The moderating role of message framing on the links between organizational identification and unethical pro-organizational behavior

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine how – if any – does message framing moderates the previously documented positive effect of organizational identification on unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). Design/methodology/approach The authors used vignette methodology to manipulate message framing and organizational identification in a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design to test research hypotheses. In total, 332 undergraduate students in the senior year of banking and management participated in the experiment. Two-way analysis of variance was used for data analyses. Findings Message framing is found to moderate the effect of organizational identification on UPB. Organizational identification posed a stronger effect on intentions to engage UPB when a supervisor announces a critical situation by using a positively framed message than (s)he frames it negatively. Research limitations/implications Using undergraduate students as subjects is an important limitation to external validity and generalizability of the findings. More realistic field experiments can be conducted by using real employees and factual firms in future studies. Practical implications Managers should be careful when using over-motivating language to employees on critical issues. Under intense stress, a managerial message over-emphasizing “gain” can prompt highly identified employees to conduct misbehavior. Social implications Unethical behavior brings negative consequences for organizations, even if it is conducted for the benefit of the organization. To prevent any tendency toward UPB, management communication must clearly highlight the delicate boundary between being attached to the organization and going beyond the rules for the organizational goals. Originality/value The study findings shed more light on the relationship between organizational identification and UPB, allowing us to see that the relationship is not always linear. In addition to over-identification, reciprocity and neutralization processes, the framing may be another explanation to varying effect of organizational identification on UPB. Supervisors’ communication style can influence employee behavior in controversial issues linked to UPB.

Effects of Leader-Member Exchange, Organizational Identification and Leadership Communication on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: A Study on Bank Employees in Turkey

“…UPB intentions are elicited in varied magnitudes by managerial communication that highlights a potential benefit or loss [17]. Our findings take the work of [18] one step further and examine UPB from the framework of identification-LMX and leadership communication interaction. Specifically, our findings indicate that a loss framed message from the leader amplified the positive effect of LMX on UPB, while it diminished the effect of organizational identification.…”

“…In a similar vein, under fierce competition, followers who receive a positively framed message from their leaders can be over-inspired to achieve organizational goals. Based on an experimental study with a student sample, [18] have shown that leader's communication style is likely to influence the relationship between followers' organizational identification and willingness to participate in UPB. Nevertheless, the way a leader frames a message may have varying effects on UPB depending on followers' interactions with the leader, too.…”

“…Particularly in small workgroups, members' identification with the organization and their interaction with the leader can together create unusual results. In addition, with the exception of [17] and [18], the literature is almost silent on the effects of leadership communication on followers' UPB intentions. Consequently, we have an incomplete picture of the factors motivating employees to engage in UPB, and completing this picture can be instructive both theoretically and practically.…”

Good intentions, bad behavior: A review and synthesis of the literature on unethical prosocial behavior (UPB) at work

“…As such, organizational identification, or the perception of oneness or belongingness with the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), has been the most widely examined antecedent of UPB to date. In all, 12 empirical studies found a significantly positive relationship between organizational identification and UPB (Alniacik et al, 2021; Baur et al, 2020; Chen et al, 2016; Effelsberg et al, 2014; Irshad & Bashir, 2020; Johnson & Umphress, 2019; Kalshoven et al, 2016; Kim et al, 2015; Kong, 2016; Mahlendorf et al, 2018; Naseer et al, 2020; Niu et al, 2020; Yang et al, 2019). One study reported mixed evidence for this link (May et al, 2015), while another study found that organizational identification was significantly related to UPB only when individuals had high (vs. low) positively reciprocity beliefs, which relate to the degree to which individuals endorse reciprocity in exchange relationships (Umphress et al, 2010).…”

Paved with good intentions: role of situational and dispositional influences on employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior

“…Further, previous studies have shown the strength of association between organizational identification and UPB is dependent on moderating variables like message framing (Alniacik et al, 2022), interorganization competition (Chen et al, 2016) and disposition toward ethical/ unethical behavior (Effelsberg et al, 2014). To expand this body of research, it would be meaningful to examine the impact of other personality variables which may impact employees' engagement in UPB when their organizational identification is high.…”