IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbget/v7y2012i1p37-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of forced ranking evaluation of performance on ethical choices: a study of proximal and distal mediators

Author

Listed:
  • Priya Nair Rajeev

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of forced ranking method of performance evaluation on the ethical choices of managers. Evaluation using forced ranking method may cause work pressure and intra-organisational competition, which function as proximal mediators and increase the propensity for moral disengagement. Disengagement, taking on the role of a distal mediator, in turn influences ethical choices. 83 junior and middle level managers, who were randomly assigned to four treatment groups, completed a survey in which they were presented with an assigned vignette followed by a questionnaire that sought to assess their ethical intentions and willingness to report peer infractions. General linear model was used to test proximal and distal mediation. Performance evaluation using forced ranking method influenced ethical intentions but did not impact willingness to report peer infractions. Both relationships were mediated proximally through intra-organisational competition and distally through moral disengagement. By decomposing influences on ethical choices into proximal and distal causes this study demonstrates the intermediate steps through which performance evaluation using forced ranking method affected ethical choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Priya Nair Rajeev, 2012. "Impact of forced ranking evaluation of performance on ethical choices: a study of proximal and distal mediators," International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(1), pages 37-62.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbget:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:37-62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=46104
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:ids:ijbget:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:37-62. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=70 .

    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.