencing others, people generally tend to behave according to their peers, especially so to the peer group they believe to be a part of (Moore & Gino, 2013). In line with that, organizations may want to invest in example setting of employees in teams and stress the influence employees have on each other.
Furthermore, the results suggest that moral disengagement may be a predictor for unethical behavior of the individual. In line with the current work’s emphasis on team level effects, one may argue that diffusion or displacing responsibilities to team level are likely disengagement techniques in organizations. Albeit, not in the sense that groups somehow induce moral disengagement, but rather that being in a team does offer an agency to which the employee can diffuse or displace responsibility. Therefore, training employees to be weary of moral rationalizing thinking, might be a good practice. Besides training, organizations may consider installing some practices that increase individual accountability and thereby reduce the likelihood that employees disengage morally (Moore, Detert & Treviño, 2012).
35
Strengths and weaknesses
A strength of this research was the way in which team and individual unethical behavior was measured, this was in line with what Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly (1998) did. Individual unethical behavior was measured via a self-report, whereas team unethical behavior was constructed per individual by averaging the individual unethical behavior self-reports of the team members, excluding that employee’s own self-report. In doing so, common source variance was avoided for the independent and dependent variables.
Furthermore, the items for moral disengagement were adapted to the behaviors measured in the deviant behavior scale, albeit that not all behaviors were covered. An example of this adaptation is as follows: respondents were asked about stealing behavior (deviance) and about blaming the victims of theft for letting their properties lying around (moral disengagement). The strength of this method lies in the fact that moral disengagement techniques are applied to specific – planned or already shown – behaviors.
A weakness was that self-reports were used to measure individuals’ unethical behavior and self-measures may induce socially desirable answers. Anonymity of the questionnaire may have dealt with that problem partially, nonetheless, people tend to give self-flattering answers on questions that may present them in more flattering light. Also, self-reporting can influence other variables, as people tend to explain their deviant behavior in an ego-flattering way (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Indeed, moral disengagement is such a variable that could have been influenced by the self-reports on individuals’ unethical behavior. Moral
36
CONCLUSION
A plethora of research papers is written about unethical behavior in organizations. However, organizational factors in this research are not so often found. A special interest of my paper was to find out whether the dependency on others for task completion was involved in the process of copying unethical behavior from teams to peers. The hypothesis that this dependency somehow facilitated individuals to disconnect from their own morality was not supported by my results. This may have been due to the fact that task interdependence was wrongfully hypothesized as a measure for other variables, but it could also be that task interdependence has nothing to do with moral disengagement.
All in all this paper has some contributions in confirming established relations in other sectors. First and foremost, this paper further underlines that teams can affect individuals in their unethical behavior. Furthermore, moral disengagement was not correlated to team unethical behavior, indicating that moral disengagement is much more an intrapersonal process than a group process. However, more field research is necessary to establish strengths of theses relations, determine causality of those relations and analyze why some of the other relations were different from previous research.
37
REFERENCES
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. 2005. Business as usual: The acceptance and
perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 19(4): 9-23. Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. 2003. The normalization of corruption in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-52.
Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Treviño, L. K. 2008. Re-viewing organizational corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3): 670-684. Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Bendoly, E., & Richey, R. G. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluations: Exploring the impact of task interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1): 193-201.
Baker, T. L., Hunt, T. G., & Andrews, M. C. 2006. Promoting ethical behavior and
organizational citizenship behaviors: The influence of corporate ethical values. Journal of
Business Research, 59(7): 849-857.
Bandura, A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality &
Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 3(3): 193.
Bandura, A. 2002. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of
Moral Education, 31(2): 101-119.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. 1996. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 71(2): 364-374.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. 1961. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3): 575-582. Barsky, A. 2011. Investigating the effects of moral disengagement and participation on unethical work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1): 59-75.
Bellizzi, J. A. 1995. Committing and supervising unethical sales force behavior: The effects of victim gender, victim status, and sales force motivational techniques. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 15(2): 1-15.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2000. Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 349-360.
38
Dalal, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1241-1255.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2): 374-391.
Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. 2012. A social context model of envy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3): 643-666. Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. 2009. Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 20(3): 393-398.
Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. 2009. When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical behavior. Journal of experimental social psychology, 45(4): 708-719.
Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. 2012. Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 119(1): 15-26.
Gino, F., & Mogilner, C. 2014. Time, money, and morality. Psychological Science, 25(2): 414-421.
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. 20160201. Situating moral disengagement: Motivated reasoning in meat consumption and substitution. Personality and Individual
Differences, 90: 353.
Hanna, R. C., Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. 2013. Social learning theory: A multicultural study of influences on ethical behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(1): 18-25.
Hayes, A. F. 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling White paper.
39
Hershcovis, M. S., Reich, T. C., Parker, S. K., & Bozeman, J. 2012. The relationship between workplace aggression and target deviant behaviour: The moderating roles of power and task interdependence. Work & Stress, 26(1): 1-20.
Hsee, C. K. 1995. Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influence decisions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 62(3): 330-337.
Johnson, J., & Ronald Buckley, M. 2015. Multi-level Organizational Moral Disengagement:
Directions for Future Investigation.
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 366-395.
Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological bulletin, 108(3): 480-498. Kunda, Z., & Sinclair, L. 1999. Motivated reasoning with stereotypes: Activation, application, and inhibition. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1): 12-22.
Leming, J. S. 1980. Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the internal– external scale under high and low risk conditions. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(2): 83-87.
Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. 2000. A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3): 185-204.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. 2008. The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 45(6): 633-644.
McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. 1993. Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5): 522-538.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. 2002. Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings.
Research in Higher Education, 43(3): 357-78.
Moore, C. 2008. Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of
Business Ethics, 80(1): 129-139.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. 2012. Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel
Psychology. 65: 1-48
40
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. 1996. Organization-motivated
aggression: A research framework. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 225-253. Pascual-Ezama, D., Dunfield, D., Gil-Gómez, d. L., & Prelec, D. 2015. Peer effects in unethical behavior: Standing or reputation? PLoS ONE, 10(4): 1-14.
Pascual-Ezama, D., Prelec, D., & Dunfield, D. 2013. Motivation, money, prestige and cheats.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 93: 367-373.
Pierce, L., & Snyder, J. 2008. Ethical spillovers in firms: Evidence from vehicle emissions testing. Management Science, 54(11): 1891-1903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2): 259.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531.
Ponsioen, S. N., Mulder, L. B., & Molleman, E.High status, high impact? how a behavioral exemplars’ status influences (un)ethical behavioral contagion. Manuscript under review Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6): 658-672.
Román, S., & Munuera, J. L. 2005. Determinants and consequences of ethical behaviour: An empirical study of salespeople. European Journal of Marketing, 39(5-6): 473-495.
Ruedy, N. E., Moore, C., Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. 2013. The cheater’s high: The unexpected affective benefits of unethical behavior. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 105(4): 531-548.
Schweitzer, M. E., & Hsee, C. K. 2002. Stretching the truth: Elastic justification and
motivated communication of uncertain information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(2): 185-201.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4): 653-663.
41
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. 2014. (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65: 635-660.
Tsang, J. 2002. Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and
psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6(1): 25-50. Turnipseed, D. L. 2002. Are good soldiers good? exploring the link between organization citizenship behavior and personal ethics. Journal of Business Research, 55(1): 1-15. Wageman, R., & Baker, G. 1997. Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2): 139-158.
White-Ajmani, M., & Bursik, K. 2014. Situational context moderates the relationship between moral disengagement and aggression. Psychology of Violence, 4(1): 90-100.
Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. 1982. Role-set configuration and opportunity as predictors of unethical behavior in organizations. Human Relations, 35(7): 587.
Zey-Ferrell, M., Weaver, K. M., & Ferrell, O. C. 1979. Predicting unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. Human Relations, 32(7): 557.
