Understanding Corruption in Organizations – Development and Empirical Assessment of an Action Model

Abstract

Despite a strong sensitization to the corruption problem and a large body of interdisciplinary research, scientists have only rarely investigated which motivational, volitional, emotional, and cognitive components make decision makers in companies act corruptly. Thus, we examined how their interrelation leads to corruption by proposing an action model. We tested the model using a business simulation game with students as participants. Results of the PLS structural equation modeling showed that both an attitude and subjective norm favoring corruption led to a desire to act corruptly. Given high perceived behavioral control, this desire was transformed into an intention that finally resulted in corrupt action. Components related to general private and professional goals did not allow for any prediction. Based on these results, we discuss preventative measures and methods for combating intra-and inter-organizational corruption.

Transparency Initiative for Enhancing QoL: Behavioural components leading to corruption

“…It can be seen that there is a strong positive correlation between 'desire to achieve a private or professional goal' and 'intention to achieve a private or professional goal' (rho=0.561). This is in line with Rabl and Kuhlmann (2008) that desire in achieving certain goals has to be transformed into intention. This means that, the higher the desire individual have to achieve their private or professional goal, the higher the intension will be.…”

“…The model examines the person-based determinants of human behaviour in interaction with a specific situational context (Rabl & Kuhlmann, 2008). This model is developed based on Model of Effortful Decision Making and Enactment (MEDME) by Bagozzi et al (2003) that integrates Rubicon Model of Action Phases (RMAP) (Gollwitzer, 1990) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) Rabl and Kuhlmann (2008) The combination of these two models (RMAP and TPB) has developed the MEDME by which it is necessary due to three factors: (1) TPB does not specify clearly the relationship between intention and behaviour which have been tackled by RMAP through volition construct, (2) TPB does not incorporates desires as a determinant intention to perform an action, and (3) both TPB and RMAP do not consider emotional aspects (Rabl and Kuhlmann, 2008). The MEDME distinguishes between intentions and desires, and shows that the motivation-mustering function of the decision process is mediated by goal and implementation desires.…”

“…Based on the ideas of Gollwitzer (1990), Ajzen (1991) and Bagozzi et al (2003) provide an input to the full Model of Corrupt Action by Rabl and Kuhlmann (2008). The Model of Corrupt Action consists of two main components the 'desire' and 'intention' to achieve through corrupt actions.…”

“…An 'inclination' for corruption is conceived to be intrinsic to human nature, and yet needs permissiveness, opportunities and incentives (Rabl and Kuhlmann, 2008;Gebel, 2012). A great deal of effort has been done to fight corruption in order to turn the industry towards prosperity with greater equity and give life to sustainable development.…”

Understanding Sport Corruption: An Examination of People’s Perceptions Toward Corruptions

“…To understand more clear definition of corruption, Rabl and Kühlmann (2008) attempted to explain the concept of corruption as five dimensions: (1) Corruption is based on the interaction between at least two partners ("exchange") (Ashforth & Anand, 2003;Heidenheimer, 2002;Höffling, 2002;Rabl & Kühlmann, 2008); (2) Corruption is immoral behavior ("violation of norms") (Brasz, 1970;Van Duyne, 2001;Rabl & Kühlmann, 2008); (3) Corrupt actors take advantage of authority, position or knowledge ("abuse of power") (Ashforth & Anand, 2003;Huntington, 1989;Khan, 1996;Nye, 1967;Pitt & Abratt, 1986;Tanzi, 1995Tanzi, , 1998Treisman, 2000;Van Duyne, 2001;Rabl & Kühlmann, 2008); (4) Victims are only found outside the corrupt case ("absence of direct victims") (Rabl & Kühlmann, 2008;Von Arnim, 2003); and (5) Corrupt actors organize hidden relationship that can agree on the illegal or unethical behaviors in exchange for personal purpose ("secrecy") (Hacker, 1981;Rabl & Kühlmann, 2008). The five dimensions of corruption have been used for understanding corrupt behaviors in sport.…”