Desire to be ethical or ability to self‐control: Which is more crucial for ethical behavior?

The organizational justice literature and the family business literature have developed independently, which limits our understanding of fairness and justice in the family business workplace. So far, the concepts of justice and fairness have been used interchangeably in the family business literature, as if objective measures that aim to increase justice in the workplace will automatically translate into fairness perceptions among family business employees. By integrating the organizational justice literature and the family business literature, we first differentiate between the two concepts of justice and fairness and argue that a utilitarian conceptualization of justice may come into direct conflict with fairness perceptions in the family business workplace. Second, we shed light on the importance of incorporating socioemotional goals, particularly those that reveal a bright side of socioemotional wealth, into rules and regulations designed to increase justice in the workplace, which, we argue, contributes to increasing fairness perceptions among employees and to building and maintaining an ethical family business workplace. Theoretical and practical contributions are discussed at the end of the paper.

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice versus fairness in the family business workplace: A socioemotional wealth approach

Samara

Paul

2018

“…Ethical intention, which constitutes the penultimate step in decision‐making processes (Rest, ), is the anticipated behavior that leads to human growth, rests on universal moral principles, and seeks to be morally acceptable within the larger community. It provides a sense of purpose regarding what is to be done (Bright, Alzola, Stansbury, & Stavros, ) by signaling a true will to act voluntarily in a noble, honest manner (Rua, Lawter, & Andreassi, ; Sison & Ferrero, ). Considering the presence of rationality and free will in human interactions (Melé, ), a simple observation of unethical behaviors is likely to be insufficient to determine ethical intention, as other factors are likely to intervene, including personal cognition (Caspi & Roberts, ; Gallardo‐Pujol & Pereda, ; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, ; Pilch & Turska, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of peers’ unethical behavior on employees’ ethical intention: Moderated mediation by Machiavellian orientation

Ruíz-Palomino

Bañón-Gomis

Linuesa-Langreo

2018

Research suggests a direct negative relationship between peers’ unethical behavior and employees’ ethical intention. But several possible mechanisms might explain this relationship in more detail. For example, Machiavellianism is a personality trait characterized by interpersonal manipulation and the use of unethical means to achieve certain self‐interested ends, whether useful or pleasant. This article adopts an Aristotelian understanding of philia, related to three goods on which human relationships rest: useful, pleasant, and honest. We propose that Machiavellianism, a self‐interested, pragmatic personality orientation, might explicate the relationship between peers’ unethical behavior and ethical intention. The results of a structural equation model applied to a sample of 436 banking employees in Spain reveals that Machiavellianism partially mediates the relationship between peers’ unethical behavior and employees’ ethical intention. We also find that with a greater level of peers’ unethical behavior, the negative effect of Machiavellianism on ethical intention increases, and that when peers’ unethical behavior is nonexistent, the negative effect of Machiavellianism on ethical intention disappears. These findings advance current literature by revealing that unethical peers can indirectly influence ethical intention, through shaping Machiavellianism. Our study is also the first to show that pairing high Machiavellians with ethical peers can help to cancel out the negative influence of Machiavellianism on ethical intention.

“…This is the cornerstone of our harmonized approach: prudence as practical wisdom enables the generation of a culture of compliance that tends to minimize the errors in decision making-in a permanent reevaluation-and guides to efficient and legitimate leadership. Thus, in a prudential and balanced view of corporate culture (Kaptein, 2017), the exercise of integrity demands the harmonization of moral and technical engagements (Meyer, 2015;Moore, 2015), integrating competences and personal virtues (Morales-S anchez & Cabello-Medina, 2015;Spraggon & Bodolica, 2015) into the specific organizational character (Rua, Lawter, & Andreassi, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can compliance restart integrity? Toward a harmonized approach. The example of the audit committee

Calderón

Piñero

Redín

2018

The compliance‐based approach and the integrity approach have been the mainstream responses to corporate scandals. This paper proposes that, despite each approach comprising necessary elements, neither offers a comprehensive solution. Compliance and integrity, far from being mutually exclusive, reinforce each other. Working together, in a correct relationship, they build a harmonized system that yields positive synergies and which also advocates prudence (phrónesis). It enables the generation of a culture of compliance that tends to minimize the technical and ethical errors in decision making. In order to explore an applied harmonized approach, we analyze the audit committee, a specific and broadly accepted regulatory instrument. Formed by non‐executive members, regulation requires these members to be dedicated, qualified, and independent as a guarantee of efficiency. We show how the compound of those elements produces positive effects in a context of solid governance. We conclude that it is the strong relationship between efficiency and prudence, in the creation of a culture of compliance, which enables the minimization of errors.