Extending the Deontic Model of Justice: Moral Self-Regulation in Third-Party Responses to Injustice

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>The deontic model of justice and ethical behavior proposes that people care about justice simply for the sake of justice. This is an important consideration for business ethics because it implies that justice and ethical behavior are naturally occurring phenomena independent of system controls or individual self-interest. To date, research on the deontic model and third-party reactions to injustice has focused primarily on individuals’ tendency to<jats:italic>punish</jats:italic>transgressors. This research has revealed that witnesses to injustice will consider sacrificing their own resources if it is the only way to sanction an observed transgressor. In this paper we seek to extend this model by arguing that punishment may not be the only “deontic” reaction, and that in fact, third-party observers of injustice may engage in moral self-regulation that would lead them to conclude that the most ethical response is to do nothing. We provide preliminary evidence for our propositions using voiced cognitions data collected during a resource allocation task. Results indicate that deonance may be more complex than originally thought, and previous tests of the model conservative in nature.</jats:p>

Whose Side Are You On? Exploring the Role of Perspective Taking on Third-Party’s Reactions to Workplace Deviance

“…Finally, our results help clarify why the assumption of the deontic model of justice (Folger, 2001) that perpetrators will tend to be punished for engaging in negative behavior is not always supported in the literature (Cortina & Magley, 2003;Mitchell, Vogel, & Folger, 2015;Rupp & Bell, 2010). We show that an important part of third-party endorsement of punishment of the perpetrator resides in the extent to which they take the perspective of those involved in deviant behavior (i.e., the perpetrator or victim).…”

The Joint Effects of Justice Climate, Group Moral Identity, and Corporate Social Responsibility on the Prosocial and Deviant Behaviors of Groups

“…That is, as group members high in moral identity hold being moral as central to their sense of self, they may be less likely to engage in punishment behaviors such as deviance, even in the presence of injustice. According to Rupp and Bell (2010), moral self-regulation can occur in response to wrongdoing, which would lead individuals to refrain from retaliatory behaviors. In this way, moral self-regulation leads individuals to turn the other cheek and be less responsive to fluctuations in their work environment.…”

The ethics of conscious capitalism: Wicked problems in leading change and changing leaders

“…As the research focus shifts away from victims' perceptions and toward the decision makers themselves, behavioral ethics is increasing in importance. This shift has heightened interest from diverse fields including organizational behavior, business ethics, and industrial/ organizational psychology (Rupp and Bell, 2010). Despite recent work exploring ethical leadership (e.g., Akrivou et al, 2011;Brown and Mitchell, 2010;Kenny, 2010;Mihelič et al, 2010;Toor and Ofori, 2009), research on ethical leader development is surprisingly lacking.…”

“…For leaders, deontic justice research explains decision making in terms of moral rule-following and internalized standards of justice and ethics (e.g., Cropanzano et al, 2003;Cropanzano and Stein, 2009;Rupp and Bell, 2010). Another way to consider deontic justice perspectives is through the concept of mindfulness.…”

“…8 (i.e., distributive, procedural, interactional, see Cropanzano and Stein, 2009), is a top priority for leaders. Conscious leaders are those who are mindful of their behaviors and ethical convictions (as in deontic justice, see Cropanzano et al, 2003;Rupp and Bell, 2010), as they work toward the betterment of their organizations and society.…”