Bad Barrels Research Articles

Organizational Wrongdoing: Conceptual and Empirical Advances

Organizational misconduct (or wrongdoing) is pervasive in modern organizations and adversely affects individuals, groups, organizations, fields, and societies. This symposium builds on a rich stream of research on organizational wrongdoing by providing insight into new conceptual and empirical advances. The three papers pursue areas for future research that were proposed in a recent authoritative review of organizational wrongdoing: the relationship between individual- versus organization-level variation on misconduct or wrongdoing; the role of social networks in the pursuit of wrongdoing; and the important but often overlooked role of social-control agents and labeling in organizational wrongdoing. The authors elaborate conceptual frameworks from organization and management theory and employ a range of methods to examine wrongdoing in novel contexts. Their results have important and timely implications for research, practice, and policy. The discussant will draw on insights from his extensive research program to explore these perspectives and will conclude by facilitating an interactive question-and-answer session. Bad Apples or Bad Barrels? Individual and Organizational Heterogeneity in Professional Wrongdoing Presenter: Pooria Assadi; Simon Fraser U. Presenter: Andrew von Nordenflycht; Simon Fraser U. Using Network Analysis to Understand Economic Wrongdoing Presenter: Donald A Palmer; U. of California, Davis Wrongdoing and Wall Street: A Critical Perspective on the Boundary of Organizational Misconduct Presenter: Christopher Eaton; U. of Calgary Presenter: Laurie Milton; U. of Calgary

Neither bad apple nor bad barrel: how the societal context impacts unethical behavior in organizations

Every time another corporate scandal captures media headlines, the ‘bad apple vs. bad barrel’ discussion starts anew. Yet this debate overlooks the influence of the broader societal context on organizational behavior. In this article, we argue that misbehaviors of organizations (the ‘barrels’) and their members (the ‘apples’) cannot be addressed properly without a clear understanding of their broader context (the ‘larder’). Whereas previously, a strong societal framework dampened the practical application of the Homo economicus concept (business actors as perfectly rational and egocentric utility‐maximizing agents without any moral concern), specialization, individualization and globalization led to a business world disembedded from broader societal norms. This emancipated business world promotes a literal interpretation of Homo economicus among business organizations and their members. Consequently, we argue that the first step toward ‘healthier’ apples and barrels is to sanitize the larder, that is, adapt the framework in which organizations and their members evolve.

Bad Apples, Bad Barrels, and Broken Followers? An Empirical Examination of Contextual Influences on Follower Perceptions and Reactions to Aversive Leadership

Research on destructive leadership has largely focused on leader characteristics thought to be responsible for harmful organizational outcomes. Recent findings, however, demonstrate the need to examine important contextual factors underlying such processes. Thus, the present study sought to determine the effects of an organization’s climate and financial performance, as well as the leader’s gender, on subordinate perceptions of and reactions (i.e., whistle-blowing intentions) to aversive leadership, a form of destructive leadership based on coercive power. 302 undergraduate participants read through a series of vignettes describing a fictional organization, its employees, and an aversive leader in charge of the company’s sales department. They were then asked to envision themselves as subordinates of the leader and respond to several quantitative measures and open-ended questions. Consistent with Padilla and colleagues' (2007) toxic triangle theory, results suggest that both perceptions and reactions to aversive leadership depend on the three aforementioned factors. Specifically, aversive leaders were perceived more aversively and elicited greater whistle-blowing intentions in financially unstable organizations possessing climates intolerant of negative leader behavior. Moreover, female aversive leaders were perceived more aversively than their male counterparts under such conditions. Theoretical and practical implications as well as future research directions are also discussed.

Recipes for Pork and Other Delicious Offerings for the New Administration

Is pork produced by feeble budgetary processes? By fixing weak budgetary procedures, can wasteful spending and opportunities for corruption be reduced? This essay looks at three varieties of pork: earmarked, ad hoc, and presidential. What can be done to curb the excesses of each one? By examining the problem of congressional earmarking, this timely article proposes a new process for controlling “earmarked” pork by supporting a new (constitutional) presidential line‐item veto/reprogramming. “Ad hoc pork,” generated by emergency or stimulus bills, is also analyzed. Its downsides can be fixed, according to the essay, by creating a preapproved roadmap for the appropriations process, thereby enhancing the quality of spending oversight. Finally, “presidential pork” derives from chief executives rewarding congressional allies and from government agencies allocating program resources so as to engender support from congressional members. This third variety of pork can be controlled if agencies improve their operational transparency plus strengthen their procedures for selecting projects. What happens when you put good people in a bad place, good apples in a bad barrel? Do the apples change the barrel, or does the barrel change the apples? —Philip Zimbardo, 2008

Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work.

As corporate scandals proliferate, practitioners and researchers alike need a cumulative, quantitative understanding of the antecedents associated with unethical decisions in organizations. In this meta-analysis, the authors draw from over 30 years of research and multiple literatures to examine individual ("bad apple"), moral issue ("bad case"), and organizational environment ("bad barrel") antecedents of unethical choice. Findings provide empirical support for several foundational theories and paint a clearer picture of relationships characterized by mixed results. Structural equation modeling revealed the complexity (multidetermined nature) of unethical choice, as well as a need for research that simultaneously examines different sets of antecedents. Moderator analyses unexpectedly uncovered better prediction of unethical behavior than of intention for several variables. This suggests a need to more strongly consider a new "ethical impulse" perspective in addition to the traditional "ethical calculus" perspective. Results serve as a data-based foundation and guide for future theoretical and empirical development in the domain of behavioral ethics.

Bad apples in bad (business) barrels

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to attempt to use several variables measured at Time 1 to predict cluster membership (bad apples vs good apples) measured at Time 2 and investigate possible differences between business and psychology students in unethical behavior.Design/methodology/approachBusiness and psychology students' propensity to engage in unethical behavior (PUB), the love of money, machiavellianism, and risk tolerance at Time 1 and propensity to engage in unethical behavior at Time 2 (four weeks later) were measured. Cluster analysis was used to analyze Time 2 data and bad apples (Cluster 1, high propensity to engage in unethical behavior) and good apples (Cluster 2, low propensity to engage in unethical behavior) were identified. Then all the variables measured at Time 1 were used to predict cluster membership (bad apples vs good apples) measured at Time 2.FindingsIn three discriminant analyses, it was found that variables at Time 1 predicted cluster membership at Time 2 for the whole sample and the business sample, but not for the psychology sample. The differences between bad apples and good apples were significant for business students, but not significant for psychology students. Correlation data showed that the love of money was significantly correlated with machiavellianism and risk tolerance.Research limitations/implicationsStudents are not assigned randomly to business and psychology courses. Students' behavioral intention, not actual unethical behavior, is measured here. Can professors change people's love of money, machiavellianism, risk tolerance, and the propensity to engage in unethical behavior and enhance students' and future managers' ethical decision making? This issue deserves critical attention in future research.Practical implicationsIt is plausible that corruptions and scandals are caused not by lack of intelligence, but by lack of wisdom, or virtue. Professors and researchers may have to focus on ethics training, in general, and the bad apples in bad (business) barrels (mostly male business students), in particular, identify the most critical time and methods in teaching business ethics, enhance learning based on students' own experiences, and promote ethical values in schools, universities, and organizations.Originality/valueThis research shows the importance of incorporating propensity to engage in unethical behavior (PUB), the love of money, machiavellianism, and risk tolerance in identifying bad apples vs good apples across majors.

Bad Apples in Bad Barrels Revisited: Cognitive Moral Development, Just World Beliefs, Rewards, and Ethical Decision-Making

Abstract:In this study, we test the interactive effect on ethical decision-making of (1) personal characteristics, and (2) personal expectancies based on perceptions of organizational rewards and punishments. Personal characteristics studied were cognitive moral development and belief in a just world. Using an in-basket simulation, we found that exposure to reward system information influenced managers’ outcome expectancies. Further, outcome expectancies and belief in a just world interacted with managers’ cognitive moral development to influence managers’ ethical decision-making. In particular, low-cognitive moral development managers who expected that their organization condoned unethical behavior made less ethical decisions while high cognitive moral development managers became more ethical in this environment. Low cognitive moral development managers also behaved less ethically when their belief in a just world was high.

Bad Apples or Bad Barrels' A Former CEO Discusses the Interplay of Person and Situation With Implications for Business Education

Recent corporate scandals have directed public attention to the importance of business ethics and social responsibility. Although culpability can be assigned to a myriad of causes, there is no ques...

Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior.

Les auteurs proposent et testent dans cet article un modele dans lequel l'apprentissage social, le stade du developpement moral cognitif et le locus of control sont supposes influencer la prise de decision ethique

Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior.

Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior.