Investigating When and Why Psychological Entitlement Predicts Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior
- 1.5k Downloads
In this research, we examine the relationship between employee psychological entitlement (PE) and employee willingness to engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB). We hypothesize that a high level of PE—the belief that one should receive desirable treatment irrespective of whether it is deserved—will increase the prevalence of this particular type of unethical behavior. We argue that, driven by self-interest and the desire to look good in the eyes of others, highly entitled employees may be more willing to engage in UPB when their personal goals are aligned with those of their organizations. Support for this proposition was found in Study 1, which demonstrates that organizational identification accentuates the link between PE and the willingness to engage in UPB. Study 2 builds on these findings by examining a number of mediating variables that shed light on why PE leads to a greater willingness among employees to engage in UPB. Furthermore, we explored the differential effects of PE on UPB compared to counterproductive work behavior (CWB). We found support for our moderated mediation model, which shows that status striving and moral disengagement fully mediate the link between PE and UPB. PE was also linked to CWB and was fully mediated by perceptions of organizational justice and moral disengagement.
KeywordsUnethical pro-organizational behavior Psychological entitlement Organizational identification Counterproductive work behavior Status striving Organizational justice Moral disengagement
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Arendt, H. (1994 ). Organized guilt and universal responsibility. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Essays in understanding, 1930–1954: Formation, exile, and totalitarianism (pp. 121–132). New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Bauman, Z. (1991). Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
- Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Publishers.Google Scholar
- Castille, C. M., Bucker, J. M., & Thoroughgood, C. N. (2016). Prosocial citizens without a moral compass? Examining the relationship between Machiavellianism and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3079-9.
- De Cremer, D., van Dijk, E., & Folmer, C. P. R. (2009). Why leaders feel entitled to take more: Feelings of entitlement as a moral rationalization strategy. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 107–119). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Dietz, G., & Gillespie, N. (2012). The recovery of trust: Case studies of organizational failures and trust repair. London: Institute of Business Ethics.Google Scholar
- Dougherty, C. (2007). Bribery trial deepens Siemens woes. New York Times, 13 March.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality (pp. 163–179). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Jordan, P. J., Ramsay, S., & Westerlaken, K. M. (2016). A review of entitlement implications for workplace research. Organizational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1177/2041386616647121.
- Matherne, C. F., III, & Litchfield, S. R. (2012). Investigating the relationship between affective commitment and unethical pro-organizational behaviors: The role of moral identity. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9, 35–46.Google Scholar
- Schmeichel, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Self-regulatory strength. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 84–98). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs influencing unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28, 622–632.Google Scholar