Incumplimiento organizativo: Un ensayo teórico sobre la maleabilidad del curso de acción de las decisiones éticas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19094/contextus.2021.61435Palabras clave:
ética del comportamiento, ética burocrática, teoría del control social, proceso de toma de decisions, incumplimiento organizativoResumen
En este ensayo teórico, presentamos una reflexión sobre las irregularidades organizacionales (irregularidades), considerando la ética y la moral desde una perspectiva sociológica, y explorando las reglas utilizadas para guiar el comportamiento humano en la toma de decisiones organizacionales. Con este fin, revisamos las perspectivas sociológicas dominantes y emergentes para las irregularidades organizacionales; ética del comportamiento; y la racionalización del comportamiento poco ético en las organizaciones. En esta reflexión, nos alejamos del pensamiento implícito de que los participantes de la organización están regulados únicamente por agentes de control externos y de la visión dicotómica de las decisiones éticas, y llamamos la atención por una tercera alternativa: la de las elecciones socialmente justificadas, que son una nueva posibilidad de analizar las irregularidades, aún poco comprendidas y con implicaciones para la teoría organizacional.
Citas
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
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Os autores, no ato da submissão, aceitam a declaração abaixo:
Nós autores mantemos sobre nosso artigo publicado os direitos autorais e concedemos à revista Contextus o direito de primeira publicação, com uma licença Creative Commons na modalidade Atribuição – Não Comercial 4.0 Internacional, a qual permite o compartilhamento com reconhecimento da autoria e da publicação inicial nesta revista.
Temos ciência de estarmos autorizados a assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), também com reconhecimento tanto da autoria, quanto da publicação inicial neste periódico.
Atestamos que o artigo é original ou inédito, não foi publicado, até esta data, em nenhum periódico brasileiro ou estrangeiro, quer em português, quer em versão em outra língua, nem está encaminhado para publicação simultânea em outras revistas.
Sabemos que o plágio não é tolerado pela revista Contextus e asseguramos que o artigo apresenta as fontes de trechos de obras citadas, incluindo os de qualquer trabalho prévio produzido e publicado pelos próprios autores.