Explaining workplace delinquency: The role of Honesty–Humility, ethical culture, and employee surveillance

Vries, Reinout E. de; Gelder, Jean‐Louis van

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.008

Cited by 82 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, SVO shares significant overlap with HEXACO Honesty‐Humility (and with Big Five Agreeableness; Hilbig, Glöckner, & Zettler, ). Honesty‐Humility describes the tendency to be fair and honest (Ashton & Lee, ) and is associated with various socially desirable behaviours, such as a lower likelihood to sexually harass someone (Lee, Gizzarone, & Ashton, ) or to be delinquent and criminal (De Vries & Van Gelder, , ), and with increased interpersonal cooperation (Thielmann & Hilbig, ). Similarly, decades of research have shown that SVO reliably predicts cooperation not only in social dilemmas (Balliet et al, ) but also across a broad range of natural settings (e.g.…”

Section: Social Value Orientation and Cooperation In Social Dilemmasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interdependent situations are pervasive in human life. In these situations, it is essential to form expectations about the others' behaviour to adapt one's own behaviour to increase mutual outcomes and avoid exploitation. Social value orientation, which describes the dispositional weights individuals attach to their own and to another person's outcome, predicts these expectations of cooperation in social dilemmas—an interdependent situation involving a conflict of interests. Yet, scientific evidence is inconclusive about the exact differences in expectations between prosocials, individualists, and competitors. The present meta‐analytic results show that, relative to proselfs (individualists and competitors), prosocials expect more cooperation from others in social dilemmas, whereas individualists and competitors do not significantly differ in their expectations. The importance of these expectations in the decision process is further highlighted by the finding that they partially mediate the well‐established relation between social value orientation and cooperative behaviour in social dilemmas. In fact, even proselfs are more likely to cooperate when they expect their partner to cooperate. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

show abstract

Section: Social Value Orientation and Cooperation In Social Dilemmasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the HEXACO model, through its incorporation of an additional honestyhumility dimension and its reconfiguration of Big Five agreeableness and emotional stability (see provides incremental prediction in important outcome variables that are less well captured by the Big Five model (Ashton & Lee, 2008;Ashton et al, 2014;De Vries, Tybur, Pollet, & Van Vugt, 2016b). In particular, the ability of the honesty-humility factor to incrementally predict counterproductive work behaviour is particularly appealing for employers (De Vries & Van Gelder, 2015;Lee, Ashton, & De Vries, 2005;Louw, Dunlop, Yeo, & Griffin, 2016;Marcus, Lee, & Ashton, 2007;Oh, Lee, Ashton, & De Vries, 2011;Zettler & Hilbig, 2010). While the HEXACO model is becoming increasingly popular in I/O psychology (Hough & Connelly, 2013), as far as we are aware, there is no published study that has compared job applicants with non-applicants on the HEXACO model of personality.…”

Section: Hexaco Personalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Job Applicants to Non–Applicants Using An Item–Level Bifactor Model on the Hexaco Personality Inventory

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study evaluated the ability of item‐level bifactor models (a) to provide an alternative explanation to current theories of higher order factors of personality and (b) to explain socially desirable responding in both job applicant and non‐applicant contexts. Participants (46% male; mean age = 42 years, SD = 11) completed the 200‐item HEXACO Personality Inventory‐Revised either as part of a job application (n = 1613) or as part of low‐stakes research (n = 1613). A comprehensive set of invariance tests were performed. Applicants scored higher than non‐applicants on honesty‐humility (d = 0.86), extraversion (d = 0.73), agreeableness (d = 1.06), and conscientiousness (d = 0.77). The bifactor model provided improved model fit relative to a standard correlated factor model, and loadings on the evaluative factor of the bifactor model were highly correlated with other indicators of item social desirability. The bifactor model explained approximately two‐thirds of the differences between applicants and non‐applicants. Results suggest that rather than being a higher order construct, the general factor of personality may be caused by an item‐level evaluative process. Results highlight the importance of modelling data at the item‐level. Implications for conceptualizing social desirability, higher order structures in personality, test development, and job applicant faking are discussed. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology

show abstract

“…A survey of 341 work groups showed that at least six virtues are significantly related to the frequency of observed unethical behavior (Kaptein, 2011a). Other research showed a significant relationship between the virtues and whistle blowing (Kaptein, 2011b), engagement , commitment , absence due to illness (Kangas et al 2017), well-being (Huhtala et al 2011, delinquency (De Vries & van Gelder, 2015), and citizenship (Ruiz-Palomino & Martínez-Cañas, 2014).…”

Section: T H E C O R P O R a T E E T H I C A L Vi R T U E S Mo De Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CEV Model is derived from an analysis of 150 practices of unethical behavior. This analysis was the basis for seven relevant ethical virtues that were defined and subsequently tested (DeBode, Armenakis, Feild, & Walker, ; Kangas, Feldt, Huhtala, & Rantanen, ; Kaptein, ), and applied (De Vries & van Gelder, ; Huhtala & Feldt, ; Huhtala, Feldt, Lämsä, Mauno, & Kinnunen, ; Huhtala, Kangas, Lämsä, & Feldt, ; Huhtala, Kaptein, & Feldt, ; Huhtala, Tolvanen, Mauno, & Feldt, ; Kangas, Muotka, Huhtala, Mäkikangas, & Feldt, ; Kaptein, ; Riivari, Lämsä, Kujala, and Heiskanen, ; Ruiz‐Palomino & Martínez‐Cañas, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When organizations are too good: Applying Aristotle's doctrine of the mean to the corporate ethical virtues model

Kaptein

2017

Business Ethics: A European Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aristotle's doctrine of the mean states that a virtue is the mean state between two vices: a deficient and an excessive one. The Corporate Ethical Virtues (CEV) Model defines the mean and the corresponding deficient vice for each of its seven virtues. This paper defines for each of these virtues the corresponding excessive vice and explores why organizations characterized by these excessive vices increase the likelihood that their employees will behave unethically. The excessive vices are patronization, pompousness, lavishness, zealotry, overexposure, talkativeness, and oppressiveness.

show abstract

Explaining workplace delinquency: The role of Honesty–Humility, ethical culture, and employee surveillance

Cited by 82 publications

References 29 publications

Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis

Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis

Comparing Job Applicants to Non–Applicants Using An Item–Level Bifactor Model on the Hexaco Personality Inventory

When organizations are too good: Applying Aristotle's doctrine of the mean to the corporate ethical virtues model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About