This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (70) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Zey-Ferrell, M. Articles by Ferrell, O. C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Role-Set Configuration and Opportunity as Predictors of Unethical Behavior in Organizations

Department of Sociology, Texas A & M University

O. C. Ferrell

Department of Marketing, Texas A & M University

Role-set configuration is examined as a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior among two random samples of advertisers [corporate clients and ad agency account executives]. The specific reported behaviors analyzed are intraorganizational behaviors available to most employees. The conceptual framework is based on differential association theory and role set configuration analysis. The three dimensions of role-set configuration used to predict ethical/unethical behavior are organizational location, relative authority and referent others' beliefs and behaviors as perceived by the focal person. The focal person's opportunity to participate in unethical behavior is also a predictor variable. Eighty-nine corporate clients and 136 agency advertisers responded to a questionnaire [a 33% return rate] consisting of a slightly revised version of Newstrom and Ruch's ethics scale. Seven types of predictors of ethical/unethical behavior, "What I do," are developed through principal component factor analysis. These seven variables include the beliefs and behaviors of referent others in various locations and authority positions which affect the focal person: [1] the focal person's beliefs, "What I believe"; 12] what the focal person thinks his/her peers believe, "Peer beliefs"; [31 what the focal person thinks his/her top management believes, "What top management believes"; [4] what the focal person thinks his/her peers do, "What my peers do"; [5] the opportunity the focal person thinks he/she has to become involved in ethical/unethical behavior, 'My opportunity"; [6] and [7] what the corporate client thinks the advertising agency believes, "What the agency believes" and what the ad agency thinks the corporate client believes, "What the corporate client believes. " Focal persons were asked to respond to either variable [6] or [7] depending on which was a referent. This research demonstrates the influence of role-set proximity in predicting the ethical/unethical behaviors of both the corporate clients and the ad agency account executives with intraorganizational relationships being more important than interorganizational relationships. Interorganizational role-set of corporate clients for ad agency account executives and vice versa is not a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior. Opportunity is a predictor of ethical/unethical behavior for both respondent types. The relative authority and attitude/behavior dimensions influence ethical/unethical behavior of both respondent types, although corporate advertiser's ethical/unethical behavior is predicted by top management's beliefs and the ad agency account executives' ethical/unethical behavior is predicted by the behaviors of peers.

Human Relations, Vol. 35, No. 7, 587-604 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/001872678203500707


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Kaptein Developing a Measure of Unethical Behavior in the Workplace: A Stakeholder Perspective Journal of Management, October 1, 2008; 34(5): 978 - 1008. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. K. Trevino, G. R. Weaver, and S. J. Reynolds Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review Journal of Management, December 1, 2006; 32(6): 951 - 990. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Ellis and S. Arieli Predicting Intentions to Report Administrative and Disciplinary Infractions: Applying the Reasoned Action Model Human Relations, July 1, 1999; 52(7): 947 - 967. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. B. Kurland The Unexplored Territory Linking Rewards and Ethical Behavior: A Review and a Diagnostic Model Business Society, April 1, 1995; 34(1): 34 - 50. [Abstract]

				L. E. Pelton, D. Strutton, J. H. Barnes Jr., and S. L. True The Relationship among Referents, Opportunity, Rewards, and Punishments in Consumer Attitudes toward Recycling: A Structural Equations Approach Journal of Macromarketing, June 1, 1993; 13(1): 60 - 74. [Abstract]

				G. S. Taylor and J. P. Shim A Comparative Examination of Attitudes Toward Software Piracy Among Business Professors and Executives Human Relations, April 1, 1993; 46(4): 419 - 433. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Fraedrich and O. C. Ferrell Cognitive Consistency of Marketing Managers in Ethical Situations Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, June 1, 1992; 20(3): 245 - 252. [Abstract]