Advertisement

Complicity in Organizational Deviance: The Role of Internal and External Unethical Pressures

  • Anne Sachet-Milliat
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 68)

Abstract

Sociological research in organizational deviance, specifically in the area of corporate crime, has shown how deviant behaviors (frauds and unethical behaviors) are not only restricted to individuals but also to organizations. The objective of our research is to study how organizational deviance can be spread and institutionalized throughout corporate hierarchies. In order for organizational deviance to exist, be institutionalized and accepted, it must get the active or passive complicity not only from organizational members but also from institutions in charge of defining the external-legal and ethical norms. Deviant organizations and their leaders use unethical and pressured management practice in their internal and institutional environment so as to change the norms of individuals’ behaviors and also to transform societal norms in order for their actions to be legal and even be perceived as being legitimate. The concept of social influence will be used to analyze the different forms of internal and external unethical pressures which help organizational deviant leaders implement them. Social influence uses various techniques such as incentives, manipulation, peer pressure, and authority. Political influence strategies carried out by deviant organizations will also be highlighted in order to understand how these organizations get the complicity of their institutional environment.

Keywords

Social Influence Unethical Behaviour Deviant Behaviour Moral Intensity Corporate Crime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anan, V., B.E. Ashford, and M. Joshi. 2004. Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive 18(2): 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anquetil, A. 2003. Dilemmes éthiques en entreprise: le rôle de la faiblesse de la volonté dans la décision des cadres, Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences cognitives, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, juin.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. 1963. Eichman in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York: The Viking Press.Google Scholar
  4. Babeau, O. 2006. La transgression ordinaire des règles dans les cabinets de conseil en management. In Recherches en Management et Organisation, ed. M. Kalika and P. Romelaer. Economica, 245–260.Google Scholar
  5. Babeau, O., and J.-F. Chanlat. 2008. La transgression, une dimension oubliée de l’organisation. Revue Française de Gestion, no 183: 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauvois, J.L., and R.V. Joule. 1987. Petit traité de manipulation à l’usage des honnêtes gens, Presses universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  7. Bédard, L., Déziel J., and Lamarche L. 1999. Introduction à la psychologie sociale. ERPI.Google Scholar
  8. Ciran, O. 2013. Au Bangladesh les meurtriers du prêt-à-porter. Le Monde Diplomatique (June).Google Scholar
  9. Clinard, M.B. 1983. Corporate ethics and crime. USA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Clinard, M.B., and P.C. Yeager. 1979. Illegal corporate behaviour. Washington DC: US Government Printing office.Google Scholar
  11. Clinard, M.B., and P.C. Yeager. 1980. Corporate crime. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Courpasson, D., and J.-C. Thoenig. 2008. Quand les cadres se rebellent. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
  13. Cressey, D.R. 1986. Why managers commit fraud. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 19: 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dejours, C. 1998. Souffrance en France. La banalisation de l’injustice sociale. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  15. Donaldson, T., and T. Dunfee. 1994. Toward unified conception of business ethics: contracts theory. Academy of Management Review 19: 252–284.Google Scholar
  16. Ermann, M.D., and R.J. Lundman. 1978. Deviant acts by complex organizations: Deviance and social control at the organizational level of analysis. The Sociological Quarterly 19(Winter): 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ermann, M.D., and R.J. Lundman. 2002. Corporate and governmental deviance, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gross, E. 1978. Organizational crime: A theoretical perspective. In Studies in symbolic interaction, ed. Denzin. Greenwood, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  19. Halimi, S. 2002. Un scandale presque légal. Enron symbole d’un système. Le Monde Diplomatique (March).Google Scholar
  20. Hilberg, R. 1985. The Nazi Holocaust. Using bureaucracies and overcoming psychological barriers to genocide. In The destruction of the European Jews, by Raul Hilberg. New York: Holmes & Meier (Reprinted by permission in Ermann M.D. and Lundman R.J. (Eds), Corporate and Governmental Deviance, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, 167–188).Google Scholar
  21. Hollinger, R.C., and J.P. Clark. 1982. Formal and informal controls of employee deviance. The Sociological Quaterly 23(summer): 333–343.Google Scholar
  22. Honoré, L. 2012. Les jeux des normes et de la déviance. Etude du fonctionnement de services de néonatologie. Dossier Déviance et Management, Humanisme et Entreprise 306: 69–84 (January/February).Google Scholar
  23. Jones, T. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review 16(2): 366–396.Google Scholar
  24. Kelman, H.C., and V.L. Hamilton. 1989. The My Lai massacre. Crimes of obedience and sanctioned massacres, From Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility, Yale University Press (Reprinted by permission in Ermann M.D. and Lundman R.J. (Eds), Corporate and Governmental Deviance, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, 195–222).Google Scholar
  25. Kohlberg, L. 1969. Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In Moral development and behaviour: theory, research, and social issues, T. Lickona, 170–205.Google Scholar
  26. Leleux, C. 2003. Théorie du développement moral chez Lawrence Kohlberg et ses critiques (Gilligan et Habermas). In Pour une éducation postnationale, ed. J.-M. Ferry and B. Libois, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, coll. “Philosophie et société”, Bruxelles, 111–128.Google Scholar
  27. Louart, P. 2012. Introduction. Déviance et Management - Régulations, stigmatisations, émergences créatives. Humanisme et Entreprise 306: 1–8 (January/February).Google Scholar
  28. Mc Donald G., and P.C. Pak. 1996. It’s all fair in love, war and business: Cognitive philosophies in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 973–996.Google Scholar
  29. Miceli, M., and J. Near. 1997. Whistleblowing as antisocial behavior. In Antisocial behavior in organizations, ed. R.A. Giacalone and Greenberg, 130–149. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Milgram, S. 1965. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience. Human Relations 18: 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers not MBAs. A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Berett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Monin, P. 2008. Légitimité, déviance, délits. Retour sur l’affaire Société Générale. Entretien avec Peter Wirtz. Revue Française de Gestion 183: 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Myers, D.G. 2006. Psychologie sociale pour managers. Adapted by Nicolas Guégen. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  34. Pesqueux, Y., and Y. Biéfnot. 2002. L’éthique des affaires. Management par les valeurs et la responsabilité sociale, Editions d’Organisation, Paris.Google Scholar
  35. Pierson, F. 2011. Pour un apprentissage de la lutte et de la résistance des cadres pour limiter la souffrance au travail: les apports de la théorie de la reconnaissance d’Axel Honneth, M@n@gement, 2011/5, vol 14, 352–370.Google Scholar
  36. Prompsy, J.-J. 2000. La cour des cadres. Paris: Les Editions de la Nerthe.Google Scholar
  37. Reiss Jr, A.J. 1966. The study of deviant behaviour: Where the action is. Ohio Valley Sociologist 32: 1–12.Google Scholar
  38. Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sachet-Milliat, A. 2005. Ethique et management: pratiques de pression sur les cadres pour obtenir leur collaboration aux actes de délinquance d’affaires, Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, July–August–September, 90–107.Google Scholar
  40. Sachet-Milliat, A. 2010. Les dérives éthiques des stratégies politiques des firmes, vol. 33, 325–345. Management et Avenir (March).Google Scholar
  41. Sachet-Milliat, A. 2012. Déviance organisationnelle: définition, caractéristiques et mécanismes de diffusion, numéro spécial sur Déviance et management de la Revue Humanisme et Entreprise 306: 17–32 (January/February).Google Scholar
  42. Sauviat, C. 2002. Etats-Unis: Enron, une énorme “défaillance de marché. Chronique internationale de l’IRES, vol. 74, 3–12.Google Scholar
  43. Schwartz, H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silver, M., and D. Geller. 1978. On the irrelevance of evil, the organization and individual action. Journal of Social Issues 34: 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stauber, J., and S. Rampton. 2004. Prefaced and completed by R. Lenglet, L’industrie du mensonge: lobbying, communication, publicité et médias. Marseille: Agone (First Edition: Toxic sludge is Good for you: Lies, Damn lies and the Public Relation Industry, Common Courage Press 1995).Google Scholar
  46. Sutherland, E.H. 1940. White collar criminality. American Sociological Review 5(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
  47. Sutherland, E.H. 1983. White collar crime, the uncut version. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. United States Senate. 2002. The role of the board of Directors in Enron’s collapse, Report prepared by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, July 8, 107th Congress, 2d Session, S.PRT 107–70, US Government Printing Office, Washington.Google Scholar
  49. Vandiver, K. 1972. Why should my conscience bother me. In In the Name of Profit, by Robert Heilbroner, Doubleday, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., (Reprinted by permission in Ermann M.D. and Lundman R.J. (Eds), Corporate and Governmental Deviance, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, 146–166).Google Scholar
  50. Warren, D.E. 2003. Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. The Academy of management Review 28(4): 622–632.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISC Paris Business SchoolParisFrance

Personalised recommendations