Master Thesis
How self-esteem influences the effect of a psychologically safe
environment on the use of post-hoc moral rationalization and the
continuing of immoral behavior.
Supervisor: dr. L.B. Mulder Second assessor: R. Sijbom
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Msc Human Resource Management
Name: Janouska Doornbos Student number: s1653741
ABSTRACT
The aim of this thesis was to test how self-esteem influences the effect of a psychologically safe environment on the use of moral rationalization after the occurrence and continuing of immoral behavior. This study hypothesized that people who work in a psychologically safe environment are less likely to use moral rationalizations when they behaved unethically compared to a psychologically unsafe environment. This effect was expected to be stronger for low self-esteem individuals than for high self-esteem individuals. Moreover, it was hypothesized that people who behaved unethically in a psychologically safe environment are less likely to continue their unethical behavior compared to in a psychologically unsafe environment. This effect was expected to be stronger for low self-esteem individuals than individuals with a high self-esteem. This was tested in a scenario experiment among 116 people, in which the psychologically safe environment was manipulated and self-esteem was measured. Results showed that self-esteem does not influence the effect of a psychologically safe environment on the use of post-hoc moral rationalizations. However, a significant effect was found between a psychologically safe environment and the continuing of immoral behavior, which was moderated by self-esteem, although this moderating effect was different from the expectations set. High self-esteemed individuals had fewer tendencies to continue immoral behavior in a psychologically safe environment compared to in a psychologically unsafe environment. For individuals with a low self-esteem a psychologically safe environment compared to a psychologically unsafe environment did not decrease the continuing of immoral behavior in comparison with a psychologically unsafe environment. Also, a significant effect was found between the use of hoc moral rationalization and the continuing of immoral behavior. People who used post-hoc moral rationalizations were more likely to continue their immoral behavior.
Keywords: Post-hoc moral rationalizations, self-esteem, psychologically safe environment,
INTRODUCTION
A quick scan through different newspapers shows the alarming prevalence of immoral behavior in organizations. Reports of malfeasance of criminal conduct in corporate governance, like accounting malpractices, regulatory evasions, faulty security transactions, advertising misrepresentations, and so on have all become too commonplace (Cialdini, Petiova and
Goldstein, 2004). These immoral practices cost companies great amounts of money and damages their reputations. Companies as Enron, WorldCom, and Parmalat have become infamous for cases of internal corruption and these companies have some noteworthy features in common. Instead of bad people with evil characters behaving immorally, the fraudulent acts involved most of the time employees who were really outstanding community members, more often than not they were generous givers to charity, and caring parents (Anand and Ashfort, 2005). The
involvement of such individuals in committing unethical or fraudulent acts raises questions. The most important one is the following: What determines such people to commit unethical acts and what makes them persist in such behavior? Research suggests that their unethical behavior of people can be explained by so called rationalization tactics, which individuals use when behaving unethically (Bandura, 1999; Tsang, 2002; Hsee, 1995). Rationalization tactics are mental strategies that allow people to view their immoral acts as justified. This research will focus on the use of moral rationalization after the implementation of immoral behavior at the professional context. This current study will test how self-esteem and psychological safety may affect the use of such post-hoc moral rationalization and it will also test how psychologically safety and self-esteem may affect the continuing of the immoral behavior.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Moral rationalizations
violate their moral standards. Examples of these mechanisms are moral justifications (immoral behavior serves a higher social value), displacement of responsibility (telling oneself that this unethical behavior is necessary, because they argue “my boss told me so”), and euphemistic labeling (calling fraud “creative bookkeeping”). In literature, there are many names for similar processes, such as moral rationalization (Tsang, 2002) and elastic justification (Hsee, 1995). In this current research I will address these techniques as moral rationalization
Moral rationalization causes individuals to behave unethically, for the reason that it frees them from the feeling of guilt, which accompanies immoral behavior (Bandura, 1999). Several studies showed the effect of moral rationalization on immoral behavior. Bandura, Caprari, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, and Regalia (2001) studied aggression among children and found that people who were more likely to use moral rationalizations showed a decrease in terms of
helpfulness and cooperativeness, and an increase concerning aggression and delinquency. Moral rationalization is also hypothesized to directly affect moral decision-making and has been found to be significantly and positively related to unethical decision-making (Detert, Trevino and Sweitzer, 2008). The studies of Bandura et all (2001) and Detert, Trevino and Sweitzer (2008) assume that moral rationalization is a mechanism that is used before an individual engages in unethical behavior. However, in this study it is hypothesized that moral rationalization can also be used after an immoral act took place, as a post-hoc mechanism, and thereby coping with previous immoral behavior. Post-hoc moral rationalization is a concept in the moral psychology literature (Haidt, 2011) where it is described as a way of reasoning that justifies a particular way of behavior as morally right. However, post-hoc moral rationalization can be seen as more than just a way of reasoning of justifying previous behavior, since it may also serve as a tool to reduce the feeling of guilt that derives from these behaviors. When people behaved unethical, undoing the previous unethical act is no option, the only thing people can do to free themselves from guilt is to morally rationalize their previous act. Most of us know probably the feeling of having told a lie and afterwards telling ourselves that it did not hurt anyone. And many of us have acted
egoistically, but told ourselves that the other people were not hurt by our actions.
In addition Anand, Asforth and Joshi (2005) found that rationalization tactics also play a considerable role in corporate corruption. Through continuing the unethical behavior in
that moral rationalizations for a previous unethical act not only cover the previous act, but cover a wide range of previous acts, which they call rationalizations.” This
“over-rationalization” may be a cause for escalation of further unethical acts. Despite the reasoning that the use of moral rationalization can be an explanation for continuing unethical acts and can even cause further escalation of unethical behavior, there is still the question of which situations provoke the use of such post-hoc moral rationalizations. Studies in the kind of situations that provoke post-hoc moral rationalization provide vital information and can prevent further escalations of unethical behavior so that any escalation of unethical behavior can be prevented. In this research the effect of working in a psychologically safe environment on using post-hoc moral rationalization and the effects of psychological safety on continuing of immoral behavior will be tested.
Psychologically safe environment
A psychologically safe environment is an environment where people believe that they are able to express themselves without fear or negative consequences to their self-image, status, or career (Kahn, 1990). Edmondson (2004) defines psychological safety in terms of to what extent individuals perceive an interpersonal threat within their group or organizational environment. Psychologically safety encompasses people’s sense of security when they take risks, such as personal self-disclosures, mistake reports, or the proposal of new ideas. Without psychological safety in a group or organization, members of that group or organization may fear that proposing a new idea will lead to being attacked or penalized. Members of a group or organization who are psychological unsafe tend to withhold unique information and points of view and do not seek help, neither bring up concerns, nor admit errors (Edmondson, 2004). Therefore, psychological safety is associated with the degree of participation of the members of a group or organization. Psychological safety ensures open communication, interpersonal risk-taking, and speaking up, which allows people to make mistakes (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006) and psychological safety has been proven that speaking up also facilitate help-seeking (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Different studies linked psychological safety to higher levels of team performance, innovation, learning, and successful adaptation to change (Edmondson, Bahmer and Pisano, 2001: Faraj and Yan, 2009).
rationalizations. When people commit an immoral act, they will most likely feel guilty
afterwards when they realize that their behavior is in conflict with their moral standards. They realize that they cannot undo the previous act and have only two options in this case. They can either rationalize their immoral act or they can speak up and admit that they made a mistake by doing something immoral. I propose that people in a psychological safe environment relieve their guilt feelings for behaving immoral, by speaking up and admit that they did something immoral, instead of using post-hoc moral rationalizations. I also expect that people, who work in an environment where they feel psychologically safe, are not afraid to seek help when they are again attempted to behaving immoral. This way continuing immoral behavior, and eventually escalation, will be prevented.
In contrast, when people work in a psychologically unsafe environment it can be expected that they will be more inclined to rationalize an immoral act. When they commit to immoral behavior they probably do feel guilty afterwards. However, through feeling
psychological unsafe in their environment, they do not speak up about their moral mistakes. Moreover, to relieve themselves from their feelings of guilt, it is plausible that they will
rationalize morally their previous misbehavior. It can be expected that when they have behaved unethically, the chance that they continue this unethical behavior will be higher in a
psychological unsafe environment. People that do not feel psychological safe in a group or organization will be afraid to be penalized and will often not be prepared admit their faults (Edmondson, 2004). When they have behaved unethically, they will not confess this. They also do not seek help when they become tempted again to behave unethically. Also the chance that people continue their immoral behavior is higher in a psychologically unsafe environment than in an psychologically safe environment. All in all, I came up with the following hypotheses: Out of the foregoing the following hypotheses are developed:
Hypothesis 1a: People who work in a psychologically safe environment are less likely to use
moral rationalizations when they behave unethically, compared to people who work in a psychologically unsafe environment.
Hypothesis 1b: People who have behaved unethically once and work in a psychologically safe
Self-esteem
Even though a psychologically safe environment may decrease the use of post-hoc moral
rationalizations, the effects may not be equal for everyone. Research in the past, which measured the tendency of moral rationalizations between individuals, showed that there are also other factors involved in moral rationalizations.(Detert, Trevino and Sweitzer, 2008; Moore et al., 2012). Detert et all (2008) investigated business and education undergraduate students to see when they used moral rationalization. They found that empathy and moral identity were
negatively related to the use of moral rationalization, whereas trait cynicism and internal locus of control were found to be positively related to the use of moral rationalization. Vitell, Keith and Mathur (2011) did conducted an online survey on business practitioners and found that both the internalization and symbolization dimensions of moral identity as well as intrinsic religiosity and the explicit institutionalization of ethics within the organization are significant determiners of the moral rationalization of unethical behavior.
I suggest that there are also differences between individuals in the use of post-hoc moral rationalizations. In this thesis I propose self-esteem to be an important factor that moderates the effect of psychologically safe environment on the use of post-hoc moral rationalizations too. Self-esteem can be defined in several ways, for example as based on one’s feelings of worth. Furthermore, Rosenberg (1965) states that high self-esteem encompasses respect for oneself and considerations of oneself as a worthy person. Baumeister et al. (2003) define self-esteem as the amount of value people place on themselves. James (1983) thought that feelings toward the self and the other depend on who we are and what we do. Moreover, self-esteem is understood as a perceived level of competence (Mruk, 2006) and according to Storr (1997) is self-esteem connected with feeling confident.
LePine and Van Dyne (1998) found that people with low self-esteem lack the necessary self-confidence to speak up and prefer to stay in the background rather than actively find
moral conflict, it is plausible to expect that they free themselves from these feelings through morally rationalizing their previous immoral act. However, when low self-esteemed individuals feel psychologically safe in their environment, I predict that they will be are less likely to use post-hoc moral rationalizations. Low self-esteemed individuals will feel more comfortable in a psychologically safe environment and will be are more open in their communication (Detert and Burris, 2007). Through the psychologically safe environment they will get the confidence to admit that they made a mistake (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). Instead of using post-hoc moral rationalization in this situation, it is plausible to expect that they would confess their immoral act sooner. Through the fact that low self-esteemed individuals get confidence from their
psychological environment, it can be expected that when they behaved unethically, and confess their immoral mistake, they faster seek for help when they become tempted again to behave unethically. I expect therefore that in a psychologically safe environment, the moderate effect of less continuing of immoral behavior will be strong for low self-esteemed individuals.
In contrast, high self-esteemed individuals have high self-confidence and thereby feel that they will survive when they make a mistake, or when they feel disappointed about
themselves/or are disappointed with their behavior. High self-esteemed individuals are less vulnerable of negative perception of their capacities from those around them. High self-esteemed individuals will have sooner the feeling that they can behave the way they want (Cigman, 2002). I expect that when high self-esteemed individuals commit an immoral act, and thereby get an interpersonal moral conflict, they generally will have enough self-confidence to admit this, instead of using post-hoc moral rationalizations. Individuals with a high self-esteem rely on themselves and less on their psychological environment. Through self-confidence, and the feeling that they can behave the way they should, they can resist the temptation of behaving unethically again, independently of the environment they are in. Therefore, I came up with the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: People who work in a psychologically safe environment are less likely to use
Hypothesis 2b: People who once behaved unethically and work in a psychologically safe
environment are less likely to continue their unethical behavior, compared to people who work in a psychologically unsafe environment. This effect is stronger for low self-esteemed individuals than for high self-esteemed individuals.
METHOD
Participants and design
There was a total number of participants of 116 (59 males, 55 females, 2 unknown; Mage= 36.18, SDage=13.16). Most participants were from the working population (92,8%) and a few of the participants were students (7,8%). Participants had a wide variety of jobs (office holders (16,4%), call-center agents (25%), accountants (3,4%), managers (6,9%) etc.) and educational backgrounds (28,4% university education, 37,4% higher vocational education, 22,6% lower vocational education and 11,3% high school). Participants were asked to participate in an online questionnaire and this was distributed via e-mail and Facebook. They were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (psychologically safety vs. no psychologically safety). The
independent variables were psychologically safety (manipulation) and self-esteem (which was measured).
Procedure
been in Amsterdam while they were supposed to be sick. They were asked to type down what they literally would say to this colleague. Participants’ answered were used to measure their usage of post-hoc moral rationalizations. In addition, moral rationalizations were also measured in another way, on the basis of statements. At the end of the questionnaire, a behavioral intention with regards to unjustified sick reporting was measured. Lastly, a manipulation check was executed.
Measures and manipulation Self-esteem
The Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to measure self-esteem (Likert-scale, 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). Some examples of the questions were: “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”, “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least as compared with others” and “I feel that I do not have enough to be proud of” (which was recoded). The Likert scale were averaged to determine the self-esteem score for each participant (α = .81).
Psychologically safe environment
The variable of a psychologically safe environment was manipulated in the following way: in the psychologically safe environment condition participants were asked to imagine that they worked in an organization where they feel safe, where they can be themselves, and can give their opinion without being afraid of negative consequences for themselves, their status, or their career.
Further they were asked to imagine that they feel comfortable interacting with their colleagues and that they feel at home in this company. In the psychologically unsafe environment condition participants were asked to imagine that they worked in an organization where they feel unsafe, where they cannot be themselves and cannot give their opinion without being afraid of negative consequences for themselves, their status or their career. Furthermore they were asked to imagine that they do not feel comfortable interacting with their colleagues and that they feel not at home in this company. The psychologically safe environment was coded as 1 and the
psychologically unsafe environment as -1.
Moral rationalizations
they would say when their colleague asked “Are you feeling well again and how was
Amsterdam?” They were asked to keep in mind that they could not get away with the fact that they had unfairly reported themselves sick. The coding of the open question was done by two coders and the average of this coding was used. The coders first looked if the participants held to the assignment and were telling the truth about the unfairly sick reporting. When participants gave an answer like: “Actually I was not sick, but because I had no more days off I reported myself sick to visit an old friend,” it was reported as a truthful answer. Participants who gave answers like: “I feel better now. Despite I was not feeling well, I went to Amsterdam to visit an old study friend,” were reported as an untruthful answer. The reliability of the coding of
truthfully answers was high (r = 0.95, p<0.01). From the 116 participants, only 44 held to the assignment and told the truth (37,9%). For this study it is important to look only at the
participants who held to the assignment, because of the fact that I wanted to test if people use moral rationalization or confess about their immoral behavior. Participants that lied continued in their immoral behavior and therefore I cannot test if they used post-hoc moral rationalizations or not. In the next step, the two coders only looked at the answers of people who told the truth when they used post-hoc moral rationalizations. When participants used post-hoc moral rationalization in their answer, for example: “Actually I was not sick. I needed some time for myself to relax. I just recover from a bad period. An old friend from my study came for a visit to Amsterdam and that happens rarely. I did not have any leave days so the only option I had was to report myself sick,” the answer was coded as 2. When participants used no moral rationalization and gave for example an answer as the following: “Actually I was not sick, I reported myself sick to visit an old study friend,” was coded as 0. When there was a doubt, like answers such as the following: “I am better now, I was in Amsterdam to eliminate some stress with an old friend of mine, sometimes it is the best way to recover,” the moral rationalization was coded as 1. The reliability of the coding of moral rationalizations was high (r= 0.89, p<0.01). From the 44 participants who held to the assignment, 11 participants used post-hoc moral rationalizations and their answers were coded as 2 (25%). For 7 participants there was a doubt and their answer were coded as 1 (15.9%).
Bandura (1999). Examples of statements of the eleven item moral rationalization scale are: “an occasional white lie could not do any harm,” “everyone calls in sick sometime in order to get a day off,” “I do no one harm by reporting myself sick day today,” and “the organization is not worth working hard for” (Likert scale, 1=strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree). The eleven items were averaged to determine the moral rationalization for each participant (α = .82).
Intention with regard to unjustified sick reporting
Intention with regard to unjustified sick reporting was measured by asking the participant the following question: “Imagine that after this event, you do not feel that well. You have a cold and a little headache, but you do not have a fever. Physically you would be able to work, but you are not really in for that. Would you register yourself sick in this case?” (Likert scale, 1= absolutely not and 7= absolutely).
Manipulation check
In order to check the effectiveness of the manipulation of the psychological environment, six items were presented. Examples of these items were: “in the situation described I felt at home in the organization” and “in the situation described, I can be myself.” The items were rated on a 7-point scale (1= totally disagree to 7= totally agree). The six items were averaged to determine the manipulation check for each participant (α = .89).
RESULTS
Manipulation check
Through the independent sample t-test is shown that the manipulation of the two psychological environment conditions (psychologically safe vs unsafe) was successful. Participants
experienced more psychological safety in the psychologically safe environment condition (M = 4.7, SE = .19) than participants in the psychologically unsafe environment condition experienced unsafe psychological safety (M=2.9, SE=.15). This difference was significant t(104) = 7.84, p >.0001.
Descriptive statistics and variable correlations
participants (N=116). From table 1 can be indicated that the post-hoc moral rationalizations (statements) significantly correlate positively with the intentions to unjustified sick reporting.
Regression results
Psychological environment, self-esteem and post-hoc moral rationalization
It was hypothesized that people who work in a psychologically safe environment are less likely to use post-hoc moral rationalizations than people who work in a psychologically unsafe
environment. This effect is stronger for low self-esteemed individuals than for people with high self-esteem. To conduct regression analysis, self-esteem was standardized and a cross-product with psychological safe environment x self-esteem was calculated for the interaction term. The hypothesis was tested using the post-hoc moral rationalization coded open question. This was only based on the participants (n=44) who held to the scenario and told the truth about their unjustified sick reporting. This was done in two regression steps and the results are shown in table 2. First, post-hoc moral rationalization coded open question was regressed on the
psychologically environment and self-esteem. This model was not significant F(2, 42) = 1.26, p = .55, R2 = .03). Secondly, the two-way interaction between self-esteem and psychological environment was included. This did not change the model significantly (B = -.02, p = .75). The hypothesis was also tested on the post-hoc moral rationalization statements (standardized), which is based on the answers of all participants (n=116). The hypothesis was tested in two regression steps and the results are shown in table 3. First post-hoc moral
rationalization statements (standardized) were regressed on the psychological environment and self-esteem. This model was not significant F(2, 114) = 1.10, p = .30, R2 = .03). Next, the two-way interaction between psychological environment and self-esteem was included. This did not change the model significantly (B = -.02, p = .75).
Psychological environment, self-esteem and intentions with regard to unjustified sick reporting
of this analysis are shown in table 4. First, the intention with regard to unjustified sick reporting was regressed on the psychological environment and self-esteem. This model was significant
F(3, 112) = 2.50, p <.05, R2 = .04) and showed a main effect for psychological environment (B = -.23, p < .05). Second, the two-way interaction between psychological environment and self-esteem was included. This changed the model significantly ∆F(2, 113) = 4.06, p < .01, R2 = .10, ∆R2
= .07, and the psychological environment x self-esteem was significant (B = -.29, p < .01). The interaction is plotted in figure 1 and showed that psychological safety indeed decrease the intentions regarding unjustified sick reporting among high self-esteemed individuals, but did not decrease the intentions regarding unjustified sick reporting among low self-esteemed individuals.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to test how self-esteem influences the effect of a psychologically safe environment on the use of moral rationalizations after engaging in an immoral act. Moreover, the influence of self-esteem and psychologically safety on the intentions of continuing immoral behavior was tested. It was expected that people who work in a psychologically safe
environment, an environment in which people have the belief that they are able to express themselves without fear or negative consequences to their self-image, status, or career (Kahn, 1990), are less likely of using moral rationalization when they behaved unethically. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that this effect would be higher for low self-esteemed individuals than for high self-esteemed individuals. It was reasoned that that low self-esteemed individuals find it harder to commit their failure when they have acted immorally, partly due to their low self-confidence. However, low self-esteemed individuals gain confidence from their psychological environment, in case this is a psychological safe environment. In contrast, high self-esteemed individuals have enough self-confidence and when they act immorally, the chance that they commit their failure does not depend on their psychological environment. Also, it was argued that the chance that the intentions of low self-esteemed individuals about continuing their immoral behavior are lower in a psychologically safe environment compared to a
psychologically unsafe environment. This effect would not count for high self-esteemed individuals.
proposed hypothesis that it has effect on the use of moral rationalization after an immoral act. This suggests that the use of post-hoc moral rationalizations is not influenced by working in a psychologically safe environment. Moreover, self-esteem did not moderate the effect of a psychologically safe environment on the use of post-hoc moral rationalizations. This indicates that the effect of a psychologically safe environment on the use of post-hoc moral
rationalizations is not affected by having either a high or low self-esteem.
Neither finding an effect of working in a psychologically safe environment, nor a moderating effect of self-esteem on the use of post-hoc moral rationalization may be due to a number of limitations in the method used for this research. The first limitation is the fact that a fictitious situation in a questionnaire was used. The participants were not in a real
psychologically environment where they felt safe or unsafe. Instead they had to identify with a fictious situation from a distance. It is possible that they were not always able to do so. In order to make a precise assumption about the manipulation of the psychological environment, self-esteem and its effect on the use of post-hoc moral rationalizations, future research should focus on how to conduct a valid manipulation, for instance by subjecting the participants to a more realistic situation. The second limitation is that it was an online questionnaire and it is questionable if participants were fully concentrated on their task when they filled in the questionnaire. Perhaps they participated between their work proceedings and were not totally focused on the questionnaire. Another limitation is the question if the right scenario was used in this study. A scenario was needed in which people would either confess their previous immoral behavior or would fled into moral rationalization. Though, in the scenario used, almost two-thirds of the participants did neither confess their immoral act nor made use of/deployed moral rationalization, they did persist in their immoral behavior. Therefore, it was difficult to inquire what effects a psychologically safe environment and self-esteem had on post-hoc moral rationalizations. Still, in order to test the manipulation of psychologically safe and
Further, moral rationalization consists of several underlying mechanisms and it is expected that the degree of moral rationalization depends on specific situations (Bandura, 1999 and Moore et all., 2012), in such a way that some mechanisms of moral rationalizations will be triggered in some situations more than in others. For example the mechanism of euphemistic labeling, “calling the unjustified sick reporting just absence”, which was also used in the online questionnaire to test the degree of using post-hoc moral rationalizations in the case of the
unjustified sick reporting. Perhaps the mechanism “euphemistic labeling” will be more attractive to people in the case of unjustified sick reporting, but would may less attractive when an
immoral act consists of stealing things. Future research could focus at which underlying
mechanisms of post-hoc moral rationalizations would be used more in different types of immoral acts.
Though, the psychological environment manipulation showed to have a negative effect on the intentions of continuing immoral behavior. It showed that individuals with a high self-esteem have fewer intentions to continue their immoral behavior in the psychologically safe condition, compared to the psychologically unsafe condition. In contrast, for low self-esteemed individuals, it showed that their intentions are equally for continuing their immoral behavior in both the psychologically safe condition as the psychologically unsafe condition. This study showed that the environment has indeed effects on the intentions for continuing immoral
behavior for high self-esteemed individuals, but not for individuals with a low self-esteem. Early studies showed that low self-esteemed individuals are more inclined to immoral behavior,
compared to individuals with high self-esteem (Aronson and Mette, 1968; Graf, 1971). However, these studies only looked at self-esteem and the chance of behaving immorally, and did not take the effects of the environment in consideration. Thereby this current study contributes to the discussion of effects that influences the continuing of immoral behavior.
A positive correlation was found between post-hoc moral rationalization and the
an immoral act thereby encouraging the continuing of immoral behavior. Early research that is done on the effect of moral rationalization and continuing immoral behavior consists mostly of theoretical papers (Anand et all, 2005; Ashford & Anand, 2003 and Zyglidopoulos & Fleming, 2009). The fact that this study is based on empirical research and showed that there is a
significant relation on using post-hoc moral rationalization and the intentions of continuing immoral behavior contributes to the ethical research on immoral behavior, especially on the topic of escalation of immoral behavior.
Thus, a few practical implications can be drawn from my study. The first could be that organizations should be more aware of creating a psychologically safe environment for their employees. Organizations can do this by creating an environment in which employees are encouraged to speak up, ask questions, and give positive feedback to one another where employees allowing to feel safe asking questions and by providing positive feedback. An
important reason to foster a psychologically safe environment in an organization is that high self-esteemed individuals have fewer intentions of engaging and continuing their immoral behavior when they feel psychologically safe in their environment, compared to feeling psychologically unsafe. Besides, this makes sure that high self-esteemed individuals are less likely to engage in and to continue immoral behavior. Another practical implication can be that organization should take self-esteem seriously into account when hiring new employees. If possible, recruitment departments of organizations should, moreover, investigate whether applicants are vulnerable for using post-hoc moral rationalizations, or not. For post-hoc moral rationalization showed to have a positive correlation with the intentions of continuing their immoral behavior
Conclusion
The psychologically safe environment manipulation showed to have no effect on the use of moral rationalization after an immoral act. Self-esteem did not moderate the effect of a
psychologically safe environment on the use of post-hoc moral rationalizations. This may be due to a number of limitations; first, a fictious scenario was used and it is questionable if participants emphasized, next it was an online scenario and perhaps participants were not fully concentrated, and lastly the fact that almost two-thirds did not confess or morally rationalize their immoral act, and therefore difficult to inquire what effects a psychologically safe environment and self-esteem had on post-hoc moral rationalizations.
on the intentions of continuing immoral behavior. The study showed that in a psychologically safe environment high self-esteemed individuals have less intention to continuing their immoral behavior, compared to low self-esteemed individuals. However, this only counts for a
psychologically safe environment, and not a psychologically unsafe environment. This result showed that a safe environment has a considerable effect on high self-esteemed individuals on the intentions of continuing immoral behavior and thereby contributes to discussion of how to prevent a prevalence of continuing immoral behavior.
A positive correlation was found between post-hoc moral rationalization and the
REFERENCES
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., and Joshi, M. (2005). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuate corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 9-23.
Arronson, E., and Mettee, D.R. (1968). Dishonest behavior as a function of differential levels of induced self-esteem. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9, 121-127.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli.C., Vittorio Caprara.G., and Pastorelli.C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercises of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 364-374.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and
social psychology review. 3, 193-209.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001).
Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 125–135.
Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I., and Vohs, K.D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?
American Psychological Society, 4, 1-44.
Cialdine, R.B., Petiova, P.K., and Goldstein, N.J. (2004). The hidden costs of organizational dishonesty. MIT. Sloan Management Review, 45, 67-75.
Cigman, R. (2001). Self-esteem and the confidence to fail. Journal of philosophy of education,
35, 561-576
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., and Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374-391.
Edmondson, A.C., Bohmer, R., and Pisano, G. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology adaption. Administrative science quarterly. 46, 685-716.
Edmondson, A.C. (2004). Psychologically safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In R.M. Kramer, & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations:
Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Faraj, S. and Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge groups. Journal of applied
psychology. 94, 604-617.
Gibson, C.B, and Gibbs, J. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure and natural diversity on team innovation. Administrative science quarterly. 51, 451-495.
Graf, R. G. (1971). Induced self-esteem as a determinant of behavior. Journal of Social
psychology, 85. 2 13-2 17.
Haidt, J. 2011 The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion.
Penguin books.
Haney, C., Banks W. C., and Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology & Penology, 1, 69-97.
Hsee, C. K. (1995). Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influence decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(3), 330-337.
James, W. (1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kunda, Z. 1990. The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 3, 480-498.
LePine, J. A., and Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of
Moore, C., Detert, T., Klebe Trevino, L., Baker, L., & Mayer, D.M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1- 48.
Mruk, C. (2006). Defining self-esteem: An often overlooked issue with crucial implication. M.H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current
perspectives. (pp. 10-15). New York: Psychology Press.
Nembhard, I.M. & Edmondson, A.C. (2006). Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational behaviour, 27 (7), 1099-1379.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Storr, A. (1997). Solitude. London, HarperCollins.
Tsang, J. A. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6, 25-50.
Vitell, S., Keith, M., and Mathur, M. (2011). Antecedents to the Justification of Norm Violating Behavior Among Business Practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 163-173.
Zyglidopoulos., S.C., Fleming,. P.J., and Rothenberg, S. (2009) Rationalization, overcompensation and the escalation of corruption in organization. Journal of Business
APPENDICES
Appendix I Tables and figure
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations among all variables
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Post-hoc moral rationalization
(open) (n=44)
.66 .86
2. Post-hoc moral rationalizations
(statements)
2.57 .90
3. Psychological environment -.08 1.00 -.17 -.10
4. Self-esteem 5.39 .88 .01 -.12 -.09
5. Intentions unjustified sick
reporting
2.33 1.2 .13 .31** -.18 .18
**
p<.01
Table 2: Results of Hierarchical Regression on moral rationalization (open question) as a function of psychological environment and self-esteem. N=44 (Participants who held to the scenario question) Variables Step 1 Step 2 B B SE Psychological environment -.15 -.15 .13 Self-esteem -.00 -.00 .13
Psychological environment × Self esteem -.02 .12
R2 .03 .03
Δ R2
Table 3: Results of Hierarchical Regression on moral rationalization (statements) as a function of psychological environment and self-esteem
Variables
Step 1 Step 2
B B SE
Psychological environment -.10 -.10 .08
Self-esteem -.13 -.13 .10
Psychological environment × Self esteem -.02 .09
R2 .03 .03
Δ R2
.00
Table 4: Results of Hierarchical Regression on intention regard unjustified sick reporting as a function of psychological environment and self-esteem
Variables Step 1 Step 2
B B SE
Psychological environment -.23* -.23* .11
Self-esteem -.14 -.14 .12
Psychological environment × Self esteem -.29** .11
R2 .04 .10
Δ R2
.07 * p < .05
Figure 1: Intention with regard to unjustified sick reporting as a function of psychologically safe environment and self-esteem
Appendix II Scenario and items questionnaire Scenario
Psychologically safe environment condition
Je bent een hard werkende medewerker van een goedlopende onderneming in Groningen. Bij deze onderneming voel je je veilig. Je kunt jezelf zijn en je kunt doorgaans je prima uitspreken over je mening zonder dat je bang bent voor negatieve gevolgen voor jezelf, je status of je carrière. Bij je collega’s voel je je op je gemak en je voelt je op je plek bij deze onderneming.
Psychologically unsafe environment condition
Je bent een hard werkende medewerker van een goedlopende onderneming in Groningen. Bij deze onderneming voel je, je niet veilig. Je kunt niet jezelf zijn en je kunt doorgaans je niet uitspreken over je mening zonder dat je bang bent voor negatieve gevolgen voor jezelf, je status
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low Psychological safe environment
of je carrière. Bij je collega’s voel je, je niet op je gemak en je voelt je niet op je plek bij deze onderneming.
Afgelopen week ben je twee dagen in Amsterdam geweest om een oude vriend te bezoeken. Deze oude vriend ken je van je studie in het buitenland en zie je zelden. Je had helaas al je verlofuren opgemaakt (want je krijgt maar het minimale wettelijke vereiste qua verlof), en je hebt je daarom ziek gemeld. Maar je was dus eigenlijk niet echt ziek. Vandaag ben je weer aan het werk gegaan. Bij de koffiepauze komt een collega een praatje met je maken. Deze collega was gisteren ook in Amsterdam vanwege een zakenbezoek en heeft je daar gezien. Ze vraagt aan jou of je alweer beter bent en hoe het was in Amsterdam. Vraag: Welk antwoord zou je in deze situatie aan je collega geven op de vraag of je alweer beter bent en hoe het was in Amsterdam? Bedenk wat je in een gesprek met deze collega zou zeggen. Ga hierbij vanuit dat je er niet meer onderuit kunt om toe te geven dat je eigenlijk niet ziek was. Omdat we in dit onderzoek geïnteresseerd zijn in communicatiepatronen en woordgebruik van mensen, gaat het erom dat je echt opschrijft wat je LETTERLIJK zou zeggen. Schrijf hieronder dus zo compleet en volledig mogelijk op wat je allemaal letterlijk zou zeggen in het gesprek met je collega.
Items questionnaire Self-esteem
In hoeverre ben je het eens met de volgende stellingen:
1. Op sommige momenten, denk ik dat ik niet goed genoeg ben 2. Ik voel dat ik veel goede kwaliteiten bezit
3. Ik ben in staat dingen net zo goed te doen, als de meeste mensen 4. Ik voel dat ik niet genoeg heb, om trots over te zijn
5. Op sommige momenten voel ik me nutteloos
6. Ik voel dat ik een persoon van waarde ben, minstens evenveel in vergelijking met anderen
7. Ik wou dat ik meer respect voor mezelf had
Moral rationalizations
1. Ziek melden en mijn oude studievriend bezoeken mag best omdat ik zo sociale contacten kan onderhouden
2. Ik heb recht om een vrije dag op te nemen om genoeg “quality time” te hebben met vrienden
3. Wat ik de dag ervoor gedaan heb is geen “verzuimden” maar gewoon afwezigheid 4. Af en toe een leugentje om bestwil kan geen kwaad
5. Ziek melden terwijl je niet ziek bent, stelt niks voor als je bedenkt dat andere mensen nog ergere dingen doen, zoals grootschalige organisatiefraude
6. Aangezien het bedrijf waarover het gaat het minimale aan verlofuren geeft, is het niet erg dat ik me af en toe ziek meld om een dagje vrij te zijn
7. Iedereen meldt zich wel eens een dagje ziek om vrij te zijn
8. Het bedrijf verdient genoeg geld, dus die twee dagen dat ik afwezig ben is niet schadelijk voor het bedrijf
9. Ik doe niemand iets kwaad door me een dag ziek te melden 10. Het zijn allemaal slavendrijvers in het bedrijf
11. De organisatie is het niet waard om hard voor te werken
Intention continuing unjustified sick reporting
In hoeverre zou je je in het volgende geval ziek melden:
Stel dat je, een tijdje na deze gebeurtenis, je je niet zo lekker voelt. Je bent snipverkouden en hebt een beetje hoofdpijn en een hoofd vol watten. Maar je hebt geen koorts. Fysiek gezien zou je wel kunnen werken, maar je voelt er weinig voor. Zou je je in dit geval ziek melden?
Manipulation check
In hoeverre ben je het eens met de volgende stellingen:
In de geschetste situatie…
1. voelde ik me op mijn gemak bij de organisatie waarin ik werkte 2. voelde ik me niet op mijn gemak bij mijn collega’s
3. kan ik mezelf zijn
5. voel ik me veilig
