Ethical marginality: The icarus syndrome and banality of wrongdoing
Journal of Business Ethics 92 (2) (2010)
| Abstract | This study proposes a conceptual model to explain persistent, accepted-as-normal corporate wrongdoing (hereafter banality of wrongdoing), particularly for high performance organizations. The model describes five explanatory variables: the culture of competition, ends-biased leadership, missionary zeal, legitimizing myth, and the corporate cocoon. Our thesis is that the nature of competition drives both legitimate and illegitimate goal-seeking to adopt an iconoclastic (rule-breaking) orientation. High performance organizations are favorable hosts for wrongdoing because high performance requires aggressive behavior at the ethical margins of what is acceptable. The way leadership reacts to competition sets the stage for ethical or unethical cultures to develop. Ends-biased leadership will project strong vision, using ideology and legitimizing myth as tools to inspire and motivate. The resulting missionary zeal justifies using questionable means because of the perceived value of the end. One critical method for building strong culture is creating a sense of being separate and apart from the ordinary. This cocoon effect may create a self-referential value system that is significantly at odds with mainstream culture and in which wrongdoing is banal. We intend an empirical study of the variables described in this model. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDeanne N. Hartog & Frank D. Belschak (2012). Work Engagement and Machiavellianism in the Ethical Leadership Process. Journal of Business Ethics 107 (1):35-47.
Michael E. Brown (2010). Do Ethical Leaders Get Ahead? Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (2):215-236.
Robert W. Armstrong, Robert J. Williams & J. Douglas Barrett (2004). The Impact of Banality, Risky Shift and Escalating Commitment on Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics 53 (4):365-370.
Dilek Zamantili Nayir & Christian Herzig (2012). Value Orientations as Determinants of Preference for External and Anonymous Whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics 107 (2):197-213.
John Lipinski, Adele Queiroz, Jaime C. Rubin & M. J. Paula Soruco (2005). Corporate Wrongdoing. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 16:263-266.
Craig E. Johnson (2012). Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach. Sage Publications.
Marcia P. Miceli (2004). Does Type of Wrongdoing Affect the Whistle-Blowing Process? Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (2):219-242.
Susan Ayers & Steven E. Kaplan (2005). Wrongdoing by Consultants: An Examination of Employees' Reporting Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics 57 (2):121 - 137.
Tim Barnett, Ken Bass & Gene Brown (1996). Religiosity, Ethical Ideology, and Intentions to Report a Peer's Wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (11):1161 - 1174.
Mark John Somers (2001). Ethical Codes of Conduct and Organizational Context: A Study of the Relationship Between Codes of Conduct, Employee Behavior and Organizational Values. Journal of Business Ethics 30 (2):185 - 195.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-07-11Total downloads26 ( #47,590 of 549,013 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,013 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
