Hubristic Pride and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: The Moderating Role of Moral Attentiveness and Moral Clarity

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230512

Abstract

Abstract: As a complex behavior, unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) has two attributes of pro-organization and un-ethics. The pro-organization means that the intention behind UPB is to benefit the organization and its members, while the un-ethics means that UPB violates norms, or globally held standards of ethical behavior judged in terms of justice, law, or social norms. With these dual attributes, UPB may benefit the organization and its members in the short term, but it will disrupt the reputation and performance of the organization in the long term. Therefore, to inhibit and reduce UPB, researchers focus on exploring its antecedents. However, the previous antecedent studies of UPB have little knowledge about the influence of moral emotion, and also fail to comprehensively consider both two attributes of UPB, resulting in an incomplete understanding of the formation of UPB.
Drawing from the affective infusion model and the moral self-regulation theory, we explore the effect of hubristic pride on UPB and the moderating effects of moral attentiveness and moral clarity. Specifically, we expect that hubristic pride would be positively related to UPB. Moreover, moral attentiveness and moral clarity might weaken the positive relationship between hubristic pride and UPB. We further propose that the interaction effects of hubristic pride, moral attentiveness, and moral clarity on UPB. To test the proposed hypotheses, we conducted a two-wave field study involving 288 employees from a financial company and a railway company in East China. At Time 1, employees assessed their hubristic pride, authentic pride, moral attentiveness, and moral clarity, and provided their demographic information. At Time 2, employees were asked to report their UPB over the past half month. The final matched sample included 205 employees.
The results of regression analyses show that: (1) hubristic pride is positively related to UPB; (2) the moderating effect of moral attentiveness on the relationship between hubristic pride and UPB is not significant; (3) moral clarity mitigates the positive effect of hubristic pride on UPB; (4) the three-way interactions of hubristic pride, moral attentiveness and moral clarity on UPB are significant.
Our research has three theoretical contributions. First, we explore the influence of hubristic pride on UPB, which enriches the research on the antecedents of UPB. Our work makes up for the lack of attention to moral emotions in the current antecedent studies of UPB. In addition, we consider both pro-organization and unethics attributes of UPB, which is helpful to comprehensively grasp the formation of UPB. Second, our research focuses on the impact of hubristic pride, and enriches and refines the research on pride. By focusing on hubristic pride, this paper shifts the focus of researchers from the whole pride to the specific dimension of pride, which is helpful to provide more detailed research evidence for pride and other emotional research. Finally, based on the moral self-regulation theory, this paper discusses the boundary conditions under which hubristic pride influences UPB from the perspective of moral cognition. By identifying the moderating factors of moral attentiveness and moral clarity, this study clarifies under what circumstances hubristic pride can promote UPB and under what circumstances it does not promote such behavior. The introduction of moral cognition further enriches and complements the influence of emotion on moral behavior from the perspective of rationality.

Key words: hubristic pride, unethical pro-organizational behavior, moral attentiveness, moral clarity, three-way interaction

摘要： 基于情感注入模型和道德自我调节理论,本文探讨了自大自豪对亲组织不道德行为的预测作用以及道德注意与道德明晰的调节作用。通过对205名员工的两阶段配对数据进行回归分析,结果表明：自大自豪对亲组织不道德行为具有显著的正向影响;道德注意对自大自豪和亲组织不道德行为之间关系的调节作用不显著;道德明晰负向调节了自大自豪与亲组织不道德行为的关系;自大自豪、道德注意和道德明晰的三项交互作用显著。本文丰富了道德行为领域的研究,也对管理员工不道德行为具有启发意义。

关键词: 自大自豪, 亲组织不道德行为, 道德注意, 道德明晰, 三项交互

Yang Na, Hou Liang. Hubristic Pride and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior: The Moderating Role of Moral Attentiveness and Moral Clarity[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(5): 1123-1130.

杨娜, 候亮. 自大自豪对亲组织不道德行为的影响：道德注意和道德明晰的调节作用 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(5): 1123-1130.

References

[1] 陈默, 梁建. (2017). 高绩效要求与亲组织不道德行为: 基于社会认知理论的视角. 心理学报, 49(1), 94-105.
[2] 陈邑早, 张莹, 孔晨. (2020). 组织认同与亲组织财务报告舞弊决策——多重中介效应分析. 经济管理, 42(9), 176-192.
[3] 程垦, 林英晖. (2019). 动机视角下的亲组织不道德行为. 心理科学进展, 27(6), 1111-1122.
[4] 李志成, 王震, 祝振兵, 占小军. (2018). 基于情绪认知评价的员工绩效压力对亲组织非伦理行为的影响研究. 管理学报, 15(3), 358-365.
[5] 吴明隆. (2017). 结构方程模型: Amos的操作与应用. 重庆大学出版社.
[6] 吴明证, 沈斌, 孙晓玲. (2016). 组织承诺和亲组织的非伦理行为关系: 道德认同的调节作用. 心理科学, 39(2), 392-398.
[7] 张永军, 江晓燕, 李永鑫. (2019). 亲组织非伦理行为的形成机制: 一个交互模型的检验. 心理科学, 42(5), 1161-1166.
[8] Bandura, A. (1991a). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines, & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 45-103). Erlbaum.
[9] Bandura, A. (1991b). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.
[10] Carver C. S., Sinclair S., & Johnson S. L. (2010). Authentic and hubristic pride: Differential relations to aspects of goal regulation, affect, and self-control. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(6), 698-703.
[11] Castille C. M., Buckner J. E., & 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.
[12] Chen M., Chen C. C., & 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.
[13] Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926.
[14] Dong R., Lu T., Hu Q. L., & Ni S. G. (2021). The effect of formalism on unethical decision making: The mediating effect of moral disengagement and moderating effect of moral attentiveness. Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility, 30(1), 127-142.
[15] Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.
[16] Greenbaum R., Bonner J., Gray T., & Mawritz M. (2020). Moral emotions: A review and research agenda for management scholarship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 95-114.
[17] Hannah S. T., Avolio B. J., & May D. R. (2011). Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 663-685.
[18] 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.
[19] Lee A., Schwarz G., Newman A., & Legood A. (2019). Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 109-126.
[20] Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.
[21] Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3-19.
[22] Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., & Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
[23] Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
[24] Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027-1041.
[25] Sanders S., Wisse B., van Yperen N. W., & Rus D. (2018). On ethically solvent leaders: The roles of pride and moral identity in predicting leader ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 631-645.
[26] Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103-125.
[27] Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506-525.
[28] Treviño L. K., Den Nieuwenboer N. A., & Kish-Gephart J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635-660.
[29] Umphress E. E., Bingham J. B., & Mitchell M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769-780.
[30] Umphress E. E., Gardner R. G., Stoverink A. C., & Leavitt K. (2020). Feeling activated and acting unethically: The influence of activated mood on unethical behavior to benefit a teammate. Personnel Psychology, 73(1), 95-123.
[31] Van Gils S., Van Quaquebeke N., van Knippenberg D., van Dijke M., & De Cremer D. (2015). Ethical leadership and follower organizational deviance: The moderating role of follower moral attentiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 190-203.
[32] Wiltermuth, S. S., & Flynn, F. J. (2013). Power, moral clarity, and punishment in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1002-1023.
[33] Yeung, E., & Shen, W. (2019). Can pride be a vice and virtue at work? Associations between authentic and hubristic pride and leadership behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 605-624.
[34] Zhang, Y. J., & Du, S. N. (2022). Moral cleansing or moral licensing? A study of unethical pro-organizational behavior' s differentiating Effects. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Advance online publication.