Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 375–390 | Cite as

Considering the Business in Business Ethics: An Exploratory Study of the Influence of Organizational Size and Structure on Individual Ethical Predispositions

  • Marshall Schminke
Article

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between organizational size, structure and the strength of organization members' ethical predispositions. It is hypothesized that individuals in smaller, more flexible, organic organizations will display stronger ethical predispositions. Survey results from 209 individuals across eleven organizations indicate that contrary to expectations, larger, more rigid, mechanistic structures were associated with higher levels of ethical formalism and utilitarianism. Implications of these findings are discussed.

centralization ethics formalism formalization mechanistic organic size structure utilitarianism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agarwal, N. C.: 1979, ‘On the Interchangeability of Size Measures’, Academy of Management Journal 22, 404–409.Google Scholar
  2. Alderson, W.: 1965, Dynamic Marketing Behavior (Irwin, Homewood, IL).Google Scholar
  3. Ashforth, B. E., A. M. Saks and R. T. Lee: 1998, ‘Socialization and Newcomer Adjustment: The Role of Organizational Context’, Human Relations 51, 897–926.Google Scholar
  4. Bentham, J.: 1897, ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in R. E. Dewey and R. H. Hurlbutt III (eds.), An Introduction to Ethics (MacMillan, New York), pp. 226–233.Google Scholar
  5. Blau, P. M. and W. R. Scott: 1962, Formal Organizations (Chandler, San Francisco).Google Scholar
  6. Blau, P. M. and R. A. Schoenherr: 1971, The Structure of Organizations (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
  7. Bommer, M., C. Gratto, J. Gravander and M. Tuttle: 1987, ‘A Behavioral Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making’, Journal of Business Ethics 6, 265–280.Google Scholar
  8. Bowman, E. H. and D. Hurry: 1993, ‘Strategy Through the Options Lens: An Integrated View of Resource Investments and the Incremental Choice Process’, Academy of Management Review 18, 760–782.Google Scholar
  9. Brady, F. N.: 1990, Ethical Managing: Rules and Results (MacMillan, New York).Google Scholar
  10. Brady, F. N. and G. E. Wheeler: 1996, ‘An Empirical Study of Ethical Predispositions’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 927–940.Google Scholar
  11. Brass, D. J.: 1984, ‘Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 29, 518–539.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, S. L. and K. M. Eisenhardt: 1995, ‘Product Development: Past Research, Present Findings, and Future Directions’, Academy of Management Review 20, 343–378.Google Scholar
  13. Brunner, E.: 1957, The Divine Imperative (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
  14. Burns, T. and G. M. Stalker: 1961, The Management of Innovation (Tavistock, London).Google Scholar
  15. Burt, R. S.: 1987, ‘Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion Versus Structural Equivalence’, American Journal of Sociology 92, 1287–1335.Google Scholar
  16. Butler, J.: 1726, ‘Fifteen Sermons Upon Human Nature'. Preface, Sermon II, III, in R. E. Dewey and R. H. Hurlbutt III (eds.), An Introduction to Ethics (MacMillan, New York).Google Scholar
  17. Cavanagh, G. F., D. J. Moberg and M. Velasquez: 1981, ‘The Ethics of Organizational Politics’, Academy of Management Review 6, 363–374.Google Scholar
  18. Courtright, J. A., G. T. Fairhurst and L. E. Rogers: 1989, ‘Interaction Patterns in Organic and Mechanistic Systems’, Academy of Management Journal 32, 773–802.Google Scholar
  19. Donaldson, L.: 1985, In Defence of Organization Theory: A Reply to the Critics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  20. Donaldson, L.: 1995, American Anti-management Theories of Organization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  21. Dubinsky, A. J. and B. Loken: 1989, ‘Analyzing Ethical Decision Making in Marketing’, Journal of Business Research 19, 83–107.Google Scholar
  22. Duncan, R. B.: 1972, ‘Characteristics of Perceived Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty’, Administrative Science Quarterly 17, 313–327.Google Scholar
  23. Eisenhardt, K. M. and B. N. Tabrizi: 1995, ‘Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry’, Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 84–110.Google Scholar
  24. Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ‘A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 49, 87–96.Google Scholar
  25. Ferrell, O. C., L. G. Gresham and J. Fraedrich: 1989, ‘A Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for Marketing’, Journal of Macromarketing 9, 55–64.Google Scholar
  26. Ferrell, O. C. and J. Fraedrich: 1997, Business Ethics (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
  27. Frederickson, J. W.: 1984, ‘The Comprehensiveness of Strategic Decision Processes: Extension, Observations, Future Directions’, Academy of Management Journal 27, 445–466.Google Scholar
  28. Galbraith, J. R.: 1973, Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
  29. Greengard, S.: 1997, ‘50% of Your Employees are Lying, Cheating & Stealing’, Workforce, October, 44–53.Google Scholar
  30. Grove, A. S.: 1996, Only the Paranoid Survive (Doubleday, New York).Google Scholar
  31. Hage, J. and M. Aiken: 1967, ‘Relationship of Centralization to Other Structural Properties’, Administrative Science Quarterly 12, 72–92.Google Scholar
  32. Hage, J. and M. Aiken: 1969, ‘Routine Technology, Social Structure, and Organizational Goals’, Administrative Science Quarterly 14, 366–376.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, R.: 1977, Organization Structure and Process (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
  34. Hall, R. H. and C. R. Tittle: 1966, ‘Bureaucracy and Its Correlates’, American Journal of Sociology 72, 267–272.Google Scholar
  35. Hammer, M. and J. Champy: 1993, Reengineering the Corporation (Harper Business, New York).Google Scholar
  36. Hickson, D. J., D. S. Pugh and D. C. Pheysey: 1969, ‘Operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical Appraisal’, Administrative Science Quarterly 14, 378–397.Google Scholar
  37. Hoffman, J. J.: 1998, ‘Are Women Really More Ethical than Men? Maybe It Depends on the Situation’, Journal of Managerial Issues 10, 60–73.Google Scholar
  38. Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theory of Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Macromarketing 6, 5–16.Google Scholar
  39. Indik, B. P.: 1963, ‘Some Effects of Organization Size on Member Attitudes and Behavior’, Human Relations 16, 369–384.Google Scholar
  40. Ingham, G.: 1970, Size of Industrial Organization and Worker Behavior (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. James, L. R. and A. P. Jones: 1976, ‘Organizational Structure: A Review of Structural Dimensions and Their Relationships with Individual Attitudes and Behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 74–113.Google Scholar
  42. Jones, T. M.: 1991, ‘Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model’, Academy of Management Review 16, 366–395.Google Scholar
  43. Kahn, W. A.: 1990, ‘Toward An Agenda for Business Ethics Research’, Academy of Management Review 15, 311–328.Google Scholar
  44. Kalleberg, A. L. and M. E. Van Buren: 1996, ‘Is Bigger Better? Explaining the Relationship between Organization Size and Job Rewards’, American Sociological Review 61, 47–66.Google Scholar
  45. Kant, I.: 1898, ‘Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals’, in R. E. Dewey and R. H. Hurlbutt III (eds.), An Introduction to Ethics (MacMillan, New York), pp. 174–195.Google Scholar
  46. Khandwalla, P. N.: 1977, The Design of Organizations (Harcourt Brace Jovancovich, New York).Google Scholar
  47. Kimberly, J. R.: 1976, ‘Organizational Size and the Structuralist Perspective: A Review, Critique, and Proposal’, Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 571–597.Google Scholar
  48. Kohlberg, L.: 1981, The Philosophy of Moral Development (Harper and Row, San Francisco).Google Scholar
  49. Kohlberg, L.: 1984, The Psychology of Moral Development (Harper and Row, San Francisco).Google Scholar
  50. Lawrence, P. R.: 1993, ‘The Contingency Approach to Organization Design’, in R. T. Golembiewski (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (Dekker, New York), pp. 9–18.Google Scholar
  51. Lawrence, P. R. and J. W. Lorsch: 1967, Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston).Google Scholar
  52. Luehrman, T. A.: 1998, ‘Investment Opportunities as Real Options: Getting Started on the Numbers’, Harvard Business Review 76, 51–67.Google Scholar
  53. McGrath, R. G.: 1997, ‘A Real Options Logic for Initiating Technology Positioning Investments’, Academy of Management Review 22, 974–996.Google Scholar
  54. McGrath, R. G.: 1999, ‘Falling Forward: Real Options Reasoning and Entrepreneurial Failure’, Academy of Management Review 24, 13–30.Google Scholar
  55. Meyer, M. W.: 1972, ‘Size and the Structure of Organizations: A Causal Model’, American Sociological Review 37, 434–441.Google Scholar
  56. Mill, J. S.: 1863, ‘Utilitarianism’, in R. E. Dewey and R. H. Hurlbutt III (eds.), An Introduction to Ethics (MacMillan, New York), pp. 233–244.Google Scholar
  57. Miller, D.: 1987, ‘Strategy Making and Structure: Analysis and Implications for Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 30, 7–32.Google Scholar
  58. Nadler, D. A. and M. L. Tushman: 1997, Competing by Design (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  59. Nozick, R.: 1981, Philosophical Explanations (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
  60. Oldham, G. R. and J. R. Hackman: 1981, ‘Relationships between Organizational Structure and Employee Reactions: Comparing Alternative Frameworks’, Administrative Science Quarterly 26, 66–83.Google Scholar
  61. Ostroff, F.: 1999, The Horizontal Organization (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  62. Ouchi, W. G.: 1980, ‘Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans’, Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 129–141.Google Scholar
  63. Perrow, C.: 1967, ‘A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations’, American Sociological Review 32, 194–208.Google Scholar
  64. Pfeffer, J.: 1981, Power in Organizations (Pitman, Marshfield, MA).Google Scholar
  65. Pfeffer, J.: 1991, ‘Organization Theory and Structural Perspectives on Management’, Journal of Management 17, 789–803.Google Scholar
  66. Pfeffer, J.: 1997, New Directions for Organization Theory (Oxford, New York).Google Scholar
  67. Pugh, D. S., D. J. Hickson, C. R. Hinings, K. M. Macdonald, C. Turner and T. Lupton: 1963, ‘A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly 8, 289–315.Google Scholar
  68. Pugh, D. S., D. J. Hickson, C. R. Hinings and C. Turner: 1968, ‘Dimensions of Organizational Structure’, Administrative Science Quarterly 13, 65–105.Google Scholar
  69. Rawls, J.: 1955, ‘Two Concepts of Rules’, Philosophical Review 64, 3–32.Google Scholar
  70. Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Theory and Research (Praeger, New York).Google Scholar
  71. Rousseau, D. M.: 1978, ‘Characteristics of Departments, Positions, and Individuals: Contexts for Attitudes and Behavior’, Administrative Science Quarterly 23, 521–540.Google Scholar
  72. Schminke, M., M. L. Ambrose and T. W. Noel: 1997, ‘The Effect of Ethical Frameworks on Perceptions of Organizational Justice’, Academy of Management Journal 40, 1190–1207.Google Scholar
  73. Schminke, M. and D. L. Wells: 1999. ‘Group Processes and Performance and Their Effects on Individuals’ Ethical Frameworks’, Journal of Business Ethics 18, 367–381.Google Scholar
  74. Schoonhoven, C. B.: 1981, ‘Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden within the Language of Contingency “Theory”’, Administrative Science Quarterly 26, 349–377.Google Scholar
  75. Scott, W. R.: 1998, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
  76. Shrader, C. B., J. R. Lincoln and A. N. Hoffman: 1989, ‘The Network Structures of Organizations: Effects of Task Contingencies and Distributional Form’, Human Relations 42, 43–66.Google Scholar
  77. Slevin, D. P. and J. G. Covin: 1997, ‘Strategy Formulation Patterns, Performance, and the Significance of Context’, Journal of Management 23, 189–209.Google Scholar
  78. Spender, J. C. and E. H. Kessler: 1995, ‘Managing the Uncertainties of Innovation’, Human Relations 48, 35–56.Google Scholar
  79. Stevens, F., H. Philipsen and J. Diederiks: 1992, ‘Organization and Professional Predictors of Physician Satisfaction’, Organization Studies 13, 35–49.Google Scholar
  80. Stopford, J. M. and C. W. F. Baden-Fuller: 1994, ‘Corporate Rejuvination’, Journal of Management Studies 27, 399–415.Google Scholar
  81. Thompson, J. D.: 1967, Organizations in Action (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
  82. Treviño, L. K.: 1986, ‘Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model’, Academy of Management Review 11, 601–617.Google Scholar
  83. Treviño, L. K. and G. R. Weaver: 1994, ‘Business ETHICS/BUSINESS Ethics: One Field or Two?’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4, 113–128.Google Scholar
  84. Velasquez, M. G.: 1992, Business Ethics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
  85. Wally, S. and J. R. Baum: 1994, ‘Personal and Structural Determinants of the Pace of Strategic Decision Making’, Academy of Management Journal 37, 932–956.Google Scholar
  86. Weaver, G. R., L. K. Treviño and P. L. Cochran: 1999, ‘Corporate Ethics Practices in the Mid-1990's: An Empirical Study of the Fortune 1000’, Journal of Business Ethics 18, 283–294.Google Scholar
  87. Weber, J.: 1990, ‘Managers’ Moral Reasoning: Assessing Their Responses to Three Moral Dilemmas’, Human Relations 43, 687–702.Google Scholar
  88. Woodward, J.: 1965, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice (Oxford University Press, London).Google Scholar
  89. Yasai-Ardekani, M.: 1989, ‘Effects of Environmental Scarcity and Munificence on the Relationship of Context to Organizational Structure’, Academy of Management Journal 32, 131–156.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marshall Schminke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoU.S.A

Personalised recommendations