UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN A CHANGING
WORLD:
THE MODERATING ROLE OF PERSON-FOCUSED INTERPERSONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR ON THE INFLUENCE OF DIVERSITY ON
UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
JOHN MIKE JAGER
Master thesis Human Resource Management
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisors: dr. J. Jordan & drs. J. van Polen
Student number: 1903152
Email: j.m.jager.1@student.rug.nl
2 Abstract
This research investigated the influence of diversity on unethical behavior on a group level. I proposed that diversity in groups leads to more unethical behavior of that group. Person-focused ICB was used as a moderator. The prediction was that person-Person-focused ICB weakens the positive relationship between diversity and unethical behavior. Results of an experimental study amongst 119 groups consisting of three people showed that diversity in groups does not lead to more unethical behavior. Person-focused ICB did not weaken or moderate the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior.
Work groups have become more and more diverse in terms of demographic differences, educational backgrounds and personality traits over the years, and they will become even more diverse in the future (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). As a result diversity has drawn increasing interest from researchers (Apfelbaum, Philips, & Richeson, 2014). Most of the existing research has focused on the relationship between diversity and organizational performance (Kochan et al., 2003; Apfelbaum et al., 2014). However, a significant possible side effect of diversity has been under-exposed for years in research: unethical behavior. There has been considerable attention to ethics in practice, due to recent examples of unethical behavior in organizations such as Enron, Worldcom and Tyco (Baker, Hunt, & Andrews, 2006; Zuber & Kaptein, 2013). These major business scandals have raised the public’s concern regarding unethical business conduct. These scandals have also drawn an increasing interest from researchers seeking to understand the antecedents of unethical behavior (Brass, Butterfield & Skaggs, 1998; Hogler, Henle & Gross, 2013). In these scandals, the unethical choices were made by groups of decision makers, but there has been little research examining the unethical behavior of groups as a whole (Pearsall & Ellis, 2010). Besides that, there is a lack of knowledge about the extent to which diversity in groups can influence unethical behavior of groups. The predicted relationship between diversity and unethical behavior in this research is that diversity has a positive influence on unethical behavior.
3 rate of desertion (Costa & Kahn; Putnam, 2007). Desertion is a useful example of how someone can act unethically.
Next to that, this research focuses on the influence of Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior (ICB) on the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior. On the one hand, people who show a high level of ICB feel more attracted to others that are more different to themselves than people who have a low level of ICB (Mammen et al., 2012). This gives the expectation that differences in ICB could moderate the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior. The form of ICB in organizations that will be used in this research is called person-focused ICB, which focuses on self-esteem maintenance, having personal relations with colleagues, and dealing with personal problems of others (Dudley & Cortina, 2008; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002).
By using person-focused ICB as a moderator, the relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior will be researched more thoroughly. Therefore, the central research question of this study is: What is the influence of person-focused ICB on the
relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior? This research will generate
more knowledge about the effect of diversity on unethical behavior, and specifically about the extent to which person-focused ICB moderates this relationship. More empirical attention to diversity will provide further insight into if and how organizations should include diversity in their policy concerning ethical behavior.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
The concepts of diversity and unethical behavior
In order to examine the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior, it is necessary to first define the concept of diversity. A definition that is often used comes from Jackon, La Fasto, Schultz, and Kelley (1992), who conceptualized diversity as differences between individuals in any attribute that could lead to the perception that there are differences between them. This research will also use this definition, because it covers a lot of different forms of diversity.
4 is no universally-accepted definition of ethical or unethical behavior (Turnipseed, 2002). Some behaviors that are seen as ethical in one society could be seen as unethical behavior in another (Hogler, Henle & Gross, 2013). The definition used in this research takes the differences between societies in consideration. Unethical behavior is conceptualized here as behavior that has a harmful effect upon others and is morally unacceptable to wider society (Brass et al., 1998; Cheng, Hsieh & Yang, 2014; Jones, 1991).
The effect of diversity in groups on unethical behavior
An example that could show that there is a relationship between diversity and unethical behavior is from Putnam (2007). He describes that the crime rates are much higher in more heterogeneous neighbourhoods in the United States than in more homogeneous neighbourhoods. Another example is that people seem to cheat more within experimental game settings where participants are more diverse from each other (Habyarimana, Posner, & Weinstein, 2007). These examples show a positive relationship between diversity and unethical behavior, and below I will give theoretical support for this relationship.
For a long time it has been known that how people behave towards others who are similar to them selves is not reciprocally related tohow they behave towards others who are different (Allport, 1954). Those people who are seen as similar are called in-groups, and people who are seen as different are called out-groups (Allport, 1954; Brewer, 1999). People seem to not only behave more kindly and give more social support towards in-groups than towards out-groups, but also feel more connected to people who are similar to them (Apfelbaum et al., 2014; Brewer, 1979). Next to that, people also seem to have a preference to people who are alike (age, gender, ethical background, personality traits) rather than to people who have many different characteristics (Apfelbaum et al., 2014; Correll & Park, 2005). Overall, people have preferences for people who are similar to them, but this does not explain why people in heterogeneous groups will act more unethically than people in homogeneous groups.
5 acting unethically is higher in networks where people in a group are more strongly interconnected with each other (Brass et al., 1998). Next to that, the surveillance of behavior, social support and cohesion is also stronger in networks with stronger interpersonal connections (Brewer, 1999). This means that there are more possibilities to act unethically in networks with weaker connections. As described above the connections are stronger and social support higher in more homogeneous groups. This shows that a more homogeneous network could result in less unethical behavior.
Another concept that could explain the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior is group norms. Homogeneous groups are more likely to develop cooperative norms inside their group (Chatman & Flynn, 2001). This could be caused by the fact that people have more trust in people who are similar to them (Apfelbaum et al., 2014; Habyarimana et al., 2007). If people trust each other within a group, they are more confident that everybody will behave in accordance with the group norms. There is also more coordination in homogeneous groups in comparison to heterogeneous groups, which makes it easier to develop and contain group norms (De Dreu & wingart, 2003). Research shows that groups act more unethically when group norms are weaker (Habyarimana et al., 2007; Eckel & Grossman, 2001). People are less afraid to get sanctioned when they are part of a group with weak norms, so it is more tempting to act unethically in a group where the norms are weaker. In summary, diverse groups have weaker group norms, and weaker group norms lead to more unethical behavior.
6 groups have more conflicts because of a lack of trust, they are less able to deal with those conflicts, and as a result act more unethically. Hereby, the conflict theory supports the proposition of this research that diverse groups show more unethical behavior.
Altogether, theoretically supported by the arguments described above, this research proposes that groups that are more diverse will show more unethical behavior than homogeneous groups. Therefore, the first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior.
Moderating effect of person-focused ICB
In order to understand person-focused ICB, it is first necessary to describe ICB (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). ICB means that a person assists another person beyond job requirements in such a way that results, either directly or indirectly, in enhanced individual job performance and ultimately contributes to the function of the group and the organization (Bowler & Brass, 2006). ICB is focused on the interpersonal communication between workers inside one organization and especially on cooperative assistance for individuals who are in need in that organization (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). This research uses a form of ICB that is named person-focused ICB, which is helping a person in a formal setting with problems of a more personal nature where emotional support is involved (Dudley & Cortina, 2008). Person-focused ICB influences group behaviors. Examples of person-focused ICB are being accessible, counselling, and listening (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Now the definition of person-focused ICB is described, the possible influence of person-focused ICB on the relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior will be explained.
7 highly on ICB show more empathic concern toward others (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). They show more emotional compassion toward others, and a greater willingness to help others. Through this emotional compassion, high scorers on person-focused ICB feel more uncomfortable when they see others in need than low-scorers on person-focused ICB (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). To get rid of this uncomfortable feeling, people with a strong empathic concern are more willing to help others (Batson, 1991). Altogether, people who score high on person-focused ICB are less troubled by diversity, because they are better at taking perspectives of others and show more empathy. However, that they care less about diversity does not automatically indicate that they also act more ethically. I will now explain why it is predicted that people score high on person-focused ICB do not only care less about diversity, but also show less unethical behavior.
As first, people who score high on person-focused ICB give more social support to group members than people who score low on person-focused ICB, because having an interpersonal relationship with other group members is important and giving social support is part of having an interpersonal relationship (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). I stated previously that one of the reasons that heterogeneous groups act more unethically than homogeneous groups, because the group members give each other less social support (Brewer, 1999; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). When people in a heterogeneous group score high on person-focused ICB, this research predicts that it will strengthen the social support in that group in comparison with a group in which people score low on person-focused ICB. Therefore, person-focused ICB could weaken the influence of diversity on unethical behavior.
8 behavior have more trust in other people of the group and that increases the group norms and leads to fewer conflicts (Bazerman & Banaji, 2004; De Dreu & wingart, 2003; Newton & Dehley, 2005; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Person-focused ICB is a great example of helping behavior (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). So I state that groups that score highly on person-focused ICB have stronger group norms and fewer conflicts. As showed above two reasons for the assumption that heterogeneous groups behave more unethically are that they have weaker group norms and more conflicts than homogeneous groups, and groups with a high level of person-focused ICB could weaken this difference between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Namely, homogeneous groups already have fewer conflicts and stronger group norms than heterogeneous groups (Bazerman & Banaji, 2004; De Dreu & wingart, 2003). So if a heterogeneous group scores high on person-focused ICB the influence of the stronger group norms and less conflicts will have a stronger effect on this group than if the high scoring person-focused ICB group is also homogeneous.
Overall, this leads to the expectation that groups that score highly on person-focused ICB weaken the predicted positive relationship between heterogeneous groups and unethical behaviour. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:
Hypothesis 2: Person-focused ICB weakens the positive relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
9
METHOD
Sample
The participants consisted of 119 3-person groups. These groups were comprised of students of the University of Groningen. They were doing their Bachelor in Business Administration, a pre-master in Business Administration, or were following another education program.
Procedure
In order to test the aforementioned hypotheses I used an experimental study. The participants completed a pre-test questionnaire through the Internet before the experiment. After this pre-test I used a main test to do the experiment. Within this study the independent variable of diversity was manipulated. After the pre-test and before the main test half of the participants received the message that they were part of a homogeneous group based on personality characteristics. The other half of the participants received the message that they were part of a heterogeneous group based on personality traits. In fact, these groups were randomly comprised and not based on personality traits. Thus, the stated manipulation was in fact bogus. In the research of Zhang, Kong, Zhong, & Kou (2014) a quite similar bogus manipulation was used for personality traits, but they used it on an individual level whereas this research used it on a group level.
10 All 8 points covered: .25 points added to their final exam grade
6-7 points covered: .20 points added to their final exam grade 4-5 points covered: .15 points added to their final exam grade
Less than 4 points covered: no points added to their final exam grade
After the experiment all group members have to sign a form to agree with the group self-grade, in order to show that it was a group decision. In the end all groups got .25 points added to their final exam grade, so that there was no actual premium for showing unethical behavior.
Measures
The dependent variable, unethical behavior, was measured by testing if the groups have covered the decoy item during the experiment, which is described above. If they had covered the decoy item to add extra bonus to their final exam grade, it means that they showed unethical behavior. This made it possible to dichotomously measure if groups are showing unethical behavior or not, by measuring if the group give themselves credit for addressing the decoy item (Pearsall & Ellis, 2010).
Person-focused ICB was measured by making use of 8 items prepared by Settoon & Mossholder (2002). The participants rated the items on a 5-points Likert scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A specific item is for instance: ‘I listen to
group members when they have to get something off their chest.’ Person-focused ICB was
measured in the pre-test of the experiment, and was measured on an individual scale. Afterwards the scores were aggregated on the group-level.
Data analysis
11
RESULTS
The ICC1, ICC2 and the Rwg scores of the moderator variable person-focused ICB were measured with the statistical program R. ICC1 measures the within group agreement, or the amount of variance of the individual-level responses that could be explained by the properties on a group level. The ICC1 score is acceptable by >= .08. The ICC1 score of person-focused ICB was .02 and thereby not acceptable. ICC2 measures the differentiation between groups, and thereby estimates the reliability of group means. The ICC2 score is acceptable by >= .70. The ICC2 score of person-focused ICB was .03 and thereby not acceptable. The Rwg score measures the chance that group members would score the same on variables. The Rwg mean score is acceptable when the score is >= .70. The Rwg mean score of person-focused ICB is .94 and therefore acceptable.
After measuring the ICC’s and the Rwg scores, SPSS is used to measure the reliability of the person-focused ICB scale. The eight items that measures person-focused ICB had a reliability of α = 0.80. This means that the items used to measure person-focused ICB are reliable.
The scores of the variables person-focused ICB and gender were first measured on an individual scale. However, this research is interested in relationships on a group level. Therefore, the scores or the variable person-focused ICB and gender were aggregated so that these variables can also be used on a group level. By aggregating the variables the new scores were the mean group scores.
12
Table 1 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4
1 Unethical behavior 0.29 0.46
2 Diversity* 1.50 0.50 .13
3 Person-focused ICB 5.20 0.42 .14 -.08
4 Gender** 1.62 0.29 -.05 .10 -.12
The scores are all aggregated at a group level. N = 119 groups consisting of three persons. *Heterogeneous = 1 / Homogeneous = 2. **Male = 1 / Female = 2.
The two hypotheses are tested with a logistical regression in SPSS, because the dependable variable was a dichotomous variable (0 = not cheating/1 = cheating). The first hypothesis stated that there is a positive relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior. Table 2 shows that the data does not support the first hypothesis. Diverse groups do show more unethical behavior, but nor is there a significant correlation between diversity in groups and unethical behavior (β = -7.65; Wald1 = 1.62; p = .20). The data does not support the first hypothesis and the first hypothesis is thereby rejected.
The second hypothesis states that person-focused ICB weakens the positive relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior. As described above there is no significant positive relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior, but it is still possible that person-focused ICB as a moderator has influence on this relationship. However, Table 2 shows that the interaction effect does not have a weakening effect on unethical behavior. The logistic regression shows that the interaction effect has no significant effect on unethical behavior (β = 1.31; Wald = 1.35; p = .23). This means that the second hypothesis was not supported by the data, and thereby is the second hypothesis rejected.
The conclusion and discussion part will try to seek to find possible explanations as to why both of the hypotheses weren’t supported by the data.
Table 2 Unethical Behavior
Variables B S.E. Wald Exp(B)
Gender* -.50 .75 .44 .61
Diversity** -7.65 6.01 1.62 .00
Person Focused ICB Diversity x Person focused ICB Nagelkerke R² .34 1.31 0.08 .67 1.13 .25 1.35 1.40 3.72
The scores are all aggregated at a group level. N = 119 groups consisting out of three persons. *Male = 1 / Female = 2. **Heterogeneous =1 / Homogeneous =2.
1
13
DISCUSSION
Diversity is a variable that affects people in different ways (Lau, 1998). Diversity within a group can be uncomfortable for people, because they prefer to work with others that are similar to them (Allport, Anwar et al., 2005; 1954; Apfelbaum et al., 2014; Brewer, 1999; Correl & Park, 2005; Lau, 1998). This research was focused on the influence of diversity on unethical behavior on a group level. Next to that, this research was also focused on the influence of person-focused ICB on the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior. Therefore, the following research question was answered: What is the influence of
person-focused ICB on the relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior?
The results of this research showed that there was no relationship between diversity in groups and unethical behavior, and that person-focused ICB had no moderating effect on that relationship. A few arguments will be provided to try to explain why this research did not find a positive influence of diversity on unethical behavior, as well as failed to find a moderating effect.
Firstly, there was no actual diversity. Participants were randomly assigned to homogeneous/heterogeneous groups. So the participants were not really divided into groups with homogeneous and heterogeneous personality traits, but were manipulated via a bogus feedback. It could be possible that using a bogus manipulation alone was not strong enough to make a difference between the influence of homogeneous and heterogeneous of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups on unethical behavior.
Besides, the participants of this were all students, which meant that they differed from how people in a real society differed from each other. It was possible that the students experienced their own group as a homogeneous group even when they were assigned into a heterogeneous group, because the students felt already connected with each other because most of them were doing the same major.
14 The research did not find a relationship between diversity and unethical behavior and it did not find an influence of person-focused ICB on this relationship either. A possible reason for not finding an influence of person-focused ICB could be that the two ICC scores were not acceptable. This means that there was a low level of within group agreement on person-focused ICB and furthermore that there was not enough differentiation between the group scores of person-focused ICB. An explanation for this is that person-focused ICB was measured during the pre-test, and these scores were not taken into account for forming the groups.
Strengths and Weaknesses
This research has some strengths. One of these strengths is that this research gives more insights about the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior. Whereas a lot of diversity research is focused on the relationship between diversity and performance (Apfelbaum, Philips, & Richeson, 2014). In a changing world where diversity is getting more and more visible in daily life it is also important that there is more knowledge about the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior. Another strength is that this research used experimental manipulations, because that makes it possible to randomly assign participants to different conditions (homogeneous/heterogeneous group). This gives a large degree of control, and makes it possible to show causality. Another strength is that the measurement tools that are used are tested before in other research (Pearsall & Ellis, 2010; Settoon & Mossholder 2002). With using existing measurement tools, there is higher construct validity and higher reliability.
15
Implications for future research
This research gives a lot of input for future research. The relationship between diversity and unethical behavior has not been researched to a great extent before, which means there is still a lot to discover in this area. It is important that future research also focuses on the relationship between observable diversity like race, gender or age and unethical behavior. People notice this kind of diversity immediately and therefore it is possible that there is a stronger relationship between diversity and unethical behavior if an observable form of diversity is used. Another implication is that future research should not use a bogus manipulation for diversity, but divide people in a heterogeneous or homogenous groups based on real measured diversity characteristics. A last implication is that future research should try to use participants with a more diverse background to get a more realistic view how the relationship between diversity inside groups and unethical behavior works in organizations. This could be done by doing a survey amongst all kinds of organizations rather than focusing on one. That can help to give a more realistic view of the relationship between diversity and unethical behavior in organizations.
Organizational Implications
This research did not find a relationship between diversity and unethical behavior. As mentioned in the introduction the workforce of organizations are like to get more and more diverse in the near future. But from the results of this research it should be noted that the implication for organizations is that if you want to decrease the unethical behavior of the groups in an organization, the diversity of the groups based on personality traits is not a significant factor.
Conclusions
16
REFERENCES
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Apfelbaum, E.P., Philips, K.W., & Richeson, J.A. (2014). Rethinking the baseline in diversity research: Should we be explaining the effects of homogeneity? Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 9(3), 235-244.
Baker, T.L., Hunt, T.G., & Andrews, M.C. (2006). Promoting ethical behavior and organizational citizenship behaviors: The influence of corporate ethical values.
Journal of Business Research, 59, 849-857.
Batson, C.D. (1991) The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bazerman, M.H., & Banaji, M.R. (2004). The social psychology of ordinary ethical failures.
Social Justice Research, 17(2), 111-115.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bobo, L. D. & Tuan, M. (2006). Prejudice in Politics: Group Position, Public Opinion and the
Wisconsin Treaty Rights Dispute. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bowler, M., & Brass, D.J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 70-82.
Brass, D.J., Butterfield., K.D., & Skaggs, B.C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14-31.
Brewer, M. B., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes. New York: John Wiley.
Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
Brewer, M.B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: In-group love or out-group hate? Journal
17 Chatman, J.A., & Flynn, F.J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(5), 956-974.
Cheng, C.Y., Hsieh, C.H., & Yang, Y.S. (2014). Who would engage in unethical behavior? Should organizations bear the responsibility? Quality and Quantity Journal, 48, 2341-2354.
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9, 341-359.
Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist's perspective. Perspective on Politics, 1(01), 103-111.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Vianen, A.E.M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 309-328.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. International handbook of
organizational teamwork and cooperative working, 151-166.
Dudley, N.M., & Cortina, J.M. (2008). Knowledge and skills that facilitate the personal support dimension of citizenship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1249-1270.
Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. 2001. Chivalry and Solidarity in Ultimatum Games, Economic
Inquiry, 39, 171–88.
Ehrhart, M.G., & Naumann, S.E. (2004). Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Work Groups: A Group Norms Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960-974
Feldman, D.C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of
Managemen Review, 9, 47-53.
18 effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Association for Psychological Science, 20(3), 393-398.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological review, 25, 161-178.
Grover, S. L., & Hui, C. (1994). The influence of role conflict and self-interest on lying in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(4), 295-303.
Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). ‘In-group love’ and ‘out-group’ hate as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm.
Psychological Science, 19, 405-411.
Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D.N., & Weinstein, J.M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review,
101(4), 709-725.
Hegarty, W.H., & Sims, H.P. (1978). Some determinants of Unethical behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 451-457.
Hogler, R., Henle, C., & Gross, M. (2013). Ethical behavior and regional envrionments: The effects of culture, values, and trust. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25, 109-121.
Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A., Erhardt, N.L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801-830.
Jackson, B.W., La Fasto, F., Scultz, H.G., & Kelley, D. (1992). Diversity. Human Resource
Management, 31(1), 21-34.
Jones, T.M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations. An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.
Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Kelley, H.H., Nisbett,R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972).
Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
19 Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jen, K., & Thomas, D. (2003). The
effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42, 3-21.
Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
Lau, D., & Murninhan, J.K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325 – 340.
Mamman, A., Kamoch, K., & Bakuwa, R. (2012). Diversity, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior: An organizing framework. Human Resource
Management Review, 22, 285-302.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for Common Threads: Understanding
the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. The Academy of
Management Review, 21, 402-433.
Moore, D.A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 189-201.
Mossholder, K.W., Richardson, H.A., & Settoon, R.P. (2011). Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Review,
36(1), 33-52.
Narayan, J., Ronson, S., & Pilutla, M.M. (2006) Unethical behavior: The role of cohesion on group member actions. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 8, 127-147.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615– 631.
Penarroja, V., Orengo, V., Zornmoza, A., & Hernandez, A. (2013). The effects of virtuality level on task- related collaborative behaviors: The mediating role of team trust.
20 Putnam, R.D. (2007). E pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first centrurey
the 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.
Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Regts, G., & Molleman, E., (2013). To leave or not to leave: When receiving interpersonal citizenship behavior influences an employee’s turnover intention. Human Relations,
66(2), 193-218.
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87 (2), 255-267.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Trevino, L.K., Weaver, G.R., & Reynolds, S.J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990.
Turnipseed, D.L. (2002). Are good soldiers good? Exploring the link between organization citizenship behavior and personal ethics. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 1-15.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M.C. (2007). Work Group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541.
Zhang, Y., Kong, F., Zhong, Y., & Kou, H. (2014). Personality manipulations: Do they modulate facial attractiveness ratings? Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 80-84.
Zuber, F., & Kaptein, M. (2013). Painting with the same brush? Surveying unethical behavior in the workplace using self-reports and observer-reports. Journal of
