Foundation of Moral Disengagement

Moral Disengagement in the Workplace

From WorldCom in the early 2000s to the global financial crisis in 2008 to the fraudulent activities of small business regarding the United States’ Paycheck Protection Program of 2020, corporations see their fair share of unethical behavior. While companies acting unethically is not a new phenomenon, it was Enron, an energy service and commodities provider, who amplified the spotlight on ethics. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Enron saw tremendous revenue growth with an increase of $69 billion dollars in a two year period. Yet by February 2002, Enron and Enron Europe both filed for bankruptcy and Arthur Anderson, the accounting firm for Enron, dissolved (Rashid, 2021). The cause of Enron’s demise was unethical accounting practices and a toxic organizational culture stemming from unethical top management. Company leaders created nonexistent holdings, used special-purpose entities, and exploited loopholes in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to hide Enron’s massive debt from shareholders and investors. As a result, employees and their 401(k) plans, creditors, and shareholders all suffered substantial losses.

German auto manufacturer Volkswagen is a more recent example of unethical behavior in the workplace. In September 2015, an investigation found engineers deliberately altered software in their diesel engine vehicles (Zu, 2022). By working as a team, employees embedded code for a “defeat device,” which directed the emissions controls to activate only during laboratory testing. This enabled otherwise unpassable vehicles to meet the rigorous United States EPA emissions standards (Jung & Sharon, 2019). Similarly to Enron, Volkswagen employees’ unethical actions are attributed to a toxic corporate culture where employee expectations were to meet demands no matter what (Goodman, 2015).

Enron and Volkswagen are only two entities in a lengthy list of ethical scandals that include Adelphia, WorldCom, Wells Fargo, Theranos, Lance Armstrong and the Livestrong Foundation, and Facebook. These and more incidences not only prompt organizations to engage in more ethical training (Hauser, 2020), but also inspire researchers to examine the cause of such behavior. As a result, research indicates that some of those committing unethical acts used moral disengagement to justify their misconduct (Barsky, 2011; Dang et al., 2017; Hinrichs et al., 2012).

In the beginning, moral disengagement was conceptualized at the individual level. As Bandura (1986) explained, moral disengagement is the intentional deactivation of the self-regulation process. Prior research has established numerous antecedents of moral disengagement. For example, moral identity refers to how one perceives themselves in terms of moral traits, such as empathic, honest, and fair (Aquino & Reed, 2002). When examining the moral identities of genders, research found women tend to have stronger moral identity, which in turns helps them dampen the temptation of participation in unethical behavior (Kennedy et al., 2017). Moral identity can be utilized alone or in combination with other antecedents such as locus of control. Locus of control is defined as how much control one believes they have over the events of their lives and is separated into the categories of internal (i.e., the individual has control), chance (i.e., events happen randomly by fate), and power (i.e., powerful others control your life’s events; Levenson, 1981). Detert et al. (2008) investigated the affect moral identity, locus of control (internal, chance, and power), empathy, and trait cynicism had on moral disengagement. The authors found that empathy and moral identity had a negative relationship while chance locus of control and trait cynicism had a positive relationship with moral disengagement. These four antecedents, along with ethical predispositions (Dong et al., 2021), dispositional creativity (Keem et al., 2018), job insecurity (Huang et al., 2019), and high performance goals (Welsh et al., 2020) are simply a few on the list of possible antecedents for moral disengagement. Unethical behavior is commonly used as the outcome for moral disengagement; however, it is important to note that unethical behavior is an umbrella term and as such, can encompass a vast number of topics including unethical pro-organizational behavior (Chen et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2019; Valle et al., 2019), harassment (Claybourn, 2011), organizational and interpersonal deviance (Christian & Ellis, 2014; Huang and Yan, 2014; Hystad et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2019), abusive supervision (Eissa & Lester, 2021), and more.

For some unethical behaviors, the culprit is not always an individual (White et al., 2009). Knoll et al. (2016) defines unethical behavior as any action by an individual or group that results in an undeserved advantage or is the source of undeserved, unacceptable harm toward another party. Hiekkataipale and Lämsä (2019), Johnson and Buckley (2015), Martin et al. (2014) and Ashforth and Anand (2003) have all argued a collective moral disengagement construct exists. In other words, the moral self-regulation process once considered solely internal may actually be influenced by external factors (e.g., coworkers, friends, etc.). It is not unheard of that a manager persuades their employees to commit an unethical act or a corporate culture that tolerates unethical behavior. When pressure and a toxic environment exist, even the most ethical employees can find themselves in the midst of moral disengagement.

Though collective moral disengagement is at the forefront of many ethical scandals, such as Volkswagen and Tyco, research focused on moral disengagement operating at the group level is slow to emerge. Alnuaimi et al. (2010) explores how team size and dispersion affects social loafing (i.e., withholding contributions in a team setting) when mediated by three of the eight dimensions of moral disengagement—dehumanization, attribution of blame, and diffusion of responsibility. The authors discover when team size increased, members were less likely to contribute ideas due to their belief they were less responsible for helping reach the team’s goal. Additionally, members on the larger teams attribute blame to others for their own social loafing as well as had higher levels of dehumanization perceptions. Both Huang et al. (2017) and Zheng et al. (2019) assess the relationship between moral disengagement and deviance at the group level. Huang et al. (2017) focuses on job insecurity and leader-member exchange how it might influence employees to morally disengage and participate in workplace deviance as well as actively pursue other employment. Zheng et al. (2019) conducted two multisource field studies to examine the effect creativity and moral identity has on moral disengagement, and subsequently, workplace deviant behavior. In both articles, the findings suggest managers should consider the team as individual members and as a whole when setting goals and attempting to mitigate unethical behavior.

Compared to the individual level, research on collective moral disengagement is far less prevalent in the literature. This could be due to the barriers researchers face. First, researchers typically examine moral disengagement at the individual level, thus utilizing established scales, such as Moore et al. (2012) and Detert et al. (2008). A measure for collective moral disengagement has yet to be developed which forces researchers to either adapt an individual-level scale or create their own. As outlined by Moore et al. (2012), proper scale development is an incredibly time consuming, complex endeavor consisting of multiple rounds of studies to demonstrate reliability and validity. Therefore, researchers need to be willing to invest the resources, time, and energy needed to take on such a project (Morgado et al., 2018).

Coupled with measurement, another barrier is participation. Collective moral disengagement requires access to organizations not only to validate measures, but also collect data. Gathering data at various levels can become difficult, especially in the United States. Of the previously mentioned articles to investigate collective moral disengagement, Alnuaimi et al. (2010) utilized a lab control setting while both Huang et al. (2017) and Zhang et al. (2019) collected data from Chinese companies. To demonstrate validity, researchers would need to collect multiple matched pairs of a supervisor and their employees. Furthermore, organizations would need to permit the gathering of data on an ethical construct which could possibly lead to unfavorable findings. While it may appear the challenges of data collection are insurmountable, researchers have gathered data regarding other ethics constructs on the collective level. One such example is ethical leadership, defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). By its very nature, ethical leadership needs data from both the “leader” and the “follower.” Utilizing state agencies and snowball techniques, Letwin et al. (2016), Lin et al. (2016), and Kacmar et al. (2013) are just some examples of successful multilevel data collections found in the ethical leadership literature.

Moral Disengagement Future Research

Moral disengagement is still a relatively new construct in workplace research and thereby offers researchers numerous opportunities for future endeavors. As previously discussed, the literature is lacking research on collective moral disengagement. Though it may be difficult, future research should examine the construct more in-depth by developing and validating a measure and exploring possible antecedents and outcomes. Doing so could help inform researchers and managers, alike, on the reach of moral disengagement. For instance, if leadership at the top of the organization morally disengage, do lower level employees follow suit? Does ethical leadership from executives mitigate collective moral disengagement? With so much unknown in this area of the moral disengagement literature, the opportunities for meaningful contributions abound.

On the individual level, previous research has explored antecedents and outcomes as well as the mediating and moderating roles of moral disengagement; however, the majority of these articles focus on the justification of negative behaviors. While there are studies that examine moral disengagement’s influence on more wanted behaviors, such as ethical behavior (Palmer, 2013) and organizational citizenship behavior (Bonner et al., 2016; Fida et al., 2015), more research is warranted (Newman et al., 2020). For example, do differences between how individuals morally disengage influence whether they partake in prosocial behaviors?

Recent research by Ogunfowora et al. (2021) involves conducting a meta-analysis on the nomological network (i.e., antecedents, outcomes, etc.) of moral disengagement within the workplace. Interestedly, the authors report postmisconduct shame and guilt are positively associated with moral disengagement, a finding that contradicts Bandura’s premise of moral disengagement. Additional research is needed to support the finding, thus acting as a springboard for future research. Contributions to this area would be significant as they may lead to redefining moral disengagement.

In line with above, future research could also examine the congruence of the conceptualization and operationalization of moral disengagement. A recent article by Schaefer and Bouwmeester (2021) challenges the conceptualization of moral disengagement. The authors state current literature incorrectly combines two separate constructs, propensity to morally disengage and process moral disengagement, when defining constructs, designing studies, and measuring variables, often resulting in vague findings. Though the authors conduct a review of the literature and posit a solution by redefining process moral disengagement, future research should be conducted on this topic. If conceptualization and operationalization of moral disengagement are, indeed, mismatched in a majority of publications, opportunities to replicate studies with aligned definition and measurements could be plentiful.

Additional future research could explore the “why” of moral disengagement. Upon reviewing the literature, one may notice the studies tend to examine personality traits (e.g., cynicism, empathy, envy, etc.) as the catalyst for moral disengagement. Yet those studies do not fully examine the motivation behind morally disengaging in the workplace. It may be that some individuals morally disengage in attempt to defend or guard their organization, known as unethical pro-organizational behavior (Umphress et al., 2010). Other may selfishly commit moral disengagement for their own benefit (e.g., steal from the company).

By discovering the underlying motivation, organizations can better address ways to mitigate or eliminate moral disengagement. Companies may need to redesign their ethical training, overhaul the corporate culture, create accountability teams, or restructure incentive programs. Shu et al. (2011) found the act of reading and signing an honor code agreement lessens an individual’s moral disengagement. Would requiring a signed code of ethics decrease moral disengagement among employees? Perhaps. By examining additional strategies and tactics, future research could not only reduce moral disengagement and subsequent unethical behavior in workplace, but also enhance the company’s image and boost the bottom line.

Another fertile area of research focuses on an individual’s culture. It is well-known culture shapes how people view and behave in the world and thereby, influences an individual’s moral disengagement (Sverdlik & Rechter, 2020). An article by Cheng et al. (2021) examined the moderating effect of a boundary condition, Chinese traditionality, on the relationship between exploitative leadership and moral disengagement and found the relationship is stronger for individuals with lower levels of Chinese traditionality. Sverdlik and Rechter (2020) explored how the culture within the religiously orthodox and secular education system of Israel moderates the relationship between personal values and moral disengagement. Results show the individuals with conservative values enrolled in more orthodox institutions have lower moral disengagement and those with higher openness-to-change values have higher moral disengagement. Future research could dive deeper into cultures and subcultures and compare how they affect an individual’s moral disengagement both in and out of a work context.

Lastly, future research should examine if additional theoretical basis for moral disengagement exists. Moral disengagement directly stems from Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory; However, it may not be the only theoretical foundation for hypothesis. Other possible theories could be role theory, trait activation theory, or situational strength theory (Newman et.al., 2020). Black et al. (2021) proposed the theory of planned behavior be extended to include moral disengagement. The authors’ findings show support for moral disengagement being an antecedent to perceived behavioral control, attitude, and subjective norms, all predictors of the theory of planned behavior. Black et al. make an extensive case in their article; however it is yet to be known if moral disengagement will ever stray from social cognitive theory. None-the-less, having additional theories to ground moral disengagement could be beneficial to researchers.

Without a doubt, the future of moral disengagement research is bright. The prospects of future research discussed here are by no means an exhaustive list. Whether researching the collective moral disengagement construct, motivations for disengagement, or ways to mitigate disengagement in the workplace, opportunities to make lasting contributions to the moral disengagement literature are available for those currently researching and those yet to come.