Ethical decision-making: The role of self-monitoring, future orientation, and social networks.
| Autor | Bon, Ana Carla |
| Cargo | Report |
Abstract
This study examines the influence of individual factors (self-monitoring, temporal orientation) on social networking, and their relationship with unethical decision-making. The study used surveys to measure the unethical intentions and social network data of 129 professionals. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The findings provided evidence that individual factors influence the development of social networks and, along with self-monitoring, the likelihood of unethical decision-making. In particular, being in positions of lower network centrality increased individuals' risk of unethical intention. One explanation stems from the need for high situation control to reduce risk and ensure the success of an event, which only a closed network can provide. However, ethical low self-monitor women were also found to have low centrality, so social networks alone do not explain ethical decision-making. This research represents a step forward in our understanding of ethical decision-making through the adoption of multiple and simultaneous factors, proposing an integrated theory of individual and situational factors influencing unethical options.
Key words: ethical decision-making; future orientation; self-monitoring; social networks.
Introduction
Over the past several decades, fraud and corruption have received increasing attention worldwide by both policymakers and academics. This attention has been due in part to the surfeit of high-profile cases reported in the popular press (e.g., Enron, WorldCom, Parmalat, Siemens, Petrobras) as well as the vast sums of money involved. According to Garrett (2014), since 2001 there have been more than 250 federal prosecutions in the United States alone involving large corporations worldwide. The twenty largest fines from 2001-2012 totaled US$8.9 billion and involved companies such as Siemens, Kellogg Brown & Root and BAE (corruption), LG Display and Air France/KLM (antitrust), Pharmacia & Upjohn and GlaxoSmithKline (pharmaceutical related crimes), and UBS (fraud).
As attitudes and values regarding unethical behavior are not formed in isolation (Gunia, Wang, Huang, Wang, & Murnighan, 2012; Martin, Cullen, Johnson, & Parboteeah, 2007) and corruption typically involves the complicity of other parties (Ayios, Jeurissen, Manning, & Spence, 2014; Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998; Nielsen, 2003), a key element in understanding the emergence and perpetuation of corruption is relational networks. The currency of network development is social capital, which constitutes an investment in social relations with expected returns (Lin, 2001). The network of relationships that results from these investment strategies can be used by an individual in the short or long term to access other actors' resources. Thus, business relationships are transformed into a marketplace of contacts to ensure competitive advantage, often by means that include fraud and corruption (Collins, Uhlenbruck, & Rodriguez, 2009). Therefore, to understand and manage unethical behavior within and between organizations, it is necessary to focus on individuals' networks.
Recognizing the importance of networking structures in organizational decision-making, including their likely role in affecting unethical decisions and behavior, a number of researchers have sought to investigate these linkages using varied methodologies. With respect to unethical decision-making, however, the findings to date have been inconclusive. Distinct and mutually exclusive network structures have been suggested to increase the risk of unethical decision-making (e.g., Bizzi, 2013; Brass et al., 1998; Flynn & Wiltermuth, 2010; Lee, 2013).
There are other variables, however, that could affect the development of social capital and explain the inconsistencies regarding the influence networks have on decision-making, including individual factors related to social awareness, motivation, and persistence (Hershfield, Cohen, & Thompson, 2012; Holman & Zimbardo, 2009; H. Oh & Kilduff, 2008). According to Payne, Moore, Griffis, and Autry (2011), who reviewed two decades of social capital research within the context of organizations (1989-2008), there has been a scarcity of studies analyzing the antecedents of social capital. Personality characteristics, in particular, which could play a direct role in this developmental process (as certain personalities are more adroit than others in raising and managing social capital), have been largely overlooked (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). An examination of moderating effects could also provide some answers to the inconsistencies in research findings concerning the role of social structures in unethical decision-making, as some personality types are likely to be more effective than other types in exploiting certain network structures.
This paper reports on a study of social networks, a fundamental contextual factor in understanding ethics in organizational decision-making. Beyond the application of multiple predictors, this study examines how individual factors can influence the creation of social networks, and how the linking of these factors can reveal the dark side of business decision-making. We analyzed the ethical decision-making of 129 professionals from across hierarchical levels. As the development of social networks requires select interpersonal skills applied over time, the study includes two personality measures: self-monitoring (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1987)--one's ability to perceive social cues and adapt behaviors to impress others--and temporal perspective (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). The results of the analyses offer a better understanding of the potential antecedents of social networking and the relationship of individual and situational factors with respect to ethical decision-making, results that have implications for policymakers and future research.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Craft (2013) noted that the two models most often employed in ethical decision-making research are Rest's (1986) model for Individual Ethical Decision-making (based on a four-step model of awareness, judgment, intention and behavior of a moral issue) and Jones' (1991) Issue-Contingent Model. Jones' model is a synthesis of previous models, such as the person-situation interactionist model defined by Trevino (1986), and uses Rest's model as its basis. Jones also assumed that actual behavior is a function of behavioral intentions, based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In addition, Jones (1991) developed the concept of moral intensity--based on social cognition theories--arguing that ethical decision-making is issue contingent (i.e., the characteristics of the moral issue are determinants of ethical decision-making and behavior).
Kish-Gephart, Harrison, and Trevino (2010) define unethical intentions as the expression of one's willingness or commitment to engage in an unethical behavior and, within an organizational context, unethical behavior as any organizational member's action that violates generally-accepted societal moral norms. As these definitions suggest, ethics at its core is a social construct. Nonetheless, much of the research to date has focused on the relationship of demographic and personality factors to unethical decision-making rather than understanding the social networks that underpin this decisional process (for reviews, see: Craft, 2013; Ford & Richardson, 1994; Loe, Ferrel, & Mansfield, 2000; O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).
Ajzen's theories of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) offer frameworks for understanding the role of social networks and social capital in this cognitive process. According to the theory of planned behavior, intention and perceived behavioral control (abilities) combine to explain behavior. As such, intentions are influenced by attitudes (the degree to which an individual has a positive evaluation of the behavior), subjective norms (an individual's belief about what significant others think he or she should do), and perceived behavioral control (the perceived ease of performing the behavior based on experience or anticipated problems). Ajzen argued that while intentions explain the motivational factors that influence an individual's behavior, to really perform an action the actor depends on other non-motivational factors, such as time, economic resources, or the cooperation of others. Azjen also observed that beliefs (salient information) are antecedents that predict intentions. Therefore, the antecedents of subjective norms are normative antecedents, that is, requiring approval or disapproval of performing a given behavior by an important referent (individual or group).
The importance of a referent group was noted as well by Jones and Ryan (1997) in their extension of Jones' (1991) model, which included the concept of moral approbation in organizations (i.e., moral approval from oneself or others). The concept of moral approbation posits that individuals will only decide on a moral intention if they feel comfortable with a certain threshold of approval of their behavior. Jones and Ryan (1997) argued that an individual may feel pressure to comply with organizational directives (not necessarily direction to behave unethically, but pressure to achieve some results) and that the degree of complicity is difficult to prove insofar as it is common to find decisions dispersed among several people or units within a firm. They also argued that there are differences at the individual level in the approbation model, as approbation can vary both in the individual need for approval (which can include self-attribution of responsibility) and in the size and composition of a referent group (which can lead to possible bias by individuals with large or poorly understood referent groups).
There are many significant others that can influence an...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
