The Role of Identification in Giving Sense to Unethical Organizational Behavior

Abstract

This language production experiment investigates communication's role in defending, and therefore giving sense to, organizational wrongdoing. The study suggests identification may possibly reduce organizations' moral learning capacity by encouraging highly identified members to engage in ethical sensegiving of their organizations' wrongdoing in defensive ways. Working adults (N = 318) responded to an organizational outsider regarding a gender discrimination lawsuit filed against their organization in one of two scenarios, which presented the organization's guilt as either ambiguous or certain. Highly identified members used more linguistic defense mechanisms and reported more intense feelings. Additionally, participants in the ambiguous condition used more linguistic defense mechanisms than those in the certain condition. Veteran members reported higher levels of organizational identification and used more linguistic defense mechanisms than newcomers.

The Dark Side of Organizational Identification: A Multi-Study Investigation of Negative Outcomes

“…Some researchers believe that highly identified employees engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior to show their higher level of belongingness with the organization ( Leavitt and Sluss, 2015 ). Ploeger and Bisel (2013) suggest that OI promotes in-group biases as a result of which employees engage in unethical behaviors that benefit their organization. Social identity theory also supports this association by stating that members of a particular group engage in activities that promote their group’s chances of success over others, because their group’s success also enhances their self-worth due to shared identity ( Tajfel and Turner, 1985 ).…”

“…They often engage in those behaviors which benefit the organization, such as PSRB, as the organizational benefit is linked to their benefit. Identified employees experience in-group biases, which encourage them to engage in unacceptable behaviors such as rule breaking as long as those actions benefit the organization ( Ploeger and Bisel, 2013 ). To summarize, OI enhances loyalty and organizational commitment among employees, which motivates them to engage in all those behaviors which offer benefit to the organization even at the cost of compromising the rules.…”

Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification

“…Second, identified employees may indirectly facilitate unethical behavior by failing to challenge or report it, covering it up, or making excuses to justify it. For instance, Ploeger and Bisel () argued that OI can motivate in‐group biases so that identified employees are more likely to frame organizational wrongdoing in ways that minimize damage to the organization's image and by extension, their own image. In a scenario‐based experiment, they found that when highly identified employees were asked about a fictitious lawsuit against their company, they communicated using more defensive mechanisms (e.g., denial, minimizing the situation, bolstering the organization, undermining the accusation) even when their company was portrayed as guilty.…”

Lone star or team player? The interrelationship of different identification foci and the role of self‐presentation concerns

“…Conversely, individual identity can also influence the organization, as employees strive to achieve alignment between their work identity and work environment (Kira & Balkin, 2014). More widely, a strong work identity has been associated with a number of positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment, organizational citizenship behavior, individual effectiveness, and team performance (Janssen & Huang, 2008;Solansky, 2011;Van Dick, Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006), as well as negative effects, including defending organizational wrongdoing (Ploeger & Bisel, 2013). However, rather than being unidimensional, work identity has been characterized as comprising multiple interconnected subidentities (e.g., Foreman & Whetten, 2002).…”