![]() ![]() Against this backdrop, we conduct an analysis of organizational factors with an influence on individual behaviour, and we group them in seven categories. Notably, various factors proposed in the literature often overlap or paint a disperse picture. According to the findings, organizational factors include codes of conduct and the process of their implementation, rewards and sanctions, peers and management, ethical training and organizational culture, among others. ![]() 2000 O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005 Craft 2013). It suggests the co-existence of personal and organizational factors in ethical decision-making (Ford and Richardson 1994 Loe et al. They attribute most collapses to either over ambition or greed of top executives, who indulged in high-risk ventures in order to expand.Īnother source of knowledge of organizational factors and individual ethical behaviour is the literature on ethical decision-making. Abid and Ahmed ( 2014) make a review of 55 corporate collapses from 16 countries during the period 1990–2014 along with analysing the role of their allegedly sound corporate leaders in each company’s failure. Soltani ( 2014) analyses six well-known corporate frauds (Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth, Parmalat, Royal Ahold and Vivendi Universal) and finds several possible causes of wrongdoing: ineffective boards, inefficient corporate governance and control mechanisms, distorted incentive schemes, accounting irregularities, auditory failures, dominant CEOs, dysfunctional management behaviour, and the lack of a sound ethical tone at the top. Scholars investigating corporate misbehaviour point to a number of factors that contribute to corporate scandals and collapses. Among the latter, Lokanan ( 2015) argues that a fraud is a multifaceted phenomenon, the contextual factors of which may not fit into a particular framework like those of “The Fraud Triangle”. While many accept “The Fraud Triangle,” others perceive it too narrow. Albrecht advocates that “individuals are motivated to commit a fraud when three elements come together: 1) some kind of perceived pressure 2) some perceived opportunity and 3) some way to rationalize the fraud as not being inconsistent with one’s values” (Albrecht 2014). Building on these three groups and refining other seminal ideas, W.S. They group these factors in three categories: 1) situational pressures, 2) opportunities to commit fraud, and 3) personal integrity (character). They examine various academic and business sources and identify 82 fraud-related variables in the business context that encourage misbehaviour. ( 1982) connect rationalization with personal integrity. ![]() viewing it as justifiable in a given situation, is the third influential factor to committee a fraud. Rationalization of the fraudulent act, i.e. Pressure or incentive motivates a fraud, which can be executed when it concurs with the opportunity to perform it. Under his hypothesis, fraudulent behaviour is influenced by three factors: pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. The oldest contributions go back to Cressey who introduced the notion of “fraud triangle” ( 1953). The influence of the internal and external organizational factors on individual ethical behaviour has been studied for a long time. We provide recommendations on how a manager oriented towards humanistic management can use the OMS to secure and promote well-being and dignity of company’s employees. The “Organizational Moral Structure” is proposed as a reflective framework for humanistic management and as an invitation to further research in this field. Drawing from a wide bibliographical review and our own reflection on recent business scandals, we identify seven constituents of the “Organizational Moral Structure”: 1) leader’s values and character, 2) vision and exercise of power, 3) corporate control systems, 4) internal network of influence, 5) organizational culture, 6) internal and competitive pressures, and 7) external influences. In this paper, we conduct a literature review thereof, and propose a notion of the “Organizational Moral Structure” defined as a comprehensive framework of interrelated organizational factors that condition, incite or influence good or bad moral behaviour of individuals within the organization. Various organizational factors reported in the hitherto literature affect individual (mis)behaviour within a company. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |