Annotated bibliography

prosperpm

Promoting_Ethics_In_The_Workpl.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Annotated bibliography

International Business & Economics Research Journal – Special Edition 2012 Volume 11, Number 13

Promoting Ethics In The Workplace: Why

Not Reflect General Organizational Justice? Pablo Ruiz-Palomino, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Ricardo Martínez-Cañas, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Raúl del Pozo-Rubio, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

ABSTRACT

Recent decades reveal increasing academic and practitioner interest in improving corporations’

social and ethical reputations. Efforts to promote ethics usually focus on the implementation of

explicit, formal mechanisms, aimed at transmitting ethical and moral content and reflecting an

interest in behavioural ethics. Although the efficacy of these mechanisms has been demonstrated,

such efforts may fail if ethics does not exist in reality in the normal procedures and operations of

the firm and in the treatment employees perceive from their employers. Organizational justice is

an antecedent of ethical behaviour, though most research depicting this link has centred

exclusively on assessing (un)ethical behaviours directed toward the organization. Other insights,

however, might suggest a relationship between organizational justice perceptions and general

ethical behaviour; therefore, this study conducts an empirical examination of survey data from

436 Spanish banking employees to discern their perceptions of organizational justice by top

management and whether these perceptions are related to general ethical/unethical behaviours.

Findings, finally, reveal that such perceptions have positive effects on workforce general ethics.

That is, actions and efforts by top management that signal organizational justice can help promote

ethics among a wider workforce. These findings have substantial practical implications, as well as

insights for further research.

Keywords: Organizational Justice; Ethical Behaviour; Top Management

1. INTRODUCTION

he moral lapses and business scandals in recent decades (e.g., Enron, Arthur Andersen, Health South

Corp., Countrywide) and the new issues that seem to arise daily (e.g., allegations of improper

contractor payments that forced the resignation of Hewlett-Packard chief executive Mark Herd;

Worthen & Lublin, 2010) make ethics an increasingly salient topic among both academics and practitioners.

Academic studies offer substantial contributions to our understanding of the moral behaviour and decision making

processes of people in organizational settings (Treviño, 1986; Hunt & Vitell, 1993; Jones, 1991). Yet the problem of

immorality demands constant vigilance to keep it under control, and research still has room to propose solutions and

options.

For example, academics have suggested a link between behavioural ethics and justice/fairness perceptions

in organizational settings. For decades, these issues were studied only separately, but recent contributions (e.g.,

Cropanzano & Stein, 2009) provide strong rationales for their close interconnection, which demands research that

can embrace and address this link and thereby advance both organizational justice and behavioural ethics research.

Several studies note positive associations between organizational justice variables (i.e., procedures) and behavioural

ethics variables (i.e., deviant workplace behaviour) (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Yet previous research mostly

focuses on a single type of unethical behaviour as a dependent variable, and most of that centres on unethical

behaviour directed toward the organization (Treviño & Weaver, 2001; Rupp & Bell, 2010). The findings of these

studies reflect traditional theoretical rationales (e.g., equity theory; Adams, 1965) that regard unethical responses

against the organization (e.g., vandalism, theft) as efforts to balance out perceptions of unfairness that harm

employees’ interests. Because fairness and justice underlie moral standards and principles (Rawls, 1971), the

International Business & Economics Research Journal – Special Edition 2012 Volume 11, Number 13

concept clearly can be applied to unethical behaviour directed to any other agent as well. Furthermore, despite the

exclusion of organizational justice as an independent contextual variable in previous research (Treviño & Weaver,

2001), it should play exactly this role, considering its relation to contextual variables such as organizational policies,

procedures, and decisions (distributive, procedural justice), as well as interactions with others (interactional justice).

Finally, the top management of a firm should exert a strong influence on employees’ organizational fairness

perceptions.

Therefore, this study aims to analyse the impact of organizational justice on employees’ general ethical

behaviours. Specifically, we examine the impact of general organizational fairness perceptions, caused by top

management actions, on employees’ general ethical behaviour. We review prior literature to provide a basis for the

rationales we use for our hypothesis. Next, we present our methodology and findings. Finally, we offer some

conclusions, limitations, and implications for further research.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

According to Treviño and Weaver (2001), justice is a fundamental social expectation that motivates

behaviour. When employees perceive fairness or unfairness, they experience certain positive or negative sentiments

(e.g., anger, Pillutla & Murnighan, 1996; satisfaction, Greenberg, 1990; McCain, Tsai, & Bellino, 2010) that likely

influence their consequent behavioural pattern. In line with equity theory (Adams, 1965), in organizational scenarios

in which employees perceive general organizational injustice and unfairness, they tend to adjust their behaviour to

redress the perceived injustice and also work to improve their welfare or status, usually at the organization’s expense

(Treviño & Weaver, 2001). In contrast, when employees face fair treatment, such as when top management fairly

allocates resources, employees likely aim to preserve the well-being of their organization (Zoghbi-Manrique de

Lara, 2010) and subordinate their own interests to those of their organization (Lind & Tyler, 1988); their behaviours

should also be ethical and in line with the company’s expectations (McCain et al., 2010). The prevalence of

unethical behaviours directed against the company’s interests in recent decades (Greenberg, 2002) thus may be

understood according to this “seeking balance” rationale, which is also consistent with the Van den Boss, Lind, and

Wilde’s (1997) idea that a broad fairness heuristic guides people’s thinking about their relationship with their

organizations, in terms of commitment and support dimensions (Treviño & Weaver, 2001).

Although previous research mostly assesses unethical behaviours exclusively directed to the organization in

contexts in which employees perceive organizational unfairness, there is strong evidence that people also value

moral principles, such as justice, for their own sake (Cropanzano & Stein, 2009), not just in relation to the damage

caused or benefits received. For example, Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, and Gee (2002) suggest that self-

interest is not the only, or even the prime, motivator for people to attend to fairness issues. Rather, employees may

perceive that the virtue of fairness is its own reward (Turillo et al., 2002; Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005), in support

of the idea that individuals present endogenous deontic emotions (Turillo et al., 2002). Moral values also appear

beneficial for their own sake, as human ideals (González & Guillén, 2008), toward which people naturally strive

(Kreeft, 1990). Because justice thus constitutes an important part of the larger domain of morality and virtuousness

(Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel & Rupp, 2001; Folger, Cropanzano & Goldman, 2005), people who perceive justice

in their organizational settings may feel more fairly treated and appreciated (Argandoña, 2011), which ultimately

could motivate reciprocity in the form of fairness and other morally virtuous behaviours (Cameron, Bright, & Caza,

2004). Thus, general ethical behaviour, one which entails acts not exclusively directed toward the organization,

could be enhanced in situations that encourage perceptions of organizational fairness. Prior business ethics studies

(Zabid & Alsagoff, 1993) cite the important impact of top management for determining the level of ethics among

employees, arguing that an ethics gap at top management levels prevents an ethical workforce from emerging (Gini,

1997). Fairness also is an issue that Treviño, Hartman, and Brown (2000) defend as crucial for ethics and for

effective ethical leadership, which in line with previous research (Peterson, 2004) can enhance ethical behaviour in

organizational settings. Accordingly, we assert that perceived general organizational justice, in reference to the

perceived fairness exhibited by top management, has a positive impact:

Hypothesis 1: General organizational justice, as manifested in top management fairness, relates positively to

employees’ general ethical behaviour.

International Business & Economics Research Journal – Special Edition 2012 Volume 11, Number 13

3. METHODOLOGY

Sample and Procedure

The survey was distributed to 4,136 employees of large branches or offices of various Spanish banking

companies. The questionnaires typically were distributed directly to employees, after gaining the consent of the

branch manager; in some cases, they were mailed to employees, with the approval of a regional director. The 436

usable surveys finally received represented a response rate of 10.5%, which is reasonable for organizational

behaviour research, especially considering that the employees represented multiple business organizations

(Valentine, Greller, & Richtermeyer, 2006).

To minimise apprehension and social desirability bias, the cover letter to the questionnaire emphasised that

there were no right or wrong answers. Wording in the questionnaire itself also guaranteed absolute anonymity and

confidentiality to participants.

To evaluate the possibility for nonresponse bias, the first and last quartiles of submissions were compared;

late respondents should be more similar to nonrespondents than early ones (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). The chi-

square and independent sample t-tests conducted did not reveal any significant differences in the study variables, so

non response bias did not appear to be a concern for our study.

Measures

To measure general organizational justice, we used three items adapted from Treviño and Weaver’s (2001)

scale, using a five-point response format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Instead of organization though,

we used top management as our main focus or responsible agent, which supported our research goal of determining

the role of top management behaviour in influencing employees’ ethical/unethical behaviours. In general, the items

address the extent to which employees perceive that they are treated fairly and respectfully, as well as how fairly top

management acts with regard to employees’ interests (e.g., In general, top management treats its employees fairly).

Guided by previous research on business ethics (Treviño & Weaver, 2001; Treviño, Butterfield & McCabe,

1998), we assessed perceived ethical behaviour by asking respondents about any unethical behaviours they had

perceived by peers in the organizational setting. By asking about peers’ unethical conduct, we mitigate the potential

for social desirability bias (Treviño & Weaver, 2001; Treviño et al., 1998). Three behavioral items were adapted

from previous research (e.g. Izraeli, 1988; Treviño &Weaver, 2001; Peterson, 2004) which as in Peterson (2004)

encompassed a variety of possible ethical failures with implications for the organization, co-workers and customers

(e.g. misuse of company materials, claiming credit for someone else work, exaggerating benefits and advantages of

corporate products and services). With a five-point response format (1 = never, 5 = very often), respondents

indicated the level of frequency of such acts; the responses were reverse scored and averaged, so higher values

represented more ethical behaviour perceived.

Data Analysis

We used SPSS (v.19.0) statistical software to generate descriptive statistics and other statistical analyses of

the data. A correlation analysis and an independent two-sample t-test help test the hypothesis. As Table I reveals, the

internal reliability of the measures was sufficient. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the dependent variable was

slightly lower than the minimum level of 0.7 recommended by Nunnally (1978) for basic research, but additional

statistical analyses (i.e., a single factor for three items and acceptable item correlation with respect to the scale’s

corrected total) revealed the appropriateness of the measure. In addition, levels higher than 0.60 can be considered

acceptable, especially for exploratory scales (Hair, Black, Babin & Tatham, 2006).

International Business & Economics Research Journal – Special Edition 2012 Volume 11, Number 13

Table I

Means, deviations, and correlation matrix. (Cronbach’s alpha in bold. N = 434)

Mean SD 1 2

1. Perceived ethical behaviour 3.55 .78 .61

2. General organizational justice 2.88 .89 .23** .86

Notes: The diagonal represents the Cronbach's alpha. Off-diagonal elements are the correlations between the variables. **

Significant at the .01 level (one-tailed)

4. RESULTS

Hypothesis Testing

We performed correlation analysis to test the strength and direction of the linear relationships among the

target variables in this study: perceived ethical behaviour and general organizational justice. In Table I, we provide

the results, which indicate some preliminary support for the hypothesis, in that the association between general

organizational justice and perceived ethical behaviour (r = .23) is significant at p < .01, and in the predicted

direction.

Table II

General organizational justice and perceived ethical behaviour (Independent two-sample t-test)

High top management

general justice (n = 234)

Low top management

general justice (n = 200)

M SD M SD t-statistic p-value

CI95

Perceived ethical

behaviour

3.71 .73 3.35 .80 4.757 .00** .21–.50

** Significant at the .01 level (one-tailed)

To reinforce those results, we also conducted an independent two-sample t-test to determine if the means of

two different populations (i.e., those who perceived high versus low general organizational justice) differ

statistically in terms of perceived ethical behaviour. As the results in Table II reveal, and in line with our previous

results, the test is significant at the .01 level, t (432) = 4.757. Thus, employees who perceive that top management’s

general justice is high (M = 3.71, SD = .73, n = 234) on average represent a more ethical workforce than the group

that perceives top management’s general justice as low (M = 3.35, SD = .80, n = 200). In addition, with 95%

confidence, we assert that there is always a mean difference between the two conditions related to the hypothesis,

ranging between .21 and .50, which indicates significant differences (in the predicted direction) in the mean level of

the perceived ethical behaviour measure, according to the extent to which top management shows general

organizational justice in its daily behaviours.

In summary, both the correlation analysis and the independent two-sample t-test offer support for our

proposed hypothesis. Thus, general organizational justice, as perceived in the top management sphere, has an

important, positive effect on workforce ethics.

5. DISCUSSION

This investigation has aimed to analyse the role of general organizational justice perceptions, specifically

those derived from reflections on the fairness of the treatment and conduct of top management, in determining the

ethical behaviour of employees. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that general organizational justice has a

significant positive effect on employees’ ethical behaviours, spanning actions directed toward the organization, co -

workers, and customers. Therefore, our findings extend prior research that positively link various measures of

perceived organizational unfairness to the unethical conduct of employees that harms the organization (Greenberg,

1990; Treviño & Weaver, 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Rupp & Bell, 2010), likely as a result of

experiencing negative emotions (e.g., frustration, anger) in such an unfair organizational scenario (Skarlicki &

Folger, 1997).

International Business & Economics Research Journal – Special Edition 2012 Volume 11, Number 13

Perhaps even more important, this investigation adds to previous research on organizational justice and

behavioural ethics by finding a positive relationship between general organizational justice perceptions and an

ethical behaviour measure that encompasses actions directed to the organization, co-workers, and customers.

Although recent research suggests that organizational justice perceptions (procedural and distributive) positively

affect employees’ ethical behaviour in their interactions with customers (McCain et al., 2010), our measure of

ethical behaviour adds conduct directed specifically toward customers or co-workers. In addition to affecting ethical

behaviours directed toward the organization, general organizational fairness perceptions can influence employees’

ethical behaviours in general. If they perceive that managers, i.e. top management, offers fair conduct and treatment,

employees likely feel positive emotions and reciprocate by treating others in a fair and ethical manner (McCain et

al., 2010).

Efforts to build ethical leadership at the top levels thus are highly salient for management practitioners

interested in promoting organizational ethics. Considering their high formal authority, top managers exert significant

influence through their beliefs, features, decisions, and actions (Merton, 1957). Fairness and justice behavioural

dimensions are expected in people who are perceived as effective ethical leaders (Treviño et al., 2000) and who have

moral principles (Folger et al., 2005). Therefore top management cannot ignore this dimension in their daily

working life if they hope to exert a positive impact on employees’ ethical behaviours.

Several limitations in this study should be considered as well. In particular, this research took place in a

single industry setting (banking) and a specific cultural context (Spain), so though the results likely hold in similar

contexts, the external validity of our results may be somewhat limited. Furthermore, we measured ethical behaviour

by asking respondents about their co-workers’ perceived unethical behaviours in organizational settings. This

measure helps reduce social desirability bias (Treviño & Weaver, 2001; Treviño et al., 1998), but we might have

missed out on more accurate information about the real impact that organizational fairness perceptions have on a

respondent’s own ethical behaviour. Finally, our study is limited in that it focuses on just the direct relationship

between organizational justice and behavioural ethics, without accounting for other potential intervening (mediating

or interacting) variables within that relationship.

We thus see many interesting directions for further research to provide insights into this organizational

justice–behavioural ethics relationship. First, studies that pertain to other industries and cultural contexts should be

conducted to determine the generalisability of our findings. Second, additional research might analyse the role of

other variables in the relationship. As we noted, because feelings of inequity or equity tend to produce negative (e.g.,

frustration, anger; Coughlan & Connolly, 2001) or positive emotions and attitudes respectively (job satisfaction;

Greenberg, 1990; McCain et al., 2010), general organizational fairness perceptions might influence employees’

(un)ethical conduct through the effect of such emotional and attitudinal variables. Researchers could seek to

ascertain if these variables really play a mediating role or simply represent a final outcome of the relationship. Third,

and finally, personal variables, such as cognitive moral development, could interact and help explain this

relationship (Cropanzano & Stein, 2009), so further studies aimed at providing insights into the complex nature of

this relationship might take into account the influence of personality traits.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Pablo Ruiz-Palomino is an Associate Professor of Business Administration at UCLM, Spain. He received a Ph.D.

in Business Administration; his current research interests focus on business ethics and social capital. E-mail:

[email protected] (Corresponding author)

Ricardo Martinez-Cañas is an Associate Professor of Business Administration at UCLM, Spain. He received a

Ph.D. in Business Administration; his current research interests include business ethics, social capital, and strategy.

E-mail: [email protected]

Raul del Pozo-Rubio is an Assistant Professor of Business Administration at UCLM, Spain. He is also a doctoral

candidate in Economics and Finance, and his current research interests are focused on long-term care costs and

financing, as well as tourism and the environment. E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

International Business & Economics Research Journal – Special Edition 2012 Volume 11, Number 13

REFERENCES

1. Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Volume 2, New York: Academic Press.

2. Argandoña, A. (2011). Beyond Contracts: Love in Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 77-85. 3. Armstrong, J. S. & Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating Non Response Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of

Marketing Research, 14, 396–403.

4. Cameron, K., Bright, D. & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships Between Organizational Virtuousness and Performance, American Behavioural Scientist 47 (6), 1-24.

5. Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P.E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.

6. Coughlan, R. & Connolly, T. (2001). Predicting Affective Response to Unexpected Outcomes. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 85, 211-225.

7. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral Virtues, Fairness Heuristics, Social Entities, and Other Denizens of Organizational Justice, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-

209.

8. Cropanzano, R. & Stein, J.H. (2009). Organizational Justice and Behavioral Ethics: Promises and Prospects, Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 193-233.

9. Folger, R., Cropanzano, R. & Goldman, B. (2005) What is the Relationship between Justice and Morality? In Greenberg J. & Colquitt J.A. (Eds.): Handbook of Organizational Justice, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates

10. Gillespie, J.Z. & Greenberg, J. (2005). Are Goals of Organizational Justice Self-Interested?. In Greenberg J. & Colquitt J.A. (Eds.): Handbook of Organizational Justice, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

11. Gini, A. (1997). Moral Leadership and Business Ethics. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 4, 64-81.

12. Gónzalez, T. F. & Guillén, M. (2008), Organizational Commitment: A Proposal for a Wider Ethical Conceptualization of Normative Commitment’, Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 401-414.

13. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice; Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.

14. Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the Money and When?: Individual and Situational Determinants of Employee Theft, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985-1003.

15. Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. (6

th Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.

16. Hunt, S.D. & Vitell, S. (1993). The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and Revision. In Smith N.C. & John A. Q. (Eds.): Ethics in marketing. Homewood, IL: Irwin Inc.

17. Izraeli, D. (1988). Ethical Beliefs and Behaviour among Managers: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 263-271.

18. Jones T.M. (1991). Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.

19. Kreeft, P. (1990). A Summa of the Summa. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press. 20. Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New York: Plenum Press. 21. McCain, S-L Ch., Tsai, H. & Bellino, N. (2010). Organizational Justice, Employees’ Ethical Behavior, and

Job Satisfaction in the Casino Industry, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,

22, 992-1009.

22. Merton, R.K. (1957). The Role-Set. British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106-120. 23. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill. 24. Peterson, D.K. (2004). Perceived Leader Integrity and Ethical Intentions of Subordinates. The Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, 25, 7-23.

25. Pillutla, M. & Murnighan, P. (1996). Unfairness, Anger and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 68, 208-224.

26. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 27. Rupp, D.E. & Bell, C. (2010). Retribution, Moral Self Regulation and Self Interest in the Decision to

Punish: A Moral Motives Extension of the Deontic Model of Justice, Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 89-

106.

International Business & Economics Research Journal – Special Edition 2012 Volume 11, Number 13

28. Skarlicki, D.P. & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the Workplace: The Roles of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.

29. Treviño, L.K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.

30. Treviño, L.K, Butterfield, K.D. & McCabe, D.L (1998). The Ethical Context in Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviour. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447-476.

31. Treviño, L.K., Hartman, L. P. & Brown, M. (2000). Moral Person and Moral Manager: How Executives Develop a Reputation for Ethical Leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128-142.

32. Treviño, L. K. & Weaver, G. (2001). Organizational Justice and Ethics Program ‘Follow Through’: Influences on Employees Harmful and Helpful Behaviour, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(4), 651–671.

33. Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E. E., & Gee, J. O. (2002). Is Virtue its Own Reward? Self-Sacrificial Decisions for the Sake of Fairness. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,

89, 839-865.

34. Valentine, S., Greller, M.M. & Richtermeyer, S. (2006). Employee Job Response as a Function of Ethical Context and Perceived Organization Support. Journal of Business Research 59 (5), 582-588.

35. Van den Boss, K., Lind, E.A. & Wilde, H.A. (1997). The Psychology of Procedural and Distributive Justice Viewed from the Perspective of Fairness Heuristic Theory. In Cropanzano R. (Ed.), Justice in the

workplace, Volume 2: From Theory to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

36. Worthen, B. & Lublin, J. S. (2010). Mark Hurd Neglected to Follow H-P code, The Wall Street Journal, August 9, pp. B1–B5.

37. Zabid, A.R.M. & Alsagoff, S.K. (1993). Perceived Ethical Values of Malaysian Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 331-337.

38. Zoghbi-Manrique de Lara, P. (2010). Do Unfair Procedures Predict Employees’ Ethical Behavior by Deactivating Formal Regulations?. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 411-425.

International Business & Economics Research Journal – Special Edition 2012 Volume 11, Number 13

NOTES

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.