Punishment and forgiveness are two very different responses to a moral transgression that both have been argued to restore perceptions of moral order within an organization. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear what motivates organizational actors to punish or forgive a norm transgressor. We build on social cognitive theory to argue that punishment and forgiveness of a transgressor are both rooted in self-regulatory processes. Specifically, we argue that organizational actors are more likely to respond to intentional transgressions with punishment, and to (...) unintentional transgressions with forgiveness. However, these effects of transgressor intentionality should be found in particular among actors for whom moral identity is central. We find support for these predictions in a laboratory experiment and a field study among organizational leaders. By simultaneously studying punishment and forgiveness in organizational settings, we provide crucial insight in their shared motivational bases, as well as into important differences between the two. (shrink)

Ethics has recently gained importance in the debate over social capital creation. The goal of this study is to empirically examine the ethical work context of the firm as an antecedent of the firm’s internal social capital. We build on person–situation interactionist theory to argue that individuals can learn standards of appropriate behavior induced by the ethical work context in which they are embedded. By creating an ethical work context, managers can facilitate the process through which employees learn to feel (...) empathy toward others and establish profound affective relationships with them. Data were collected from 1,817 individuals in 36 business units of 7 Spanish, French, and Portuguese corporations. Using structural equation and hierarchical linear modeling techniques, our results reveal three phenomena. First, we show that a business unit’s ethical work context exerts significant influence on the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of internal social capital. Second, the managerial practices that constitute the ethical work context are not equally important across the seven corporations; in particular, managerial practices are more influential in those corporations that belong to knowledge-intensive industries. Third, a business unit’s internal social capital is influenced not only by the business unit’s ethical work context, but also by the ethical work context of the corporation to which it belongs. (shrink)

Perceived supervisor support is widely studied in terms of its positive outcomes. This paper, in contrast, investigates employees’ unethical pro-supervisor behavior as a negative consequence of perceived supervisor support. Drawing upon the multifoci approach of social exchange theory and the reciprocity principle, we hypothesized that perceived supervisor support can engender unethical pro-supervisor behavior via employees’ feelings of reciprocity towards the supervisor. Building on the instrumental reasons that underlie social exchanges, we further hypothesized that this mediation relationship is stronger for employees (...) high in Machiavellianism. We collected data for three experimental studies from full-time MBA students of a European business school and from U.S. working professionals, and the results provided consistent support for our proposed model. Taken together, the current study highlights the “dark side” of perceived supervisor support, in that it can lead to unethical behavior and that this effect can be accentuated by employees’ Machiavellianism. (shrink)

The literature on organizational ethicality to date has focused primarily on elements of the cultural, social, and political factors that enhance positive behaviors, interspersed with isolated accounts of malfeasance and wrongdoing. This treatise defines the anatomy of organizational dysfunction as a matter of ethicality, reframing the relationship from individual transgression to the organization itself. It is argued that the structure of an organization predisposes in large part whether it is itself conducive or prohibitive to unethical acts. Our approach allows for (...) a new stream of ethics research whose focus is how an organization functions rather than on the specific acts of those within it. (shrink)

The European Commission has suggested that the use of joint audits should lead to improved auditor skepticism and—by extension—audit quality, through increased accountability. However, archival research does not find support for improved audit quality in a joint audit setting. To better understand the relationship between accountability in different review regimes and auditors’ judgments, we examine the behavioral effect of implementing a joint audit relative to other review regimes based on a 1 × 3 experimental design. Forty-seven senior auditors and partners (...) from a Big Four firm performed a going concern evaluation task under one of three review regimes: the joint audit, the internal review, and the no review regime. Notwithstanding the difference in the audiences to which auditors are accountable, there is no difference in the judgment process. In terms of their judgment outcome, however, auditors in the joint audit setting were the least skeptical in their judgment of the going concern assumption. Overall, we suggest that the joint audit may lead to unintended behavioral consequences. (shrink)

Research has found that employees may engage in unethical behaviors to protect the organization or their leaders, which is called unethical pro-organizational behaviors (UPB, Umphress et al., 2010)...

We use a lab experiment to examine whether and how leaders influence workers’ (un)ethical behavior through financial reporting choices. We randomly assign the role of leaders or workers to subjects, who can choose to report an outcome via automatic or self-reporting. Self-reporting allows for profitable and undetectable earnings manipulation. We vary the leaders’ ability to choose the reporting method and to punish workers. We show that workers are more likely to choose automatic reporting when their leader voluntarily does so and (...) can assign punishment. Even workers who choose self-reporting tend to cheat less when their leader chooses automatic reporting. Nonetheless, most leaders do not opt for automatic reporting in the first place: they often choose self-reporting and punish workers who rather choose automatic reporting. Collectively, our results reveal a dual effect of leadership on ethical behaviors in organizations: workers behave more ethically if their leader makes ethical choices, but often leaders do not make ethical choices in the first place. Hence, leading by example can backfire. (shrink)

I propose a leadership theory with moral concerns at its core. Sāttvika leadership is defined as a set of purposive leader actions comprising knowledge-driven cooperation that are initiated on the basis of positive and reasonably accurate assumptions and executed through morally responsible and sustainably fruitful means to secure the flourishing of followers and the collective. SL enhances psychological capital, psychological empowerment, and work engagement of followers while developing them into morally better persons. It enhances their trust on the leader and (...) fellow followers. Further, it develops ethical climate of the organization. (shrink)

Unlike many other studies which assumed narcissism to be equivalent to overt narcissism, the purpose of this study is to empirically examine how covert and overt narcissism affect counterproductive work behaviors, a type of unethical behavior that can be discussed by ethical ideology. Furthermore, this research tests whether the relationship between managerial position and CWBs is direct or mediated by narcissism. The population of this study consisted of managers and nonmanagerial employees in 10 relatively small Iranian firms. Questionnaires were used (...) to collect the required data. The results indicated that most of the Iranian managers show both types of narcissistic behaviors specifically overt type, covert narcissism is a stronger predictor of interpersonal and organizational CWBs than overt narcissism, and managerial position does not seem to have a direct effect on CWBs, but has an indirect effect mediated through covert narcissism. (shrink)