Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framing and Organizational Misconduct: A Symbolic Interactionist Study

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

Abstract

This study expands theoretical understanding of organizational misconduct through qualitative analysis of widespread deceptive sales practices at a large U.S. life insurance company. Adopting a symbolic interactionist perspective, this research describes how a set of taken-for-granted interpretive frames located in the organization’s culture created a worldview through which deceptive sales practices were seen as normal, acceptable, routine operating procedure. The findings from this study extend and modify the dominant theoretical ‘pressure/opportunity’ model of organizational misconduct by proposing that the process engine driving misconduct is not amorally rational organization members, but rather is organizational members acting on socially constructed views of the organization that normalize misconduct.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bamberger P. A., Sonnenstuhl W. J. (1998) Introduction. In Bacharach S. B. (ed) Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Deviance in and of Organizations. 15, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, pp. vii–xviii

    Google Scholar 

  • Baucus M. (1994) Pressure, Opportunity and Predisposition: A Multivariate Model of Corporate Illegality. Journal of Management 20(4): 699–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baucus M. S., Near J. P. (1991). Can Illegal Corporate Behavior be Predicted? An Event History Analysis. Academy of Management Journal 34(1): 9–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baucus M. P. and L. Rechner. 1995. Framing and Reframing: A Process Model of Ethical Decision-Making. Paper presented at the International Association for Business and Society Proceedings, Vienna, Austria

  • Blumer H. (1969) Symbolic Interaction: Perspective and Method. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinard, M. B.: 1983, Corporate ethics and crime: The role of middle management (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA)

  • Clinard M. B., Yeager P. C. (1980) Corporate Crime. New York City: The Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran P. L., Nigh D. (1987) Illegal Corporate Behavior and the Question of Moral Agency: An Empirical Examination. In Fredereick W. C. (ed) Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. 9, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 73–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J. W. (1995) Motivation and Opportunity: Understanding the Causes of White-Collar Crime. In Geis G., Meier R. F., Salinger L. M. (eds) White-Collar Crime: Classic and Contemporary Views. New York City: The Free Press, pp. 360–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J. W., Ramos L. L. (1998) Subcultures and Deviant Behavior in the Organizational Context. In Bamberger P. A., Sonnenstuhl W. J. (eds) Deviance in and of Organizations. 15, Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc. pp. 3–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Daboub A. J., Rasheed A. M. A, Priem R. L., Gray D. A. (1995) Top Management Team Characteristics and Corporate Illegal Activity. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 138–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman R. M. (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst G. T., Sarr R. A. (1996) The art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine G. A. (1992) Agency, Structure and Comparative Contexts: Towards a Synthetic Interactionism. Symbolic Interaction 15(1): 87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finney H. C., Lesieur H. R. (1982) A Contingency Theory of Organizational Crime. In Bacharach S. B. (ed) The Sociology of Organizations. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 255–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiol M. C. (1995) Corporate Communications: Comparing Executives’ Private and Public Statements. Academy of Management Journal 38(2): 522–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson W. A., Lasch K. E. (1983) The Political Culture of Social Welfare Policy. In Spiro S. E., Yuchtman-Yaar E. (eds) Evaluating the Welfare State: Social and Political Perspectives. New York City: Academic Press, pp. 397–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellerman S. W. (1986) Why “Good” Managers Make Bad Ethical Choices. Harvard Business Review 64(4): 85–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia D. A., Chittipeddi K. (1991) Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 433–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B., Strauss A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill C. W. L., Kelly P. C., Agle B., Hitt M., Hoskisson R. E. (1992) An Empirical Examination of the Causes of Corporate Wrongdoing the United States. Human Relations 45(10): 1055–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill R. C., Levenhagen M. (1995) Metaphors and Mental Models: Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Innovative and Entrepreneurial Activities. Journal of Management 21(6): 1057–1074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. 1997. Perpetrators in the marketplace: A review of empirical research in corporate crime. http://blue.temple.edu/∼eastern/jones.html

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles M. B., Huberman M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. (2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad P. (1993) Symbolic Processes in the Implementation of Technological Change. Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1400–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. W. and J. M. Bartunek. 1998. What recipients of change construct: How sensemaking mediates assessments of a shared governance initiative. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA

  • Scism L. (1996) Prudential Agrees to Further Reforms as Part of Major Pact with Regulators. Wall Street Journal 28: 5C

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson S. S. (1986) The Decomposition of Antitrust: Testing a Multi-Level, Longitudinal Model of Profit-Squeeze. American Sociological Review 51: 859–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein E. H. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele D. A. (1999) Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication 49(1): 102–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A., Corbin J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Szwajkowski E. (1985) Organizational Illegality: Theoretical Integration and Illustrative Application. Academy of Management Review 10(3): 558–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szwajkowski E. (1986) The Myths and Realities of Research on Organizational Misconduct. In Post J. E. (ed) Central Themes in CSR Research. 8, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 121–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Tensbrunsel A. E., Messick D. M. (1999) Sanctioning Systems, Decision Frames, and Cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(4): 684–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan D. (1983) Controlling Unlawful Organizational Behavior: Social Structure and Corporate Misconduct. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan D. (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan D. (1999) The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 271–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witherspoon P. D., Wohlert K. L. (1996) An Approach to Developing Communication Strategies for Enhancing Organizational Diversity. Journal of Business Communication 33(4): 375–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Suffolk University School of Management, 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA, 0208, USA

    Tammy L. MacLean

Authors
  1. Tammy L. MacLean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tammy L. MacLean.

Additional information

Tammy L. MacLean is an assistant professor of management at Suffolk University in Boston, Massachusetts. She teaches in the areas of organizational behavior and managing diversity. Her research interests include how the process of decoupling organizational policies and programs from core organizational functions affects organizational behavior. Her research has been published in academic journals such as Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Journal of Management Inquiry, and Business & Society. She received a Ph.D. in Organization Studies in 2001 from Boston College.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacLean, T.L. Framing and Organizational Misconduct: A Symbolic Interactionist Study. J Bus Ethics 78, 3–16 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9324-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9324-x

Key words

Search

Navigation