Journal of Business Ethics 33 (4):299 - 322 (2001)
Abstract |
Despite an extensive amount of research studying the influence of significant others on an individual's ethical behavior, researchers have not examined this variable in the context of organizational group boundaries. This study tests actual and perceptual sharing and variation in ethical reasoning and moral intent within and across functional groups in an organization. Integrating theory on ethical behavior, group dynamics, and culture, it is proposed that organizational structure affects cognitive structure. Departmental boundaries create stronger social ties within the group as well as intergroup biases between the groups. Thus individuals will be more likely to share in ethical reasoning and moral intent with members of their own functional group (in-group) than with members of other functional groups (out-group). Additionally, they will perceive that they are more likely to share in ethical reasoning and moral intent with in-group members than with out-group members. Responding to two versions of two ethical scenarios, respondents contrasted their own ethical behavior to their expected ethical behavior of in-group and out-group members. Empirical results confirmed the hypotheses. Organizational group boundaries create actual as well as perceptual sharing and variation in ethical reasoning and moral intent. Furthermore, when comparing perceptual sharing to actual sharing, results show that individuals understate their sharing of ethical reasoning and moral intent with out-group members and overstate their sharing with in-group members. As organizational boundaries can create actual and perceived differences between groups that could lead to inter-group conflict, suggestions for management focus on removing or blurring inter-group boundaries.
|
Keywords | ethical reasoning functional groups in-group intergroup bias moral intent out-group significant others |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Reprint years | 2004 |
DOI | 10.1023/A:1011881211040 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Ethical Decision Making: A Review of the Empirical Literature. [REVIEW]Robert C. Ford & Woodrow D. Richardson - 1994 - Journal of Business Ethics 13 (3):205 - 221.
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.Donald Thomas Campbell - 1966 - Chicago: R. Mcnally.
Approaches to Organisational Culture and Ethics.Amanda Sinclair - 1993 - Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1):63 - 73.
Reinforcing Ethical Decision Making Through Organizational Structure.Harvey S. James - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 28 (1):43 - 58.
A Test of a Person -- Issue Contingent Model of Ethical Decision Making in Organizations.Susan J. Harrington - 1997 - Journal of Business Ethics 16 (4):363-375.
View all 9 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
A Cognitive–Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgment.Adenekan Dedeke - 2015 - Journal of Business Ethics 126 (3):1-21.
Intra‐Firm Transfer of Best Practices in Moral Reasoning: A Conceptual Framework.Subodh Kulkarni & Nagarajan Ramamoorthy - 2014 - Business Ethics: A European Review 23 (1):15-33.
Coping with Loneliness Through Materialism: Strategies Matter for Adolescent Development of Unethical Behaviors.Elodie Gentina, L. J. Shrum & Tina M. Lowrey - 2018 - Journal of Business Ethics 152 (1):103-122.
Reducing Ingroup Bias in Ethical Consumption: The Role of Construal Levels and Social Goodwill.Diego Costa Pinto, Adilson Borges, Márcia Maurer Herter & Mário Boto Ferreira - 2020 - Business Ethics Quarterly 30 (1):31-63.
The Impact of Relative Position and Relational Closeness on the Reporting of Unethical Acts.Diane L. Miller & Stuart Thomas - 2005 - Journal of Business Ethics 61 (4):315-328.
View all 7 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Group Processes and Performance and Their Effects on Individuals' Ethical Frameworks.Marshall Schminke & Deborah Wells - 1999 - Journal of Business Ethics 18 (4):367 - 381.
Ethical Decision Making: A Comparison of Computer- Supported and Face-to-Face Group. [REVIEW]James J. Cappel & John C. Windsor - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 28 (2):95 - 107.
Group Agency and Supervenience.Philip Pettit - 2006 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (S1):85-105.
‘What If Value and Rights Lie Foundationally in Groups?’ The Maori Case.Andrew Sharp - 1999 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 2 (2):1-28.
Are Cultural Group Rights Against Individual Rights?Erol Kuyurtar - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:51-59.
Individual, Social and Organizational Sources of Sharing and Variation in the Ethical Reasoning of Managers.Neil A. Granitz - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 42 (2):101 - 124.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
30 ( #380,960 of 2,505,991 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,828 of 2,505,991 )
2009-01-28
Total views
30 ( #380,960 of 2,505,991 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,828 of 2,505,991 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads