AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY

UNETHICAL WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR: CAUSES AND MITIGATION

by Travis C. Harsha, Lt Col, USAF

A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements Advisor: Col James E. Lackey, USA 14 February 2013

DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government, the Department of Defense, or Air University. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the property of the United States government.

Biography
Lieutenant Colonel Travis C. Harsha is a U.S. Air Force security forces officer assigned to the Air War College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, AL. He entered the Air Force in 1991 as an AFROTC distinguished graduate. He graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 1991 with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, University of Maryland-College Park in 2001 with a Masters of Arts in Criminology and Criminal Justice, and Air Command and Staff College in 2005 with a Master of Arts in Military Operational Art and Science. He has served at unit, major command and Air Staff level in various positions, including three times as a squadron commander.

ii

Abstract
Over the past year, numerous military scandals of unethical workplace behavior have surfaced. This behavior negatively affected all involved, undermined public trust in military leaders and service as a whole and affected morale, discipline and mission readiness. Considering its corrosive effects, unethical workplace behavior must be addressed. To address it, we must first understand its causes. Empirical evidence shows individual, organizational and situational factors cause and/or allow unethical workplace behavior. To the extent leaders and managers understand and can address these factors, they can mitigate unethical workplace behavior. This paper explores these causes and ways to mitigate.

iii

Introduction
Over the past year, numerous military scandals of unethical workplace behavior have surfaced. This behavior negatively affected all involved, undermined public trust in military leaders and service as a whole and affected morale, discipline and mission readiness. Considering its corrosive effects, unethical workplace behavior must be addressed. Why do people behave unethically at work and what can be done to mitigate such behavior? This paper, divided into three sections, attempts to answer these questions. Empirical evidence shows individual, organizational and situational factors cause and/or allow unethical workplace behavior. To the extent leaders and managers understand and can address these factors, they can mitigate unethical workplace behavior. Section I defines key terms and explores individual, organizational and situational factors which cause and/or allow unethical behavior. Section II provides recommendations to mitigate unethical workplace behavior. Finally, Section III provides a conclusion.

Definitions
Three definitions are central to this paper. First, a moral issue is present where a persons actions, when freely performed, may harm or benefit others.1 Second, a moral agent is a person who makes a moral decision, even though he or she may not recognize that moral issues are at stake.2 Third, ethical behavior is legal and morally acceptable to the larger community.3 Conversely, unethical behavior is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community.4 In this paper, the terms moral and ethical are considered equal and used interchangeably depending on context.

Causes
Before we can address unethical workplace behavior, we must first understand what causes it. Based on empirical evidence from criminology, psychology and sociology research, this section will discuss key individual, organizational and situational factors that cause and/or allow unethical workplace behavior. Individual Individuals commit unethical workplace behavior for a number of reasons. Some people have a propensity to engage in unethical behavior based on certain individual characteristics. Empirical evidence suggests the most consistent individual factors which predict unethical behavior include the following (in no particular order): 1) Certain personality traits. Low self-control (impulsive for instant gratification if given the opportunity), external locus of control (believe outcomes are primarily determined by external forces vice self) and high in Machiavellianism (propensity to deceive/manipulate others in pursuit of selfish goals).5, 6, 7, 8, 9 2) Certain ethical philosophical beliefs/values. Relativism (believe moral rules are situational) and teleology (ends justify means; also known as consequentialist ethics).10, 11, 12 3) Propensity to rationalize/morally disengage. Research shows most people use standards of ethical behavior they adopt through socialization to guide their actions and regulate themselves.13 To neutralize any regrets or negative feelings before and/or after committing unethical behavior, people may disengage their self-regulatory process through rationalizations in a process called moral disengagement.14, 15, 16 Based on extensive research, the most common rationalization tactics are: denial of responsibility (convince themselves they have no other choice because of circumstances), denial

of injury (no one is harmed so actions are not corrupt), denial of victim (victim deserved to be victimized), social weighting [can occur in two ways: condemning the condemners (question legitimacy of condemners) and selective social comparisons (compare self to others who appear to have committed worse behavior making self feel not as bad)], appeal to higher authorities (need to breach ethical norms to fulfill more important goals) and balancing the ledger (good works have earned credits to offset bad).17 Researchers found the likelihood to morally disengage correlates positively with Machiavellianism and relativism, which reinforces linkage of moral thinking/behavior to certain personality traits and certain ethical philosophical beliefs/values.18 Bandura argues moral disengagement is explicitly interactive, the result of the continued reciprocal influence of the individual, behavior, and the environment.19 Thus ones personality traits/beliefs coupled with certain contextual factors/situations (e.g., denial of responsibility in response to dominant authority figures) may increase ones propensity to morally disengage.20 4) Low cognitive moral development (affects moral judgment and behavior).21, 22 Kohlbergs Cognitive Moral Development theory argues individuals progress in stages as they become more cognitively advanced and independent in their moral reasoning.23 Research shows most adults are at the conventional level of cognitive development, meaning their thinking about what is right/wrong is largely influenced by significant others through social learning and rules/laws. Social learning theory asserts individuals learn by observing and modeling the behavior of others they deem important (usually leaders/supervisors and in-group/popular employees).24, 25 Through social learning, supervisors and peers can influence employee ethical decision-making and behavior for better or worse.26

5) Poor ethical decision-making. Much research on unethical behavior asserts people behave unethically based on poor ethical decision making/reasoning, which all of the aforementioned individual factors affect. James Rest provides the most popular ethical decision-making model, which posits four basic components/steps: 1) identifying moral issue (moral awareness), 2) making a moral judgment, 3) establishing moral intent and 4) acting morally.27 Rest argues people are apt to act unethically when one or more of these steps is not followed. For example, those who act unethically may not see an issue as a moral one and/or may rationalize their actions (before or after) to see themselves acting morally when they are not.28 Finally, just because one uses an ethical decision making model does not mean their judgment or behavior is/will be ethical.29 Research also demonstrates moral judgments can come from an intuitive, emotion-based (impulsive) process, rather than reason.30, 31 Haidt argues the main difference between intuition and reasoning are that intuition occurs quickly, effortlessly, and automatically, such that the outcome and not the process is accessible to consciousness, while reasoning occurs more slowly, requires some effort, and involves at least some steps that are accessible to consciousness.32 He asserts moral reasoning exists, but it usually occurs after a moral judgment as justification for decision/actions vice before.33 Haidt emphasizes the importance of social and cultural influences in shaping ones intuition and subsequent moral judgment. Similar to social learning theory, Haidt argues in many cases peoples privately held judgments are directly shaped by the judgment of others (even if no reasoned persuasion is used).34 Research shows unethical judgments and behavior are also strongly influenced by certain organizational and situational factors.35 To use a metaphor, there are bad apples, some of which are caused, or accelerated in their decay, by bad barrels.

Organizational/Situational A good and bad apples propensity for unethical behavior can increase when they sit in bad barrels (unethical organization/situations).36, 37 Given organizational/situational factors can increase ones propensity to commit unethical behavior, Doris argues, Rather than striving to develop characters that will determine our behavior in ways substantially independent of circumstance, we should invest more of our energies in attending to the features of our environment that influence behavioral outcomes.38 Key organizational and situational factors which influence unethical workplace behavior include the following (in no particular order): 1) Unethical organizational climate/culture. As mentioned, a bad barrel can make/foster bad apples. Organizations which foster unethical behavior often exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: have weak and/or unethical leaders, bottom-line mentality (ends justify means), unrealistic goals, reward or ignore/weakly sanction unethical behavior, treat employees unfairly and demand unquestioning obedience to authority. 39 Like individuals, organizations may morally disengage by rationalization tactics to maintain a positive image and infuse such tactics into their way of doing business. In a corrupt unit, socialization tactics often accompany rationalization tactics to progressively assimilate newcomers into accepting and committing unethical behavior.40, 41, 42 Over time, these actions can make unethical behavior part of the organizational culture and routine way of doing business.43 Research repeatedly demonstrates peer influence plays a major role in influencing unethical behavior. The more individuals witness co-workers acting unethically, the more likely they are to do the same.44 Peers also exert normative influence against peer reporting of

unethical behavior, particularly if the peer is a friend.45 Research shows most employees view themselves as more ethical than others, even when they are not. When surrounded by unethical behavior, employees may justify/rationalize their own unethical behavior on the basis of everyone else is doing it or it is not as bad as what others are doing or its necessary to compete evenly with others who are far less principled.46 2) Weak and/or unethical leadership/supervision (do not demonstrate/enforce ethical values/behavior). Through social learning, employees look to significant others (especially leaders and supervisors) for what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.47 If leaders/supervisors commit unethical behavior and/or allow others to do so, they can influence employees to think and act unethically too by legitimizing such behavior.48 Through power of rewards/punishment and unquestioned authority, unethical leaders/supervisors can also influence/pressure employees to accept/commit unethical behavior.49 Under reciprocal deviance, a leader/supervisor that allows or treats employees unfairly/disrespectfully can foster a toxic work environment, which can breed contempt and retaliatory unethical behavior to right perceived wrongs.50 Research has found a significant relationship between job dissatisfaction (especially from toxic leaders/supervisors) and deviant/unethical work behavior.51 Poor leadership often exists where/when employees perceive a leader is more focused on his/her own self-interest vice concern for employees.52 3) Certain job characteristics. Some jobs have inherent characteristics which can increase ones opportunity and propensity to behave unethically, especially if predisposed to do so based on individual causal factors. These job characteristics include (in no particular order): stressful/demanding (unrealistic objectives, limited time/resources), lack control over

environment, lack of support network, more external contacts and where/when employees perceive an expectation of unquestioning obedience to authority.53, 54, 55, 56 Note many military jobs contain such job characteristics. Organizations may also create job/work demands (e.g., increased stress/work hours or rotating shift schedules) that foster inadequate rest/sleep, which can increase ones propensity for unethical behavior by diminishing ones self-control resources.57 This draws on Ego Depletion Model, which argues people have a limited capacity for cognitive self-control (like fuel tank) at any moment that is depleted by using it until rest/sleep restores it.58 4) Situational factors. Situationism posits variance in human behavior is typically a function of the situation a person inhabits, or takes herself to inhabit, rather than any traits of character she putatively possesses.59 So to understand ones behavior, we must take into account situational variables. Several studies show how minor situational variables affect helping behavior (e.g., hurried passersby step over passed out victim while unhurried stop to help or those who just found some change help a person whose papers have fallen vice those who did not just find change do not).60 Studies have also shown how situational variables can spawn harmful behavior in ordinary people [e.g., Millgrams study of how people are willing to torture someone at the polite request of an authority figure or Zimbardos study of how people acting as prison guards can increasingly abuse others acting as inmates].61 To the extent situational factors can influence behavior more than ones character or moral development, organizations and individuals must be aware of such factors and address them.62

While situationist research often argues situational variables trump individual traits (such as character, which some situationist advocates believe does not exist), some researchers argue situationist research supports the existence of local traits of character (vice global, which traditional virtue ethics endorse but the evidence does not support global traits of character).63 For example, most people would behave compassionately when they are not in a hurry (they are ambling-along-compassionate) or when they are not in a group (they are not-in-a-groupcompassionate).64 Similarly, if one is loyal-to-his-wife-only-when-sober, he will wisely reject dinner-and-drink invite from co-worker.65 As Doris argues, condemnation for ethical failure might very often be directed not at a particular failure of the will but at a certain culpable naivet or insufficiently careful attention to situations.66 Situational variables can also impact ethical behavior directly and act as a moderator (e.g., influencing moral reasoning leading to moral behavior). Subsequently, scholars stress organizational culture must be managed to influence individual and organizational ethical behavior.67 In what is known as the Bathsheba Syndrome, upper-level leaders/managers unethical behavior can be caused/tempted by their inability/unpreparedness to deal with the by-products of success, which include the following: increased autonomy; privileged access to people, information or objects; unrestrained control of organizational resources and an inflated belief in ones ability to manipulate outcomes.68 The next section discusses recommendations to mitigate unethical behavior addressing individual, organizational and situational causes.

Recommendations
To most effectively and efficiently address/mitigate unethical workplace behavior, organizations must address its individual, organizational and situational causes.

Individual To address individual causes of unethical workplace behavior, organizations should first ensure they have authentic leaders/supervisors fostering an ethical organizational climate and culture. They should also incorporate the following measures (in no particular order): 1) Carefully hire/screen. They should carefully screen potential employees (e.g., conduct screening tests/background investigations/interviews, validate resume information, have applicants read/sign statement obligating them to abide by companys values/ethical standards as part of the application process) and hire ethical individuals to the greatest extent possible.69 2) Educate/train/mentor. Through formal programs, leaders/supervisors should educate/train employees to increase their self-control, raise moral development (awareness, judgment and behavior), raise emotional intelligence, decrease stress and identify/mitigate situational factors which may make one more apt to behave unethically. They should also socialize/infuse everyone with ethical organizational values, which are clearly communicated, demonstrated and rewarded/enforced by their authentic leaders/supervisors.70 Considering the impact of social learning, unit newcomers should be setup with authentic supervisors/leaders who properly train and lead them and advance their moral development and commitment to the organization.71 In addition, organizations/leaders should closely monitor ingroup/popular peers and ensure they are fostering an ethical climate/culture by their words/actions.72 3) Prevent/reverse rationalizations and socialization for unethical behavior. As unethical behavior-related rationalization and socialization tactics can be very difficult to reverse once established, organizations should focus on preventing such behavior through the following actions: 1) foster awareness among employees on the wrongfulness of such tactics (train to

identify and question such tactics rather than accept/participate; include periodic introspection days with external facilitators to examine acts/policies for ethical implications); 2) use performance evaluations that go beyond numbers (explore what numbers were met and how; avoid bottom-line mentality where any means may be used to justify ends); 3) nurture an ethical environment in the organization (code of ethics supported by organizational structures and policies); and 4) ensure top management serves as ethical role models.73 To reverse unethical behavior related rationalizations and socializations, organizations should: 1) avoid denial and move quickly (as bad apples can come from bad barrels, look for and quickly address any system driven problems); 2) involve external change agents (to ensure objectivity/credibility); and 3) remain aware and vigilant.74 With individual causes addressed, we now turn to addressing organizational/situational causes. Organizational/Situational 1) Create and sustain ethical climate/culture. Just as unethical climates/cultures can create unethical behavior, research shows organizations can reduce misconduct and raise job satisfaction by fostering an ethical climate/culture.75 Leaders shape an organizations culture by their words and actions. The five primary mechanisms a leader can use to influence organizational culture are: 1) what they pay attention to, measure and control; 2) how they react to critical incidents and crises; 3) their deliberate role modeling, coaching and teaching; 4) the criteria used for rewards and status; and 5) the criteria used for recruitment, selection, promotion and retirement.76 To create and sustain an ethical climate/culture, organizations must carefully select and promote authentic leaders/supervisors, which are attuned to their roles as moral agents.77

10

Leaders must clearly and genuinely communicate and demonstrate ethical standards/conduct and reward and enforce ethical behavior.78 Leaders should foster a safe, secure and enjoyable work environment where people feel cared for and are inspired to behave ethically in the interest of the company and its employees.79 Given the great influence of leaders/managers on an employees decision to engage in unethical behavior, organizations should impose more severe sanctions against unethical leaders/managers.80 All policies, practices and decisions should pass the headline test and external parties should review them periodically to ensure they are ethical. They should set realistic goals and avoid bottom-line mentality, focusing on what and how people accomplish their mission. Lager posits, More effective than the usual compliance-based ethics system are values-oriented or integrity-based programs, where the focus is not on compliance, but on maintaining a culture where ethical issues can be discussed, ethical behavior is rewarded and the organizations values are incorporated by its leaders into strategic decisions.81 Organizations should also develop a code of ethics in an open, participative environment involving as many employees as possible to foster buy-in. The code of ethics must clearly state the organizations basic principles and expectations, realistically focus on potential ethical dilemmas, be clearly/routinely communicated to employees, be accepted/internalized by everyone and it must be enforced to be effective.82 Unique units in organizations should expand on organizations core code of ethics adding their own codes for unique ethical dilemmas they may face.83 2) Ensure authentic leadership/supervisors. Research shows authentic leadership/supervision is critical to creating/sustaining an ethical work climate/culture. Authentic leadership is a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive

11

psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development.84 To be most effective, authentic leaders/supervisors must be ethical role models. An ethical role model is someone who is fair, honest, respectful, considerate, consistently demonstrate ethical standards and actively manage morality (set the ethical tone, promote valuesbased over compliance based, and reward good behavior and punish bad).85, 86, 87, 88 At its core, ethical leadership behavior is being a servant leader (selflessly serving/caring for subordinates and acting with organization/employee best interests in mind).89 Research shows employees with strong ethical leadership are more committed to their organization, more ethically aware and more willing to report ethical problems than those organizations with weak or unethical leadership.90 Just as social learning can support bad behavior, it can support good behavior. Retired United States Air Force General Fogleman recognized a single individual in a position of leadership could make or break a unit.91 An authentic leader, General Fogleman saw leadership and integrity inextricably linked and most critical to mission success (setting the standard for integrity within organizations).92 His four pass-fail items for leadership demonstrate his conviction to inspire trust and teamwork, essential for an ethical climate: 1) Dont rule through fear. 2) Never lose your temper or have an outburst of anger in public. 3) Never tolerate any breach of integrity. 4) Zero tolerance for sexual harassment or any kind of prejudice based on race, religion, ethnic origin, ageany kind of discriminator.93 3) Tap the trenches. To care for their employees, leaders and supervisors must know their issues. They must get out from behind their desks and walk the line. Such actions can

12

foster greater trust, communications and commitment from employees. In that vein, organizations should also conduct in-depth interviews/surveys with lower-level employees to get their perceptions on organizational climate/culture, leader/supervisor behavior, employee fair treatment and aggressively follow-up on any ethical concerns raised by employees.94, 95 4) Reduce the pressures/stress. As stress can make employees more likely to behave unethically, leaders/supervisors should identify and reduce work stressors (to the extent they can) and improve employee capacity to handle stress. Leaders/supervisors should set realistic goals and provide adequate time/resources to get the job done right. For example, as research shows a lack of sleep can affect moral cognition/behavior, supervisors should closely monitor work schedules and personnel to ensure adequate sleep. Those not afforded adequate sleep should be monitored closely to ensure opportunity does not arise to commit an unsafe or unethical act. To reduce upper-level leaders/managers falling victim to the Bathsheba Syndrome (inherent temptations/corruption that can come with power), organizations must change structures, procedures and practices which encourage/allow such unethical behavior.96 To mitigate such behavior, bosses of upper-level leaders/managers should authentically lead/mentor their direct reports and ensure they are living a balanced/grounded life and are surrounded by an ethical team of leaders/managers who will inspire them to lead by example and challenge or comfort them when they need either.97 5) Increase the certainty of unethical workplace behavior being caught. Deterrence theory posits three factors (certainty of being caught, severity of punishment and swiftness of punishment) deter crime. Research shows certainty of being caught is the most important deterrent factor (as criminals think they will not be caught, so severity and swiftness of punishment will not matter as much in their calculus to commit a crime).98 Research shows the

13

threat of punishment, no matter how severe, is not effective in promoting ethical behavior.99 Subsequently, to deter unethical behavior, organizations should focus on increasing employee perceptions they will be caught if they commit unethical behavior by setting up control measures (e.g., well-advertised monitoring, internal controls, regular audits) and fostering an ethical climate/culture where unethical behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported/investigated and appropriately handled.100, 101 6) Ensure effective reporting system for unethical behavior (whistle-blowing). Research shows employees are more apt to report unethical behavior if they are tasked to report it and organizational culture/climate supports such reporting. Researchers also found to the extent unethical behavior threatened the groups interest (group penalized), group members were more likely to report a peer.102 For example, the United States Air Force Academy honor code (like code of ethics) states, We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Under the honor code, each cadet is obligated to confront/report such unethical behavior. If they do not confront/report such behavior, they fall subject to the same discipline as others who violate the code. The code deters unethical behavior by increasing the certainty of being caught (everyone is responsible to detect and report such behavior). Leaders also swiftly and seriously deal with all reports of ethical violations, which fosters confidence in system and corrects/removes any bad apples before they rot the barrel. 7) Identify/mitigate situational factors. As certain situational factors may lead one to behave unethically, it is important one identify these factors unique to him/her and take actions to mitigate them. Doris provides an example for sexual fidelity. Imagine that a colleague with whom you have had a long flirtation invites you for dinner, offering enticement of interesting food and elegant wine, with the excuse that you 14

are temporarily orphaned while your spouse is out of town. Lets assume the obvious way to read this text is the right one, and assume further that you regard the infidelity that might result as an ethically undesirable outcome. If you are like one of Milgrams respondents, you might think there is little cause for concern; you are, after all, an upright person, and a spot of claret never did anyone any harm. On the other hand, if you take the lessons of situationism to heart, you avoid the dinner like the plague, because you know that you are not able to confidently predict your behavior in a problematic situation on the basis of your antecedent values. You do not doubt that you sincerely value fidelity; you simply doubt your ability to act in conformity with this value once the candles are lit and the wine begins to flow. Relying on character once in the situation is a mistake, you agree; the way to achieve the ethically desirable result is to recognize that situational pressures may all too easily overwhelm character and avoid the dangerous situation. I dont think it wild speculation to claim that this is a better strategy than dropping by for a harmless evening, secure in the knowledge of your righteousness.103

Conclusion
Individual, organizational and situational factors cause and/or allow unethical workplace behavior. To the extent leaders and managers understand and can address these causal factors, they can mitigate unethical workplace behavior. To most effectively and efficiently foster ethical behavior, organizations must be led by authentic leaders backed by an ethical organizational climate/culture. Leaders/supervisors must clearly, consistently and genuinely communicate and demonstrate ethical values/standards and reward/enforce ethical behavior. They must lead/serve people selflessly to inspire their trust, loyalty and commitment to always do the right things the right way. Finally, given the strong influence of organizational and situational factors on ones ethical behavior, organizations must seek, identify and address these causal factors to the extent possible. The traditional solution of addressing unethical behavior by character development/ethics training is necessary but woefully insufficient.

15

Notes
(All notes appear in shortened form. For full details, see appropriate entry in the bibliography.) 1. Jones, Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organization, 367. 2. Ibid., 367. 3. Ibid., 367. 4. Ibid., 367. 5. Pratt and Cullen, Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschis General Theory of Crime, 953 (for low self-control). 6. OFallon and Butterfield, A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature, 396. 7. Trevino, Weaver and Reynolds, Behavioral Ethics in Organizations, 965. 8. Stead, Worrell and G. Stead, An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations, 234. 9. Moore, Detert, Trevino, Baker and Mayer, Why Employees Do Bad Things, 7. 10. OFallon and Butterfield, A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature, 379, 396. 11. Stead, Worrell and G. Stead, An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations, 235. 12. Ibid., 234. 13. Bandura, Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities, 193. 14. Moore, Detert, Trevino, Baker and Mayer, Why Employees Do Bad Things, 35. 15. Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, Business as Usual, 41. 16. Lager, Governments Demand Compliance, Ethics Demand Leadership, 221. 17. Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, Business as Usual, 41-44. 18. Moore, Detert, Trevino, Baker and Mayer, Why Employees Do Bad Things, 35. 19. Ibid., 38. 20. Ibid., 38. 21. OFallon and Butterfield, A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature, 396. 22. Andreoli and Lefkowitz, Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Misconduct in Organizations, 309. 23. Moore, Detert, Trevino, Baker and Mayer, Why Employees Do Bad Things, 8. 24. Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 6. 25. Stead, Worrell and G. Stead, An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations, 234. 26. Loviscky, Trevino and Jacobs, Assessing Managers Ethical Decision-making, 264. 27. OFallon and Butterfield, A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature, 375. 28. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe, Ethical Decision Making, 565. 29. Jones, Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organization, 380. 30. Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe, Ethical Decision Making, 583. 31. Haidt, The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail, 815. 16

32. Ibid., 819. 33. Ibid., 815. 34. Ibid., 822. 35. Loviscky, Trevino, and Jacobs, Assessing Managers Ethical Decision-making, 264. 36. Gino, Ayal, and Ariely, Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior, 393. 37. Ibid., 397. 38. Doris, Lack of Character, 146. 39. Gino, Ayal, and Ariely, Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior, 398. 40. Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, Business as Usual, 41. 41. Ibid., 39. 42. Trevino, Weaver and Reynolds, Behavioral Ethics in Organizations, 968. 43. Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, Business as Usual, 41. 44. OFallon and Butterfield, The Influence of Unethical Peer Behavior on Observers Unethical Behavior: A Social Cognitive Perspective, 117. 45. Ibid., 117. 46. Ibid., 120. 47. Andreoli and Lefkowitz, Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Misconduct in Organizations, 309. 48. Jones and Kavanagh, An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Individual and Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace, 512. 49. Ibid., 511. 50. Ibid., 512. 51. Ibid., 512. 52. Trevino, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler, Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance, 144. 53. Stead, Worrell and G. Stead, An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations, 233-234. 54. Appelbaum, Iaconi and Matousek, Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors, 591. 55. Henle, Predicting Workplace Deviance, 248. 56. Trevino, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler, Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance, 144. 57. Barnes, Schaubroeck, Huth and Ghumman, Lack of Sleep and Unethical Conduct, 178. 58. Ibid., 170. 59. Upton, Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology, 104. 60. Doris, Lack of Character, 2. 61. Ibid., 2. 62. Ibid., 148. 63. Upton, Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology, 109. 64. Ibid., 109. 65. Ibid., 109. 66. Doris, Lack of Character, 148. 67. Andreoli and Lefkowitz, Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Misconduct in Organizations, 314. 17

68. Ludwig and Longenecker, The Bathsheba Syndrome, 265. 69. Stead, Worrell and G. Stead, An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations, 239. 70. Ibid., 239-240. 71. Dunkelberg and Jessup, So Then Why Did You Do It? 62. 72. OFallon and Butterfield, The Influence of Unethical Peer Behavior on Observers Unethical Behavior: A Social Cognitive Perspective, 128. 73. Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, Business as Usual, 48-49. 74. Ibid., 47-51. 75. Andreoli and Lefkowitz, Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Misconduct in Organizations, 326. 76. Carlson and Perrewe, Institutionalization of Organizational Ethics through Transformational Leadership, 834. 77. Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts and Chonko, The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behavior, 166. 78. Lager, Governments Demand Compliance, Ethics Demand Leadership, 220. 79. Jones and Kavanagh, An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Individual and Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace, 521. 80. Ibid., 521. 81. Lager, Governments Demand Compliance, Ethics Demand Leadership, 220. 82. Stead, Worrell and G. Stead, An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations, 239. 83. Ibid., 240. 84. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson, Authentic Leadership, 94. 85. Trevino, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler, Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance, 149. 86. Andreoli and Lefkowitz, Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Misconduct in Organizations, 315. 87. Hannah, Avolio and Walumbwa. Relationships between Authentic Leadership, Moral Courage, and Ethical and Pro-Social Behaviors, 561. 88. Mayer, Acquino, Greenbaum and Kuenzi, Who Displays Ethical Leadership, and Why Does it Matter? 151. 89. Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts and Chonko, The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behavior, 159. 90. Lager, Governments Demand Compliance, Ethics Demand Leadership, 219. 91. Fogleman, Leadership-Integrity Link, 39. 92. Ibid., 39. 93. Chumley, Were In Good Hands, 2-7. 94. Trevino, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler, Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance, 149. 95. Jones and Kavanagh, An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Individual and Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace, 521. 96. Ludwig and Longenecker, The Bathsheba Syndrome, 265. 97. Ibid., 272. 18

98. Lager, Governments Demand Compliance, Ethics Demand Leadership, 217. 99. Ibid., 218. 100. Ibid., 217. 101. Dunkelberg and Jessup, So Then Why Did You Do It? 62. 102. Trevino, Weaver and Reynolds, Behavioral Ethics in Organizations, 969. 103. Doris, Lack of Character, 147.

19

Bibliography
Anand, Vika, Blake E. Ashworth, and Mahendra Joshi. Business as Usual: The Acceptance and Perpetuation of Corruption in Organizations. Academy of Management Executive 18, no. 2 (2004): 39-53. Andreoli, Nicole and Joel Lefkowitz. Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Misconduct in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2009): 309-332. Appelbaum, Steven H., Giulio D. Iaconi, and Albert Matousek. Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions. Corporate Governance 7, no. 5 (2007): 586-598. Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977. Bandura, Albert. Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3, no 3 (1999): 193-209. Barnes, Christopher M., John Schaubroeck, Megan Huth, and Sonia Ghumman. Lack of Sleep and Unethical Conduct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 115 (2011): 169-180. Carlson, Dawn S., and Pamela L. Perrewe. Institutionalization of Organizational Ethics through Transformational Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1995): 829-838. Chumley, Capt Robyn A. Were In Good Hands, Airman, no. 39 (January 1995): 2-7. Doris, John M. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Dunkelberg, John, and Debra R. Jessup. So Then Why Did You Do It? Journal of Business Ethics 29 (2001): 51-63. Fogleman, Gen Ronald R., The Leadership-Integrity Link. AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership: 39-40. Gino, Francesca, Shahar Ayal, and Dan Ariely. Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior. Association for Psychological Science 20, no. 3 (2009): 393-398. Haidt, Jonathan. The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review 108 (2001): 814-834. Hannah, Sean T., Bruce J. Avolio, and Fred O. Walumbwa. Relationships between Authentic Leadership, Moral Courage, and Ethical and Pro-Social Behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly 21, no. 4 (October 2011): 555-578. Henle, Christine A. Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction Between Organizational Justice and Personality. Journal of Managerial Issues 17, no. 2 (2005): 247-263. Jones, Thomas M. Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An IssueContingent Model. Academy of Management Review 16, no 2 (April 1991): 366-395. Jones, Gwen E., and Michael J. Kavanagh. An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Individual and Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (1996): 511-523. 20

Lager, James M. Governments Demand Compliance, Ethics Demand Leadership. Journal of Public Affairs 10 (2010): 216-224. Loviscky, Greg E., Linda K. Trevino, and Rick R. Jacobs. Assessing Managers Ethical Decision-making: An Objective Measure of Managerial Moral Judgment. Journal of Business Ethics 73 (2007): 263-285. Ludwig, Dean C., Clinton O. Longenecker. The Bathsheba Syndrome: The Ethical Failure of Successful Leaders. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1993): 265-273. Mayer, David M., Karl Acquino, Rebecca L. Greenbaum, and Maribeth Kuenzi. Who Displays Ethical Leadership, and Why Does it Matter? An Examination of Antecedents and Consequences of Ethical Leadership. Academy of Management Journal 55, no. 1 (2012): 151-171. Moore, Celia, James R. Detert, Linda K. Trevino, Vicki L. Baker, and David M. Mayer. Why Employees Do Bad Things: Moral Disengagement and Unethical Organizational Behavior. Personnel Psychology 65 (2012): 1-48. Neubert, Mitchell J., Dawn S. Carlson, K. Michele Kacmar, James A. Roberts, and Lawrence B. Chonko. The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behavior: Evidence from the Field. Journal of Business Ethics 90 (2009): 157-170. OFallon, Michael J., and Kenneth D. Butterfield. A Review of The Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics 59 (2005): 375413. OFallon, Michael J., and Kenneth D. Butterfield. The Influence of Unethical Peer Behavior on Observers Unethical Behavior: A Social Cognitive Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 109 (2012): 117-131. Pratt, Travis C., and Francis T. Cullen. The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschis General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis. Criminology 38, no. 3 (2000): 931-964. Stead, W. Edward, Dan L. Worrell, and Jean Garner Stead. An Integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behavior in Business Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 9 (1990): 233-242. Tenbrunsel, Ann E., and Kristin Smith-Crowe. Ethical Decision Making: Where Weve Been and Where Were Going. The Academy of Management Annals 2, no. 1 (2008): 545607. Trevino, Linda K., Gary R. Weaver, and Scott J. Reynolds. Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review. Journal of Management 32, no. 6 (December 2006): 951-990. Trevino, Linda K., Gary R. Weaver, David G. Gibson, and Barbara L. Toffler. Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What Works and What Hurts. California Management Review 41, no. 2 (Winter 1999): 131-151. Upton, Candace L. Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology: The Situationism Debate. Journal of Ethics 13, no. 4 (2009): 103-115. Walumbwa, Fred O., Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, Tara S. Wernsing, and Suzanne J. 21

Peterson. Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure. Journal of Management 34, no. 1 (February 2008): 89-126.

22