مفهوم‌شناسی رفتار غیراخلاقی سازمان‌یار با رویکرد مرور سیستماتیک

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری مدیریت دولتی، موسسه عالی آموزش و پژوهش مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

4 استادیار مدیریت بازرگانی بین‌المللی، موسسه عالی آموزش و پژوهش مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

     بیشتر سازمان‌ها شاهد وقوع رفتارهای غیراخلاقی هستند، اما اغلب شکلی از رفتارهای غیراخلاقی مورد غفلت گرفته است. نوعی خاص از رفتارهای غیراخلاقی با هدف رساندن منفعت به سازمان و اعضای آن صورت می­گیرد و با عنوان رفتارهای غیراخلاقی سازمان­یار مشهور است. بنابراین هدف اصلی مقاله پیش‌رو، «شناسایی چیستی رفتار غیراخلاقی سازمان­یار» بوده و این پرسش مطرح شده است که «رفتار غیراخلاقی سازمان­یار چیست؟» با توجه به اکتشافی بودن موضوع پژوهش حاضر، امکان ارائه پاسخ اولیه یا طرح فرضیه­ای متناسب با پرسش فوق وجود ندارد و دستیابی به پاسخ نهایی، با بهره­گیری از رویکرد مرور سیستماتیک صورت پذیرفته است. جهت گردآوری اطلاعات، با جستجوی کلیدواژه­هایی مانند رفتار غیراخلاقی سازمان­یار، رفتار شهروندی مضر، بدهای ضروری، قانون­شکنی خیرخواهانه، رفتار غیرقانونی شرکتی، سوءرفتار سازمانی و غیره در پایگاه­های اطلاعاتی معتبر، تعداد 50 مقاله  بین سال­های 1958 تا 2017 جمع­آوری شد. تفسیر و تحلیل یافته­های پژوهش نشان داد که مشخصه­های رفتار غیراخلاقی سازمان­یار عبارتند از: نقض هنجارهای اجتماعی اصلی و آداب و رسوم، نقض قوانین، نقض استانداردهای رفتار درست و اخلاقی، ارادی و خودآگاه، هدف آن انتفاع سازمان یا اعضای آن و گنجانده نشدن در شرح شغلی افراد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

"Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior" Conceptualization (systematic review approach)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamed Abbaspour 1
  • Mirali Seyed Naghavi 2
  • Hasan Abedi Jafari 3
  • Mehdi Rasouli Ghahroudi 4
1 Public Management Ph.D., Public Administration Department, Institute for management and planning studies (IMPS), Tehran, Iran
2 Associated Professor, Public Administration Department, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Public Administration Department, Faculty of Management, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Assistant Professor in International Business Management, Institute for Management and Planning Studies (IMPS), Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Abstract
In recent years, organizational researchers have been focusing on other types of Unethical behaviors called "Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior (UPB)". Although the nature of the unethical behavior is negative, UPB is different because the purpose of this behavior is to benefit the organization. Our goal in this research is to identify the exact boundaries of UPB, so that the concept of this behavior can be clearly identified. We use systematic review method with searching valid key words such as: Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior, detrimental citizenship behavior, Necessary Evils, Pro- Social Rule Breaking, Illegal corporate behavior, organizational misbehavior and etc. in these databases: Science Direct, Emerald, Sage, Academy of Management Journal and etc. Accordingly, 50 articles were collected between 1958 and 2017, and similar concepts were compared with unethical pro-organizational behavior. The results showed that there is a definite and specific conceptual boundary between Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior and similar concepts.
Introduction
Existing research has examined the impact of individual characteristics, organizational characteristics and moral events on the incidence of immoral behaviors. But they mainly focus on unethical behaviors such as stealing from the organization, damaging the equipment of the organization, etc., which harm the organization's interests (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Trevino et al., 2006), and the behaviors that Violating ethical concepts, ignoring laws, regulations and social values ​​in favor of the organization has been underestimated. These kinds of behaviors are called “Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior (UPB)” (Umpheress & Bingham, 2011).
Case study
In order to select articles, a list of titles and abstract of all articles were prepared by the researcher and examined in order to determine the relevant topics. Then related articles entered the research process independently of all cases. At first, 142 articles were selected and reviewed, 47 of which were repeated. Of the 95 papers reviewed, 22 articles were excluded due to non-compliance with the criteria of this review. Also, 23 articles were omitted from the study process because they did not explicitly refer to the concept of UPB. Finally, 50 papers were selected for analysis and review.
Materials and Methods
We use systematic review method with searching valid key words such as: Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior, detrimental citizenship behavior, Necessary Evils, Pro- Social Rule Breaking, Illegal corporate behavior, organizational misbehavior and etc. in these databases: Science Direct, ProQuestDiscovery, Ebrary, EbscoAll, Libgen, Springer, Emerald, Jstor, Wiley, Sage, Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Psychological Science and etc.
Discussion and Results
In order to conceptualizing unethical pro-organizational behaviour in this study, 50 articles that were conducted between years from 1958 to 2017 were investigated. An unethical pro-organizational behavior is a relatively new concept. Unethical pro-organizational behavior includes actions that are illegal or contrary to the values and norms of the community.
Unethical pro-organizational behavior has a dual concept. In any case, considered to be unethical in terms of society, it may have a good purpose (for example, the benefit of an organization) and have a moral justification (Goal, justifies the means). This kind of behavior is the same as Arendt (1945) describes in his article: "Organized crime and Global Responsibility." In this paper, he analyzes why individuals act irresponsibly and limit their wide community to the benefit of their organization. Employees can set up a rigid framework without regard to the external environment (Peloza and Shang, 2011) and create a small moral world that is likely outside of the organization, the world cannot survive (Brief et al., 2000: 484). In this case, morality is a function of rationalism that is instrumental in helping the organization to achieve its goals (Bauman, 1991). 
Researcher's investigation of information sources suggests that unethical pro-organizational behavior with concepts such as Illegal corporate behavior (Baucus & Baucus, 1997), necessary evils (Molinsky and Margolis, 2005), organizational misbehavior (Vardi & Weitz, 2004), positive deviance (Warren, 2003) and pro-social rule-breaking (Morrison, 2006) have important differences, although they have somewhat similarities.
Conclusion
It can be discussed that if the behavior has any of the following characteristics, it is excluded from the involvement of unethical pro-organizational behavior and cannot be considered as this Type of behavior:
v  Included in job descriptions;
v  Include ethical actions;
v  Also done in an involuntary manner;
v  To benefit community;
v  In line with the norms of society;
v  Self-interest;
v  Damage to the organization;
v  Roots in the theory of reasoned conduct and the theory of social information processing;
v  Violate the rules and norms of the organization;
v  Harm to the interests of shareholders.
In fact, it can be argued that behaviors that occur in the organization, if they include the following characteristics, that is, include all of the features mentioned at the same time, are categorized as unethical pro-organizational behavior. These features include (Barnt (2017), Tsiwa (2016), Chen et al (2016), Levin and Schweitzer (2015 and 2014), Gino, Ayal and Aryli (2013), Palmer (2012), Umphress and Bingham (2011), Umphress et al. (2010), Gino and Pierce (2009), Scott (2003), Donaldson and Dunfee (1994), Jones (1991)):
v  Violate core societal values, mores and laws;
v  Violate standards of proper conduct and ethics;
v  Voluntary and self-conscious;
v  To the benefit of the organization or its members, not the self;
v  Achieving the goal is essential;
v  It is not mandatory to violate the norms within the organization;
v  Not included in job descriptions;
v  Rooted in the theory of social exchange.
The main concept of unethical pro-organizational behaviors is that these behaviors must necessarily violate the norms, rules, or standards of proper and ethical conduct (Umphress and Bingham, 2011). That is, if behavior is in line with norms, laws, or standards of behavior of the community, they will be excluded from the scope of these behaviors. Unethical pro-organizational behaviors must be done deliberately and voluntarily, and its purpose must necessarily be to benefit the organization, the staff of the organization, or both, and this goal should occur during this behavior. This behavioral phenomenon is rooted in social exchange theory and is not included in the person's job description, meaning that the organization or its directors do not formally and explicitly issue any instructions to employees to do so. Finally, it is not necessary to violate the norms of the organization in order to behavior classified as an unethical pro-organizational behavior.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Organizational Behavior
  • Unethical pro-organizational Behavior
  • Conceptualization
  • systematic review approach
1-Arendt, H. (1994 [1945]). 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.
2-Asare, S. K., Wright, A. (1995), “Normative and Substantive Expertise in Multiple Hypotheses Evaluation,” Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 171–184.
3-Ashforth, B. E., V. Anand. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. R. M. ramer, B. M. Staw, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25. Elsevier Science, Boston, 1–52.
4-Barnet, E. A., (2017). Bad Behavior with Good Intentions: The Role of Organizational Climate in Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior, Clemson University Tiger Prints, MA. Thesis.
5-Baucus, M. S., & Baucus, D.A. (1997). Paying the piper: An empirical examination of longer-term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 129-151.
6-Bauman, Z. (1991). Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
7-Bazerman, M. H., & Gino, F. (2012). Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 85–104.
8-Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S., L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.
9-Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
10-Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 898–909.
11-Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97.
12-Brief, A. P., R. T. Buttram, J. M. Dukerich. (2001). Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. M. E. Turner, eds. Groups at Work: Theory and Research. Applied Social Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 471–499.
13-Burton, J. P., Holtom, B. C., Sablynski, C. J., Mitchell, T. R., and Lee, T. W. (2010). The buffering effects of job embeddedness on negative shocks, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76 (1), 42–51.
14-Butterfield, K. D., L. K. Treviño, G. R. Weaver. (2000). Moral awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53(7), 981–1018.
15-Charness, G., Masclet, D., & Villeval, M. C. (2013). The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, 60(1), 38–55.
16-Chen, Mo, Chen Chao C. and Oliver J. S. (2016). Relaxing Moral Reasoning to Win: How Organizational Identification Relates to Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (8), 1082-1096.
17-Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516(7529), 86–89.
18-Cropanzano, R., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justice and behavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 193–233.
19-Cropanzano, R., D. E. Rupp, C. J. Mohler, M. S. (2001). Three roads to justice. G. R. Ferris, ed. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20 (2), 1–113.
20-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, 11 (2), 107–119.
21-DeScioli, P., Massenkoff, M., Shaw, A., Petersen, M. B., & Kurzban, R. (2014). Equity or equality? Moral judgments follow the money. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281, 101-112.
22-Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management review, 20(1), 65- 91.
23-Donaldson, T., T. W. Dunfee. (1994), Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Acad. Management Rev. 19(2) 252–284.
24-Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 436–449.
25-Edelman, B., & Larkin, I. (2015). Social comparisons and deception across workplace hierarchies: Field and experimental evidence. Organization Science, 26(1), 78–98.
26-Effelsberg, D., Solga, M. and Gurt, J. (2014), Transformational leadership and follower’s unethical behaviour for the benefit of the company: A two-study investigation, Journal of Business Ethics, 120 (1), 81–93.
27-Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28-Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1153–1160.
29-Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2013). Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 93, 285–292.
30-Iezzoni, L. I., Rao, S. R., DesRoches, C. M., Vogeli, C., & Campbell, E. G. (2012). Health Affairs, 31(2), 383–391.
31-Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.
32-Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31.
33-Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2014). Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 107–117.
34-Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88–106.
35-Lu, J. G., Zhang T., Rucker, D., Galinsky, A. D. (2017). On the Distinction between Unethical and Selfish Behavior, Columbia Business School, 1-26.
36-March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958), Organizations. New York: Wiley.
37-Miao, Q., Newman, A., Yu, J. and Xu, L. (2013), The relationship between ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behaviour: Linear or curvilinear effects? Journal of Business Ethics, 116 (3), 641–53.
38-Michie, S., & West, M. A. (2004). Managing people and performance: An evidence based framework applied to health service. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(2), 91–111.
39-Molinsky, A. J. Margolis. (2005). Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 30(2): 245–268.
40-Moore, C. (2008) Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 129-139.
41-Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32, 5–28.
42-Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
43-Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. B. M. Staw L. L. Cummings, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.
44-Palmer, D. (2012). Normal organizational wrongdoing: A critical analysis of theories of misconduct in and by organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45-Peloza, J. & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review, Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 39(1), 117-135.
46-Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H., (2013). Detrimental citizenship behavior: A multilevel framework of antecedents and consequences. Management and Organization Review, 11(1), 69-99.
47-Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086–4091.
48-Pinto, J., C. R. Leana, F. K. Pil. 2008. Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Acad. Management Rev. 33(3) 685– 9.
49-Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumer’s value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368.
50-Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
51-Scott, E., D. (2003). Plane truth: A qualitative study of employee dishonesty in the airline industry. J. Bus. Ethics, 42(4), 321–337.
52-Shu, X. (2015), Contagion Effect of Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior among Members within Organization, Metallurgical and Mining Industry, No. 5.
53-Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 207-224). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
54-Sumit K., G. (2017). The direct and interactive effects of job insecurity and job embeddedness on unethical proorganizational behaviour: an empirical examination, Personnel Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2015-0126.
55-Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M. S. and Pillutla, M. M. (2015), Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behaviour, Journal of Applied Psychology, 10 (1), 98–113.
56-Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). Ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660.
57-Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R. & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990.
58-Tsiavia, Nouzra, (2016), Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior (UBP): Concept and Studies Evolution, Science Journal of Business and Management; 4(2): 34-41.
59-Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621-640.
60-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 on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (4), 769–780.
61-Vardi, Y., Weitz, Y. (2004). Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
62-Vardi, Y., Wiener Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organ. Sci., 7(2), 151–165.
63-Warren, D., E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Acad. Management Rev., 28(4), 622–632.
64-Wiltermuth, S. S., Bennett, V. M., and Pierce, L. (2013), Doing as they would do: How the perceived ethical preferences of third-party beneficiaries impact ethical decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122 (2), 280–90.
65-Zawacki-Richter O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., and Buntins K. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. Wiesbaden: Springer.