Ethics Essay
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values, Bullying Experiences, Psychopathy, and Selling Professionals’ Ethical Reasoning
Sean Valentine1 • Gary Fleischman2 • Lynn Godkin3
Received: 3 July 2015 / Accepted: 10 December 2015 / Published online: 6 January 2016
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract This study assesses the relationships among
unethical corporate values, bullying experiences, psy-
chopathy, and selling professionals’ ethical evaluations of
bullying. Information was collected from national/regional
samples of selling professionals. Results indicated that
unethical values, bullying, and psychopathy were posi-
tively interrelated. Psychopathy and unethical values were
negatively associated with moral intensity, while moral
intensity was positively related to ethical issue importance.
Psychopathy and unethical values were negatively related
to issue importance, and issue importance and moral
intensity were positively related to ethical judgment.
Finally, ethical judgment and moral intensity were posi-
tively linked to ethical intention; psychopathy was nega-
tively associated with ethical intention.
Keywords Workplace bullying � Psychopathy � Corporate ethical values � Ethical reasoning
Introduction
Sales organizations experience many ethical problems,
often prompted by the boundary spanning and autonomy in
selling (Caywood and Laczniak 1986; Wotruba 1990).
Lying about or exaggerating product characteristics, mis-
representing sales terms, using aggressive tactics, offering
unauthorized buying incentives, treating customers differ-
ently, and acting rudely are all examples of inappropriate
sales behaviors. Equally challenging are conflicting orga-
nizational goals, the competitive nature of selling, the
unethical behaviors of referent others, and the expectations,
cajoling, and rewards of sales managers that can encourage
misconduct (Ferrell et al. 2007; Hoffman et al. 1991;
Tellefsen and Eyuboglu 2002). Selling professionals can
also be more self-interested than others (Singhapakdi and
Vitell 1992), leading to egoism and impression manage-
ment. They are often in a position to manipulatively
develop social networks that are personally advantageous
(Seevers et al. 2007) and justify misconduct through
rationalizations that make such actions seem more
acceptable (Serviere-Munoz and Mallin 2013). Further,
selling professionals can exhibit counterproductive behav-
iors (Darrat et al. 2010), with interpersonal deviance
involving the mistreatment of other employees such as
‘‘sales territory infringement, refusing to participate in the
synergistic sharing of relevant customer information, or
engaging in hurtful behavior targeted at coworkers (e.g.,
cursing, gossiping, or making ethnic or derogatory com-
ments)’’ (Darrat et al. 2010, p. 240). These acts are closely
related to workplace bullying.
Prepared for Journal of Business Ethics; this study was presented at
the 75th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
Vancouver, British Columbia, August 7–11, 2015; this research was
supported by the funding provided by the University of Wyoming; the
authors wish to thank O. C. Ferrell, Eric Arnould, Tim Barnett, and
the anonymous reviewer for their assistance with this study.
& Sean Valentine svalentine@business.und.edu
Gary Fleischman
gary.fleischman@ttu.edu
Lynn Godkin
lynn.godkin@lamar.edu
1 Department of Management, University of North Dakota, 293
Centennial Drive, Mailstop 8377, Grand Forks,
ND 58202-8377, USA
2 School of Accounting, Rawls College of Business, Texas
Tech University, Box 42101, Lubbock, TX 79409-2101, USA
3 Department of Management and Marketing, Lamar
University, P.O. Box 10059, Beaumont, TX 77710, USA
123
J Bus Ethics (2018) 148:135–154
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2993-6
Past work suggests that bullying is common in organi-
zations (Fox and Stallworth 2006; Parzefall and Salin
2010; Zapf et al. 2003). For instance, this misbehavior
occurs and/or has been studied in schools (Hymel and
Swearer 2015), higher education (Keashly and Neuman
2010, 2013; Vickers 2014), healthcare (Granstra 2015;
Mikkelsen and Einarsen 2001), and various organizational
contexts (e.g., Boddy 2011; Hodson et al. 2006; Pilch and
Turska 2015), as well as among salespeople (Valentine
et al. 2015) and other employees (e.g., Ayoko 2007;
Baillien et al. 2011; Boddy 2011; Lutgen-Sandvik et al.
2007; Mikkelsen and Einarsen 2001; Salin 2001). The
persistent harassing or threatening of targeted individuals
(Einarsen 1999; Glasø et al. 2009; Parzefall and Salin
2010) is recognized as a potentially serious issue (Glasø
et al. 2009; Lutgen-Sandvik et al. 2007).
Given this awareness, the prevalence, antecedents, and
consequences of bullying have been investigated in the
organizational sciences (Einarsen et al. 2009; Einarsen and
Skogstad 1996; Fox and Stallworth 2006; Hauge et al.
2009; Salin 2003; Walters et al. 2008). For example, a
number of employment factors such as job autonomy and
workload (Baillien et al. 2011), status inconsistency
(Heames et al. 2006), and power differentials (Vartia 1996)
are related to workplace bullying. In addition, conditions
such as elevated chaos, frequent change, poor communi-
cation, dysfunctional work conflict, and unjust supervision
are antecedents associated with bullying (Ayoko 2007;
Boddy 2011; Harvey et al. 2009; Hodson et al. 2006;
Langan-Fox and Sankey 2008; Sweeney 2007). Highly
competitive and performance-driven (or zero sum) reward
systems and work environments can also contribute to
bullying in the workplace (Aquino and Thau 2009; Salin,
2003; Samnani and Singh 2014).
Even though bullying has been addressed in a range of
organizational contexts (e.g., Fox and Stallworth 2006;
Granstra 2015; Hymel and Swearer 2015; Keashly and
Neuman 2013, 2010; Mikkelsen and Einarsen 2001;
Parzefall and Salin 2010; Pilch and Turska 2015; Salin
2001; Valentine et al. 2015; Vickers 2014; Zapf et al.
2003), it is underexplored within sales. In addition, rela-
tively few empirical studies focus on how bullying expe-
riences impact targets’ perceptions and attitudes in ways
that impact the broader work environment, as well as
employees’ thoughts and behaviors. Of particular interest is
the possibility that bullying experiences, combined with
targets’ dispositional tendencies to display illicit and
harmful workplace actions (deemed corporate psychopathy
by Boddy 2005), might influence some selling profes-
sionals’ ethical evaluations of covert, manipulative, and
passive–aggressive bullying behaviors. Bullying combined
with subtle psychopathy may also be virulent in a poor
work context given that negative behaviors reinforce
unethical values, and severe harm can occur because
management does not intervene and arrest the behavior.
Such inquiry is relevant and important. Prior research
suggests that individual traits and covert bullying might
function together to cause a cascade of negative work
outcomes that can adversely impact the workplace (An-
dersson and Pearson 1999; Fox and Stallworth 2006; Glasø
et al. 2009; Glomb and Liao 2003; Keashly and Neuman
2005; Leymann and Gustafsson 1996; Salin 2003). Given
the inherent web of ethical issues related to bullying
behavior and psychopathy (e.g., Boddy 2010, 2011),
weakened ethical reasoning may also result. Selling pro-
fessionals may choose to act unethically because they work
in an environment that allows and/or encourages bullying.
A negative social context prompted by unethical corporate
values might encourage selling professionals to harm and/
or take advantage of their colleagues, or weaken their
ethical evaluations of bullying misconduct (Douglas et al.
2001; Singhapakdi 1993; Singhapakdi and Vitell 1991;
Singhapakdi et al. 2000; Valentine and Barnett 2007).
The goal of this exploratory study is to examine rela-
tionships among unethical corporate values, bullying,
psychopathy, moral intensity, and selling professionals’
ethical reasoning. Since few published works explore these
topics, this study underscores how perceptions of the sales
environment can precipitate behavioral tendencies, ethical
perceptions, and attitudes in selling professionals. Such
inquiry is relevant given the ethically problematic nature of
employment in sales (e.g., Caywood and Laczniak 1986;
Tsalikis and Fritzsche 1989; Wotruba 1990). Selling
activities are affected by many ethical dilemmas that can
test professionals on a daily basis, and counterproductive
behaviors such as covert bullying and latent psychopathy
may be encouraged. This study endeavors to provide
understanding about the association of these deviant
behaviors, while also pointing to strategies to mitigate their
prevalence.
Another ethical concern involves selling professionals’
boundary spanning roles, which can afford them autono-
mous, self-regulated employment that is unfettered and
unchecked, especially when performance expectations are
being met, the right deals are closed, and money is being
made for the firm. This is a problem worth investigating,
since it is in these very roles that bullies and psychopaths
might be most damaging to the workplace because man-
agement does not witness how they treat others (and maybe
does not care to know). The issue is exacerbated when the
deviant behavior is covert and/or latent, especially if
masked by external charm and impression management.
Given that perpetrators’ visible, tangible, and/or measur-
able job performance can be quite acceptable, if not above
expectations, they are often commended and, in some
cases, even promoted and protected by leaders. Research
136 S. Valentine et al.
123
shows that sales managers may reprimand more leniently
unethical salespeople who are successful at their jobs
(Bellizzi and Hasty 2003). Consequently, sales managers
may unknowingly lay a foundation for continued miscon-
duct and unethical reasoning because they ‘‘just do not see
it’’ or knowingly establish such a workplace because they
‘‘do not want to see it.’’ The employment of psychopaths in
sales organizations presents a number of problems because
leaders must manage their negative attitudes/conduct while
recognizing the positive contributions that they may make
(Boddy et al. 2010; Hare 1999).
This study is also the first to consider the impact of
unethical corporate values, bullying experiences, and psy-
chopathy on ethical evaluations of deviant social interac-
tions in the selling environment. Indeed, ‘‘speculation on
the possible effects of Corporate Psychopaths on organi-
zations has not been supported by a large body of empirical
evidence. Only anecdotal commentary on what these
effects might be on organizations has been written’’
(Boddy et al. 2010, p. 2). These variables are particularly
important because sales managers might unknowingly
develop (or allow) a work context that discourages ethical
decision making by reinforcing the triggers that encourage
professionals to bully others and exhibit psychopathic
tendencies. Negative corporate values and other unethical
practices could be a catalyst for creating a workplace that
prompts selling professionals to mistreat others.
Finally, psychopaths represent approximately 1 % of the
general population (Boddy et al. 2010), which suggests that
sales organizations employ them even though they are few
in number and there is little awareness of the inherent
problems they present. However, focusing on this small
group of ‘‘clinical’’ psychopaths is likely myopic. Instead,
this study identifies subtle bullying/psychopathic tenden-
cies such as more passive, manipulative, competitive, self-
interested, and/or aggressive actions, which are much more
likely to occur in sales organizations (Ferrell et al. 2007;
Hoffman et al. 1991; Seevers et al. 2007; Singhapakdi and
Vitell 1992; Tellefsen and Eyuboglu 2002; Valentine et al.
2015). As such, the relevance of this investigation has the
potential to provide leaders with useful workplace guid-
ance because problems must be managed internally in sales
organizations through proper managerial controls and
action.
Literature Review
Selling Professionals’ Ethical Reasoning
A number of models address how business professionals
make ethical decisions. Ethical reasoning occurs when
individuals experience workplace dilemmas (Jones 1991;
Rest 1986; Robin et al. 1996), situations that prompt the
recognition of an ethical problem (Hunt and Vitell 1986,
2006; Jones 1991; Rest 1986). Individuals must make
ethical judgments by assessing problems based on ethical
standards and decision criteria (Hunt and Vitell 1986,
2006; Rest 1986), which leads to the formulation of ethical
intentions that support ethical judgments (Hunt and Vitell
1986; Jones 1991; Rest 1986). The final component
involves committing ethical behaviors that result from
formalized intentions (Jones 1991; Rest 1986).
The perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) is
another important part of ethical reasoning (Robin et al.
1996). According to Robin et al. (1996, p. 17), the con-
struct ‘‘is personal and temporal in character in order to
accommodate an individual’s values, beliefs, needs, per-
ceptions, the special characteristics of the situation, and the
personal pressures existing on an ongoing basis or at a
particular place and time,’’ and these factors contribute to
individuals’ overall feelings about the prominence of eth-
ical problems or situations. Robin et al. (1996) concluded
that PIE resulted in strengthened ethical judgments and
intentions and ascertained that PIE appears to develop in
the earliest stages of ethical reasoning. This renders PIE
conceptually similar to ethical issue recognition, suggest-
ing that the variable precipitates a moral immediacy and
imperative that improves subsequent ethical judgments and
intentions. Other studies show that PIE impacts ethical
judgments and intentions (Cronan et al. 2005; Haines et al.
2008), much in the same manner as issue recognition.
Selling professionals’ ethical reasoning is affected by
personal and environmental factors, as noted by a number
of theoretical/conceptual models presented in the market-
ing ethics literature. Wotruba (1990) specified that various
decision-maker attributes (i.e., demographics, attitudes,
psychology) and situational moderators (i.e., organizational
culture, colleagues, and stakeholders) shape how sales-
people react to ethical dilemmas. Ferrell et al. (2007) also
noted that individual factors such as a salesperson’s moral
philosophy/development, as well as the sales organiza-
tion’s ethical climate, can influence steps of ethical rea-
soning. This current study is consistent with the Ferrell
et al.’s (2007) sales ethics framework, in that a component
of culture is evaluated. Finally, Ingram et al. (2007) sug-
gested that sales leaders and their exercise of managerial
control impact ethical climate and salespersons’ moral
development, ultimately influencing individual judgments
in ethical situations.
This body of work provides credible support for the idea
that selling professional ethics is influenced by psycho-
pathic attitudes (an individual characteristic), as well as
workplace bullying experiences and unethical corporate
values (reflections of a sales organization’s culture/cli-
mate). In addition, the theory of planned behavior (see
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 137
123
Ajzen 1991) suggests that various behavioral attitudes and
social mores influence an individual’s behavioral intentions
and subsequent actions, and psychopathy, workplace bul-
lying, and unethical corporate values should be reflective of
the typical kinds of attitudes and norms that affect decision
making and conduct. The study framework presented in
Fig. 1 highlights these relationships and shows that moral
intensity (a situational characteristic), PIE (an affective
component), ethical judgment, and ethical intention
(components of decision making) are also interrelated
within the ethical reasoning process.
Psychopathy in Sales Organizations
There is growing concern that individuals with psycho-
pathic tendencies can negatively impact other employees
and disrupt the workplace. Psychopaths ‘‘…have no con- science, few emotions, and an inability to have any feelings
or empathy for other people,’’…making them ‘‘extraordi- narily cold, much more calculating and ruthless toward
others than most people are and a menace to the companies
they work for and to society’’ (Boddy 2011, p. 368). In
addition, psychopaths tend to have poor internal control
mechanisms, muted emotions, and the lack of a personal
conscience that can lead to additional work problems
(Boddy et al. 2010). Nevertheless, psychopaths are often
extremely intelligent, and can manipulate colleagues while
‘‘putting on a good front’’ for managers and customers.
Psychopathy represents an emerging challenge for sales
organizations that foster a competitive, result-oriented
work environment.
Citing past work in psychology, Boddy (2005) used the
label ‘‘corporate psychopath’’ to describe individuals with
dispositional tendencies that lead to problems at work, but
other terms such as ‘‘executive psychopaths,’’ ‘‘industrial
psychopaths,’’ and ‘‘organizational sociopaths’’ have also
been used (Boddy 2011). Given the unique context in
which they operate, corporate psychopaths are arguably
quite different from psychopaths who might harm people in
generalized social situations. In other words, there are often
distinctions that can be made between members of a
company who negatively interact with others, and persons
who display illicit and/or harmful actions that are unrelated
to work (Boddy et al. 2010).
Corporate psychopaths are different from normal func-
tioning employees who interact positively with their
coworkers (Boddy 2010; Cooke and Michie 2001; Hare
1991, 1999). For example, they can act in a glib manner
and often utilize an insincere charm with others (Boddy
et al. 2010), so they are often viewed as ‘‘…being friendly
H2 (+)
Unethical H1 (+) Bullying H3 (+) Corporate Experiences Psychopathy
Values (Negative Acts)
H7a (-) H6a (-) H5a (-)
H6c (-) H6d (-)
H7b (-) H5b (-) Moral
H6b (-) Intensity
H7d (-) H4a (+) H5c (-)
H4b (+) H4c (+)
Perceived Importance of
Ethical Issue
H7c (-) H8a (+) H8b(+) H5d (-)
Ethical Ethical Judgment Intention
H9 (+)
Fig. 1 Study framework
138 S. Valentine et al.
123
and extroverted on first meeting, being an entertaining
speaker, being very smooth and being very persuasive
when it suits them’’ (p. 7). Corporate psychopaths are also
‘‘…able to lie convincingly when they need to…,’’ and they show ‘‘…such behaviors as bragging about them- selves, downplaying their own personal problems and
blaming others for them, behaving like they feel that they
are above the rules’’ (Boddy et al. 2010, p. 7). In addition,
they are effective at manipulating coworkers, doing so by
honing a set of networking/political skills that can give
them considerable influence over others. Finally, they are
often narcissistic, with a cold/calculating demeanor, and
shallow emotional capacity, which can lead to diminished
compassion and empathy for victims, even though they
might display disingenuous concern to the contrary.
Consequently, psychopaths have the capacity to harm
organizations in general and the ethical context in partic-
ular. Evidence suggests that if left unmanaged or
unchecked, individuals exhibiting covert psychopathic
tendencies are highly disruptive and create an alarmingly
dysfunctional work setting (Boddy 2011). Indeed, psy-
chopaths ‘‘…tend to pick on those workplace colleagues who are, because of their organizational position, most
unable to defend themselves’’ (Boddy 2011, p. 369). When
psychopaths are employed in positions of responsibility,
they can utilize their authority to selfishly acquire power to
further their own self-interests. As noted by Boddy et al.
(2010, p. 2), ‘‘Leaders who are Corporate Psychopaths
often create the illusion of being successful leaders.
However, they are attracted to these positions of leadership
because of the access to rewards and power that are vested
in these senior management positions.’’ The self-regulated
and boundary spanning nature of sales should be particu-
larly attractive because of the considerable latitude given to
salespersons for them to work autonomously with little
management oversight.
Bullying in Sales Organizations
While similar to corporate psychopathy, workplace bully-
ing is often more closely tied to aggression (Glomb and
Liao 2003; Neuman and Baron 1998) or incivility (An-
dersson and Pearson 1999; Aquino and Bradfield 2000;
Aquino et al. 1999; Cortina 2008). Bullying situations are
often precipitated by power differentials between organi-
zational members (Vartia 1996), which can create a situ-
ational context for mistreatment. Typical bullying
behaviors include but are not limited to insults, excessive
teasing or sarcasm, exclusion, and offensive remarks (Salin
2003), and bullying can be classified as being predatory or
dispute related in nature (Langan-Fox and Sankey 2008,
p. 63). Bullying behavior is predatory when ‘‘…the victim personally had done nothing provocative that may
reasonably justify the behavior of the bully’’ (Einarsen
1999, p. 22). Conversely, dispute-related bullying is
experienced when conflict that is ongoing and unresolved
becomes more personal in scope (e.g., Langan-Fox and
Sankey 2008). Explanations for why bullying occurs and
why it can cause negative consequences center primarily
on aspects of the dyadic relationship between the perpe-
trator and the target of bullying and their personalities
(Einarsen 1999; Fox and Stallworth 2006; Glasø et al.
2009; Glomb and Liao 2003; Parzefall and Salin 2010;
Salin, 2003). Regardless of the types and causes, workplace
bullying often presents a severe psychological threat to
victims, which can diminish their job performance (Vega
and Comer 2005).
Unethical Corporate Values in Sales Organizations
Even though internalized motivations are drivers of psy-
chopathy and bullying, it is likely that certain organiza-
tional conditions such as ethical principles/norms influence
the extent of misconduct (Trevino and Nelson 2011;
Valentine and Barnett 2007). The degree to which top
leaders support business ethics, infractions are successfully
identified and punished, and ethical conduct is rewarded
should also be factors (Hunt et al. 1989; Ingram et al. 2007;
Trevino et al. 1998). Ethical values and practices should
support a healthy work context, characterized by cordial
communication, helping behaviors, and role models who
discourage bullying/psychopathy.
When an organizational culture/climate is unethical, the
behaviors associated with corporate bullying and psycho-
pathic tendencies are more likely to occur. If sales leaders
do not champion ethics, selling professionals should be
more inclined to mistreat and/or harm their coworkers.
Additionally, when companies disregard ethical values and
practices, selling professionals should also be more likely
to ignore ethics and adopt a more egoistic and self-centered
outlook when relating to others in the workplace.
Consequently:
Hypothesis 1 A stronger perception of unethical corpo-
rate values is associated with a higher degree of bullying
experienced by a selling professional (or negative acts).
Hypothesis 2 A stronger perception of unethical corpo-
rate values is associated with greater psychopathic attitude
consistency in a selling professional.
Relationship Between Bullying and Psychopathy
Given the behavioral similarities, there should be a con-
sistent relationship between psychopathy and bullying.
‘‘The behaviours displayed by psychopaths do show some
similarities to typical bullying behaviours, which results in
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 139
123
psychopathy being used as a description or explanation of a
range of unacceptable workplace behaviours’’ (Caponec-
chia et al. 2012, p. 401). Using a sample of adults,
Baughman et al. (2012) developed one of the first studies
attempting to link dimensions of the Dark Triad with bul-
lying and found that psychopathy was significantly related
to such misconduct. As such, when companies employ
individuals who exhibit psychopathy, the resulting
byproducts are likely poor leadership, an unruly work
environment, and the mistreatment of others. Bullies
‘‘…who are also psychopathic are particularly dangerous because they have a total lack of concern for other people’s
welfare or rights’’ (Boddy 2011, p. 368).
Organizational conditions such as elevated chaos,
change, and conflict might also lead to increased bullying
and other workplace abuses (Baillien and De Witte 2009;
Boddy 2011; Harvey et al. 2009; Hodson et al. 2006;
Sweeney 2007). In particular, psychopaths can utilize such
circumstances to shroud their misconduct (Boddy 2011).
These conditions are particularly apt for sales organizations
considering that the profession is often characterized by
elevated stress and discord because of performance pres-
sures, which seems to increase the likelihood that bullying
and psychopathy are present.
Even though little research links psychopathy and bul-
lying (Boddy 2011), a connection likely exists, particularly
when looking at covert factors. Boddy (2011) using a
sample of white collar professionals in Australia deter-
mined that 26 % of bullying experiences could be attrib-
uted to a small number of corporate psychopaths. In
‘‘…organizations where Corporate Psychopaths were not present the average number of incidents per year of wit-
nessing unfavorable treatment of others (bullying) at work
was 9.0 (less than monthly) whereas it was 64.4 (more than
weekly) when Corporate Psychopaths were present’’ (p.
378). There is also reason to believe that the presence of
psychopaths is a contributor to abusive supervisory
behavior (Boddy 2011). This implies that psychopaths
could be responsible for some of the misconduct in sales
organizations.
The likelihood of negative reactions by targets of bul-
lying is probably also greater among those who possess
characteristics consistent with psychopathy (e.g., Glomb
and Liao 2003; Parzefall and Salin 2010). Psychopathy is
associated with anger, impulsiveness, coldness, and
selfishness in their interactions with others (Levenson et al.
1995). Scholars of workplace incivility, bullying, and
aggression identify similar traits as indicators of a tendency
to negatively respond to perceptions of being bullied. For
example, individuals who act impulsively and show a lack
of self-regulation, possess negative affectivity, are angry,
and have a desire for revenge (see Andersson and Pearson
1999; Aquino and Bradfield 2000; Aquino et al. 1999) may
be more likely to react to bullying by approving of or
engaging in bullying and/or aggression themselves. Per-
sonal characteristics such as coldness, vindictiveness, and
distrustfulness have likewise been shown to differentiate
between those who perceive themselves as victims of
workplace bullying from those who do not (Glasø et al.
2009). These findings support the notion that selling pro-
fessionals, particularly those influenced by psychopathy,
use neutralizations (or rationalizations) to justify their
retaliatory behaviors (Serviere-Munoz and Mallin 2013). In
short, those who are bullied are more likely to bully others
in retaliation, especially when their attitudes are consistent
with latent psychopathy (or psychopathic attitude consis-
tency). The following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 3 A higher degree of bullying experienced by
a selling professional (or negative acts) is associated with
greater psychopathic attitude consistency in a selling
professional.
Moral Intensity and Selling Professionals’ Ethical
Reasoning
While ethical reasoning is impacted by different personal
and environmental variables (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010; Loe
et al. 2000; O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005), the process is
often strengthened by issue-contingent factors that convey
certain situational cues to a decision maker. These situa-
tional characteristics are collectively called ‘‘moral inten-
sity’’ and function separately from individual and
organizational antecedents of ethical reasoning (Jones
1991). Jones (1991) identifies the dimensions of moral
intensity as ‘‘magnitude of consequence’’ (degree of seri-
ousness of unethical conduct), ‘‘social consensus’’ (degree
of agreement about unethical nature of conduct), ‘‘temporal
immediacy’’ (swiftness of negative outcomes triggered by
unethical conduct), ‘‘proximity’’ (closeness to persons
injured by unethical conduct), ‘‘probability of harm’’
(likelihood of adverse consequences caused by unethical
conduct), and ‘‘concentration of effect’’ (harm caused by
unethical conduct impacts few individuals). Past research
shows that moral intensity strengthens ethical reasoning
through increased ethical issue recognition, ethical judg-
ment, and ethical intention (e.g., Barnett 2001; Barnett and
Valentine 2004; Carlson et al. 2002; Kish-Gephart et al.
2010; Morris and McDonald 1995; Paolillo and Vitell
2002; Singer 1996; Singhapakdi et al. 1996, 1999; Valen-
tine et al. 2010). Consistent with this work, the following
hypothesis is offered:
Hypothesis 4 A stronger perception of moral intensity by
a selling professional is associated with a) a strengthened
belief that an ethical issue is important, b) a strengthened
ethical judgment, and c) a strengthened ethical intention.
140 S. Valentine et al.
123
The Impact of Psychopathy, Bullying, and Unethical
Corporate Values
Psychopathy is well positioned to harm selling profes-
sionals’ ethical reasoning. Obtaining power, prestige, and
influence at the cost of others’ well-being should prompt
low awareness of ethical concerns and increased egoism,
the maximization of self-benefit, and the promotion of self-
interests. Indeed, persons with attitudes that are congruent
with psychopaths often have a disingenuous charm, are
manipulative, can easily lie when necessary, and have low
compassion for others (Boddy et al. 2010). These traits
should precipitate poor ethical reasoning, particularly when
dealing with colleagues who are victims of negative
behavior. Past research has yielded similar findings when
examining other negative dispositional traits such as
Machiavellianism, with studies showing that an increased
willingness to manipulate others leads to weakened ethical
reasoning (Loe et al. 2000; O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005).
The cascading effect of psychopathic attitudes and
bullying should also weaken ethical reasoning by promot-
ing unethical practices that favor misconduct. Individuals
who experience excessive workplace bullying likely exhi-
bit diminished ethical reasoning because they are employed
in an environment that has not developed a set of ethical
values that encourage good conduct. Indeed, research
shows that the presence of a strong ethical context
enhances the likelihood that employees will respond to
dilemmas in an ethical manner (e.g., Singhapakdi 1993;
Singhapakdi and Vitell 1991; Valentine and Barnett 2007;
Valentine et al. 2010), and the opposite should hold true
when corporate values are unethical. It is also likely that an
unethical workplace has fewer positive role models, thus
permitting the bullying and mistreatment of others. Finally,
the presence of workplace bullying would serve to
strengthen a set of behaviors that are not supportive of an
ethical culture, further weakening the institutional social
fabric that encourages ethics. Such a context might pro-
mote a sense of ‘‘moral disengagement’’ among employees
(Trevino and Nelson 2011), thus encouraging further
unethical conduct based on social cognitive theory (see
Claybourn 2011). The following hypotheses regarding
ethical reasoning are therefore presented:
Hypothesis 5 Greater psychopathic attitude consistency in
a selling professional is associated with a) weakened moral
intensity, b) weakened ethical issue importance, c) a weak-
ened ethical judgment, and d) a weakened ethical intention.
Hypothesis 6 A higher degree of bullying experienced by
a selling professional (or negative acts) is associated with
a) weakened moral intensity, b) weakened ethical issue
importance, c) a weakened ethical judgment, and d) a
weakened ethical intention.
Hypothesis 7 A stronger perception of unethical corpo-
rate values by a selling professional is associated with a)
weakened moral intensity, b) weakened ethical issue
importance, c) a weakened ethical judgment, and d) a
weakened ethical intention.
The components of ethical reasoning should also be
positively interrelated (Barnett and Valentine 2004; Sing-
hapakdi et al. 1996, 1999, 2000; Valentine and Barnett
2007; Valentine et al. 2010). First, ethical judgment should
result in strengthened ethical intention when a latent bul-
lying dilemma is faced by a decision maker in the work-
place. Second, PIE should also be associated with
strengthened ethical judgment and ethical intention when
an ethical problem related to covert bullying is experi-
enced. Finally, perceived moral intensity should be asso-
ciated with enhanced PIE, ethical judgment, and ethical
intention in a covert bullying situation. The following
hypotheses are therefore presented:
Hypothesis 8 A stronger belief by a selling professional
that an ethical issue is important is associated with a) a
strengthened ethical judgment and b) a strengthened ethical
intention.
Hypothesis 9 A strengthened ethical judgment by a
selling professional is associated with a strengthened eth-
ical intention.
Method
Data
Before collecting data, two marketing scholars with inter-
national reputations in business ethics/sustainability were
asked to review the questionnaire for content, length, and
readability. Both scholars believed that the document was
appropriate and identified no serious concerns. Information
was therefore collected from a national sample of 3000
selling professionals, and individual names and contact
addresses were obtained from a commercial provider. An
envelope containing a cover letter, questionnaire, and
postage-paid return envelope was mailed to each person,
and 95 forms were returned. Approximately three months
later, a second wave of envelopes was sent to individuals,
which resulted in the return of an additional 43 forms.
These two waves resulted in a total of 138 questionnaires,
and an overall approximate response rate was 4.73 % after
ineligible questionnaires were considered. Analysis of
variance results, cross tabulations, and Chi square statistics
were assessed to determine if any differences existed in the
demographic and focal variables across the two waves of
mailed questionnaires (Armstrong and Overton 1977);
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 141
123
findings indicated that there were no significant response
differences.
Information was also collected from a convenience
sample of employees working for a variety of organizations
operating in the southern region of the United States; these
individuals were also involved in various selling activities in
their current jobs and had sales experience. Individuals were
given questionnaires by a coordinating researcher, and extra
copies were sometimes provided so that questionnaires
could be distributed to other coworkers. Questionnaires
were submitted to the coordinating researcher either directly
or through another point of contact, and 246 questionnaires
were obtained from this data collection round, resulting in
384 total questionnaires. After dropping 28 questionnaires
completed by individuals who were not currently involved
in selling activities (sales/non-sales professionals were
identified based on a combination of responses provided on
key sales-related demographic items), a total usable sample
of 356 questionnaires was retained for use in this investi-
gation. Based on the responses provided on one item, almost
89 % (valid percent) of respondents, or a total count of 293
individuals, claimed that they were sales professionals,
compared to 37 individuals who indicated that they were not
sales professionals. However, anyone who claimed that they
made sales calls, spent time on selling activities, and/or
called on, oversaw, or managed sales accounts in their cur-
rent jobs were included in the final sample, regardless of
whether or not they considered themselves to be selling
professionals or their title/job description explicitly included
sales. Since both samples targeted sales professionals,
combining the information was not considered problematic.
The finalized sample included a variety of professionals who
perform differing selling activities for their respective
organizations, such as real estate professionals, retail
employees, customer contact workers, as well as employees
in the hospitality sector.
The individuals were on average almost 39 years of age,
59.9 % were male, 70 % were white, and 53 % were
married. Further, 51 % of individuals reported having some
college, and 22.2 % claimed they had a Bachelor’s degree.
With regard to occupational experiences, 80.1 % were
employed full-time in their present jobs with an average of
8.16 years of tenure, and 42.9 % were sales/marketing
managers, 30.8 % represented a variety of ‘‘other’’ job
classifications, and 9.8 % were general managers. Indi-
viduals had an average of 13.82 years of selling experience
(based on 353 responses), they made an average of 9.32
sales calls per day in their current jobs (based on 310
responses), they spent an average of 27.05 h a week on
selling activities (based on 339 responses), and they called
on an average of 249.57 sales accounts (based on 275
responses). All individuals in the sample were therefore
involved in personal selling in some context. With regard
to company characteristics, 44.5 % of organizations oper-
ated in the wholesale/retail industry, 15.9 % in the manu-
facturing/construction industry, 9.6 % in the services
industry, 4.2 % in the communications industry, 1.7 % each
in the high-tech and insurance industries, and 1.4 % each in
the banking and real estate industries (7.1 % claimed to
function in multiple industries). Just over half of the firms
employed fewer than 100 individuals, 28 % employed
100–1000, and 20.5 % employed greater than 1000.
Measures
Measures utilized in previous business ethics and psy-
chology studies were incorporated into this investigation.
In addition, an ethics scenario was developed to evaluate
individuals’ ethical reasoning. The finalized items and the
ethics scenario are presented in the ‘‘Appendix’’ section.
Ethics Scenario
Studies of ethical reasoning frequently utilize vignettes that
cover common workplace problems (e.g., Alexander and
Becker 1978; Barnett 2001; Reidenbach and Robin 1990;
Singhapakdi et al. 1996). These scenarios stimulate sub-
jects’ ethical decision making by requiring them to com-
plete a series of measures linked to these problems. One
such ethics scenario was developed for use in this study and
focused on a situation in which a salesperson is marginal-
ized by another colleague who exhibits latent psychopathy
(high impression management, manipulation, political/self-
serving, subtle) and also uses milder forms of bullying
characterized by incivility (taking sales accounts, building
coalitions, treating others poorly). The scenario did not
contain a more severe example of misconduct so that sub-
jects would have differing opinions regarding the miscon-
duct, thus precipitating sufficient variation in the ethics
measures. Furthermore, we contend that these subtle forms
of psychopathy and bullying are more likely in organiza-
tions, thus enhancing the realism, relevance, and external
validity of the present study. Nevertheless, the content of
this scenario should effectively manipulate latent psy-
chopathy and covert bullying instead of more commonly
experienced (and less severe) problems such as generalized
interpersonal conflict. The various ethics measures were
introduced immediately after presentation of the scenario.
Moral Intensity
Beliefs about moral intensity in the scenario were assessed
with four statements taken from a six-item measure
(Singhapakdi et al. 1996, 1999) that assesses the various
issue-related factors (Jones 1991). While each item in this
scale assessed one dimension of moral intensity, the items
142 S. Valentine et al.
123
were combined to measure a global moral intensity con-
struct. Singhapakdi et al. (1996) found that the magnitude
of consequences, probability of effect, temporal immedi-
acy, and concentration of effect items loaded on one factor
called ‘‘perceived potential harm,’’ while the social con-
sensus and proximity items loaded on a second factor
called ‘‘perceived social pressure.’’ Since the goal of this
investigation was to assess the harm associated with bul-
lying and psychopathy, the use of the ‘‘perceived potential
harm’’ dimension to measure moral intensity was prefer-
able. Opinions were provided on a seven-point scale
anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree),
and the four items were coded in reverse. The item scores
were summed and divided by the total number of items so
that higher overall scores represented increased moral
intensity. The scale’s coefficient alpha was 0.77.
Perceived Importance of an Ethical Issue
The PIE construct was evaluated with a four-item measure
(Robin et al. 1996). Subjects assessed the behaviors pre-
sented in the scenario with seven-point semantic differen-
tial scales describing the relative importance of the overall
ethical problem embedded in the situation that involved
workplace misbehavior. Item scores were averaged so that
higher composite values represented increased PIE. The
coefficient alpha of the scale was 0.89.
Ethical Reasoning
Subjects’ ethical reasoning was measured with two distinct
scales. Four moral equity items were used to measure
judgments that the questionable actions in the vignette
were unethical (Reidenbach and Robin 1990). This moral
equity scale has been utilized successfully to measure
ethical judgments in previous research and is considered to
be a viable instrument (Barnett and Valentine 2004;
Valentine and Barnett 2007; Valentine et al. 2010).
Assessments were provided on four seven-point semantic
differential scales containing opposing descriptive adjec-
tives. Items scores were averaged so that higher composite
values indicated increased judgments that the actions pre-
sented were unethical (or ethical judgments). The scale’s
coefficient alpha was 0.90. Additionally, a behavior-based
measure containing four items was used to assess ethical
intentions (Barnett and Valentine 2004; Barnett et al. 1996;
Valentine et al. 2010). Individuals indicated the degree to
which they would engage in the questionable actions pre-
sented in the vignette on several seven-point semantic
differential scales. Item scores were summed and divided
by the total number of items to reflect decreased tendencies
to act unethically (or ethical intentions). The coefficient
alpha of the scale was 0.96.
Psychopathy
Individuals’ psychopathic attitudes/dispositions were
measured with sixteen items from the Levenson Self-
Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson et al. 1995) that
measure ‘‘a callous, manipulative, and selfish use of
others’’ (Lynam et al. 1999, p. 115). Answers were pro-
vided on a seven-point scale anchored by 1 (strongly
disagree) and 7 (strongly agree), and five items were
reverse-coded so that higher scores indicated increased
psychopathy. Since this measure is new to sales research,
and given the exploratory nature of this study, a principal
components factor analysis using varimax rotation was
utilized to evaluate the measurement properties of the
scale, and the findings showed that six items loaded on
the first factor with loadings above 0.58 (thresholds for
acceptable factor loading scores were set strategically and
variably around a value of 0.60 to retain as many items as
possible in the finalized scale), while the other ten items
loaded and/or cross-loaded on second and third factors.
After deleting these items, a second analysis showed that
the remaining six items identified a single factor with
loadings above 0.62, an eigenvalue of 3.18, and 53.05 %
of explained variance. Examination of these items indi-
cated that there was no reduction in scale content validity
based on the literature review. Item scores were averaged
to indicate stronger psychopathy. The measure’s coeffi-
cient alpha was 0.81.
Bullying Experiences (Negative Acts)
Individuals’ bullying experiences were evaluated with
twenty-two items from the Negative Acts Questionnaire
(Einarsen and Hoel 2001; Lutgen-Sandvik et al. 2007).
Respondents were asked to indicate how often they had
been subjected to a list of negative acts in the workplace
during the past year, and responses were provided with 0
(Never), 1 (occasionally—less than monthly), 2
(monthly), 3 (weekly), and 4 (daily) with higher scores
suggesting increased frequency. A principal components
factor analysis was utilized with varimax rotation to
evaluate the measurement properties of the scale because
it has not been used before in exploratory sales research.
Eleven items loaded on a first factor with low loadings
above 0.62, while the other eleven items loaded and/or
cross-loaded on second and third factors. After deleting
items, a second analysis showed that the remaining eleven
items identified a single factor with loadings above 0.69,
an eigenvalue of 6.31, and 57.33 % of explained variance.
Examination of the items showed no harm to scale con-
tent validity, and item scores were averaged to indicate
increased bullying. The coefficient alpha of the measure
was 0.92.
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 143
123
Unethical Corporate Values
A five-item scale developed by Hunt et al. (1989) was used
to assess individuals’ perceptions of unethical context. This
scale has been utilized in many ethics investigations (in-
cluding those in sales) and has been shown to appropriately
measure a company’s ethical posture (Singhapakdi et al.
1999; Valentine and Barnett 2002, 2007; Valentine et al.
2010). In particular, the scale targets areas such as lead-
ership ethics, various ethical business practices, and the
ability of employees to function ethically on the job.
Opinions were provided on a seven-point scale anchored by
1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree), and three items
were reverse-coded. The item scores were summed and
divided by the number of items so that higher overall
scores represented stronger perceptions of unethical busi-
ness practices. The scale’s coefficient alpha was 0.78.
Social Desirability (Control)
A ten-item social desirability scale was used to evaluate
subjects’ tendencies to respond in a socially correct manner
(Crowne and Marlowe 1960; Fischer and Fick 1993;
Strahan and Gerbasi 1972). Statements were assessed with
a seven-point scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7
(strongly agree), and five items were coded in reverse. Item
scores were averaged so that higher composite values
showed increased social desirability. The scale had a
coefficient alpha of 0.64. Since social desirability bias can
adversely impact ethics research (Randall and Fernandes
1991), the measure was specified as a control in the
analysis.
Analysis
Variable descriptive statistics and correlations were esti-
mated (using pairwise deletion) to conduct a preliminary
assessment of construct magnitude and interrelationships.
Multiple hierarchical regression models were then speci-
fied to evaluate the study’s hypotheses. Social desirability
was entered as a control in the first step of each of the
models, and additional variables were added in an ordered
manner based on their placement in the study framework.
Results
Variable Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Table 1 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics,
correlations, and reliability statistics. The mean values for
the moral intensity, PIE, ethical judgment, and ethical
intention variables were relatively high, which suggested
that the sales professionals reacted to the scenario in an
ethical manner. The mean values for unethical corporate
values, bullying experiences, and psychopathy were
somewhat low, which likely indicated that individuals
exhibited only slight tendencies related to psychopathic
attitudes and that the work context was favorable for
employees (infrequent bullying with weak unethical val-
ues). The mean score for social desirability was only
moderate, suggesting that impression management was
likely not profound in the sample. The correlation analysis
showed that moral intensity was positively related to PIE,
ethical judgment, and ethical intention, and negatively
related to psychopathy, bullying experiences, and unethical
corporate values. PIE was also positively related to ethical
judgment and ethical intention, and negatively related to
psychopathy, bullying experiences, and unethical corporate
values. Ethical judgment was positively related to ethical
intention and negatively related to psychopathy, bullying
experiences, and unethical corporate values, while ethical
intention was negatively related to psychopathy, bullying
experiences, and unethical corporate values. Finally, psy-
chopathy and negative acts were positively related, and
both variables were positively related to unethical corpo-
rate values. Overall, these correlations provided prelimi-
nary support for the notion specified in the hypotheses that
a negative (or unethical) culture precipitated by bullying
experiences and psychopathic attitudes will harm the eth-
ical reasoning process. All of the focal variables were
associated with social desirability, which verified that this
measure should be included in the hierarchical regression
models as a control for the potential bias likely related to
the sensitive nature of the study.
Hierarchical Regression Models
Table 2 highlights the hierarchical regression results. The
first model specifying bullying experiences as the depen-
dent variable indicated that the addition of both social
desirability and unethical corporate values caused signifi-
cant changes in the model R-square. Social desirability was
negatively related to bullying experiences (p \ 0.001), and the unethical corporate values variable was positively
related to bullying experiences (p \ 0.001), which pro- vides adequate statistical support for Hypothesis 1. The
second model specified psychopathy as the dependent
variable and showed that the addition of the social desir-
ability, unethical corporate values, and bullying experi-
ences variables caused significant changes in the model
R-square. Social desirability was negatively related to
psychopathy (p \ 0.001), and unethical corporate values (p \ 0.01) and bullying experiences (p \ 0.001) were positively related to psychopathy, which provides adequate
statistical support for Hypotheses 2 and 3.
144 S. Valentine et al.
123
The third model had moral intensity as the dependent
variable and indicated that the addition of social desir-
ability, psychopathy, and unethical corporate values caused
significant changes in R-square at the various steps of the
framework. Social desirability was positively related to
moral intensity (p \ 0.001), while psychopathy (p \ 0.001) and unethical corporate values (p \ 0.10) were negatively related to moral intensity. These results provide
support for Hypotheses 5a and 7a. The fourth model had
PIE as the dependent variable, and the findings showed that
the addition of social desirability, moral intensity, psy-
chopathy, and unethical corporate values generated sig-
nificant changes in R-square. Social desirability and moral
intensity were positively related to PIE (p \ 0.001), while psychopathy (p \ 0.05) and unethical corporate values (p \ 0.01) were negatively related to PIE, which provides adequate support for Hypotheses 4a, 5b, and 7b.
The fifth hierarchical regression model specified ethical
judgment as the dependent variable and showed that the
addition of social desirability, PIE, and moral intensity
caused significant changes to the model R-square. All three
variables were positively related to ethical judgment, pro-
viding strong support for Hypotheses 4b and 8a. The final
model had ethical intention as the dependent variable, and
the addition of social desirability, ethical judgment, moral
intensity, and psychopathy caused significant changes in
R-square at the various steps of the model. Social desir-
ability (p \ 0.001), ethical judgment (p \ 0.001), and moral intensity (p \ 0.05) were positively related to ethical intention, while psychopathy was negatively related to
ethical intention (p \ 0.01). These findings provided sup- port for Hypotheses 4c, 5d, and 9. All of regression models
produced highly significant F-values (p \ 0.001), and the variance inflation factors (VIFs) for the standardized
coefficients in each of the models were below a value of
1.50, indicating that multicollinearity was not an issue in
the analysis. The following section outlines the study’s
managerial implications and limitations, and provides
suggestions for future inquiry.
Discussion
The findings demonstrated that selling professionals’ ethi-
cal reasoning was consistent with relationships highlighted
in past work (e.g., Ferrell et al. 2007; Jones 1991; Rest
1986; Robin et al. 1996; Valentine and Barnett 2007;
Wotruba 1990). Ethical judgment was positively associated
with ethical intention, and PIE and ethical judgment were
positively related. Enhanced moral intensity was also
associated with increased PIE, ethical judgment, and ethi-
cal intention. Consistent with past sales ethics research
(e.g., Ferrell et al. 2007; Ingram et al. 2007; Valentine and
Barnett 2007; Wotruba 1990), positive relationships were
identified between unethical corporate values and compo-
nents of ethical reasoning.
Other unique relationships were also identified. The
finding that bullying experiences and psychopathic atti-
tudes were positively related has the potential to shed
further light on future sales research examining counter-
productive behaviors that involve interactions with others
such as deviance (Darrat et al. 2010), neutralizations
(Serviere-Munoz and Mallin 2013), and social networks
(Seevers et al. 2007). The positive associations identified
between unethical corporate values and both bullying
experiences and psychopathy underscore the negative
normative impact of an unethical culture on employees.
Finally, significant negative associations between psy-
chopathy and several of the issue-based ethical reasoning
constructs were identified. Overall, eight of the nine
hypotheses (all but Hypothesis 6) were either fully or
partially supported.
Table 1 Variable descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability statistics
Variable M SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Moral intensity 5.29 1.24 348 –
2. Perceived importance of ethical
issue
5.42 1.28 315 0.35*** –
3. Ethical judgment 5.49 1.38 319 0.52*** 0.32*** –
4. Ethical intention 5.52 1.68 310 0.43*** 0.27*** 0.64*** –
5. Psychopathy 2.06 1.10 346 -0.33*** -0.27*** -0.28*** -0.34*** –
6. Bullying experiences (negative
acts)
0.59 0.75 346 -0.14* -0.18** -0.16** -0.17** 0.37*** – –
7. Unethical corporate values 2.87 1.40 350 -0.21*** -0.30*** -0.19*** -0.17** 0.26*** 0.34*** –
8. Social desirability (control) 4.78 0.86 340 0.28*** 0.27*** 0.25*** 0.24*** -0.41*** -0.26*** -0.30***
*** p \ 0.001, ** p \ 0.01, * p \ 0.05
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 145
123
T a b le
2 H
ie ra
rc h
ic a l
re g
re ss
io n
m o
d e ls
D e p
e n
d e n
t v
a ri
a b
le B
u ll
y in
g e x
p e ri
e n
c e s
(n e g
a ti
v e
a c ts
)
P sy
c h
o p
a th
y M
o ra
l in
te n
si ty
P e rc
e iv
e d
im p
o rt
a n
c e
o f
e th
ic a l
is su
e
E th
ic a l
ju d
g m
e n
t E
th ic
a l
in te
n ti
o n
In d
e p
e n
d e n
t v
a ri
a b
le (s
) b
(V IF
) b
(V IF
) b
(V IF
) b
(V IF
) b
(V IF
) b
(V IF
)
S o
c ia
l d
e si
ra b
il it
y -
0 .2
6 *
* *
(1 .0
0 )
- 0
.4 1
* *
* (1
.0 0
) 0
.2 8
* *
* (1
.0 0
) 0
.2 7
* *
* (1
.0 0
) 0
.2 5
* *
* (1
.0 0
) 0
.2 4
* *
* (1
.0 0
)
S te
p 1 D R
2 0
.0 7
* *
* 0
.1 7
* *
* 0
.0 8
* *
* 0
.0 7
* *
* 0
.0 6
* *
* 0
.0 6
* *
*
U n
e th
ic a l
c o
rp o
ra te
v a lu
e s
0 .2
8 *
* *
(1 .1
0 )
0 .1
5 *
* (1
.1 0
)
P sy
c h
o p
a th
y -
0 .2
6 *
* *
(1 .2
0 )
M o
ra l
in te
n si
ty 0
.3 0
* *
* (1
.0 8
)
P e rc
e iv
e d
im p
o rt
a n
c e
o f
e th
ic a l
is su
e 0
.2 7
* *
* (1
.0 8
)
E th
ic a l
ju d
g m
e n
t 0
.6 2
* *
* (1
.0 7
)
S te
p 2 D R
2 0
.0 7
* *
* 0
.0 2
* *
0 .0
6 *
* *
0 .0
8 *
* *
0 .0
7 *
* *
0 .3
6 *
* *
B u
ll y
in g
e x
p e ri
e n
c e s
(n e g
a ti
v e
a c ts
) 0
.2 6
* *
* (1
.1 6
) 0
.0 0
(1 .1
8 )
P sy
c h
o p
a th
y -
0 .1
2 *
(1 .2
8 )
M o
ra l
in te
n si
ty 0
.4 5
* *
* (1
.1 9
)
P e rc
e iv
e d
im p
o rt
a n
c e
o f
e th
ic a l
is su
e 0
.0 6
(1 .1
6 )
S te
p 3 D R
2 0
.0 6
* *
* 0
.0 0
0 .0
1 *
0 .1
7 *
* *
0 .0
0
U n
e th
ic a l
c o
rp o
ra te
v a lu
e s
- 0
.1 1
^ (1
.2 0
)
B u
ll y
in g
e x
p e ri
e n
c e s
(n e g
a ti
v e
a c ts
) -
0 .0
8 (1
.1 8
)
P sy
c h
o p
a th
y -
0 .0
7 (1
.3 0
)
M o
ra l
in te
n si
ty 0
.1 1
* (1
.4 8
)
S te
p 4 D R
2 0
.0 1
^ 0
.0 0
0 .0
0 0
.0 1
*
U n
e th
ic a l
c o
rp o
ra te
v a lu
e s
- 0
.1 8
* *
(1 .2
1 )
B u
ll y
in g
e x
p e ri
e n
c e s
(n e g
a ti
v e
a c ts
) -
0 .0
4 (1
.1 8
)
P sy
c h
o p
a th
y -
0 .1
6 *
* (1
.3 0
)
S te
p 5 D R
2 0
.0 3
* *
0 .0
0 0
.0 2
* *
U n
e th
ic a l
c o
rp o
ra te
v a lu
e s
- 0
.0 2
(1 .2
6 )
B u
ll y
in g
e x
p e ri
e n
c e s
(n e g
a ti
v e
a c ts
) -
0 .0
1 (1
.1 9
)
S te
p 6 D R
2 0
.0 0
0 .0
0
U n
e th
ic a l
c o
rp o
ra te
v a lu
e s
0 .0
0 (1
.2 6
)
S te
p 7 D R
2 0
.0 0
M o
d e l F
2 6
.6 4
* *
* 3
5 .6
3 *
* *
1 3
.4 6
* *
* 1
4 .9
6 *
* *
2 1
.7 1
* *
* 3
4 .1
4 *
* *
R 2
0 .1
4 0
.2 5
0 .1
4 0
.2 0
0 .3
1 0
.4 5
A d
ju st
e d R
2 0
.1 3
0 .2
4 0
.1 3
0 .1
9 0
.2 9
0 .4
4
N 3
3 0
3 3
0 3
3 0
3 0
1 3
0 1
2 9
9
* *
* p \
0 .0
0 1
, *
* p \
0 .0
1 ,
* p \
0 .0
5 ,
^ p \
0 .1
0 ;
o n
ly th
e st
a n
d a rd
iz e d
c o
e ffi
c ie
n ts
a ss
o c ia
te d
w it
h v
a ri
a b
le s
a d
d e d
a t
e a c h
o f
th e
st e p
s o
f th
e m
o d
e ls
a re
p re
se n
te d
; fi
n a l
m o
d e l
su m
m a ry
st a ti
st ic
s p
re se
n te
d
146 S. Valentine et al.
123
The findings suggest that covert bullying and latent
psychopathy are pertinent to sales force behavior. For
example, the finding that psychopathic attitudes were
consistently associated with weakened ethical reasoning is
noteworthy and suggests a number of critical issues. The
negative association between psychopathy and PIE indi-
cates that respondents perceived that the ethical issue
depicted in the scenario involving Kim (the victim),
Jocelyn (the perpetrator–manipulator), and the sales man-
ager was important (as evidenced by M = 5.42), while
most selling professionals did not exhibit psychopathic
tendencies (M = 2.06). In the study’s context, this dis-
agreement suggests that subjects generally perceived that
psychopathy reflected unethical tendencies. A similar
negative association was found between psychopathy and
moral intensity. This implies that selling professionals
generally perceived that Jocelyn’s unethical actions would
cause considerable harm that would likely occur in the
immediate future. Finally, the negative relationship
between psychopathy and ethical intention advocates that
most selling professionals who do not possess psychopathic
attitudes would not personally choose to engage in actions
similar to Jocelyn’s mistreatment of Kim.
Managerial Implications
This investigation is important for understanding deviant
behavior among selling professionals. Salespeople are
often adept at impression management, so some may resort
to covert manipulation, passive–aggressive bullying, and
latent psychopathic tendencies. The scenario highlights the
potential consequences of latent psychopathy manipulative
and deviant employee behavior in a sales organization. The
sales manager’s passivity allowed Jocelyn to convince a
core group of salespersons to agree with reassigning Kim’s
new clients to Jocelyn. The sales manager therefore sig-
naled, possibly inadvertently, that Jocelyn’s behaviors were
acceptable, or even desirable, because ultimately Jocelyn
was rewarded and Kim was penalized. This in turn can
have a ripple effect in the organization as salespersons
realize that mimicking deviant behavior may be beneficial
and possibly justified (Andersson and Pearson 1999; Salin
2003).
The sales manager–selling professional dyadic rela-
tionship may trigger deviant behavior, such as when a
passive manager allows a salesperson to be bullied by a
colleague, or conversely utilize latent psychopathy under
the guise of aggressive selling. A sales manager also may
be more lenient toward a high-performing individual
exhibiting psychopathy (Darrat et al. 2010). Deviant selling
professionals may also employ impression management
and manipulation to influence upper management and
achieve professional gains. Alternatively, a sales manager
can use covert bullying and latent psychopathic behaviors
to develop unreasonable sales quotas and pressure a
salesperson with unrealistic work requirements. This in
turn could lead a selling professional to recommend
unneeded services to customers, lie to them when making
sales calls, or engage in other self-serving behaviors when
dealing with their colleagues (Darrat et al. 2010).
A key finding of this study is that sales misconduct is
associated with unethical corporate values that underscore
that importance of organizational ethics in the management
of workplace bullying and psychopathy (Andersson and
Pearson 1999; Harvey et al. 2007). The ability of Jocelyn to
manipulate a core group of salespeople and the sales
manager to secure Kim’s new accounts, while ignoring,
isolating, and criticizing those who disagreed with her,
unveils a weak ethical climate because such actions are
tolerated and indirectly encouraged. Research suggests that
such a scenario is relevant and realistic because covert
bullying is often associated with a weak superior (Vartia
1996). Further, the ethics literature repeatedly underscores
that management is a key ingredient for establishing a
healthy ethical context.
The finding that unethical corporate values are posi-
tively related to bullying experiences and negatively rela-
ted to facets of ethical reasoning (i.e., moral intensity, PIE)
has significant implications for sales managers. For
example, Brown and Trevino (2006) assert that morally
intense situations (such as the one profiled) showcase
whether or not the manager will demonstrate ethical
leadership. Managers who handle the situation correctly
strengthen the organization’s ethical climate, while those
who perform poorly, such as the sales manager in the
scenario, damage the ethical context (Brown and Trevino
2006; Ingram et al. 2007). Brown and Trevino (2006) also
underscore the importance of a proactive moral manager
who leads with moral integrity, signaling appropriate
behavior to others. These managers
make ethics an explicit part of their leadership agenda
by communicating an ethics and values message, by
visibly and intentionally role modeling ethical
behavior, and by using the reward system (rewards
and discipline) to hold followers accountable for
ethical conduct (p. 597).
These precepts illustrate how sales leaders should pre-
vent misconduct. In order to protect and enhance the eth-
ical context, sales managers must first be trained to
recognize workplace bullying and psychopathy, particu-
larly because many of them may be unaware of these
concepts. Is it also plausible that sales managers may
reprimand more leniently as a result of their own bullying/
psychopathic behaviors, which implies that such training
would make them more aware of their own tendencies and
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 147
123
encourage them to self-manage. They should also create
rules (i.e., codes of conduct) and policies (i.e., anti-ha-
rassment guidelines) that prevent deviant behavior and
champion civility/courtesy in the workplace (Hauge et al.
2009), particularly because selling professionals are likely
to value such ethical guidance (Dubinsky et al. 1992). In
this regard, Valentine et al. (2015) found that codes of
ethics and corporate ethical values might be used to miti-
gate latent workplace bullying and related psychopathy and
therefore enhance selling professionals’ job satisfaction.
Directly addressing bullying and psychopathy among sales
personnel in ethics codes and training, as well as through
the development of a strong corporate culture and shared
ethical values, is likely well-advised given these findings.
The organization should also provide ethics training that
targets challenges associated with misbehavior within sales
organizations (e.g., Brown and Trevino 2006). Even though
salespeople are not typically equipped to handle psy-
chopathy, they can learn how to more effectively manage
the negative work outcomes associated with this tendency.
Harvey et al. (2009, p. 32) and Schein 1992, 2009) also
contend that management should address cultural ‘‘sign-
posts’’ that support organizational ethics such as norms and
values. HR managers should consider establishing ‘‘peer
listeners,’’ ‘‘confidential counselors,’’ and grievance com-
mittees to provide a sounding board for sales professionals
who are victims of deviant behavior (Vega and Comer
2005, p. 107). In particular, these combined strategies
should help sales managers monitor and regulate the
behaviors of selling professionals as they function in their
autonomous, boundary spanning roles. It is essential to
send the message that the organization has a zero-tolerance
policy for workplace deviance (Harvey et al. 2009) because
such behavior will persist only if the organization allows it
(Hauge et al. 2009).
These above strategies should also minimize organiza-
tional exposure to lawsuits because the greatest risk in our
view emanates from management inaction in the face of
psychopathy that manifests itself through bullying behav-
iors. Proactive preventative measures such as those we
suggest above that are efficiently followed should shield
management from charges of duty negligence. However,
we caution that despite the likely positive influence on the
ethical context of institutionalizing these ethical policies,
personnel, and programs, their successful implementation
is contingent on executive management support in setting
the ‘‘tone at the top.’’
Since perpetrators of misconduct can negatively impact
the employment environment, another strategy involves
carefully evaluating individuals during recruitment and
hiring (Boddy 2011; Harvey et al. 2009; Kish-Gephart
et al. 2010; Vega and Comer 2005). HR professionals
might screen out sales candidates based on the civility and
respect demonstrated during interviews (Vega and Comer
2005), while also asking targeted questions to references
(Harvey et al. 2009). Individuals could also be given per-
sonality assessments as part of the selection process to
identify negative traits. On a cautionary note, leaders
should be careful not to freely apply the term ‘‘psy-
chopath’’ to individuals who misbehave because stigmati-
zation and misdiagnosis can occur; research also shows
that individuals are willing to claim that perpetrators are
psychopaths much more frequently than the actual rates of
this condition (see Caponecchia et al. 2012).
In sum, the present study significantly contributes to the
sales ethics literature in particular and the business ethics
literature in general. For example, the manuscript inte-
grates substantial literatures that underpin the ethical rea-
soning process (augmented by perceived importance of an
ethical issue and moral intensity) with the corporate envi-
ronment (unethical corporate values) and deviance (bully-
ing experiences and psychopathy). We are not aware of any
previous research that has addressed how both bullying and
psychopathy interact with the ethical reasoning process in
the sales context, while also addressing the ethical context.
Study Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
This exploratory research had several limitations. A total of
138 questionnaires were secured in the first round of data
collection, but the response rate was low thereby increasing
the possibility of nonresponse bias. However, we assessed
ANOVA, cross tabulations, and Chi square tests to inves-
tigate this bias, and the findings indicated no significant
response differences in the two waves. While the low
response rate could have been driven by a lack of concern
or interest in the part of the participants, we contend that
the study’s sensitive content and length of the question-
naire were contributing factors. However, two rep-
utable marketing ethics researchers carefully reviewed the
questionnaire and found it appropriate and well designed.
The balance of our data (N = 246) was gathered using a
convenience sample from a variety of organizations in the
southern United States. We caution against generalizations
of results to other professional groups beyond selling
professionals.
The two collection methods required respondents to
self-select in order to participate, so respondents may have
possessed cooperative and altruistic tendencies that might
differ from the general population of sales professionals.
Also, because data were gathered using a self-report
questionnaire, same-source bias and demand effects could
have also been issues. However, concerns over common
method bias may be overblown in organizational research
(Spector 2006). Even though social desirability bias was a
concern, an abbreviated social desirability variable was
148 S. Valentine et al.
123
specified as a significant control in the path analysis. The
study’s social desirability issues likely underscore the
severe nature of the topics explored and that inherent
impression-based tendencies that are often exhibited by
selling professionals likely drove certain response tenden-
cies; the streamlined social desirability scale might have
also contributed to the significance of the findings. Further,
there could have been confounding effects stemming from
respondents’ self ratings, and this is potentially troubling
given that bullies and psychopaths are adept social actors.
Finally, causality cannot be implied from the results given
the cross-sectional nature of the study.
The findings suggest a number of issues that should be
investigated further. Future research should explore how
moral reasoning is related to bullying and psychopathy
using scenarios highlighting more overt misconduct. In
addition, other professional groups could be investigated,
including general managers, finance employees, and
accounting professionals. Further, scenarios could be aug-
mented to include specific teleological corporate outcomes,
comparing positive consequences with negative conse-
quences that are associated with deviant behaviors and
ethical reasoning. Further assessments of mediation should
also be conducted to determine whether bullying experi-
ences and psychopathy impact the relationships among
other individual characteristics, organizational factors, and
ethical reasoning. Deviant behavior can also harm an
organization’s ethical context, a topic that deserves further
inquiry.
Appendix: Ethics Scenario and Measures
Situation
Kim is a seasoned salesperson in an office supply firm that
services many large corporate clients. A year ago, she was
given several new sales accounts that had high potential,
mainly because of her seniority in the sales department, as
well as her popularity, easy-going nature, and preferences
for teamwork (i.e., she sometimes gives sales leads away to
help struggling associates). Unfortunately, she has been
unable to sell enough merchandise to these new clients, and
her current level of sales performance only ‘‘meets
expectations’’ according to recent appraisals received from
her sales manager. Jocelyn, a relatively new member of the
sales department, subscribes to a different approach to
selling that involves individualistic and assertive tactics,
excessive networking with others, and impression man-
agement around important people, qualities that have often
enabled her to get good sales leads and assignments and to
effectively close deals. Jocelyn is upset because she thinks
that Kim is not selling enough given her good sales leads,
she is too concerned about getting along with others, and
she’s not political enough. Consequently, Jocelyn believes
that Kim’s new accounts should be assigned to her to
oversee and manage.
Actions
Jocelyn meets individually with members of the sales
department to convince them that Kim’s new accounts
should be assigned to her. While many disagree with
Jocelyn, she convinces a core group of salespeople,
including the sales manager, that Kim’s new clients
should be given to her, which occurs during Kim’s next
performance appraisal. Feeling empowered by this deci-
sion, Jocelyn begins to ignore, isolate, and criticize those
who disagreed with her, while at the same time
strengthening her relationships with those who supported
her.
Moral Intensity
1. The overall harm (if any) done as a result of Jocelyn’s
actions would be very small. (R)
2. There is a very small likelihood that Jocelyn’s actions
will actually cause any harm. (R)
3. Jocelyn’s actions will not cause any harm in the
immediate future. (R)
4. Jocelyn’s actions will harm very few people (if any).
(R)
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 149
123
Perceived Importance of Ethical Issue
Ethical Judgment
Ethical Intention
Psychopathy
1. For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with.
2. I enjoy manipulating other people’s feelings.
3. I often admire a really clever scam.
4. People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually
deserve it.
5. I tell other people what they want to hear so that they
will do what I want them to do.
6. In today’s world, I feel justified in doing anything I can
get away with to succeed.
Bullying Experiences (Negative Acts)
During the past year, how often have you been subjected to
the following negative acts in the workplace?
1. Had gossip and rumors spread about you
2. Had insulting/offensive remarks made about you
3. Been ignored, excluded or isolated from others
4. Received hints or signals from others that you should
quit your job
5. Been intimidated with threatening behavior
6. Been ignored or faced hostile reactions when you
approach others
7. Had false allegations made against you
8. Subjected to excessive teasing and sarcasm
9. Been shouted at or targeted with spontaneous anger
(or rage)
10. Pressured into not claiming something to which
entitled
11. Experienced threats of violence or abused/attacked
Next is a set of adjectives that allow you to evaluate Jocelyn’s actions described in the situation. 1. Fair __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Unfair 2. Just __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Unjust 3. Morally right __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Not morally right 4. Acceptable to my family __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Unacceptable to my family
How likely is it that you would engage in Jocelyn’s actions described in the situation? 1. Likely __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Unlikely 2. Probable __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Improbable 3. Possible __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Impossible 4. Definitely would __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Definitely would not
Next is a set of adjectives that allow you to describe Jocelyn’s actions described in the situation. 1. Unimportant issue __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Extremely important Issue 2. Insignificant issue __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Highly Significant Issue 3. Issue is of no concern __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Issue is of considerable concern 4. Trivial issue __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Fundamental issue
150 S. Valentine et al.
123
Unethical Corporate Values
1. Managers in my organization often engage in behav-
iors that I consider to be unethical.
2. In order to succeed in my organization, it is often
necessary to compromise one’s ethics.
3. Top management in my organization has let it be
known in no uncertain terms that unethical behaviors
will not be tolerated. (R)
4. If a manager in my organization is discovered to have
engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in
personal gain (rather than organizational gain), he or
she will be promptly reprimanded. (R)
5. If a manager in my organization is discovered to have
engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in
organizational gain (rather than personal gain), he or
she will be promptly reprimanded. (R)
Social Desirability
1. I like to gossip at times. (R)
2. There have been occasions when I took advantage of
someone. (R)
3. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a
mistake.
4. I always try to practice what I preach.
5. I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and
forget. (R)
6. At times I have really insisted on having things my
own way. (R)
7. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing
things. (R)
8. I never resent being asked to return a favor.
9. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas
very different from my own.
10. I have never deliberately said something that hurt
someone’s feelings.
(R) = reverse-coded
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–212.
Alexander, C., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey
research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 93–104.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling
effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management
Review, 24(3), 452–471.
Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the
workplace: The role of situational factors and victim character-
istics. Organizational Science, 11(5), 525–537.
Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The
effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-
determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 42(3), 260–272.
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression
from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,
717–741.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias
in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
Ayoko, O. (2007). Communication openness, conflict events and
reaction to conflict in culturally diverse workgroups. Cross
Cultural Management, 14(2), 105–124.
Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job Autonomy
and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave
test of Karasek’s job demand control model for targets and
perpetrators. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psy-
chology, 84(1), 191–208.
Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizational change
related to workplace bullying? Role conflict and job insecurity as
mediators. Economic & Industrial Democracy, 30(3), 348–371.
Barnett, T. (2001). Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical
decision-making: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31(5), 1038–1057.
Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1996). Religiosity, ethical
ideology, and intentions to report a Peer’s Wrongdoing. Journal
of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1161–1174.
Barnett, T., & Valentine, S. (2004). Issue contingencies and marketers’
recognition of ethical issues, ethical judgments and behavioral
intentions. Journal of Business Research, 57(4), 338–346.
Baughman, H. H., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A.
(2012). Relationships between bullying behaviours and the dark
triad: A study with adults. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 52, 571–575.
Bellizzi, J. A., & Hasty, R. W. (2003). Supervising unethical sales
force behavior: How strong is the tendency to treat top sales
performers leniently. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 337–351.
Boddy, C. R. (2005). The implications of corporate psychopaths for
business and society: An initial examination and a call to arms.
Australasian Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 1(2),
30–40.
Boddy, C. R. (2010). Corporate psychopaths and productivity.
Management Services, 54(1), 26–30.
Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate psychopaths, bullying, and unfair
supervision in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3),
367–379.
Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R. K., Richard, K., & Galvin, P. (2010).
The influence of corporate psychopaths on corporate social
responsibility and organizational commitment to employees.
Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 1–19.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
Caponecchia, C., Sun, A. Y. Z., & Wyatt, A. (2012). ‘Psychopaths’ at
work? Implications for lay persons’ use of labels and behavioural
criteria for psychopathy. Journal of Business Ethics, 107,
399–408.
Carlson, D. S., Michele Kacmar, K., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2002). The
impact of moral intensity dimensions on ethical decision
making: Assessing the relevance of orientation. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 14(1), 15–30.
Caywood, C. L., & Laczniak, G. R. (1986). Ethics and personal
selling: Death of a salesman as an ethical primer. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 6(2), 81–88.
Claybourn, M. (2011). Relationships between moral disengagement,
work characteristics and workplace harassment. Journal of
Business Ethics, 100, 283–301.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of
psychopathy: towards a hierarchical model. Psychological
Assessment, 13(2), 171–188.
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 151
123
Cortina, L. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrim-
ination in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
33(1), 55–75.
Cronan, T. P., Leonard, L. N. K., & Kreie, J. (2005). An empirical
validation of perceived importance and behavioral intention in
IT ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 231–238.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social
desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.
Darrat, M., Amyx, D., & Bennett, R. (2010). An investigation into the
effects on work-family conflict and job satisfaction on salesper-
son deviance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
30(3), 239–251.
Douglas, P. C., Davidson, R. A., & Schwartz, B. N. (2001). The effect
of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountant’s
ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 101–121.
Dubinsky, A. J., Jolson, M. A., Michaels, R. E., Kotabe, M., & Lim,
C. U. (1992). Ethical perceptions of field sales personnel: An
empirical assessment. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 12(4), 10–21.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work.
International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 16–27.
Einarsen, S, & Hoel, H. (2001). The Negative Acts Questionnaire:
Development, Validation and Revision of a Measure of Bullying
at Work. In 10th European Congress on Work and Organisa-
tional Psychology, Prague.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to
bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and
psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-
revised. Work and Stress, 23(1), 24–44.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemio-
logical findings in public and private organizations. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 185–201.
Ferrell, O. C., Johnston, M. W., & Ferrell, L. (2007). A framework for
personal selling and sales management ethical decision making.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(4), 291–299.
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short
forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 53(2), 417–424.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2006). How effective is an apology in
resolving workplace bullying disputes? Dispute Resolution
Journal, 61(2), 54–63.
Glasø, L., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Interpersonal
problems among perpetrators and targets of workplace bullying.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 1316–1333.
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work
groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects.
Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 486–496.
Granstra, K. (2015). Nurse against nurse: Horizontal bullying in the
nursing profession. Journal of Healthcare Management, 60(4),
249–257.
Haines, R., Street, M. C., & Haines, D. (2008). The influence of
perceived importance of an ethical issue on moral judgment,
moral obligation, and moral intent. Journal of Business Ethics,
81(2), 387–399.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The hare psychopathy checklist revised. New
York/Ontario): Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing word of the
psychopaths among us. New York: Guildford Press.
Harvey, M. G., Buckley, R. M., Heames, J. T., Zinko, R., Brouer, R.
L., & Ferris, G. R. (2007). A bully as an archetypal destructive
leader. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14(2),
117–129.
Harvey, M. G., Treadway, D., Heames, J. T., & Duke, A. (2009).
Bullying in the 21st century global organization: An ethical
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 27–40.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstads, A., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Individual and
Situational predictors of workplace bullying: Why do perpetrators
engage in the bullying of others? Work and Stress, 23(4), 349–358.
Heames, J. T., Harvey, M. G., & Treadway, D. (2006). Status
inconsistency: An antecedent to bullying behavior in groups.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2),
348–361.
Hodson, R., Roscigno, V. J., & Lopez, S. H. (2006). Chaos and the
abuse of power: Workplace bullying in organizational and
interactional context. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 382–416.
Hoffman, K. D., Howe, V., & Hardigree, D. W. (1991). Ethical
dilemmas faced in the selling of complex services: Significant
others and competitive pressures. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 11(4), 13–25.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing
ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 8(1), 5–16.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2006). A general theory of marketing
ethics: A revision and three questions. Journal of Macromar-
keting, 26(2), 1–11.
Hunt, S. D., Wood, V. R., & Chonko, L. B. (1989). Corporate ethical
values and organizational commitment in marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 53(3), 79–90.
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on
school bullying. American Psychologist, 70(4), 293–299.
Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W., & Schwepker, C. H, Jr. (2007).
Salesperson ethical decision making: The impact of sales
leadership and sales management control strategy. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(4), 301–315.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals in
organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 16(2), 366–395.
Keashly, l, & Neuman, J. H. (2005). Bullying in the workplace: Its
impact and management. Employee Rights and Employment
Policy Journal, 8(2), 335–373.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty experiences with
bullying in higher education. Administrative Theory & Praxis,
32(1), 48–70.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2013). Bullying in higher education:
what current research, theorizing, and practice tell us. In J. Lester
(Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (pp. 1–22). New
York: Routledge.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & 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.
Langan-Fox, J., & Sankey, M. (2008). Tyrants and workplace
bullying. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R. J. Klimoski
(Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace:
Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 58–74). Chel-
tenham: Edward Elgar.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). assessing
psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158.
Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the
development of post-traumatic stress disorders. European Jour-
nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 251–275.
Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical
studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of
Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by
bullying in the american workplace: Prevalence, perception,
degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6),
837–862.
Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported
psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 73(1), 110–132.
152 S. Valentine et al.
123
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-
life: Prevalence and health correlates. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 393–413.
Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The role of moral intensity
in moral judgments: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Business Ethics, 14(9), 715–726.
Neuman, J., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and
workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms,
potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management,
24(3), 391–419.
O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the
empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.
Paolillo, J. G., & Vitell, S. J. (2002). An empirical investigation of the
influence of selected personal, organizational and moral intensity
factors on ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics,
35(1), 65–74.
Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions
to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human
Relations, 63(6), 671–780.
Pilch, I., & Turska, E. (2015). Relationships between machiavellian-
ism, organizational culture, and workplace bullying: Emotional
abuse from the target’s and the perpetrator’s perspective. Journal
of Business Ethics, 128(1), 83–93.
Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability
response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics,
10(11), 805–817.
Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development
of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of
business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 639–653.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and
theory. New York: Praeger.
Robin, D. P., ER, R., & Forrest, P. J. (1996). The perceived
importance of an ethical issue as an influence on the ethical
decision-making of Ad managers. Journal of Business Research,
35(1), 17–28.
Salin, S. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business
professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for
measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 10(4), 425–441.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of
enabling, motivating, and precipitating structures and processes
in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213–1232.
Samnani, S.-K., & Singh, P. (2014). Performance-enhancing com-
pensation practices and employee productivity: The role of
workplace bullying. Human Resource Management Review,
24(1), 5–16.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San-
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2009). The corporate culture survival guide. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seevers, M. T., Skinner, S. J., & Kelley, S. W. (2007). A social
network perspective on sales force ethics. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 27(4), 341–353.
Serviere-Munoz, L., & Mallin, M. L. (2013). How do unethical
salespeople sleep at night? The role of neutralizations in the
justification of unethical sales intentions. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 33(3), 289–306.
Singer, M. S. (1996). The role of moral intensity and fairness
perceptions in judgments of ethicality: A comparison of
managerial professionals and the general public. Journal of
Business Ethics, 15(4), 469–474.
Singhapakdi, A. (1993). Ethical perceptions of marketers: The
interaction of effects of machiavellianism and organizational
ethical culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(5), 407–418.
Singhapakdi, A., Salyachivin, S., Virakul, B., & Veerayangkur, V.
(2000). Some important factors underlying ethical decision
making of managers in Thailand. Journal of Business Ethics,
27(3), 271–284.
Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S. J. (1991). Analyzing the ethical decision
making of sales professionals. Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, 11(4), 1–12.
Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Marketing ethics: Sales
professionals versus other marketing professionals. Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 12(2), 27–38.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents,
consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity
and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 27(1), 19–36.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). Moral intensity
and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. Journal
of Business Research, 36(3), 245–255.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research:
Truth or urban legend. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2),
221–232.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of
the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clin-
ical Psychology, 28(2), 191–193.
Sweeney, P. (2007). Organizational chaos and relative powerlessness:
Breeding ground for bullies? Academy of Management Perspec-
tives, 21(2), 77–78.
Tellefsen, T., & Eyuboglu, N. (2002). The impact of a salesperson’s
in-house conflicts and influence attempts on buyer commitment.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22(3),
157–172.
Trevino, L. K., Kenneth, D. B., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical
context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and
behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476.
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2011). Managing business ethics:
Straight talk about how to do it right (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Tsalikis, J., & Fritzsche, D. J. (1989). Business ethics: A literature
review with a focus on marketing ethics. Journal of Business
Ethics, 8(9), 695–743.
Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2002). Ethics codes and sales profes-
sionals’ perceptions of their organizations’ ethical values.
Journal of Business Ethics, 40(3), 191–200.
Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2007). Perceived organizational ethics
and the ethical decision of sales and marketing personnel.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 27(4),
373–388.
Valentine, S., Fleischman, G., & Godkin, L. (2015). Rogues in the
ranks of selling organizations: Using corporate ethics to manage
workplace bullying and job satisfaction. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 35(2), 143–163.
Valentine, S., Fleischman, G., Sprague, R., & Godkin, L. (2010).
Exploring the ethicality of firing employees who blog. Human
Resource Management, 49(1), 87–108.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying: Psychological work
environment and organizational climate. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 203–214.
Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your
bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the
workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1), 101–109.
Vickers, M. H. (2014). Workplace bullying as workplace corruption:
A higher education, creative nonfiction case study. Administra-
tion & Society, 46(8), 960–985.
Walters, G. D., Brinkley, C. A., Magaletta, P. R., & Dianmond, P. M.
(2008). Taxometric analysis of the Levenson self-report psy-
chopathy scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5),
491–498.
Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values… 153
123
Wotruba, T. R. (1990). A comprehensive framework for the analysis
of ethical behavior, with a focus on sales organizations. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 10, 29–42.
Zapf, D., Escartin, J., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003).
Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in
the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. Interna-
tional perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor &
Francis Group.
154 S. Valentine et al.
123
Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved.
- Villains, Victims, and Verisimilitudes: An Exploratory Study of Unethical Corporate Values, Bullying Experiences, Psychopathy, and Selling Professionals’ Ethical Reasoning
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Literature Review
- Selling Professionals’ Ethical Reasoning
- Psychopathy in Sales Organizations
- Bullying in Sales Organizations
- Unethical Corporate Values in Sales Organizations
- Relationship Between Bullying and Psychopathy
- Moral Intensity and Selling Professionals’ Ethical Reasoning
- The Impact of Psychopathy, Bullying, and Unethical Corporate Values
- Method
- Data
- Measures
- Ethics Scenario
- Moral Intensity
- Perceived Importance of an Ethical Issue
- Ethical Reasoning
- Psychopathy
- Bullying Experiences (Negative Acts)
- Unethical Corporate Values
- Social Desirability (Control)
- Analysis
- Results
- Variable Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
- Hierarchical Regression Models
- Discussion
- Managerial Implications
- Study Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
- Appendix: Ethics Scenario and Measures
- Situation
- Actions
- Moral Intensity
- Perceived Importance of Ethical Issue
- Ethical Judgment
- Ethical Intention
- Psychopathy
- Bullying Experiences (Negative Acts)
- Unethical Corporate Values
- Social Desirability
- References