Organizational wrongdoing: A theoretical essay on the malleability of the course of action of ethical decisions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19094/contextus.2021.61435Keywords:
behavioral ethics, bureaucratic ethics, theory of social control, decision-making process, organizational wrongdoingAbstract
In this theoretical essay, we present a reflection on organizational irregularities (wrongdoing), considering ethics and morality from a sociological perspective, and exploring the rules used to guide human behavior in organizational decision-making. To this end, we reviewed the dominant and emerging sociological perspectives for organizational wrongdoing; behavioral ethics; and the rationalization of unethical behavior in organizations. In this reflection, we move away from the implicit thought that the organization's participants are regulated only by external control agents and from the dichotomous view of ethical decisions and call the attention for a third alternative: that of socially justified choices, which are a new possibility of analyzing wrongdoing, still poorly understood and with implications for organizational theory.
References
Antunes, M. T. P. A. (2018). Ética (2 ed.). São Paulo: Pearson Education.
Arruda, M. C. C. (2005). South America, Business Ethics. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management (pp.493-497). Blackwell Publishing.
Arruda, M. C. C. (2008). O estado da arte da ética nos negócios. FGV-EAESP: São Paulo. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/bitstream/handle/10438/2950/Rel062008.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Baumhart, R. (1968). Ethics in Business. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2014). A construção social da realidade (36. ed.). Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
Bazerman, M., & Sezer, O. (2016). Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.11.004
Barros, M. J. F., & Passos, E. S. (2000). Remando a favor da maré: Racionalidade instrumental no curso de Administração de Empresas. Organização & Sociedade, 7(19), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-92302000000300011
Black, D. (1976). The Behavior of Law. Nova York: Academic Press.
Black, D. (1998). The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. New York: Academic Press.
Champoux, J. E. (2017). Organizational behavior: Integrating individuals, groups and organizations (5 ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chugh, D., Bazerman, M., & Banaji, M. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In D. Moore, D. Cain, G. Loewenstein, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Conflicts of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy (pp. 74-95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610332.006
Chugh, D., & Kern, M. C. (2016). Ethical learning: releasing the moral unicorn. In D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe & R. Greenwood (Eds.). Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 474-503). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.017
Collins, J., Uhlenbruck, K., & Rodriguez, P. (2009). Why firms engage in corruption: A top management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9872-3
Collins, R. (1975). Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science. New York: Academic Press.
Coser, LA (1967). Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press.
Dias, R. (2014). Sociologia e Ética Profissional. São Paulo: Pearson Education.
Donaldson, T. (1989). Moral minimums for multinationals. Ethics & International Affairs, 3, 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1989.tb00217.x
Dolly, C., & Kern, M. (2016). Ethical learning: releasing the moral unicorn. In D. Palmer, K. Smithcrowe & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Organizational wrongdoing: Keys perspectives and new directions (pp. 474-503). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827
Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2017). Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Boston, USA: Cengage Learning.
Gabbioneta, C., Faulconbridge, J. R., Currie, G., Dinovitzer, R., & Muzio, D. (2019). Inserting professionals and professional organizations in studies of wrongdoing: The nature, antecedents and consequences of professional misconduct. Human Relations, 72(11), 1707-1725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718809400
Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J. E. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 53-107. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416521003654186
Greve, H. R., & Teh, D. (2016). Consequences of organizational misconduct: too much and too little punishmen. In D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe & R. Greenwood (Eds.). Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 370-403). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.014
Hersel, M. C., Helmuth, C. A., Zorn, M. L., Shropshire, C. & Ridge, J. W. (2019). The corrective actions organizations pursue following misconduct: A review and research Agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 547-585. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0090
Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jackall, R. (2010). Morality in Organizations. In S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (Eds.), Handbook of The Sociology of Morality (pp. 203-209). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6896-8
Manning, R., & Anteby, M. (2016). Wrong paths to right: defining morality with or without a clear red line. In D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe & R. Greenwood (Eds.). Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 47-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.004
Moore, C., & Gino, F. (2015). Approach, ability, aftermath: A psychological process framework of unethical behavior at work. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 235-289. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1011522
Muzio, D., Faulconbridge, J., Gabbioneta, C., & Greenwood, R. (2016). Bad apples, bad barrels and bad cellars: A “boundaries” perspective on professional misconduct. In D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 141-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.007
Nunes, T. C., & Nunes, R. S. (2016). Ética empresarial e boas práticas nos negócios: Uma discussão sobre sua incorporação nas matrizes curriculares dos cursos de Administração. Colóquio Internacional de Gestion Universitaria, Arequipa, Peru, 16.
Palmer, D. (2012). Normal organizational wrongdoing: A critical analysis of theories of misconduct in and by organizations. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Palmer, D. (2013). The new perspective on organizational wrongdoing. California Management Review, 56(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fcmr.2013.56.1.5
Palmer, D., Smith-Crowe, K., & Greenwood, R. (Eds.). (2016a). Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827
Palmer, D., Smith-Crowe, K. & Greenwood, R. (2016b).The imbalances and limitations of theory and research on organizational wrongdoing. In D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.002
Pollock, T. G., Mishina, Y., & Seo, Y. (2016). Falling stars: celebrity, infamy, and the fall from (and return to) grace. In D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 235-269). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.010
Prechel, H., & Hou, D. (2016). From market enablers to market participants: Redefining organizational and political-legal arrangements and opportunities for financial wrongdoing,1930s–2000. In D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 77-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.005
Rest, J.R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger
Roulet, T. J. (2019). Sins for some, virtues for others: Media coverage of investment banks’ misconduct and adherence to professional norms during the financial crisis. Human Relations, 72(9), 1436-1463. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872671879940
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision making processes in administrative organizations. New York, USA: The Free Press.
Smith-Crowe, K., & Zhang, T. (2016). On taking the theoretical substance of outcomes seriously: A meta-conversation. In D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions (pp. 17-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.003
Smith-Crowe, K., & Warren, D. E. (2014). The emotion-evoked collective corruption model: The role of emotion in the spread of corruption within organizations. Organization Science, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0896
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306235
Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378-385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.4.378
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors, while doing the submission, accept the notice below:
We authors hold the copyright related to our paper and transfer Contextus journal the right for the first publication with a Creative Commons’ international license of the modality Attribution – Non-commercial 4.0, which in turn allows the paper to be shared providing that both the authorship and the journal’s right for initial release are acknowledged.
Furthermore, we are aware of our permission to take part in additional contracts independently for non-exclusive distribution of the version of our work published in this journal (e.g. publishing it in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), while acknowledging both the authorship and the journal’s initial publication.
We also certify that the paper is original and up to this date has not been released in any other journal, Brazilian or of another nationality, either in Portuguese or another language, as well as it has not been sent for simultaneous publication in other journals.
Last, we not only know that plagiarism is not tolerated by Contextus but also certify the paper presents the sources of passages from cited works, including those authored by ourselves.
