Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Moral Repair in the Workplace: A Qualitative Investigation and Inductive Model

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The topic of moral repair in the aftermath of breaches of trust and harmdoing has grown in importance within the past few years. In this paper, we present the results of a qualitative study that offers insight into a series of key issues related to offender efforts to repair interpersonal harm in the workplace: (1) What factors motivate offenders to make amends with those they have harmed? (2) In what ways do offenders attempt to make amends? (3) What outcomes emerge from attempts to make amends? Drawing from the findings, we build an inductive model intended to guide future business ethics and management inquiry and research in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andiappan, M., & Treviño, L. K. (2011). Beyond righting the wrong: Supervisor-subordinate reconciliation after an injustice. Human Relations, 64(3), 359–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazemore, G. (1998). Restorative justice and earned redemption communities, victims, and offender reintegration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(6), 768–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice., 25, 1–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Punishment from the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1479–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGeorge, R. T. (2013). Business ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, R. S. (1997). Self-respect: Moral, emotional, political. Ethics., 107, 226–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, R. S. (2001). Self-forgiveness and self-respect. Ethics, 112(1), 53–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Repairing relationships withinin and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34, 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, J., Ward Struthers, C., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). Dispositional and state forgiveness: The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(2), 371–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enright, R. D. (1996). Counseling within the forgiveness triad: On forgiving, receiving forgiveness, and self-forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 40(2), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Exline, J. J., Deshea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(4), 479–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. (2012). The forgiving organization: A multilevel model of forgiveness at work. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 664–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, M. L., & Exline, J. J. (2006). Self-forgiveness versus excusing: The roles of remorse, effort, and acceptance of responsibility. Self and Identity, 5(02), 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, S. (1999). Punishment as atonement. UCLA Law Review, 46, 1801–1858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K., Bottom, W., & Murnighan, J. K. (1999). Once bitten: Defection and reconciliation in a cooperative enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(1), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giner-Soralla, R., Castrano, E., Espinoza, P., & Brown, R. (2008). Shame expressions reduce the recipient’s insult from outgroup reparation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 519–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1986). Introduction: Social cognition in organizations. In H. P. Sims & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), The thinking organization (pp. 20–48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, M. H., Manning, D. J., & Haugen, J. A. (1992). Explaining our sins: Factors influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., & Aquino, K. (2010). And restorative justice for all: Redemption, forgiveness, and reintegration in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 624–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundlach, M., Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle: A social information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Self–forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(5), 621–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2008). The temporal course of self-forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(2), 174–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S., & Eisikovits, Z. (2006). The role of communicating social emotions accompanying apologizing in forgiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S., Shomrat, N., & Biger, N. (2005). The role of emotions in employees’ explanations for failure in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmgren, M. E. (1998). Self-forgiveness and responsible moral agency. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 32, 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, R. (2011). The debt of sin and the sacrific of charity. A Thomistic echo to Gary Anderson’s Sin: A History, Nova et Vertera, 9(1), 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, S. (2010). Consumption, contrition, and community. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 49(4), 284–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanov, J. M., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost, P., & Lilius, J. M. (2004). Compassion in organizational life. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 808–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1983). Metaphysical principles of virtue, trans. J Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S., Harlan, A., & Stodgill, R. M. (1974). Preference for motivator and hygiene factors in a hypothetical interview situation. Personnel Psychology, 27(1), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, D. L. (2007). Restorative justice: Not “rights”, but the right way to heal relationships at work. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(1), 4–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A., & Folger, R. (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts, and benefits level on victims’ layoff reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(8), 630–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, R. J. (1971). Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1955). Second treatise of civil government. Chicago: Gateway Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, J. L. (1982). Cooperation, competition, and moral philosophy. In A. Colman (Ed.), Cooperation and competition in humans and animals. Wokingham: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Molinsky, A. L. (2008). Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 847–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly., 28, 438–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P. (2005). Redemptive self: Stories Americans live by. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A. H., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). When bad things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and their relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 474–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G. (1994). Perspective-related differences in interpretations of injustice by victims and victimizers. In M. L. J. Lerner, & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond: Justice in close relationships (pp. 175–204). New York: Plenum Press.

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 80–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinsky, A. L., & Margolis, J. D. (2005). Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 245–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morreim, E. (2000). Sticks and carrots and baseball bats: Economic and other incentives to modify health behavior. In D. Callahan (Ed.), Promoting health behavior: How much freedom? Whose responsibility? (pp. 56–75). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, B. (2006). School bullying and restorative justice: Toward a theoretical understanding of the role of respect, pride, and shame. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S. J., Carter, G. W., Dunnette, M. D., Tippins, N., Werner, S., Burnett, J. R., & Vaughan, M. J. (1992). Studies of the structured behavioral interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, A. R., Pfarrer, M. D., & Little, L. M. (2014). A theory of collective empathy in corporate philanthropy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 679–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T., Van Scotter, J. R., & Miceli, M. P. (2004). Does type of wrongdoing affect the whistle-blowing process? Business Ethics Quarterly., 14, 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrucci, C. J. (2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: Evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(4), 337–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radzik, L. (2007). Offenders, the making of amends and the state. In G. Johnstone & D. Van Ness (Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 192–207). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radzik, L. (2009). Making amends: Atonement in morality, law, and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34, 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. (2007). Spiritual emotions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management and escalation of conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, C. (2011). Religion and justice: atonement as an element of justic in both western law and Christian thought. In N. Hosen & R. Mohr (Eds.), Law and Religion in Public Life (pp. 151–164). Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, S. (2007). The idea of reparation. In G. Johnstone & D. Van Ness (Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice (pp. 24–40). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. London: Smith Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1021–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, N. E. (1993). Self-forgiveness. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 27, 75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struthers, C. W., Dupuis, R., & Eaton, J. (2005). Promoting forgiveness among co-workers following a workplace transgression: The effects of social motivation training. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37(4), 299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. (1989). Responsibility and atonement (pp. 149–150). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 494–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tata, J. (2000). She said, he said. The influence of remedial accounts on third-party judgments of coworker sexual harassment. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1133–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea Culpa: A society of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, G. (1985). Shame, pride, and guilt: The emotions of self-assessment. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (1994). Business ETHICS/BUSINESS ethics: One field or two? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. U. (2006). Moral repair: Reconstructing moral relations after wrongdoing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, T. L., & Pasupathi, M. (2011). Stability and change self-integration for negative events: The role of listener responsiveness and elaboration. Journal of Personality, 79(3), 469–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 281–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williston, B. (2012). The importance of self-forgiveness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 49(1), 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witvliet, C. V. O., Worthington, E. L, Jr, Root, L. M., Sato, A. F., Ludwig, T. E., & Exline, J. J. (2008). Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiology analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Information Systems, and Entrepreneurship, Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, USA

    Jerry Goodstein

  2. Department of Management, Information Systems, and Entrepreneurship, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

    Ken Butterfield & Nathan Neale

Authors
  1. Jerry Goodstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Butterfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathan Neale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jerry Goodstein.

Appendix

Appendix

Written Paper Assignment

  1. 1.

    Describe the incident (do not use real names or identifying information). Where did it take place (e.g., summer internship, in an engineering position within a high technology firm) and when? What action/decision did you take? Who was harmed and in what ways?

  2. 2.

    Discuss the efforts you made to make things right with the person(s) you harmed. What specific action(s) did you take? What motivated you to take these actions?

  3. 3.

    In addition to these efforts to make amends with others, what self-directed actions, such as self-forgiveness, did you take to restore your own sense of personal integrity?

  4. 4.

    What did you learn from this incident?

Questionnaire

Please take a moment to reflect on your past and present work experience. Try to think of a particular situation in which you took an action or made a decision that harmed someone else and then attempted to make it right.

  1. 1.

    What action/decision did you take that caused the harm?

  2. 2.

    Who was harmed and in what ways?

  3. 3.

    What did you do to make things right?

  4. 4.

    Why did you respond in this way?

  5. 5.

    Were you effective in making things right? If so, how? If not, why not? What would have made things right for that person?

  6. 6.

    Did your efforts to make things right make a difference in how others treated you?

  7. 7.

    Did your work organization do anything to help or support you as you attempted to make things right?

  8. 8.

    How did your attempts to make things right affect you? Did your efforts make a difference in how you perceived yourself? Did you feel better about yourself?

  9. 9.

    How did your attempts to make things right affect the company?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goodstein, J., Butterfield, K. & Neale, N. Moral Repair in the Workplace: A Qualitative Investigation and Inductive Model. J Bus Ethics 138, 17–37 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2593-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2593-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation