Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:04:20.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It’s Lovely at the Top: Hierarchical Levels, Identities, and Perceptions of Organizational Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Linda Klebe Treviño ,
Gary R. Weaver  and
Michael E. Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Senior managers are important to the successful management of ethics in organizations. Therefore, their perceptions of organizational ethics are important. In this study, we propose that senior managers are likely to have a more positive perception of organizational ethics than lower level employees do largely because of their managerial role and their corresponding identification with the organization and need to protect the organization’s image as well as their own identity. By contrast, lower level employees are more likely to be cynical about the organization’s ethics. In order to compare senior managers’ and lower level employees’ perceptions of ethics in the organization, we surveyed randomly selected senior managers and lower level employees in three firms. We found that perceptions of ethics in the organization differed predictably across levels, with senior managers’ perceptions being significantly more positive and lower level employees’ perceptions being more negative. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 233 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. 1988. Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 401–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A.. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaah, I. P., 1992. Social inclusion as a marketing ethics correlate. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 8: 263–95. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacharach, S. B., & Aiken, M.. 1977. Communication in administrative bureaucracies. Academy of Management Journal, 20: 365–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M.. EQS for Windows 5.7b. Multivariate Software Inc.Google Scholar
Bentler, P., & Bonnett, D. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. M.. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Brenner, M. H., & Sigband, N. B. 1973. Organizational communication: An analysis based on empirical data. Academy of Management Journal, 16: 323–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., Treviño, L. K.. and Harrison, D.. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 117–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R.. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. 1957. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64 (2): 123–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, A. 1975. Managerial ethics: A post-Watergate view. Business Horizons, 18: 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinard, M. B. 1983. Corporate ethics and crime: The role of middle management. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Conrath, D. W. 1973. Communications environment and its relationship to organizational structure. Management Science, 20: 586–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. 1998. Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23: 341–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doloff, P. G. 2002. Missionary zeal. Across the Board, April: 26–32.Google Scholar
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the organization: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 442–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethics Resource Center. 2005. National business ethics survey 2005. Washington, D.C.: Ethics Resource Center.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. C. 2000. The Dilbert syndrome. The American Behavioral Scientist, 43: 1286–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. 2003. Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10: 157–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardimon, M. O. 1994. Role obligations. The Journal of Philosophy 91 (7): 333–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. 1988. A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41: 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. A. 2001. Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., & Woodman, R. W. 1998. Organizational behavior, 8th edition. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.Google Scholar
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (2): 131–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. 1995. Evaluating model fit. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications, 76–99. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jablin, F. M. 1979. Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 1201–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackall, R. 1988. Moral mazes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johns, G. 1994. Absenteeism estimates by employees and managers: Divergent perspectives and self-serving perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 229–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, D. L. and Mirvis, P. H.. 1989. The Cynical Americans: Living and Working in an Age of Discontent and Disillusion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966. The social psychology of organizing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. J. 1970. The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In Macaulay, J. & Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: 205–29. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 2002. O’Neill’s list. New York Times Magazine, January 13: 20.Google Scholar
Likert, R. 1961. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M.. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2): 171–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, G. J. and Simmons, J. L. 1978. Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1992 Blowing the whistle. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 492–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. 1974. Information filtration in organizations: Three experiments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11: 253–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, B. Z.. & Schmidt, W. H. 1984. Values and the American manager: An update. California Management Review, 26: 202–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, B. Z.. & Schmidt, W. H. 1992. Values and the American manager: An update updated. California Management Review, Spring: 80–94.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. 2000. Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25 (2): 18–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, M. G., & Rafaeli, A. 1997. Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Academy of Management Journal, 409: 862–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, A., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. 2005. The effects of the moral self on perceptions of and preferences for giving time vs. money: A social identity perspective. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Reingold, J. 2000. Special report: Executive pay. Business Week, April 17: 100–12.Google Scholar
Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. 2000. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25: 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpe, R. T. 1987. Stability and change in self: A structural symbolic interactionist explanation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50 (2): 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, M. E. 1971. Group dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Smircich, L., & Chesser, R. J. 1981. Superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of performance: Beyond disagreement. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, R. C. 1992. Corporate roles, personal virtues: An Aristotelian approach to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 2/3: 317–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stryker, S. 1980. Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Stryker, S.. 1987. The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50: 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. 1982. Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: Theory and research example. In Ickes, W. & Knowles, E. S. (Eds.), Personality, roles and social behavior, 199–218. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1979 An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations: 33–47. Monterey: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K. 1992. The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17: 647–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., & Ball, G. A. 1992. The social implications of punishing unethical behavior: Observers’ cognitive and affective reactions. Journal of Management, 18: 751–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. 2003. A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56 (2): 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. B., & McCabe, D. L. 1998. The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8: 447–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. 2000. Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42 (4): 128–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., & Victor, B. A. 1992. Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 38–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. 2001. Organizational justice & ethics program “follow-through:” Influences on employees’ harmful and helpful behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11: 651–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D., & Toffler, B. L. 1999. Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41 (2): 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., 2006. Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organization Studies 27 (3): 341–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. 2002. Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review 27 (2): 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K., 1999. Compliance and values oriented ethics programs: Influences on employees’ attitudes and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (2): 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L., 1999a. Corporate ethics practices in the mid-1990’s: An empirical study of the Fortune 1000. Journal of Business Ethics 18: 283–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L.. 1999b. Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (2): 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L.. 1999c. Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management values, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 539–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Žižek, S. 2000. Class struggle or postmodernism? Yes, please! In Butler, J., Laclau, E., & Žižek, S. (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality. London: Verso.Google Scholar