Actual and perceived sharing of ethical reasoning and moral intent among in-group and out-group members
Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Business Ethics 33 (4):299 - 322 (2001)
|Abstract||Despite an extensive amount of research studying the influence of significant others on an individual's ethical behavior, researchers have not examined this variable in the context of organizational group boundaries. This study tests actual and perceptual sharing and variation in ethical reasoning and moral intent within and across functional groups in an organization. Integrating theory on ethical behavior, group dynamics, and culture, it is proposed that organizational structure affects cognitive structure. Departmental boundaries create stronger social ties within the group as well as intergroup biases between the groups. Thus individuals will be more likely to share in ethical reasoning and moral intent with members of their own functional group (in-group) than with members of other functional groups (out-group). Additionally, they will perceive that they are more likely to share in ethical reasoning and moral intent with in-group members than with out-group members. Responding to two versions of two ethical scenarios, respondents contrasted their own ethical behavior to their expected ethical behavior of in-group and out-group members. Empirical results confirmed the hypotheses. Organizational group boundaries create actual as well as perceptual sharing and variation in ethical reasoning and moral intent. Furthermore, when comparing perceptual sharing to actual sharing, results show that individuals understate their sharing of ethical reasoning and moral intent with out-group members and overstate their sharing with in-group members. As organizational boundaries can create actual and perceived differences between groups that could lead to inter-group conflict, suggestions for management focus on removing or blurring inter-group boundaries.|
|Keywords||ethical reasoning functional groups in-group intergroup bias moral intent out-group significant others|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Margaret Gilbert (1997). Group Wrongs and Guilt Feelings. Journal of Ethics 1 (1):65-84.
Erol Kuyurtar (2007). Are Cultural Group Rights Against Individual Rights? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:51-59.
Andrew Sharp (1999). 'What If Value and Rights Lie Foundationally in Groups?' The Maori Case. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 2 (2):1-28.
Raimo Tuomela (1992). Group Beliefs. Synthese 91 (3):285-318.
Christian List & Philip Pettit (2006). Group Agency and Supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (S1):85-105.
Philip Pettit (2005). Group Agency and Supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (Supplement):85-105.
James J. Cappel & John C. Windsor (2000). Ethical Decision Making: A Comparison of Computer- Supported and Face-to-Face Group. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 28 (2):95 - 107.
Marshall Schminke & Deborah Wells (1999). Group Processes and Performance and Their Effects on Individuals' Ethical Frameworks. Journal of Business Ethics 18 (4):367 - 381.
Neil A. Granitz (2003). Individual, Social and Organizational Sources of Sharing and Variation in the Ethical Reasoning of Managers. Journal of Business Ethics 42 (2):101 - 124.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #170,048 of 722,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?