Unethical Behavior for the Greater Cause:
The relationship Between Power, Organizational Identification and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior
Master of Science, MSc, specialization Human resource management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 12, 2014
WORD COUNT (body text): 5476 words
JACOB SAÏD Student-number: 2585154
Bijenlaan 25 7595 BH Weerselo Tel.: +31 (0)6-29167071 E-mail: jacobsaid89@gmail.com
Supervisor/ university Sanne Feenstra
Abstract
This research aims to show that power increases the engagement in unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) when power holders strongly identify with their organization. UPB is defined as actions that are intended to help the functioning of the organization or its members while violating core societal values, morals, laws, or standards (Umphress & Bingham, 2011). This hypothesis is based on the findings that power holders act in accordance with their goals and do this with no regard to the negative consequences for others (Keltner et al, 2003). Individuals who strongly identify with their organization internalize the goals of their organization. Subsequently, power holders with a strong organizational identification will internalize the goals of the organization and act in accordance to achieve these goals. In addition, I argue that the relationship between power, organizational identification and UPB is mediated by neutralization (condoning the ethical impact of an unethical act). Results show that high power and weak identification with the organization is associated with decreased engagement in UPB. The results are discussed in the discussion which considers the unexpected results as well as implications and future research.
Keywords: power, organizational identification, neutralization, unethical behavior, unethical pro-organizational behavior
Introduction
In December 2001, natural gas corporation Enron declared bankruptcy. Former CEO Kenneth Lay was accused of multiple unethical crimes, of which one was taking a power plant in the western states off-line to increase the price of energy and subsequently company profit and share price (Gibney, 2000).
In the study of Gurchiek (2006) more than a third of the U.S. adults surveyed admitted to have been witness of unethical activities during work. Of all the participants, 19% observed lying to employees, customers, vendors, or the public. These examples show that unethical behaviors still occur frequently in organizations, even by power holders engaging in UPB. A decent amount of literature has been published on possible motives of these unethical behaviors within organizations namely: self-benefit (e.g., Greenberg, 2002; Terpstra et al., 1993), to take revenge on or damage the organization (e.g., Skarlicki &
Folger, 1997), or to harm coworkers (e.g., Thau et al., 2007).
This dissertation examines a different kind of motive: unethical acts that seek to benefit the organization, called unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB; Umphress et al., 2010; Umphress &
Bingham, 2011). Existing research acknowledges that unethical behavior can be executed with the intention to benefit the organization (Ashforth & Anand 2003; Brief et al., 2001). However, to date, the underlying processes for these kinds of behaviors have not been developed thoroughly. This dissertation examines this research gap. More specifically, I aim to show that power increases UPB when power holders strongly identify with their organization. According to the Approach/Inhibition Theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003), power activates the behavioral approach system and hence is associated with positive emotions, energy and social freedom. Freed from the social constraints, power holders act in accordance with their goals and are insensitive to the consequences of their acts (Chen et al., 2001;
Galinsky et al., 2008; Keltner et al., 2003). Furthermore individuals with a high organizational identification internalize the organizations goals as their own (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). In other words, I expect that organizational identification moderates the relationship between power and UPB, such that power holders will internalize the goals of the organization as their own and might engage in UPB to attain these goals. Furthermore, I aim to show that the relationship between power, organizational identification and UPB is mediated by neutralization (i.e., the process through which the moral content of unethical behavior is ignored; Umphress & Bingham, 2011).
This dissertation will unfold as follows. First, I will define the constructs UPB, organizational identification, power and the relationship between these constructs, hypothesizing that power holders who identify strongly with their organizations are more likely to engage in UPB. Second, I will define the construct neutralization and discuss the relationship with power and organizational identification, hypothesizing that neutralization mediates this moderation. Furthermore, I will discuss the methods with
which the hypotheses will be examined, the results of the study and a discussion which includes implications, strength and limitations, future research and a conclusion.
Theoretical Background
UPB and Organizational Identification
UPB is defined as actions that are intended to help the functioning of the organization or its members, while violating core societal values, morals, laws, or standards (Umphress & Bingham, 2011).
This construct exists of two components. First, UPB refers to unethical behaviors that violate global norms and standards of socially accepted behavior. Second, UPB includes the intention behind the unethical behavior that is shown. That is, UPB must be conducted with the intention to benefit the organization, their members, or both. Now that the construct of UPB is clear this dissertation will provide some insights into previous work.
To date, first research has examined predictors of UPB. Miao, Newman, Yu and Xu (2012), for instance, showed that organizational identification moderates the influences of ethical leadership on UPB. In addition, Umphress and colleagues (2010) considered the effects of two potential motivators for UPB: organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs. Organizational identification is defined as an employee’s sense of belonging and membership to his or her organization (Ashforth &
Mael 1989). Theorists argue that individuals who identify strongly with their organization internalize the organization’s successes and failures as their own and try to find ways to benefit the organization (Mael
& Ashforth, 1992). In accordance, Umphress and colleagues (2010) propose that individuals who strongly identify with their organization choose to disregard personal moral standards and engage in acts that favor the organization, such as UPB. Moreover, they showed that the relationship between organizational identification and UPB was moderated by positive reciprocity beliefs, such that employees who have strong positive reciprocity beliefs will feel more obligated to reciprocate beneficial behavior to other exchange partners, such as their employing organization.
This research aims to extend this research by examining another motivator of UPB, namely power. That is, I aim to show that power holders who strongly identify with their organization are associated with increased UPB.
Power
Power is defined as the ability to influence others (French & Raven, 1959) and control others’
outcomes (Fiske, 1993; Fiske & Dépret, 1996). Power holders exercise control by supplying or withholding resources that others find valuable (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). A number of
studies have found that power leads to unethical behavior, such as corruption (DeCelles et al., 2012), hypocrisy (Lammers et al., 2010), dehumanization (Lammers & Stapel, 2010) and aggression (Fast &
Chen, 2009). Another implication of power is that power holders depend less on resources from others which gives power holders more freedom from constraints, which in turn, makes them more independent to act compared to the less powerful (Guinote, 2004; Keltner et al., 2003; Van Dijke & Poppe, 2006). A considerable amount of literature has been published on this implication of power, showing that power also frees individuals from social constraints, which leads them to act at will with no regard to the negative consequences for other (Galinsky et al., 2008; Keltner et al., 2003).
According to the Approach/Inhibition Theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003), possessing no power activates the inhibition system and possessing power activates the behavioral approach system (Carver & White, 1994; Higgins, 1997). The behavioral inhibition system is triggered by punishment, threat and anxiety. The behavioral approach system on the on the other hand, regulates behavior linked to seeking rewards, self-promotion, and achievement, which leads to the behavior to persuade and obtain goals which are related to these rewards. In accordance, the implication of power that an individual acts at will, without any regard to negative consequences for others, makes the boundaries of attaining these goals more vague with regard to ethicality.
Chen and colleagues (2001) argued that power is mentally associated with activating underlying goals. They reasoned that subtle cues in the environment can activate the concept of power, in turn, concepts strongly associated with power. Subsequently, they argue that power activates underlying goals and that power holders will adapt their behavior to achieve these goals. Their study results showed that power primed individuals with a communal relationship orientation (i.e., benefiting one another, without expectation of receiving benefit in return) associate power with social responsibility goals while power primed individuals with an exchange relationship orientation (i.e., benefiting one another, with expectation of receiving benefit in return.) associated power with self-interested goals. Moreover, the consequences of power holders persuading their goals can, under different circumstances, result in ethical and unethical behavior, such as altruism or egoism (Chen et al, 2001).
When applied to this dissertation, I argue that power activates a goal formed by organizational identification. That is, people who identify strongly with their organization behave in ways that are consistent with organizational expectations as well as benefitting the organization (i.e. higher loyalty, increased job performance; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Individuals, who identify strongly with their organization, internalize the organizations’ successes and failures as their own (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) and try to find ways to benefit the organization with no regard to negative consequences for others. This suggests that individuals who identify strongly with their organization internalize the goals of the organizations as their own and want to help the organization achieve those goals. On the other hand,
power holders who have a low organizational identification lack the internalization of organizational goals, which gives them no specific reason to engage more in UPB. In accordance, I propose that power is associated with increased engagement in UPB for power holders who strongly identify with their organization, while maintaining the level of engagement in UPB when organizational identification is weak.
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between power and UPB is moderated by organizational identification such that, power increases engagement in UPB when OI is high, while maintaining the same level of engagement in UPB when OI is low.
Normally, chasing a goal and strongly identifying with one’s organization are seen as positive attitudes, but, as proposed, combining a strong organizational identification with goal chasing can lead to something negative namely unethical behavior. Even though this type of unethical behavior intends to benefit the organization, it is still against standardized values and norms and can have serious consequences for the individuals engaging in unethical behavior (e.g. distrust). So why do some people risk the consequences and engage in unethical behavior while others don’t? One explanation for this difference in behavior is neutralization.
Neutralization
Neutralization is defined by Umphress and Bingham (2011) as a process by which the moral or ethical impact created by an act is masked, overlooked, or dismissed. In other words, neutralization is a process by which individuals neutralize their unethical behavior and protect themselves from self-blame by justifying their act. Subsequently, an implication of neutralization is that it eliminates a social control that inhibits unethical or deviant acts and increases the freedom of individuals to act unethically (Treviño et al., 2006). In addition, Jordan and colleagues (2011) showed that individuals desire to see themselves as moral persons. Hence, neutralizing an unethical act allows individuals to act unethical while at the same time upholding a moral self-image.
As discussed, neutralization is related to any type of unethical behavior to condone the ethical impact. This also includes unethical behavior conducted with intentions to benefit the organization, such as UPB. In accordance, I suggest that neutralization mediates the interactive effect of power and organizational identification on UPB (figure 1). As argued above, power holders who identify strongly with the organization will internalize the goals of the organization as their own and want to help the organization achieve those goals. Subsequently, I argue that power holders, who identify strongly with their organization and, in turn, are focused on helping the organization in any way possible, will show
neutralization when they act unethically to achieve such goals. When the identification with the organization is strong power holders will engage in UPB to achieve their goal and help their organization. The power holders will feel the need to uphold their moral self-image which leads to neutralizing their unethical behavior and, in turn, to UPB. In accordance, I propose that neutralization mediates the interactive effect of power and organizational identification on UPB.
Hypothesis 2: Neutralization mediates the interactive effect of power and organizational identification on UPB.
Figure 1: Theoretical model of Power, Organizational Identification, and Unethical Pro-organizational Behaviors mediated by Neutralization.
Methods Participants and Procedure
To test the hypotheses above, a total of 146 employees with different levels of power were found to participate. A random sample of working adults participated in this survey. The sample was 50%
male, and participants were 32.25 years old on average (SD = 12.47). The participants worked on average 30.79 hours a week (SD = 14.56), and had on average 6.49 years (SD = 8.93) of tenure in their current organization. Furthermore, participants had a wide range of educational backgrounds varying from middle school level to university level.
The participants were found using the researchers’ social network and via social media, such as LinkedIn and Facebook. A completion rate of 49,4% left over 153 completed questionnaires. From the 153 completed questionnaires a total of 7 cases were deleted because these cases worked nil years and months or nil hours a week, meaning that these participants were jobless.
Measurements
The questionnaire included measurements of power, organizational identification, neutralization, UPB and control variables. Unless indicated otherwise, variables were measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).
Power was measured with a slightly adapted version of the 8-item Personal Sense of Power Scale (Anderson et al., 2012). To make the questions apply to the work area, the sentence “At work” was added in front of every statement. Example items are: “At work, I can get people to listen to what I say”
and “At work, I don’t get my way”. Reliability was calculated at α = .80
UPB was measured using the 6-item UPB scale from Umphress and colleagues (2010). Example items are: “If it would help my organization, I would misrepresent the truth to make my organization look good” and “If it would help my organization, I would exaggerate the truth about my company’s products or services to customers and clients”. Reliability was calculated at α = .73
Organizational Identification was assessed with Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) 6-item measure.
Example items are: “My organization’s successes are my successes” and “I am very interested in what others think about this organization”. Reliability was calculated at α = .83
Neutralization was assessed with Barsky’s (2011) 4-item scale. This 4-item scale is used to measure moral justification (trying to condone a moral questionable act), which is a similar construct as neutralization (Barsky, 2011). Example items are: “It is alright to exaggerate the truth to keep your
company out of trouble” and “If it helps you do your job, it is alright to deceive your clients or customers”. Reliability was calculated at α = .77
Control variables. Previous research has shown that demographic characteristics may influence unethical behaviors (Erdogan, & Liden, (2002). As such, I measured age (in years), gender, education level, tenure with the organization (in years), the amount of working hours in a week, and the average amount of hours spent on organization property each week.
Results
The descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 1. The correlation matrix shows a significant correlation between power and age (R = .17, p = .05), meaning that the higher the age the more power an individual has. In addition, organizational identification is also correlated with age (R = -.18, p = .05), such that, the higher the age the less organizational identification an individual has.
Furthermore, organizational identification is highly correlated with power (R = .37, p = .01), meaning that the higher the power, the more organizational identification an individual has. As well, neutralization and gender are correlated (R = -.29, p = .01), meaning that, of all the participants, the man neutralized their unethical behavior more than the women. Another interesting observation is that there is a small, non-significant, correlation between power and UPB (R = -.09, p = .29). This creates the opportunity to examine the possible moderating effect of organizational identification. To examine the effect of neutralization, the relationship between neutralization, power, organizational identification and UPB should be clear. The correlation matrix shows a small, non-significant, correlation between neutralization and power (R = -.10, p = .23), but a small, marginally significant, correlation with organizational identification (R = .14, p = .09), such that a high organizational identification is associated with a high neutralization. Furthermore, the correlation between neutralization and UPB is significant (R
= .62, p = .01), meaning that the higher the neutralization, the more UPB an individual exhibit. This means that neutralization could have a mediating effect on the interactive effect of power and organizational identification on UPB.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.UPB 2.46 .84 -.09 .62** .14 -.09 -.15
2.Power 4.46 .76 -.10 .37** .13 .17*
3.Neutralization 2.29 .94 .14 -.29** -.13
4.Organizational identification
4.05 1.00 -.09 -.18*
5.Gender (1=male)
1.50 .50 -.16
6.Age 32.25 12.47
Note.*p < .05. **p < .01. UPB= Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior.
To test the hypotheses, two regression analyses were conducted (table 2). First, a regression was performed on UPB, with sense of power (standardized), organizational identification (standardized) and their interaction term as predictors. Analysis revealed that, as expected, there is no main effect of power, B = -.12, t(146) = -1.61, p = .11. Furthermore, the results showed a main effect of organizational identification, B = .17, t(146) = 2.28, p = .02, such that an increase of organizational identification is associated with increased engagement of UPB. More importantly, in line with hypothesis 1, analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between power and organizational identification, B = .11, t(146) = 1.73, p = .07 (See Figure 2). Simple slopes analysis revealed that power is associated with decreased engagement in UPB when organizational identification is low (B = -.22 t(146) = -2.38, p = .02), while power does not affect UPB when organizational identification is high (B = -.03 t(146) = -.28, p = .78).
Figure 2. Power and UPB as moderated by Figure 3. Power and neutralization as organizational identification (OI). moderated by organizational identification
To test the second hypothesis, that neutralization mediates the interactive effect of power and organizational identification on UPB, a regression analysis was conducted on neutralization with sense of power (standardized), organizational identification (standardized) and their interaction term as predictors. Analysis revealed a main effect of power, B = -.16, t(146) = -2.11, p = .04, such that high power is associated with an increase of neutralization. Furthermore, results showed a main effect of organizational identification, B = .19, t(146) = 2.39, p = .02, such that high organizational identification is associated with an increase of neutralization. More importantly, in accordance with hypothesis 2, analysis revealed an interaction effect between power and organizational identification, B = .15, t(146) = 2.30, p = .02 (See Figure 3). Simple slopes analysis revealed that power is associated with decreased neutralization when organizational identification is low B = -.28, t(146) = -2.71, p = .01. On the other hand, power did not influence neutralization when organizational is identification is high B = -.02, t(146)
= -.21, p = .83. More importantly, the significant interaction effect between power and organizational identification suggests that neutralization can have a mediating effect on the relationship between power, organizational identification and UPB.
Table 2
Regression Results
Variable Model 1
UPB Model 2
Model 3 Model 1
Neutralization
Model 2 Model 3
Gender -.21(.14) -.22(.14) -.23(.14)+ -.06(.15)** -.61(.15)** -.63(-.15)**
Age -.01(.00)* -.01(.00)* -.01(.00)* -.01(.00)* -.01(.00)* -.02(.00)*
Power -.13(.07)+ -.12(.07) -.18(.08)* -.16(.08)*
OI .18(.07)* .17(.07)* .21(.08)* .19(.08)*
Power × OI .11(.06)+ .15(.07)*
ΔR² .04* .05* .02* .12 .05* .03*
Note.*p <.05. **p <.01 +p <.10. OI= Organizational Identification.
To test the mediation effect of neutralization an SPSS macro designed by Preacher and Hayes (2004) is used. The regression analysis shows that the relation between power, organizational identification, and UPB is not significant anymore when neutralization is controlled for (B = .03, t(146) = .49, p = .62). Hence, there is a mediating effect of neutralization on the relationship between power, organizational identification and UPB, supporting the second hypothesis, B = .08, 95% CI [.01, .18].
Discussion
In this dissertation an often neglected form of unethical behavior was examined, namely:
unethical behavior intended to benefit the organization, called UPB. To explore this form of unethical behavior this research aimed to show that when power holders identify strongly with their organization, their goal becomes to help the organization in any way possible, including engaging in unethical behaviors. Furthermore, this research set out to examine the mediating effect of neutralization on the relationship between power, organizational identification and UPB.
The results of this research showed that the relationship between power and UPB is moderated by organizational identification. Contrary to expectations, the results show a negative relationship between power and UPB when organizational identification is low. This means that high power is associated with less engagement in UPB, when organizational identification is low.
A possible explanation for the decrease in UPB might be that power holders do not care enough about the organization when organizational identification is low, to engage in UPB. Subsequently, power holders might be more egoistic (Chen et al., 2001) when organizational identification is low, which leads to only wanting to take action in the interest of the self, which is an explanation for the decrease in UPB.
Another explanation might be that power holders with low organizational identification are aware of their function as role model. According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), subordinates imitate their leader’s decision making (Brown et al., 2005). Subsequently, power holders with low organizational identification will not act in the interest of the organization, but in the interest of the self, which includes performing optimal. Optimal performance includes getting good results as well as behavioral performance (Gerhart et al., 2009), which, in turn, includes behaving ethical. Concluding, power holders with low organizational identification might be more focused on their personal goals such as performing optimally and their function as role model, which could be an explanation for a decrease of UPB.
Another important finding was that power holders who identify strongly with their organization maintained the same level of UPB. The unchanged level of engagement in UPB might be explained by the construct moral disengagement. According to Bandura (1999), moral disengagement frees the individual from self-sanctions and guilt that would normally accompany violation of one’s ethical standards. In accordance, power holders who identify strongly with their organization can still internalize their organizations’ goals, but will not engage in UPB when they are morally engaged.
Implications
This research has important theoretical implications. First, this research contributes to the literature on UPB by examining the relationship with power. In recent years, there has been an increasing
amount of literature on UPB. Umphress and colleagues (2010) examined the relationship between UPB, organizational identification and reciprocity beliefs and found that organizational identification, moderated by reciprocity beliefs, leads to UPB. Umphress and Bingham (2011) argued that positive social exchange and organizational identification moderated by amoral culture and moral development leads to neutralization, in turn, to UPB. However, to date, the construct power as a predictor of UPB has never been examined. By analyzing this type of unethical behavior, this dissertation provides insights into why individuals might show UPB, which is of growing interest to both academics and practitioners.
Second, this research contributes to the power literature by examining UPB. Although, a considerable amount of literature has been published on power, these studies have shown negative implications of power such as corruption (DeCelles et al., 2012), hypocrisy (Lammers et al., 2010), dehumanization (Lammers & Stapel, 2010) and aggression (Fast & Chen, 2009). However, other research has shown that power can under certain circumstances decrease engagement in unethical behavior as well (Chen et al., 2001). This research aims to extend the existing power literature by examining unethical behavior exhibited with the intention to benefit others instead of oneself. Moreover, this research found that power under certain circumstances is associated with decreased engagement in UPB. Hence, this research adds to the existing power literature by showing that power can also decrease unethical behavior, if under certain circumstances.
In addition to theoretical implication, this research has important practical implications. First, it is important to identify factors that lead to UPB considering that these kinds of behaviors are considered to be either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community (Jones, 1991). That is, an employee can have good intentions wanting to help the organization, sometimes even if it requires unethical behavior.
However, the good intentions of UPB do not always have the expected results. For instance, an employee may choose to withhold information about the side-effects of a pharmaceutical product. At first this unethical act may help the organization to sell this product, but if the consumer experiences side-effects - which the employee withholds from the consumer - such an unethical act could have catastrophic implications. First, the employee who engaged in UPB might lose his/her job or get a law suit if customers experience severe side-effects of the product. In addition, the organization, which is supposed to benefit from UPB, can lose a lot of money or go bankrupt. Finally, withholding important information about a product is damaging for the customers that buy this product, hence, UPB can have negative consequences for society as a whole.
Considering these negative effects of UPB it is important for organizations to know what factors determine whether individuals engage in such behavior. This research suggests that power holders in certain circumstances engage less in UPB, which can help organizations prevent such behavior.
Organizations value organizational identification and try to enlarge it, because of the positive
consequences that organizational identification can have, such as increased job performance and decreased turnover intentions (Mael & Ashforth, 1995). However, this research suggests that organizations should be aware what a high organizational identification can do with power holders within the organization. Furthermore, organizations might even benefit more from a low organizational identification, since this research showed that a low organizational identification is associated with power holders engaging less in UPB.
Second, the behavior of power holder has a certain influence on the behavior of the subordinates.
According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), subordinates imitate their leader’s decision making (Brown et al., 2005). In accordance, employees who perceive unethical behavior conducted by their superior will be more likely to show such unethical behavior themselves. Moreover, when power holders set the right example by engaging in ethical behavior then their subordinates will most likely do as well, this in turn could have positive implications for the organization. This research showed the consequences of UPB and under which conditions such behavior can be decreased from power holders in an organization.
Strengths and Limitations
Although the dissertation has successfully demonstrated the moderating and mediating effect of respectively organizational identification and neutralization on the relationship between power and UPB, it has certain strengths and limitations. The participants of this research were gathered using the researchers ‘social network and social media, such as LinkedIn and Facebook. The main strength is that, a much broader field of participants can be reached via the internet. This leads to more diverse participants, which in turn leads to a more normal distribution. A normal distribution is assumed to have when executing a moderation or mediation, when this is not the case certain techniques can be applied to make it more normally distributed (Pallant, 2010). Although, gathering participants via social media has is strength, it can also be interpreted as a limitation. Since, the participants are gathered via the researchers ‘social network and social media, the generalizability of the findings should not be taken for granted. This research used a convenience sample, meaning that participants are gathered because of their convenient accessibility and proximity to the researcher. In an ideal situation the entire working population should be taken into account, but since that is not possible a convenience sample is used.
Even though 146 individuals participated, the generalizability of the results should be done with caution.
Furthermore, the constructs neutralization and UPB had a very high correlation. An explanation for this high correlation can be that both constructs measure nearly the same aspects. Although both constructs have completely different definitions, when operationalized they measure in some cases similar aspects. For example, “If it would help my organization, I would misrepresent the truth to make my organization look good” and “It is alright to exaggerate the truth to keep your organization out of
trouble”. Both questions condone unethical behavior with the higher purpose of helping the organization.
This might affect the reliability of the results when the mediating variable and the dependent variable are so much alike. This research set out to examine the mediating effect of neutralization on the relationship between power, organizational identification and UPB. In order to show a mediating effect, a relationship between neutralization and UPB needs to be stated. When both constructs are so much alike, it becomes less clear whether neutralization has a mediating relationship with UPB or the relationship consists solely based on the fact that both variables look alike.
Future Research
The topic of UPB is an intriguing one which could be usefully explored in further research.
Future researchers should be aware of the fact that neutralization and UPB, when operationalized, can measure similar aspects. A possible solution for this limitation is to use a different operationalization of neutralization. Since there is no clear scale for measuring neutralization in organizations, the scale that resembles neutralization the most is moral justification. Other versions of measurement scales of moral justification are made by Moore and colleagues (2012) and Bandura and colleagues (1996), which are less similar than the measurement scale of UPB.
Furthermore, future researchers can examine UPB among employees at an organization.
Subsequently, the relationship between the researcher and participants will be more formal, which will decrease the chance of participants filling in the survey multiple times, with made-up work experiences, to help the researcher. This way the reliability of the data is preserved to some extent. On the other hand, doing research about ethicality at an organization might create a cautious attitude among employees in admitting such behavior. Employees could be afraid to lose their job when admitting they have been behaving unethical and give socially desired answers. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine whether or not an employee behaves unethically in the companies’ interest or the self-interest. To make this clearer, researcher could use qualitative and quantitative methods to determine the intent of the unethical act. To assess UPB researchers could ask a set of questions assessing a number of ethical acts which could help the organization, such as “I have misrepresented information that could be damaging to my organization”. Subsequently, researchers could then ask open-ended questions, to find out the intentions of the unethical act, such as “Why did you engage in that unethical behavior?” This way the intention of the participant becomes clearer.
Finally, a suggestion for future research is to examine the moderating effect of the sense of appreciation on the relationship between power and UPB. It would be interesting to examine whether or not a high sense of appreciation with regard to the organization can lead a power holder to engage in UPB. According to social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976), if one party provides a benefit, the other party is motivated to reciprocate by providing a benefit in return. Reasoning that a power holder who
feels highly appreciated wants to return the favor by delivering good work, hence the possibility of UPB.
Conclusion
To conclude, this research shows that when organizational identification is low, power holders are associated with engaging less in UPB. This is important, because the organizations often associate a high organizational identification with a low turnover and an increased job performance. This research implies that when organizations are aware of the consequences and focus on a less high organizational identification, this could prevent severe damage to their employees, organization and the society as a whole.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I have to thank my research supervisor Sanne Feenstra. Without her assistance and dedicated involvement throughout the complete process, this dissertation would have never been accomplished. I want to thank you for your support and insights, which helped me a lot with writing this dissertation. Furthermore, I would like to thank my colleagues for the interest and empathize they have showed during the writing of this dissertation. Finally, I want to thank my parents, sister and girlfriend for their constant support, patience and for their comforting words when I needed them.
References
Anderson, C., Galinsky, A.D. (2006). Power, optimism and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511-536.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The Personal Sense of Power. Journal of Personality, 80, 313-344.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–52.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara G. V. and Pastorelli, C. (1996), Mechanisms of moral
disengagement in the exercise of moral agency, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374.
Barsky, A.(2011). Investigating the effects of moral disengagement and participation on unethical work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 59-75.
Berdahl, J. L., Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European journal of Social Psychology, 36, 497-509.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001). Collective corruption in the corporate world:
Toward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and Research: Applied Social Research (pp. 471–499). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, M. E., Trevin˜o, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A.Y. & Bargh, J.A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173-187.
Decelles, K.A. , DeRue, D.S., Marjolis, J.D., Ceranic, T.L. (2012). Does Power Corrupt or
Enable? When and Why Power Facilitates Self-Interested Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 681-689.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent
developments and future research directions in leader member exchange theory. In L. Neider & C.
Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65–114). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate: power, incompetence and aggression.
Psychological Science, 20, 1406-1413.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
Fiske, S. T., & Dépret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. European Review of Social Psychology, 7, 31-61.
French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150-167).
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). Power and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., Magee, J. C., & Whitson, J. A. (2008). Power Reduces the Press of the Situation: Implications for Creativity, Conformity, and Dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450-1466.
Gerhart, B., Rynes, S.L., & Fulmer, I.S., (2009). 6 Pay and Performance: Individuals, Groups, and Executives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 251-315.
Gibney, A. (2000). Documentary. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. United States: Magnolia studios.
Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–1003.
Guinote, A. (2004). Group size, outcome dependency, and power: Effects on perceived and actual group variability. In V. Yzerbyt, C. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The Psychology of Group Perception: Contributions to the Study of Homogeneity, Entitativity, and Essentialism (pp. 221-236).
Gurchiek, K. (2006). U.S. workers unlikely to report misconduct. HR Magazine, 51, 38.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue- contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.
Jordan, J., Mullen, E. & Murnighan, J.K. (2011). Striving for the Moral Self: The Effects of
Recalling Past Moral Actions on Future Moral Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1-13.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H, & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
Lammers, J., Stapel, D.A., & Galinsky, A.D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 415- 433.
Lammers, J., Stapel, D.A. (2010). Power increases dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 113-126.
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Mael,. F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309-333.
Magee, J. C., Galinsky, D. and Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200-212.
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Yu, J. and Xu, L. (2012). The relationship between ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior: linear or curvilinear effects? Springer Science, 116, 641-653.
Moore, C., Detert, J.R., Trevino, L.K., Baker, V.L., Mayer, D.M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personell Psychology, 65, 1-48.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual. Open University Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The role of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
Terpstra, D. E., Rozell, E. J., & Robinson, R. K. (1993). The influence of personality and demographic variables on ethical decisions related to insider trading. Journal of Psychology, 127, 375–389.
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2007). Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: The relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 840–847.
Treviño, L. K., G. R. Weaver, S. J. Reynolds. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review.
Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.
Umphress, E.E., Bingham, J.B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22, 621-640.
Umphress, E.E., Bingham, J.B., & Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769-780.
Van Dijke, M., & Poppe, M. (2006). Striving for personal power as a basis for social power dynamics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 537-556.
