THE INFLUENCE OF LOVE OF MONEY ON UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR AND THE EFFECT OF TYPE OF COMPENSATION

THE INFLUENCE OF LOVE OF MONEY ON UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR AND

THE EFFECT OF TYPE OF COMPENSATION

Master thesis

Msc Human Resource management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 21, 2013

NATHALIE SOMHORST

Studentnumber: 1691880

Nieuwe Blekerstraat 42a

9718 EK Groningen

Tel: +31 (0)622837192

E-mail: n.somhorst@student.rug.nl

2

ABSTRACT

3

INTRODUCTION

Enron is a well-known example where employees performed highly unethical behavior,

ultimately leading to the downfall of Enron. The performance of Enron’s executives were

rewarded and stimulated with bonuses in the form of stock options. Some of these corporate

executives fell into the temptation of deliberately manipulating accounting procedures. However,

this is not just a phenomenon as unethical behavior in the workplace still happens. Research has

shown that 56% of American business people have experienced pressure to behave unethically,

48% admitted having engaged in unethical behavior, 31% witnessed unethical behavior of others,

and 29% have been forced to use unethical behavior to get promoted (Tang & Chiu, 2003). Also,

there were 6,976 convictions of people with white-collar crime in 2000, and this number is still

increasing (Tang et al., 2008). The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE, 2012)

investigated that organizations worldwide lose approximately 5% of their business revenues to

unethical behavior each year. Important to emphasize is that unethical behavior is not just limited

to the executive and managerial level within organizations (Tang, Chen & Sutarso, 2008). Hence,

unethical behavior is a significant topic for politicians, news media, organizations and also

researchers because it is widespread and it costs a lot of money.

Unethical behavior can be caused by individual differences (Trevino & Youngblood,

1990). This thesis examines love of money as individual characteristic. Because love of money is

a personality trait (e.g. Tang, 1992), not all people value money the same. People who do not find

money important will not do everything to make more money. So, the root of corporate scandals

and unethical behavior is related to money and the love of money (Tang & Chiu, 2003).

Therefore, love of money is an important factor (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999; Tang et al., 2006;

Tang & Chen, 2008). As such, we expect love of money to influence one’s inclination to engage

in unethical behavior.

4

performance. Due to differences in types of compensation, it is likely that some types of

compensation strengthen the relation between love of money and unethical behavior more than

others. Some research argues that a variable compensation increases the chance to behave

unethical compared to fixed compensation (Tenbrunsel, 1998; Trevino & Youngblood, 1990). An

environment where employees are paid on the basis of variable compensation could be a more

nurturing environment for performing unethical behavior. This thesis outlines, that variable

compensation may reinforce this effect, because variable compensation provides more

opportunity for unethical behavior than a fixed compensation. This is because variable

compensation can be more easily increased by for example, overstating one’s performance. In

this research the influence of love of money on unethical behavior and the degree to which this

relation is moderated by type of compensation will be studied.

The literature about love of money as a personality trait is relatively new, as is the

research focused on the relationship between love of money and unethical behavior. Moreover,

no research has been done on the relation between love of money and unethical behavior where

the type of compensation is included as a moderator (concerning variable and fixed

compensation). This is important as love of money and unethical behavior are often embedded

within an organizational context, where the type of compensation may serve as a contextual

variable that can influence the relation. Also, earlier research focused mostly on the compensation

of CEO’s and managers and unethical behavior (Tenbrunsel, 1998; Zhang, Bartol, Smith, Pfarrer

& Khanin, 2008). However this thesis does not focus specifically on compensation and unethical

behavior at executive and managerial level of an organization. These are several reasons why this

research is of relevance from an academic perspective. Unethical behavior is so widespread that

methods should be developed to prevent unethical behavior. These methods can only be

developed by understanding the cause of unethical behavior (e.g., Chng, Rodgers, Shih & Song,

2012; Honeycutt, Glassman, Zugelder, & Karande, 2001). This research will focus on answering

the following question.

How does the love of money influence unethical behavior and how is this relationship moderated

by type of compensation?

5

6

LITERATURE & HYPOTHESES

Unethical behavior

Jones (1991) described unethical behavior as “a person's actions, when freely performed,

that may harm or benefit others” and “that is both illegal and morally unacceptable to the larger

community”. Unethical behavior may include behaviors such as misuse of authority, lying and

stealing (Galperin, Bennett & Aquino, 2011). For the scope of this study not all different aspects

of unethical behavior are included; this thesis focuses only on examining unethical behavior that

is associated with money, so in this case a financial gain can be met with behaving unethical.

Forms of such unethical behavior are, earnings manipulations (e.g. Harris & Bromiley, 2007;

Tang et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2008), misrepresentation, and fraud (Honeycutt et al., 2001).

According to Honeycutt et al. (2001), fraud is “an affirmative false representation (or active

concealment) of an existing material fact, that is made knowingly false for the purpose of causing

reliance, which reliance is reasonable and justified resulted in injury”. So, manipulations or

misrepresentations do not always consist of fraud.

Love of Money

Not everyone behaves unethical; one person can be more inclined to behave unethical

than others due to individual differences (Trevino & Youngblood, 1990). This thesis argues that

love of money can be an important factor as it is a personality trait. Therefore, love of money is

an important factor because not all people value money the same (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999; Tang

et al., 2006; Tang & Chen, 2008).

The definition of love of money is: one’s attitudes towards money, one’s meaning of

money, and one’s wants, desires, values and aspirations of money (Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang et

al., 2006). Tang et al. (2006) argues that love of money is the root of evil. The first references to

love of money are in the bible. As Tang et al. (2006) cites from the bible: “People who want to

get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men

into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”.

7

The behavioral component contains of how someone intends or is expected to act towards

someone or something. With regards to money, “one may consider how one makes money, how

one budgets one’s money, how one spends one’s money, and how one contributes to church,

charity and society” (Tang et al., 2006). If someone has a high love of money, he will be really

motivated by money, he will work hard for money and he will do whatever it takes to make

money. Money is a motivator for some, but not for others (Herzberg, 1987).

Lastly, the cognitive component of money contains of the important beliefs or ideas

someone has about money. For example, money means power, freedom, respect or security

(Tang, 1992). When someone has a high level of the love of money, he will consider money as

one of the most important parts of his life (Tang et al., 2006). The importance of money is formed

early in childhood and maintained in adult life (Furnham & Argyle, 1998). It is possible that if

one is obsessed with money and values money highly, then, one may consider everything from

the perspective of money (Tang, 2007).

According to Tang and Chiu (2003) these three components of love of money influence

one’s behavior in organizations; as some people are more likely to have a higher love for money

compared to others (Galperin et al., 2011). Some people are motivated to climb the organizational

hierarchy because of their love of money and power (Boddy, 2006). Also, Tang and Chen (2008)

found that a love of money is positively related to Machiavellianism. Individuals with a high love

of money and who want to get rich easily are more likely to use manipulative tactics, and thereby

more likely to behave unethical. Love of money may motivate people to take actions involving

even unethical behavior (Tang et al., 2006). Past empirical research among Hong Kong

employees found that love of money is related to unethical behavior (Tang & Chiu, 2003). As

Tang and Chiu (2003) explained, “those with high love of money are motivated to do whatever it

takes to make money. Those with a high love of money may be more likely to engage in unethical

behavior in organizations than their low love of money counter parts”. For example, reimbursing

more money than one is entitled to leads to a financial benefit.

8

will be less sensitive to cross ethical boundaries in the hope they will get more money. So love of

money influences unethical behavior. This leads to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. Individuals behave in more unethical ways when they have a high love of

money than when they have a low love of money.

Compensation

Although unethical behavior seems to be influenced by one’s love of money, the

conclusion that all individuals will be equally sensitive to engage in unethical behavior is wrong.

Individual characteristics alone are insufficient to explain unethical behavior (Victor & Cullen,

1988; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000; Trevino, 1986). There should be situations

that explain why not all people with a high love of money conduct unethical behavior; otherwise

all people with a high love of money behave unethical. That is why there is also an organizational

context, next to the individual differences people have. Tett and Guterman (2000) proposed the

interactionist principle of trait activation, which means that often there is an interactive element

between an individual characteristic (personality trait) and a trait-relevant situational cue through

which a certain behavior exists. A high love of money leads to unethical behavior but the right

situational aspect has to be present to let this effect exist or increase. As said before, in this thesis

compensation is the situational factor.

In this thesis compensation will be divided into two sorts of compensation namely

variable compensation and fixed compensation. Although fixed compensation may be the most

common form of employee payment, an increased number of organizations are using variable

compensation (Kvaløy & Olsen, 2012; Tully, 1993). Research focusing on the distinction

between variable and fixed compensation is therefore relevant. Fixed compensation is defined as

the amount of pay which is known beforehand. However, variable compensation is not specified

in advance and it links financial rewards with performance, competence, contribution and skills

(Armstrong, 2006). Fixed compensation consists only of a stable salary and variable

compensation consists of bonus, incentive plans, profit-sharing and stock plans (Stroh, Brett,

Baumann & Reilly, 1996).

9

behaving in an unethical way in order to achieve higher compensation. Then, Jensen (2001)

argued that cheating to gain a bonus is so common that unethical behaviors are often expected.

Zhang et al. (2008) found that variable compensation can motivate managerial behaviors that are

undesirable, such as earnings manipulations. If variable compensation is measured by current

year’s profits, expenses can be pushed into the future or by moving future revenues to the present.

Also, Jensen (2001) said if one expects he will not succeed to get a bonus, one should take a loss

as big as possible, as one has more possibility to receive a bonus next year. That is moving

earnings from the present to the future, because it does not matter whether he misses the target for

the bonus by a little or a lot. Hereby someone distorts information, which leads to more

compensation for the employee but can have large consequences for the organization. Also,

Schweitzer et al. (2004) found that variable compensation has an influence on unethical behavior;

people with a variable compensation overstated their performance more than people with a fixed

compensation. 30,2% of the people overstated their performance when the performance lead to

more compensation. Last, Harris and Bromiley (2007) found that increased stock options (i.e.

variable compensation) tend to encourage executives to behave unethically. The argument for this

is that stock options bring no income to the employee at any value below the strike price. This is a

stimulant for the employee to try to raise the market price over the strike price, which also can

include unethical behavior.

As such, we argue that people with a variable compensation will perform more unethical

behavior than people with a fixed compensation. People with a variable salary have more

opportunities to raise their own compensation, thereby increasing their temptation to engage in

unethical behavior (Chng et al., 2012; Stroh et al., 1996; Tenbrunsel, 1998; Zhang et al., 2008).

The Sears case is exemplary for the relation between variable compensation and unethical

behavior. In investigated visits to automotive repair shops of Sears it was discovered there were

90 percent unnecessary repairs (Schweitzer, Ordóñez & Douma, 2004). The employees in the

repair shops had been rewarded for increasing revenue (i.e. performing unnecessary and/or more

elaborate repairs to customers). Therefore the employees behaved unethical.

10

occur. Therefore, the type of compensation is an important moderator that influences the relation

between love of money and unethical behavior. As a result, the second hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 2. Individuals behave in more unethical ways when they have a high love of

money as opposed to a low love of money and this effect is stronger when one has a

variable compensation instead of a fixed compensation.

The conceptual model that gives an overview of what is said before:

----

11

METHOD

Participants

A scenario study is performed for this thesis. Participants were invited to make the

scenario study through e-mail and social media. They received a link to the questionnaire. 107

participants (48 males, 59 females; average age = 40.81, SD = 16.3) completed the entire survey.

57% of the participants have a job, 11.5% of these have a variable compensation and 88.5% have

a fixed compensation. Most of the participants have higher education (66.3%).

Design and Procedure

This study is a 2 (love of money: low versus high) by 2 (compensation: variable versus

fixed) design. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. The

independent variables in this study were manipulated.

First, participants read an introduction of the survey when they clicked on the link they

received. An explanation of the questionnaire was displayed. Next, the love of money

manipulation took place. Love of money was manipulated by asking participants to read three

written statements and write an argument that was either in support of the statement (high love of

money condition) or against the statement (low love of money condition). Each of the statements

were items from the Love of Money Scale by Tang et al. (2006). The three statements were: “I

want to be rich”, “Money reinforces me to work harder”, and “Money is important”.

After these statements, participants had to read a scenario. The scenario represented a

situation within a working context; the participant had to imagine oneself in that situation.

Depending on the love of money manipulation participants received one of the scenarios. The

scenarios corresponded with the earlier statements. There were two scenarios’ for the low love of

money group, and two scenarios’ for the high love of money group. For example, if the

participant had a low love of money manipulation, the scenario displayed a situation of someone

who had a low love of money and either a variable compensation or a fixed compensation.

12

compensation condition, participants read that their compensation for the job is previously

determined and not dependent on the sales orders, so, through higher sales numbers their

compensation will not be increased. Whereas in the variable compensation condition, participants

read that they have a job where their compensation depends on the sales, so, through higher sales

numbers their compensation will be increased. After this, the participants read that they have the

opportunity to adjust the sales techniques in order to get higher sales numbers. They read that this

is interesting because of, for example, having a higher possibility of becoming employee of the

month. Also performance is important to keep their current job, and in addition, their possibility

of a promotion will be increased. Next, the participants were faced with a dilemma. They read

that they have the opportunity to “play and steer” with the sales orders. Nobody will notice that

they will “play and steer” with the sales orders, but their sales performance will increase with

this.

Hereafter, the question about the dependent variable was asked: “Will you increase the

height of your sales by “playing and steering” with the sales orders?” Subsequently, to check

whether the respondents did well, manipulation checks were performed. And lastly, some

demographic questions were requested. The survey ended with a word of thanks.

Measures

Unethical behavior. After the scenario, the participants had to answer the question “Will you

increase the height of your sales by “steering and playing” with the sales orders?”. The

respondents were asked to answer on a 6-point scale from 1= ‘I will definitely not increase the

height’ to 6 = ‘I will definitely increase the height’.

Love of money. One question was about the love of money manipulation. This question was:

“How important was money for you in the scenario?” and served as the manipulation check for

love of money. The respondents were asked to answer on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = ‘very

important” to 7 = “very unimportant”.

13

RESULTS

Manipulation Check

To determine whether participants did understand and were aware of the type of

compensation they had in the manipulation, a manipulation check was conducted. The

manipulation check for compensation was answered right by 85.05% of the participants. They

answered the question “What type of compensation did you have in the scenario?” correct. The

16 participants that answered wrong are deleted from further analysis because I cannot be sure

whether they did the research well, or maybe they are not influenced by the manipulation which

was the goal of the manipulation.

Another manipulation check was conducted to determine how participants perceived the

love of money manipulation. For the manipulation check of love of money an one-way analysis

of variance showed that the condition love of money was successfully created (F(1, 90) = 51.19, p

< .001). Participants in the high love of money condition thought more strongly that money was

important for them (M = 5.55, SD = 1.82) than participants in the low love of money condition

(M = 3.14, SD = 1.36).

Two-way Analysis Of Variance

A two-way analysis of variance was performed to test the hypotheses. First of all, the

effects of the means of the two love of money conditions on unethical behavior were compared.

That is to test whether people behave more unethical when having high love of money than when

having low love of money (hypothesis 1). Results indicated that there was no significant

difference between the two groups (F(1, 90) = 2.01, p = .16) . People in the high love of money

condition did not score higher (M = 2.38, SD =1.55) than the people in the low love of money

condition (M = 2.84, SD = 1.43) on unethical behavior. So, hypothesis 1 can be rejected. Table 1

shows this and Table 2 presents the results of the two-way analysis of variance.

14

significant difference for people in the low love of money condition; the differences on unethical

behavior are too small between the variable compensation condition (M = 2.87, SD = 1.55) and

the fixed compensation condition (M = 2.83, SD = 1.39). Therefore, the insignificant interaction

is not in favor of hypothesis 2. This means that type of compensation does not moderate the

relationship between love of money and unethical behavior, and therefore there is no evidence

found to support hypothesis 2 (table 2). The means and standard deviations described are

displayed in table 3.

----

Insert Table 1 about here

---

----

Insert Table 2 about here

---

----

15

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether love of money has an influence on

unethical behavior and how this relationship is moderated by the type of compensation. The

direct relationship between love of money and unethical behavior has been measured, as well as

the moderating influence of type of compensation.

Theoretical implications

It was expected that individuals would behave in more unethical ways when they have a

high love of money than when they have a low love of money. People with a high love of money

will be more sensitive to cross ethical boundaries in the hope they will get more money. The

results of this study did not support this. Individuals with a high love of money did not behave in

more unethical ways than people with a low love of money. The first hypothesis is rejected,

although earlier research (e.g. Tang & Chiu, 2003) showed that love of money is an individual

characteristic that causes that some people engage in unethical behavior. It can be that love of

money will only come visible together with other personality traits. A possible factor can be the

amount of risk people will take. When people are risk averse they will be less likely to engage in

unethical behavior than people who are risk-seeking (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Risk-seeking

individuals are more interested in taking risks, and thereby more likely to engage in unethical

behavior (Tang et al., 2008). So, people with a high love of money but with a high risk averse

orientation can decide not to engage in unethical behavior because the risk of getting caught

outweighs the importance of money gain.

Secondly, it was expected that the extent to which individuals engage in unethical

behavior was influenced by type of compensation. Individuals would behave in more unethical

ways when they have a high love of money as opposed to a low love of money and this effect is

stronger when one has a variable compensation instead of a fixed compensation. This second

hypothesis was not confirmed, which implies that the effect on unethical behavior is not stronger

when one has a variable compensation instead of a fixed compensation. Research shows (e.g.

Harris & Bromiley, 2007; Zhang et al., 2008) that individuals with variable compensation behave

more unethical. The inability of our study to replicate these results may be due to the fact that,

next to this interaction between type of compensation and love of money, there are other factors

present in an organization that explain unethical behavior; the model could be more complex.

16

is one situational variable; unfortunately other situational variables could not be included in this

thesis, such as the culture of the organization. Organizational culture plays an important role in

the moral development of employees (Trevino, 1986). Some cultures facilitate unethical behavior

more than other cultures. A culture where collective norms about what is and what is not

appropriate behavior are shared, and where the values, goals, and beliefs of the organization are

clear gives opportunity for ethical behavior. The organization promotes individual responsibility.

When this is not the case, unethical behavior has more possibility to develop (Trevino, 1986). As

a result, besides the type of compensation there could be other variables that interact with love of

money and thereby influencing unethical behavior (e.g. high love of money leads to unethical

behavior and this effect is stronger when there also is an organizational culture present that

facilitates unethical behavior). To conclude, only one individual characteristic and only one

situational variable was included in this study, but there are many more that could have an

influence on unethical behavior. Future research could investigate how other variables are linked

in the model used for this thesis.

Because it will have consequences for future research and the developing of theories, it is

important to know that high love of money compared to low love of money does not make

individuals engage easier in unethical behavior. The research on love of money is relatively new

where existing research showed that love of money is related to unethical behavior (Tang & Chiu,

2003). However, this research was held in Hong Kong where individuals could react differently

than in other places. This could happen because people in Hong Kong may have a different

culture (Tang & Chiu, 2003) than the individuals in the Netherlands.

Also, this thesis shows that there is no interaction with compensation. Future research

should take this into account when investigating unethical behavior.

Practical Implications

17

However, this research shows that a variable compensation does not have an effect on

somebody’s inclination to overstate their performance, and thereby making more money.

Organizations may take this into account when deciding on their compensation models; now they

know that someone with a variable compensation does not want to increase their performance,

and thereby making more money. This may make the decision easier on what type of

compensation they want to choose. For example, an organization with a preference for variable

compensation (which is increasingly present according to Kvaløy & Olsen (2012)) should not

deviate from this preference, because this thesis shows that variable compensation did not have

an effect on unethical behavior.

Also, an individual with high love of money does not behave more unethical than an

individual with low love of money. This shows that organizations do not have to be afraid that

employees who are motivated by money have more possibility of engaging in unethical behavior.

Organizations can hire applicants with a high love of money (that is people who show that they

are motivated by money, or say that they like to be rich) without worrying about higher

possibilities of unethical behavior. Because love of money does not influences unethical behavior,

organizations could focus on the general attitude of unethical behavior within applicants.

Organizations could ask applicants how they react or behave in certain situations considering

unethical behavior during screening and selection.

Although this thesis shows no significant results, unethical behavior occurs still within

many organizations. Hence, it may be good to implement programs where ethical awareness is

promoted and a sense of responsibility is stimulated; a code of ethics should be thoroughly

implemented (Choe, Lau & Tan, 2011). The attention on unethical behavior is thereby increasing

in the organization, which could have an influence on individuals. That is, the attention is directed

towards behaving ethical and also making it more difficult to behave unethical (Victor & Cullen,

1988). Also, organizations could regulate how the ethical climate of the organization is presented

during the screening of future employees. Applicants evaluate the situation (during screening or

selection), looking for a good employer-employee match (Sims & Keon, 1997). This could have

as a consequence that the organization acquires “good” employees when showing that ethical

behavior is important in the organization.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

18

required to give their opinion. It was noticed that a lot of participants found it difficult. The

statements may have been too abstract and not clear for all participants. For example, the

statement “I want to be rich” can someone read in different ways; rich can be in the form of

money, but someone can also be rich in health, friends, etcetera. However, the statements came

from the Love of Money Scale which was thoroughly tested, and considered as one of the most

well-developed and widely used measures of money attitude (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999, Tang et

al., 2008). Future research should give more concrete statements instead of the abstract

statements.

The next manipulation was done by letting the participants read a story about a head

salesman. Although the results of the experiment showed that successful manipulations were

used, the situation is not real. Maybe it was difficult for the participants to visualize the situation

they were supposed to be in. Therefore they could have answered in a way not as how they would

react and feel when they are the person in the scenario but as how they would react and feel in

real life instead. With a scenario study it is about one’s inclinations and not one’s actual behavior;

it is suggested that participants are aware of this difference (Trevino & Victor, 1992); they were

not in a real situation with real consequences. This can cause that participants react different

compared to how they react in real life. A consequence is that the results gave a

misrepresentation; that these results are not entirely true.

Furthermore, not all participants have a job, so they may not be representative of an

entire work force. This research used a varied sample of participants; it consisted of workers,

students, but also retirees. Most students do not have “real” work experiences and do not have the

power and authority to make critical financial decisions (Tang et al. 2008). For future research, an

investigation within an organization would be more applicable. A sample of employees within an

organization will give results which can be applied to a general work force, and therefore an

organization will be a more realistic sample. As Trevino (1992) said, the external validity of

scenario studies is relatively low; it is difficult to generalize the results. Field studies, on the other

hand, are higher in external validity because they are conducted in actual organizations, so the

results can be generalized. Also, the settings are more complex and realistic and the sample is

more representative. So, the sample used for this research is a possible limitation. It would be

better if the sample consisted of employees within an organization or when a field study was

performed.

19

compensation did not engage in unethical behavior. This could have consequences. They did not

know what their precise expected gains were. It could be that individuals found that expected

gains (Mayer, 1970) were too meaningless compared to the disadvantage of feeling guilty. It was

better if an actual amount was given so that people can make a good judgement of the expected

gains versus guilty feelings; participants then know exactly how much they gain in comparison

with what they, perhaps, lose. Future research should take this into account.

At last, because this research is about unethical behavior, there could be a social

desirability bias. According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003) social

desirability bias is “the tendency of some people to respond to items more as a result of their

social acceptability than their true feelings”. So, individuals are trying to give socially desirable

answers; they may be dishonest in answering the question about unethical behavior (Trevino,

1992). For this research, this means that participants were more inclined to give an untrue answer

on the question about unethical behavior. They were more inclined to answer that they certainly

not play and steer with the sales orders instead of giving an honest answer.

Conclusion

20

REFERENCES

Armstrong, M. 2006. Personnel Management Practice (10th ed.). London: Kogan Page.

Boddy, C. R. 2006. The dark side of management decisions: organisational psychopaths.

Management Decision, 44(10): 1461-1475.

Chng, D. H. M., Rodgers, M. S., Shih, E. & Song, X. 2012. When does incentive compensation

motivate managerial behaviors? An experimental investigation of the fit between incentive

compensation, executive core self-evaluation, and firm performance. Strategic Management

Journal, 33(12): 1343-1362.

Choe, K., Lau, T. & Tan, L. 2011. Success, rich, motivator and importance: establishing the

contributory factors of money ethics towards business ethics. European Journal of Economics,

Finance and Administrative Sciences, 37(9): 90-98.

Furnham, A. & Argyle, M. 1998. The Psychology of Money. London: Routledge.

Galperin, B. L., Bennett, R. J. & Aquino, K. 2011. Status differentiation and the protean self: a

social-cognitive model of unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3):

407-424.

Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L. & Ariely, D. 2011. Unable to resist temptation: how

self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Human Decision Processes, 115(2): 191-203.

Harris, J., Bromiley, P. 2007. Incentives to cheat: the influence of executive compensation and

firm performance on financial misrepresentation. Organization Science, 18(3): 350-367.

Herzberg, F. 1987. One more time: how do you motivate your employees? Harvard Business

Review, September/October issue: 109-120.

21

Jensen, M. C. 2001. Corporate budgeting is broken – let’s fix it. Harvard Business Review,

79(10): 94-101.

Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent

model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 366-395.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.

Econometrica, 47(2): 263-292.

Kvaløy, O. & Olsen, T. E. 2012. The rise of individual performance pay. Journal of Economics

& Management Strategy, 21(2): 493-518.

Mayer, R. R. 1970. Management’s responsibility for purchasing ethics. Journal of Purchasing,

6(4): 13-20.

Mitchell, T. R. & Mickel, A. E. 1999. The meaning of money: an individual-difference

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 568-578.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases

in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.

Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L. & Douma, B. 2004. Goal setting as a motivator of unethical

behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3): 422-432.

Sims, R. L. & Keon, T. L. 1997. Ethical work climate as a factor in the development of

person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(11): 1095-1105.

Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., Baumann, J. P. & Reilly, A. H. 1996. Agency theory and variable pay

compensation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3): 751-767.

22

Tang, T. L. 2007. Income and quality of life: does the love of money make a difference? Journal

of Business Ethics, 72(4): 375-393.

Tang, T. L. & Chen, Y. 2008. Intelligence vs. wisdom: the love of money, Machiavellianism, and

unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1): 1-26.

Tang, T. L., Chen, Y. & Sutarso, T. 2008. Bad apples in bad (business) barrels: the love of

money, machiavellianism, risk tolerance, and unethical behavior. Management Decision, 46(2):

243-263.

Tang, T. L. & Chiu, R. K. 2003. Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and

unethical behavior: is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong employees. Journal of

Business Ethics, 46(1): 13-30.

Tang, T. L., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Ansari, M. A., … Vlerick,

P. 2006. The love of money and pay level satisfaction: measurement and functional equivalence

in 29 geopolitical entities around the world. Management and Organization Review, 2(3):

423-452.

Tenbrunsel, A. E. 1998. Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical

dilemma: the role of incentives and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3):

330-339.

Tett, R. P. & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 500-517.

Tett, R. P. & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and

cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality,

34(4): 397-423.

23

Trevino, L. K. 1992. Experimental approaches to studying ethical-unethical behavior in

organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2): 121-136.

Trevino, L. K. & Victor, B. 1992. Peer reporting of unethical behavior: a social context

perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 38-64.

Trevino, L. K. & Youngblood, S. A. 1990. Bad apples in bad barrels: a causal analysis of ethical

decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4): 378-385.

Tully, S. 1993. Your paycheck gets exciting. Fortune, November, 1.

Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B. 1988. The organizational bases of ethical work climates.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1): 101-125.

Wilson, D. S., Near, D. & Miller, R. R. 1996. Machiavellianism: a synthesis of the evolutionary

and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2): 285-299.

24

APPENDIX

FIGURE 1

Conceptual Model

TABLE 1

Mean and Standard Deviation of Love and Money

M (SD)

Low love of money

2.84 (1.43)

High love of money

2.38 (1.55)

Note: n = 91

TABLE 2

Two-way Analysis of Variance for Unethical Behavior

df

MS

F

p

Love of money

1

4.61

2.01

.16

Type of compensation

1

.01

.01

.96

Love of money*type of compensation

1

.01

.01

.95

25

TABLE 3

Mean and Standard Deviation of Love and Money

Variable Compensation

M (SD)

Fixed compensation

M (SD)

Low love of money

2.87 (1.55)

2.83 (1.39)

High love of money

2.38 (1.66)

2.38 (1.50)