Unethical pro-organizational and
contra-organizational behaviors
The influence of organizational identification on unethical behaviors
and the moderating influence of unethical exemplars.
Master thesis, Human Resource Management, Faculty of Management and
Organization, University of Groningen
2
ABSTRACT
Unethical behavior can be detrimental to an organization and should be avoided as much as possible. In this research two types of unethical behaviors are distinguished, unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) is behavior that benefits the organization and unethical contra-organizational behavior (UCB) is behavior that is damaging to the organization. Previous research has established the relationship between high organizational identification (OID) and UPB. This raises the question whether a relationship exists between OID and UCB. It was expected that low OID would increase UCB. In these relationships a moderating influence was expected from an unethical exemplar. A scenario analysis was conducted in order to test the hypothesized positive relationship between OID and UPB as well as the negative
relationship between OID and UCB, both with the moderating role of an unethical exemplar. No support was found for the hypothesized three way interaction. There was a negative relation found between the degree of organizational identification and the display of unethical behavior in general (UPB & UCB). This entails that in order to reduce unethical behavior organizations should invest in increasing OID.
Keywords: Organizational identification, Unethical behavior, Unethical pro-organizational
3
Introduction
In today’s business environment, organizations have to deal with ethical challenges, especially since concerns have been raised about unethical behavior in organizations after several scandals such as Enron and Worldcom. These past events show that unethical behavior can have severe consequences, leading to high costs, damaged reputations and in some instances even to bankruptcy (Baucus & Baucus, 1997).
In most instances of unethical behavior, the unethical behavior is presumed to be displayed by the person in question in order to enhance his or her self benefit. For example, Bernard Madoff, who was convicted of operating the largest Ponzi scheme in American history, had created an estimated wealth of 823 million dollars due to his unethical behaviors. This money was used by Madoff to invest in luxurious real estate, a private plane, jewelry and cars, amongst other things (Rizzo, 2009). Emphasis of most research in this field focuses on behavior that is bad for the organization, and provides the person displaying the unethical behavior with some kind of benefit (Pinto et al., 2008). It is clear that behavior of such kind is unbeneficial to the organization and has to be avoided and/or prevented as much as possible.
The question is what would happen if employees would display unethical pro-organizational behavior; behavior that is seen as unethical but nevertheless poses an
advantage for the company. Pinto et al. (2008) make a distinction between unethical behaviors that benefit solely the individual (Unethical contra-organizational behavior) and unethical behaviors that benefit the organization (Unethical pro-organizational behavior). An example of unethical pro-organizational behavior was the misstating of costs by the city of Amsterdam in order for a project (North-South line) to be within budget (Berkhout & Rosenberg, 2008). The project was seen as beneficial to the city of Amsterdam and therefore posed an advantage to the city. Nevertheless, the misstating of costs was unethical behavior.
Why would organizations want to minimize behavior that is beneficial for them? While employee behaviors might be aimed at helping the organizations, the ultimate result of their actions can be opposite and thus produce unbeneficial and destructive outcomes
4
Since unethical pro-organizational behavior can have equally destructive outcomes as unethical behavior that is aimed at harming the company, it is important to have a better understanding of this relatively unknown concept. The knowledge of unethical pro-organizational behavior is especially useful in gaining an understanding of how to
avoid/prevent these types of behavior. In order to find out how to prevent and avoid unethical pro-organizational behavior it is necessary to gain an understanding as to how this behavior comes about.
Previous research on unethical pro-organizational behavior has focused on the relationship between unethical pro-organizational behavior and organizational identification (Umphress et al., 2010). Organizational identification is the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the organization of which he or she is a member (Mael & Ashfort, 1989). High organizational identification might lead to employees being more willing to engage in or look away from unethical behaviors (Dukerich et al., 1998). This can be explained by social identity theory in which persons (in this case employees) regulate their behaviors in order to maintain a positive association with their ingroup (the organization) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
We want to elaborate on the research of Umphress et al. (2010) by adding the
moderating influence of social interaction to their model. Decidedly not everyone with a high organizational identification will engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior. The observation of another individual performing unethical behavior can be an important motivation or even a trigger for individuals to perform unethical behavior themselves.
According to the social learning theory we learn which behaviors are appropriate and what is normative in particular situations by observing a social model (Bandura, 1977). Also, by observing unethical others the perceived chance of getting caught decreases. These theories provide reasons for why individuals feel the urge to copy unethical behaviors. By resisting these urges the self regulatory focus of employees is depleted (Gino et al. 2011).
Consequently the self-control of the employees not to engage in unethical behavior decreases. It is therefore expected that the relation between organization identification and unethical behavior is moderated by unethical behavior of others.
contra-5
organizational behavior for their own benefit, without taking into consideration the consequences of the organization (Pinto et al., 2008). This suggests that those employees engaging in unethical contra-organizational behavior have low organizational identification, since they don’t care what happens to the organization. Therefore a negative relation between organizational identification and unethical contra-organizational behavior is expected. In this relation unethical behaviors of others can also have an influence on the relationship between organizational identification and unethical contra-organizational behavior. When an employee observes another employee engaging in contra-organizational behavior it is possible that this behavior will be imitated due to lower self-control (Gino et al. 2011). It is therefore expected that the relationship between organizational identification and unethical contra-organizational behavior is moderated by unethical behavior of others.
In this thesis the following research question will be tested: How can we define the relation between OID and unethical behavior that is either harmful or beneficial to the
6
Literature
Unethical pro-organizational behavior
Unethical pro-organizational behavior or UPB is unethical behavior conducted by employees to potentially benefit the organization (Umphress et al, 2010). A commonly used definition of unethical behavior is behavior that is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community (Jones, 1991). The employee perceives the behavior as something that will be beneficial for the organization. However, the anticipated consequences to other entities are harmful, making the behavior therefore unethical (Umphress & Bingham, 2011). This
relatively new concept of UPB describes unethical behavior as something that can be good for an organization, or, at least, on the short term. The consequences of pushing ethical
boundaries are often not clear immediately, and focus on the short term often ignores long term ramifications of unethical actions (Sims & Brinkmann, 2002).
One of the reasons for employees to engage in UPB is the “good soldier syndrome” or organization citizenship behavior (OCB). Organizational citizenship can be defined as
organizationally beneficial behaviors and gestures that consist of informal contributions that participants can choose to provide or withhold without regard to considerations of sanctions or formal incentives (Bateman & Organ, 1983). This behavior is usually undertaken to benefit someone or something other than the actor, in this case the organization (van Dyne et al., 1995). OCB can be both ethical and unethical. OCB is conducted with the intention to increase the welfare of the organization to which the behavior is directed. However, the welfare of the organization might be promoted at the expense of another and therefore be unethical. (Turnipseed, 2002). Those engaging in unethical behavior usually try to find some way to characterize their actions as morally acceptable (Bersoff, 1999). When helping the organization by engaging in UPB this can be seen by the employee as ethical behavior, focusing solely on the helping behavior and ignoring unethical consequences attached to the UPB.
7
about their well being. Based upon the reciprocity norm this would elicit employees felt obligation to care about the organizations welfare and to help the organization reach its objectives (Eisenberger et al., 2001). It is therefore possible that the norm is to help the organization as much as possible to reach its objectives. Adherence to these norms typically allows one to avoid rejection and gain social approval (Cialdini et al., 1999). Employees might therefore engage in UPB to gain social approval.
Another reason for employees to engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior is the reward that employees might expect for engaging in UPB. Trevino’s (1986) reinforcement theory suggests that the unethical behavior of employees can be influenced through specific rewards or punishments for ethical or unethical behavior. An employee might belief that when helping the organization by performing unethical pro-organizational behavior, his action will be rewarded in the future (Umphress et al., 2010). By engaging in behavior that is beneficial to the company, the individual increases chances of receiving benefits from the organization in the future (Deckopp et al., 2003). According to Sims (1992) organizations often reward behaviors that violate ethical standards. When it is the case that the unethical behavior
provides the employee with some sort of benefit, the received benefits can be seen as a reward for the unethical behavior. Unethical behavior is strengthened or weakened according to the environmental consequences of the behavior. When persons are rewarded for unethical behavior, this behavior will increase (Hegarty & Sims, 1978).
Organizational identification
According to Mael and Ashfort (1989) organizational identification or OID is ‘the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the organization of which he or she is a member’. It is the extent to which an employee perceives the successes and failures of the organization as one’s own. Van Knippenberg and Sleebos (2006) state that identification with an organization implies
psychological oneness with the organization.
8
self-esteem and pride causing a group member to favor the ingroup over the outgroup. This tendency is determined by the need to reach or maintain “positive group distinctiveness” (Turner, 1982). Individuals strive to reach and keep a positive social identity by comparison to other groups.
Research has shown a positive relationship between OID and behavioral attitudes and behaviors. Research of Mael and Ashfort (1992) has defined the consequences of OID as an increase of support for the organization. According to Dutton et al. (1994) high organizational identification might lead to various desirable outcomes such as intraorganizational
cooperation and citizen behaviors. According to Lee (1971) the degree of OID is positively related to job attitudes and motivation. Also, organizational identification has an influence on turnover intentions through its positive influence on job satisfaction (van Dick et al., 2004).
Despite these positive consequences there are dark sides attached to a high OID. One of the disadvantages of high OID is that individuals are more likely to engage in or close their eyes to unethical behavior of the organization (Dukerich et al., 1998). According to Umphress et al. (2010), a high OID is positively related to the display of UPB. Those who highly
identify with the organization are more likely to engage in unethical behaviors that are good for the company because they have a high incentive to do so. The incentive for those with high OID to engage in UPB is to improve their social identity. They do this by benefitting the organization, for when the organization improves, so does their social identity. This is
congruent with the theory of Gino et al. (2009) that strong identification with the organization leads to an increased likelihood of displaying UPB, since those with strong group
identification will have a larger incentive to make their organizations positively distinct. As such, when the developed identity is threatened by perceived threats to the organization this can lead to anti-social actions such as unethical behavior (Schwartz, 1987). Individuals might justify this behavior by reasoning that the unethical behavior is important to the survival of the group, even when the actions are detrimental to other groups and/or society. (Aquilera & Vadera, 2008)
9
employees are more inclined to engage in UPB as their high OID causes them to be willing to undertake actions in order to maintain or increase their positive group distinctiveness. As such, we expect a positive relation between OID and UPB in that the stronger one identifies with the organization, the more that person is inclined to engage in UPB.
Social interaction
While the chance of getting into UPB increases with high OID, employees usually stay clear of unethical behavior despite the possible benefits that unethical behavior could provide for the organization. Although some people plan to behave unethically to attain opportunistic gains, many individuals start with good intentions but ultimately engage in unethical behavior (Gino et al., 2011). If an individual works in an environment that confronts them with others who serve as models for anti-social behavior, these individuals themselves are more likely to behave in antisocial ways (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Keizer et al. (2008) found evidence that when an individual observes others violating a certain social norm or legitimate rule, they are more likely to violate other norms and rules. Apparently, the influence of unethical others can provide that extra nudge in the direction of performing unethical behavior.
One explanation for why individuals are more likely to engage in unethical behavior after being confronted with unethical others is that by witnessing someone else performing an unethical act and getting away with it decreases their perceived chance of getting caught (Gino et al., 2009). Bersoff (1999) argues that unethical behavior stems from a utilitarian type decision; individuals are willing to display unethical behavior in order to gain a certain
benefit. When the opportunity rises for individuals to engage in unethical behavior and expect to avoid detection and punishment, the benefits of the unethical behavior might outweigh the risks (Sims, 1992). When observing unethical others gaining benefits from their unethical behavior without getting punished this might be a trigger for the individual to engage in this behavior.
10
his thoughts feelings and actions after that of another person who serves as a social model (Bandura, 1969). When an employee is confronted with the unethical behavior of someone in the organization it is possible that through the process of identification the unethical behavior is observed and imitated.
Another explanation for why people copy behavior from each other is that the imitating person might perceive the behavior that he/she copies as normative. According to Cialdini et al. (1991), that what is normative will have a demonstrable impact on a person’s actions. Behavior that is seen as normative by the individual is considered to be the
appropriate behavior to display, and is thus likely to be copied from others. The type of social norm that is applied has a considerable impact on behavior. Descriptive norms specify what most people would do in a particular situation; injunctive norms are what most people approve or disapprove of (Reno et al., 1993). The social context determines which of these norms people focus on, and how this consequently affects their behavior. Moreover, norms should motivate behavior primarily when they are activated. One’s actions are relatively unaffected by normative information unless the information is prominently highlighted in ones focus (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). The social context can push the focus of individuals towards following descriptive or injunctive norms. If the social context puts emphasis on the descriptive norms it is likely that when confronted with unethical others, the unethical behavior will be copied, because that what other people would do in the situation is seen as normative.
Unethical behavior can be especially contagious when the individual identifies himself with the unethical others (Gino et al., 2009; Brass et al., 1998; Robinson & O’leary-Kelly, 1998). Brass et al. (1998) confirm the notion that unethical behavior can result from the influence of members of an individual’s referent group (or ingroup). Having an in or out group member as unethical exemplar influences unethical behavior of individuals. When the unethical exemplars were ingroup members unethical behavior increased, when they were outgroup members unethical behavior decreased (Gino et al., 2009). It is therefore concluded that it is more likely that individuals will copy unethical behavior from someone they identify with, than from someone they don’t identify with.
11
(Ajzen, 2001) people act in accordance with their intentions and perceptions of control on the behavior. Perceived behavioral control can thus be seen as an important determinant in predicting unethical behavior. There is a relationship between behavioral control and deviant behaviors and individuals with low self control are more likely to engage in unethical
behaviors (Tibbets & Myers, 1999).
Gino et al. (2011) stated that individuals who were depleted of their self-regulatory resources by other acts of self control were more likely to show impulsive unethical behavior than those who still had their self-regulatory resources intact. People use self-control in order to refrain from engaging in tempting unethical behavior, however this ethical behavior may break down when self-regulatory resources are depleted (Gino et al. 2011). The previously explained theories provide reasons for why individuals feel the urge to copy the unethical behaviors. By resisting these urges the self-regulatory focus of employees is depleted (Gino et al. 2011). The chance of the employee to engage in unethical behavior consequently gets bigger because the self-control has decreased. It is therefore argued that the chance that employees engage in unethical behavior increases when they are confronted with an unethical exemplar.
It can be concluded that social interaction can have a large influence on the (unethical) behavior of employees. When an employee is confronted with unethical others that the
individual identifies with, the chance of the employee engaging in UPB increases due to depletion of self-regulatory resources.
Interaction Organization identification and an unethical exemplar with UPB
A positive relationship between OID and UPB is expected. The high OID will cause the employee to be willing to withdraw his or her own moral norms and to engage or look away from UPB more easily (Dukerich et al., 1998), in order to maintain or increase positive group distinctiveness (Turner, 1982). Low OID employees do not sense such a bonding with the organization. As such, their willingness to engage in unethical behavior that benefits the organization is unlikely.
12
(Gino et al. 2011). The unethical behavior is imitated because people copy behavior from their environment (Bandura, 1977). It is possible that the behavior is seen as normative, and therefore the appropriate behavior to display (Cialdini et al., 1991) or that the chance of getting caught is perceived as smaller (Gino et al., 2009), making it possible to reap the benefits of the unethical behavior without having to face the negative consequences.
Consequently, after witnessing a colleague engaging in UPB the self-control of an individual is proposed to be less then without such an unethical exemplar, hence the likelihood of the employee engaging in UPB increases.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H1: There is a positive relation between OID and pro-organizational unethical behavior, and this effect will be stronger when confronted with an unethical exemplar than without such an exemplar
Unethical contra-organizational behavior
UPB represents unethical behaviors that are directed towards benefitting the
organization. On the other end, there is the unethical behavior that is harmful to the
organization. The positive relationship between OID and UPB and the moderating influence of unethical others was discussed previously. This brings up the question whether a
relationship exists between OID and UCB as well, and if there is an influence of unethical others on this relationship.
Although there are different forms of unethical behavior, most of the literature on this subject focuses on ‘employee deviance’ which can be defined as voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in doing so threatens the well-being of an
organization, its members, or both. (Robinson & Bennet, 1995) The unethical behavior is seen as something harmful to the organization. From this point on we will refer to this deviant behavior as unethical contra-organizational behavior or UCB.
13
organization (Carson, 2003). The self-interest paradigm predicts that unethical behavior will occur when the behavior benefits the actor (Grover & Hui, 1994).
Interaction OID and Unethical exemplar with UCB
Individuals with low OID do not feel the need to reach positive group distinctiveness as they do not identify themselves with the group. Consequently, low OID individuals have no incentive in benefitting the organization. To low OID individuals it doesn’t matter what happens to the organization because their social identity is unaffected (Turner, 1982). Engaging in UCB will be damaging to the organization, but beneficial to the individual. The self-interest paradigm predicts that unethical behavior will occur when this benefits the actor (Grover & Hui, 1994). As such, when OID is low, the individual will be more likely to engage in unethical behavior. It is therefore hypothesized that there is a negative relation between OID and UCB.
Self-control is a mechanism which refrains individuals from engaging in unethical behavior, those with lower self-control will be more likely to perform the unethical behavior. When confronted with unethical others self-regulatory resources are depleted because the individual struggles with an act of self-control. When self-regulatory resources are depleted, self-control gets lower. The lower the self-control, the more chance of the individual engaging in unethical behavior (Gino et al. 2011). So, when confronted with an unethical exemplar the chance of engaging in unethical behavior increases. It is proposed that the negative
relationship between OID and UCB is moderated by an unethical exemplar. It is therefore hypothesized that:
14
Methodology
Participants and Design
The research was conducted with a sample of 198 participants, a total of 140 completed the survey (45.71% male, = 33, = 14.06). Of this sample 64
participants were male and 76 were female. The age of the participants ranged from 17 up till 70. The daily occupation of the participants is as follows: 7 were in high-school, 40 were students, 84 were working, 4 were unemployed, 6 answered different. The participants participated in the research voluntarily; there was no reward for participating.
The participants were randomly assigned to one of the 8 conditions of the 2 (pro-organizational versus contra-(pro-organizational unethical behavior) x 2 (low versus high organization identification) x 2 (absence versus presence of an unethical exemplar) design experiment.
Procedure
The participants were selected randomly and contacted through e-mail and social media, asking them to fill out an on-line questionnaire taking approximately five to ten minutes of their time. Part of the participants was recruited by means of a snowballing technique in which participants were asked to send the questionnaire to other persons willing to participate in the research. By using this random selection technique a varied sample was obtained. The participants were asked to read a short scenario in which they were working for company ‘De helpende hand’. The participants were asked to try to relate to the scenario as much as possible. The scenario started with a description of a working context. Following, participants OID was manipulated. In the high OID condition, participants were told that they bonded very well with the organization and that they identified strongly with the organization. In the low OID condition, participants were told that they had no connection with the
15
participants who received to UPB scenario were told that performing the unethical act would be beneficial to the organization while those participants who received the UCB condition were told that the unethical act would be damaging to the organization. At the end of the scenario, participants had to decide on an ethical dilemma. The participants had to make a decision about whether or not to write down hours they did not actually make for the company. The six possible answers ranged from ‘definitely not booking the hour’ to
‘definitely book the hour’. The questions that were asked next were all related to the scenario and functioned as a manipulation check. Finally some demographical questions were asked.
Measurements and manipulations
Display of unethical behavior. As an indication of the willingness of the participant to
engage in unethical behavior the following question was asked: “Will you book the consult of an hour?”. There were six possible answers to this question ranging from “I will definitely not book this hour” to “I definitely will book this hour”.
Manipulation check organizational identification. As an organizational identification
check we asked participants the following items: “In the scenario I strongly identify with ‘The helping hand’” and “In the scenario I have little bond with ‘De helpende hand’”. Participants answered on a 7 point answering scale ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 7 (Totally agree). The scale was highly reliable (Cronbach’s α = .86).
Manipulation check unethical pro/contra behavior. In order to check if the unethical
pro/contra manipulations were perceived correctly the following questions were asked to the participants: “When I book the extra hour this will be beneficial to the organization” and “When I book the extra hour this will damage the organization”. Participants answered to these statements on a seven point answering scale ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 7 (Totally agree). The scale was moderately reliable (Cronbach’s α = .54).
Manipulation check unethical exemplar. As an unethical exemplar check we asked
16
Results
Manipulation checks
Organization identification. It was checked whether our manipulation of organization
identification worked effectively. A one way anova showed a successful manipulation for organization identification with ‘De helpende hand’ (F (1,140) = 4.39 p < 0.05). In the high organizational identification condition participants identify more strongly with ‘De helpende hand’ (M = 4.54) than in the low organizational identification condition (M =2.7).
Unethical pro/contra behavior. Next it was checked whether our manipulation of
unethical pro/contra behavior worked effectively. A one way anova showed a successful manipulation for the pro/contra conditions with ‘De helpende hand’ (F (1,140) = 1.64, p < 0.05). Those participants who were assigned the UPB condition felt that the behavior was less damaging to ‘De helpende hand’ (M =2.34) than those were assigned the UCB condition (M = 3.07).
Unethical exemplar. Finally it was checked whether our manipulation of the unethical
exemplar worked effectively. A one way anova showed a successful manipulation for the unethical exemplar within the scenario (F (1,140) = 4.44, p < 0.05). In the unethical exemplar condition participants indicated the presence of an unethical exemplar more strong (M = 6.27) as opposed to the no unethical exemplar condition. (M = 4.73).
Unethical behavior
17
18
Discussion
Findings
The aim of this thesis was to research the relationship between the degree of OID and the display of respectively UCB and UPB. In addition to that the moderating influence of an unethical exemplar was researched. More specific, it was expected that high OID leads to high UPB and that this effect would be stronger when confronted with an unethical exemplar than without such an exemplar. Also, it was expected that low OID would lead to high UCB and that this effect would be stronger when confronted with an unethical exemplar then without such an exemplar.
A significant main effect was found of the influence of OID on unethical behavior in general. Low OID individuals are more likely to engage in unethical behaviors (UPB as well as UCB) than high OID individuals are. This entails that the willingness of those with lower OID to engage in unethical behavior was regardless of the consequences to the organization. No matter of the consequences were good or bad for the organization, individuals with low OID were more likely to engage in the unethical behaviors then the individuals with high OID.
It was argued that low OID individuals are unlikely to engage in UPB because they have no incentive to make the group positively distinct. It was therefore not expected that low OID individuals are more likely to engage in UPB as compared to high OID individuals. The explanation of this effect possibly lies within the self-interest paradigm (Grover & Hui, 1994). Next to the benefits to the organization self-interest played a role in the UPB condition
because writing down the extra hour would not only be good for the organization but would also provide extra income for the employee. As such, besides the benefit that was provided to the organization, the individual was also benefitted by engaging in the unethical act.
According to the self-interest paradigm (Grover & Hui, 1994) this would entail that low OID individuals would engage in unethical behavior in both the UCB and UPB condition since they both provide the individual with benefits.
Another unexpected aspect about this main effect is that high OID individuals are less likely to engage in UPB than low OID individuals are. It was argued that high OID
19
likely to engage in both types of unethical behavior as compared to the low OID participants. A possible explanation for this is that even when the unethical behavior appears to be
beneficial to the company, the long term ramifications are often unclear (Sims & Brinkmann, 2002). Despite the knowledge that engaging in unethical behavior would be good for the organization on the short term, the employee might be aware of the fact that unethical behavior can be bad for the organization on the long term. Since OID is high, the employee wants what is best for the organization and might therefore refrain from unethical behaviors.
Unfortunately, our expected 3-way interaction (or 2 x 2 x 2-way interaction) was not significant. Consequently, no evidence was found for the moderating effect of an unethical exemplar on these relations. A possible explanation for the lack of evidence concerning the three way interaction is that by thinking about ethical decisions and reading about the unethical act of the co-worker, the salience of the unethical nature of the decision to write down the extra hour was increased. When the salience of an unethical act increases, it makes individuals pay attention to his/her own standards of honesty and consequently will reduce their tendency to engage in dishonest acts (Gino et al., 2009). This would make people reluctant of engaging in unethical behavior despite the lack of consequences.
Theoretical implications
There are several research articles in which the reader is warned for the negative consequences of high OID; it would make employees more susceptible to engaging in UPB (Umphress et al., 2010; Gino et al., 2009; Schwartz, 1987; Aquilera & Vadera, 2008). The results obtained by this research suggest that the opposite is true. Those with high OID are less likely to engage in unethical behavior altogether. Instead of a negative consequence of high OID, the influence on unethical behaviors can be seen as a positive consequence of high OID. High OID decreases the likelihood of employees engaging in unethical behaviors.
20
The negative relation between OID and UPB suggests that there is something holding back high OID individuals to engage in UPB despite their willingness to help the
organization. If the reasons for not displaying UPB are indeed the possibly negative long-term ramifications for the organization, not engaging in unethical behavior might be seen by high OID employees as a better way of helping the organization than engaging in UPB. This would entail that helping the organization is not a good argument for engaging in UPB. This would depend however on the extent to which individuals are aware of the negative long-term ramifications of unethical behavior and if they categorize their behavior as unethical (Gino, 2009).
Practical implications
The results obtained by this research suggest that it would pay for organizations to increase the organizational identification of their employees. Indeed, the positive
consequences of high organizational identification were highlighted before (Ashfort & Mael, 1992; Dutton et al., 1994; Lee, 1971; van Dick et al., 2004). In addition to that, according to the result of this research a high organizational identification will also lead to less unethical behavior, as opposed to low OID which will lead to more unethical behavior. Investing in increasing the OID of employees would seem sensible in order to reduce unethical behaviors of employees in the organization.
The OID of employees can be increased in several ways. Perceived organizational prestige is one way to foster OID, investing in the visibility and corporate brand through external communication can increase the organizational prestige and thereby OID. The
communication climate is an important factor in affecting OID especially when the prestige of the organization is low. An open and respectful climate has a positive influence on OID (Smidts et al., 2001). According to Hogg and Terry (2000) benchmarking is another way to increase OID. By selecting other organizations as comparison which threatens the
21
Limitations
Despite the assurance that the results of the survey were handled anonymously, it is possible that participants take a different stance when filling out the questionnaire as opposed to what they would actually do if they were in the situation. This is probably due to the
salience of their moral identity. By answering questions about ethical decisions the salience of their moral identity increases, making them pay more attention to their own standards of honesty this will consequently reduce their tendency to engage in dishonest acts (Gino et al., 2009). This could have made the participants reluctant to engage in unethical acts despite the consequences. In order to make sure that the results of the research are valid the same
hypothesis should be tested in an experimental research in which it would be less obvious that the behavior in which the participants engage is unethical. Another limitation to the research is that the UPB condition wasn’t solely directed at the benefit of the organization but also at the benefit of the individual. The individual in the UPB condition gained the same benefit as the individual in the UCB condition. There was a large share of self-interest incorporated in the decision to engage in UPB. Maybe results would have been different if the UPB condition was aimed at solely benefitting the organization (and the individual benefitting only indirect through an increased social identity). Also the construction of the questionnaire can be seen as a limitation. In answering the questionnaire it was impossible for the participants to go back to a previous question when they had gone to the next question already. It was also not possible to go back to the scenario when one had proceeded to the questions. This might be the explanation for why so little (140 out of 198) participants had completed the survey. It is possible that some people went to the next page already without realizing that they couldn’t go back to the previous page, leaving open one or several questions. This problem could be solved by warning the participants in advance that they should read the scenario carefully beforehand because it is not possible to read it once more. The participants should also be made aware that once one leaves a page with questions it is impossible to go back to that page. This brings us to the next limitation in this study. Due to the small amount of
22
Directions for future research
Future research should first of all be focusing on validating the results that were obtained in this research. The hypothesized relations that were proposed in this research should be tested again in an experimental research, where the salience of the moral identity is less high. An example of such a research is the research conducted by Gino et al. (2009), in which an experiment was conducted to test the influence of an unethical exemplar without putting emphasis on the unethical nature of the exemplars actions. Salience of moral identity has to be low to make sure that the results reflect the true actions of the participants and not a response that is based upon injunctive norms.
It is important that the underlying reason is identified which causes low OID individuals to be more likely to engage in UPB. A possible reason for the increase in UPB among low OID individuals is the focus on self-interest. Research has been conducted on the positive relation between self-interest and unethical behavior (Grover & Hui, 1994; Peterson, 2002; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004). It is possible that self interest is a motivator in engaging in UPB, it would increase the likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior. In the present research the self-interest aspect was clear; increased income due to writing down extra hours. It can be stated that in the present research self-interest played a large role in deciding
whether or not to engage in UPB. This brings up the question to what extent display of UPB is due to focus on self-interest. It would be interesting to find out if benefitting the
organization still plays a role in the display of UPB for those with low OID. In order to find out if other factors such as benefitting the organization plays a role in engaging in UPB, the self-interest aspect would have to be eliminated. It would have to be researched whether low OID individuals are still more likely to engage in UPB when the self-interest aspect is minimized.
Also research should be conducted in order to identify the reasons for high OID individuals not to engage in UPB, a reason for this could be a focus on the long term interest of the organization. It is possible that employees realize that while the short term
23
(Gino et al., 2009), as when the particular behavior is not clear-cut people categorize their actions in positive terms and might therefore not categorize their behavior as unethical. Consequently they might not recognize the negative long-term ramifications of the behavior. When conducting a similar research in which the unethical behavior is less salient the
unethical actions might be categorized differently, this could be a reason for high OID individuals to engage in unethical behavior. It should be researched whether an increased salience of unethical behavior indeed has an influence on the reluctance of high OID individuals to display UPB by making them aware of the long term consequences of UPB.
Conclusion
24
References
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operations of attitudes. Annual review psychology. Vol. 52, 27-58.
Aquilera, R. V., & Vadera, A. K. (2008) The dark side of authority: Antecedents,
mechanisms, and outcomes of organizational corruption. Journal of business ethics. Vol. 77, No. 4, 431-449.
Bandura, A., (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In Goslin, D. A. (1969). Handbook of socialization theory and research. Rand McNally & Company. Bandura, A., (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between affect and employee 'citizenship. The Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 26, No 4, 587–595.
Baucus, M. S., & Baucus, D. A. (1997). Paying the piper: An emperical examination of longer term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior. The academy of
management journal. Vol. 40, No. 1, 129-151.
Berkhout, K., & Rosenberg, E. (2008) Amsterdam raamde kosten Noord-Zuidlijn bewust laag. NRC. Accessed at 20-06-2012. http://vorige.nrc.nl/article2095647.ece
Bersoff, D. M. (1999). Why good people do bad things: motivated reasoning and unethical behavior. Personality and social psychology bulletin. Vol. 25, 28-39.
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs. B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of management review. Vol. 23, No 1, 14-31. Carson. L. (2003). Self-interest and business ethics: Some lessons of the recent corporate
scandals. Journal of business ethics. Vol. 43, No. 4, 389-394.
25
Cialdini, R. B., Bator, R. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (1999) Normative influences in organizations. In: Thompson, L. L., Levine, J. M. & Messick, D. M. (1999) Shared cognition in organization: The management of knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Inc. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity.
Annual reviews psychology. Vol. 55, 591-621.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior.
Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 24, 201-234.
Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Lynne, M. (2003). The reciprocipty of helping behavior in organizations. Journal of business ethics. Vol. 47, No. 2, 101-113.
Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R. M., & Parks, J. M. (1998). The dark side of organizational identification. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations:
Developing theory through conversations (245–256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dutton, J.E., Duckerich, J.M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. ( 2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No.1, 42-51.
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Association for psychology science. Vol. 20, No. 3, 393-398.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational behavior and
human decision making processes. Vol. 115, 191-203.
Grover, S. L., & Hui, C. (1994) The influence of role conflict and self-interest on lying in organizations. Journal of business ethics. Vol. 13, No. 4, 295-303.
26
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of management review. Vol. 25, Issue 1, 121-140. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An
issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, Vol.16, 366-395.
Keizer, K., Linderberg, S., & Steg. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science. Vol. 223, No. 5908, 1681-1685.
Knippenberg, van, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes.
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, Issue 5, 571-584.
Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identification. Academy of
Management Journal. Vol.14, No 2, 213-226.
Mael, F., & Ashforth B. E. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Acadamy of
management review. Vol. 14, No. 1, 20-39.
Mael, F., & 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., & Ashforth B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology. Vol. 48, 309-333.
Peterson, D. K., (2002). The relationship between unethical behavior and the dimensions of the ethical climate questionnaire. Journal of business ethics. Vol. 41, No. 4, 313-326. Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008) Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt
individuals? Two types of organizational-level corruption. Academy of management
review. Vol. 33, No. 3, 685-709.
Randall, D. M., & Gibson, A. M. (1991). An application of the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of business ethics. Vol. 10, No. 2, 111-122.
27
Rizzo, J. (2009) Madoff worth more than $820 million, document says. CNN. Accessed on 20-06-2012. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-14/justice/madoff.worth_1_ruth-madoff-bernard-madoff-cap-d-antibe?_s=PM:CRIME
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. The academy of management
journal. Vol. 41, No. 6, 658-672.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennet, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of management journal. Vol. 38, No. 2, 555-572.
Schwartz, H. (1987). Anti-social actions of committed organizational participants: An existential psychoanalytic perspective. Organization studies. Vol. 8, 327-340.
Sidak, J. G. (2003). The failure of good intentions: The WorldCom fraud and the collapse of American telecommunications after deregulation, Yale Journal on regulation. Vol. 20, No. 2, 107.
Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2002). Leaders as moral role models: The case of John Gutfreund at Salomon Brothers. Journal of business ethics. Vol. 35, No. 4, 327-339. Sims. R.R. (1992). Ethical behavior in organizations. Journal of business ethics. Vol. 11, No.
7, 505-513
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, B.M. (2001). The impact of employee
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification.
Academy of management journal. Vol. 44, Issue 5, 1051-1062.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (ed.),
Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
28
Tibbets, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating. American journal of criminal justice. Vol. 23, No. 2, 179-200.
Trevino, L. K. (1986) Ethical decision making is organizations: A person-situation
interactionist model. The academy of management review. Vol. 11, No. 3, 601-617. Turnipseed, D. L. (2002). Are good soldiers good?: Exploring the link between organization
citizenship behavior and personal ethics. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, No. 1, 1-15.
Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science. Vol. 22, No. 3, 621-640.
Umphress, E. E., Mitchell, M. S., & Bingham, J. B. (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. Vol. 95, 769-780.
van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., Hauptmeier, M., Höhfeld, C., Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management. Vol. 15, Issue. 4, 351-360.
van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & Parks, J.M. (1995) Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 17, 215– 86.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness on organizations. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 25, 243-295.
29
5. Appendix
Table 1
Analysis of Variance for the conditions of OID, Pro/Contra, and Unethical exemplar
