Web viewHRD interventions play a key role in generating several ... manual, and a compliance team),...

Running head: EMPLOYEE UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR

Conceptualizing Employee Unethical Behavior in Organizations:

How HRD Interventions Can Help

Naphat Wuttaphan

Pibulsongkram Rajabhat University

Supavanee Thimthong

Atthaphol Seriwat

National Institute of Development Administration

Gary N. McLean

McLean Global Consulting, Inc.

Corresponding Author:

Naphat WuttaphanPibulsongkram Rajabhat University,haichumpol, Meaung DistrictPhisanulok [email protected]

Words: 5,997Refereed PaperStream: Strategic HRD and Performance

EMPLOYEE UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR

Abstract

This literature review identifies the definition of unethical behavior in organizations, factors

that influence unethical behaviors, and unethical behaviors that are likely to be found in

organizations. It then discusses how HRD interventions can be used to reshape unethical

behavior or as a means to prevent violations within organizations. The proposed conceptual

framework was developed on the basis of several ethical theories. The level of exposure to

unethical behavior and moral intensity of HRD interventions must be considered when

choosing appropriate interventions. HRD interventions play a key role in generating several

activities that enhance ethical behavior: rule-based programs (i.e., establishing a code of

conduct, an ethics manual, and a compliance team), values-based programs (i.e., establishing

ethical values and an ethical culture), and dynamic ethics-related training programs.

Keywords: ethics, unethical, behavior, integrity, HRD, interventions


Conceptualizing Employee Unethical Behavior in Organizations:

How HRD Interventions Can Help

In today’s business world, most organizations prefer to be known in public with

having a good reputation. Establishing a good reputation is easier said than done. Promoting a

company’s reputation usually involves a focus on ethics. The incidences of corporate

scandals, together with the global financial and economic crisis of 2008-2009, brought out

violations of ethics and morals facing large business organizations (Ardichvili & Jondle

2012). These violations are generally derived from people’s wrongdoing. Unethical

employees do something that is against the rules and regulations of the organization or

society intentionally or unintentionally. It could harm people or organizations in financial and

non-financial terms, such as reputation and emotional costs of unethical behavior (Den

Nieuwenboer 2008; Trevino, Weaver & Reynolds 2006).

Researchers have found many ways people behave unethically, e.g., sexual

harassment, discrimination, theft, falsification of expense claims, covering up misbehavior,

industrial espionage, and many others. These behaviors can be found in large, medium-sized,

and small organizations across the world (The Compliance and Ethics Leadership Council

2008). Unethical behaviors expose people, organizations, and society to harm. HRD can play

a key role in people development and can be an important element in promoting ethics

through various interventions. When it comes to promoting ethical practices, most

organizations focus on training programs to increase ethics and moral awareness and create

procedural frameworks in business conduct (Schminke, Arnaud, & Kuenzi 2007).

Statement of the Problem

This paper is a literature review. It explains concepts of unethical behavior and factors

influencing such behaviors in organizations. We also explored possible HRD interventions

that could be applied as preventative measures against unethical behavior in an organization


by enhancing ethical performance. The proposed conceptual HRD intervention framework

was developed based on several ethical theories, such as social contract theory, virtue ethics

theory, and deontology In order to identify the most appropriate HRD interventions, the level

of exposure to unethical behavior and the moral intensity of HRD interventions were

considered. Possible HRD interventions were considered to differ among low, medium, and

high exposure levels of unethical behavior.

Methods

In this literature review, we searched the following databases: GoogleScholar,

ResearchGate, Emerald Management, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink. We used the key

words ethical, unethical, and integrity in conjunction with HRD and established a date

inclusion criterion of ten years, except for standard references or references necessary to

support a point. In this process, we identified 160 articles. We first reviewed the title and

eliminated those that were outside of our interest area, resulting in 50 articles remaining. We

then read the abstracts of all remaining articles, and, again, we eliminated those that were not

relevant, providing us with a final pool of 45 articles.

Unethical Behavior

Several ethical perspectives, such as virtue, egotism, deontology, teleology,

situationalism, utilitarianism, and relativism, are used with respect to ethics, especially when

seeking criteria of judging ethics based on employees’ perspectives (Colle & Werhane 2008).

To understand ethics clearly and prevent possible violations, the study of unethical behavior

is critical.

Definition of Unethical Behavior

Unethical behavior means violation of rules, norms, and morals and implies actions

that are morally unacceptable to the larger community (Jones 1991; Kaptein 2008). Unethical

behavior in the organization can be described as misbehavior of an employee, rule breaking,


committing criminal damage, and noncompliance, such as corruption, within the workplace

(Ashforth & Anand 2003; Neill, Stovall & Jinkerson 2005; Sutherland 1940; Tyler & Blader

2005; Vardi & Weitz 2004). It is seen as a threat to human relations and the organization,

causing harm in both financial and non-financial terms and can result in bankruptcy,

reputation damage, and emotional costs (Den Nieuwenboer 2008; Trevino 2006).

Factors Influencing Unethical Behavior

There are several factors that influence unethical behavior, such as attitude towards

the situation, personal values, professional environment, legal environment, and business

environment (Leonard, Cronan & Kreie 2004). Further, many researchers have found that

money is one of the root causes of unethical behavior; for instance, employees consider

possible losses and gains and weigh the costs and benefits of committing unethical actions,

like cheating, lying, or stealing (Croson 2005; Greenberg 2002; Mazar, Amir, & Ariely

2008). Self-interest drives unethical behavior. However, Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004)

reported that the root of unethical behavior is self-deception. They identified four enablers of

self-deception: “language euphemism, the slippery slope of decision making, errors in

perpetual causation, and constrains induced by representations of self” (p. 223). However,

Greenbaum, Hil, Mawritz, and Quade (2014) found that the role of an abusive supervision

was a “trait activator” (p. 1). They pointed out that employees with high Machiavellian traits

(distrust in others, desire for control, desire for status, and amoral manipulation) were more

likely to act unethically in the organization; however, the connection of aspiration for control

and abusive supervision is fundamental to unethical behavior.

Ferrell, Fraedrich, and Ferrell (2011) stated, “The more likely individuals are to

perceive an ethical issue as important, the less likely they are to engage in questionable or

unethical behavior” (p. 130) They stated that individual factors that influence ethical or

unethical behavior are gender (men tend to be more unethical than women), education


(people with higher education are more likely to behave ethically), nationality (the root

reason is difficult to interpret), age (adults are more ethical than young people), and locus of

control. Bandura’s (1986) theory of moral disengagement is an extension of social cognitive

theory, stating that an individual’s propensity to disengage morally was an important factor;

thus, the more morally disengaged a person is, the more that person behaves unethically

(Moore, Detert, Baker & Mayer 2012)

In an organizational context, organizational culture and climate are factors that affect

whether people act ethically or unethically. Trevino, Butterfield and McCabe (1998) said that

either ethical culture or climate influence unethical behavior. However, Suar and Khuntia

(2004) argued that ethical climate may influence managers’ unethical practices and work

behaviors. They included eight variables as measures of ethical climate: manipulation,

cheating, violation of norms, performance, job involvement, affective commitment,

continuance commitment, intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and taking initiative.

They observed that ethical climate is a picture of ethical behavior and includes individual and

organizational factors. According to Ferrell, Fraedrich, and Ferrell (2011), determining

whether an action is ethical and one’s intentions behind what they do are seen as the main

criteria of judgment, whether people behave ethically or not. They also added several causes

of unethical behavior in the organization, including ethical issue intensity, individual factors,

organizational factors, and opportunity to behave unethically.

Furthermore, people are likely to behave either ethically or unethically based on the

imitative of their supervisor, who is considered as a role model (Kaptein 1998; Mayer et al.,

2009; Schminke, Ambrose & Neubaum 2005). Ferrell et al. (2011) called this phenomenon

the “obedience to authority” (p. 133). Trevino (1986) showed that people tend to behave

unethically when they are under great pressure; during high-pressure times, people tend not to

pay attention to ethical standards compared with people who have enough time to perform


their tasks. Strain theory states that “people resort to unethical behavior when they are unable

to achieve their goals through legitimate means” (Merton 1938, as cited in Kaptein 2011, p.

849). Thus, lack of time is considered to be a factor that influences people to behave

unethically. Limited time and resources appear to lead to unethical behavior.

In the social bond theory, Hirschi (1969) suggested that people will behave in good or

bad ways, ethically or unethically, based on the level of their commitment to the

organization. When employees feel that they are treated unfairly or are mistrusted, they tend

to behave unethically (Boy & Jones 1997; Greenberg 1997; Skarlicki, Folger & Tesluk

1999). Further, employees are more likely to behave unethically when their supervisor

commands them to do so based on his or her power. In this sense, employees engage in

unethical conduct because of insufficient power to reject a supervisor’s direction, even

though they do not agree with the unethical behavior (Sabini, Siepmann, & Stein 2001).

Rewarding ethical behavior and punishing unethical behavior can also be influencers.

Ball et al. (1994) stated that, if employees are not punished for wrong behavior or not

punished when they commit unethical actions, such actions are seen as acceptable and

desirable. Also, absence of rewards or recognition for ethical behavior reduces people’s

willingness to behave ethically and may even promote the possibility of people committing

unethical acts (Kaptein 2011; Roman & Munuera 2005). The factors influencing unethical

behavior are summarized in Table 1.


Table 1

Summary of Causes of Unethical Behavior

Individual Factors Organizational Factors- Self-interest (Croson 2005; Greenberg 2002; Mazar, Amir & Ariely 2008) - loss and gain - weighing cost and benefit

- Organizational factors (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell 2011) - corporate culture - ethical culture - significant others - obedience to authority

- Employee Machiavellianism (Greenbaum et al 2014) - distrust of others - desire for control - desire for status - amoral manipulation

- Ethical climate (Suar & Khuntia 2004), - manipulation - cheating - violation of norms - performance - job involvement - affective commitment - continuance commitment - intrinsic satisfaction - extrinsic satisfaction - initiative

- Individual factors (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2011) - gender - education - nationality - age - locus of control

- Ethical culture (Kaptein 2011) - clarity of ethical standard - ethical role modeling of management

and supervisors - capability to behave ethically - communication to behave ethically - visibility of (un)ethical behavior - reinforcement of ethical behavior

- Self-deception (Tenbrunsel & Messick 2004) - language euphemism - the slippery slope of decision making - errors in perpetual causation - constraints induced by representations

of self

- Ethical leadership (Brown & Trevino 2006)

- Individual’s propensity to morally disengage (Moore et al 2012)

- Employee commitment (Boy & Jones 1997; Greenberg 1997; Skarlicki et al 1999).

Many types of unethical behaviors can be found in the workplace. Sexual harassment,

discrimination, theft, and falsification of expense claims can be found in organizations across

the world (The Compliance and Ethics Leadership Council 2008). According to Ferrell et al.

(2011), the phrase, “white-collar crime,” means “the crime of the suit” (p.168) or people in

power positions. White-collar crime includes denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial


of the victim, condemnation of accusers, appeal to higher authority, claiming that everyone

else is doing it, and entitlement (Curran & Renzetti 1994).

Fraud is one type of white-collar misconduct. According to the report from IC3 or the

Internet Crime Complaint Center (in partnership with the FBI and the National White Collar

Crime Center 2008) in Ferrell et al. (2011), several types of misconduct can be found in

organizations; for example, financial fraud, Internet fraud, credit/debit card fraud, auction

fraud, antitrust violations, tax evasion, violating environmental laws, insider trading, and

industrial theft of secrets. Vadera and Pratt (2013) argued that workplace crimes consist of

three types: pro-organization (organizational illegality and unethical behavior supporting the

organization), nonaligned-organization (organizational corruption), and anti-organizational

(deviance and unethical behavior that hurts the organization). Organizational illegality,

according to Szwajkowski (1985), means “legally prohibited action of organization members

that is taken primarily on behalf of the organization” (p. 175).

Corruption is considered as one of the most serious unethical conduct. According to

Aguilera and Vadera (2008), corruption is “the crime that is committed by the use of

authority within organizations for personal gain” (p. 175). It is also seen as an action that

violates company values and standards, as it harms the well-being of the company and its

members, or individuals outside of the organization (Robinson & Bennett 1995). Suar and

Khuntia (2004) revealed that “the middle-level managers in public sector violated the

organization’s norm more than in the private sector in terms of manipulation and cheating in

their performance and misused of finance to the same extent” (p. 16). Public managers are

less ethical than managers in private companies.

Kaptein (2008) developed a measurement of unethical behavior in the workplace from

a stakeholder perspective using factor analysis; 37 items of unethical behavior were found


affecting financiers, customers, employees, suppliers, and society. In terms of employees,

five items were found:

(a) discrimination against employee on the basis of age, race, gender, religious belief,

sexual orientation, (b) engaging in sexual harassment or creating a hostile work

environment such as intimidation, racism, pestering, verbal abuse, and physical

violence, (c) violating workplace health and safety rules or principles (d) violating

employee wage, overtime, or benefits rules of management and (e) breaching

employee privacy. (p. 989)

The top three unethical behaviors of financiers were trading securities based on inside

information, falsifying or manipulating financial reporting information, and engaging in

conflict of interest, such as sideline activities, favoritism, using working hours for private

purposes, and executing conflict of interest tasks.

The top three unethical behaviors of suppliers were fabricating product quality or

safety test results; entering into customer contract relationships with improper terms,

conditions, or lack of approval; and engaging in anti-competitive practices, such as market

rigging, quid-pro-quo deals, and offering bribes or other improper gifts, favors, and

entertainment to influence customers (Kaptein 2008).

Ethics and HRD Interventions

In today’s business world, most organizations need to have a good reputation with the

public. Establishing a good reputation is easier said than done. In order to promote a

corporation’s good reputation, it usually involves ethics. According to the Ethics Resource

Centre (ERC 2011), ethical reputation is seen as one of the key determinants of a firm’s

ability to attract and retain employees, especially the talented ones. Building and maintaining

a good reputation requires constant attention from every part of the organization to prevent

reputational loss from possible ethical failures. HRD professionals are considered to play a


key role in establishing an ethical culture in an organization (Thite 2012). The number of

researchers and studies associated with ethical or unethical behavior in business organizations

has increased in HRD (Ardichvili & Jondle 2009). Hatcher (2002) emphasized the need to

embed ethics in HRD through appropriate interventions as a means to develop a more

humane way of working in becoming a responsible organization that is not looking only for

outcomes and profits.

There are many HRD interventions available to an organization. The use of each

intervention depends upon the areas of desired improvement. The following discussion is

based on preventing unethical behaviors through the use of HRD interventions to manage and

prevent harm from such behaviors.

Establishing and Embedding Ethical Cultures

Some scholars, such as Russ-Eft (2003, as cited in Ardichvili & Jondle 2009), have

pointed to the focus on creating an ethical culture within an organization through the use of

effective learning and development programs. Ardichvili and Jondle (2009) believed that

organizations that have been operated under a strong ethical culture should help shape and

reframe employees’ behaviors. They studied the characteristics of ethical cultures and factors

in order to create and develop sustainable ethical cultures by implementing HRD activities

and interventions. They argued that, in order to create successful ethical corporate cultures,

organizations must combine elements, such as corporate formal structures, corporate policies

and processes, ethics-related training programs, encouraging values-based ethical behavior of

executives, and providing a well-established communication portal that stimulates people to

behave ethically.

Establishing Ethical Codes, Procedures, and Control Processes

Codes of conduct and codes of ethics are widely implemented in many organizations.

Stevens (2008) concluded that codes of conduct are seen as effective for promoting ethical


behavior in organizations. However, the organization cannot rely on written codes alone;

codes need to be used along with a set of other factors and activities, such as a corporate

ethical culture and effective communication, for better success. One good example to

illustrate this concept is through the Enron scandal, in which Gabler (2006, as cited in

Ardichvili & Jondle, 2009) pointed out that Enron basically had implemented codes of ethics

together with solid compliance programs, as well as an established reporting system for

possible violations. However, Enron failed to embed these elements in its culture, which

finally brought Enron to the edge of risk for compromising integrity. Thus, codes of ethics,

even though they can provide good guidelines to shape ethical behaviors of employees, mean

nothing without a proof of actions in response to such codes (Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran

1999). Moreover, Weaver et al. (1999) suggested that some common interventions of

corporate ethical programs include “ethics training, formalized procedure for auditing and

evaluating ethical behavior, disciplinary process for failures to meet ethical expectations, set

up formal ethics departments and officers, and cross-functional committees for setting and

evaluating ethics policies and procedures” (p. 539).

Establishing Compliance Programs

Thomas, Schermerhorn, and Dienhart (2004) proposed that there is a contradiction

between two corporate ethics programs: integrity and compliance programs. Whereas

compliance programs are about laws, regulations, and organizational rules, integrity

programs are based on self-governance (Thomas et al 2004). Even though integrity programs

help with sustaining corporate ethics, the importance of compliance programs should not be

overlooked.

According to Schminke et al. (2007), a rules-based or compliance program is

concerned with a law, regulations, and corporate rule issues that require everyone in the

organization to comply. It results in good conduct for the sake of preventing, detecting, and


punishing violations of rules. Having compliance programs in place provides a good

agreement and guidelines for all employees, but it is less likely to create an ethical culture, as

with integrity programs.

Establishing Values-based Programs

Schminke et al. (2007) argued that external regulations (i.e., Sarbanes-Oxley

Act/SOX–a federal U.S. regulation of financial practices and corporate governance; see A

Guide to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2006) play a great role in improving corporate

accountability and ethics; however, such formal regulations are insufficient to promote

ethical behavior. Schminke et al. (2007) provided a contrast between rules-based and values-

based programs. Whereas rules-based perspectives emphasize motivating people to avoid

punishment from wrongdoing, a values-based approach aims at creating organizational values

and motivating employees to perform their duties ethically. The rules-based approach is

concerned with compliance to provide ethical discipline for employees. It provides formal

internal control; however, rules-based or compliance-based programs alone cannot create a

sustainable ethical climate within the organization. So it needs to be carried out in

conjunction with values-based programs. Weaver and Trevino (1999) also put an emphasis

on values orientation as it significantly contributes to ethical awareness, establishes employee

commitment, and engaged employees in corporate ethical values. They believed that creating

values-oriented programs directly influences employees’ attitudes and behaviors, which, in

turn, limit and reduce unethical behaviors that are likely to occur within organizations.

Establishing Ethics Grounded Leadership Programs

Thomas et al. (2004) stated that, “for business executives the strategic leadership

responsibility for initiating changes has to include the goals of creating and sustaining ethical

climates within which employees act ethically as a matter of routine” (p. 57). In response to

this notion, executives who propose an ethics vision and hold onto ethical values can


significantly drive themselves and the organization forward. Thomas et al. (2004) shared a

good example to describe the need for ethical leadership development programs by using the

case of Paul O’Neill, CEO of Alcoa in 1987. O’Neill believed that his employees had the

right to a safe workplace. Even though workplace safety was not mandated by law at that

time, he pursued the goal for zero loss in the workplace. He stated that the reason behind his

goal was not for money saving purposes, but it was all about values.

Hatcher (2002) argued that, in order to create a lasting impact on ethics, leadership

development programs are considered to be an HRD intervention. Appropriate leadership

training that encourages ethical values and behaviors may help leaders understand better their

own values with relation to corporate ethical values. Moreover, leadership ethics and values

should be visible, because they need to be embedded in a leader’s actions every day.

Conducting Ethics Training Programs

Ethics training programs are becoming more important in all organizations as ethical

dilemmas are not bounded by type or size of firm (Hatcher 2002). Some small organizations

with limited budgets combine ethics training as part of employees’ orientation and add this

focus into other training courses. According to Hatcher (2002), good orientation to ethics is

important for novice employees, as they need to know up what is considered right and

acceptable and what is not.

Hatcher (2002) added that ethics should not be limited to orientation training but

should also be applied in other training. The course should outline ethically related issues

with the support of case studies and scenarios that encourage and develop ethical behaviors.

As for skills training, including realistic ethical components provide opportunities for

employees to realize the impact that unethical behaviors can have on organizational

productivity and production outcomes. When business is operating in multinational

environments where people hold different norms, values, and beliefs, what is considered as


ethical in one culture might be unethical in other cultures. Thus, it is important to establish

appropriate content for cross-cultural or diversity management training programs in order to

share understanding of each culture in the domain of manners, and dos and don’ts among

employees (Pruetipibultham 2011).

Mentoring and Coaching Programs

Another effective way for managers to learn about ethics is through mentoring or

coaching. Hatcher (2002) believed that formal and informal well-designed mentoring

programs have the potential to teach a novice leader about a corporation’s culture, values, and

ethics by mentoring with a senior manager, with the condition that the senior leader should be

characterized as an ethical mentor. It is impossible to shape ethical and values-based leaders

by placing them with an executive who views ethics as unimportant. HRD professionals can

reduce this problem by assessing potential mentors’ behaviors and values prior to their

assignment. Mentors and mentees sometimes face ethical dilemmas together that neither has

experienced. Having a code of ethics can provide guidance during times of uncertainty.

Conceptual HRD Interventions Model and Discussion

We constructed a theory-based HRD intervention model as a preventive measure

against unethical behavior in organizations (see Figure 1). At the foundation of the model are

three pillars: corporate governance, corporate social responsibility (influenced by the

stakeholder model), and sustainability (focused on healthy organizations). All HRD

interventions in the model are collectively designed to achieve performance. Upon the three

pillars, we designed rules-based interventions; namely, corporate codes of conduct, ethics

manuals, an ethics hotline, and an ethics compliance department. The interventions under the

rules-based approach were influenced by Hobbes’s (1588-1679) social contract theory, in

which people in the organization base their morals on a contract, agreement, and a set of

standards, rules, and regulations (Friend 2006). These social contract theory-based


interventions are expected to serve as concrete ethics guidelines for all employees, thus

helping to reduce the ambiguity of ethical dilemma behaviors.

Figure 1. Theory-based HRD intervention model as a preventive measures against

unethical behavior in organizations

Built upon organizational regulations are values-based interventions designed for each

employee. According to Schminke et al. (2007), a values-based approach aims at creating

organizational values and motivating employees to perform their duty ethically. The

interventions under the values-based approach were influenced by two ethics concepts: virtue

ethics and deontology ethics (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell 2011). Virtue ethics can be used to

promote ethical behaviors, such as integrity, loyalty, and honesty. Deontology is also very

important for setting up and creating rules and duty, taking responsibility, and accepting

accountability as rules-based values.


According to the model, the horizontal axis represents the individual employee’s

exposure to unethical behavior, while the vertical axis represents the moral intensity of HRD

interventions provided to a particular employee. The two variables are positively correlated.

The number of HRD interventions provided to each individual depends on the level of

exposure to unethical behavior, which can be measured through an exposure assessment

form. Job descriptions play a major role in determining such exposure. For example, an

analyst with no approval authority is seen as less exposed to unethical behavior when

compared with a financial controller who is also serving as a director for the company. Thus,

the number of HRD interventions provided to the financial controller should be higher.

The interventions for those with low exposure are primarily designed to promote

virtue ethics within an organization-wide ethics culture. Possible interventions include annual

instructor-led ethics training, a semi-annual ethics festival (organized to review employees’

ethics performance), quarterly on-line ethics training, and a personal credo contest (based on

employees’ do’s and don’ts statements).

Incrementally, those employees with medium exposure require intensive training to

adopt a deontology-based consequentialism philosophy (as a manager/executive, it is his/her

duty to weigh the benefits and costs of every decision). Preventive and corrective measures in

the forms of personal mentoring and coaching and ethics compliance audits are also designed

for them.

Those with high exposure should be provided with the greatest number of HRD

interventions (10 in the model). The ultimate objective is to develop post-conventional ethics

(Kohlberg 1969). In addition, both preventive and corrective measures, namely, outsourced

forensic services (using an outsourced service provided by audit firms) and 360-degree

feedback dashboard (the IT system provides regular feedback in the form of a diagram so the

recipient can understand the information easily) are designed for them.


Limitations and Future Study

This paper is primarily based on a literature review. Accordingly, the practical utility

of the proposed model remains untested, and, as with all theories, it needs to be tested.

Further, future research on the practical application of the proposed model is recommended.

Detail on each element in the model needs to be clarified so that all elements are collectively

directed towards a common goal -- to promote ethical behavior in the organization.

Conclusion

Whatever the size of the organization or whatever the purpose for which it exists,

unethical behaviors are always possible. There are some gray areas and overlapping areas as

to whether a particular conduct is considered ethical or unethical. People tend to stick with

their own values and perspectives prior to confronting actions that are ambiguous. For

example, they might end up doing something unethically in terms of a deontology

perspective; however, they may decide that, in a particular situation, some other action would

be more ethical. Their judgment depends on the values and standards of each organization.

Moreover, this model is a summary designed to advance knowledge gained in this review. In

order to identify what is ethical or unethical, one must depend on each organization’s

perceptions, norms, and values. Some might not think that paying for entertainment for a

customer by using company money or stealing a pen from the company is unethical; they

might think that it is only a strategy for running the business and that other competitors are

doing the same. At this point, the theories of ethics can explain the phenomenon under

investigation.

Summary

It is everybody’s obligation to help prevent unethical behaviors. As HRD

professionals, we must equip ourselves with several dimensions of ethics knowledge,

including ethics theories, HRD interventions, corporate governance, social responsibility,


sustainability, and so on. Thus, it is our commitment to help eliminate unethical behaviors in

our society. In this paper, we investigated several forms of unethical behaviors in

organizations, as well as factors influencing such behavior. We also reviewed several forms

of HRD interventions that help prevent unethical behaviors and then related those

interventions to relevant ethics theories. Two major approaches of HRD interventions used

for model construction were rules-based and values-based interventions. We proposed a

theory-based HRD intervention model to prevent unethical behavior in the organization.

References

Ardichvili, A, & Jondle, D 2009, ‘Integrative literature review: Ethical business cultures: A

literature review and implications for HRD’, Human Resource Development Review,

vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 223-244. doi: 10.1177/1534484309334098.

Arguilera, V, & Vadera, K 2008, ‘The dark side of authority: Antecedents, mechanisms, and

outcomes of organizational corruption’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 77, no. 4,

pp.431-449.

Ashforth, E, & Anand, V 2003, ‘The normalization of corruption in organizations’, Research

in Organizational Behavior, vol. 25, pp. 1-52.

Ball, A, Trevino, K, & Sims, P 1994, ‘Just and unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate

performance and citizenship’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, pp.

299-322.

Boy, W, & Jones, W 1997, ‘Organizational culture and employee productivity’, In R. A.

Ginacalone, A & Greenberg, J 2009, Antisocial behavior in organizations, edn,

SAGE, CA.

Brown, E, & Trevino, K 2006, ‘Ethical leadership: A review and future directions’, The

Leadership Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 595-616.


Colle, S, & Werhane, H 2008, ‘Moral motivation across ethical theories: What can we learn

for designing corporate ethics program’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 81, pp. 751-

764.

Croson, A 2005, ‘Deception in economic experiments’. In Gerschlager, C (Ed), Deception in

markets: An economic analysis, Palgrave MacMillam, NY, USA.

Curran, J, & Renzetti, M 1994, Theories of crime, Needham Height, Allyn & Bacon, MA

Den Nieuwenboer, A 2008, ‘Seeing the shadow of the self: Studies on organizational

deviance’, Phd thesis, Erasmus Research Institute of Management Rotterdam,

Netherlands.

Ethics Resource Center 2011, Building a corporate reputation of integrity, ERC Website,

accessed 22/8/2014, http://www.ethics.org/resource/building-corporate-reputation-

integrity

Ferrell, C, Fraedrich, J, & Ferrell, L 2011. Business ethics: Ethical decision making and

cases, South-Western Cengage Learning. Mason, OH

Friend, C. (2006). Social contract theory, accessed 12/8/2014, http://

www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm http://www.scribd.com/doc/148135625/Social-

Contract-Theory-Friend

Gabler, D 2006, ‘Is your culture a risk factor?’ Business and Society Review, vol. 111, pp.

337-362.

Greenbaum, L, Hil, A, Mawritz, B, & Quade, M 2014, ‘Employee Machiavellianism to

unethical behavior: The role of abusive supervision as a trait activator’, Journal of

Management, vol. 27 (Published before print), pp. 1-25. doi: 10.

1177/0149206314535434.


Greenberg, J 2002 ‘Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants

of employee theft’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, vol. 89,

pp. 985-1003.

‘A guide to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act” 2006 Retried on March 31, 2015, from:

http://www.soxlaw.com

Hatcher, T 2002, Ethics and HRD: A new approach to leading responsible organizations.

Basic Books, Cambridge, MA.

Hirschi, T 1969, Causes of delinquency. University of California Press Berkeley, CA.

Jones, M. 1991, ‘Ethical decision making by individuals in organization: An issue-contingent

model’, Academy of Management Review, vol 16, pp. 366-395.

Kaptein, M 1998, Ethics management: Auditing and developing the ethical content of

organizations. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Kaptein, M 2008, ‘Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A

stakeholder perspective’, Journal of Management, vol. 34, pp. 978-1008.

Kaptein, M 2008a, ‘Developing and testing of a measure for the ethical culture of

organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model’, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 923-947.

Kaptein, M 2011, ’Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture’, Human

Relations, vol. 64, pp. 843-869.

Leonard, K, Cronan, P, & Kreie, J 2004, ‘What influences IT ethical behavior intention-

planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance, or individual

characteristics’, Information & Management, vol. 42, pp. 143-158.

Mazar, N, Amir, O, & Ariely, D 2008, ‘The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-

concept maintenance’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 45, pp. 633-644.

http://www.soxlaw.com/


Mayer, M, Kuenzi, M, Greenbaum, R, Bardes, M, & Salvador, R 2009, ‘How low does

ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model’, Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Process, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 1-13.

Moore, C, Detert, R, Baker, L, & Mayer, M 2012, ‘Why employees do bad things: Moral

disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, vol. 65,

pp. 1-48.

Neill, J, Stovall, S, & Jinkerson, D 2005, ‘A critical analysis of accounting industry’s

voluntary code of conduct’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 59, pp. 101-108.

Pruetipibultham, O 2011, ‘Developing human resource development interventions to aid

expatriate’s cultural adaptation: Insights to the Japanese culture’, Human Resource

Development International, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 109-117. doi

10.1080/13678868.2011.604958.

Russ-Eft, D 2003, ‘Corporate ethics: Learning and performance problem for leaders?’

Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 14, pp. 1-3. In Ardichvili, A., &

Jondle, D 2009, ‘Integrative literature review: Ethical business cultures: A literature

review and implications for HRD’, Human Resource Development Review, vol. 8 no.

2, pp. 223-244. doi: 10.1177/1534484309334098.

Roman, S, & Munuera, L 2005, ‘Determinants and consequences of ethical behavior: An

empirical study of salespeople’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 39, no. 1, pp.

473-495.

Sabini, J, Siepmann, M, & Stein, J 2001, ‘The really fundamental attribution error in social

psychological research’, Psychological Inquiry, vol. 12, pp. 1-25.

Schminke, M, Ambrose, L, & Neubaum, O 2005, ‘The effect of leader moral development on

ethical climate and employee attitudes’, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Process, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 135-151.


Schminke, M, Arnaud, A, & Kuenzi, M 2007, ‘The power of ethical climates’,

Organizational Dynamics, vol. 35, pp. 171-186.

Skarlicki, P, Folger, R, & Tesluk, P 1999, ‘Personality as a moderator in the relationship

between fairness and retaliation’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, pp. 100-

108.

Stevens, B 2008, ‘Corporate ethical codes: Effective instruments for influencing behavior’,

Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 78, pp. 601-609.

Suar, D, & Khuntia, R 2004, ‘Does ethical climate influence unethical practices and work

behavior?’, Journal of Human Values, vol. 10, pp. 11- 21.

Sutherland, H 1940, ‘White collar criminality’, American Sociological Review, vol. 5, pp. 1-

12.

Tenbrunsel, E, & Messick, M 2004, ‘Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical

behavior’, Social Justice Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 223-236.

Thite, M 2013, ‘Ethics and human resource management and development in a global

context: case study of an Indian multinational’, Human Resource Development

International, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 106-115. doi 10.1080/13678868.2012.737691.

Thomas, T, Schermerhorn, R, & Dienhart, W 2004, ‘Strategic leadership of ethical behavior

in business’, Academy of Management Executive, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 56-66.

Trevino, K 1986, ‘Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist

model’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 601-617.

Trevino, K, Butterfield, D, & McCabe, L 1998, ‘The ethical context in organization:

Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors’, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 8,

no. 3, pp. 447-476.


Trevino, K, & Youngblood, A 1990, ‘Bad apple in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical

decision-making behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 378-

385.

Trevino, K, Weaver, R, &Reynolds, J 2006, ‘Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review’,

Journal of Management, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 951-990.

Tyler, R, & Blader, L 2005, ‘Can business effectively regulate employee conduct? The

antecedents of rule following in work setting’, Academy of Management Journal, vol.

6, pp. 1143-1158.

Vadi, M, & Vissak, T 2013, ‘The nature of (dis)honesty, its impact factors and

consequences’, Advance Series in Management, vol. 10, pp. 3-18.

Vardi, Y, & Weitz, E 2004, Misbehavior in organizations: Theories, research, and

management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Weaver, R, & Trevino, K 1999, ‘Compliance and values-oriented programs: Influences on

employees’ attitudes and behavior’, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 9, pp. 315-335.

Weaver, R, Trevino, K, & Cochran, L 1999, ‘Integrated and decoupled corporate social

performance: Management commitments, external pressures and corporate ethics

practices’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, pp. 539-552.

Web viewHRD interventions play a key role in generating several ... manual, and a compliance team),...

Documents

Transcript of Web viewHRD interventions play a key role in generating several ... manual, and a compliance team),...