Role-Set Configuration and Opportunity as Predictors of Unethical Behavior in Organizations

Abstract

Role-set configuration is examined as a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior among two random samples of advertisers [corporate clients and ad agency account executives]. The specific reported behaviors analyzed are intraorganizational behaviors available to most employees. The conceptual framework is based on differential association theory and role set configuration analysis. The three dimensions of role-set configuration used to predict ethical/unethical behavior are organizational location, relative authority and referent others' beliefs and behaviors as perceived by the focal person. The focal person's opportunity to participate in unethical behavior is also a predictor variable. Eighty-nine corporate clients and 136 agency advertisers responded to a questionnaire [a 33% return rate] consisting of a slightly revised version of Newstrom and Ruch's ethics scale. Seven types of predictors of ethical/unethical behavior, "What I do," are developed through principal component factor analysis. These seven variables include the beliefs and behaviors of referent others in various locations and authority positions which affect the focal person: [1] the focal person's beliefs, "What I believe"; 12] what the focal person thinks his/her peers believe, "Peer beliefs"; [31 what the focal person thinks his/her top management believes, "What top management believes"; [4] what the focal person thinks his/her peers do, "What my peers do"; [5] the opportunity the focal person thinks he/she has to become involved in ethical/unethical behavior, 'My opportunity"; [6] and [7] what the corporate client thinks the advertising agency believes, "What the agency believes" and what the ad agency thinks the corporate client believes, "What the corporate client believes. " Focal persons were asked to respond to either variable [6] or [7] depending on which was a referent. This research demonstrates the influence of role-set proximity in predicting the ethical/unethical behaviors of both the corporate clients and the ad agency account executives with intraorganizational relationships being more important than interorganizational relationships. Interorganizational role-set of corporate clients for ad agency account executives and vice versa is not a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior. Opportunity is a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior for both respondent types. The relative authority and attitude/behavior dimensions influence ethical/unethical behavior of both respondent types, although corporate advertiser's ethical/unethical behavior is predicted by top management's beliefs and the ad agency account executives' ethical/unethical behavior is predicted by the behaviors of peers.

Blame the shepherd not the sheep: Imitating higher-ranking transgressors mitigates punishment for unethical behavior

“…However, rank appears to affect imitation differently across second-and third-party judgment. Specifically, prior research indicates that peer behavior affects second-party judgment and behavior (e.g., Gino et al, 2009;Robinson & O'LearyKelly, 1998;Zey-Ferrell & Ferrell, 1982), whereas our research shows that third-party judgment is influenced less by behavior enacted by the imitators' peers than by the imitators' superiors. Therefore, a higher-ranking instigator or behavioral model appears to be a necessary condition for modeling to affect third-party (but not second-party) judgments about unethical behavior.…”

“…Leaders who model bad behavior embolden their subordinates to engage in bad behavior (Brown et al, 2005;Mawritz et al, 2012;Mayer et al, 2010;Mayer et al, 2009). Modeling can also exert an influence up or across the organizational hierarchy as well (e.g., Gino et al, 2009;Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998;Zey-Ferrell & Ferrell, 1982). In sum, research that draws from social learning theory has begun to articulate processes that explain how unethical behavior within organizations unfolds over time.…”

A Multimethod Approach to Identifying Norms and Normative Expectations Within a Corporate Hierarchy: Evidence from the Financial Services Industry

“…Further, a perceived misalignment between the personal normative opinion held by a financial adviser and those of his peers ( , ) is associated with a decline in the likelihood of telling the truth (Table 8 Column 3, estimated coefficient -0.17, p<0.01). It is worth noting that the change in the magnitude of the coefficients tells a story consistent with the literature that finds that people use peers as reference groups when deciding whether or not to engage in unethical behavior (Zey-Ferrell et al 1979and Zey-Ferrell and Ferrell 1982 respectively).…”

“…This is relevant because, as an example, considerable evidence points to a positive correlation between ethical leadership and ethical behavior among subordinates (Brown, Trevino and Harrison, 2005, Gatewood and Carroll, 1991, Smith et al, 2007, Treviño, Weaver and Brown, 2008. In addition, other literature suggests that the ethical behavior of one's peers may also be correlated with one's own ethical behavior (Zey-Ferrell et al 1979, Zey-Ferrell & Ferrell, 1982, Jones & Kavanagh, 1996, Brass et al, 1998. Thus, the ability to measure, in an incentive compatible manner, when and to what degree norms at the employee level overlap with norms at the management level in an organizational hierarchy would be a distinctive advance in the empirical tools available for studying organizational structure more generally and the effect of peer and leadership norms on behavior.…”

“…Previous work has looked at the correlation between ethical leadership and the ethical behavior among subordinates (Brown, Trevino and Harrison, 2005, Gatewood and Carroll, 1991, Smith et al, 2007, Treviño, Weaver and Brown, 2008 or between the ethical behavior of one's peers and one's own ethical behavior (Zey-Ferrell et al 1979, Zey-Ferrell & Ferrell, 1982). Our findings suggest an additional and perhaps more subtle point: that the degree to which personal ethical norms align with the norms of one's peers and, to a lesser extent, with the norms espoused by leadership, are also potentially important influences on attitudes and behavior.…”