Why employees do bad things for companies they love

January 11, 2011, Brigham Young University

(PhysOrg.com) -- Employees who love their company and hustle to please their bosses sound like a recipe for success. But two recent studies co-authored by a BYU business professor found that those two factors can lead to a higher likelihood of unethical behavior.

Studying such “pro-organizational” unethical conduct flies in the face of the common media accounts and most ethics research, which focuses on employees siphoning funds or sabotaging bosses and co-workers, said John Bingham, assistant professor of organizational behavior at BYU’s Marriott School of Management.

“But unethical behavior can also be done with very good intentions -- people can do bad things with the intention to actually help the organization,” he said. “People lie to placate customers, sell unsafe products or shred documents to cover up -- even when these actions may jeopardize their own positions within the organization.”

Bingham and colleagues explored this concept in a paper forthcoming in Organization Science and tested it in a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

They surveyed hundreds of anonymous workers and analyzed the data with complex statistical models to see if strongly identifying with your employer makes you more prone to cutting ethical corners. They suggested that, for example, a community activist who works for a product manufacturer that prides itself on its social and community initiatives may be more likely to cut corners to help his or her employer.

To their surprise, that wasn’t the case. Simply buying into your ’s mission doesn’t seem to be enough to nudge you across ethical lines. But combining that trait with another common belief turns out to be a formula for rule-breaking.

The other half of this potentially toxic “unethical reaction” is a belief in “reciprocity.”

“This is when I believe that if the company does something nice for me, I should do something nice for them in return,” Bingham said. “We’ve always looked at this as a positive way to motivate employees and, until now, never questioned the moral content of behaviors that employees perform in efforts to reciprocate.”

The study results suggest that employees who feel strong commitment toward their company, and who also generally believe that their company’s positive treatment should be rewarded with above-average performance by employees, are significantly more likely to commit unethical behavior that helps their employers. So the social activist at the product manufacturer, who believes he or she has been treated well by his company and assumes that the company’s efforts should be rewarded in kind, is more likely to commit ethical lapses.

“Very conscientious employees, people who are pleasers -- which we’ve always thought about in desirable terms -- are much more likely to do unethical things and justify them because they believe in their company and want to do what is best for the company,” Bingham said.

The researchers’ recommendations to leaders and managers are:

• Recognize that not all unethical behavior is malicious. Consider the possibility that your employees may be doing bad things thinking that’s what your company wants.

• Certainly don’t stop encouraging a strong identification with the company and the belief that positive acts will be rewarded. Those remain proven motivators.

• Couple such motivation with a culture that encourages ethical behavior and focuses on the means, and not just the ends. Managers must lead by example and reward only ethical behavior among employees.

In today’s competitive climate, some may privately wonder what harm is done by behavior that helps a company, whether it is ethical or not. Beyond the obvious morality argument, Bingham asserts that ultimately hurts the organization.

“It’s bad business. If that’s the culture around which business gets done, sooner or later questionable behavior escalates to the point where it gets exposed and and the business are punished,” he said. “Enron was getting away with stuff for years, and it was a classic example of a high-functioning, high-mission, strong-values organization. And we know what happened there.”

Bingham’s co-author on both studies was Elizabeth E. Umphress of Texas A&M University. Marie S. Mitchell of the University of Georgia also co-authored the Journal of Applied Psychology study.

Explore further: Jill Brown on why corporations get branded as 'evil'

Related Stories

Study finds sick kids have fewer friends

December 7, 2010

A new study reveals that sick teens are more isolated than other kids, but they do not necessarily realize it and often think their friendships are stronger than they actually are.

Pheromones a myth in mammals

December 2, 2010

Something just didn’t smell right to Richard Doty. It was 1976 when the director of the Smell and Taste Center at Penn’s School of Medicine first started raising a stink about the existence of pheromones.

Modern society made up of all types

November 4, 2010

Modern society has an intense interest in classifying people into ‘types’, according to a University of Melbourne Cultural Historian, leading to potentially catastrophic life-changing outcomes for those typed – ...

Recommended for you

Unprecedented study of Picasso's bronzes uncovers new details

February 17, 2018

Musee national Picasso-Paris and the Northwestern University/Art Institute of Chicago Center for Scientific Studies in the Arts (NU-ACCESS) have completed the first major material survey and study of the Musee national Picasso-Paris' ...

Using Twitter to discover how language changes

February 16, 2018

Scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London, have studied more than 200 million Twitter messages to try and unravel the mystery of how language evolves and spreads.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2011
The moral of the story I guess is that you shouldn't treat people too well, or nobody will be willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes. Makes sense, and probably explains that, probably even down to the genetic level, some people will just never be brown-nosers. It ends up hurting the organization/tribe in the long run because bad decisions become acceptable.

Of course, those people who do the right thing rather than "reciprocate" usually don't benefit in the short term. I've often found that the most principled people tend to have a lower station in life, and are less happy, but are definitely serving a valuable purpose. Imagine society if those brown-nosing, do anything to get ahead and please those in power types of people ruled the world. Oh wait, they do (mostly), and are destroying society because it makes their bosses happy, and in turn their bosses make them rich for it.
1 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2011
Oh wait, they do (mostly), and are destroying society because it makes their bosses happy, and in turn their bosses make them rich for it.

Pretty much.

I've quit jobs in the past because the degree of corruption and manipulation of clients was so great that I just couldn't stand it any more.

So much of our civilization today is based solely on how much you can get away with screwing over someone else.

the Baby boomers in America are a prime example, since they have rigged the retirement system so badly that within 20 years it will take 1/3rd of the nations income to pay for their social security and entitlement.

While on the other hand, the top 1% wealthy people already have 20-something percent of income.

In spite of our technology level, we basicly live in a VAssal state of feudalism.

The plantation owners figured out that the slaves don't rebel so much, just so long as they don't realize they are slaves.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.