Organize Commun Article Rvw 3 (Please DO NOT SEND ANOTHER STUDENT'S COMPLETED WORK)

Managing unethical behavior in organizations:

The need for a behavioral business ethics approach De Cremer, David; Vandekerckhove, Wim . Journal of Management and Organization ; Lyndfield 23.3 (May 2017yf .

ProQuest document link ABSTRACT   Issues of morality and ethics have increasingly become more important in organizations and business settings.

Traditionally, these issues of ethics and social responsibility in business settings have been discussed and commented on by prescriptive approaches that are grounded in philosophical traditions. Building on the idea that we need to develop a more comprehensive and complete understanding of the value that people assign to ethics and how it influences their actions and decisions, in the present article we discuss and review the importance and relevance of adopting also a descriptive approach that is grounded in the behavioral sciences (referred to as behavioral business ethicsyf 7 K L V D S S U R D F K K D V W K H D G Y D Q W D J H V W R S U R P R W H R X U L Q V L J K W V L Q W R K R Z S H R S O H F D Q V K R w both good and bad behavior and why this is the case. Behavioral business ethics therefore represents an important research challenge for organizational researchers to pursue and engage more meaningfully with more prescriptive approaches. FULL TEXT   INTRODUCTION It is by now clear to everyone that as a result of corporate failures in the moral domain, a critical challenge for organizations is to gain a deeper understanding of why ethical standards are so easily violated and accepted.

Indeed, all too often, greed has turned out to be center-stage in our decisions, which was clearly illustrated when many banks had no problem distributing millions in bonuses - even guaranteed ones without any commitment to high performance - to those who eventually made decisions that drove the company and society at large into a financial crisis. Highly featured court cases in which investment banks are involved for fraud and misrepresenting information are no exception anymore. All of these decisions bring pain and hurt to the interests of society at large and makes that trust in our economic institutions and organizations are at an all-time low. Cases like the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal show that unethical behaviors and decisions can bring forward significant financial and reputational damages to our society and organizations (Bennett &Robinson, 2000yf ( Y H Q P R U H V R D W W K H O H Y H O R I W K H F R P S D Q \ , the downplaying of moral standards and lack of adherence to norms preventing unethical behavior and wrongdoings burden the reliability and profitability of those same companies. For example, as pointed out by De Cremer (2014yf F R U S R U D W H H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V O H G W K H * H U P D Q F R P S D Q \ 6 L H P H Q V W R D J U H H W R D E L O O L R Q V H W W O H P H Q W W o remedy harmful consequences of their bribery actions in emerging markets and in a similar way the oil company Royal Dutch Shell was required to pay $150 million because they misrepresented information about their oil resources. As De Cremer, Tenbrunsel, and van Dijke (2010: 1yf Q R W H D O O W K H V H R E V H U Y D W L R Q V P D N H F O H D U W K D W H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V K D Y e become an important reality for corporations, organizations, and societies at large and as a result there is a PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 21 growing concern on how to manage and regulate such failures.' For this reason, it is essential that we develop a better understanding why the morals and ethical actions of so many business people seem to go out of the window as soon as self-interest can be served in the short term. To do this it is essential to also rely on evidence- based approaches and take stock of the research that is available at present. In light of this ambition, we argue that is necessary to take a look at how business ethics has been studied so far and how new approaches to this topic may help us to take the existing knowledge even further. Schminke (2010yf K D V S U H Y L R X V O \ Z U L W W H Q D E R X W W K e difficulties with integrating descriptive and prescriptive approaches to business ethics. Alzola (2011yf D U J X H G W K D t since both approaches have their specificity, an integration is not the best way forward. Instead, Alzola (2011: 32yf calls for a reconciliation, which he understands as a 'dialog without hybridization, a dialog that starts with the premise of respecting the identity of those involved in the conversation.' The aim of the present paper is to recast prescriptive and descriptive business ethics in light of one another. For that purpose the paper is structured as follows. In the next section we first briefly sketch the business ethics theories within the most important philosophical paradigms. We suggest that their theoretical developments are epistemologically driven, i.e., they are human efforts to grapple with moral perplexity. The section after that reviews the field of behavioral research and summarizes the implications from the relatively new behavioral business ethics research approach (Treviño, Weaver, &Reynolds, 2006; De Cremer &Tenbrunsel, 2012; Moore &Gino, 2013yf 7 K H L P S R U W D Q F H R I W K L V G H V F U L S W L Y e business ethics research lies in the empirical insights into situational factors of 'bounded ethicality.' We then continue with a section discussing the challenges that these insights propose for the field of business ethics and indicate possible dialogs between descriptive and prescriptive business ethics. BUSINESS ETHICS AND THE NORMATIVE APPROACH Until quite recently, business ethics as a field focused on how managers and employees should act to satisfy generally accepted ethical standards (see Rest, 1986; Jones, 1991yf 7 K L V D S S U R D F K F D Q E H G H V F U L E H G D V R Q H Z K H U e the 'ocused' and 'should' are dominant in people's thinking about ethical behavior and is referred to as the prescriptive approach (Trevican be described as one where the 'ocused' and 'should' are dominant in people's thinking about ethical if people are told how they should act in terms of ethical standards, they consciously will adjust their behavior accordingly. This perspective is based on ideas developed in philosophical traditions and includes prescriptions about comportment toward self, others, and the environment, and also prescriptions about decision making, both in substance as well as procedural. Prescriptive business ethics draws on theories about the nature of what is 'good' (ontologyyf D Q G K R Z Z H F D Q N Q R Z Z K D W J R R G L V L Q V S H F L I L F V L W X D W L R Q V H S L V W H P R O R J \ \f.

Hence discussions between prescriptive business ethicists are most productive when they happen within a specific paradigm. Utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics are the main paradigms within which prescriptive business ethics is developed. Utilitarianism judges the ethicality of an act by looking at the consequences of that act. It is based on the notion of cause-effect and the binary abstraction of human strivings for pleasure over pain.

The good is thus what causes more pleasure than pain for stakeholders. Deontology does not consider consequences. Instead, the ethicality of an act is judged by whether or not the act itself is good. It is based on the notion that humans can act on free will. This is not a whimsical will. Rather, free will is a will freed from 'the passions' and directed by reason only. The good is thus an act which a free will is able to will as an act. The deliberation of that ability consists of versions of Kant's three tests: universalizability, respect for humans as willing beings, and conceptual tenability. Virtue ethics considers an act in order to pass judgment on the actor. The good is a matter of living a 'good life,' i.e., acting as a virtuous person and being seen as such. It is based on the notion of the human telos - the potential flourishing as human beings - which we can only achieve by acting as a virtuous person would. Generally, a virtuous person achieves the right balance between too little and too much of a virtue, e.g., confidence as the virtuous middle between anxiety and hubris. We find it important to note that each of these has its own historicity, meaning that these strands of ethical theory were developed as an attempt to solve pressing societal problems of their time. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed utilitarianism in the context of social reforms demanding government policies that would improve the life of the poor instead of that of the aristocracy. Immanuel Kant developed his thinking in an attempt to give PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 21 ethics a non-religious foundation in a time when Europe was ravaged by religious wars. Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant-based science, politics and ethics on human reason. It would also be incorrect to state that these people did not have an impact, or that those building further within these paradigms fail to have an impact today.

John Rawls' neo-Kantian seminal work Theory of Justice (1971yf G H Y H O R S V G L V W U L E X W L Y H S U H V F U L S W L R Q V I U R P a hypothetical situation in which people decide on how to distribute goods and benefits within society, from behind a 'veil of ignorance' where we have no knowledge of where on the social ladder we will live nor of our gender or (disyf D E L O L W L H V : K D W 5 D Z O V \f wants to point out is that there is a rational way to organize society in a just way but this rationality implies we can make abstraction of any concrete personal situation. Hence, to make a just decision we must take the 'view from nowhere.' Another neo-Kantian approach, procedural ethics, became popular through the work of Jürgen Habermas' discourse ethics (Habermas, 1991yf , Q V W H D G R I S R V W X O D W L Q J W K H I R X Q G D W L R Q R I H W K L F V L Q R X U L Q G L Y L G X D O K X P D n reasoning abilities, Habermas sought to formulate such a foundation in the consensus people reach through dialogue. Habermas' moral philosophy is thus an exploration of what constitutes a dialogue between humans which can lead to an agreed decision. The answer is the 'domination-free dialogue' ( herrschaftsfreie Dialog yf R U W K e ideal speech community. It is an ideal-typical situation where all those affected can speak without fear and while being fully informed. Habermas thus formulates prescriptive statements with regard to how a decision must be reached, because it is the procedure through which a decision is made that justifies the content of that decision.

The work of Habermas is also used to develop frameworks to understand business organizations as political actors (Scherer &Palazzo, 2007yf For the purpose of this paper, the important aspect of the prescriptive approach is that it advocates a view point that if people know how they should act, they will be consciously aware of these moral demands and hence display behaviors in line with these 'oughts' and 'shoulds' (Rest, 1986; Reynolds, 2008yf $ S U H V F U L S W L Y H D S S U R D F K W K X s implies that people are rational human beings, who make conscious decisions about how to act. As a result, prescriptive approaches to business ethics assume that bad people do generally bad things and good people do good things, because they are rational decision makers. Explaining situations whilst sticking to this rational way of reasoning is attractive for a variety of reasons (De Cremer, 2009, De Cremer &Tenbrunsel, 2012yf D \f it is a simple assumption that promotes an economic way of thinking about moral violations, (byf D O O R Z V W R E O D P H D I H Z E D G ' apples for the emerging violations, and (cyf S U R Y L G H V D M X V W L I L H G J U R X Q G W R S X Q L V K W K R V H U H J D U G H G D V U D W L R Q D O O y responsible. However, many situations exist where good people do bad things - an observation that has received considerable empirical support (Bersoff, 1999; Chugh, Bazerman &Banaji, 2005; Gino, Schweitzer, &Mead, 2011; Shalvi, Dana, &Handgraaf, 2011; Umphress &Bingham, 2011yf 7 K H V H R E V H U Y D W L R Q V F K D O O H Q J H W K H D F F X U D F \ R I W K e prescriptive approach in predicting the extent to which so-called rational human beings will display ethical behavior. It seems to be the case that because of rather irrational, psychological tendencies humans do not always recognize the moral dilemma at hand and engage in unethical behaviors without being aware of it. To make sense of the fact that good people can do bad things an alternative view point is needed that accounts for people's morally irrational behavior. We propose that this alternative view point is a descriptive approach that examines more closely how people actually take decisions and why they sometimes do not act in line with the moral principles that are universally endorsed. This approach is in line with Treviño, Weaver, and Reynolds (2006:

952yf G H I L Q L W L R Q R I E H K D Y L R U D O H W K L F V Z K L F K U H I H U V W R L Q G L Y L G X D O E H K D Y L R U W K D W L V V X E M H F W W R R U M X G J H G D F F R U G L Q J W o generally accepted moral norms of behavior.' Important to realize is that such a behavioral approach includes the assumption that people do not always deliberately cheat or engage in unethical actions because many of our moral judgments and interpretations have to be considered as consequences of automatic and intuitive affective reactions. Haidt (2001: 818yf I R U L Q V W D Q F H G H I L Q H G P R U D O L Q W X L W L R Q D V W K H V X G G H Q D S S H D U D Q F H L Q F R Q V F L R X V Q H V V R I a moral judgment, including an affective valence (good-bad, like-dislikeyf Z L W K R X W D Q \ F R Q V F L R X V D Z D U H Q H V V R I K D Y L Q g gone through steps of searching, weighing evidence, or inferring a conclusion.' Put simply, our moral evaluations and decisions are not only guided by conscious rational thought processes but also by quick and affect-laden processes (e.g., Ruedy, Moore, &Gino, 2013yf PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 21 Business ethics approaches thus have to take into account moral intuition to understand why managers, employees and even organizations can so easily deviate from morally accepted standards in their actions and decisions. A famous example of illustrating the role that intuitions and emotions play in making moral judgments concerns the trolley problem as discussed by philosophers (Foot, 1967; Thomson, 1985; Otsuka, 2008yf D Q d examined extensively recently by neuroscientists (Greene, 2013yf 7 K H W U R O O H \ G L O H P P D L Q W U R G X F H V D S U R E O H P Z K H U e there is an out-of-control trolley car about to strike a group of five people standing on the tracks ahead. Two different versions of the dilemma exist. In the first version (referred to as the switch dilemmayf S H R S O H F D Q G L Y H U t the trolley by using a switch onto another track where there is only one person standing. If they do this, only one person will die and five will live. Studies show that the majority of people decide to divert the trolley to the other track. This result initially was interpreted to favor a rational perspective on morality. That is, people simply count the number of people that would die (1yf Y H U V X V V X U Y L Y H \f. In the second version of the dilemma (referred to as the footbridge dilemmayf W K H W U R O O H \ L V D O V R R X W R I F R Q W U R O E X W W K L V W L P H W K H U H L V Q R R W K H U W U D F N W R G L Y H U W W K H W U R O O H \ R Q .

There is only one track and people are standing on a bridge across the track. Standing next to them is a large stranger. This person is large enough to stop the trolley. The respondents themselves are not large enough to do this. So, the question in this version of the dilemma is whether people will push the large stranger off the bridge to derail the trolley. In this version, almost none of the respondents will do this. Although the philosophical tradition of utilitarianism would dictate us to simply count in both versions of the dilemma, people do deviate from this rational approach in the footbridge dilemma. The reason for this is that by pushing a person from the footbridge people are asked to explicitly and directly harm someone and because of this association our emotions will come into play and make us act less rational (Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, &Cohen, 2001; Haidt, 2007yf Interestingly, this relationship between doing harm to others and intuition was also the main theme of the moral philosophical work of Emmanuel Levinas (Levinas, 1969, 2003; Burggraeve, 1999yf , W L V W K H H Q F R X Q W H U Z L W K D Q R W K H r person that lays a moral claim on me. Levinas terms this the face-to-face with the Other - he uses capital 'O' to emphasize the radical otherness of the other, i.e., irreducible to the 'same as me.' For Levinas, moral claims entail an endless responsibility toward the other. There exists no calculation and no principled reasoning that releases me from my responsibilities to the other. In that sense, the work of Levinas is radically different from the rational approaches in ethical theory we mentioned at the outset of this paper: utilitarianism, deontology, and justice.

Levinas' work provides us with a philosophical account of why ethical intuition persistently overrides rational 'solutions.' It is the physical presence of another person that makes us perceive a situation as quite different, something rational ethical theories are not able to take account of. The work of Levinas is a reaction to the Nazi atrocities of the Second World War, and in this sense can be seen as part of philosophical grapplings with how organization and ideology blunts ethical reasoning. Arendt's (1963yf Z R U N R Q W K H E D Q D O L W \ R I H Y L O D Q G / \ R W D U G s (1984yf F U L W L T X H R I J U D Q G Q D U U D W L Y H V D U H R W K H U H [ D P S O H V 7 K H V H L Q I O X H Q F H G % D X P D Q V \f work on 'moral distance' to which we turn further in this paper. Taken together, the assumption that when people are confronted with moral dilemmas they are automatically aware of what they should be doing and therefore are in control to do the good thing is limited in its predictive value because of the fact that humans seem to deviate from what rational approaches predict. In this paper we therefore make the point that conditions exist where our human rationality fails and we are to some extent blind to our own ethical transgressions. For this reason, if we are serious about designing more effective interventions to prevent the emergence of unethical behaviors we also need to increase our understanding of why and how rational approaches to ethics fail and why there is an irrational element present in our ethical decision-making processes.

In our view prescriptive business ethics and behavioral business ethics are complementary in helping us to understand such questions. BEHAVIORAL BUSINESS ETHICS: AN EMERGING NEW FIELD Knowing that unethical behavior needs to be accounted for does not directly imply that people are able all the time to control impulses that undermine our conscious control over our bad and good actions. Therefore, the bad behaviors that we have seen committed by corporate leaders in the last two decades cannot simply be seen in PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 21 light of their 'bad' and 'unethical' personal character. How can we explain this? An interesting idea put forward by the behavioral business ethics approach is that many organizational ethical failures are not only caused by the so-called bad apples. In fact, closer inspection may reveal that many ethical failures are in fact committed by people generally considered to be good apples (Bazerman &Banaji, 2004yf E X t depending on the barrel they are in they may be derail from the ethical path (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, &Treviño, 2010yf $ V V X F K L W P D \ Z H O O E H W K D W D O O R I X V P D \ F R P P L W X Q H W K L F D O E H K D Y L R U V J L Y H Q W K H U L J K W F L U F X P V W D Q F H V D Q d therefore we need to zoom in more on how individuals process morality information and its flaws and how they do this in the larger social setting. The role of behavioral ethics in addressing ethical failures is to introduce a psychological-driven approach that examines the role of cognitive, affective and motivational processes to explain the 'how,' 'when,' and 'why' of individual's engagement in unethical behavior. Noteworthy, this approach will allow us to identify deviations from actions and decisions based on a rational type of predictions, explain why these deviations occur, and design more effective preventions and interventions (De Cremer, Tenbrunsel, &van Dijke, 2010; De Cremer, van Dick, Tenbrunsel, Pillutla, &Murnighan, 2011yf In the following section, we discuss two topics that have received considerable attention the last few years by behavioral ethics researchers. These two topics illustrate how psychological processes play a role in shaping people's moral judgments and actions that are relevant to business and organizations: (ayf W K H S U R F H V V H V D Q d biases taking place during ethical decision making and (byf W K H L P S D F W R I W K H V R F L D O V L W X D W L R Q R Q K R Z H W K L F D l judgments and actions are framed and evaluated. ETHICAL DECISION MAKING Before an actual decision is made in the moral domain, people need to realize that their decision may reveal ethical consequences to both themselves and interdependent others. Only then, decisions that are violating existing and shared moral principles can be recognized early on in the decision-making process and hence be interrupted in a timely fashion to prevent further ethical escalations. Or, as Jones (1991yf S X W V L W I R U W K H P R U D O G H F L V L R Q P D N L Q g process to begin, a person must recognize the moral issue' (p. 380yf $ V P H Q W L R Q H G H D U O L H U W K L V N H \ D V S H F W L Q W K e conscious decision-making process is only a given if humans only make rational decisions. However, the behavioral ethics approach clearly postulates that we are not solely driven in our actions by reason and that often emotions exert significant influence. As a result, our decisions with respect to moral dilemmas are bounded in rationality, which led Banaji and colleagues (Banaji &Bhaskar, 2000; Banaji, Bazerman, &Chugh, 2003; Chugh, Bazerman, &Banaji, 2005yf W R U H I H U W R W K L V L V V X H D V E R X Q G H G H W K L F D O L W \ % R X Q G H G H W K L F D O L W \ L Q F O X G H V W K H Z R U N L Q J V R f our human psychological biases that facilitate the emergence of unethical behaviors that do not correspond to our normative beliefs. Specifically, people develop or adhere to cognitions (biases, beliefsyf W K D W D O O R Z W K H P W o legitimize doubtful, untrustworthy and unethical actions. Importantly, these cognitive biases operate outside our own awareness and therefore in a way make us blind to the ethical failures we commit (Reynolds, Leavitt, &DeCelles, 2010yf , Q D G G L W L R Q W K L V E O L Q G Q H V V L V I X U W K H U U R R W H G L Q W K H V H O I I D Y R U L Q J E H O L H I W K D W L Q F R P S D U L V R Q W R W K e average person one can be looked upon as fairer and more honest (e.g., Taylor, 1989; Epley &Dunning, 2000; Hilbig &Hessler, 2013yf 7 K H V H V H O I I D Y R U L Q J L Q W H U S U H W D W L R Q V R I Z K R W K H \ D U H L Q W H U P V R I P R U D O L W \ D U H X V H G E \ K X P D Q V L n implicit ways to infer that they will not act unethically, which as a result lowers their threshold of monitoring and noticing actual violations of our ethical standards (Banaji, Bazerman, &Chugh, 2003yf The concept of bounded ethicality thus literally includes a blindness component, which can be seen as activating an ethical fading process, which as Tenbrunsel (2005: 96yf Q R W H V L V D S U R F H V V W K D W U H P R Y H V W K H G L I I L F X O W P R U D l issues from a given problem or situation, hence increasing unethical behavior.' Below, we briefly discuss a number of psychological processes that influence people to show unethical behavior even if it contradicts their own personal beliefs about ethics. These processes are: moral disengagement, framing, anchoring effects, escalation effects, level construal, and should-want self. Moral disengagement One important psychological process that biases people's moral awareness concerns the concept of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999yf 0 R U D O G L V H Q J D J H P H Q W L V W K H D Q L Q G L Y L G X D O V S U R S H Q V L W \ W R H Y R N H F R J Q L W L R Q V Z K L F h PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 21 restructure one's actions to appear less harmful, minimize one's understanding of responsibility for one's actions, or attenuate the perception of the distress one causes others' (Moore, 2008: 129yf 0 R U D O G L V H Q J D J H P H Q W F D Q W K X s be seen as a buffer that allows people to free themselves from feeling guilty and uneasy with the idea that they may have violated accepted ethical standards. Having morally disengaged thoughts makes unethical behavior more likely to emerge. Moreover, moral disengagement is particularly successful to reduce feelings of dissonance that would normally occur if an individual has strong moral awareness when harming the interests of others.

These processes have more recently also been studied in organizational settings. Beu and Buckley (2004yf illustrated that certain leadership types (transactional, personalized charismatic leadersyf K D Y H D Q L Q I O X H Q F H R Q K R w subordinates can morally justify own bad behavior. Research on organizational corruption also focuses on the disengagement processes that help to rationalize how 'corrupt individuals tend not to view themselves as corrupt' (Ashforth &Anand, 2003: 15-25yf Framing Depending on how a situation is cognitively represented has an effect on how we approach moral dilemmas and take decisions (Kahneman &Tversky, 2000yf 2 Q H R I W K H W \ S H V R I I U D P H V P R V W V W X G L H G L V Z K H W K H U D G H F L V L R n involves a loss or a gain. Insights building upon the concept of loss aversion (the notion that people perceive losses as more negative than they regard gains of an equal magnitude as positive, see Kahneman &Tversky, 1979; Tversky &Kahneman, 1981yf V X J J H V W W K D W V H O I L Q W H U H V W O R R P V O D U J H U Z K H Q S H R S O H D U H I D F H G Z L W K O R V V , Q G H H G O R V V H s are considered more unpleasant than gains are considered pleasurable and hence invite more risk-taking to avoid the unpleasant situation. Thus, risk-taking often leads to behavior violating ethical standards. Findings in line with this notion suggest that losses indeed can enhance people's concern for their self-interest, and thus give rise to selfish (Brewer &Kramer, 1986; Sondak, Neale, &Pinkley, 1995; Poppe &Valkenberg, 2003yf D Q G X Q H W K L F D O L Q W H Q W L R Q s (e.g., Kern &Chugh, 2009yf D Q G E H K D Y L R U 5 H L Q G H U V ) R O P H U ' H & U H P H U \f. In a business context risky behavior to preserve one's self-interest thus quickly takes the form of corruption and fraud. Recent surveys reported in the media support this idea: employees expect more corruption in the future, and are themselves not wholly reluctant to use unethical means to achieve their goals (see De Cremer, 2010byf Anchoring effects An important side-effect of framing effects - as discussed above - is the anchoring effect (Tversky &Kahneman, 1981; Strack &Mussweiler, 1997yf 7 K L V H I I H F W K R O G V W K D W R X U M X G J P H Q W V D Q G G H F L V L R Q V D U H V W U R Q J O \ L Q I O X H Q F H G E y the information that is available and accessible. Importantly, this information can be very arbitrary or even irrelevant to the decision and judgments one is making. This idea is illustrated in a famous early study by Tversky and Kahneman (1974yf Z K R V S X Q D Z K H H O R I I R U W X Q H Z L W K Q X P E H U V W K D W U D Q J H G I U R P W R D Q G D V N H G S D U W L F L S D Q W s whether the fraction of African nations in the United Nations was greater than or less than that number.

Participants were then required to estimate the actual figure. Interestingly, estimates were significantly related to the number spun on the wheel (the anchoryf H Y H Q W K R X J K V X E M H F W V F R X O G F O H D U O \ V H H W K D W W K H Q X P E H U K D G E H H n generated by a purely chance procedure. The 'anchoring' effect is clear in a sense that participants used the number shown on the wheel and then used that number as an anchor - that they insufficiently adjusted away from - to arrive at an estimate. In a similar vein, it follows logically that arbitrary information can thus also set the stage for unfair and irrational decision making. This implies that it is more likely for price increases to be based on the initial suggestions of the market itself than on the amount the consumer wants to pay. Escalation effects One important observation concerns the fact that those showing bad behavior never arrive immediately at the stage of doing bad. Rather, it seems like bad behavior emerges slowly and gradually as can be inferred from remarks like 'I never thought I would show this kind of behavior.' In the literature this effect is referred to as the escalation effect or the slippery slope effect. The famous social psychology experiment by Milgram (1974yf illustrates this principle. His results showed that a high proportion of individuals subjected fellow participants to excruciating electric shocks under the instruction of an experimenter. In addition to showing the powerful effect of obedience, these results were also important because they illustrated that participants were only able to deliver PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 6 of 21 these electric shocks - and morally accept them - because participants started off with delivering small shocks, gradually increasing their intensity. If the experimenter would have asked immediately to deliver the highest shock voltage possible (440 Vyf W K H Q P R V W S D U W L F L S D Q W V P R V W O L N H O \ Z R X O G K D Y H G H Q L H G G H O L Y H U L Q J W K H V K R F N 7 K H L G H a behind this escalation effect is that 'each step is so small as to be essentially continuous with previous ones; after each step, the individual is positioned to take the next one. The individual's morality follows rather than leads (Darley, 1992: 208yf Thus, many unethical decisions and actions grow slowly into existence and this escalation process itself is not noticed consciously. Indeed, the literature on cognition and perception has shown that we have difficulties noticing changes in our environment that emerge gradually (Levin 2002yf $ V L P L O D U S U R F H V V L V D W S O D \ Z K H Q L t comes down to the emergence of corruption, fraud and issuing false statements (Gino &Bazerman, 2009; Moore, 2009yf ) R U H [ D P S O H U H V H D U F K E \ & D L Q / R H Z H Q V W H L Q D Q G 0 R R U H \f described how auditors are often blind to clients' internal changes in accounting practices, but only if the changes appear gradually. Level construal One noteworthy observation is that people's decisions and judgments are more colored by self-interest in the short-term relative to the long-term. As Moore and Loewenstein (2004yf D U J X H V H O I L Q W H U H V W L V D X W R P D W L F D Q G L V W K X s easily activated when there is time pressure and immediate actions are required. When decisions are delayed people seem to apply more easily moral standards and even construct more harsh moral judgments. Recent research by Eyal, Liberman, and Trope (2008yf D F W X D O O \ V K R Z H G W K D W S H R S O H M X G J H L P P R U D O D F W V D V P R U H R I I H Q V L Y e and moral acts as more virtuous when the acts are more distant in time rather than close. Level construal theory can explain this (Trope &Liberman, 2003; Liberman, Trope, &Stephan, 2007yf $ F F R U G L Q J W R W K L V W K H R U \ D F W V W K D W D U e in the distant future cannot be experienced directly and therefore are hypothetical. Hypothetical situations bring their own mental constructions with it and a consequence of this process is that more distant events (e.g., events on the long-termyf D U H U H S U H V H Q W H G Z L W K L W O H V V F R Q F U H W H G H W D L O V 8 Q G H U V X F K F L U F X P V W D Q F H V S H R S O H D G K H U H P R U e easily to moral standards as guide lines for their decisions and judgments. In contrast, events that are closer in time are represented in less abstract and more concrete ways. Under those circumstances people will rely more on concrete details and relevant contextual information to make decisions and judgments. Then, egocentric tendencies will more easily influence the actions one will take. Forecasting errors One necessary challenge that organizations, managers and leaders are confronted with is to constantly predict the future. The affective and behavioral forecasting literature (for reviews see Wilson &Gilbert, 2003, 2005yf K R Z H Y H U , shows that individuals are quite limited in predicting the level of distress they will experience following emotional events (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, &Wheatley, 1998yf 3 D U W L F L S D Q W V F R Q V L V W H Q W O \ R Y H U H V W L P D W H G W K H L U I X W X U e emotional reactions to both positive and negative events (Gilbert et al., 1998; Wilson, Wheatley, Meyers, Gilbert, &Axsom, 2000yf : L W K U H V S H F W W R Z K D W S H R S O H H [ S H F W W K H \ Z L O O G R O L W H U D W X U H R Q E H K D Y L R U D O I R U H F D V W L Q J V K R Z V W K D t people overestimate their tendency to engage in socially desirable behaviors like being generous or cooperative (Epley &Dunning, 2000yf D Q G X Q G H U H V W L P D W H W K H L U W H Q G H Q F L H V W R Z D U G G H Y L D Q W D Q G F U X H O E H K D Y L R U O L N H S U R Y L G L Q g electric shocks (Milgram, 1974yf 0 R U H R Y H U S H R S O H D O V R R Y H U H V W L P D W H W K H L U Z L O O L Q J Q H V V W R I R U J L Y H P R U D l transgressions by overvaluing restorative tactics such as offering apologies (De Cremer, Pillutla, &Reinders Folmer, 2011yf , Q D V L P L O D U Y H L Q L W D O V R I R O O R Z V W K D W S H R S O H D U H E L D V H G L Q W K H L U S U H G L F W L R Q V L Q V X F K D Z D \ W K D W W K H \ Z L O O S U H G L F t to behave more ethically than they actually will do in the end. Should-want Selves Related to the issue of forecasting errors is the distinction between the 'want' self and the 'should' self. This distinction was introduced by Bazerman, Tenbrunsel, and Wade-Benzoni (1998yf D Q G L V X V H G W R G H V F U L E e intrapersonal conflicts that exist within the human mind; notably conflicts between what we morally should be doing and what in reality we want to do. As we know now, people predict that they will act more morally in situations than they actually do when being confronted with these situations. These faulty perceptions and estimates can be explained by the distinction between should and want selves. The 'want' self is a reflection of PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 7 of 21 people's emotions and affective impulses. Basically, the want self is characterized more as 'hot headed.' The 'should' self, in contrast, is characterized as rational and cognitive, and can thus be looked upon as 'cool headed.' Applying this distinction to our forecasting problem, it follows that the 'should' self is more active when making decisions on the long-term, whereas the 'want' self is doing more of the talking when it concerns short-term decisions. Morality and ethics as standards to live by are thus more accessible and guiding when making predictions towards the future. THE IMPACT OF THE SITUATION The above makes clear that psychological processes significantly influence people's perceptions, interpretations and ultimately their behaviors. At the same time, these studies and the fact that scholars find them salient, show that people are aware of what would constitute ethical behavior, or at least people are still trying to be rational or give reasons for how they behave, but are unaware of the extent in which they fail to be rational. Hence, prescriptive ethics is not a cognitive fantasy of moral philosophers. This observation therefore strongly suggests that behavioral ethics researchers need to devote attention to the automatic and egocentric biases or heuristics that influences individual's behavior. Of course, such a focus is only concerned with the cognitive, motivational and affective processes that take place within the individual (i.e., an intra-individual approachyf $ V Z H N Q R Z I U R m social psychology (Snyder &Cantor, 1998yf K X P D Q E H K D Y L R U K R Z H Y H U L V Q R W R Q O \ L Q I O X H Q F H G E \ Z K D W R Q H I H H O V , thinks and wants, but also by the situation one is interacting in (see also Treviño, 1986yf 7 K L V L V D Q L P S R U W D Q W S R L Q t to make because people underestimate the impact of the situation; a tendency referred to as the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977yf 7 K L V E L D V G H V F U L E H V W K H W H Q G H Q F \ W R R Y H U Y D O X H G L V S R V L W L R Q D O R U S H U V R Q D O L W \ E D V H d explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors.

In social psychology several famous studies have been conducted to illustrate the impact of social context on people's behavior, and show relevance to the emergence of evil and bad behavior (Asch, 1955; Milgram, 1974; Zimbardo, 2007yf The Asch (1955yf H [ S H U L P H Q W V R Q V R F L D O L Q I O X H Q F H D Q G F R Q I R U P L W \ L O O X V W U D W H G L Q D S H U V X D V L Y H P D Q Q H U W K D W V R F L D l conditions exists that make individuals comply with group pressures considering what a correct response is even when the opinion of the group is clearly contrary to fact. To test this idea Asch put a group of eight individuals (one participant and seven confederatesyf W R J H W K H U L Q D U R R P D Q G Y H U E D O O \ V W D W H G Z K L F K R I W K U H H X Q H T X D O O L Q H V P D W F K H G a given line. The participant was seated so that he made his judgment last. Results showed evidence for the 'majority effect' in such a way that participants deviated from their own personal judgment (which was correctyf L f the majority of the group opted for another response. These findings suggest that people can easily deviate from what is considered good behavior if enough others show bad behavior. The famous experiments by Milgram (1974yf L Q W R R E H G L H Q F H W R D X W K R U L W \ K D Y H K D G D V L J Q L I L F D Q W L P S D F W R Q K R w social influence can shape bad behavior. As discussed earlier in the present paper, his findings were important as they demonstrated that people can be easily pressured into complying with evil requests from their supervisors.

Despite the fact that most participants blamed the experimenter to avoid personal responsibility, the findings are clear in showing that people do not stand up to authorities that easily and thus are subject to normative and social influences more than they would predict themselves. Finally, in 1971 Zimbardo (2007yf F R Q G X F W H G D Q L P S U H V V L Y H H [ S H U L P H Q W D W W K H 6 W D Q I R U G 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ F D P S X V L Q Z K L F h participants assumed the roles of 'prisoner' or 'guard' within an experimentally devised mock prison setting. After a while it was clear that many of the participants classified as 'prisoners' were in serious distress and many of the ones classified as 'guards' were behaving in ways which brutalized and degraded their fellow participants.

Participants were so merged into the prisoner's setting that they took up their roles too seriously, leading to behavior that was considered inappropriate and unethical at times. In a similar vein, De Cremer and colleagues (De Cremer, 2003; De Cremer &van Dijk, 2005, 2008; Stouten, De Cremer, &Van Dijk, 2005; Van Dijk &De Cremer, 2006yf demonstrated in a series of experimental studies that providing people with the label of leader makes them more self-serving in a way that they allocate more tangible resources to themselves. In addition, this self-serving behavior goes together with a belief that leader labels make people feel that they are actually entitled to more PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 8 of 21 rewards than when they are provided the label of follower. This is precisely the bias the Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance' we mentioned earlier aims at avoiding. The social context in which we make ethical-related decisions can exert a significant influence and derail us from the good behavior we are expected to show. This idea of context being a powerful determinant for people to act in bad and unethical ways towards others has been central in the work of Bauman on 'moral distance' (Bauman, 1991yf 7 K H Q R W L R Q R I P R U D O G L V W D Q F H K R O G V W K H L G H D W K D W S H R S O H Z L O O K D Y H R Q O \ H W K L F D O F R Q F H U Q V D E R X W R W K H U V W K D t are near to them. If the distance increases, it becomes easier to behave in unethical ways. Interestingly, the work of Bauman was heavily influenced by the earlier mentioned study of Milgram (1974yf R Q R E H G L H Q F H W R D X W K R U L W \ 2 Q e could say that in the Milgram study the fact that the participants were sitting in a different room and did not see the confederate who was supposedly receiving the electro shocks made it easier for them to increase the level of shocks to a deadly level. If context is essential in activating the effects associated with the notion of moral distance, a specific question to address is how we can understand how specific organizational settings influence people's decisions to show good behavior or not. In light of this question, Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, and Umphress's (2003yf D S S U R D F K W R V W X G \ W K e impact of the situation on people's unethical behavior and decision making by looking at organizational elements is promising. These authors put forward the idea that organizational settings carry so many specific features with it and each of these features may frame the organizational setting in ways that either prevent or facilitate unethical behavior and decision making (De Cremer, 2010ayf A first organizational feature is the kind of industry people may work in. For example, the LIBOR scandal where traders manipulated the interest rate known as Libor illustrates that a context defined in terms of finance actually encouraged dishonest behavior. Indeed, when ex-trader Tom Hayes was sentenced to 14 years in prison for his taking part in the Libor scandal, he noted in his voluntarily testimony that the practices he engaged in were widespread and blatant in the industry. This claim has been backed up by recent behavioral ethics research showing that mere exposure to money - an organizational feature much present in the financial sector - leads to more unethical behavior (Kouchaki, Smith-Crowe, Brief, &Sousa, 2013yf 7 K H U H D V R Q I R U W K L V F D X V D O U H O D W L R Q V K L S L s that the mere exposure to money makes people adopt a business decision frame in which decisions are more calculative. In addition, other recent research has further demonstrated that people with a calculative mind set act in more selfish and unethical ways (Wang, Zhong, &Murnighan, 2014yf Another organizational feature is the structure of the organization that creates more versus less distance toward others, which can influence the degree of unethical behaviors. Two types of organizational structures that are relevant to this issue are mechanistic and organic structures (Slevin &Covin, 1997yf 0 H F K D Q L V W L F V W U X F W X U H V L n organizations represent rigid and bureaucratic decision-making structures that foster more hierarchical and distant relationships and communications. Organic structures, on the other hand, represent organizations that are flexible and use more decentralized structures in which it is easier to communicate and relationships are experienced as more close (Lawrence &Lorsch, 1967; Khandwalla, 1977yf % D V H G R Q W K H L G H D R I % D X P D Q \f that bureaucracy functions as a 'moral sleeping pill,' it stands to reason that mechanistic organization structures introduce more distance and hence allow for more unethical behaviors to emerge. A final important organizational element that influences significantly the level of compliance among its employees is the perceived degree of fairness in which procedures are used to allocated organizational resources, or, also referred to as procedural justice (Thibaut &Walker, 1975; Lind &Tyler, 1988yf : K H Q W K H G H F L V L R Q P D N L Q J D X W K R U L W L H V , acting as representatives of the organization, make use of fair procedures it makes that organizational members perceive the organization is a neutral and ethical collective. Tyler, Dienhart, and Thomas (2008yf L Q I D F W S U R Y L G H d evidence that if organizational leaders enact fair procedures (e.g., giving voice, being accurate and unbiased in processing information, etc.; Leventhal, 1980yf H P S O R \ H H V L Q I H U W K H L G H D W K D W W K H R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q F R Q V L G H U V W K H Y D O X H R f morality as an important one. This perception of a moral organization is essential to attract the right kind of employees pursuing the same moral standards and promotes the emergence of moral congruence between the organization and its employees, which furthers ethical and prosocial behavior (Tyler &De Cremer, 2009yf .

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 9 of 21 Importantly, however, is that procedural justice not only builds ethical climates that are shared and supported by all organizational members, but it also helps to integrate punishment systems into those ethical climates. The reason for this is that the enactment of fair procedures promotes perceptions of legitimacy and trustworthiness (Tyler, 1997yf D Q G D V D U H V X O W S X Q L V K P H Q W D Q G F R Q W U R O V \ V W H P V Z L O O E H H Q G R U V H G D Q G F R P S O L H G Z L W K D V P H D Q V W o promote and uphold the shared moral standards (De Cremer &van Knippenberg, 2003; De Cremer, Hoogervorst, &Desmet, 2012yf This focus on organizational elements that significantly impact the emergence of ethical versus unethical behaviors indicates that an important task for organizations is to devote attention to the design of the moral nature of their work climates. One step toward doing this is thus to create procedurally just climates (Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, &Umphress, 2003yf $ Q R W K H U Z D \ R I G R L Q J W K L V L V W R H Q V X U H W K H S U H V H Q F H R I D P R U H J H Q H U D l organizational ethical climate. Victor and Cullen (1987: 51yf G H I L Q H H W K L F D O F O L P D W H D V W K H V K D U H G S H U F H S W L R Q R I Z K D t is correct behavior and how ethical situations should be handled in an organization.' In such a climate, it is clear for employees which values the organization appreciates and actively pursues and which kind of behaviors will not be tolerated and thus corrected. A focus on designing and shaping the ethical infrastructure of the organizational climate is therefore an important responsibility of leaders at different levels within the organization (Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, &Umphress, 2003; Arnaud &Schminke, 2012yf ) R U H [ D P S O H H W K L F D O F O L P D W H V F D Q O H D G W R W K H Y D O L G L W y and legitimacy of law and professional codes (Erondu, Sharland, &Okpara, 2004yf ) X U W K H U P R U H H W K L F D O F O L P D W H s also promote ethics related individual outcome variables such as the development of ethical judgments, expressions of ethical intentions and fair and moral decision making (Barnett &Vaicys, 2000; Fritzsche, 2000; Buchan, 2005yf THE FUTURE OF BEHAVIORAL ETHICS: WHAT TO DO NEXT? In the present article, we described the usefulness and importance of a behavioral approach when studying issues relevant to understanding the workings of business ethics in organizations. It is vital for organizations and business to perform well and evidence is mounting that this can go hand in hand with good and moral behavior.

So, in a way 'good' companies can also do well at the performance level and as such can contribute to the sustainability of the organization. A behavioral approach helps us to understand why people act the way they do and why they do it. We hasten to say, however, that it is of course also important to stress that as a new field behavioral business ethics still faces many challenges. These challenges are, in our view, situated in four areas that are important with respect to (ayf X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J I X U W K H U W K H S V \ F K R O R J L F D O X Q G H U S L Q Q L Q J V R I H W K L F D O M X G J P H Q W s and decision making, (byf F U H D W L Q J D E H W W H U X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R I W K H P H D Q V R Q K R Z W R V K D S H P R U H H W K L F D O E H K D Y L R r when such behavioral constraints are available, (cyf G H H S H Q L Q J R X U L Q V L J K W V L Q W R K R Z W R U H P H G \ X Q H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V , particularly in light of the idea that all of us can fail at any given moment, and (dyf F U L W L F D O O \ D Q D O \ ] L Q J D Q d discussing the further development of the field of business ethics. Below, we will discuss these challenges by pointing out the (1yf L P S R U W D Q F H R I W K H U D W L R H P R W L R Q G L V W L Q F W L R Q U H O D W H d to challenge (ayf \f, (2yf U R O H R I O H D G H U V K L S L Q V K D S L Q J H W K L F D O Z R U N F O L P D W H V D Q G P R W L Y D W L R Q V U H O D W H G W R F K D O O H Q J H E \fyf , (3yf Z D \ Z H Q H H G W R U H V S R Q G W R E X L O G W U X V W D J D L Q D I W H U X Q H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V U H O D W H G W R F K D O O H Q J H F \fyf D Q G \f relevance of integrating the descriptive and prescriptive approaches (related to challenge (dyf \f. The first challenge deals with examining further the psychological antecedents of human decision making and ethics. Specifically, it is important that in addition to looking at cognitive factors that we also focus more closely on the role of emotions and motivations. However, we also agree with Reynolds and Ceranic's (2007yf recommendation that 'while we may have perhaps overrelied on cognition in the past, we did so for good reason.

As the field moves towards other areas ... it is wise to integrate into those new areas what research based on the cognitive perspective has already established' (p. 1622yf On a related note, future research would do well to elaborate further on the distinction between affect-intuition and ratio. Although we sometimes know how to judge consciously an event in moral terms, it often is the case that we know intuitively what is right and wrong without too much cognitive processing. The use of dual-process models (Chaiken &Trope, 1999yf L V W K H U H I R U H D Q H F H V V L W \ L Q W K H G H Y H O R S P H Q W R I W K H I L H O G R I E H K D Y L R U D O E X V L Q H V V H W K L F V 7 K e PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 10 of 21 introduction of such a model is arguably not new as concerns about the complex relation between reason, emotion, and intuition goes way back to the Stoics and is prominent in Spinoza's ethics as well as the writings of early Enlightenment thinkers such as Hume (1777/1969yf Z K R V X J J H V W H G W K D W H P R W L R Q V J X L G H P R U D O F R J Q L W L R Q V , and Kant (1785/1959yf Z K R F R Q V L G H U H G U H D V R Q W K H S U L P D U \ G H W H U P L Q D Q W R I P R U D O M X G J P H Q W V 7 K H U H I R U H Z H G R Q R t only need to develop a research agenda in which both ratio and emotion/intuition have their place, but also focus on when exactly which process is dominating, and, maybe even more importantly, how ratio and intuition interact in arriving at morality judgments. The second challenge concerns the development of the concept ethical leadership. Particularly in the wake of the financial crisis, the demand for leaders leading with integrity and morality is at its peak (Stouten, Van Dijke, Mayer, De Cremer, &Eeuwema, 2013yf % U R Z Q 7 U H Y L R D Q G + D U U L V R Q \f define ethical leadership as 'the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making' (p. 120yf ( W K L F D l leadership is thus believed to reveal more trustworthy, fair and cooperative working environments and intrinsically motivate employees to do what is morally justified for both the company and society at large (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, &Salvador, 2009; Walumbwa &Schaubroeck, 2009yf $ O W K R X J K W K H H [ L V W L Q J U H V H D U F K S D L Q W V a positive image of the effects that ethical leadership reveal, in our opinion, several shortcomings concerning the concept still need to be taken care of. First, both the definition and operationalization of the ethical leadership concept entails a variety of leader behaviors that make up for the complete leader, but that fail to clarify accurately what makes this complete leader ethical. Specifically, ethical leaders are considered, fair, trustworthy, able to punish or reward, to show integrity and respect, to motivate and be the example to follow, making that so many components are involved that it is hard to see how research on ethical leadership is different from other established research themes in the organizational field. Therefore, it is necessary that an integration is pursued between those different research themes and that more insights are provided about which components matter more versus less in promoting the perceived morality of the leader. Second, the definition of ethical leadership solely focuses on how the leader him/herself can set the example to be a moral employee, whereas it is also argued that ethical leaders should transmit ethical norms and standards across different layers within the organization (Schaubroeck et al., 2012yf , Q W K L V Y L H Z O H D G H U V K L S L V V L P S O y restricted to the one leading. More recent leadership studies and reviews have argued to adopt a follower-centered approach of leadership as the congruency in values, attitudes and motives between leaders and followers ultimately leads to an increase in leader effectiveness (Boas, Pillai, Bligh, &Uhl-Bien, 2006yf ) R U H [ D P S O H D F U R V V a series of experimental and field studies, De Cremer, Mayer, Van Dijke, Schouten, and Bardes (2009yf V K R Z H G W K D t self-sacrificial leadership (an ethical leadership style focused on promoting the interest of the collective even at the expense of the leader's own interestsyf L V P R V W H I I H F W L Y H L Q S U R P R W L Q J S U R V R F L D O E H K D Y L R U V D P R Q J I R O O R Z H U V Z K o are motivated to pursue safety and maintenance of the social welfare. Thus, how congruent the leader behavior and identity is with the followers' values significantly influences how effective ethical leaders can be (cf. Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, &Kuenzi, 2012yf The third challenge deals with how people respond once unethical events have emerged. Although many organizations attempt to prevent the emergence of unethical decisions and actions, it is clear that these events will nevertheless occur. Hence there is a need to study the extent to which self-interest versus morality plays a role in addressing unethical outcomes. That is, unethical events can happen to one personally or one may observe how another person is treated badly. An important question is whether people will do something about the unethical event out of self-interested or moral concerns (cf. Turrillo et al., 2002yf 7 K L V T X H V W L R Q L V D Q L P S R U W D Q W R Q H I U R P W K e perspective of organizations. As many tasks are conducted within teams and groups we need to know whether people will report wrongdoing when others are the victim of irresponsible and unethical acts. If this is the case then it is easier to build moral communities within organizations that are intrinsically motivated to maintain high moral standards at the work floor. PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 11 of 21 There is also a need to study how to remedy ethical failures. How to deal with violations of morally accepted rules and standards in a way that trust (and by consequence ethical beliefsyf L V P D L Q W D L Q H G " , Q G H H G Z K H Q D F F H S W H d moral standards are violated, trust will suffer. Trust is defined as a psychological state in which people have confidence that others will act out of goodwill and take the interests of others into account (Mayer, Davis, &Schoorman, 1995; De Cremer, Snyder, &Dewitte, 2001yf 8 Q I R U W X Q D W H O \ W R G D W H Y H U \ O L W W O H D W W H Q W L R Q K D V E H H n devoted to this issue of restoring trust after ethical failures. This is regretful because when ethical failures emerge, it is communicated that integrity is suffering and that acting out of goodwill is a problem. For this reason, a lack of ethics may erode trust (De Cremer, 2010c; De Cremer, van Dijk, &Pillutla, 2010; Desmet, De Cremer, &van Dijk, 2011yf + H Q F H L Q F L U F X P V W D Q F H V R I H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V W K H V W D N H V D U H K L J K E H F D X V H W U X V W L V D Q L P S R U W D Q W D Q W H F H G H Q W R f organizational performance (De Cremer, Snyder &Dewitte, 2001yf & R P S D Q L H V W K D W P D Q D J H H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V Z H O O W H Q d to preserve or even promote a trustworthy reputation (Pillutla, Murnighan, &De Cremer, 2009yf 7 K H I R X U W K F K D O O H Q J e concerns the suggestion that, although the present article advocates the use of a descriptive approach in studying issues of ethics and morality in organizations and business, we do not wish to make the claim that we have to leave prescriptive approaches behind or consider it as a field with limited value. Contrary, we wish to point out that to further our understanding with respect to the why and how of (unyf H W K L F D O E H K D Y L R U U H T X L U H V D Q L Q W H J U D W L R n between the prescriptive and descriptive approaches. As Warren and Smith-Crowe (2008yf Z U R W H Z K L O H E H K D Y L R U D l ethics is descriptive rather than prescriptive, good social science requires a thorough understanding and definition of one's construct - researchers only want to predict and describe ethical behavior, but in doing so, they must define what is ethical, and, therefore, they must be in some sense prescriptive' (p. 84yf % U L H I \f notes that too little consideration to what constitutes right and wrong has left the field of descriptive business ethics occupied with the obviously wrong. By drawing on the prescriptive ethics literature behavioral business ethics can move beyond the extremes of scandal and explore a hinterland of ethically more complex phenomena. An example can be found in Harbour and Kisfalvi (2014yf Z K R E X L O G R Q Y L U W X H H W K L F V O L W H U D W X U H W R H [ D P L Q H H P S L U L F D O O \ Z K D t constitutes courage in an organizational context. The work of moral philosophers is used to develop conceptual boundaries of the courage construct, rather than mere references in passing. Indeed we need to be able to define what an ethical decision implies in terms of its meaning and content, or else behavioral business ethics runs the risk of talking about anything and nothing at the same time (De Cremer &Tenbrunsel, 2012yf D Q G E H F R P H D I L H O d without meaning' (Tenbrunsel &Smith-Crowe, 2008: 551yf 2 Q W K H R Q H K D Q G W K H G H V F U L S W L Y H D S S U R D F K Q H H G V W K e prescriptive one to give it a sense of direction. For example, we discussed the importance of ethical climates in organizations. The descriptive work on organizational justice shows that people are not only concerned about justice being done to them but also to others. Hence, an important task for organizations is to create procedurally just climates that affect employees' perceptions and expectations that others in the organization act in moral and ethical ways (Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe &Umphress, 2003; De Cremer, van Dijke, &Mayer, 2010yf $ S U H V F U L S W L Y e approach such as Habermas' dialogue ethics can be informative as to how to start building exactly such just procedures (Unerman &Bennett, 2004yf On the other hand, the prescriptive approach needs the descriptive one. It is the latter that is the content of the former. All ethical theories stem from an attempt to theorize ethical 'intuition': what is it about a situation that makes it (unyf H W K L F D O K R Z F D Q Z H N Q R Z Z K D W L V H W K L F D O ) R U H [ D P S O H . D Q W G H Y H O R S H G K L V W K H R U \ L Q D Q D W W H P S W W o circumvent a religious foundation for the human knowledge of what is good because he was disgusted with religious wars that had caused so much suffering in Europe. Rawls sought to defend the notion that the state would secure its citizens' well-being without imposing on those citizens how they should define their well-being. An example closer to the business ethics field can be found in the prescriptive literature on whistleblowing. In the 1990s Miceli, Near and Dworkin conducted extensive descriptive research on whistleblowers (for an overview see Miceli, Near, &Dworkin, 2008yf 7 K L V Z R U N K D V F D X V H G D K X J H V K L I W L Q K R Z S U H V F U L S W L Y H E X V L Q H V V H W K L F V G L V F X V V H s whistleblowing. For example, Vandekerckhove and Commers (2004yf X V H W K H G H V F U L S W L Y H U H V H D U F K W R D U J X H K R Z W K e debate around loyalty was a mistaken one. Also, descriptive ethics research is used to provide complexity to normative prima facie positions on whether whistleblowing is a right or a duty, and what the implications are for PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 12 of 21 implementing such policies (Tsahuridu &Vandekerckhove, 2008; Vandekerckhove &Tsahuridu, 2010yf 2 Y H U D W L P e span of only two decades, descriptive ethics research has shifted normative discussions around whistleblowing from a focus on the whistleblower to a focus on the recipient of whistleblowing (Brown, Vandekerckhove, &Dreyfus, 2014; Vandekerckhove, Brown, &Tsahuridu, 2014yf IN CONCLUSION The aim of this paper was to recast prescriptive and descriptive business ethics in light of one another. Although much progress has been made in understanding why people care about ethics and morality and the resulting use of moral values and codes of conduct in creating ethical climates in organizations, the present paper argued that in addition to more prescriptive approaches we also need descriptive approaches that zoom in on the psychological underpinnings of why good people can do bad things. Improving our insights into why people show good and bad behavior will enable us to prevent or (if prevention is not possibleyf P D Q D J H H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V D Q d promote towards the future. We hope that this message will motivate organizational researchers to take up the challenge to develop more comprehensive theoretical models of (unyf H W K L F D O E H K D Y L R U W K D W D U H E R W K L Q I R U P H G E y moral philosophy as well as have clear practical implications to improve organizational functioning and sustainability. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their comments on previous versions of this paper. References References Alzola M. (2011 yf 7 K H U H F R Q F L O L D W L R Q S U R M H F W 6 H S D U D W L R Q D Q G L Q W H J U D W L R Q L Q E X V L Q H V V H W K L F V U H V H D U F K - R X U Q D O R f Business Ethics , 99 , 19 -36 .10.1007/s10551-011-0746-8 Arendt H. (1963 yf ( L F K P D Q Q L Q - H U X V D O H P $ U H S R U W R Q W K H E D Q D O L W \ R I H Y L O 1 H Z < R U N 1 < 9 L N L Q J 3 U H V V Arnaud A. , &Schminke M. (2012 yf 7 K H H W K L F D O F O L P D W H D Q G F R Q W H [ W R I R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V $ F R P S U H K H Q V L Y H P R G H O .

Organization Science , 23 (6 yf R U V F Asch S. E. (1955 yf 2 S L Q L R Q V D Q G V R F L D O S U H V V X U H 6 F L H Q W L I L F $ P H U L F D Q 5 .10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31 Ashforth B. , &Anand V. (2003 yf 7 K H Q R U P D O L ] D W L R Q R I F R U U X S W L R Q L Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V 5 H V H D U F K L Q 2 U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D l Behavior , 25 , 1 -52 .10.1016/S0191-3085(03yf Banaji M. R. , &Bhaskar R. (2000 yf , P S O L F L W V W H U H R W \ S H V D Q G P H P R U \ 7 K H E R X Q G H G U D W L R Q D O L W \ R I V R F L D O E H O L H I V , Q ' .

L. Schacter, &E. Scarry (Eds.yf 0 H P R U \ E U D L Q D Q G E H O L H I S S \f. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Banaji M. R. , Bazerman M. , &Chugh D. (2003 yf + R Z 8 Q \fethical are you? Harvard Business Review , 81 (12 yf - 64 . Bandura A. (1999 yf 0 R U D O G L V H Q J D J H P H Q W L Q W K H S H U S U H W D W L R Q R I L Q K X P D Q L W L H V 3 H U V R Q D O L W \ D Q G 6 R F L D O 3 V \ F K R O R J y Review , 3 (3 yf V S V S U B Barnett T. , &Vaicys C. (2000 yf 7 K H P R G H U D W L Q J H I I H F W R I L Q G L Y L G X D O V S H U F H S W L R Q R I H W K L F D O Z R U N F O L P D W H R Q H W K L F D l judgments and behavioral intentions . Journal of Business Ethics , 27 (4 yf $ Bauman Z. (1991 yf 0 R G H U Q L W \ D Q G W K H K R O R F D X V W & D P E U L G J H 3 R O L W \ 3 U H V V Bazerman M. H. , &Banaji M. R. (2004 yf 7 K H V R F L D O S V \ F K R O R J \ R I R U G L Q D U \ H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V 6 R F L D O - X V W L F H 5 H V H D U F h , 17 (2 yf % 6 2 5 ( Bazerman M. , Tenbrunsel A. , &Wade-Benzoni K. (1998 yf 1 H J R W L D W L Q J Z L W K \ R X U V H O I D Q G O R V L Q J 0 D N L Q J G H F L V L R Q s with competing internal preferences . Academy of Management Review , 23 (2 yf Bennett R. J. , &Robinson S. L. (2000 yf ' H Y H O R S P H Q W R I D P H D V X U H R I Z R U N S O D F H G H Y L D Q F H - R X U Q D O R I $ S S O L H d Psychology , 85 (3 yf Bersoff D. M. (1999 yf : K \ J R R G S H R S O H V R P H W L P H V G R E D G W K L Q J V 0 R W L Y D W H G U H D V R Q L Q J D Q G X Q H W K L F D O E H K D Y L R U .

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25 (1 yf PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 13 of 21 Beu D. , &Buckley M. R. (2004 yf 8 V L Q J D F F R X Q W D E L O L W \ W R F U H D W H D P R U H H W K L F D O F O L P D W H + X P D Q 5 H V R X U F e Management Review , 14 (1 yf M K U P U Boas S. , Pillai R. , Bligh M. , &Uhl-Bien M. (2006 yf ) R O O R Z H U F H Q W H U H G S H U V S H F W L Y H V R Q O H D G H U V K L S $ W U L E X W H W R W K e memory of James R. Meindl . Charlotte, NC : Information Age Publishing . Brewer M. B. , &Kramer R. M. (1986 yf & K R L F H E H K D Y L R U L Q V R F L D O G L O H P P D V ( I I H F W V R I V R F L D O L G H Q W L W \ J U R X S V L ] H D Q d decision framing . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50 (3 yf Brief A. P. (2012 yf 7 K H J R R G W K H E D G D Q G W K H X J O \ : K D W E H K D Y L R U D O E X V L Q H V V H W K L F V U H V H D U F K H U V R X J K W W R E e studying . In D. De Cremer, &A. Tenbrunsel (Eds.yf % H K D Y L R U D O E X V L Q H V V H W K L F V 6 K D S L Q J D Q H P H U J L Q J I L H O G \f.

New York, NY : Routledge . Brown A. J. , Vandekerckhove W. , &Dreyfus S. (2014 yf 7 K H U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q W U D Q V S D U H Q F \ Z K L V W O H E O R Z L Q J D Q d public trust . In P. Ala'I, &R. G. Vaughn (Eds.yf 5 H V H D U F K K D Q G E R R N R Q W U D Q V S D U H Q F \ S S \f.

Cheltenham/Northamton, MA : Edward Elgar . Brown M. , Treviño L. K. , &Harrison D. (2005 yf ( W K L F D O O H D G H U V K L S $ V R F L D O O H D U Q L Q J S H U V S H F W L Y H I R U F R Q V W U X F t development and testing . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 97 (2 yf 4 .10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 Buchan H. F. (2005 yf ( W K L F D O G H F L V L R Q P D N L Q J L Q W K H S X E O L F D F F R X Q W L Q J S U R I H V V L R Q $ Q H [ W H Q V L R Q R I $ M ] H Q V W K H R U y of planned behavior . Journal of Business Ethics , 61 (2 yf V Burggraeve R. (1999 yf 9 L R O H Q F H D Q G W K H Y X O Q H U D E O H I D F H R I W K H R W K H U - R X U Q D O R I 6 R F L D O 3 K L O R V R S K \ \f, 29 -45 .10.1111/0047-2786.t01-1-00003 Cain D. M. , Loewenstein G. , &Moore D. A. (2005 yf 7 K H G L U W R Q F R P L Q J F O H D Q 3 H U Y H U V H H I I H F W V R I G L V F O R V L Q g conflicts of interest . Journal of Legal Studies , 34 (1 yf Chaiken S. , &Trope Y. (1999 yf ' X D O S U R F H V V W K H R U L H V L Q V R F L D O S V \ F K R O R J \ 1 H Z < R U N 1 < * X L O I R U G 3 U H V V Chugh D. , Bazerman M. H. , &Banaji M. R. (2005 yf % R X Q G H G H W K L F D O L W \ D V D S V \ F K R O R J L F D O E D U U L H U W R U H F R J Q L ] L Q g conflicts of interest . In D. A. Moore, D. M. Cain, G. Loewenstein, &M. H. Bazerman (Eds.yf & R Q I O L F W V R I L Q W H U H V W :

problems and solutions from law, medicine and organizational settings (pp. 74 -95 yf & D P E U L G J H & D P E U L G J e University Press .10.1017/CBO9780511610332.006 Darley J. M. (1992 yf 6 R F L D O R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q I R U W K H S U R G X F W L R Q R I H Y L O 3 V \ F K R O R J L F D O , Q T X L U \ \f, 199 -218 .10.1207/s15327965pli0302_28 De Cremer D. , &Tenbrunsel A. E. (2012 yf % H K D Y L R U D O E X V L Q H V V H W K L F V 6 K D S L Q J D Q H P H U J L Q J I L H O G 1 H Z < R U N 1 < :

Taylor &Francis . De Cremer D. (2003 yf + R Z V H O I F R Q F H S W L R Q P D \ O H D G W R L Q H T X D O L W \ $ Q H [ S H U L P H Q W D O L Q Y H V W L J D W L R Q R I W K H L P S D F W R f hierarchical roles on the equality-rule when allocating organizational resources . Group and Organization Management , 28 (2 yf De Cremer D. (2009 yf % H L Q J X Q H W K L F D O R U E H F R P L Q J X Q H W K L F D O $ Q L Q W U R G X F W L R Q , Q ' ' H & U H P H U ( G \f, Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 3 -13 yf * U H H Q Z L F K & 7 , Q I R U P D W L R Q $ J H 3 X E O L V K L Q J De Cremer D. (2010a yf 2 Q W K H S V \ F K R O R J \ R I S U H Y H Q W L Q J D Q G G H D O L Q J Z L W K H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V $ E H K D Y L R U D O H W K L F s approach . In M. Schminke (Ed.yf 0 D Q D J H U L D O H W K L F V S S \f. New York, NY : Taylor and Francis . De Cremer D. (2010b yf % U H D N L Q J W K H F R U U X S W L R Q K D E L W % X V L Q H V V 6 W U D W H J \ 5 H Y L H Z \f, 67 -69 .10.1111/j.1467- 8616.2010.00690.x De Cremer D. (2010c yf : K H Q I L Q D Q F L D O F R P S H Q V D W L R Q V Y H U V X V D S R O R J L H V P D W W H U D I W H U W U D Q V J U H V V L R Q V L Q E D U J D L Q L Q J :

It depends on whether the transgression involved losses or gains . Journal of Economic Psychology , 31 (6 yf - 848 .10.1016/j.joep.2010.05.006 De Cremer D. (2014 yf : K \ H W K L F V L V R I W H Q J U H \ D Q G Q R W Z K L W H % X V L Q H V V H W K L F V F K D O O H Q J H V L Q D J O R E D O Z R U O G : R U O d Financial Review , January/February , 23 -25 . De Cremer D. , &van Dijk E. (2005 yf : K H Q D Q G Z K \ O H D G H U V S X W W K H P V H O Y H V I L U V W / H D G H U E H K D Y L R U L Q U H V R X U F e allocations as a function of feeling entitled . European Journal of Social Psychology , 35 (4 yf 3 .10.1002/ejsp.260 PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 14 of 21 De Cremer D. , &van Dijk E. (2008 yf / H D G H U I R O O R Z H U H I I H F W V L Q U H V R X U F H G L O H P P D V 7 K H U R O H V R I O H D G H U V K L S V H O H F W L R n and social responsibility . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 11 (3 yf 9 .10.1177/1368430208090647 De Cremer D. , &van Knippenberg D. (2003 yf & R R S H U D W L R Q Z L W K O H D G H U V L Q V R F L D O G L O H P P D V 2 Q W K H H I I H F W V R f procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 91 (1 yf 6 \f00539-3 De Cremer D. , Hoogervorst N. , &Desmet P. (2012 yf 3 U R F H G X U D O M X V W L F H D Q G V D Q F W L R Q V L Q V R F L D O G L O H P P D V 7 K e moderating effects of group feedback and identification . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 42 (7 yf 3 .10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00914.x De Cremer D. , Mayer D. M. , Van Dijke M. , Schouten B. C. , &Bardes M. (2009 yf 6 H O I V D F U L I L F L D O O H D G H U V K L S S U R P R W L Q g prosocial behavior: The moderating role of prevention focus . Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 (4 yf 9 .10.1037/a0014782 De Cremer D. , Pillutla M. , &Reinders Folmer C. (2011 yf + R Z L P S R U W D Q W L V D Q D S R O R J \ W R \ R X " ) R U H F D V W L Q J H U U R U V L n predicting the true value of apologies . Psychological Science , 22 (1 yf De Cremer D. , Snyder M. , &Dewitte S. (2001 yf 7 K H O H V V , W U X V W W K H O H V V , F R Q W U L E X W H R U Q R W \f? The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas . European Journal of Social Psychology , 31 (1 yf 7 .10.1002/ejsp.34 De Cremer D. , Tenbrunsel A. , &van Dijke M. (2010 yf 5 H J X O D W L Q J H W K L F D O I D L O X U H V , Q V L J K W V I U R P S V \ F K R O R J \ - R X U Q D l of Business Ethics , 95 (1 yf De Cremer D. , van Dick R. , Tenbrunsel A. E. , Pillutla M. , &Murnighan J. K. (2011 yf 2 Q H W K L F D O E H K D Y L R X U D Q d decision making in management: A behavioural ethics approach . British Journal of Management , 22 (1 yf 4 .10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00739.x De Cremer D. , van Dijk E. , &Pillutla M. (2010 yf ( [ S O D L Q L Q J X Q I D L U R I I H U V L Q X O W L P D W X P J D P H V D Q G W K H L U H I I H F W V R n trust: An experimental approach . Business Ethics Quarterly , 20 (1 yf E H T 8 S1052150X00002797 De Cremer D. , van Dijke M. , &Mayer D. (2010 yf & R R S H U D W L Q J Z K H Q \ R X D Q G , D U H W U H D W H G I D L U O \ 7 K H P R G H U D W L Q g role of leader prototypicality . Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 (6 yf D Desmet P. , De Cremer D. , &van Dijk E. (2011 yf , Q P R Q H \ Z H W U X V W " : K H Q I L Q D Q F L D O F R P S H Q V D W L R Q V P D W W H U L n repairing trust perceptions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 114 (2 yf 6 .10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.006 Epley N. , &Dunning D. (2000 yf ) H H O L Q J K R O L H U W K D Q W K R X $ U H V H O I V H U Y L Q J D V V H V V P H Q W V S U R G X F H G E \ H U U R U V L Q V H O I - or social prediction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79 (6 yf Erondu E. , Sharland A. , &Okpara J.O. (2004 yf & R U S R U D W H H W K L F V L Q 1 L J H U L D $ W H V W R I W K H F R Q F H S W R I D Q H W K L F D l climate . Journal of Business Ethics , 51 (4 yf % % 8 6 , I G Eyal T. , Liberman N. , &Trope Y. (2008 yf - X G J L Q J Q H D U D Q G G L V W D Q W Y L U W X H D Q G Y L F H - R X U Q D O R I ( [ S H U L P H Q W D O 6 R F L D l Psychology , 44 (4 yf M M H V S Foot Ph. (1967 yf 7 K H S U R E O H P R I D E R U W L R Q D Q G W K H G R F W U L Q H R I W K H G R X E O H H I I H F W 2 [ I R U G 5 H Y L H Z Fritzsche D. J. (2000 yf ( W K L F D O F O L P D W H V D Q G W K H H W K L F D O G L P H Q V L R Q R I G H F L V L R Q P D N L Q J - R X U Q D O R I % X V L Q H V V ( W K L F V , 24 (2 yf $ Gilbert D. T. , Pinel E. C. , Wilson T. D. , Blumberg S. J. , &Wheatley T. (1998 yf , P P X Q H Q H J O H F W $ V R X U F H R I G X U D E L O L W y bias in affective forecasting . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 (3 yf - 3514.75.3.617 Gino F. , &Bazerman M. H. (2009 yf : K H Q P L V F R Q G X F W J R H V X Q Q R W L F H G 7 K H D F F H S W D E L O L W \ R I J U D G X D O H U R V L R Q L n others' unethical behavior . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45 (4 yf 9 .10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.013 Gino F. , Schweitzer M. E. , &Mead N. L. (2011 yf 8 Q D E O H W R U H V L V W W H P S W D W L R Q + R Z V H O I F R Q W U R O G H S O H W L R Q S U R P R W H s unethical behaviour . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 115 (2 yf 3 PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 15 of 21 .10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001 Greene J. (2013 yf 0 R U D O W U L E H V ( P R W L R Q U H D V R Q D Q G W K H J D S E H W Z H H Q X V D Q G W K H P / R Q G R Q 8 . $ W O H Q W L F % R R N V Greene J. D. , Sommerville R. B. , Nystrom L. E. , Darley J. M. , &Cohen J. D. (2001 yf $ Q I 0 5 , L Q Y H V W L J D W L R Q R f emotional engagement in moral judgment . Science , 293 (5537 yf V F L H Q F H Habermas J. (1991 yf 0 R U D O F R Q V F L R X V Q H V V D Q G F R P X Q L F D W L Y H D F W L R Q & D P E U L G J H 0 , 7 3 U H V V Haidt J. (2001 yf 7 K H H P R W L R Q D O G R J D Q G L W V U D W L R Q D O W D L O $ V R F L D O L Q W X L W L R Q L V W D S S U R D F K W R P R U D O M X G J P H Q W .

Psychological Review , 108 (4 yf ; Haidt J. (2007 yf 7 K H Q H Z V \ Q W K H V L V L Q P R U D O S V \ F K R O R J \ 6 F L H Q F H \f, 998 -1002 .10.1126/science.1137651 Harbour M. , &Kisfalvi V. (2014 yf , Q W K H H \ H R I W K H E H K R O G H U $ Q H [ S O R U D W L R Q R I P D Q D J H U L D O F R X U D J H - R X U Q D O R f Business Ethics , 119 , 493 -515 .10.1007/s10551-013-1835-7 Hilbig B. E. , &Hessler C. M. (2013 yf : K D W O L H V E H Q H D W K + R Z W K H G L V W D Q F H E H W Z H H Q W U X W K D Q G O L H G U L Y H V G L V K R Q H V W \ .

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 (2 yf M M H V S Hume D. (1969 yf $ Q H Q T X L U \ F R Q F H U Q L Q J W K H S U L Q F L S O H V R I P R U D O V / D 6 D O O H , / 2 S H Q & R X U W 2 U L J L Q D O Z R U k published 1777yf Jones T. M. (1991 yf ( W K L F D O G H F L V L R Q P D N L Q J E \ L Q G L Y L G X D O V L Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V $ Q L V V X H F R Q W L Q J H Q W P R G H O $ F D G H P y of Management Review , 16 (2 yf Kahneman D. , &Tversky A. (1979 yf 3 U R V S H F W W K H R U \ $ Q D Q D O \ V L V R I G H F L V L R Q V X Q G H U U L V N ( F R Q R P H W U L F D - 291 .10.2307/1914185 Kahneman D. , &Tversky A. (2000 yf & K R L F H V Y D O X H V D Q G I U D P H V & D P E U L G J H 8 . & D P E U L G J H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ 3 U H V V Kant I. (1959 yf ) R X Q G D W L R Q R I W K H P H W D S K \ V L F V R I P R U D O V 7 U D Q V O D W H G E \ / : % H F N \f. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill (Original work published 1785yf Kern M. , &Chugh D. (2009 yf % R X Q G H G H W K L F D O L W \ 7 K H S H U L O V R I O R V V I U D P L Q J 3 V \ F K R O R J L F D O 6 F L H Q F H \f, 378 - 384 .10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02296.x Khandwalla P. N. (1977 yf 7 K H G H V L J Q R I R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V 1 H Z < R U N 1 < + D U F R X U W % U D F H - R Y D Q R Y L F K Kish-Gephart J. J. , Harrison D. A. , &Treviño L. K. (2010 yf % D G D S S O H V E D G F D V H V D Q G E D G E D U U H O V 0 H W D D Q D O \ W L c evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work . Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 (1 yf 1 .10.1037/a0017103 Kouchaki M. , Smith-Crowe K. , Brief A. P. , &Sousa C. (2013 yf 6 H H L Q J J U H H Q 0 H U H H [ S R V X U H W R P R Q H \ W U L J J H U V a business decision frame and unethical outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 121 (1 yf M R E K G S Lawrence P. Y. , &Lorsch J. (1967 yf 2 U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D Q G H Q Y L U R Q P H Q W 0 D Q D J L Q J G L I I H U H Q W L D W L R Q D Q G L Q W H J U D W L R Q .

Boston, MA : Division of Research, Harvard University School . Leventhal G. S. (1980 yf : K D W V K R X O G E H G R Q H Z L W K H T X L W \ W K H R U \ " 1 H Z D S S U R D F K H V W R W K H V W X G \ R I I D L U Q H V V L Q V R F L D l relationships . In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, &R. Willis (Eds.yf 6 R F L D O H [ F K D Q J H $ G Y D Q F H V L Q W K H R U \ D Q G U H V H D U F K S S .

27 -55 yf 1 H Z < R U N 1 < 3 O H Q X P B Levin D. (2002 yf & K D Q J H E O L Q G Q H V V E O L Q G Q H V V D V Y L V X D O P H W D F R J Q L W L R Q - R X U Q D O R I & R Q V F L R X V Q H V V 6 W X G L H V \f, 111 -130 . Levinas E. (1969 yf 7 R W D O L W \ D Q G L Q I L Q L W \ $ Q H V V D \ R Q H [ W H U L R U L W \ 7 U D Q V O D W H G E \ $ / L Q J L V \f. Pittsburgh: Dusquesne University Press (Original work published in 1961yf Levinas E. (2003 yf + X P D Q L V P R I W K H R W K H U & K L F D J R 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I , O O L Q R L V 3 U H V V 2 U L J L Q D O Z R U N S X E O L V K H G L Q \f.

Liberman N. , Trope Y. , &Stephan E. (2007 yf 3 V \ F K R O R J L F D O G L V W D Q F H , Q $ : . U X J O D Q V N L ( 7 + L J J L Q V ( G V \f, Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles , Vol. 2 , pp. 353 -383 yf 1 H Z < R U N 1 < * X L O I R U G 3 U H V V Lind E. A. , &Tyler R. T. (1988 yf 7 K H V R F L D O S V \ F K R O R J \ R I S U R F H G X U D O M X V W L F H 1 H Z < R U N / R Q G R Q 3 O H Q X P 3 U H V V Lyotard J. F. (1984 yf 7 K H S R V W P R G H U Q F R Q G L W L R Q $ U H S R U W R Q N Q R Z O H G J H 7 U D Q V O D W H G E \ * % H Q Q L Q J W R Q % .

Massumiyf 0 L Q Q H D S R O L V 0 1 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ R I 0 L Q Q H D S R O L V 2 U L J L Q D O Z R U N S X E O L V K H G L Q \f. PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 16 of 21 Mayer D. M. , Aquino K. , Greenbaum R. L. , &Kuenzi M. (2012 yf : K R G L V S O D \ V H W K L F D O O H D G H U V K L S D Q G Z K \ G R H V L t matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership . Academy of Management Journal , 55 (1 yf D P M Mayer D. M. , Kuezni M. , Greenbaum R. L. , Bardes M. , &Salvador R. (2009 yf + R Z O R Z G R H V H W K L F D O O H D G H U V K L S I O R Z ?

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 108 , 1 -13 .10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002 Mayer R. C. , Davis J. H. , &Schoorman F. D. (1995 yf $ Q L Q W H J U D W L R Q P R G H O R I R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O W U X V W $ F D G H P \ R f Management Review , 20 (3 yf Miceli M. P. , Near J. P. , &Dworkin T. M. (2008 yf : K L V W O H E O R Z L Q J L Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V 1 H Z < R U N 1 < 5 R X W O H G J H Milgram S. (1974 yf 2 E H G L H Q F H W R D X W K R U L W \ $ Q H [ S H U L P H Q W D O Y L H Z 1 H Z < R U N 1 < + D U S H U 5 R Z Moore C. (2008 yf 0 R U D O G L V H Q J D J H P H Q W L Q S U R F H V V H V R I R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O F R U U X S W L R Q - R X U Q D O R I % X V L Q H V V ( W K L F V 0 (1 yf V Moore C. (2009 yf 3 V \ F K R O R J L F D O S U R F H V V H V L Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q D O F R U U X S W L R Q , Q ' ' H & U H P H U ( G \f, Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 35-71yf & K D U O R W W H 1 & , Q I R U P D W L R Q $ J H 3 X E O L V K L Q J Moore C. , &Gino F. (2013 yf ( W K L F D O O \ D G U L I W + R Z R W K H U V S X O O R X U P R U D O F R P S D V V I U R P W U X H 1 R U W K D Q G K R Z Z H F D n fix it . Research in Organizational Behavior , 33 , 53 -77 .10.1016/j.riob.2013.08.001 Moore D. A. , &Loewenstein G. (2004 yf 6 H O I L Q W H U H V W D X W R P D W L F L W \ D Q G W K H S V \ F K R O R J \ R I F R Q I O L F W R I L Q W H U H V W 6 R F L D l Justice Research , 17 (2 yf % 6 2 5 ( E Otsuka M. (2008 yf ' R X E O H H I I H F W W U L S O H H I I H F W D Q G W K H W U R O O H \ S U R E O H P 6 T X D U L Q J W K H F L U F O H L Q O R R S L Q J F D V H V 8 W L O L W D s , 20 (1 yf 6 6 Pillutla M. M. , Murnighan J. K. , &De Cremer D. (2009 yf 7 U D Q V J U H V V L R Q V D V R S S R U W X Q L W L H V W R E X L O G W U X V W .

Unpublished manuscript, London Business School, UK. Poppe M. , &Valkenberg H. (2003 yf ( I I H F W V R I J D L Q Y H U V X V O R V V D Q G F H U W D L Q Y H U V X V S U R E D E O H R X W F R P H V R Q V R F L D l value orientations . European Journal of Social Psychology , 33 (3 yf H M V S Rawls J. (1971 yf $ W K H R U \ R I M X V W L F H & D P E U L G J H 0 $ + D U Y D U G 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ 3 U H V V Reinders Folmer C. , &De Cremer D. (2012 yf % D G ) R U 0 H 2 U % D G ) R U 8 V " , Q W H U S H U V R Q D O 2 U L H Q W D W L R Q V D Q G W K H L P S D F t of losses on unethical behavior . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 (6 yf 1 .10.1177/0146167211436252 Rest J. R. (1986 yf 0 R U D O G H Y H O R S P H Q W $ G Y D Q F H V L Q U H V H D U F K D Q G W K H R U \ 1 H Z < R U N 1 < 3 U D H J H U Reynolds S. J. (2008 yf 0 R U D O D W W H Q W L Y H Q H V V : K R S D \ V D W W H Q W L R Q W R W K H P R U D O D V S H F W V R I O L I H " - R X U Q D O R I $ S S O L H d Psychology , 93 (5 yf Reynolds S. J. , &Ceranic T. L. (2007 yf 7 K H H I I H F W V R I P R U D O M X G J P H Q W D Q G P R U D O L G H Q W L W \ R Q P R U D O E H K D Y L R U $ n empirical examination of the moral individual . Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (6 yf - 9010.92.6.1610 Reynolds S. J. , Leavitt K. , &DeCelles K. A. (2010 yf $ X W R P D W L F H W K L F V 7 K H H I I H F W V R I L P S O L F L W D V V X P S W L R Q V D Q d contextual cues on moral behavior . Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 (4 yf D Ross L. (1977 yf 7 K H L Q W X L W L Y H S V \ F K R O R J L V W D Q G K L V V K R U W F R P L Q J V ' L V W R U W L R Q V L Q W K H D W W U L E X W L R Q S U R F H V V , Q / .

Berkowitz (Ed.yf $ G Y D Q F H V L Q H [ S H U L P H Q W D O V R F L D O S V \ F K R O R J \ 9 R O S S \f. New York, NY : Academic Press . Ruedy N. E. , Moore C. , &Gino F. (2013 yf 7 K H F K H D W H U V K L J K 7 K H X Q H [ S H F W H G D I I H F W L Y H E H Q H I L W V R I X Q H W K L F D l behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 105 (4 yf D Schaubroeck J. M. , Hannah S. T. , Avolio B. J. , Kozlowski S. W. J. , Lord R. G. , Treviño L. K. , Dimotakis N. , &Peng A. C. (2012 yf ( P E H G G L Q J H W K L F D O O H D G H U V K L S Z L W K L Q D Q G D F U R V V R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q O H Y H O V $ F D G H P \ R I 0 D Q D J H P H Q t Journal , 55 (5 yf D P M Scherer A. G. , &Palazzo G. (2007 yf 7 R Z D U G D S R O L W L F D O F R Q F H S W L R Q R I F R U S R U D W H U H V S R Q V L E L O L W \ % X V L Q H V V D Q G V R F L H W y seen from a habermasian perspective . Academy of Management Review , 32 (4 yf 0 .10.5465/AMR.2007.26585837 Schminke M. (2010 yf 0 D Q D J H U L D O H W K L F V 0 D Q D J L Q J W K H S V \ F K R O R J \ R I P R U D O L W \ 1 H Z < R U N 1 < :

PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 17 of 21 Routledge/Psychology Press . Shalvi S. , Dana J. , &Handgraaf M. J. J. (2011 yf - X V W L I L H G H W K L F D O L W \ 2 E V H U Y L Q J G H V L U H G F R X Q W H U I D F W X D O V P R G L I L H s ethical perceptions and behaviors . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 115 (2 yf 0 .10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.001 Slevin D. P. , &Covin J. G. (1997 yf 6 W U D W H J \ I R U P D W L R Q S D W W H U Q V S H U I R U P D Q F H D Q G W K H V L J Q L I L F D Q F H R I F R Q W H [ W .

Journal of Management , 23 , 189 -209 . Snyder M. , &Cantor N. (1998 yf 8 Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J S H U V R Q D O L W \ D Q G V R F L D O E H K D Y L R U $ I X Q F W L R Q D O L V W V W U D W H J \ , Q ' .

Gilbert, S. Fiske, &G. Lindzey (Eds.yf + D Q G E R R N R I V R F L D O S V \ F K R O R J \ 9 R O S S \f. New York, NY : McGraw- Hill . Sondak H. , Neale M. A. , &Pinkley R. L. (1995 yf 7 K H Q H J R W L D W H G D O O R F D W L R Q R I E H Q H I L W V D Q G E X U G H Q V 7 K H L P S D F W R f outcome valence, contribution, and relationship . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 64 (3 yf , 249 -260 .10.1006/obhd.1995.1103 Stouten J. , De Cremer D. , &van Dijk E. (2005 yf , D P G R L Q J W K H E H V W , F D Q I R U P \ V H O I \f: Leadership roles as a function of variability on group harvest in resource dilemmas . Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 9 (3 yf Stouten J. , Van Dijke M. , Mayer D. , De Cremer D. , &Eeuwema M. (2013 yf & D Q D O H D G H U E H V H H Q D V W R R H W K L F D O " 7 K e curvilinear effects of ethical leadership . The Leadership Quarterly , 24 (5 yf M O H D T X D 2 Strack F. , &Mussweiler T. (1997 yf ( [ S O D L Q L Q J W K H H Q L J P D W L F D Q F K R U L Q J H I I H F W 0 H F K D Q L V P V R I V H O H F W L Y e accessibility . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 (3 yf Taylor S. E. (1989 yf 3 R V L W L Y H L O O X V L R Q V & U H D W L Y H V H O I G H F H S W L R Q D Q G W K H K H D O W K \ P L Q G 1 H Z < R U N 1 < % D V L F % R R N V Tenbrunsel A. E. (2005 yf & R P P H Q W D U \ % R X Q G H G H W K L F D O L W \ D Q G F R Q I O L F W V R I L Q W H U H V W , Q ' $ 0 R R U H ' 0 & D L Q * .

Loewenstein, &M. H. Bazerman (Eds.yf & R Q I O L F W V R I L Q W H U H V W & K D O O H Q J H V D Q G V R O X W L R Q V L Q E X V L Q H V V O D Z P H G L F L Q e and public policy (pp. 96 -103 yf & D P E U L G J H & D P E U L G J H 8 Q L Y H U V L W \ 3 U H V V & % 2 Tenbrunsel A. E. , &Smith-Crowe K. (2008 yf ( W K L F D O G H F L V L R Q P D N L Q J : K H U H Z H Y H E H H Q D Q G Z K H U H Z H U H J R L Q J .

Academy of Management Annals , 2 (1 yf Tenbrunsel A. E. , Smith-Crowe K. , &Umphress E. E. (2003 yf % X L O G L Q J K R X V H V R Q U R F N V 7 K H U R O H R I W K H H W K L F D l infrastructure in organizations . Social Justice Research , 16 (3 yf $ Thibaut J. , &Walker L. (1975 yf 3 U R F H G X U D O M X V W L F H 0 D K Z D K 1 - ( U O E D X P Thomson J. J. (1985 yf 7 K H W U R O O H \ S U R E O H P 7 K H < D O H / D Z - R X U Q D O Treviño L. K. (1986 yf ( W K L F D O G H F L V L R Q P D N L Q J L Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V $ S H U V R Q V L W X D W L R Q L Q W H U D F W L R Q L V W P R G H O $ F D G H P y of Management Review , 11 (3 yf Treviño L. K. , Weaver G. R. , &Reynolds S.J. (2006 yf % H K D Y L R U D O H W K L F V L Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V $ U H Y L H Z - R X U Q D O R f Management , 32 (6 yf Trope Y. , &Liberman N. (2003 yf 7 H P S R U D O F R Q V W U X D O 3 V \ F K R O R J L F D O 5 H Y L H Z \f, 403 -421 .10.1037/0033- 295X.110.3.403 Tsahuridu E. , &Vandekerckhove W. (2008 yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O Z K L V W O H E O R Z L Q J S R O L F L H V P D N L Q J H P S O R \ H H V U H V S R Q V L E O e or liable? Journal of Business Ethics , 82 (1 yf V Turillo C. J. , Folger R. , Lavelle J. J. , Umphress E. E. , &Gee J. O. (2002 yf , V Y L U W X H L W V R Z Q U H Z D U G " 6 H O I V D F U L I L F L D l decisions for the sake of fairness . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 89 (1 yf 5 .10.1016/S0749-5978(02yf Tversky A. , &Kahneman D. (1974 yf - X G J P H Q W X Q G H U X Q F H U W D L Q W \ + H X U L V W L F V D Q G E L D V H V 6 F L H Q F H \f, 1124 -1131 .10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 Tversky A. , &Kahneman D. (1981 yf 7 K H I U D P L Q J R I G H F L V L R Q V D Q G W K H S V \ F K R O R J \ R I F K R L F H 6 F L H Q F H \f, 452 -458 . Tyler T. R. , &De Cremer D. (2009 yf ( W K L F V D Q G U X O H D G K H U H Q F H L Q J U R X S V , Q ' ' H & U H P H U ( G \f, Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 215 -232 yf * U H H Q Z L F K , Q I R U P D W L R Q $ J H 3 X E O L V K L Q J PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 18 of 21 Tyler T. R. , Dienhart J. , &Thomas T. (2008 yf 7 K H H W K L F D O F R P P L W P H Q W W R F R P S O L D Q F H % X L O G L Q J Y D O X H E D V H G F X O W X U H s . California Management Review , 50 (2 yf Tyler T. R. (1997 yf 7 K H S V \ F K R O R J \ R I O H J L W L P D F \ 3 H U V R Q D O L W \ D Q G 6 R F L D O 3 V \ F K R O R J \ 5 H Y L H Z 4 .10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_4 Umphress E. E. , &Bingham J. B. (2011 yf : K H Q H P S O R \ H H V G R E D G W K L Q J V I R U J R R G U H D V R Q V ( [ D P L Q L Q J X Q H W K L F D l pro-organizational behaviors . Organization Science , 22 (3 yf R U V F Unerman J. , &Bennett M. (2004 yf , Q F U H D V H G V W D N H K R O G H U G L D O R J X H D Q G W K H L Q W H U Q H W 7 R Z D U G V J U H D W H U F R U S R U D W e accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society , 29 (7 yf 7 .10.1016/j.aos.2003.10.009 Van Dijk E. , &De Cremer D. (2006 yf 3 X W W L Q J R Q H V R Z Q L Q W H U H V W I L U V W R U Q R W / H D G H U I R O O R Z H U H I I H F W V D Q G V R F L D O Y D O X e orientations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 32 (10 yf Vandekerckhove W. , &Commers M. R. S. (2004 yf : K L V W O H E O R Z L Q J D Q G U D W L R Q D O O R \ D O W \ - R X U Q D O R I % X V L Q H V V ( W K L F V , 53 (1-2 yf % % 8 6 , E Vandekerckhove W. , &Tsahuridu E. (2010 yf 5 L V N \ U H V F X H V D Q G W K H G X W \ W R E O R Z W K H Z K L V W O H - R X U Q D O R I % X V L Q H V s Ethics , 97 (3 yf Vandekerckhove W. , Brown A. J. , &Tsahuridu E. (2014 yf 0 D Q D J H U L D O U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V W R Z K L V W O H E O R Z L Q J ( [ S D Q G L Q g the research horizon . In A. J. Brown, D. Lewis, R. Moberly, &W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.yf , Q W H U Q D W L R Q D O K D Q G E R R N R n whistleblowing research (pp. 298 -330 yf & K H O W H Q K D P 1 R U W K D P S W R Q 0 $ ( G Z D U G ( O J D U Victor B. , &Cullen J. B. (1987 yf $ W K H R U \ D Q G P H D V X U H R I H W K L F D O F O L P D W H L Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V 5 H V H D U F K L Q & R U S R U D W e Social Performance and Policy , 9 , 51 -71 . Walumbwa F. O. , &Schaubroeck J. (2009 yf / H D G H U S H U V R Q D O L W \ W U D L W V D Q G H P S O R \ H H Y R L F H E H K D Y L R U 0 H G L D W L Q J U R O H s of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety . Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 , 1275 -1286 .10.1037/a0015848 Wang L. , Zhong C.-B. , &Murnighan J. K. (2014 yf 7 K H V R F L D O D Q G H W K L F D O F R Q V H T X H Q F H V R I D F D O F X O D W L Y H P L Q G V H W .

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 125 , 39 -49 .10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.05.004 Warren D. E. , &Smith-Crowe K. (2008 yf ' H F L G L Q J Z K D W V U L J K W 7 K H U R O H R I H [ W H U Q D O V D Q F W L R Q V D Q G H P E D U U D V V P H Q W L n shaping moral judgments in the workplace . Research in Organizational Behavior , 28 , 81 -105 .10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.004 Wilson T. D. , &Gilbert D. T. (2003 yf $ I I H F W L Y H I R U H F D V W L Q J $ G Y D Q F H V L Q ( [ S H U L P H Q W D O 6 R F L D O 3 V \ F K R O R J \ - 411 .10.1016/S0065-2601(03yf Wilson T. D. , &Gilbert D. T. (2005 yf $ I I H F W L Y H I R U H F D V W L Q J N Q R Z L Q J Z K D W W R Z D Q W & X U U H Q W ' L U H F W L R Q V L n Psychological Science , 14 (3 yf M [ Wilson T. D. , Wheatley T. P. , Meyers J. M. , Gilbert D. T. , &Axsom D. (2000 yf ) R F D O L V P $ V R X U F H R I G X U D E L O L W \ E L D s in affective forecasting . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 (5 yf - 3514.78.5.821 Zimbardo P. G. (2007 yf 7 K H / X F L I H U H I I H F W 8 Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J K R Z J R R G S H R S O H W X U Q H Y L O 1 H Z < R U N 1 < 5 D Q G R m House . AuthorAffiliation * Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ** University of Greenwich Business School, Greenwich, UK DETAILS PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 19 of 21 Subject: Studies; Management; Ethics; Organizational behavior Publication title: Journal of Management and Organization; Lyndfield Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Pages: 437-455 Number of pages: 19 Publication year: 2017 Publication date: May 2017 Publisher: Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAMyf Place of publication: Lyndfield Country of publication: Australia Publication subject: Business And Economics--Management ISSN: 18333672 Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Feature DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.4 ProQuest document ID: 1884656661 Document URL: https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.co m/docview/1884656661?accountid=33337 Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2016 Last updated: 2017-04-27 Database: ABI/INFORM Collection PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 20 of 21 Bibliography Citation style: APA 6th - American Psychological Association, 6th Edition Cremer, D. D., & Vandekerckhove, W. (2017yf 0 D Q D J L Q J X Q H W K L F D O E H K D Y L R U L Q R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V 7 K H Q H H G I R U a behavioral business ethics approach. Journal of Management and Organization, 23(3yf .

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.4 Copyright Ó 2017 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 21 of 21