Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 95, Supplement 1, pp 29–41 | Cite as

Why Leaders Not Always Disapprove of Unethical Follower Behavior: It Depends on the Leader’s Self-Interest and Accountability

  • Niek Hoogervorst
  • David De Cremer
  • Marius van Dijke
Article

Abstract

By showing disapproval of unethical follower behavior (UFB), leaders help creating an ethical climate in their organization in which it is clear what is morally acceptable or not. In this research, we examine factors influencing whether leaders consistently show such disapproval. Specifically, we argue that holding leaders accountable for their actions should motivate them to disapprove of UFB. However, this effect of accountability should be inhibited when leaders personally benefit from UFB. This prediction was supported in a lab experiment. Furthermore, a follow-up study showed that followers in fact accurately predict when leaders will most likely disapprove of UFB. These findings imply that followers can thus get away with unethical behavior in some situations and they are capable of accurately predicting such situations.

Keywords

accountability conflict of interest displaying disapproval instrumentality leadership self-interest unethical behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, G. A. and H. P. Sims: 1991, ‘A Conceptual Analysis of Cognition and Affect in Organizational Punishment’, Human Resource Management Review 1(3), 227-243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, G. A., L. K Trevino and H. P. Sims: 1992, ‘Understanding Subordinate Reactions to Punishment Incidents: Perspectives from Justice and Social Affect’, The Leadership Quarterly 3(4), 307-333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barclay, P.: 2004, ‘Trustworthiness and Competitive Altruism Can Also Solve the Tragedy of the Commons’, Evolution and Human Behavior 25(4), 209-220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellizzi, J. A.: 2006, ‘Disciplining Top-Performing Unethical Salespeople: Examining the Moderating Effects of Ethical Seriousness and Consequences’, Psychology and Marketing 23(2), 181-201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellizzi, J. A. and T. Bristol: 2005, ‘Supervising the Unethical Selling Behavior of Top Sales Performers: Assessing the Impact of Social Desirability Bias’, Journal of Business Ethics 57(4), 377-388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellizzi, J. A. and R. W. Hasty: 2003, ‘Supervising Unethical Sales Force Behavior: How Strong is the Tendency to Treat Top Sales Performers Leniently?’, Journal of Business Ethics 43(4), 337-351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellizzi, J. A. and R. E. Hite: 1989, ‘Supervising Unethical Salesforce Behavior’, Journal of Marketing 53(2), 36-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beu, D. and M. R. Buckley: 2001, ‘The Hypothesized Relationship Between Accountability and Ethical Behavior’, Journal of Business Ethics 34(1), 57-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bommer, W. H., R. S. Rubin and T. T. Baldwin: 2004, ‘Setting the Stage for Effective Leadership: Antecedents of Transformational Leadership Behavior’, Leadership Quarterly 15(2), 195-210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, M. E. and L. K. Trevino: 2006, ‘Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions’, Leadership Quarterly 17(6), 595-616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butterfield, K. D., L. K. Trevino and G. A Ball: 1996, ‘Punishment From the Manager’s Perspective: A Grounded Investigation and Inductive Model’, Academy of Management Journal 39(6), 1479-1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson, T. L.: 2003, ‘Self-Interest and Business Ethics: Some Lessons of the Recent Corporate Scandals’, Journal of Business Ethics 43(4), 389-394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chonko, L. B. and S. D. Hunt: 1985, ‘Ethics and Marketing Management: An Empirical Examination’, Journal of Business Research 13(4), 339-359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chugh, D., M. R. Banaji and M. H. Bazerman: 2005, ‘Bounded Ethicality as a Psychological Barrier to Recognizing Conflicts of Interest’, in D.A. Moore, M. Cain, G. Loewenstein and M.H. Bazerman (eds.), Conflicts of Interest: Problems and Solutions from Law, Medicine, and Organizational Settings (Cambridge University Press, London), pp. 74-95.Google Scholar
  15. Cole, N. D. and G. P. Latham: 1997, ‘Effects of Training in Procedural Justice on Perceptions of Disciplinary Fairness by Unionized Employees and Disciplinary Subject Matter Experts’, Journal of Applied Psychology 82(5), 699-705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conger, J. A. and R. N. Kanungo: 1998, Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
  17. De Cremer, D.: 2009, ‘Psychology and Ethics: What It Takes to Feel Ethical When Being Unethical’, in D. de Cremer (ed.), Psychological Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making (Information Age, Charlotte, NC), pp. 3-16.Google Scholar
  18. De Cremer, D. and C. Sedikides: 2008, ‘Reputational Implications of Procedural Fairness for Personal and Relational Self-Esteem’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 30(1), 66-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Cremer, D. and E. Van Dijk: 2009, ‘Paying for Sanctions in Social Dilemmas: The Effects of Endowment Asymmetry and Accountability’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109(1), 45-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Cremer, D. and D. Van Knippenberg: 2002, ‘How Do Leaders Promote Cooperation? The Effects of Charisma and Procedural Fairness’, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(5), 858-866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Cremer, D. and D. Van Knippenberg: 2004, ‘Leader Self-sacrifice and Leadership Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Leader Self-Confidence’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 95(2), 140-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deconinck, J. B.: 1992, ‘How Sales Managers Control Unethical Sales Force Behavior’, Journal of Business Ethics 11(10), 789-798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dekwaadsteniet, E. W., E. Van Dijk, A. Wit, D. De Cremer and M De Rooij: 2007, ‘Justifying Decisions in Social Dilemmas: Justification Pressures and Tacit Coordination Under Environmental Uncertainty’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33(12), 1648-1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eisenhardt, K. M.: 1989, ‘Agency Theory - An Assessment and Review’, Academy of Management Review 14(1), 57-74.Google Scholar
  25. Fiske, S. T.: 1993, ‘Controlling Other People: The Impact of Power on Stereotyping’, American Psychologist 48, 621-628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiske, S. T.: 2001, ‘Effects of Power on Bias: Power Explains and Maintains Individual, Group and Societal Disparities’, in A. Y. Lee-Chai and J. A. Bargh (eds.), The Use and Abuse of Power: Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption. (Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA), pp. 181-193.Google Scholar
  27. Galinsky, A. D., J. C. Magee, M. E. Inesi and D. H. Gruenfeld: 2006, ‘Power and Perspectives Not Taken’, Psychological Science 17(12), 1068-1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goffee, R. and G. Jones: 2001, ‘Followers: It’s Personal Too’, Harvard Business Review 79, 148.Google Scholar
  29. Grover, S. L.: 1993, ‘Why Professionals Lie: The Impact of Professional Role Conflict on Reporting Accuracy’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55(2), 251-272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall, A. T., F. R. Blass, G. R Ferris and R. Massengale: 2004, ‘Leader Reputation and Accountability in Organizations: Implications for Dysfunctional Leader Behavior’, Leadership Quarterly 15(4), 515-536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hardy, C. L. and M. Van Vugt: 2006, ‘Nice Guys Finish First: The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(10), 1402-1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones, E. E. and T. S. Pittman: 1982, ‘Toward a General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation, in J. Suls (ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 231–262.Google Scholar
  33. Jordan, A. H. and B. Monin: 2008, ‘From Sucker to Saint - Moralization in Response to Self-Threat’, Psychological Science 19(8), 809-815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karremans, J. C. and H. Aarts: 2007, ‘The Role of Automaticity in Determining the Inclination to Forgive Close Others’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(6), 902-917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelley, H. H.: 1972, ‘Attribution in Social Interaction’, in E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. Kelley, R. Nisbett, S. Valins and B. Weiner (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior (General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ), pp. 1-26.Google Scholar
  36. Kramer, R. M., P. Pommerenke and E. Newton: 1993, ‘The Social Context of Negotiation: Effects of Social Identity and Interpersonal Accountability on Negotiator Decision Making’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 37(4), 633-654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kurzban, R., P. DeScioli and E. O’Brien: 2007, ‘Audience Effects on Moralistic Punishment’, Evolution and Human Behavior 28(2), 75-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leary, M. R.: 1996, Self-Presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal behavior (Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado).Google Scholar
  39. Lerner, J. S. and P. E. Tetlock: 1999, ‘Accounting for the Effects of Accountability’, Psychological Bulletin 125(2), 255-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lind, E. A.: 2001, ‘Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice Judgments as Pivotal Cognitions in Organizational Relations’, in J. E. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA), pp. 56-88.Google Scholar
  41. Lindsay, R. M., L.M. Lindsay and V. B. Irvine: 1996, ‘Instilling Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Survey of Canadian Companies’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(4), 393-407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Locke, E. A.: 1986, Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA).Google Scholar
  43. Milinski, M., D. Semmann and H. J. Krambeck: 2002, ‘Reputation Helps Solve the Tragedy of the Commons’, Nature 415(6870), 424-426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore, D. A. and G. Loewenstein: 2004, ‘Self-Interest, Automaticity, and the Psychology of Conflict of Interest’, Social Justice Research 17(2),189-202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Northouse, P.G.: 2004, Leadership Theory and Practice (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
  46. Nowak, M. A. and K. Sigmund: 1998, ‘Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring’, Nature 393(6685), 573-577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Offerman, L. R.: 2004, ‘When Followers Become Toxic’, Harvard Business Review 82(1), 54-60.Google Scholar
  48. Overbeck, J. R. and B. Park: 2006, ‘Powerful Perceivers, Powerless Objects: Flexibility of Powerholders’ Social Attention’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99(2), 227-243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Panchanathan, K. and R. Boyd: 2004, ‘Indirect Reciprocity Can Stabilize Cooperation Without the Second-Order Free Rider Problem’, Nature 432(7016), 499-502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Price, M. E.: 2006, ‘Monitoring, Reputation, and ‘Greenbeard’ Reciprocity in a Shuar Work Team’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(2), 201-219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosen, B. and T. H. Jerdee: 1974, ‘Factors Influencing Disciplinary Judgments’, Journal of Applied Psychology 59(3), 327-331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scott, B. A., J. A. Colquitt and E. L. Paddock: 2009, ‘An Actor-Focused Model of Justice Rule Adherence and Violation: The Role of Managerial Motives and Discretion’, Journal of Applied Psychology 94(3), 756-769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scott, M. B. and S. M. Lyman: 1968, ‘Accounts’, American Sociological Review 33(1), 46-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sedikides, C., K. C. Herbst, D. P. Hardin and G. J. Dardis: 2002, ‘Accountability as a Deterrent to Self-Enhancement: The Search for Mechanisms’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(3), 592-605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Semin, G. R. and A. S. R. Manstead: 1983, The Accountability of Conduct: A Social Psychological Analysis (Academic Press, London).Google Scholar
  56. Settoon, R. P., N. Bennett and R. C. Liden: 1996, ‘Social Exchange in Organizations: Perceived Organizational Support, Leader-Member Exchange, and Employee Reciprocity’, Journal of Applied Psychology 81(3), 219-227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shamir, B.: 2007, ‘From Passive Recipients to Active Co-Producers. Followers’ Roles in the Leadership Process’, in B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh and M. Uhl-Bien (eds.), Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT), pp. IX-XXXIX.Google Scholar
  58. Sims, R.: 2009, ‘Toward a Better Understanding of Organizational Efforts to Rebuild Reputation Following an Ethical Scandal’, Journal of Business Ethics 90(4), 453-472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tenbrunsel, A. E. and D. M. Messick: 2004, ‘Ethical Fading: The Role of Self-Deception in Unethical Behavior’, Social Justice Research 17(2), 223-235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tetlock, P. E.: 1992, ‘The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice - Toward a Social Contingency-Model’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25, 331-376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trevino, L. K.: 1986, ‘Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model’, Academy of Management Review 11(3), 601-617.Google Scholar
  62. Trevino, L. K.: 1992, ‘Experimental Approaches to Studying Ethical-Unethical Behavior in Organizations’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2(2), 121-136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Trevino, L. K. and G. A. Ball: 1992, ‘The Social Implications of Punishing Unethical Behavior – Observers’ Cognitive and Affective Reactions’, Journal of Management 18(4), 751-768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trevino, L. K., M. Brown and L. P. Hartman: 2003, ‘A Qualitative Investigation of Perceived Executive Ethical Leadership: Perceptions from Inside and Outside the Executive Suite’, Human Relations 56(1), 5-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trevino, L. K., L. P. Hartman and M. Brown: 2000, ‘Moral Person and Moral Manager: How Executives Develop a Reputation for Ethical Leadership’, California Management Review 42(4), 128-142.Google Scholar
  66. Tyler, T. R.: 1999, ‘Why People Cooperate in Organizations: An Identity-Based Perspective’, in B. M. Staw and R. Sutton (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 201–246.Google Scholar
  67. . Wubben, M. J. J., D. De Cremer and E. Van Dijk: 2009, ‘When and How Communicated Guilt Affects Contributions in Public Good Dilemmas’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45(1), 15-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niek Hoogervorst
    • 1
  • David De Cremer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marius van Dijke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business-Society Management, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus Centre of Behavioural EthicsErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.London Business SchoolLondonU.K.

Personalised recommendations