REPEATING UNETHICAL WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR THROUGH ETHICAL

FADING: JUSTIFICATION FROM PERSPECTIVE-TAKING SUPERVISORS

By

BULIN ZHANG

A thesis submitted to the

School of Graduate Studies

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of

Master of Science

Graduate Program in Industrial Relations and Human Resources

Written under the direction of

Xiangmin Liu

And approved by

_______________________

_______________________

_______________________

New Brunswick, New Jersey

October, 2019

ii

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Repeating Unethical Workplace Behavior Through Ethical Fading: Justification from

Perspective-taking Supervisors

By BULIN ZHANG

Thesis Director:

Xiangmin Liu

Due to the high costs associated with unethical workplace behaviors, preventing their

reoccurrence is critically important for organizations. However, not so much has been

known about the process whereby some individuals repeat unethical workplace behaviors

and conditions that enable it. To help organizations understand such behavioral

contingencies and inform organizational prevention strategies, through integrating

insights from ethical fading theory and attribution of responsibility (Heider, 2013; Kelley,

1967; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004), I proposed an alternative mechanism of ethical

responsibility that explains when and how some individuals repeatedly engage in

unethical workplace behaviors through ethical fading, and identified the justification role

of the perspective-taking supervisor in this process. I tested the hypotheses by a sample

of employees in a real estate company in China. And the results supported that, by

providing individuals who have engaged in unethical workplace behaviors with

justification for their biased attribution, perspective-taking supervisors promote ethical

fading that is manifested through faded ethical responsibility. With faded ethical

responsibility, individuals are more likely to engage in unethical workplace behaviors

again.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS ......................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. iii

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES ............................................... 7

Ethical Fading Theory .................................................................................................. 7

Unethical Workplace Behavior and Ethical Responsibility........................................... 8

The Moderating Role of Perspective-taking Supervisor ............................................ 12

Ethical Responsibility and Reoccurrence of Unethical Workplace Behavior............. 15

METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 19

Sample and Procedure................................................................................................. 19

Measures ..................................................................................................................... 19

Analytical Strategy ...................................................................................................... 22

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 23

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 26

Theoretical and Practical Implications ......................................................................... 27

Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................. 29

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 32

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 33

TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................... 44

1

INTRODUCTION

Organizations generally establish norms and regulations that govern individuals’

behaviors to support business operations and facilitate the accomplishment of

organizational goals. However, wherever there are rules, there are rule breakers, and

behaviors that violate organizational standards and rules of conduct threatens stakeholder

values and normally is considered unacceptable (Kaptein, 2008; Kidwell & Martin, 2005;

Treviño & Brown, 2005). Researchers propose that these behaviors may have ethical

concerns, and argue that the nature of it is subject to the moral norms generally accepted

by the larger community (Jones, 1991; Treviño, Weaver & Reynolds, 2006; e.g. Bennett

& Robinson, 2000; Gino, Schweitzer, Mead & Ariely, 2011; Robinson & Bennett, 1995).

For example, Kidwell & Martin (2005: 7) argued that deviant activities at work are

unethical because “individuals who engage in these activities clearly lack moral strength

and violate ethical standards”. Drawing inferences from previous definition, unethical

workplace behavior is defined here as behaviors that violate moral norms of working that

are typically endorsed by the larger community. For example, taking excessive breaks,

losing important work documents and acting rudely towards others that generally hamper

work quality, quantity and property across organizations are all considered as instances of

unethical workplace behaviors (e.g. Kish-Gephart, Harrison & Treviño, 2010).

Unethical workplace behavior is a widespread phenomenon (e.g. Gino, 2015;

Kaptein, 2011) and has incurred significant organizational costs (Den Nieuwenboer,

2008; Harris & Ogbonna, 2002; Scakett, 2002). In response, both organizations and

researchers have extensively investigated unethical workplace behaviors (e.g. Jones,

1991; Treviño, 1986), which they have attributed primarily to character flaws (e.g.,

2

Machiavellianism) or unhealthy organizational climates (e.g., Detert, Treviño & Sweitzer,

2008; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). However, Bersoff (1999), Martin, Kish-Gephart and

Detert (2014) and Umphress and Bingham (2011) proposed and found that even ethical

people and infrastructures can paradoxically promote unethical decisions by reducing

rationalization or increasing intentions to create unethically pro-organizational benefits.

Their findings indicate that unethical workplace behavior is pervasive and cannot be

completely avoided by addressing only problematic individuals or organizational

climates.

As the potential for unethical workplace behaviors always exists, established

patterns of unethical behavior are particularly problematic and costly for organizations.

Thus, preventing unethical behaviors from reoccurring is a high organizational priority.

However, before effective interventions can be developed, from a behavioral

modification perspective (e.g., Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997), its behavioral contingencies

must be first understood.

Previously, researchers have attempted to investigate what underlies the

reoccurrence of unethical workplace behavior, focusing on an individual’s motivation to

avoid self-censure after engaging in such behavior. They proposed that cognitive

disengagement mechanisms disable the link between immoral behavior and self-

sanctioning (Bandura, 1991, 1999; Moore, Detert, Treviño, Baker & Mayer, 2012), and

thus trigger the reoccurrence of workplace unethical behaviors. For example, Welsh,

Ordóñez, Snyder and Christian (2014) indicated that incremental changes in individuals’

unethical workplace behaviors would facilitate moral disengagement, leading to

progressively worse behaviors. Similarly, Shu, Gino and Bazerman (2011) proposed that

3

after cheating, individuals are more likely to deactivate their self-regulatory function to

avoid self-censure.

Even though previous research has revealed one explanation for the reoccurrence

of unethical workplace behaviors, some variance in unethical decisions remains

unexplained, indicating the existence of other processes that could serve as triggers.

Specifically, Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004) proposed that faded ethical concerns

associated with one’s decision could trigger unethical workplace behaviors, suggesting

that individuals may re-engage in unethical workplace behavior without even realizing

the ethical concerns associated with this decision (e.g. Wedell-Wedellsborg, 2019).

Unfortunately, few researchers have focused on how and when ethical fading could lead

to the reoccurrence of unethical workplace behaviors. As individuals generally exhibit

strong self-bias and consider themselves to be more ethical than others (Tenbrusel, 1995;

Tyson, 1992), it’s possible that they would respond to their engagement in unethical

behaviors with biased attribution of responsibility, which allows the ethical responsibility

associated with their decisions to fade, making it important to investigate such condition.

Thus, to help organizations understand the contingencies of reoccurring unethical

workplace behavior and develop effective prevention strategies, I investigate “when” and

“how” some individuals repeat unethical workplace behavior. Drawing upon the literature

on ethical fading theory and attribution of responsibilities (Heider, 2013; Kelley, 1967;

Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004), I explain the reoccurrence of unethical workplace behavior

through an ethical fading mechanism, and identify the justification role of the

perspective-taking supervisors. Building on ethical fading theory (Tenbrunsel & Messick,

2004), I suggest that self-bias to maintain positive image motivates individuals to deny

4

responsibility for undesirable behaviors (Zuckerman, 1979), and enables ethical fading

after engagement in unethical workplace behaviors (e.g., Zuber, 2015). When individuals

obscure the causes of unethical workplace behavior (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004), their

sense of ethical responsibility (i.e., internalized ethical concern or obligation) fades (e.g.,

Fuller, Marier & Hester, 2006), making them less motivated to modify and more likely to

repeat those behaviors (Jones & Ryan, 1998).

More importantly, I propose that supervisors who adopt employees’ perspectives

promote ethical fading. According to social information processing theory (Salancik &

Pfeffer, 1978), supervisors are an important source of information individuals use to

construct their beliefs and attitudes. Thus, I propose that, after unethical workplace

behaviors, if supervisors endorse individuals’ perspective (e.g. Fiori, Krings, Kleinlogel

& Reich, 2016), individuals would be more likely to treat their attribution bias as

permissible. This in turn makes them more likely to ignore responsibilities related to their

previous unethical workplace behavior through ethical fading, which leads to repeated

unethical workplace behaviors.

By incorporating ethical fading into the explanation for reoccurring unethical

workplace behavior, I make three contributions. First, in previous research, scholars have

generally incorporated ethical fading theory into their theoretical arguments (e.g., Ruedy

& Schweitzer, 2010) or manipulated related phenomena in laboratory settings (e.g.,

Welsh et al., 2014). However, they did not discuss the mechanism whereby ethical fading

affects individuals’ decisions to re-engage in unethical workplace behavior, thereby

making it impossible to identify the role of ethical fading in such behavioral decision-

making process. I address this issue and extend ethical fading theory by proposing that

5

faded ethical responsibility explains how ethical fading affects the reoccurrence of

unethical workplace behaviors. Drawing upon ethical fading theory (Tenbrunsel &

Messick, 2004), I suggest that biased attribution of responsibility could easily be

triggered after engagement in unethical workplace behavior to protect positive image.

Such erroneous perceptions about why things occur allows individuals to distance and

relieve themselves from ethical responsibility at hand (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004;

Heider, 2013), manifesting ethical fading process in the form of faded ethical

responsibility.

Secondly, by adopting ethical fading theory (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004), I

provide an alternative lens by which to examine factors that lead to repeated unethical

workplace behavior. By proposing that faded ethical responsibility explains how ethical

fading affects the reoccurrence of unethical workplace behaviors, I provide one of the

first tests to show the effects of ethical fading on the reoccurrence of unethical workplace

behavior. I believe that proposing the alternative mechanism leads to additional insights

as to the possible behavioral contingencies (when and how) for reoccurred unethical

workplace behavior.

Thirdly, by proposing the contributory role of perspective-taking supervisors, I

extend the literature by identifying the conditions under which ethical fading could be

triggered. Previously, researchers focused on the role of unethical leaders such as abusive

supervisors (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007) in promoting unethical workplace

behaviors, arguing that mistreatment by unethical supervisors lead employees to retaliate

and engage in unethical behaviors. From a social information theory perspective, I argue

that supervisors could also promote unethical workplace behaviors by confirming

6

individuals’ biased perceptions that obscure the ethical responsibilities of their decisions.

Thus, even though perspective-taking is associated with positive organizational outcomes

such as creativity and contextual performance (Grant & Berry, 2011; Parker & Axtell,

2001), I propose that this behavior promotes ethical fading by confirming individuals’

biased attribution of responsibility.

Overall, this study’s findings may help organizations understand when and how

some individuals repeat unethical workplace behaviors. Specifically, I demonstrate that

by endorsing subordinates’ bias in attribution of responsibility, perspective-taking

supervisors promote their ethical fading, which is manifested through faded ethical

responsibility that leads to the reoccurrence of unethical workplace behavior.

7

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Ethical Fading Theory

Organizational researchers have proposed that past behavior is more likely to be

repeated in the future if it is accepted, supported and practiced (Aarts, Verplanken & Van

Knippenberg, 1998; Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Thus, if unethical workplace behavior is

accepted rather than corrected, individuals would be more likely to display similar

behaviors in the future.

In this study, I propose that ethical fading theory (Tenbrunsel and Messick, 2004)

provides one of the insights to understand when and how some individuals repeat rather

than correct unethical workplace behavior. Specifically, ethical fading theory emphasizes

the innate psychological tendency for individuals to fade the “ethics” associated with

their decision (Tenbrunsel and Messick, 2004). Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004) propose

that individuals engage in unethical workplace behaviors because false beliefs about

oneself create errors in ethical judgment, which make the ethical concerns associated

with one’s decisions to fade into the background and enable individuals to behave

incongruently without realizing it (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004), suggesting that

individuals may re-engage in unethical workplace behavior without even realizing the

ethical concerns associated with this decision (e.g. Wedell-Wedellsborg, 2019)

Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004) propose that there are four enablers of ethical

fading: euphemistic language, the “slippery slope” of decision making, biased perceptual

causation and constrained self-representation. According to ethical fading theory,

euphemistic language revises and distorts a decision such that it is devoid of its ethical

concerns. A “slippery slope” is created through repeated exposure and routinization,

8

which leads to ethical numbing, rendering individuals insensitive to the ethical concerns

of their decisions. Biased perceptual causation creates distance between oneself and

ethical issues through self-interested attributions as to why things occur, whereas

constrained representation enables ethical fading through the human inability to have a

truly objective perception of the truth (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004).

Because individuals generally exhibit strong self-bias, which has the adaptive

function of enhancing self-esteem (Blackwood, Bentall, ffytche, Simmons, Murray &

Howard, 2003; Tenbrusel, 1995; Tyson, 1992), it’s possible that they would respond to

their engagement in unethical behaviors with biased attribution of responsibility to

protect esteem, which enables ethical fading that allows ethical concerns associated with

their decisions to fade. However, few researchers have focused on the role of ethical

fading in the reoccurrence of unethical workplace behaviors. To help organizations

understand such behavioral contingencies and develop effective prevention strategies, I

incorporate ethical fading into the explanation for reoccurring unethical workplace

behavior and suggest that ethical fading explains its effects on repeated unethical

workplace behaviors in the form of faded ethical responsibility.

Unethical Workplace Behavior and Ethical Responsibility

Before I discuss how unethical workplace behavior affects ethical responsibility

through ethical fading, ethical responsibility must be defined. Specifically, an employee’s

responsibility refers to an individual’s concern and sense of obligations regarding the

consequences of the actions or events in which he or she participates (e.g. Hackman &

Oldham, 1976). In previous studies, researchers reported that an employee’s felt

9

responsibility is positively associated with intrinsic work motivations, attention to work

outcomes, extra-role behavior, and a high level of job performance (Fuller et al., 2006;

Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Pearce & Gregersen, 1991).

Because individuals could similarly care about ethical consequences of their conduct on

organizations and attach high obligation and valence to engagement in ethical behavior, I

propose that perceived ethical responsibility has important implications for unethical

workplace behaviors. Drawing inferences from previous work on felt responsibility (e.g.,

Fuller et al., 2006), I define ethical responsibility as the perceived obligation to conduct

oneself in accordance with ethical norms and standards, and propose that individuals with

high levels of ethical responsibility are concerned about the ethical consequences

associated with their own behaviors, and attach negative valence to engagement in

unethical behaviors.

Because ethical responsibility reflects an individual’s ethical concerns about his

or her own conduct, based on previous discussion of ethical fading theory, when ethical

fading is triggered that allows ethical concerns associated with one’s decision to fade into

the background (Tenbrunsel and Messick, 2004), I suggest that ethical responsibility

likely is affected.

But how does unethical workplace behavior affect ethical responsibility through

ethical fading? According to attribution of responsibility theory (Heider, 2013; Kelley,

1967), individuals generally make casual explanations to understand forces underlying

one’s own or other’s unethical workplace behaviors (Blackwood et al., 2003; Kelley &

Michela, 1980). The degree to which individuals assign responsibility of why an

unethical workplace behavior occurred depends on the perceived relative contribution of

10

personal and external factors to the outcome (Gailey & Lee, 2005). However, because

maintaining positive self-worth has been identified as an important human goal (Hales,

1985), researchers propose that attribution of responsibility between personal and

external factors is not always rational, but affected by self-serving bias, which has the

adaptive function of enhancing self-esteem (Blackwood et al., 2003; Burger, 1981;

Zuckerman, 1979). Specifically, they found that self-serving bias leads individuals to take

personal responsibility for desirable outcomes but make external attributions for

undesirable ones (Kelley, 1967; Hastorf, Schneider & Polefka, 1970; Shepperd, Malone

and Sweeny, 2008; Zuckerman, 1979; e.g. Tenbrusel, 1995; Zuber, 2015). For example,

Arkin, Appelman and Burger (1980) found that individuals portrayed themselves as more

personal responsible for success than for failure, supporting the existence of self-serving

bias in attribution of responsibility.

Researchers propose that engagement in unethical workplace behaviors hamper

self-esteem because it deviates from moral standards (e.g. Bersoff, 1999). Because bias

and illusion are common in human thoughts (Taylor, 1989; Tenbrusel, 1995), unethical

workplace behavior would likely trigger self-serving bias in attribution of responsibility

to help preserve positive self-esteem. According to Tenbrunsel & Messick (2004), errors

in perceptual causation is one of the enablers of ethical fading. Thus, when individuals

engage in biased attribution of responsibility after unethical workplace behavior, ethical

fading is activated through the process in which individuals adopt false beliefs about why

things occur and generate erroneous ethical judgement of their unethical workplace

behavior through externalizing responsibility (Heider, 2013; Kelley, 1967). For example,

Chugh, Bazerman and Banaji (2005) propose that a biased self-view of oneself as a moral

11

and competent person prevents the recognition of ethical implications when making

unethical decisions.

Furthermore, Heider (2013)’s model of responsibility proposes that the degree to

which individuals assign responsibility of why an unethical workplace behavior occurred

depends on the perceived relative contribution of personal and external factors: The

greater the perceived external influence on the outcome, the less the person is held

responsibility (Gailey & Lee, 2005). Thus, after engagement in unethical workplace

behavior, through transferring ethical responsibility to external factors rather than to

themselves via biased attribution of responsibility, an individual’s own concerns about or

sense of obligation for the ethical consequences of unethical workplace behavior (ethical

responsibility) likely become less salient or faded, thereby manifesting ethical fading in

the form of faded ethical responsibility. This is also supported by Jones and Ryan’s

(1998) model of moral approbation, which indicates that when the degree of complicity is

diminished, perceived ethical responsibility is negatively affected.

Thus, as we can see, as a result of engaging unethical workplace behavior,

individuals are primed to justify their actions to protect self-esteem by fading their ethical

responsibility (Bersoff, 1999). This occurs through an ethical fading process in which

false beliefs of attribution allow individuals to externalize responsibility. As a result,

based on attribution theory and ethical fading theory, I expect that, through ethical fading,

one’s initial engagement in unethical behavior (at Time 1) is negatively associated with

their ethical responsibility.

Hypothesis 1: There is a negative relationship between unethical workplace

behavior at Time 1 and ethical responsibility.

12

The Moderating Role of Perspective-taking Supervisor

According to ethical fading theory (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004), individuals

likely respond to their unethical workplace behavior with greater reductions in ethical

responsibility when environmental cues permit such behaviors. Because individuals

generally look to their supervisors for ethical guidance (Treviño & Brown, 2005),

supervisors likely play an important role in promoting ethical fading after they engage in

unethical workplace behaviors. Previously, researchers examined how various negative

leadership practices such as abusive behavior, toxic leadership and the undermining of

authority (Brown & Mitchell, 2010; Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002; Frost, 2004; Mitchell

& Ambrose, 2007) affect the ethical decision-making process, arguing that mistreatment

by leaders negatively affects employees’ attitudes and triggers retaliation through

unethical decisions (e.g., Thau, Bennett, Mitchell & Marrs, 2009). However, unethical

workplace behavior may also be promoted when individuals engage in biased attribution

of responsibility, which enables ethical fading and relieves one’s ethical responsibility to

correct previously unethical behaviors (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004). Therefore,

supervisors who justify errors in perceptual causation could also promote unethical

workplace behavior through ethical fading.

Thus, by drawing inferences from social information processing theory (Salancik

& Pfeffer, 1978), which emphasizes the role of social information in constructing

individual’s beliefs and attitudes, I propose that perspective-taking supervisors, as an

important source of social information, paradoxically promote faded ethical responsibility

by confirming individuals’ biased views and justifying ethical fading. Specifically,

perspective-taking refers to a cognitive process for individuals to produce experience of

13

empathy through taking others’ perspective and increasing self-other awareness (Davis,

1983, 2018; Decety & Jackson, 2004). Researchers proposed that perspective-taking, as

to internalize others’ experience, is based on attribution theory, which explains the human

tendency to apply different standards when evaluating behaviors (Kelley, 1967). As

discussed previously, unlike individuals who adopt biased attribution to assign ethical

responsibility of their own unethical workplace behaviors to external factors but others’

to internal causes (e.g. Fiori et al., 2016), researchers argue that perspective-takers are

able to align their views with others’ thinking and put themselves in others’ places,

thereby narrowing the gap between their own views and others’ view (e.g. Lester,

Turnley, Bloodgood & Bolino, 2002; Parker & Axtell, 2001).

Previously, researchers proposed that perspective-taking is associated with

positive organizational outcomes. For example, Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) found

that perspective taking would reduce stereotypes and in-group bias. Similarly, Galinsky,

Ku and Wang (2005) proposed that perspective-taking that leads to a self-other overlap in

cognitive representation would facilitate interpersonal cooperation. However, even

though perspective taking has an advantage through reducing the gap between one’s own

view and others’ perspective, it would also paradoxically make it easier for perspective

takers to accept others’ self-serving bias in attribution of responsibility, and thus

facilitates their ethical fading.

Specifically, because perspective-taking supervisors adopt subordinates’ views as

their own, they are more likely to internalize subordinates’ bias in attribution of

responsibility and to accept their excuses for unethical workplace behaviors. For

example, Fiori et al. (2016) argued that taking others’ perspectives to understand the

14

reasons behind unethical behaviors may make individuals to blame external conditions

rather than the people involved, and Park and Axtell (2001) proposed that perspective-

taking makes one’s attribution about targets’ behaviors to be more like the attributions

others made about their own behaviors. Similarly, Park and Raile (2010) and Sessa

(1996) proposed that perspective-taking enables individuals to value, understand and

comprehend information provided by others, and Oswald (1996) suggested that

entertaining other perspectives motivates individuals to pay attention to others’ thoughts,

concerns and feelings.

However, by accepting others’ thoughts, perspective-taking supervisors

unexpectedly justified individuals’ biases and false beliefs in perceptual causation, which

in turn facilitates ethical fading in the form of faded ethical responsibility. According to

social information processing theory, supervisors act as important sources of social

information that individuals use to construct attitudes and behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer,

1978). For example, Boekhorst (2015) suggested that authentic leaders transmit social

cues in the workplace, thereby affecting individuals’ perceptions of an inclusive climate.

Similarly, Ng and Feldman (2013) argued that perceptions of supervisor embeddedness

function as important social cues that help individuals develop their own job attitudes and

behaviors. Thus, according to social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer,

1978), as supervisors act as important source of information for individuals to construct

beliefs and attitudes, individuals with perspective-taking supervisors who confirm their

biased attributions of responsibility are more likely to rationalize their false beliefs,

providing them with cognitive flexibility to engage in ethical fading and to transfer

ethical responsibility to external factors. Therefore, I expect that when individuals’ self-

15

serving bias is justified through supervisor’s perspective-taking, ethical fading becomes

more likely, whereby ethical responsibility become less salient.

In sum, because perspective-taking supervisors are able to adopt individuals’

views, comprehend the information they provide and pay attention to their thoughts, self-

biased attributions of unethical workplace behaviors are more likely to be accepted. This

in turn provides individuals with the cognitive flexibility to rationalize biased attribution

of previous unethical workplace behaviors, which enables ethical fading in the form of

faded ethical responsibility. As a result, individuals with perspective-taking supervisors

may be more likely to engage in ethical fading to decrease ethical responsibility. Thus, a

perspective-taking supervisor likely moderates the negative relationship between

unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and ethical responsibility through facilitating

ethical fading.

Hypothesis 2: Perspective-taking supervisor moderates the negative relationship

between subordinate unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and subordinate ethical

responsibility. Specifically, the negative relationship between subordinate unethical

workplace behavior at Time 1 and subordinate ethical responsibility is stronger when

supervisor perspective-taking is high.

Ethical Responsibility and Reoccurrence of Unethical Workplace Behavior

Researchers have suggested that faded ethical responsibility leads to subsequent

unethical workplace behavior, which, in other words, means that ethical responsibility

has a negative effect on subsequent unethical workplace behavior. Specifically, Hall,

Frink and Buckley (2017)’s review of accountability propose that, when individuals felt

16

accountable, they perceive expectation that their behavior will be evaluated by others and

are concerned about seeking approval by them. Because responsibility is generally

considered as a subcomponent of accountability (Schlenker, Weigold & Doherty, 1991),

Hall et al. (2017)’s review suggest that perceived ethical responsibility reflects one’s

expectation to seek approval from external audience for ethical behaviors, and to been

seen in a way that is consistent with the ethical image that they wish to display. Because

ethical responsibility creates a behavioral boundary that directs resources towards

achieving the expected ethical behaviors (Wallance, Johnson, Mathe & Paul, 2011), with

ethical responsibility, individuals are expected to be less likely to engage in subsequent

unethical workplace behavior.

Other researchers have also suggested the negative relationship between ethical

responsibility and unethical workplace behavior. For example, researchers, such as

Goodstein and Butterfield (2010) and Ren and Gray (2009), indicated that perception of

responsibility reflects the state of having duty for one’s wrongdoings, and represents

one’s cognitive willingness to make amendments. They propose that, when individuals

accept responsibility, they are generally more likely to engage in behavioral change and

make amendment of wrongdoing (Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010; Ren & Gray, 2009). In

addition, Jones and Ryan (1998) proposed that individuals with moral responsibility

constantly compare their planned behavior with moral approbation, and when they

perceive a gap, are compelled to modify their behaviors to ensure compliance.

These discussions indicate that, with ethical responsibility, individuals are

motivated to channel resources towards the goal of achieving ethical outcomes, either by

making ethical decisions or modifying previous unethical workplace behaviors. In other

17

words, however, when individuals lack such ethical responsibility, they are not motivated

to modify previous unethical workplace behaviors. As a result, they do not perceive the

need to engage in self-regulation (Bandura, 1989), making them more likely to repeat

such behaviors. Thus, I expect that one’s ethical responsibility is negatively associated

with his or her subsequent engagement in unethical behavior (Time 2).

Hypothesis 3: There is a negative relationship between ethical responsibility and

unethical workplace behavior at Time 2.

If unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 leads to faded ethical responsibility

through ethical fading (or in other works, a negative relationship between unethical

workplace behavior at Time 1 and ethical responsibility), and if faded ethical

responsibility leads to unethical workplace behavior at Time 2 (or in other words, a

negative relationship between ethical responsibility and unethical workplace behavior at

Time 2), ethical responsibility likely mediates the positive relationship between unethical

workplace behavior at Time 1 and Time 2, indicating that the effect of ethical fading on

reoccurrence unethical workplace behavior is manifested through faded ethical

responsibility.

More importantly, if a perspective-taking supervisor moderates the negative

relationship between unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and ethical responsibility, a

perspective-taking supervisor likely moderates the positive indirect relationship between

unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and Time 2 through ethical responsibility. Thus, I

expect that:

Hypothesis 4: Perspective-taking supervisor moderates the positive indirect

18

relationship between subordinate unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and unethical

workplace behavior at Time 2 via ethical responsibility.

--------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

-------------------------------

19

METHODS

Sample and Procedure

To test the hypotheses, I employed data collected from a real estate company in

China, in which employees work at various locations led by local managers. Supervisors

and employees responded to internet-based questionnaires in December 2014. With

organizational support, 836 employees and 168 managers provided responses. In addition

to survey data, I obtained objective data of recorded unethical workplace behaviors from

the company.

Using employee ID numbers, I merged employees’ survey data with objective

information about their unethical workplace behaviors, which ended up with 357

employees. Using ID numbers for employees’ identified supervisors, I further merged

employees’ survey data with supervisors’ survey data, leaving a final sample of 313

employees matched with 119 supervisors, and there are around 3 employees per

supervisor.

Among the 313 employees, 47.28% had a bachelor’s degree, 51.76% had an

associate’s degree, and 0.96% had other degrees. Their average age was 24.17 (SD =

1.68) and average tenure was 12.64 months (SD = 7.98). Further analysis revealed

significant differences in age (t = -4.09, p < .05) and tenure (t = -12.49, p < .05) between

cases retained in this study and cases that had been excluded, indicating that employees

in retained cases were older and remained with the organization longer than employees in

excluded cases. Thus, I controlled for age and tenure in subsequent analyses.

Measures

20

Unethical workplace behavior (Time 1 and Time 2). I obtained data on unethical

workplace behavior from organizational records which documented violations of

organizational rules and regulations. Specifically, unethical workplace behaviors include

failure to follow work instructions, loss of important work documents, customer

complaints, rude behavior, etc. I coded the absence of behavioral violations as 0.

My primary aim was to investigate the effects of unethical workplace behavior at

Time 1 on ethical responsibility, which in turn affects unethical workplace behavior at

Time 2. To identify unethical workplace behavior at Time 1, I averaged each employee’s

documented unethical workplace behaviors for the 4-month period immediately

preceding survey data collection. Similarly, I averaged each employee’s documented

unethical workplace behaviors for the 4-month period immediately following survey data

collection to represent their unethical workplace behavior at Time 2. I chose a 4-month

period because it provided a sufficient time frame to observe employees’ unethical

workplace behaviors, and best enabled the use of objective data of unethical workplace

behaviors obtained from this organization.

Ethical responsibility. I measured ethical responsibility using three items adapted

from Zhao (2011: 44). Sample items were “I was concerned about the negative

consequences of misconduct on my task performance;” “I was careful not to engage in

misconduct because I knew every violation could influence my performance evaluation

negatively;” and “I did not feel comfortable engaging in misconduct because I know that

misconduct is not acceptable in this company.” Employees responded to items using a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s

alpha for this scale is 0.76.

21

Supervisor perspective-taking. I used supervisors’ survey data to measure

whether or not they engaged in perspective-taking. Supervisors responded to seven items

developed by Davis (1980: 11) using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items were “Before criticizing somebody, I try to

imagine how I would feel if I was in her place;” and “When I’m upset at someone, I

usually try to put myself in his shoes for a while”). Two reverse-coded items did not load

significantly on the construct of perspective-taking supervisor, and thus were deleted (e.g.

Jozsa & Morgan, 2017). After deleting these two items, the reliability of this scale

improved from .62 to .85.

Control variables. I controlled for the effect of age, tenure, and job satisfaction in

the analysis. I controlled for age and tenure because I found that cases retained in this

study was biased towards those employees who were older and had longer tenure. Last, I

controlled for job satisfaction because previous research, such as Liu, Lin and Hu (2013),

and a meta-analysis conducted by Kish-Gephart et al. (2010) found that job satisfaction is

negatively related to unethical behaviors. Equity theory explains that job satisfaction has

a negative effect on unethical behavior because dissatisfied employees, who perceived

imbalance between one’s input/output ratio, choose to restore balance through engaging

in unethical behavior (Adams, 1965; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). Furthermore, job

satisfaction has found to be associated with felt responsibility (e.g. Breaux, Perrewé,

Hall, Frink & Hochwarter, 2008). Given these relationships, it’s possible that unethical

workplace behavior relates to ethical responsibility not because the process of ethical

fading as I suggest, but rather because of job satisfaction. To rule out such an alternative

explanation, I controlled for job satisfaction (Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016). Specifically, I

22

measured job satisfaction with one item: “Overall, to which extent are you satisfied with

your job?”.

Analytical Strategy

I followed procedures for the moderated mediation to test the proposed

hypotheses using path analysis in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2019). Because individuals

are nested within supervisors, their unethical workplace behavior and ethical

responsibility are similar for groups of individuals under the same supervisor, which have

violated the assumptions of independence for OLS regression. As a result, I adjusted for

the clustered standard errors before the analysis.

Specifically, I analyzed Hypotheses 1 and 3 at the employee level with adjustment

for the clustered standard errors. In addition, because Hypothesis 2 propose the

moderating effect of a perspective-taking supervisor, I thus created and included a mean-

centered interaction item between unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and a

perspective-taking supervisor in the analysis. As for Hypothesis 4, which proposes the

moderating effect of perspective-taking supervisor on the indirect relationship between

unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and Time 2 via ethical responsibility, I used

bootstrapping method with 5,000 replications to compute the 95% bias-corrected

confidence interval for this moderated indirect effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

23

RESULTS

I present means, standard deviations and correlations of key variables in Table 1.

A significant correlation exists between ethical responsibility and unethical workplace

behavior at Time 2, providing some initial support for Hypothesis 3. However, because

age and tenure are unrelated to all variables of interest in this study and did not change

the study results when included and exclude. To maximize statistical power, I then report

the results without controlling for age and tenure.

------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 1 predicts a negative relationship between unethical workplace

behavior at Time 1 and ethical responsibility. As shown in Table 2, after controlling for

job satisfaction, the relationship between unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and

ethical responsibility is negative but not significant (β = -.14, p = .11), indicating that

unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 may not lead individuals to fade their ethical

responsibility. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is not supported.

--------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

-------------------------------

Hypothesis 2 proposes that perspective-taking supervisor moderates the negative

relationship between subordinate unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and ethical

responsibility. As shown in Table 4, the interaction between unethical workplace behavior

at Time 1 and a perspective-taking supervisor is negative and significant (β = -.28, p

24

< .05), indicating that a perspective-taking supervisor moderates the relationship between

unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and ethical responsibility. A simple slope analysis

of the significant interaction term further reveals that the relationship between unethical

workplace behavior and ethical responsibility is significant and negative (β = -1.18, p

< .05) at a low value of supervisor perspective taking (one standard deviation below the

mean), while this negative relationship is significant and becomes much stronger (β = -

1.49, p < .05) when at a high value of supervisor perspective-taking (one standard

deviation above the mean). Thus, the results suggest that perspective-taking supervisors

would promote individual’s ethical fading to obscure ethical responsibility after they

engage in unethical workplace behavior. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Hypothesis 3 proposes that ethical responsibility is negatively related to unethical

workplace behaviors at Time 2. As shown in Table 2, a negative and significant

relationship exists between ethical responsibility and unethical workplace behaviors at

Time 2 (β = -.19, p < .05) at the employee level, indicating that individuals with high

levels of ethical responsibility are less likely to display unethical workplace behavior

again. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Hypothesis 4 predicts that a perspective-taking supervisor moderates the indirect

relationship between unethical workplace behaviors at Time 1 and Time 2 via ethical

responsibility. Results in Table 4 provide some initial support for Hypothesis 4: both the

interaction between unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and perspective-taking

supervisor on ethical responsibility (β = -.28, p < .05), and the relationship between

ethical responsibility and unethical workplace behavior at Time 2 (β = -.19, p < .05) are

negative and significant. Estimates of the indirect effect using bootstrapping methods

25

with 5,000 replications reveal that, when the degree of perspective-taking is one standard

deviation above the mean, there is a positive indirect relationship between unethical

workplace behaviors at Time 1 and Time 2 via ethical responsibility and this indirect

effect is significant (indirect effect = .25, CI = .01, .78). Whereas when the degree of

perspective-taking is one standard deviation below the mean, the positive indirect

relationship between unethical workplace behaviors at Time 1 and Time 2 via ethical

responsibility is still significant but becomes much weaker (indirect effect = .20, CI

= .01, .62). These results provide support for the hypothesis that a perspective-taking

supervisor moderates the positive indirect relationship between unethical workplace

behaviors at Time 1 and Time 2 via ethical responsibility. Specifically, perspective-taking

supervisors promote ethical fading, motivating individuals to decrease ethical

responsibility, which in turn leads to subsequent unethical workplace behaviors. As a

result, Hypothesis 4 is supported.

----------------------------------------------

Insert Table 3 and Figure 2 about here

---------------------------------------------

26

DISCUSSION

Due to the high costs associated with unethical workplace behaviors, preventing

their reoccurrence is critically important for organizations. However, not so much has

been known about the process whereby some individuals repeat unethical workplace

behaviors and conditions that enable it. To help organizations understand such behavioral

contingencies and inform organizational prevention strategies, I explored ethical fading

as a mechanism that affects the reoccurrence of unethical workplace behaviors.

Building on ethical fading theory and attribution of responsibility theory (Heider,

2013; Kelley, 1967; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004), I proposed that individuals’ self-

serving bias in attribution of responsibility (i.e., false beliefs about why things occur),

which motivates them to externalize responsibilities for undesirable behaviors, enables

ethical fading after engagement in unethical workplace behaviors (e.g., Zuber, 2015).

Obscuring the causation of their unethical workplace behaviors (Tenbrunsel & Messick,

2004) allows individuals’ ethical responsibility to fade, making them less motivated to

modify such behaviors and more likely to repeat them (Jones & Ryan, 1998). More

importantly, I proposed that perspective-taking supervisors would promote ethical fading

in subordinates. By accepting individuals’ attribution bias (e.g., Batson, Early &

Salvarani, 1997; Fiori et al., 2016), perspective-taking supervisors likely facilitates the

cognitive flexibility necessary to engage in ethical fading, making individuals more likely

to repeat unethical workplace behaviors.

Using data from a real estate company in China, I find support for the negative

relationship between ethical responsibility and unethical behavior at Time 2, suggesting

that individuals, who have high levels of ethical responsibility, are less likely to display

27

unethical workplace behavior again. Even though I failed to find support for the negative

relationship between unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and ethical responsibility, I

find support for the moderating effect of perspective-taking supervisor. Furthermore, I

demonstrated the mediating role of ethical responsibility and found that the positive

indirect relationship between unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and Time 2

becomes stronger when a supervisor’s degree of perspective-taking is high rather than

low. This finding confirms that individuals generally look to their supervisors for ethical

guidance (Treviño & Brown, 2005); perspective-taking supervisors, who are more likely

to value individuals’ thoughts and accept their biased attributions of unethical workplace

behaviors, prompt ethical fading among individuals who engage in unethical workplace

behaviors. The findings thus reveal a negative side effect of perspective-taking

supervisors, and show how ethical fading promoted by them could be another mechanism

that explains when and how individuals repeat unethical workplace behavior.

Theoretical and Practical Implication

By identifying how perspective-taking supervisors may prompt unethical

workplace behaviors, I contribute to discussions about reoccurring unethical workplace

behavior and the important role of supervisors in individuals’ ethical decisions. First, I

have identified an alternative explanation for the reoccurrence of unethical workplace

behaviors. Specifically, individuals not only feel motivated to avoid self-sanctioning

(Bandura, 1991, 1999), but also experience ethical fading when their supervisors justify

their self-serving bias in attribution of responsibility (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004). The

findings show ethical fading to be an alternative mechanism that explains how unethical

28

workplace behavior reoccurs, and reveal the conditions under which ethical fading is

triggered after individuals initially engage in unethical workplace behaviors.

Second, I contribute to literature on ethical fading by identifying the mechanism

through which ethical fading facilitates the reoccurrence of unethical workplace

behaviors. Specifically, I found that when individuals obscure the causation of their

unethical workplace behaviors to protect self-esteem, and those biased attributions are

accepted by perspective-taking supervisors (Tenbrunsel and Messick, 2004), individuals

become more likely to disregard the ethical implications of their behaviors, and less

concerned about the ethical consequences of their conduct, resulting in faded ethical

responsibility. More importantly, I found that there is an indirect relationship between

unethical workplace behaviors at Time 1 and Time 2 via ethical responsibility when

individuals have perspective-taking supervisors. Thus, ethical responsibility explains how

ethical fading triggered by perspective-taking supervisors affects the reoccurrence of

unethical workplace behaviors. In the future, researchers and organizations could assess

ethical responsibility to identify whether or not individuals have experienced ethical

fading. Moreover, because ethical responsibility explains the ethical fading process,

organizations could provide ethical training and guidance to enhance individuals’

acceptance of ethical responsibility to reduce the reoccurrence of unethical workplace

behaviors.

Third, I contribute to discussions about the important role of supervisors in

individuals’ ethical decisions. Unlike previous research, in which scholars argued that

negative leadership practices (e.g., abusive behavior) enhance unethical workplace

behaviors by triggering retaliation (e.g. Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), I proposed that

29

supervisors who engage in perspective-taking (which is commonly viewed as a positive

leadership practice) promote unethical workplace behaviors by confirming individuals’

biased perceptions. The findings demonstrate that perspective-taking supervisors

paradoxically facilitate ethical fading among subordinates, resulting in repeated unethical

workplace behaviors. Thus, to prevent the reoccurrence of unethical workplace behavior,

organizations should pay more attention to biased perceptions and the side effects of

perspective-taking supervisors. Specifically, organizations should train perspective-taking

supervisors to identify individuals’ attribution bias and take actions to correct these false

beliefs.

Limitations and Future Research

Although I addressed common method variance and potential issues of reverse

causality by obtaining data related to the variables of interest from different sources at

different time intervals, this study is not without limitations. First, I proposed ethical

fading as an alternative mechanism that explains the reoccurrence of unethical workplace

behaviors. However, because I did not measure moral disengagement, I was not able to

compare the effects of moral disengagement and ethical fading, or explore whether these

two mechanisms function as complements or substitutes. In the future, researchers should

extend this discussion and explore the relationship between these two mechanisms in

explaining unethical workplace behaviors, thereby providing a more comprehensive

understanding of when and how individuals repeat them.

Second, I only focused on the mechanism of ethical fading. However, scholars

have highlighted other mechanisms that may explain the reoccurrence of unethical

30

workplace behaviors. For example, researchers have argued that individuals tend to

misremember their previous behaviors, which enables them to believe that their conduct

is consistent with moral standards (Feldman, 2014; Shu et al., 2011). Researchers have

also highlighted moral forgetting as another potential mechanism that explains the

reoccurrence of unethical workplace behaviors. In the future, researchers could explore

moral forgetting and other mechanisms that may be at play.

Third, due to data limitations, I was not able to control for individual differences

in personality, such as conscientiousness and emotional stability, which are associated

with unethical workplace behaviors (e.g., Egan et al., 2015; Giluk & Postlethwaite,

2015). However, because I focused on the process whereby individuals repeat unethical

workplace behaviors rather than antecedents of such behaviors, I posit that when ethical

fading is triggered, individuals likely form false beliefs and obscure their ethical

responsibilities, regardless of their propensity to engage in unethical workplace behaviors

in the first place. Moreover, because there was an insignificant relationship between

unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 and ethical responsibility, it relieved the concern

that individual differences, such as character flaws, may cause a spurious relationship

between unethical workplace behavior and ethical responsibility. Although personality

was not a big concern in this study, researchers should take individual personality

differences into consideration to rule out alternative explanations for when and how

individuals repeat unethical workplace behaviors.

Fourth, I did not explore how the severity of unethical workplace behaviors

affects individuals’ subsequent ethical decisions. Researchers have argued that severity

affects how people view unethical behaviors (e.g., Umphress & Bingham, 2011); thus

31

severity likely influences the process whereby individuals choose to repeat their unethical

workplace behaviors. For example, unethical behaviors such as sexual harassment are

more likely to be identified and punished, providing little opportunity for individuals to

obscure causation of their behaviors and engage in ethical fading. Thus, in future

research, scholars should consider the severity of unethical workplace behaviors and

explore how severity affects their reoccurrence.

32

CONCLUSION

Integrating insights from ethical fading theory and attribution theory (Kelley,

1967; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004), I proposed an alternative mechanism that explains

when and how individuals repeatedly engage in unethical workplace behaviors.

Specifically, I found that by providing individuals who have engaged in unethical

workplace behaviors with the cognitive flexibility for biased attribution, perspective-

taking supervisors promote ethical fading, which decreases individuals’ ethical

responsibility to modify their behaviors, leading to their reoccurrence. Overall, I have

contributed to the discussion about repeated unethical workplace behavior and the

important role played by supervisors in individuals’ ethical decisions, suggesting that

organizations should pay attention to the side effects of perspective-taking supervisors

and take actions to enhance individuals’ ethical responsibility to prevent unethical

workplace behavior from reoccurring.

33

REFERENCE

Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. 1998. Predicting behavior from

actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit?. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 28(15): 1355-1374.

Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. 1999. “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the

challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management

Review, 24(3): 413-434.

Bandura, A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 3(3): 193-209.

Bandura, A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 248-287.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173.

Baron, R. A., Zhao, H., & Miao, Q. 2015. Personal motives, moral disengagement, and

unethical decisions by entrepreneurs: Cognitive mechanisms on the “slippery

slope”. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1): 107-118.

Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. 1997. Perspective taking: Imagining how

another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751-758.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2000. Development of a measure of workplace

deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 349.

Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. 2016. A critical review and best‐practice recommendations

for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1): 229-283.

Bersoff, D. M. 1999. Why good people sometimes do bad things: Motivated reasoning

and unethical behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1): 28-39.

Blackwood, N. J., Bentall, R. P., Simmons, A., Murray, R. M., & Howard, R. J. 2003.

Self-responsibility and the self-serving bias: an fMRI investigation of causal

attributions. NeuroImage, 20(2): 1076-1085.

Boekhorst, J. A. 2015. The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion:

A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2):

241-264.

Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. 1990. Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap

estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 115-140.

Breaux, D. M., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Hochwarter, W. A. 2008.

Time to try a little tenderness? The detrimental effects of accountability when

coupled with abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 15(2): 111-122.

Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new

avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4): 583-616.

Burger, J. M. 1981. Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an

accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. Psychological

Bulletin, 90(3): 496.

34

Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banaji, M. R. 2005. Bounded ethicality as a

psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In D. A. Moore, D. M.

Cain, G. Loewenstein & M.H. Bazerman (Eds.), Conflicts of interest: Challenges

and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy: 74-95. Cambridge

University Press.

Davis, M. H. 1980. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.

Davis, M. H. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a

multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1):

113.

Davis, M. H. 2018. Empathy: A social psychological approach. New York: Routledge.

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. 2004. The functional architecture of human

empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2): 71-100.

Den Nieuwenboer, N. 2008. Seeing the shadow of the self: Studies on workplace

deviance. Erasmus Research Institute of Management Press.

Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical

decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93(2): 374.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the

workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 331-351.

Egan, V., Hughes, N., & Palmer, E. J. 2015. Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and

unethical consumer attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 76: 123-128.

Feldman, Y. 2014. Behavioral ethics meets behavioral law and economics. The Oxford

Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law, 213: 222-23.

Fiori, M., Krings, F., Kleinlogel, E., & Reich, T. 2016. Whose side are you on? Exploring

the role of perspective taking on third-party’s reactions to workplace deviance. Basic

and Applied Social Psychology, 38(6): 318-336.

Frost, P. J. 2004. Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for leaders and their

organization. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2): 111-127.

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for

constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated

model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International

Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and

Behavior, 27(8): 1089-1120.

Gailey, J. A., & Lee, M. T. 2005. An integrated model of attribution of responsibility for

wrongdoing in organizations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(4): 338-358.

Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. 2005. Perspective-taking and self-other overlap:

Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations, 8(2): 109-124.

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. 2000. Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype

expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 78(4): 708.

Giluk, T. L., & Postlethwaite, B. E. 2015. Big Five personality and academic dishonesty:

A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 72: 59-67.

Gino, F. 2015. Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: Why people who value

morality act immorally. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3: 107-111.

35

Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. 2011. Unable to resist temptation:

How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 115(2): 191-203.

Goodstein, J., & Butterfield, K. D. 2010. Extending the horizon of business ethics:

Restorative justice and the aftermath of unethical behavior. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 20(3): 453-480.

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is the mother of invention:

Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of

Mmanagement Journal, 54(1): 73-96.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2): 250-279.

Hales, S. 1985. The inadvertent rediscovery of self in social psychology. Journal for the

Theory of Social Behavior, 15(3): 237-282.

Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. 2017. An accountability account: A review

and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 38(2): 204-224.

Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. 2002. Exploring service sabotage: The antecedents, types

and consequences of frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors. Journal of Service

Research, 4(3): 163-183.

Hastorf, A. H., Schneider, D. J., & Polefka, J. 1970. Person perception. Oxford, England:

Addison-Wesley.

Heider, F. (2013). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press.

Józsa, K., & Morgan, G. A. 2017. Reversed items in Likert scales: Filtering out invalid

responders. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research, 25(1): 7-25.

Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-

contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 366-395.

Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. 1998. The effect of organizational forces on individual

morality: Judgment, moral approbation, and behavior. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 8(3): 431-445.

Kaptein, M. 2008. Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A

stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management, 34(5): 978-1008.

Kaptein, M. 2011. Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical

culture. Human Relations, 64(6): 843-869.

Kelley, H. H. 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Eds.),

Nebraska symposium on motivation: 192-238. University of Nebraska Press.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. 1980. Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of

Psychology, 31(1): 457-501.

Kidwell, R. E., & Martin, C. L. 2005. The prevalence (and ambiguity) of deviant

behavior at work. In R. E. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.). Managing organizational

deviance: 1-21. London: Sage.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. 2010. Bad apples, bad cases, and

bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at

work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1): 1.

Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. 2002. Not seeing eye

to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for

psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1): 39-56.

36

Liu, S., Lin, X., & Hu, W. 2013. How followers' unethical behavior is triggered by

leader-member exchange: The mediating effect of job satisfaction. Social Behavior

and Personality: An International Journal, 41(3): 357-366.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence limits for the

indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128.

Martin, S. R., Kish-Gephart, J. J., & Detert, J. R. 2014. Blind forces: Ethical

infrastructures and moral disengagement in organizations. Organizational

Psychology Review, 4(4): 295-325.

McGill, A. L., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. 2000. Mutability and propensity in causal

selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5): 677.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance

and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(4): 1159.

Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. 2012. Why

employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational

behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1): 1-48.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to

initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4): 403-419.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. 2019. Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for

applied researchers: user’s guide, 5.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. 2013. Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness:

Effects on employees’ embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice

behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66(3): 645-685.

Oswald, P. A. 1996. The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on

empathic concern and altruistic helping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(5):

613-623.

Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. 1998. Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple

processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological

Bulletin, 124(1): 54.

Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. 2001. Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and

outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6):

1085-1100.

Park, H. S., & Raile, A. N. 2010. Perspective taking and communication satisfaction in

coworker dyads. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4): 569-581.

Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. 1991. Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A

test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76(6): 838.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect

effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &

Computers, 36(4): 717-731.

Ren, H., & Gray, B. 2009. Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and

culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management

Review, 34(1): 105-126.

Rest, J. R. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in research and theory. New York:

Praeger Press.

37

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 555-572.

Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. 2010. In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on

ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1): 73-87.

Sackett, P. R. 2002. The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality

and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 10(1‐2): 5-11.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job

attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Auarterly, 224-253.

Schlenker, B. R., Weigold, M. F., & Doherty, K. 1991. Coping with accountability: Self-

identification and evaluative reckonings. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth

(Eds.), Pergamon general psychology serie. Elmsford, NY, US: Pergamon Press.

Sessa, V. I. 1996. Using perspective taking to manage conflict and affect in teams. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1): 101-115.

Shepperd, J., Malone, W., & Sweeny, K. 2008. Exploring causes of the self‐serving

bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2): 895-908.

Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. 2011. Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When

cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3): 330-349.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1997. A meta-analysis of the effects of organizational

behavior modification on task performance, 1975–95. Academy of Management

Journal, 40(5): 1122-1149.

Taylor, S. E. 1989. Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind.

New York: Basic Books.

Tenbrunsel, A. E. 1995. Justifying unethical behavior: The role of expectations of

others' behavior and uncertainty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern

University, IL.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. 2004. Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in

unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2): 223-236.

Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. 2009. How management style

moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An

uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 108(1): 79-92.

Trevino, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation

interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 601-617.

Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. 2005. The role of leaders in influencing unethical

behavior in the workplace. In R. E. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.). Managing

organizational deviance: 69-87. London: Sage.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. 2006. Behavioral ethics in

organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6): 951-990.

Tyson, T. 1992. Does believing that everyone else is less ethical have an impact on work

behavior?. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(9): 707-717.

Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. 2011. When employees do bad things for good

reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization

Science, 22(3): 621-640.

38

Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. 2011. Structural and psychological

empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt

accountability: A managerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4):

840.

Wedell-Wedellsbory, M. 2019. The psychology behind unethical behavior. Harvard

Business Review.

Welsh, D. T., Ordóñez, L. D., Snyder, D. G., & Christian, M. S. 2014. The slippery slope:

How small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future

transgressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1): 114.

Zhao, B. 2011. Learning from errors: The role of context, emotion, and

personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3): 435-463.

Zuber, F. 2015. Spread of unethical behavior in organizations: A dynamic social network

perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1): 151-172.

Zuckerman, M. 1979. Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational

bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47(2): 245-287.

39

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.Age 24.17 1.68 -

2.Tenure 12.64 7.98 0.37** -

3. Job satisfaction 3.59 0.69 0.08 -0.03 -

4. Unethical workplace behavior at

Time 1

1.16 0.52 -0.10 0.08 0.09 -

5. Ethical responsibility 3.60 0.78 0.03 0.03 0.16* -0.08 (0.76)

6. Unethical workplace behavior at

Time 2

0.83 0.69 -0.06 0.11 0.00 0.21* -0.26* -

7. Perspective-taking supervisor 4.18 0.56 -0.02 -0.03 0.09 0.03 0.00 -0.01 (0.85)

Notes: **p< .001; *p< .05; †p<.1; N = 313;

40

TABLE 2 Regression Results: Unethical Workplace Behavior at Time 1, Time 2 and Ethical Responsibility

Predictor Mediator = Ethical

responsibility

DV = Unethical workplace behavior at Time 2

Constant 3.07 (0.30)** 1.17 (0.34)**

Job satisfaction (control) 0.20 (0.08)* 0.02 (0.07)

Unethical workplace behavior at Time

1

-0.14 (0.09) 0.23 (0.09)†

Ethical responsibility - -0.19 (0.07)*

Notes: **p< .001; *p< .05; †p<.1; N = 313.

41

TABLE 3 Regression Results for the Moderating Role of Perspective-taking Supervisor

Notes: **p< .001; *p< .05; †p<.1; The 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effects were calculated using bootstrapping

method with 5,000 replications.

Predictor Ethical responsibility Unethical behavior at Time 2

Constant 3.10 (0.25)** 1.13 (0.35)*

Job satisfaction (control) 0.14 (0.07)* 0.08 (0.07)

Unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 -0.16 (0.09)* 0.24 (0.13)†

Ethical responsibility - -0.17 (0.07)*

Perspective-taking supervisor -0.01 (0.09) -0.05 (0.12)

Unethical behavior at Time 1 x perspective-taking supervisor -0.28 (0.12)* 0.14 (0.23)

Conditional indirect effect of unethical behavior at Time 1 on

Time 2

Effect 95% LL, UL

Low Perspective-taking supervisor (- 1 SD) 0.25 0.01, 0.78

High Perspective-taking supervisor (+ 1 SD) 0.20 0.01, 0.62

42

FIGURE 1 Hypothesized Model

43

FIGURE 2 Effects of Interaction Between Unethical Workplace Behavior at Time 1 and Perspective-taking Supervisor

on Ethical Responsibility

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Low workplace unethical behavior at Time 1 High workplace unethical behavior at Time1

Eth

ical

res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Unethical workplace behavior x Perspective-taking supervisor on ethical responsibility

High perspective-taking supervisor Low perspective-taking supervisor

44

APPENDIX

TABLE 4 ICCs for Study Variables

Variables ICC

Unethical workplace behavior at Time 1 .20

Unethical workplace behavior at Time 2 .10

Ethical responsibility .11

Job satisfaction .02

45

Mplus Code for Table 2

TITLE: Regression for unethical workplace behavior at Time 1, Time 2 and ethical

responsibility

DATA: FILE IS ms.csv;

VARIABLE:

NAMES ARE EEID UB1 UB2 JS EI MRID PERS;

USEVARIABLES ARE UB1 UB2 JS EI;

MISSING ARE ALL (999);

CLUSTER IS MRID;

ANALYSIS:

TYPE IS COMPLEX;

MODEL:

EI ON UB1 JS;

UB2 ON UB1 EI JS;

46

Mplus Code for Table 3

TITLE: Regression for the Moderating Role of Perspective-taking Supervisor

DATA: FILE IS ms.csv;

VARIABLE:

NAMES ARE EEID UB1 UB2 JS EI MRID PERS;

USEVARIABLES ARE UB1 UB2 JS EI PERS Int;

MISSING ARE ALL (999);

CLUSTER IS MRID;

DEFINE: CENTER PERS UB1(GRANDMEAN);

Int = PERS*UB1;

ANALYSIS:

TYPE IS COMPLEX;

MODEL:

EI ON UB1(a1);

EI ON PERS JS;

EI ON Int (a2);

UB2 ON EI (b);

UB2 ON UB1 PERS Int JS;

MODEL CONSTRAINT:

47

NEW(ind1 ind2);

ind1=(a1+a2*4.75)*b;

ind2=(a1+a2*3.62)*b;