Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 126, Issue 4, pp 531–539 | Cite as

Ethical Decision Making and Leadership: Merging Social Role and Self-Construal Perspectives

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This research extends our understanding of ethical decision making on the part of leaders by merging social role and self-construal perspectives. Interdependent self-construal is generally seen as enhancing concern for justice and moral values. Across two studies, we tested the prediction that non-leading group members’ interdependent self-construal would be associated with lower levels of unethical decision making on behalf of their group but that, in contrast, this relationship would be weaker for leaders, given their social role. These predictions were experimentally tested by assigning participants to the role of leader or non-leading group member, and assessing the association between their interdependent self-construal and their unethical decision making. Across both studies, interdependence predicted less unethical decision making on behalf of one’s group for non-leading group members. However, the leader role was shown to weaken, and even reverse, this relationship. This research demonstrates that self-construal influences group-based ethical decision making, but that the nature of this influence is moderated by social role.

Keywords

Ethics Group-based decision making Interdependent self-construal Leadership Social roles 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge and thank Andrew Benford, Justin Jackson, and Heather Schmitz for their contributions to this research.

References

  1. Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, D., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506–520. doi: 10.1037/h0037130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.Google Scholar
  4. Brockner, J., Chen, Y., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. (2000). Culture and procedural justice: When the effects of what you do depend upon how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 138–159. doi: 10.2307/2666982.Google Scholar
  5. Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., van den Bos, K., & Chen, Y. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 155–167. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration. Group Dynamics, 4(1), 27–43. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cojuharenco, I., Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M., & Schminke, M. (2012). Self-construal and unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10551-01101139-8.Google Scholar
  8. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawson, L. (1997). Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1143–1152. doi: 10.1023/A:1005721916646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374–391. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736–741. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 37–50. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forsyth, D. R., & Nye, J. L. (2008). Seeing and being a leader: The perceptual, cognitive, and interpersonal roots of conferred influence. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 116–131). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are “we,” you are no longer threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 239–251. doi:  10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.239.
  17. Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445–459. doi: 10.1037/a0026406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gollwitzer, M., & Bucklein, K. (2007). Are “we” more punitive than “me”? Self-construal styles, justice-related attitudes, and punitive judgments. Social Justice Research, 20, 457–478. doi: 10.1007/s11211-007-0051-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12, 157–159. doi: 10.2307/258001.Google Scholar
  20. Hannover, B., & Kühnen, U. (2004). Culture, context and cognition: The semantic-procedural-interface model of the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 297–333. doi: 10.1080/10463280440000053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes, A. F. (2013). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  22. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoyt, C. L., Goethals, G. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (2008). Leadership and psychology (Vol. 1). In J. Ciulla’s (Ed.), Leadership at the crossroads. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  24. Hoyt, C. L., Price, T. L., & Emrick, A. E. (2010). Leadership and the more-important-than-average effect: Overestimation of group goals and the justification of unethical behavior. Leadership, 6(4), 391–407. doi: 10.1177/1742715010379309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoyt, C. L., Price, T., & Poatsy, L. (2013). The social role theory of unethical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 712–723. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field: Ecological validity or abstraction of essential elements. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 3–9). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  28. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Messick, D. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2005). The psychology of leadership: New perspectives and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of personal and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.042902.130709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Price, T. (2006). Understanding ethical failures in leadership. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Price, T. L. (2008). Leadership ethics: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader power and leader self-serving behavior: The role of effective leadership beliefs and performance information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 922–933. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 20, 580–591. doi: 10.1177/0146167294205014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H., Sharkey, W. F., & Lai, K. S. Y. (1999). Unpackaging culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrassability: The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Van den Bos, K. (2009). We blame innocent victims more than I do: Self-construal level moderates responses to just world threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1528–1539. doi: 10.1177/0146167209344728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiltermuth, S. (2011). Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 157–168. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zacarro, S. J., Gulick, L. M. V., & Khare, V. P. (2008). Personality and leadership. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 13–29). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jepson School of Leadership Studies and Department of PsychologyUniversity of RichmondRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Jepson School of Leadership Studies and Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law (PPEL)University of RichmondRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations