Reaching the top and avoiding the bottom: How ranking motivates unethical intentions and behavior

Vriend, Tim; Jordan, Jennifer; Janssen, Onne

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.09.003

Cited by 37 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparison information can become more important than objective information (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007), which may retard learning (Ron, Lipshitz, & Popper, 2006). Ranking has been shown to have the most pronounced effects for individuals in a position to reach the first or avoid the last place (Gill, Kissová, Lee, & Prowse, 2018;Vriend, Jordan, & Janssen, 2016). Communicated relative performance feedback can tip the balance towards increased risk-taking and change of strategies for those outperformed by relevant others.…”

Section: Ranking Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rivals without a cause? Relative performance feedback creates destructive competition despite aligned incentives

Woike

Hafenbrädl

2020

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether people compete or cooperate with each other has consequences for their own performance and that of organizations. To explain why people compete or cooperate, previous research has focused on two main factors: situational outcome structures and personality types. Here, we propose that—above and beyond these two factors—situational cues, such as the format in which people receive feedback, strongly affect whether they act competitively, cooperatively, or individualistically. Results of a laboratory experiment support our theorizing: After receiving ranking feedback, both students and experienced managers treated group situations with cooperative outcome structures as competitive and were in consequence willing to forgo guaranteed financial gains to pursue a—financially irrelevant—better rank. Conversely, in dilemma situations, feedback based on the joint group outcome led to more cooperation than ranking feedback. Our study contributes to research on competition, cooperation, interdependence theory, forced ranking, and the design of information environments.

show abstract

Section: Ranking Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rivals without a cause? Relative performance feedback creates destructive competition despite aligned incentives

Woike

Hafenbrädl

2020

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All contestants pursue the same goal, but that goal cannot be attained by all contestants. Examples of contests in organizations include sales contests, employee rankings, and promotion tournaments (Grote 2005;Lazear and Rosen 1981;Poujol et al 2016;Vriend et al 2016).…”

Section: Contest Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contests and unethical behavior in organizations: a review and synthesis of the empirical literature

Piest

Schreck

2020

Manag Rev Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contests are widely used in business contexts because they are believed to increase the effort and performance levels of employees. One negative aspect of contests is that they may provide incentives for unethical behavior aimed at improving one’s own position relative to that of competitors. It is therefore important to understand how companies should design contests so as to reduce unethical behavior without reducing the positive effects of contests on employee effort. Research from the social and behavioral sciences can offer relevant insights on this question, as in those fields competition is a subject of sustained academic interest. The aim of this review is to offer a systematic account of the growing literature on contests and unethical behavior and shed light on why and when contests among employees may lead to unethical behavior. To this aim, we also develop a framework for organizing the vast, multi-disciplinary literature in a structured and integrative manner. Through this endeavor, our review identifies several directions for future research.

show abstract

“…Corruption is frequent in high power distance cultures (Davis & Ruhe, 2003;Hofstede, 2011;Husted, 1999;Seleim & Bontis, 2009;Yeganeh, 2014) and scholars have speculated that the high prevalence of paternalism and hierarchical relationships underlie some part of it (Akbar & Vujić, 2014). Indeed, studies have documented that those in high-ranking positions tend to justify unethical behaviors, disregard observations of unethical practices (Kennedy & Anderson, 2017), and maintain intentions for unethical behavior regardless of the presence of reward (Vriend, Jordan, & Janssen, 2016). Further, Husted (1999) argues that decisions are driven by expectations of loyalty as opposed to merit.…”

Section: Power Distance and Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Dimensions as Correlates of Favoritism and the Mediating Role of Trust

Im¹,

Chen²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study sought to examine the relation of cultural practices and values with favoritism and nepotism/cronyism. Additionally, this study’s purpose was also to examine how trust mediates the relation between culture and favoritism. Design/Methodology/Approach: Correlations were used for exploratory investigation into the bivariate relations between culture and favoritism and nepotism/cronyism across 97 cultures. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were then conducted to examine the cultural correlates of favoritism and nepotism/cronyism holding all other variables constant. Lastly, partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to examine the mediating role of societal levels of trust. Findings: Bivariate correlations show that collectivism, familism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance are positive correlates of both favoritism and nepotism/cronyism. Institutional collectivism, future orientation, and trust, on the other hand, were negative correlates of favoritism and nepotism/cronyism. Uncertainty avoidance and trust were key correlates of favoritism while familism and future orientation were key correlates of nepotism/cronyism. Trust fully mediated the relation between culture and favoritism but did not mediate the relation between culture and nepotism/cronyism. Originality/Value: This study adds to the current body of literature on culture and favoritism. Notably, the findings regarding different key cultural correlates with respect to favoritism and nepotism/cronyism provide valuable implications for expanding our understanding of the psychological and social nuances of favoritism. Specifically, favoritism in transactions and interactions with those not bound by social commitment relationships may be explained by beliefs while interactions with those with social relationships (e.g., family and friends) may be explained by preferences.

show abstract

Reaching the top and avoiding the bottom: How ranking motivates unethical intentions and behavior

Cited by 37 publications

References 82 publications

Rivals without a cause? Relative performance feedback creates destructive competition despite aligned incentives

Rivals without a cause? Relative performance feedback creates destructive competition despite aligned incentives

Contests and unethical behavior in organizations: a review and synthesis of the empirical literature

Cultural Dimensions as Correlates of Favoritism and the Mediating Role of Trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About