Examining the moral grey zone: The role of moral disengagement, authenticity, and situational strength in predicting unethical managerial behavior

Abstract

In the business context, there is a broad spectrum of practices that potentially harm others, yet might benefit the organization. We examined the influence of individual and situational differences in predicting (un)ethical behavior in these moral gray zones using an in‐basket exercise that included covert moral issues in which managers could give unethical instructions to their followers. Results show that individual differences in moral disengagement directly predicted unethical behavior and functioned as a mediator of the relationship between authenticity and unethical behavior. Furthermore, effects differed in weak compared to strong situations. Study 2, replicated the results from Study 1, developed a direct test of the situational strength hypothesis, and showed that high versus low situation strength moderated the relation of moral disengagement to unethical behavior.

The Moderating Role of Context in Determining Unethical Managerial Behavior: A Case Survey

“…In the case of MP-egoism, situational strength increased rather than decreased the positive effect on unethical managerial behavior. While counter-intuitive, this finding can be explained by bearing in mind recent considerations (e.g., Knoll et al 2016;Martin et al 2014) that strong ethical infrastructures may not always be adequate to (Brehm 1966) provides an alternative explanation, as it suggests that when individuals are restricted in their behavioral freedom, they react to this limitation by aiming to reestablish their freedom. Consequently, as situational strength clearly restricts people's scope of action, it might trigger individuals' attempts to regain their decision freedom, particularly if they are guided by egoistic orientations.…”

“…Relatedly, situational-strength theory has been considered and utilized by various authors (e.g., Bowen and Ostroff 2004;House and Aditya 1997) proposing that highly formalized organizations provide less opportunity for managers to exhibit their personal dispositions, and that psychologically ''strong'' situations tend to provide clear expectations about desired responses and behaviors. While the situational-strength concept is relatively novel in the organizational ethics field, recent studies (Ingram et al 2007;Knoll et al 2016;Mai et al 2015;Noval and Stahl 2015) have started incorporating the theory both conceptually and empirically in relation to unethical behavior. For example, Knoll et al (2016) suggest the potential use of situational strength as a moderator variable that predicts when individual differences relate to unethical behavior.…”

“…While the situational-strength concept is relatively novel in the organizational ethics field, recent studies (Ingram et al 2007;Knoll et al 2016;Mai et al 2015;Noval and Stahl 2015) have started incorporating the theory both conceptually and empirically in relation to unethical behavior. For example, Knoll et al (2016) suggest the potential use of situational strength as a moderator variable that predicts when individual differences relate to unethical behavior.…”

Between a Rock and Hard Place: Combined Effects of Authentic Leadership, Organizational Identification, and Team Prototypicality on Managerial Prohibitive Voice

“…Ethical failure often occurs when managers suppress aspects of their selves and then fail to notice that situations are morally questionable, or when managers lack the self-regulatory strength or willpower to implement ethical conduct (Bazerman & Gino, 2012;Trevino, Weaver & Reynolds, 2006). Managerial integrity has been associated with authentic leaders as their holistic self-awareness makes them less vulnerable to morally disengage and take moral shortcuts, and their value-based self-regulation makes them implement ethical conduct even against external pressures (Knoll, Lord, Petersen, & Weigelt, 2016). Although numerous conceptual articles suggest a link between authentic leadership and managerial integrity (e.g., May et al, 2003), empirical evidence is still scarce (Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012).…”

The Authentic Moral Self: Dynamic Interplay between Perceived Authenticity and Moral Behaviors in the Workplace

“…Research has yet to examine the relationship between experiences of authenticity and moral behaviors within work-specific contexts (except for Knoll, Lord, Petersen & Weigelt, 2016). This gap in knowledge is worth noting, because actions or decisions in work settings can be of complex ethical implications (e.g., Clegg, Kornberger, & Rhodes, 2007;Sorbet, 1955;Vallini, 2007).…”