The suspension of morality in organisations: Conceptualising organisational moral disengagement and testing its role in relation to unethical behaviours and silence
Roberta Fida, Irene Skovgaard-Smith, Claudio Barbaranelli, Marinella Paciello, Rosalind Searle, Ivan Marzocchi, Matteo Ronchetti
{"title":"The suspension of morality in organisations: Conceptualising organisational moral disengagement and testing its role in relation to unethical behaviours and silence","authors":"Roberta Fida, Irene Skovgaard-Smith, Claudio Barbaranelli, Marinella Paciello, Rosalind Searle, Ivan Marzocchi, Matteo Ronchetti","doi":"10.1177/00187267241300866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While considerable attention has been devoted to understanding how individual characteristics influence unethical actions, far less research has examined the role of social and organisational processes. We introduce the concept of organisational moral disengagement (OrgMD), drawing on Bandura’s moral agency theory, to explain how unethicality may be fostered in organisations. OrgMD is a multilevel construct, capturing perceptions of the mechanisms through which morality can be suspended in an organisation allowing unethical practices to flourish. Using four empirical studies, we validated OrgMD at both individual and organisational levels. The first three studies were conducted at individual level (Study 1: two waves, 301 workers; Study 2: two waves, 297 workers; Study 3: 297 workers), while the fourth adopted a multilevel design (3050 workers nested in 113 organisations). OrgMD, although highly correlated with personal moral disengagement, emerges as a distinct construct that operates both at individual and organisational levels. We show that when members perceive their organisation to be morally disengaged, they are more likely to engage in unethical pro-organisational behaviour and silence. The concept of OrgMD advances understanding of the social processes through which unethical organisational activities can be normalised as acceptable in organisations.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241300866","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
While considerable attention has been devoted to understanding how individual characteristics influence unethical actions, far less research has examined the role of social and organisational processes. We introduce the concept of organisational moral disengagement (OrgMD), drawing on Bandura’s moral agency theory, to explain how unethicality may be fostered in organisations. OrgMD is a multilevel construct, capturing perceptions of the mechanisms through which morality can be suspended in an organisation allowing unethical practices to flourish. Using four empirical studies, we validated OrgMD at both individual and organisational levels. The first three studies were conducted at individual level (Study 1: two waves, 301 workers; Study 2: two waves, 297 workers; Study 3: 297 workers), while the fourth adopted a multilevel design (3050 workers nested in 113 organisations). OrgMD, although highly correlated with personal moral disengagement, emerges as a distinct construct that operates both at individual and organisational levels. We show that when members perceive their organisation to be morally disengaged, they are more likely to engage in unethical pro-organisational behaviour and silence. The concept of OrgMD advances understanding of the social processes through which unethical organisational activities can be normalised as acceptable in organisations.
期刊介绍:
Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.