TO BRIBE OR TO CHEAT? EFFECTS OF SELF-MONITORING AND GENDER

Ana Carla Bon

doi:10.12712/rpca.v15i2.49628

Abstract

This study aimed to contribute to business ethics research investigating the effects of two individual differences – self-monitoring personality and gender – on ethical decision making. Applying a bribery scenario (intentions) and a cheating matrix task (behavior), results showed that high self-monitors had more unethical intention and behavior than low self‑monitors. Moreover, low self-monitors had more consistency intention-behavior than high self-monitors, and the inconsistencies of the later were different regarding gender. The bi-dimension of self-monitoring construct – acquisitive and protective – was tested and brought additional evidence about the ones who bribes. Possible explanations of these findings are discussed, with suggestions for future research.

Highlights

There is a consensus in the literature that individual traits affect ethical decision-making
Applying a multi-method – a business scenario of bribery followed by a cheating task – to measure unethical intention and behavior, respectively, of professionals in different management positions this study aimed to contribute to research in business ethics, considering that high self-monitors are more likely to be at high hierarchical positions in organizations and create the “glass ceiling” effect against women (Day and Schleicher, 2006), and ethical leadership can affect the performance of the whole organization team
Self-monitoring correlates significantly and positively to bribery (0.28, p < .01), and an ANOVA (F = 6.18, p

Summary

Introduction

There is a consensus in the literature that individual traits affect ethical decision-making. Individual variables used in empirical research based on Rest’s (1986) model for Individual Ethical Decision-making (based on a four-step model of awareness, judgment, intention, and behavior) and Jones’ (1991) IssueContingent Model were discussed in consecutive literature reviews (Craft, 2013; Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010; O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2005). Kish-Gephart et al (2010), in their seminal meta-analyses which coined the expression “bad apples, bad barrels, bad cases”, contributed to understand of the simultaneous effect of individual factors, situational and moral intensity on ethical decision-making and confirmed that, the three most studied individual variables - CMD (moral development), Machiavellianism, and locus of control - contributed to unethical intention and unethical behavior. Acquisitive self-monitoring was strongly and positively related to the metatrait Plasticity or Engagement (which is associated to reward seeking, accomplishment of ambitious goals and exploration of information) whereas protective selfmonitoring had a moderate and negative relation to the metatrait Stability or Self-control, (which is related to Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion