Organizational Adaptation and Precarious Values: A Case Study

Abstract

While most respondents disapproved of stealing from any of the organizations, differences in intensity of disapproval exist. Attitudes against stealing from small business were the most intense. Differences in attitudes, however, were also found on the basis of other social elements: socio-economic status, sex, religiosity, and group membership. These differences were in turn variously affected by size of the victim organization. In general public attitudes toward a number of situational questions indicate that while size of organization does affect attitudes toward stealing, it is by no means the only factor. When interviewees were forced to choose a victim organization, they weighted their selection in the following order: LB, GOV, and SB. The reasons offered for their decision generally involved the principles of least risk and lesser evil. Those who chose to steal from SB reasoned on the basis of least risk; those who preferred LB invoked both principles, but emphasized the lesser evil; while those who chose GOV overwhelmingly reasoned on the basis of the lesser evil. Size and its concomitants, anonymity, impersonality, bureaucratic inefficiency, and power seem to play a major part in their decision. This supports the general hypothesis; yet other elements such as fear of capture and punishment, patriotism, and not wanting to cheat oneself also enter the picture. Further research in this area should prove fruitful. The relationship between size and stealing preference is not simple. No oneto-one correlation between size and stealing preference exists. The original hypothesis, based on the usual assumptions concerning the effect of organizational size on attitudes, needs modification, even though a relationship between size of the victim organization and stealing preference is confirmed.