IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v126y2015i4p531-539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical Decision Making and Leadership: Merging Social Role and Self-Construal Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Crystal Hoyt
  • Terry Price

Abstract

This research extends our understanding of ethical decision making on the part of leaders by merging social role and self-construal perspectives. Interdependent self-construal is generally seen as enhancing concern for justice and moral values. Across two studies, we tested the prediction that non-leading group members’ interdependent self-construal would be associated with lower levels of unethical decision making on behalf of their group but that, in contrast, this relationship would be weaker for leaders, given their social role. These predictions were experimentally tested by assigning participants to the role of leader or non-leading group member, and assessing the association between their interdependent self-construal and their unethical decision making. Across both studies, interdependence predicted less unethical decision making on behalf of one’s group for non-leading group members. However, the leader role was shown to weaken, and even reverse, this relationship. This research demonstrates that self-construal influences group-based ethical decision making, but that the nature of this influence is moderated by social role. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Crystal Hoyt & Terry Price, 2015. "Ethical Decision Making and Leadership: Merging Social Role and Self-Construal Perspectives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(4), pages 531-539, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:126:y:2015:i:4:p:531-539
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1974-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-013-1974-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-013-1974-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Irina Cojuharenco & Garriy Shteynberg & Michele Gelfand & Marshall Schminke, 2012. "Self-Construal and Unethical Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(4), pages 447-461, September.
    2. Brockner, Joel & De Cremer, David & van den Bos, Kees & Chen, Ya-Ru, 2005. "The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 155-167, March.
    3. Fehr, Ryan & Gelfand, Michele J., 2010. "When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims' self-construals facilitates forgiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 37-50, September.
    4. Wiltermuth, Scott S., 2011. "Cheating more when the spoils are split," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 157-168, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Johannes Brinkmann, 2019. "The Potential Use of Sociological Perspectives for Business Ethics Teaching," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 273-287, April.
    2. Junya Cai & Taiwen Feng & Wenbo Jiang & Jiapei Li, 2017. "Is Customer Orientation of Employees Sustainable? A Moderated Mediation Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    3. Zhimei Zang & Xiaoyan Wang & Hairu Yang & Chuanming Chen, 2022. "“Be myself” or “Be friends”? Exploring the mechanism between self-construal and sales performance," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(1), pages 82-105, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lamar Pierce & Jason Snyder, 2015. "Unethical Demand and Employee Turnover," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 853-869, November.
    2. Danilov, Anastasia & Biemann, Torsten & Kring, Thorn & Sliwka, Dirk, 2013. "The dark side of team incentives: Experimental evidence on advice quality from financial service professionals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 266-272.
    3. Clarke, Samuel L. & Rhodes, Eric S., 2020. "Entrepreneurial apologies: The mediating role of forgiveness on future cooperation," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 13(C).
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:423-439 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Alyson Byrne & Julian Barling & Kathryne Dupré, 2014. "Leader Apologies and Employee and Leader Well-Being," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 91-106, April.
    6. Annika Hillebrandt & Daniel L. Brady & Maria Francisca Saldanha & Laurie J. Barclay, 2023. "The Paradox of Paranoia: How One’s Own Self-Interested Unethical Behavior Can Spark Paranoia and Reduce Affiliative Behavior Toward Coworkers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 159-173, April.
    7. Behnk, Sascha & Hao, Li & Reuben, Ernesto, 2022. "Shifting normative beliefs: On why groups behave more antisocially than individuals," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    8. Honora, Andreawan & Chih, Wen-Hai & Wang, Kai-Yu, 2022. "Managing social media recovery: The important role of service recovery transparency in retaining customers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    9. Ximena Garcia-Rada & Heather E. Mann & Lars Hornuf & Matthias Sohn & Juan Tafurt & Edwin S. Iversen Jr & Dan Ariely, 2018. "The Adaptive Liar: An Interactionist Approach of Multiple Dishonesty Domains," CESifo Working Paper Series 7215, CESifo.
    10. Valerio Capraro, 2018. "Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 345-355, July.
    11. Nils Köbis & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2021. "Bad machines corrupt good morals," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 679-685, June.
    12. Gino, Francesca & Ayal, Shahar & Ariely, Dan, 2013. "Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 285-292.
    13. Roy, Sanjit Kumar & Balaji, M.S. & Soutar, Geoff & Lassar, Walfried M. & Roy, Rajat, 2018. "Customer engagement behavior in individualistic and collectivistic markets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 281-290.
    14. Jeroen Ven & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Dishonesty under scrutiny," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 86-99, July.
    15. Pollack, Jeffrey M. & Bosse, Douglas A., 2014. "When do investors forgive entrepreneurs for lying?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 741-754.
    16. Xiaowan Lin, 2015. "How does procedural justice climate influence individual outcomes? An affective perspective," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 771-800, September.
    17. Lohse, Tim & Simon, Sven A., 2021. "Compliance in teams – Implications of joint decisions and shared consequences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Grolleau, Gilles & Kocher, Martin G. & Sutan, Angela, 2014. "Cheating and loss aversion: do people lie more to avoid a loss?," Discussion Papers in Economics 21387, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    19. Gilles Grolleau & Martin G. Kocher & Angela Sutan, 2016. "Cheating and Loss Aversion: Do People Cheat More to Avoid a Loss?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3428-3438, December.
    20. Catrine Jacobsen & Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & David Pascual†Ezama, 2018. "Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide To The Dishonesty Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 357-387, April.
    21. Mitkidis, Panagiotis & Ayal, Shahar & Shalvi, Shaul & Heimann, Katrin & Levy, Gabriel & Kyselo, Miriam & Wallot, Sebastian & Ariely, Dan & Roepstorff, Andreas, 2017. "The effects of extreme rituals on moral behavior: The performers-observers gap hypothesis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-7.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:126:y:2015:i:4:p:531-539. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.