Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:47:17.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - On taking the theoretical substance of outcomes seriously: a meta-conversation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2016

By
Kristin Smith-Crowe  and
Teng Zhang
Edited by
Donald Palmer ,
Kristin Smith-Crowe  and
Royston Greenwood
Kristin Smith-Crowe
Affiliation:
Boston University
Teng Zhang
Affiliation:
University of Utah David Eccles School of Business
Donald Palmer
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Kristin Smith-Crowe
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Royston Greenwood
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Summary

As the large number of review articles in recent memory demonstrates, research on behavioral ethics in organizations has exploded (e.g., Bazerman and Gino 2012; Kish-Gephart, Harrison, and Treviño 2010; Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008; Treviño, den Nieuwenboer, and Kish-Gephart 2014; Treviño, Weaver, and Reynolds 2006; Weaver, Reynolds, and Brown 2014). Scholars in this area focus on individuals’ ethical judgments, decisions, and behaviors, particularly those relevant to organizations. Treviño and colleagues (2014) trace the beginnings of this field to the 1980s and describe the overall endeavor like this: “Most research in the field begins with the premise that ethical behavior in organizations is good and unethical behavior is bad, and that understanding the predictors of each can help organizations produce more of the former and less of the latter” (p. 637). We find this description to be not only apt but also illuminating. It highlights something that those of us working in this area seem to take for granted: our theoretical focus should be on the predictor side of the model. While we struggle to achieve a degree of parsimony out of the kaleidoscope of possibilities on the predictor side of the equation, we tend to keep things simple on the criterion side (i.e., the outcomes we study). There is ethical and unethical. Usually, we focus on predicting unethical outcomes.

The cost of relative inattention to theory development on the criterion side is ultimately an impoverishment of theory more generally. We often vaguely refer to “unethical” behavior without acknowledging the potential for conceptual complexity. Such complexity surely holds implications for theorizing on the predictor side. In the long run, we cannot expect our theories to systematically connect predictors with outcomes when we have not specified the nature of the outcomes. Our contention is that, to the end of systematic theorizing, as a field we should take the theoretical substance of outcomes seriously, meaning that we should focus theory development not only on the predictor side of the equation but also on the criterion side.

In order to support our contention, we report the results of a somewhat unconventional literature review. First, we review the outcomes employed by those studying behavioral ethics in organizations. Though there are numerous reviews to date, they are organized around the predictors of unethical outcomes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Organizational Wrongdoing
Key Perspectives and New Directions
 , pp. 17 - 46
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anteby, M. 2013. Manufacturing Morals: The Values of Silence in Business School Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bazerman, M. H. and Gino, F. 2012. “Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8: 85–104.Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. H. and Greene, J. D. 2010. “In favor of clear thinking: Incorporating moral rules into a wise cost–benefit analysis – Commentary on Bennis, Medin, & Bartels,” Perspective on Psychological Science 5: 209–212.Google Scholar
Bennis, W. M., Medin, D. L., and Bartels, D. M. 2010a. “The costs and benefits of calculation and moral rules,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 187–202.Google Scholar
Bennis, W. M., Medin, D. L., and Bartels, D. M. 2010b. “Perspectives on the ecology of decision modes: Reply to comments,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 213–215.Google Scholar
Brief, A. P. and Smith-Crowe, K. in press. “Organizations matter,” in Miller, A. G. (ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (edn.). New York: Guilford Press.
Casciaro, T., Gino, F., and Kouchaki, M. 2014. “The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: How networking can make us feel dirty,” Administrative Science Quarterly 59: 705–735.Google Scholar
Colby, A. and Kohlberg, L. 1987. The Measurement of Moral Judgment, Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., and Lieberman, M. 1983. “A longitudinal study of moral development,” Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development 28: 1–96.Google Scholar
Cornwell, J. F. M. and Higgins, E. T. 2014. “Locomotion concerns with moral usefulness: When liberals endorse conservative binding moral foundations,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 50: 109–117.Google Scholar
Day, M. V., Fiske, S. T., Downing, E. L., and Trail, T. E. 2014. “Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40: 1559–1573.Google Scholar
Fehr, R., Yam, K. C. S., and Dang, C. 2015. “Moralized leadership: The construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions,” Academy of Management Review 40: 182–209.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. 1992. “Four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations,” Psychological Review 99: 689–723.Google Scholar
Flynn, F. J. and Wiltermuth, S. S. 2010. “Who is with me? False consensus, brokerage, and ethical decision making in organizations,” Academy of Management Journal 53: 1074–1089.Google Scholar
Frimer, J. A., Tell, C. E., and Haidt, J. 2015. “Liberals condemn sacrilege too: The harmless desecration of Cerro Torre,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 6: 878–886.Google Scholar
Garz, D. 2009. Lawrence Kohlberg – An Introduction. Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Gilligan, C. 1993. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1982).
Gneezy, U. 2005. “Deception: The role of consequences,” The American Economic Review 95: 384–394.Google Scholar
Graham, J. 2015. “Explaining away differences in moral judgment: Comment on Gray and Kenney,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 6(8): 869–873.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., and Ditto, P. H. 2012. “Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 47: 55–130.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., and Nosek, B. A. 2009. “Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 1029–1046.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., and Ditto, P. H. 2011. “Mapping the moral domain,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 366–385.Google Scholar
Gray, K. and Keeney, J. E. 2015. “Impure or just weird? Scenario sampling bias raises questions about the foundation of morality,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 6(8): 859–868.Google Scholar
Gray, K. and Keeney, J. E. 2015. “Disconfirming moral foundations theory in its own terms: Reply to Graham 2015,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 6(8): 874–877.Google Scholar
Gray, K., Schein, C., and Ward, A. F. 2014. “The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(4): 1600–1615.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. 2001. “The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment,” Psychological Review 108: 814–834.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. and Graham, J. 2007. “When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize,” Social Justice Research 20(1): 98–116.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. and Joseph, C. 2004. “Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues,” Daedalus 133(4): 55–66.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., and Dias, M. G. 1993. “Affect, culture and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 613–628.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M. 1991. “Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model,” Academy of Management Review 16: 366–395.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1964. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Paton, H. J., Trans.). New York: Harper & Row (Original work published in 1785).
Kidder, R. M. 1995. How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York: Fireside.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., and Treviño, L. K. 2010. “Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. 1963. “Moral development and identification,” in Stevenson, H. (ed.), Child Psychology; 62nd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kohlberg, L. 1976. “Moral stages and moral development: The cognitive-developmental approach,” in Lickona, T. (ed.), Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues: 31–53. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Leavitt, K., Reynolds, S. J., Barnes, C. M., Schilpzand, P., and Hannah, S. T. 2012. “Different hats, different obligations: Plural occupational identities and situated moral judgments,” Academy of Management Journal 55: 1316–1333.Google Scholar
Levine, E. E. and Schweitzer, M. E. 2014. “Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 53: 107–117.Google Scholar
Levine, E. E. and Schweitzer, M. E. 2015. “Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 126: 88–106.Google Scholar
Mazar, N., Amir, O., and Ariely, D. 2008. “The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance,” Journal of Marketing Research 45(6): 633–644.Google Scholar
Monin, B., Pizarro, D. A., and Beer, J. S. 2007. “Deciding versus reacting: Conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect debate,” Review of General Psychology 11: 99–111.Google Scholar
Moore, C. and Gino, F. 2015. “Approach, ability, aftermath: A psychological process framework of unethical behavior at work,” The Academy of Management Annals 9: 235–289.Google Scholar
Palmer, D. 2012. Normal Organizational Wrongdoing: A Critical Analysis of Theories of Misconduct in and by Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinecke, J. and Ansari, S. 2015. “What is a ‘fair’ price? Ethics as sensemaking,” Organization Science 26(3): 867–888.Google Scholar
Rest, J. R. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Praeger.
Ritov, I. and Baron, J. 1999. “Protected values and omission bias,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79: 79–94.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. 2010. “The limits of cost-benefit calculation: Commentary on Binnis, Medin, & Bartels (2010),” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 203–205.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. and Sharpe, K. 2010. Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to Do the Right Thing. New York: Riverhead Books.
Schwartz, S. H. and Bilsky, W. 1990. “Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 878–891.Google Scholar
Schweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., and Park, L. 1997. “The ‘big three’ of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the ‘big three’ explanations of suffering,” in Brandt, A. and Rozin, P. (eds.), Morality and Health: 119–169. New York: Routledge.
Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., and Graham, J. 2014. “The moral ties that bind … even to outgroups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding foundations,” Psychological Science 25: 1554–1562.Google Scholar
Smith-Crowe, K. and Warren, D. E. 2014. “The emotion-evoked collective corruption model: The role of emotion in the spread of corruption within organizations,” Organization Science 25: 1154–1171.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. 2007. “The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model,” Academy of Management Review 32: 1022–1040.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. 2009. “Emergence of ethical issues during strategic change implementation,” Organization Science 20: 223–239.Google Scholar
Staw, B. M. in press. “Stumbling toward a social psychology of organizations: Some tales from the past and guidelines for the future,” Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior.
Sustein, C. R. 2015. “Making government logical,” The New York Times, September 15.
Tenbrunsel, A. E. and Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. “Ethical decision making: Where we've been and where we're going,” Academy of Management Annals 2: 545–607.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. 2002. “Social-functionalist metaphors for judgment and choice: The intuitive politician, theologian, and prosecutor,” Psychological Review 109: 451–472.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. and Mitchell, G. 2010. “Situated social identities constrain morally defensible choices: Commentary on Binnis, Medin, C Bartels (2010),” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 206–208.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., and Kish-Gephart, J. J. 2014. “(Un)ethical behavior in organizations,” Annual Review of Psychology 65: 635–660.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., and Reynolds, S. J. 2006. “Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review,” Journal of Management 32(6): 951–990.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L. and O'Reilly, C. 2007. “Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur's quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development,” Academy of Management Journal 50: 769–774.Google Scholar
Warren, D. E. and Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. “Deciding what's right: The role of external sanctions and embarrassment in shaping moral judgments in the workplace,” Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 81–105.Google Scholar
Weaver, G., Reynolds, S. J., and Brown, M. E. 2014. “Moral intuition: Connecting current knowledge to future organizational research and practice,” Journal of Management 40: 100–129.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×