Skip to main content
Log in

Built on Stone or Sand: The Stable Powerful Are Unethical, the Unstable Powerful Are Not

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior studies have shown that powerful individuals are more unethical than powerless individuals. In real life, power is unstable, and multiple social interactions may cause loss of power. However, extant research has assumed the power structure to be stable and thus overlooked the potential interaction of power and stability in affecting unethicality. Using the approach-inhibition theory of power, we predicted that stability of power moderates power’s effect on unethical behavior. Results from four studies revealed that powerful individuals showed more unethical behavior than powerless individuals only when power was stable, but not when it was unstable. The higher level of unethical behavior under the condition of stable power was explained by attitude toward risk. Our results highlight that the link between power and unethicality is broken when power is unstable. Powerful individuals are no more unethical than powerless individuals when they face a greater possibility of losing their power.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allingham, M. G., & Sandmo, A. (1972). Income tax evasion: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atanasov, P., & Dana, J. (2011). Leveling the playing field: Dishonesty in the face of threat. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 809–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 768–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camps, J., Decoster, S., & Stouten, J. (2012). My share is fair, so i don’t care. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chance, M. R. A. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders. Man, 2(4), 503–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chugh, D., Kern, M. C., Zhu, Z., & Lee, S. (2014). Withstanding moral disengagement: Attachment security as an ethical intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004-2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 221–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. (2012). Does power corrupt or enable: When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 681–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dencker, J. C. (2009). Relative bargaining power, corporate restructuring, and managerial incentives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 453–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–165). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

  • Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466.

  • Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1153–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2010). Lying to level the playing field: why people may dishonestly help or hurt others to create equity. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldhamer, H., & Shils, E. A. (1939). Types of power and status. American Journal of Sociology, 45(2), 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinote, A., Willis, G. B., & Martellotta, C. (2010). Social power increases implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanoch, Y., Johnson, J. G., & Wilke, A. (2006). Domain specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment: An application to risk-taking behavior. Psychological Science, 17(4), 300–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. D., Young, J. M., Butow, P., Salkeld, G., & Solomon, M. J. (2005). Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting. Social Science and Medicine, 60(6), 1385–1396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling (White paper). Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Something to lose and nothing to gain: The role of stress in the interactive effect of power and stability on risk taking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 530–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1231–1247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Fragale, A. R. (2005). Power dynamics in negotiation. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 799–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19(6), 558–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), 737–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Butz, D. A., & Peruche, B. M. (2007). Power, risk, and the status quo: Does power promote riskier or more conservative decision making? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 451–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 549–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, E., Acquisti, A., & Shalvi, S. (2014). “I cheated, but only a little”: Partial confessions to unethical behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 202–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruedy, N. E., Moore, C., Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2013). The cheater’s high: the unexpected affective benefits of unethical behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(4), 531–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 453–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sligte, D. J., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). Power, stability of power, and creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 891–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & van Dijk, W. W. (2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological Science, 19(5), 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1984). Intergroup relations, social myths and social justice in social psychology. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 695–715). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1981). Pre-to postelection shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 207–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, G., & Keltner, D. (2001). Power and the consumption of resources. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, R. R. (1987). New designs in analysis of variance. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 29–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behavior. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1365–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, G. B., Guinote, A., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2010). Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in powerless individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 416–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yap, A. J., Wazlawek, A. S., Lucas, B. J., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Carney, D. R. (2013). The ergonomics of dishonesty: The effect of incidental posture on stealing, cheating, and traffic violations. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2281–2289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sujin Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J., Shin, Y. & Lee, S. Built on Stone or Sand: The Stable Powerful Are Unethical, the Unstable Powerful Are Not. J Bus Ethics 144, 437–447 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2840-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2840-9

Keywords

Navigation