Summary
Summary articles organizational development
- Course
- Institution
Summary of the articles of org. development for the SHOP master
[Show more]
1 review
By: madeline2106 • 4 year ago
Seller
Followlizavandeursen
Reviews received
Content preview
Lecture 1 artcle 1 Bad apples, bad cases, bad barrels; meta analytc eevdence about sources of unethvcaldecvsvons at work- Kvsh-Gephart, Harrvson and Treevno
Definvtonal Framework for the rrvtervon: Unnethvcal
Behaevor, Intenton, and rhovce
Rest’s (1986) four-stage model of ethical decision making has guided the majority of research and narratie
reiiews of research fndings within behaiioral ethics. According tot his model, indiiiduals pass through seieral
stages during the process of making an ethical or unethical decision. The process eientually leads to the stage
of moral intenton (when one commits to a partcular acton) and ends with moral acton or behaiior (when
one carries out the intended behaiior). In this paper, we follow Rest (1986) in organizing our analysis and
defning our focal dependent iariables. Unethical intentin is defned as the ex缩pression of one’s willingness or
commitment to engage in an unethical behaiior. Unethical behaviir is defned as any organizatonal member
acton that iiolates widely accepted (societal) moral norms. oe also distnguish unethical behaiior from two
related concepts: workplace deiiance and illegal behaiior. First, unethical behaiior is not a synonym for
workplace deiiance or counterproductie work behaiior. These later behaiiors are defned as iiolatng
organizatonal norms rather than widely accepted societal norms. It is possible for a behaiior to iiolate widely
accepted societal norms while remaining normatie in the organizaton (e.g., lying to customers). Howeier,
some less serious forms of workplace deiiance (e.g., gossiping, working slowly) that iiolate organizatonal
norms may not iiolate widely accepted societal norms. Thus, despite some oierlap, all forms of
counterproductie or deiiant work behaiior do not fall under the unethical behaiior defniton.
Method secton. Additonally, some unethical behaiiors oierlap with illegal behaiiors. This relatonship
between ethics and the law can be represented as a Venn diagram, wherein the oierlapping area of the two
circles represents behaiiors that are both illegal and unethical. For ex缩ample, stealing is considered to be
unethical because it breaches widely accepted societal norms. It is also illegal. Howeier, the two circles do not
oierlap completely. Some of the many unethical behaiiors that are widely prohibited in corporate codes of
conduct (e.g., conficts of interest such as giiing or receiiing large gifs to infuence business relatonships) are
ofen not illegal. 缩eiertheless, because of widespread agreement that they are wrong, these behaiiors are
defned as unethical behaiior.
Hypothesvs deeelopment: sets of antecedents
On the basis of our ex缩haustie search of the literature (ex缩plained in detail below), we identfed three main
types of antecedents that can be classifed as characteristcs of the indiiidual (“bad apples”), the ethical issue
itsel (“bad cases”), or the organizatonal eniironment (“bad barrels”). First, according to the bad apples
argument, unethical behaiior at work is the result of “a few unsaiory indiiiduals”. Second we consider how
aspects or circumstances of a partcular ethical deilemma being faced may proioke or preient unethical
choices. oe refer to these characteristcs as “bad cases” because we belieie the term case, with its contex缩t-
sensitie connotaton, aptly conieys the idea that moral issue characteristcs iary by the specifc circumstances
being faced at the tme (along with the symbolic meaning of case as a smaller, more prox缩imal container than
barrels for indiiidual apples). Third and last, we hypothesize how unethical choices may refect Treiin˜o and
Youngblood’s (1990) “bad barrels,” or characteristcs of one’smore general organizatonal eniironment (ethical
climate, culture and code of conduct)
vndvevdual charactervstcs
1. Cognitie deielopment
theory of cognitie moral deielopment ex缩plains how indiiiduals adiance from childhood to adulthood in
the complex缩ity and elaboraton of their thinking about why actons are morally right or wrong. Rather than
focusing on the fnal decisions themselies, the theory emphasizes the indiiidual’s reasoning process,
partcularly the justfcatons indiiiduals proiide for their thinking in ethical dilemma situatons. eeiels of
CMD ex缩ist on a hierarchy of fie stages. As indiiiduals deielop, they adiance from stage to stage in sequence.
At the highest leiel of CMD (“principled,” or Stage 5), indiiiduals cognitiely process ethical dilemmas by using
sophistcated reasoning. In making ethical judgments, they rely upon ethical principles of justce and rights and
consider societal good. Howeier, most adults operate at the “conientonal” leiel of CMD, meaning that their
judgments about what is right are infuenced by the ex缩pectatons of peers and signifcant others (Stage 3) or by
policies and rules including the law (stage 4) ohen thinking about what is right and wrong, indiiiduals with the
lowest leiel of CMD inioke consideratons such as obedience and aioiding punishment (Stage 1) or actng in
their own self-interest (Stage 2). CMD is thought to guide behaiior for cognitie consistency reasons. For
,someone who is capable of reasoning in sophistcated ways about an ethical issue, actng in a way that refects
lower leiel thinking is uncomfortable because of the cognitie tension that is created. Many studies haie
reported a negatie relaton between CMD and unethical choices: Hypithesis 1: CMD is negatiely related to
unethical choices, as (a) unethical intenton and (b) unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
2. Moral phvlosophves—vdealvsm and relatevsm. Moral philosophies are deriied from normatie philosophical
theories. Measures of moral philosophy capture indiiiduals’ stated beliefs or personal preferences for
partcular normatie frameworks. Among the many moral philosophies aiailable, Forsyth (1980) proposed that
most people can be classifed along two separate contnua: (a) idealism, one’s concern for the welfare of
others, and (b) relatvism, one’s emphasis on moral principles being situatonally determined rather than
uniiersal. Highly idealistc indiiiduals belieie that one can always aioid harming others when faced with an
ethical dilemma, but nonidealists belieie that “harm is sometmes . . . necessary to produce good” Indiiiduals
who are low on relatiism belieie that eiery situaton is goierned by a common moral principle, but highly
relatiistc indiiiduals belieie that situatons difer and that one must weigh the circumstances when making
decisions. CMD Although Forsyth (1992) did not propose direct links between moral philosophy and ethical
choice, some iniestgatons haie shown that, compared to relatiists, idealists are more likely tojudge unethical
actons critcally. In this way, idealism may be negatiely related to unethical choices, because idealists are
more concerned about harming others . Relatiism, on the other hand, may be positiely related to unethical
choices, because these choices are easier to ratonalize for relatiists, who lack strict moral guidelines.
Hypithesis 2: A moral philosophy of idealism is negatiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical
intenton and (b) unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
Hypithesis 3: A moral philosophy of relatiism is positiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical
intenton and (b) unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
3. machvaeellvanvsm
Indiiiduals high in Machiaiellianism, which is generally “synonymous with amoral acton, sharp dealing, hidden
agendas, and unethical ex缩cess”, tend to use interpersonal relatonships opportunistcally and deceiie others for
personal gain. In contrast to CMD and moral philosophies, Machiaiellianism represents a more traditonal
personality trait.
Hypithesis 4: Machiaiellianism is positiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical intenton and (b)
unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
4. locus of control
Internals atribute life’s eients to their own abilites or eforts. Externals atribute life’s eients to some
ex缩ternal source, such as fate, luck, or powerful others. Unlike the constructs described aboie, locus of control
does not haie ostensibly moral or ethical content, so its relatonship to unethical behaiior is less obiious.
Treiin˜o (1986), howeier, proposed that internals would be less likely to engage in unethical choices. Her
theory posits that, because internals see outcomes as contngent on their own actons, they are more likely to
recognize their personal responsibility for those outcomes. On the other hand, ex缩ternals may be more likely to
act unethically because they can more easily ofoad blame onto someone or something else (powerful others,
chance, or uncontrollable circumstances).
Hypithesis 5: Ex缩ternal locus of control is positiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical intenton and
(b) unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
5. Job satsfacton.
Adams’s (1965) equity theory suggests that dissatsfed indiiiduals seek to balance perceiied imbalances of
their outcome/input ratos relatie to the ratos of others. These aienues can include unethical actons
designed to “eien the score” (e.g., stealing company property). Similarly, empirical results support
Hypithesis 6: Job satsfacton is negatiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical intenton and (b)
unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
6. Demographvcs.
gender
females should be ore ethical because they wil lbe more concerned about and refrain from any acton that
would harm any others. (because they make judgement more based on care for others)
Hypithesis 7: Gender (0 _ female, 1 _ male) is positiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical intenton
and (b) unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
,Age.
age: associated with higher leiels of moral reasoning perhaps through instructie liie ex缩periences. And
associated with lower machiaiellianism
Hypithesis 8: Age is negatiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical intenton and (b) unethical
behaiior, in organizatons.
Education level.
indiiiduals with higher educaton leiels may encounter more “teachable” ethical dilemmas and, thus, less
likelihood of unethical choices. t is also possible that adults with higher educaton haie been ex缩posed to ethics
training that more ex缩plicitly targets moral judgment. Therefore, we hypothesized that a higher leiel of
educaton would tend to reduce unethical choices.
Hypithesis 9: Educaton leiel is negatiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical intenton and (b)
unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
Moral vssue charactervstcs
1. Moral vntensvty
moral intensity of a partcular ethical issue comprises six缩 distnct elements. These include (a) magnitude if
cinsequences, the total harm that could befall iictms of an unethical choice; (b) sicial cinsensus, the degree
of peer agreement that the acton is wrong; (c) pribability if efect, the likelihood that the acton will result in
harm; (d) tempiral immediacy, the length of tme before harmful consequences of the act are realized; (e)
priximity, the social, psychological, cultural, and physical nearness to the iictm of the act; and (f)
cincentratin if efect, the “inierse functon of the number of people afected by an act of giien magnitude”.
According to the theory, as any one element of these situatonal features increases, the oierall moral intensity
of the situaton increases proportonally. T. M. Jones (1991) proposed that moral intensity is likely to reduce
the incidence of unethical choices, in part by increasing atributons of responsibility to oneself for the choice’s
likely consequences to others. Thus, when one considers an unethical issue, such as dumping tox缩ic waste into a
riier, the possibility of substantal harm and nearness to the iictms should increase moral intensity and
thereby decrease one’s intenton to dump the waste and the likelihood of actually doing so.
Hypitheses 10a– g: The moral intensity of an issue— including (a) concentraton of efect, (b) magnitude of
consequences, (c) probability of efect, (d) prox缩imity, (e) social consensus, (f) temporal immediacy, and (g)
general moral intensity—is negatiely related to unethical choices (as intentons) in organizatons
organvzatonal enevronment charactervstcs
1. Ethvcal clvmate
ethical climate was conceptualized as “a group of prescriptie climates refectng the organizatonal
procedures, policies, and practces with moral consequences”. employee perceptons of ethical climate could
be mapped onto two independent dimensions: (a) ethical criteria, including egoism, beneiolence, and
principled, and (b) locus of analysis, including indiiidual, local, and cosmopolitan. Those two combined in 9
types of ethical climate. In our meta-analysis, we focused on three key dimensions that parallel the three
proposed ethical criteria (i.e., egoism, beneiolence, and principle).
Ethical climates represent beliefs about “what consttutes right behaiior” in an organizaton and, thus, proiide
behaiioral guidance for employees. oith an egoistc climate, for ex缩ample, employees perceiie that the
organizatonal eniironment emphasizes self-interest and encourages decision making based on personal
instrumentality. Therefore, the normatie push for indiiiduals in such a climate is to make self-interested
choices without considering the social consequences of their actons
Hypithesis 11: Egoistc ethical climates in organizatons are positiely related to unethical choices as (a)
unethical intenton and (b) unethical behaiior.
In a beneiolent ethical climate, indiiiduals see that what is best for employees, customers, and the community
is important in the organizaton. That is, there is a (shared) percepton that nurturance or care for others is
ialued by the organizaton and is an important part of the frm’s social fabric. In a principled organizatonal
climate, decisions are perceiied to be based on formal guidelines, such as laws and ex缩plicit policies regarding
appropriate behaiior. Decisions are considered ethical when they comply with those goierning rules
Hypithesis 12: Beneiolent climates in organizatons are negatiely related to unethical choices as (a) unethical
intenton and (b) unethical behaiior.
Hypithesis 13: Principled climates in organizatons are negatiely related to unethical choices as (a) unethical
intenton and (b) unethical behaiior.
, 2. Ethical culture. Treiin˜o (1986) proposed that because most employees are at the conientonal leiel of CMD
and are therefore susceptble to ex缩ternal infuence, their behaiior should be infuenced by the guidance
proiided by an organizaton’s ethical culture (Treiin˜o, 1990). Treiin˜o et al. (1998) later diferentated
ethical culture, with its narrower focus on formal and informal organizatonal systems aimed at behaiioral
control, from ethical climate, with its broader focus on perceiied organizatonal ialues. The ethical culture
construct was conceptualized as representng a more singular percepton of the organizaton’s systems,
procedures, and practces for guiding and supportng ethical behaiior. These ethical culture systems
communicate behaiioral and accountability ex缩pectatons. That is, ethical culture includes specifc
organizatonal elements such as ex缩ecutie ethical leadership and reward or disciplinary policies. The
combinaton contributes to employees’ beliefs about the paterns of ethical and unethical conduct that the
organizaton supports or discourages. If ethical culture systems such as leadership, norms, and reward policies
encourage the achieiement of botom-line goals only, with no atenton to ethical concerns, the culture is more
likely to support unethical conduct.
Hypithesis 14: The strength of ethical cultures in organizatons is negatiely related to unethical choices as (a)
unethical intenton and (b) unethical behaiior.
Hypithesis 15: Ex缩istence of a code of conduct is negatiely related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical
intenton and (b) unethical behaiior, in organizatons.
Related to the issue of code ex缩istence is the ex缩tent to which an organizaton enforces its: an efectie code
“must be more than ‘window dressing’ One way for the organizaton to coniey this to employees is to
discipline rule iiolators in a iisible manner
Hypithesis 16: Enforcement of a code of conduct is negatiely
related to unethical choices, as (a) unethical intenton and b) unethical behaiior in organizatons
3. rodes of conduct
reduce unethical behaiior by heightening the issue salience and clarifying appropriate and inappropriate
behaiiors.
Method: blabla
Dvscussvon
Our fndings reieal a high degree of underlying complex缩ity in unethical choices. That is, such choices cannot be
ex缩plained by one or two dominant antecedents. Rather, they are multdetermined, with substrates spread
widely, eien within the distnct realms of indiiidual, moral issue, and organizatonal eniironment
characteristcs. In that regard, it is tme for behaiioral ethics researchers to empirically integrate these multple
sets of predictors (studying bad apples, cases, and barrels simultaneously) to fully understand this complicated
phenomenon. Also, when relatonships with intenton and behaiior are iniestgated separately, the results
ostensibly call into queston what has been the traditonal, deliberatie approach to ethical decision making
and instead suggest what might be a more “impulsiie” formulaton.
indiiidual characteristcs
our results reieal that indiiiduals who obey authority fgures’ unethical directies or act merely to aioid
punishment (i.e., are lower in CMD; Kohlberg, 1969), who manipulate others to orchestrate their own personal
gain (i.e., are Machiaiellian), who fail to see the connecton between their actons and outcomes (i.e., haie an
ex缩ternal locus of control), or who belieie that ethical choices are driien by circumstance (i.e., hold a relatiistc
moral philosophy) are more likely to make unethical choices at work. Stll, an interestng common theme
among these dispositonal determinants is the apparent importance of self-gain, self-preseriaton, or
selfnterest. For ex缩ample, Machiaiellians and those lower in CMD (who make more unethical choices) are
“looking out for number one” and those high in internal locus of control (who make fewer unethical choices)
are likely to haie a greater concern about consequences for others. Furthermore, though job satsfacton is not
a dispositonal trait per se, its efects also suggest a self-focus. Those who haie a negatie assessment of their
job may be more focused on their dissatsfacton or on retaliaton for feeling badly than on the cost of their
actons tot he organizatons or others within it. Although demographics are among the most frequently
iniestgated groups of iariables in behaiioral ethics, our meta-analytc results suggest either weak or
null relatonships between age, gender, and educaton leiel and unethical choices. First, the fndings counter
theories that males and females difer markedly in how they puzzle through ethical dilemmas or that social
ex缩pectatons lead to systematc, gender-specifc responses to ethical dilemmas by actors in the workplace.
Second, the fndings do not support the idea that older indiiiduals consistently behaie more ethically than
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lizavandeursen. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.93. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
66579 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now