Determinants of Unethical Pro-Organizational Behaviors

Öz

Is it possible to see a sustainable working life from an ethical perspective? As we look at the root causes of increasing ethical scandals in the 21st century, it is clear that this is not only the responsibility of organizations. As ethical awareness becomes established the necessity for employees who belong to the organization increases day by day. It may be possible to find the answer to this question by expressing the determinants of unethical pro-organizational behaviors. The aim of this research is to determine the effect of psychological entitlement on unethical pro-organizational conduct based on social exchange and social identity theories to examine the moderating role of organizational identification in the relationship between employees' perceptions of psychological entitlement and their unethical pro-organizational behaviors. The quantitative method was preferred in the research and a survey form was used as a data collection tool. The participants are 371 employees working for sales and marketing company in İstanbul. The author used SPSS, Process Macro, and SEM-AMOS programs to obtain data . As a result of the analysis, we found out that psychological entitlement has a positive effect on unethical pro-organizational behaviors, while organizational identification hurt unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Additionally, it has been determined that organizational identification has a moderating role in the relationship between psychological entitlement and unethical pro-organizational behaviors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psychological Entitlement
• Organizational Identification
• Unethical Pro-Organizational Behaviors

Örgüt Yararına Etik Olmayan Davranışların Belirleyicileri

Öz

Etik bir bakış açısıyla sürdürülebilir bir çalışma yaşamı görmek mümkün mü? 21. yüzyılda artan etik skandalların kök nedenlerine bakıldığında bunun yalnızca örgütlerin sorumluluğunda olmadığı açıktır. Etik bilincin yerleşmesi ve aynı zamanda örgüte aidiyet içindeki çalışanlara olan ihtiyacın her geçen gün artmasıyla birlikte bu sorunun cevabını örgüt yararına etik olmayan davranışların belirleyicilerini ifade ederek bulmak mümkün olabilir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, psikolojik ayrıcalığın örgüt yararına etik olmayan davranışlar üzerindeki etkisini belirlemek ve sosyal mübadele ve sosyal kimlik teorilerine dayanarak, çalışanların psikolojik ayrıcalık algıları ile örgüt yararına etik olmayan davranışları arasındaki ilişkide örgütsel özdeşleşmenin düzenleyici rolünü incelemektir. Araştırmada nicel yöntem tercih edilmiş ve veri toplama aracı olarak anket formu kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar, İstanbul'da bulunan bir satış ve pazarlama işletmesindeki 371 tane çalışandan oluşmaktadır. Basit tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemi ile edilen veriler, SPSS, Process Macro ve YEM-AMOS programları kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda psikolojik ayrıcalık, örgüt yararına etik olmayan davranışlar üzerinde pozitif etkiye sahipken, örgütsel özdeşleşmenin örgüt yararına etik olmayan davranışlar üzerinde negatif etkisinin olduğu bulgulanmıştır. Ayrıca, örgütsel özdeşleşmenin psikolojik ayrıcalık ile örgüt yararına etik olmayan davranışlar arasındaki ilişkide düzenleyici rolünün olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psikolojik Ayrıcalık
• Örgütsel Özdeşleşme
• Örgüt Yararına Etik Olmayan Davranışlar

Etik Beyan

“Örgüt Yararına Etik Olmayan Davranışların Belirleyicileri” başlıklı çalışmanın yazım sürecinde bilimsel kurallara, etik ve alıntı kurallarına uyulmuş; toplanan veriler üzerinde herhangi bir tahrifat yapılmamış ve bu çalışma herhangi başka bir akademik yayın ortamına değerlendirme için gönderilmemiştir. Gerekli olan etik kurul izinleri Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi İnsan Araştırmaları Etik Kurulu’nun 20.12.2021 tarih ve 2021/32-03 sayılı toplantısında alınmıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy Kürü, S. (2020). Örgütsel özdeşleşmenin öncülleri ve ardılları üzerine bir meta analiz çalışması. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Kocaeli.
2. Aksoy Kürü, S. (2022a). Örgüt yanlısı etik olmayan davranışlar. İçinde B. Üzüm (Ed.), Güncel kavramlarla örgütsel davranış. Eğitim Yayınevi.
3. Aksoy Kürü, S. (2022b). Psikolojik ayrıcalık: Bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(44), 461- 480.
4. Aksoy Kürü, S. (2022c). Örgüt yararına etik olmayan davranışlar: Bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 57(1), 409-426.
5. Aksoy Kürü, S., Demirel, O. ve Ulufer Kansoy, S. (2022). Örgütsel sessizliğin örgütsel sinizme etkisinde örgütsel dışlanmışlığın aracılık rolü. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 23(1), 197-217.
6. Bagozzi R. P. ve Yi Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
7. Blau, P. M. (1964), Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
8. Blowfield, M. (2000). Ethical sourcing: a contribution to sustainability or a diversion?. Sustainable Development, 8(4), 191-200.

9. Brief, A. P. ve Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Pro-social organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.
10. Campbell, J. L. ve Göritz, A. S. (2014). Culture corrupts! A qualitative study of organizational culture in corrupt organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 291-311.
11. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J. V. ve Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83 (1), 29-45.
12. Caprar, D. V., Walker, B. W. ve Ashforth, B. E. (2022). The dark side of strong identification in organizations: A conceptual review. Academy of Management Annals, 16(2), 759-805.
13. Castille, C. M., Buckner, J. E. ve Thoroughgood, C. N. (2018). Prosocial citizens without a moral compass? Examining the relationship between Machiavellianism and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of business ethics, 149(4), 919-930.
14. Chen, M., Chen, C. C. ve Schminke, M. (2023). Feeling guilty and entitled: Paradoxical consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(3), 865-883.
15. Chen, M., Chen, C. C. ve Sheldon, O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1082-1096.
16. Chen, Q., Shen, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, Z., Zheng, J. ve Xiu, J. (2023). Influences of (in) congruences in psychological entitlement and felt obligation on ethical behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1052759.
17. Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J. ve Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64-88.
18. Conroy, S., Henle, C. A., Shore, L. ve Stelman, S. (2017). Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 184-203.
19. Coppins, T. ve Weststar, J. (2023). What About My Occupation? A Multidimensional View of Workplace Identification and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior. In Organizational Wrongdoing as the “Foundational” Grand Challenge: Definitions and Antecedents (Vol. 84, pp. 153-170). Emerald Publishing Limited.
20. Coşkun, A. ve Ülgen, B. (2017). Örgüt yararına ahlaki olmayan davranış. İş Ahlakı Dergisi, 10(2), 177-201.
21. Dadaboyev, S. M. U., Paek, S. ve Choi, S. (2022). Framework of Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: Consequences, Conditions, and Processes. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2022, No. 1, p. 12476). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
22. Dennerlein, T. ve Kirkman, B. L. (2022). The hidden dark side of empowering leadership: The moderating role of hindrance stressors in explaining when empowering employees can promote moral disengagement and unethical pro-organizational behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2220-2242.
23. Doğan, S. (2022). Sağlık kurumlarında örgütsel özdeşleşme ile etik olmayan örgüt yanlısı davranışlar arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. İşletme Akademisi Dergisi, 3(2), 217-228.
24. Fornell C. ve Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-51.
25. Gigol, T. (2020). Influence of authentic leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The intermediate role of work engagement. Sustainability, 12(3), 1182.
26. Graham, K. A., Resick, C. J., Margolis, J. A., Shao, P., Hargis, M. B. ve Kiker, J. D. (2020). Egoistic norms, organizational identification, and the perceived ethicality of unethical pro-organizational behavior: A moral maturation perspective. Human Relations, 73(9), 1249-1277.
27. Gürsoy, A. (2020). Otel çalışanlarının örgüt yararına ahlaki olmayan davranışları: İş tatmini, lider üye etkileşimi ve örgütsel adaletin rolü. Türk Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 2655-2668.
28. Gürsoy, A., Köksal, K. ve Topcu, M. K. (2021). Örgüt yararına ahlaki olmayan davranışın belirleyicileri: duygusal bulaşıcılığın düzenleyicilik rolü. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 163- 180.
29. Hair, J. J., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M. ve Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
30. Harvey, P. ve Martinko, M. J. (2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of organizational behavior: the international journal of industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(4), 459-476.
31. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression- based approach. Guilford Publications.
32. Hongbo, L., Waqas, M. ve Tariq, H. (2019). From victim to saboteur: Testing a moderated mediation model of perceived undermining, state hostility, and service sabotage. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 29(1), 2- 21.
33. Irshad, M. ve Bashir, S. (2020). The dark side of organizational identification: a multi-study investigation of negative outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 572478.
34. Johnson, H. H. ve Umphress, E. E. (2019). To help my supervisor: Identification, moral identity, and unethical pro- supervisor behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 519-534.
35. Kettinger, W. J., Li, Y., Davis, J. M. ve Kettinger, L. (2015). The roles of psychological climate, information management capabilities, and IT support on knowledge-sharing: An MOA perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(1), 59-75.
36. Khalid, M., Gulzar, A. ve Khan, A. K. (2020). When and how the psychologically entitled employees hide more knowledge?. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102413.
37. Klimchak, M., Carsten, M., Morrell, D. ve MacKenzie Jr, W. I. (2016). Employee entitlement and proactive work behaviors: The moderating effects of narcissism and organizational identification. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(4), 387-396.
38. Kong, D. T. (2016). The pathway to unethical pro-organizational behavior: Organizational identification as a joint function of work passion and trait mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 86-91.
39. Kozak M. (2017). Veri analizi. [Scientific research: design, writing and publishing techniques]. Bilimsel araştırma: tasarım, yazım ve yayım teknikleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
40. Langerud, D. H. B. (2022). Entitlement ın the workplace: an examination of the behaviours employees use to express their entitlement beliefs (Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University).
41. Leavitt, K. ve Sluss, D. M. (2015). Lying for who we are: An identity-based model of workplace dishonesty. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 587-610.
42. Lee, A., Schwarz, G., Newman, A. ve Legood, A. (2019). Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 109-126.
43. Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y. ve Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049-1080.
44. Li, C. (2023) Organizational identification and unethical pro-organizational behavior: A culture-moderated meta-analysis, Ethics & Behavior, DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2023.2219356
45. Li, Z. (2022). Characteristics and trends in unethical pro-organizational behavior research in business and management: a Bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 877419.
46. Liu, W., Zhu, Y., Chen, S., Zhang, Y. ve Qin, F. (2022). Moral decline in the workplace: Unethical pro-organizational behavior, psychological entitlement, and leader gratitude expression. Ethics & Behavior, 32(2), 110-123.
47. Luan, Y., Zhao, K., Wang, Z. ve Hu, F. (2023). Exploring the antecedents of unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB): A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(1), 119-136.
48. Mael, F. ve Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
49. Mishra, V., Sharma, V., Verma, D. ve Uppal, N. (2022). A meta-analytic investigation of antecedents of unethical pro-organizational behavior. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2022, No. 1, p. 18083). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
50. Mo, S., Lupoli, M. J., Newman, A. ve Umphress, E. E. (2023). Good intentions, bad behavior: A review and synthesis of the literature on unethical prosocial behavior (UPB) at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 335-354.
51. Moç, T. (2022). Dijital Dünyada Yönetsel Yaklaşımlar. İçinde Fatma Korkmaz (Edt.), Çalışanların Güçlendirilmesi (ss. 501-528). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
52. Mumcu, A. (2022). Ahlaki çözülmenin etik olmayan örgüt yararına davranış üzerindeki etkisi: Demografik faktörlerin düzenleyici rolü. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(2), 481-491.
53. Naseer, S., Bouckenooghe, D., Syed, F., Khan, A. K. ve Qazi, S. (2020). The malevolent side of organizational identification: Unraveling the impact of psychological entitlement and manipulative personality on unethical work behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(3), 333-346.
54. Richardson, B. J. (2009). Keeping ethical investment ethical: Regulatory issues for investing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 555-572.
55. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358- 384.
56. Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
57. Tak, B. ve Aydemir, B. A. (2004). Örgütsel özdeşleşme üzerine iki görgül çalışma. 12. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa.
58. Thomason, S. ve Brownlee, A. (2018). Ethical decision making and psychological entitlement. Business and Society Review, 123(4), 631-659.
59. Toirova, M. ve Baek, Y. (2021). Why narcissistic individuals engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior. Testing a moderated mediation model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 13(3), 320-334.
60. Umphress, E. E. (2003). In the name of the company: Unethical behaviors perpetrated by employees in response to accountability and fair treatment (Doctoral dissertation, Tulane University).
61. Umphress, E. E. ve Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22, 621-640.
62. Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B. ve Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical pro-organizational behaviors in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs influencing unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769-80.
63. Wang, T., Long, L., Zhang, Y. ve He, W. (2019). A social exchange perspective of employee-organization relationships and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of individual moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 473-489.
64. Yajun, Z., Guqi, S., Junwei, Z. ve Fangfang, Z. (2019). Perceived overqualification and employee job performance: A perspective of psychological entitlement. Management Review, 31(12), 194-206.
65. Yan, H., Solnet, D. ve Okimoto, T. G. (2023). Helping the organization but harming customers: a social identity perspective of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Services Marketing, 37(7), 927-943.