Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T15:34:47.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - The imbalances and limitations of theory and research on organizational wrongdoing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2016

Donald Palmer
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Kristin Smith-Crowe
Affiliation:
Boston University
Royston Greenwood
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Canada
Donald Palmer
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Kristin Smith-Crowe
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Royston Greenwood
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Summary

This volume is devoted to exploring the causes, processes, consequences, and nature of wrongdoing in and by organizations. Such conduct, hereafter for convenience referred to as organizational misconduct and organizational wrongdoing, includes a wide range of behaviors – violations of criminal, civil, and administrative law; transgressions of explicit industry and professional codes; and contraventions of less codified organizational rules, social norms, and ethical principles. Given their apparent greater incidence and scale in recent years, it is not surprising that these behaviors have received increasing attention in scholarly circles, in practitioner communities, and among the general public as of late. Moreover, and contrary to previous work, recent scholarship has adopted a range of perspectives and elaborated its focus and concerns to include aspects of wrongdoing previously ignored. This introduction outlines how recent scholarship contributes to the renaissance of management scholarship on organizational misconduct.

The dearth of theory and research on organizational wrongdoing

Kenneth Boulding (1958), in his review of the first two volumes of Administrative Science Quarterly, identified the study of misconduct in and by organizations as an object of inquiry that was of enduring importance to management practitioners and society but that was receiving scant attention from the journal's contributors. Since Boulding's early assessment, other observers have periodically lamented management scholars’ neglect of organizational misconduct relative to other topics of apparently greater interest, such as organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Brief 2000; Hinings and Greenwood 1982). This lack of attention to misconduct in and by organizations implicitly conveys the assumption that organizational wrongdoing is rare and peripheral to organizational functioning.

At the dawn of the new century, though, a series of episodes of organizational wrongdoing received massive media attention, including incidents at Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, and WorldCom in the United States, Barclays Bank in the United Kingdom, Parmalat in Italy, Satyam in India, as well as incidents of misconduct at a large number of multi-national financial institutions implicated in the recent global financial crisis and in international governance organizations such as the world soccer Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). These affairs likely received extensive media attention partly because new forms of media (most importantly, forms of media made possible by the expansion of the Internet) were emerging that facilitated the dissemination and amplification of news about misconduct.

Type
Chapter
Information
Organizational Wrongdoing
Key Perspectives and New Directions
, pp. 1 - 16
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Ashforth, B. E. and Anand, V. 2003. “The normalization of corruption in organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior 25: 1–52.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., Anand, V., and Joshi, M. 2004. “Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations,” Academy of Management Executive 18(2): 39–53.Google Scholar
Augier, M., March, J. G., and Sullivan, B. N. 2005. “Notes on the evolution of a research community: Organization studies in anglophone North America, 1945–2000,” Organization Science 16: 85–95.Google Scholar
Baker, W. E. and Faulkner, R. R. 1993. “The social organization of conspiracy: Illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry,” American Sociological Review 58: 837–860.Google Scholar
Baker, W. E. and Faulkner, R. R. 2003. “Diffusion of fraud: Intermediate economic crime and investor dynamics,” Criminology 41: 1173–1206.Google Scholar
Baker, W. E. and Faulkner, R. R. 2004. “Social networks and loss of capital,” Social Networks 26: 91–111.Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. and Tenbrunsel, A. 2011. Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Becker, G. S. 1968. “Crime and punishment: An economic approach,” Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–217.Google Scholar
Becker, H. S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
Black, D. 1998. The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. New York: Academic Press.
Bloom, P. 2013. Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil. New York: Broadway Books.
Boulding, K. E. 1958. “Evidences for an administrative science: A review of the Administrative Science Quarterly, volumes 1 and 2,” Administrative Science Quarterly 3(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Brief, A. P. 2000. “Still servants of power,” Journal of Management Inquiry 9: 342–351.Google Scholar
Brief, A. P., Bertram, R. T., and Dukerich, J. M. 2001. “Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model,” in Turner, M. E. (ed.), Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research: 471–499. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Brief, A. P. and Smith-Crowe, K. 2015. “Organizations matter,” in Miller, A. G. (ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (edn.). New York: Guilford Press.
Chugh, D., Banaji, M., and Bazerman, M. 2005. “Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest,” in Moore, D., Cain, D., Loewenstein, G., and Bazerman, M. (eds.), Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions in Business, Law, Medicine, and Public Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fama, E. F. 1980. “Agency problems and the theory of the firm,” Journal of Political Economy 88: 288–307.Google Scholar
Furman, L. F., Jensen, K., and Murray, F. 2012. “Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine,” Research Policy 41(2): 276–290.Google Scholar
Gabbioneta, C., Greenwood, R., Mazzola, P., and Minoja, M. 2013. “The influence of institutional context on corporate illegality,” Accounting, Organizations, and Society 38: 484–504.Google Scholar
Graffin, S. D., Bundy, J., Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., and Quinn, D. P. 2013. “Falls from grace and the hazards of high status: The 2009 British MP expense scandal and its impact on parliamentary elites,” Administrative Science Quarterly 58(3): 313–345.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., and Ditto, P. H. 2011. “Mapping the moral domain,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 366–385.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R. 2016OMT, then and now,” Journal of Management Inquiry, 25 (1): 27–33.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., and Pozner, J.-E. 2010. “Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct,” The Academy of Management Annals 4(1): 53–108.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. 2010. “Most people are not WEIRD,” Nature 466: 29.Google Scholar
Hickson, D. J. 1996. “The ASQ years: Then and now through the eyes of a Euro-Brit,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 217–228.Google Scholar
Hinings, R. and Greenwood, R. 1982. “ASQ Forum: Disconnects and consequences in organization theory?Administrative Science Quarterly (September 2002) 47: 411–421.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M. 1991. “Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model,” Academy of Management Review 16: 366–395.Google Scholar
Jonsson, S., Greve, H. R., and Fujiwara-Greve, T. 2009. “Lost without deserving: The spread of legitimacy loss in response to reported deviance,” Administrative Science Quarterly 54: 195–228.Google Scholar
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., and Treviño, L. K. 2010. “Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 1–31.Google Scholar
McKendall, M. A. and Wagner, J. 1997. “Motive, opportunity, choice, and corporate illegality,” Organization Science 8: 624–647.Google Scholar
Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., and Pollock, T. G. 2010. “Why ‘good’ firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality,” Academy of Management Journal 53(4): 701–722.Google Scholar
Mohliver, A. C. 2012. “The legitimacy of corrupt practices: Geography of auditors advice and backdating of stock option grants,” Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
Mullen, E. and Monin, B. 2016. “Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior,” Annual Review of Psychology 67: 363–385.Google Scholar
Palmer, D. 2006. “Taking stock of the criteria we use to evaluate one another's work: ASQ 50 years out,” Administrative Science Quarterly 51(4): 535–559.Google Scholar
Palmer, D. 2008. “Extending the process model of collective organizational wrongdoing,” Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 107–135.Google Scholar
Palmer, D. 2013. Normal Organizational Wrongdoing: A Critical Analysis of Theories of Misconduct in and by Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, D. and Yenkey, C. 2015. “Drugs, sweat and gears: An organizational analysis of performance enhancing drug use in the 2010 Tour de France,” Social Forces 94 (2): 891–922.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. 2006. Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Porter, L. W. 1996. “Forty years of organization studies: Reflections from a micro perspective,” Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 262–269.Google Scholar
Pozner, J. 2008. “Stigma and settling up: An integrated approach to the consequences of organizational misconduct for organizational elites,” Journal of Business Ethics 80(1): 141–150.Google Scholar
Prechel, H. and Morris, T. 2010. “The effects of organizational and political embeddedness on financial malfeasance in the largest U.S. corporations,” American Sociological Review 75: 331–354.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. S. 1986. “The decomposition of antitrust: Testing a multilevel, longitudinal model of profit-squeeze,” American Sociological Review 51: 859–975.Google Scholar
Sims, R. R. and Brinkmann, J. 2003. “Enron ethics (Or: Culture matters more than codes),” Journal of Business Ethics 45(3): 243–256.Google Scholar
Smith-Crowe, K. and Warren, D. E. 2014. “The emotion-evoked collective corruption model: The role of emotion in the spread of corruption within organizations,” Organization Science 25: 1154–1171.Google Scholar
Staw, B. M. 2016. “Stumbling toward a social psychology of organizations: Some tales from the past and guidelines for the future,” Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3: 1–19.Google Scholar
Staw, B. M. and Szwajkowski, E. 1975. “The scarcity-munificence component of organizational environments and the commission of illegal acts,” Administrative Science Quarterly 20: 345–354.Google Scholar
Tenbrunsel, A. E. and Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. “Ethical decision making: Where we've been and where we're going,” Academy of Management Annals 2: 545–607.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., and Kish-Gephart, J. J. 2014. “(Un)ethical behavior in organizations,” Annual Review of Psychology 65: 635–660.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., and Reynolds, S. J. 2006. “Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review,” Journal of Management 32(6): 951–990.Google Scholar
Usdiken, B., and Pasadeos, Y. 1995. “Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: A comparison of co-citation networks,” Organization Studies, 16: 503–526.Google Scholar
Vadera, A. K. and Pratt, M. G. 2013. “Love, hate, ambivalence, or indifference? A conceptual examination of workplace crimes and organizational identification,” Organization Science 24: 172–188.Google Scholar
Vaughan, D. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×