InFo Feature (v4n1): Peer's Unethical Behavior (Chui & Stembridge)

Peer reporting is becoming an important mechanism to control unethical behavior within an organization. This study examined the effect of ethical judgment on peer reporting. The results show that an individual’s ethical ideology (Idealism) significantly predicted peer reporting judgment, and peer reporting judgment tends to give birth to peer reporting intention. Moreover, locus of control was found to significantly moderate the relationship between peer reporting judgment and peer reporting intention. Introduction As defined by Near and Miceli (1985), whistle blowing is “the disclosure by a current or former organization member of illegal, inefficient, or unethical practices in an organization to persons or parties who have the power or resources to take action (p. 4). ” The major difference between peer reporting and other whistle blowing is that peer reporting describes lateral control attempts at observation and reporting the wrongdoing of other organization members (Trevino & Victor, 1992). Little is known about why some employees report the wrongdoing of a colleague while others do not. This Study Ethical judgment regarding peer reporting considers whether individuals judge reporting of a peer’s behavior as fair, acceptable, and moral action. Since ethical judgment is an integral component of an individual’s reasoning about ethical issues, the judgment of individuals that peer reporting is ethical or not should influence the individual’s peer reporting decision-making. Effect of Ethical Ideology on Peer Reporting Judgment There are three well-known perspectives of moral philosophy, namely: deontology, teleology, and skepticism. The deontological approach emphasizes universal moral laws or rules, with no exceptions, in making moral judgments. The teleological approach suggests that the morality of an action depends on the April 2001, Vol. 4, No. 1 6 Randy K. Chui & Allen F. Stembridge consequences. Skepticism contains several varieties of opinions concerning moral principles. All three approaches share the assumption that universal moral rules cannot be formulated (Forsyth, 1980). Schlenker and Forsyth (1977) derived two distinctions from these three perspectives of moral philosophy: an individual’s willingness to accept the existence of universal moral rules (relativism), and the individual’s attitude towards the consequences of an action (idealism). Relativism describes the individual’s willingness to accept or reject the notion of universal moral rules (Forsyth, 1980). Highly relativistic individuals believe that the morality of an action depends upon the particular circumstances involved, they do not believe in moral absolutes. On the other hand, low-relativistic individuals believe that the evaluation of the ethics of an action should be based on universal moral principles or laws (Forsyth, 1992). Deontologists, who base moral judgments on adherence to inviolate moral rules, would score very low on the relativism scale. Teleologists, who base their moral judgments on the consequences of the behavior, may or may not follow the universal moral rules, and therefore, they may either score high or low on the relativism scale. Skeptics, who assume that universal moral rules cannot be formulated, would score very high on the relativism scale. Idealism relates to an individual’s concern for the consequences of an action and its effect on the welfare of others (Forsyth, 1992). Deontologists would score high on the idealism scale, because they are intolerant of deviations from universal moral rules, they believe that good consequences (not harming others) are always achievable. Teleologists score comparatively low on the idealism scale, because they are only concerned about the consequence of an action, they are tolerant to harming some people in order to achieve a good consequence. Skeptics hold a variety of opinions when looking at morality, they would score either high or low on the idealism scale. The primary rationale for studying ethical ideology is its proposed ability to explain differences in individuals’ ethical judgments. Forsyth (1980) pointed out that even when individuals are confronted with identical ethical issues, they may make radically different ethical judgments. An individual’s ethical ideology and judgments about the ethics of peer reporting may be affected in several ways. Firstly, individuals with different ideologies may have various degrees of sensitivity to wrongdoing (Forsyth, 1981). Secondly, differences in ethical ideology may affect the way individuals process information about ethical issues