unethical workplace behavior, causes

AIR WAR COLLEGE

AIR UNIVERSITY

UNETHICAL WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR:

CAUSES AND MITIGATION

by

Travis C. Harsha, Lt Col, USAF

A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements

Advisor: Col James E. Lackey, USA

14 February 2013

i

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect

the official policy or position of the US government, the Department of Defense, or Air

University. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the

property of the United States government.

ii

Biography

Lieutenant Colonel Travis C. Harsha is a U.S. Air Force security forces officer assigned

to the Air War College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, AL. He entered the Air Force in 1991 as

an AFROTC distinguished graduate. He graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia in

1991 with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, University of Maryland-College

Park in 2001 with a Masters of Arts in Criminology and Criminal Justice, and Air Command and

Staff College in 2005 with a Master of Arts in Military Operational Art and Science. He has

served at unit, major command and Air Staff level in various positions, including three times as a

squadron commander.

iii

Abstract

Over the past year, numerous military scandals of unethical workplace behavior have

surfaced. This behavior negatively affected all involved, undermined public trust in military

leaders and service as a whole and affected morale, discipline and mission readiness.

Considering its corrosive effects, unethical workplace behavior must be addressed. To address

it, we must first understand its causes. Empirical evidence shows individual, organizational and

situational factors cause and/or allow unethical workplace behavior. To the extent leaders and

managers understand and can address these factors, they can mitigate unethical workplace

behavior. This paper explores these causes and ways to mitigate.

1

Introduction

Over the past year, numerous military scandals of unethical workplace behavior have

surfaced. This behavior negatively affected all involved, undermined public trust in military

leaders and service as a whole and affected morale, discipline and mission readiness.

Considering its corrosive effects, unethical workplace behavior must be addressed.

Why do people behave unethically at work and what can be done to mitigate such

behavior? This paper, divided into three sections, attempts to answer these questions. Empirical

evidence shows individual, organizational and situational factors cause and/or allow unethical

workplace behavior. To the extent leaders and managers understand and can address these

factors, they can mitigate unethical workplace behavior. Section I defines key terms and

explores individual, organizational and situational factors which cause and/or allow unethical

behavior. Section II provides recommendations to mitigate unethical workplace behavior.

Finally, Section III provides a conclusion.

Definitions

Three definitions are central to this paper. First, a moral issue is “present where a

person’s actions, when freely performed, may harm or benefit others.”1 Second, a moral agent is

“a person who makes a moral decision, even though he or she may not recognize that moral

issues are at stake.”2 Third, ethical behavior is “legal and morally acceptable to the larger

community.”3 Conversely, unethical behavior is “either illegal or morally unacceptable to the

larger community.”4 In this paper, the terms “moral” and “ethical” are considered equal and

used interchangeably depending on context.

2

Causes

Before we can address unethical workplace behavior, we must first understand what

causes it. Based on empirical evidence from criminology, psychology and sociology research,

this section will discuss key individual, organizational and situational factors that cause and/or

allow unethical workplace behavior.

Individual

Individuals commit unethical workplace behavior for a number of reasons. Some people

have a propensity to engage in unethical behavior based on certain individual characteristics.

Empirical evidence suggests the most consistent individual factors which predict unethical

behavior include the following (in no particular order):

1) Certain personality traits. Low self-control (impulsive for instant gratification if

given the opportunity), external locus of control (believe outcomes are primarily determined by

external forces vice self) and high in Machiavellianism (propensity to deceive/manipulate others

in pursuit of selfish goals).5, 6, 7, 8, 9

2) Certain ethical philosophical beliefs/values. Relativism (believe moral rules are

situational) and teleology (ends justify means; also known as consequentialist ethics).10, 11, 12

3) Propensity to rationalize/morally disengage. Research shows most people use

standards of ethical behavior they adopt through socialization to guide their actions and regulate

themselves.13

To neutralize any regrets or negative feelings before and/or after committing

unethical behavior, people may disengage their self-regulatory process through rationalizations

in a process called moral disengagement.14, 15, 16

Based on extensive research, the most common rationalization tactics are: denial of

responsibility (convince themselves they have no other choice because of circumstances), denial

3

of injury (no one is harmed so actions are not corrupt), denial of victim (victim deserved to be

victimized), social weighting [can occur in two ways: condemning the condemners (question

legitimacy of condemners) and selective social comparisons (compare self to others who appear

to have committed worse behavior making self feel not as bad)], appeal to higher authorities

(need to breach ethical norms to fulfill more important goals) and balancing the ledger (good

works have earned credits to offset bad).17

Researchers found the likelihood to morally disengage correlates positively with

Machiavellianism and relativism, which reinforces linkage of moral thinking/behavior to certain

personality traits and certain ethical philosophical beliefs/values.18

Bandura argues moral

disengagement is explicitly interactive, “the result of the continued reciprocal influence of the

individual, behavior, and the environment.”19

Thus one’s personality traits/beliefs coupled with

certain contextual factors/situations (e.g., denial of responsibility in response to dominant

authority figures) may increase one’s propensity to morally disengage.20

4) Low cognitive moral development (affects moral judgment and behavior).21, 22

Kohlberg’s Cognitive Moral Development theory argues individuals progress in stages as they

become more cognitively advanced and independent in their moral reasoning.23

Research shows

most adults are at the conventional level of cognitive development, meaning their thinking about

what is right/wrong is largely influenced by significant others through social learning and

rules/laws. Social learning theory asserts individuals learn by observing and modeling the

behavior of others they deem important (usually leaders/supervisors and in-group/popular

employees).24, 25

Through social learning, supervisors and peers can influence employee ethical

decision-making and behavior for better or worse.26

4

5) Poor ethical decision-making. Much research on unethical behavior asserts people

behave unethically based on poor ethical decision making/reasoning, which all of the

aforementioned individual factors affect.

James Rest provides the most popular ethical decision-making model, which posits four

basic components/steps: 1) identifying moral issue (moral awareness), 2) making a moral

judgment, 3) establishing moral intent and 4) acting morally.27

Rest argues people are apt to act

unethically when one or more of these steps is not followed. For example, those who act

unethically may not see an issue as a moral one and/or may rationalize their actions (before or

after) to see themselves acting morally when they are not.28

Finally, just because one uses an

ethical decision making model does not mean their judgment or behavior is/will be ethical.29

Research also demonstrates moral judgments can come from an intuitive, emotion-based

(impulsive) process, rather than reason.30, 31

Haidt argues the main difference between

“intuition” and “reasoning” are that “intuition occurs quickly, effortlessly, and automatically,

such that the outcome and not the process is accessible to consciousness, while reasoning occurs

more slowly, requires some effort, and involves at least some steps that are accessible to

consciousness.”32

He asserts moral reasoning exists, but it usually occurs after a moral judgment

as justification for decision/actions vice before.33

Haidt emphasizes the importance of social

and cultural influences in shaping one’s intuition and subsequent moral judgment. Similar to

social learning theory, Haidt argues “in many cases people’s privately held judgments are

directly shaped by the judgment of others” (even if no reasoned persuasion is used).34

Research shows unethical judgments and behavior are also strongly influenced by certain

organizational and situational factors.35

To use a metaphor, there are bad apples, some of which

are caused, or accelerated in their decay, by bad barrels.

5

Organizational/Situational

A good and bad apples’ propensity for unethical behavior can increase when they sit in

bad barrels (unethical organization/situations).36, 37

Given organizational/situational factors can

increase one’s propensity to commit unethical behavior, Doris argues, “Rather than striving to

develop characters that will determine our behavior in ways substantially independent of

circumstance, we should invest more of our energies in attending to the features of our

environment that influence behavioral outcomes.”38

Key organizational and situational factors which influence unethical workplace behavior

include the following (in no particular order):

1) Unethical organizational climate/culture. As mentioned, a bad barrel can

make/foster bad apples. Organizations which foster unethical behavior often exhibit one or more

of the following characteristics: have weak and/or unethical leaders, bottom-line mentality (ends

justify means), unrealistic goals, reward or ignore/weakly sanction unethical behavior, treat

employees unfairly and demand unquestioning obedience to authority. 39

Like individuals, organizations may morally disengage by rationalization tactics to

maintain a positive image and infuse such tactics into their way of doing business. In a corrupt

unit, socialization tactics often accompany rationalization tactics to progressively assimilate

newcomers into accepting and committing unethical behavior.40, 41, 42

Over time, these actions

can make unethical behavior part of the organizational culture and routine way of doing

business.43

Research repeatedly demonstrates peer influence plays a major role in influencing

unethical behavior. The more individuals witness co-workers acting unethically, the more likely

they are to do the same.44

Peers also exert normative influence against peer reporting of

6

unethical behavior, particularly if the peer is a friend.45

Research shows most employees view

themselves as more ethical than others, even when they are not. When surrounded by unethical

behavior, employees may justify/rationalize their own unethical behavior on the basis of

“everyone else is doing it” or “it is not as bad as what others are doing” or it’s necessary to

compete evenly with others who are far less principled.46

2) Weak and/or unethical leadership/supervision (do not demonstrate/enforce ethical

values/behavior). Through social learning, employees look to significant others (especially

leaders and supervisors) for what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.47

If

leaders/supervisors commit unethical behavior and/or allow others to do so, they can influence

employees to think and act unethically too by legitimizing such behavior.48

Through power of

rewards/punishment and unquestioned authority, unethical leaders/supervisors can also

influence/pressure employees to accept/commit unethical behavior.49

Under reciprocal deviance, a leader/supervisor that allows or treats employees

unfairly/disrespectfully can foster a toxic work environment, which can breed contempt and

retaliatory unethical behavior to right perceived wrongs.50

Research has found a significant

relationship between job dissatisfaction (especially from toxic leaders/supervisors) and

deviant/unethical work behavior.51

Poor leadership often exists where/when employees perceive a leader is more focused on

his/her own self-interest vice concern for employees.52

3) Certain job characteristics. Some jobs have inherent characteristics which can

increase one’s opportunity and propensity to behave unethically, especially if predisposed to do

so based on individual causal factors. These job characteristics include (in no particular order):

stressful/demanding (unrealistic objectives, limited time/resources), lack control over

7

environment, lack of support network, more external contacts and where/when employees

perceive an expectation of unquestioning obedience to authority.53, 54, 55, 56

Note many military

jobs contain such job characteristics.

Organizations may also create job/work demands (e.g., increased stress/work hours or

rotating shift schedules) that foster inadequate rest/sleep, which can increase one’s propensity for

unethical behavior by diminishing one’s self-control resources.57

This draws on Ego Depletion

Model, which argues people have a limited capacity for cognitive self-control (like fuel tank) at

any moment that is depleted by using it until rest/sleep restores it.58

4) Situational factors. Situationism posits “variance in human behavior is typically a

function of the situation a person inhabits, or takes herself to inhabit, rather than any traits of

character she putatively possesses.”59

So to understand one’s behavior, we must take into

account situational variables.

Several studies show how minor situational variables affect helping behavior (e.g.,

hurried passersby step over passed out victim while unhurried stop to help or those who just

found some change help a person whose papers have fallen vice those who did not just find

change do not).60

Studies have also shown how situational variables can spawn harmful behavior in

ordinary people [e.g., Millgram’s study of how people are willing to torture someone at the polite

request of an authority figure or Zimbardo’s study of how people acting as prison guards can

increasingly abuse others acting as inmates].61

To the extent situational factors can influence

behavior more than one’s character or moral development, organizations and individuals must be

aware of such factors and address them.62

8

While situationist research often argues situational variables trump individual traits (such

as character, which some situationist advocates believe does not exist), some researchers argue

situationist research supports the existence of local traits of character (vice global, which

traditional virtue ethics endorse but the evidence does not support global traits of character).63

For example, most people would behave compassionately when they are not in a hurry (they are

ambling-along-compassionate) or when they are not in a group (they are not-in-a-group-

compassionate).64

Similarly, if one is loyal-to-his-wife-only-when-sober, he will wisely reject

dinner-and-drink invite from co-worker.65

As Doris argues, “condemnation for ethical failure

might very often be directed not at a particular failure of the will but at a certain culpable naiveté

or insufficiently careful attention to situations.”66

Situational variables can also impact ethical

behavior directly and act as a moderator (e.g., influencing moral reasoning leading to moral

behavior). Subsequently, scholars stress organizational culture must be managed to influence

individual and organizational ethical behavior.67

In what is known as the Bathsheba Syndrome, upper-level leaders’/managers’ unethical

behavior can be caused/tempted by their inability/unpreparedness to deal with the by-products of

success, which include the following: increased autonomy; privileged access to people,

information or objects; unrestrained control of organizational resources and an inflated belief in

one’s ability to manipulate outcomes.68

The next section discusses recommendations to mitigate unethical behavior addressing

individual, organizational and situational causes.

Recommendations

To most effectively and efficiently address/mitigate unethical workplace behavior,

organizations must address its individual, organizational and situational causes.

9

Individual

To address individual causes of unethical workplace behavior, organizations should first

ensure they have authentic leaders/supervisors fostering an ethical organizational climate and

culture. They should also incorporate the following measures (in no particular order):

1) Carefully hire/screen. They should carefully screen potential employees (e.g.,

conduct screening tests/background investigations/interviews, validate resume information, have

applicants read/sign statement obligating them to abide by company’s values/ethical standards as

part of the application process) and hire ethical individuals to the greatest extent possible.69

2) Educate/train/mentor. Through formal programs, leaders/supervisors should

educate/train employees to increase their self-control, raise moral development (awareness,

judgment and behavior), raise emotional intelligence, decrease stress and identify/mitigate

situational factors which may make one more apt to behave unethically. They should also

socialize/infuse everyone with ethical organizational values, which are clearly communicated,

demonstrated and rewarded/enforced by their authentic leaders/supervisors.70

Considering the impact of social learning, unit newcomers should be setup with authentic

supervisors/leaders who properly train and lead them and advance their moral development and

commitment to the organization.71

In addition, organizations/leaders should closely monitor in-

group/popular peers and ensure they are fostering an ethical climate/culture by their

words/actions.72

3) Prevent/reverse rationalizations and socialization for unethical behavior. As

unethical behavior-related rationalization and socialization tactics can be very difficult to reverse

once established, organizations should focus on preventing such behavior through the following

actions: 1) foster awareness among employees on the wrongfulness of such tactics (train to

10

identify and question such tactics rather than accept/participate; include periodic introspection

days with external facilitators to examine acts/policies for ethical implications); 2) use

performance evaluations that go beyond numbers (explore what numbers were met and how;

avoid bottom-line mentality where any means may be used to justify ends); 3) nurture an ethical

environment in the organization (code of ethics supported by organizational structures and

policies); and 4) ensure top management serves as ethical role models.73

To reverse unethical behavior related rationalizations and socializations, organizations

should: 1) avoid denial and move quickly (as bad apples can come from bad barrels, look for

and quickly address any system driven problems); 2) involve external change agents (to ensure

objectivity/credibility); and 3) remain aware and vigilant.74

With individual causes addressed, we now turn to addressing organizational/situational

causes.

Organizational/Situational

1) Create and sustain ethical climate/culture. Just as unethical climates/cultures can

create unethical behavior, research shows organizations can reduce misconduct and raise job

satisfaction by fostering an ethical climate/culture.75

Leaders shape an organization’s culture by their words and actions. The five primary

mechanisms a leader can use to influence organizational culture are: 1) what they pay attention

to, measure and control; 2) how they react to critical incidents and crises; 3) their deliberate role

modeling, coaching and teaching; 4) the criteria used for rewards and status; and 5) the criteria

used for recruitment, selection, promotion and retirement.76

To create and sustain an ethical climate/culture, organizations must carefully select and

promote authentic leaders/supervisors, which are attuned to their roles as moral agents.77

11

Leaders must clearly and genuinely communicate and demonstrate ethical standards/conduct and

reward and enforce ethical behavior.78

Leaders should foster a safe, secure and enjoyable work

environment where people feel cared for and are inspired to behave ethically in the interest of the

company and its employees.79

Given the great influence of leaders/managers on an employee’s

decision to engage in unethical behavior, organizations should impose more severe sanctions

against unethical leaders/managers.80

All policies, practices and decisions should pass the “headline test” and external parties

should review them periodically to ensure they are ethical. They should set realistic goals and

avoid bottom-line mentality, focusing on what and how people accomplish their mission. Lager

posits, “More effective than the usual compliance-based ethics system are values-oriented or

integrity-based programs, where the focus is not on compliance, but on maintaining a culture

where ethical issues can be discussed, ethical behavior is rewarded and the organization’s values

are incorporated by its leaders into strategic decisions.”81

Organizations should also develop a code of ethics in an open, participative environment

involving as many employees as possible to foster buy-in. The code of ethics must clearly state

the organization’s basic principles and expectations, realistically focus on potential ethical

dilemmas, be clearly/routinely communicated to employees, be accepted/internalized by

everyone and it must be enforced to be effective.82

Unique units in organizations should expand

on organization’s core code of ethics adding their own codes for unique ethical dilemmas they

may face.83

2) Ensure authentic leadership/supervisors. Research shows authentic

leadership/supervision is critical to creating/sustaining an ethical work climate/culture.

Authentic leadership is “a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive

12

psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an

internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency

on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development.”84

To be most effective, authentic leaders/supervisors must be ethical role models. An

ethical role model is someone who is fair, honest, respectful, considerate, consistently

demonstrate ethical standards and actively manage morality (set the ethical tone, promote values-

based over compliance based, and reward good behavior and punish bad).85, 86, 87, 88

At its core,

ethical leadership behavior is being a servant leader (selflessly serving/caring for subordinates

and acting with organization/employee best interests in mind).89

Research shows employees

with strong ethical leadership are more committed to their organization, more ethically aware

and more willing to report ethical problems than those organizations with weak or unethical

leadership.90

Just as social learning can support bad behavior, it can support good behavior. Retired

United States Air Force General Fogleman recognized a single individual in a position of

leadership could make or break a unit.91

An authentic leader, General Fogleman saw leadership

and integrity inextricably linked and most critical to mission success (setting the standard for

integrity within organizations).92

His four pass-fail items for leadership demonstrate his

conviction to inspire trust and teamwork, essential for an ethical climate: “1) Don’t rule through

fear. 2) Never lose your temper or have an outburst of anger in public. 3) Never tolerate any

breach of integrity. 4) Zero tolerance for sexual harassment or any kind of prejudice based on

race, religion, ethnic origin, age—any kind of discriminator.”93

3) Tap the trenches. To care for their employees, leaders and supervisors must know

their issues. They must get out from behind their desks and walk the line. Such actions can

13

foster greater trust, communications and commitment from employees. In that vein,

organizations should also conduct in-depth interviews/surveys with lower-level employees to get

their perceptions on organizational climate/culture, leader/supervisor behavior, employee fair

treatment and aggressively follow-up on any ethical concerns raised by employees.94, 95

4) Reduce the pressures/stress. As stress can make employees more likely to behave

unethically, leaders/supervisors should identify and reduce work stressors (to the extent they can)

and improve employee capacity to handle stress. Leaders/supervisors should set realistic goals

and provide adequate time/resources to get the job done right. For example, as research shows a

lack of sleep can affect moral cognition/behavior, supervisors should closely monitor work

schedules and personnel to ensure adequate sleep. Those not afforded adequate sleep should be

monitored closely to ensure opportunity does not arise to commit an unsafe or unethical act.

To reduce upper-level leaders/managers falling victim to the Bathsheba Syndrome

(inherent temptations/corruption that can come with power), organizations must change

structures, procedures and practices which encourage/allow such unethical behavior.96

To

mitigate such behavior, bosses of upper-level leaders/managers should authentically lead/mentor

their direct reports and ensure they are living a balanced/grounded life and are surrounded by an

ethical team of leaders/managers who will inspire them to lead by example and challenge or

comfort them when they need either.97

5) Increase the certainty of unethical workplace behavior being caught. Deterrence

theory posits three factors (certainty of being caught, severity of punishment and swiftness of

punishment) deter crime. Research shows certainty of being caught is the most important

deterrent factor (as criminals think they will not be caught, so severity and swiftness of

punishment will not matter as much in their calculus to commit a crime).98

Research shows the

14

threat of punishment, no matter how severe, is not effective in promoting ethical behavior.99

Subsequently, to deter unethical behavior, organizations should focus on increasing employee

perceptions they will be caught if they commit unethical behavior by setting up control measures

(e.g., well-advertised monitoring, internal controls, regular audits) and fostering an ethical

climate/culture where unethical behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported/investigated

and appropriately handled.100, 101

6) Ensure effective reporting system for unethical behavior (whistle-blowing).

Research shows employees are more apt to report unethical behavior if they are tasked to report

it and organizational culture/climate supports such reporting. Researchers also found to the

extent unethical behavior threatened the group’s interest (group penalized), group members were

more likely to report a peer.102

For example, the United States Air Force Academy honor code (like code of ethics)

states, “We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.” Under the

honor code, each cadet is obligated to confront/report such unethical behavior. If they do not

confront/report such behavior, they fall subject to the same discipline as others who violate the

code. The code deters unethical behavior by increasing the certainty of being caught (everyone

is responsible to detect and report such behavior). Leaders also swiftly and seriously deal with

all reports of ethical violations, which fosters confidence in system and corrects/removes any bad

apples before they rot the barrel.

7) Identify/mitigate situational factors. As certain situational factors may lead one to

behave unethically, it is important one identify these factors unique to him/her and take actions

to mitigate them. Doris provides an example for sexual fidelity.

“Imagine that a colleague with whom you have had a long flirtation invites you for

dinner, offering enticement of interesting food and elegant wine, with the excuse that you

15

are temporarily orphaned while your spouse is out of town. Let’s assume the obvious

way to read this text is the right one, and assume further that you regard the infidelity that

might result as an ethically undesirable outcome. If you are like one of Milgram’s

respondents, you might think there is little cause for concern; you are, after all, an upright

person, and a spot of claret never did anyone any harm. On the other hand, if you take

the lessons of situationism to heart, you avoid the dinner like the plague, because you

know that you are not able to confidently predict your behavior in a problematic situation

on the basis of your antecedent values. You do not doubt that you sincerely value

fidelity; you simply doubt your ability to act in conformity with this value once the

candles are lit and the wine begins to flow. Relying on character once in the situation is a

mistake, you agree; the way to achieve the ethically desirable result is to recognize that

situational pressures may all too easily overwhelm character and avoid the dangerous

situation. I don’t think it wild speculation to claim that this is a better strategy than

dropping by for a “harmless” evening, secure in the knowledge of your righteousness.”103

Conclusion

Individual, organizational and situational factors cause and/or allow unethical workplace

behavior. To the extent leaders and managers understand and can address these causal factors,

they can mitigate unethical workplace behavior. To most effectively and efficiently foster

ethical behavior, organizations must be led by authentic leaders backed by an ethical

organizational climate/culture. Leaders/supervisors must clearly, consistently and genuinely

communicate and demonstrate ethical values/standards and reward/enforce ethical behavior.

They must lead/serve people selflessly to inspire their trust, loyalty and commitment to always

do the right things the right way. Finally, given the strong influence of organizational and

situational factors on one’s ethical behavior, organizations must seek, identify and address these

causal factors to the extent possible. The traditional solution of addressing unethical behavior

by character development/ethics training is necessary but woefully insufficient.

16

Notes

(All notes appear in shortened form. For full details, see appropriate entry in the bibliography.)

1. Jones, “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organization,” 367.

2. Ibid., 367.

3. Ibid., 367.

4. Ibid., 367.

5. Pratt and Cullen, “Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of

Crime,” 953 (for low self-control).

6. O’Fallon and Butterfield, “A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making

Literature,” 396.

7. Trevino, Weaver and Reynolds, “Behavioral Ethics in Organizations,” 965.

8. Stead, Worrell and G. Stead, “An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing

Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations,” 234.

9. Moore, Detert, Trevino, Baker and Mayer, “Why Employees Do Bad Things,” 7.


Literature,” 379, 396.



12. Ibid., 234.

13. Bandura, “Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities,” 193.


15. Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, “Business as Usual,” 41.

16. Lager, “Governments Demand Compliance, Ethics Demand Leadership,” 221.

17. Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, “Business as Usual,” 41-44.


19. Ibid., 38.

20. Ibid., 38.


Literature,” 396.

22. Andreoli and Lefkowitz, “Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Misconduct in

Organizations,” 309.


24. Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 6.



26. Loviscky, Trevino and Jacobs, “Assessing Managers’ Ethical Decision-making,” 264.


Literature,” 375.

28. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe, “Ethical Decision Making,” 565.

29. Jones, “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organization,” 380.

30. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe, “Ethical Decision Making,” 583.

31. Haidt, “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail,” 815.

17

32. Ibid., 819.

33. Ibid., 815.

34. Ibid., 822.

35. Loviscky, Trevino, and Jacobs, “Assessing Managers’ Ethical Decision-making,” 264.

36. Gino, Ayal, and Ariely, “Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior,” 393.

37. Ibid., 397.

38. Doris, Lack of Character, 146.

39. Gino, Ayal, and Ariely, “Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior,” 398.


41. Ibid., 39.



44. O’Fallon and Butterfield, “The Influence of Unethical Peer Behavior on Observers’

Unethical Behavior: A Social Cognitive Perspective,” 117.

45. Ibid., 117.

46. Ibid., 120.



48. Jones and Kavanagh, “An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Individual and

Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace,” 512.

49. Ibid., 511.

50. Ibid., 512.

51. Ibid., 512.

52. Trevino, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler, “Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance,” 144.


Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations,” 233-234.

54. Appelbaum, Iaconi and Matousek, “Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace

Behaviors,” 591.

55. Henle, “Predicting Workplace Deviance,” 248.


57. Barnes, Schaubroeck, Huth and Ghumman, “Lack of Sleep and Unethical Conduct,”

178.

58. Ibid., 170.

59. Upton, “Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology,” 104.


61. Ibid., 2.

62. Ibid., 148.

63. Upton, “Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology,” 109.

64. Ibid., 109.

65. Ibid., 109.




18

68. Ludwig and Longenecker, “The Bathsheba Syndrome,” 265.



70. Ibid., 239-240.

71. Dunkelberg and Jessup, “So Then Why Did You Do It?” 62.

72. O’Fallon and Butterfield, “The Influence of Unethical Peer Behavior on Observers’

Unethical Behavior: A Social Cognitive Perspective,” 128.

73. Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, “Business as Usual,” 48-49.

74. Ibid., 47-51.



76. Carlson and Perrewe, “Institutionalization of Organizational Ethics through

Transformational Leadership,” 834.

77. Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts and Chonko, “The Virtuous Influence of Ethical

Leadership Behavior,” 166.




80. Ibid.,” 521.




83. Ibid., 240.

84. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson, “Authentic Leadership,” 94.




87. Hannah, Avolio and Walumbwa. “Relationships between Authentic Leadership, Moral

Courage, and Ethical and Pro-Social Behaviors,” 561.

88. Mayer, Acquino, Greenbaum and Kuenzi, “Who Displays Ethical Leadership, and Why

Does it Matter?” 151.

89. Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts and Chonko, “The Virtuous Influence of Ethical

Leadership Behavior,” 159.


91. Fogleman, “Leadership-Integrity Link,” 39.

92. Ibid., 39.

93. Chumley, “We’re In Good Hands,” 2-7.




96. Ludwig and Longenecker, “The Bathsheba Syndrome,” 265.

97. Ibid., 272.

19


99. Ibid., 218.

100. Ibid., 217.

101. Dunkelberg and Jessup, “So Then Why Did You Do It?” 62.



20

Bibliography

Anand, Vika, Blake E. Ashworth, and Mahendra Joshi. “Business as Usual: The Acceptance

and Perpetuation of Corruption in Organizations.” Academy of Management Executive

18, no. 2 (2004): 39-53.

Andreoli, Nicole and Joel Lefkowitz. “Individual and Organizational Antecedents of

Misconduct in Organizations.” Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2009): 309-332.

Appelbaum, Steven H., Giulio D. Iaconi, and Albert Matousek. “Positive and Negative Deviant

Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions.” Corporate Governance 7, no. 5

(2007): 586-598.

Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977.

Bandura, Albert. “Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities.” Personality and

Social Psychology Review 3, no 3 (1999): 193-209.

Barnes, Christopher M., John Schaubroeck, Megan Huth, and Sonia Ghumman. “Lack of Sleep

and Unethical Conduct.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 115

(2011): 169-180.

Carlson, Dawn S., and Pamela L. Perrewe. “Institutionalization of Organizational Ethics through

Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1995): 829-838.

Chumley, Capt Robyn A. “We’re In Good Hands,” Airman, no. 39 (January 1995): 2-7.

Doris, John M. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge University

Press, 2002.

Dunkelberg, John, and Debra R. Jessup. “So Then Why Did You Do It?” Journal of Business

Ethics 29 (2001): 51-63.

Fogleman, Gen Ronald R., “The Leadership-Integrity Link.” AU-24, Concepts for Air Force

Leadership: 39-40.

Gino, Francesca, Shahar Ayal, and Dan Ariely. “Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical

Behavior.” Association for Psychological Science 20, no. 3 (2009): 393-398.

Haidt, Jonathan. “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to

Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review 108 (2001): 814-834.

Hannah, Sean T., Bruce J. Avolio, and Fred O. Walumbwa. “Relationships between Authentic

Leadership, Moral Courage, and Ethical and Pro-Social Behaviors.” Business Ethics

Quarterly 21, no. 4 (October 2011): 555-578.

Henle, Christine A. “Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction Between

Organizational Justice and Personality.” Journal of Managerial Issues 17, no. 2 (2005):

247-263.

Jones, Thomas M. “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-

Contingent Model.” Academy of Management Review 16, no 2 (April 1991): 366-395.

Jones, Gwen E., and Michael J. Kavanagh. “An Experimental Examination of the Effects of

Individual and Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace.”

Journal of Business Ethics 15 (1996): 511-523.

21

Lager, James M. “Governments Demand Compliance, Ethics Demand Leadership.” Journal of

Public Affairs 10 (2010): 216-224.

Loviscky, Greg E., Linda K. Trevino, and Rick R. Jacobs. “Assessing Managers’ Ethical

Decision-making: An Objective Measure of Managerial Moral Judgment.” Journal of

Business Ethics 73 (2007): 263-285.

Ludwig, Dean C., Clinton O. Longenecker. “The Bathsheba Syndrome: The Ethical Failure of

Successful Leaders.” Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1993): 265-273.

Mayer, David M., Karl Acquino, Rebecca L. Greenbaum, and Maribeth Kuenzi. “Who Displays

Ethical Leadership, and Why Does it Matter? An Examination of Antecedents and

Consequences of Ethical Leadership.” Academy of Management Journal 55, no. 1

(2012): 151-171.

Moore, Celia, James R. Detert, Linda K. Trevino, Vicki L. Baker, and David M. Mayer. “Why

Employees Do Bad Things: Moral Disengagement and Unethical Organizational

Behavior.” Personnel Psychology 65 (2012): 1-48.

Neubert, Mitchell J., Dawn S. Carlson, K. Michele Kacmar, James A. Roberts, and Lawrence B.

Chonko. “The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behavior: Evidence from the

Field.” Journal of Business Ethics 90 (2009): 157-170.

O’Fallon, Michael J., and Kenneth D. Butterfield. “A Review of The Empirical Ethical

Decision-Making Literature: 1996-2003.” Journal of Business Ethics 59 (2005): 375-

413.

O’Fallon, Michael J., and Kenneth D. Butterfield. “The Influence of Unethical Peer Behavior on

Observers’ Unethical Behavior: A Social Cognitive Perspective.” Journal of Business

Ethics 109 (2012): 117-131.

Pratt, Travis C., and Francis T. Cullen. “The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s

General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminology 38, no. 3 (2000): 931-964.

Stead, W. Edward, Dan L. Worrell, and Jean Garner Stead. “An Integrative Model for

Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations.” Journal of

Business Ethics 9 (1990): 233-242.

Tenbrunsel, Ann E., and Kristin Smith-Crowe. “Ethical Decision Making: Where We’ve Been

and Where We’re Going.” The Academy of Management Annals 2, no. 1 (2008): 545-

607.

Trevino, Linda K., Gary R. Weaver, and Scott J. Reynolds. “Behavioral Ethics in Organizations:

A Review.” Journal of Management 32, no. 6 (December 2006): 951-990.

Trevino, Linda K., Gary R. Weaver, David G. Gibson, and Barbara L. Toffler. “Managing Ethics

and Legal Compliance: What Works and What Hurts.” California Management Review

41, no. 2 (Winter 1999): 131-151.

Upton, Candace L. “Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology: The Situationism Debate.” Journal of

Ethics 13, no. 4 (2009): 103-115.

Walumbwa, Fred O., Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, Tara S. Wernsing, and Suzanne J.

22

Peterson. “Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based

Measure.” Journal of Management 34, no. 1 (February 2008): 89-126.

unethical workplace behavior, causes

Documents