“The Devil Made Me Do It!” An Inquiry Into the Unconscious “Devils Within” of Rationalized Corruption

Abstract

Individuals involved in corruption often offer rationalizations to convince themselves and others that they are not corrupt, and that their acts are justified and acceptable. However, to confine the dynamic process of mobilizing rationalizations to this purpose is too restrictive. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, it is argued that an unconscious urge for rationalizations develops from a need to find psychological restitution and atonement, achieved only through self-convincing beliefs of acquittal. Six unconscious motives are identified as explanations how offenders believe that rationalizations acquit them from guilt, indemnify them, or redeem the corruption. These motives represent metaphorical devils that can spawn corruption in otherwise law-abiding citizens with moral intentions. Conceptualizations bring the unconscious dynamics or rationalized corruption into consciousness, where it can be studied and worked with. This makes an important contribution toward enabling managers to be more in control of rationalized corruption, both in themselves and elsewhere in the organization.

From Caciques and Godfathers to Second-Order Corruption

“…This created elements which normalized routines and enhanced the rationalization process. The collaborators often stated that it was the way of the company and that they had to exempt themselves from guilt (De Klerk, 2017).…”

“…They had to pay for the state to do what it should have been doing anyway. That is a way of rationalizing corruption (De Klerk, 2017).…”

“…On the other hand, the trust that is required for acts of corruption enhances personal relationships and results in the rationalization of corruption. The executives try to exempt themselves from guilt over doing the wrong thing, which also contributes to continued corruption (De Klerk, 2017).…”

Seven Snags of Research Ethics on the Qualitative Research Voyage

“…It is scholarly sound that any endeavour to understand the concept of research ethics is buttressed by extant schools of thought on ethics. Following a cursory review of literature on ethics, three instructive paradigms, namely consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics are drawn from the work of Collins (2012:149-157), Crockett (2005) and (De Klerk, 2017) to enrich our understanding of ethics in general and research ethics in particular. The three paradigms of ethics are selected for discussion primarily because they espouse relevant philosophy, which inform ethical practice in research, and has been key in influencing the code of ethics used by researchers.…”

“…phone, face-to-face, written communication), the response from the participants, the questions asked and answers given, the negotiation of dates and times of interviews, and so on to reflect the "process" of what really happened. In the parlance of Guillemin and Gillam (2004), this is not just about procedural ethics (formal approvals for a study to commence) but rather process ethics (ethics in the course of practice). This is consonant with informed consent as a process and portrayal of on-going interaction to make sure that informed consent is valid (Miller & Boulton, 2007).…”