Unethical behavior within organizations is a very prevalent and costly problem. This study investigates employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB), which is unethical behavior with the intention to help the organization. Leveraging social identity theory and social exchange theory, this research evaluates the direct relationship between organizational commitment and UPB and the indirect relationship through employee work engagement. The theoretical model was tested using structural equation modeling based on a sample of 499 U.S. service sector employees. Results indicate that organizational commitment can motivate employees to engage in UPB. However, channeling the commitment into work engagement can reduce employees’ motivation to engage in UPB. As such, the findings extend the UPB literature while providing practitioners with a clearer understanding of the importance of monitoring organizational commitment alongside work engagement.
AguinisHVillamorIRamaniRS (2021) MTurk research: review and recommendations. Journal of Management47(4): 823–837. DOI: 10.1177/014920632096978.
2.
AlagarajaMShuckB (2015) Exploring organizational alignment-employee engagement linkages and impact on individual performance: a conceptual model. Human Resource Development Review14(1): 17–37. DOI: 10.1177/15344843145494.
3.
AllenNJMeyerJP (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology63(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x.
4.
AllenNJMeyerJP (1996) Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: an examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior49(3): 252–276. DOI: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043.
5.
AshforthBEMaelF (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review14(1): 20–39. DOI: 10.2307/258189.
6.
AsifMQingMHwangJ, et al. (2019) Ethical leadership, affective commitment, work engagement, and creativity: testing a multiple mediation approach. Sustainability11(16): 4489. DOI: 10.3390/su11164489.
7.
BagozziRPYiY (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 74–94. DOI: 10.1007/BF02723327.
8.
BeckerTE (2005) Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: a qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods8(3): 274–289. DOI: 10.1177/1094428105278021.
9.
BehrendTSSharekDJMeadeAW, et al. (2011) The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods43(3): 800–813. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0.
10.
BerinskyAJHuberGALenzGS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20(3): 351–368. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpr057.
11.
BlauPM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.
12.
BryantWMerrittSM (2019) Unethical pro-organizational behavior and positive leader - employee relationships. Journal of Business Ethics168(4): 777–793. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-019-04211-x.
13.
BuhrmesterMKwangTGoslingSD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science6(1): 3–5. DOI: 10.1177/1745691610393980.
14.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020) Employment by major industry sector. www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm.
15.
ByrneBM (2010) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Routledge.
16.
CameronKS (2008) Paradox in positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science44(1): 7–24. DOI: 10.1177/0021886308314703.
17.
CastilleCMBucknerJEThoroughgoodCN (2016) Prosocial citizens without a moral compass? Examining the relationship between machiavellianism and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics149(1): 919–930. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3079-9.
18.
CropanzanoRMitchellMS (2005) Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management31(6): 874–900. DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279602.
19.
CruzBSde Oliveira DiasM (2020) Crashed boeing 737-max: fatalities or malpractice?GSJ8(1): 2615–2624.
20.
CullinanCBlineDFarrarR, et al. (2008) Organization-harm vs. organization-gain ethical issues: an exploratory examination of the effects of organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics80(2): 225–235.
21.
DiStefanoCMotlRW (2006) Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling13(3): 440–464. DOI: 10.1207/s15328007sem1303_6.
22.
DouKChenYLuJ, et al. (2019) Why and when does job satisfaction promote unethical pro-organizational behaviours? Testing a moderated mediation model. International Journal of Psychology54(6): 766–774. DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12528.
23.
EbrahimiNYurtkoruES (2017) The relationship between affective commitment and unethical pro-organizational behavior: the role of moral disengagement. Research Journal of Business Management4(3): 287–295. DOI: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.706.
24.
EffelsbergDSolgaMGurtJ (2014) Transformational leadership and follower’s unethical behavior for the benefit of the company: a two-study investigation. Journal of Business Ethics120(1): 81–93. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1644-z.
25.
EllemersNHaslamSA (2012) Social identify theory. In: Van LangePAMKruglanskiAWHigginsET (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications, 379–398.
26.
FeitosaJJosephDLNewmanDA (2015) Crowdsourcing and personality measurement equivalence: a warning about countries whose primary language is not English. Personality and Individual Differences75(1): 47–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.017.
27.
FulmoreJA (2018) Testing the Structural Invariance of Affective Commitment on Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior across Clan and Hierarchy Organizational Culture Types. PhD Dissertation. The University of Texas at Tyler, US.
28.
FulmoreJAFulmoreAL (2021) Examining job satisfaction and organizational commitment as motivators of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Business & Professional Ethics Journal40(1): 1–27. DOI: 10.5840/bpej2020129102.
29.
GigolT (2020) Influence of authentic leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: the intermediate role of work engagement. Sustainability12(3): 1182. DOI: 10.3390/su12031182.
30.
GrabowskiDChudzicka‐CzupałaAChrupała‐PniakM, et al. (2019) Work ethic and organizational commitment as conditions of unethical pro‐organizational behavior: do engaged workers break the ethical rules?International Journal of Selection and Assessment27(2): 193–202. DOI: 10.1111/ijsa.12241.
31.
GrahamJMGuthrieACThompsonB (2003) Consequences of not interpreting structure coefficients in published CFA research: a reminder. Structural Equation Modeling10(1): 142–153. DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_7.
32.
GriepYKraakJMFennemanJ, et al. (2023) You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours: unethical pro-organizational behavior and deviance in response to different psychological contract states. Journal of Business Research156(1): 113537–113548. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113537.
33.
HairJEBabinBJAndersonRE, et al. (2018) Multivariate Data Analysis. Boston: Cengage.
34.
HarrisGECameronJE (2005) Multiple dimensions of organizational identification and commitment as predictors of turnover intentions and psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science37(3): 159–169. DOI: 10.1037/h0087253.
35.
KalshovenKvan DijkHBoonC (2016) Why and when does ethical leadership evoke unethical follower behavior?Journal of Managerial Psychology31(2): 500–515. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-10-2014-0314.
36.
KankainenATaskinenSHOjaH (2004) On Mardia’s tests of multinormality. In: HubertMPisonGStruyfA, et al. (eds) Theory and Applications of Recent Robust Methods. Basel: Birkhäuser, 153–164.
37.
KimWKolbJKimT (2013) The relationship between work engagement and performance: a review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review12(3): 248–276. DOI: 10.1177/1534484312461635.
38.
KimJNimonKSongJH, et al. (2015) Toward employee work passion and performance: a validation of the Work Cognition Inventory in Korea. Human Resource Development International18(2): 169–190. DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2015.1026550.
39.
KimWKimJWooH, et al. (2017) The relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment: proposing research agendas through a review of empirical literature. Human Resource Development Review16(4): 350–376. DOI: 10.1177/1534484317725967.
40.
KlineRB (2016) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford.
41.
LandersRNBehrendTS (2015) An inconvenient truth: arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology8(2): 142–164. DOI: 10.1017/iop.2015.13.
42.
LuanYZhaoKWangZ, et al. (2023) Exploring the antecedents of unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB): a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics187(1): 119–136. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-022-05269-w.
43.
MartinP (2017) Job performance and employee engagement – the validity of Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-9). Journal of Social and Psychological Sciences10(2): 43.
44.
MatherneIIICFLitchfieldSR (2012) Investigating the relationship between affective commitment and unethical pro-organizational behaviors: the role of moral identity. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics9(5): 35–46. DOI: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.706.
45.
MeyerJPAllenNJ (1997) Commitment in the Workplace. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
46.
MiaoQNewmanAYuJ, et al. (2013) The relationship between ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior: linear or curvilinear effects?Journal of Business Ethics116(1): 641–653.
47.
MillsMJCulbertsonSSFullagarCJ (2012) Conceptualizing and measuring engagement: an analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Journal of Happiness Studies13(1): 519–545. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-011-9277-3.
48.
NimonK (2017) HRDQ submissions of quantitative research reports: three common comments in decision letters and a checklist. Human Resource Development Quarterly28(3): 281–298. DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21290.
49.
ParkJGZhuWKwonB, et al. (2023) Ethical leadership and follower unethical pro-organizational behavior: examining the dual influence mechanisms of affective and continuance commitments. International Journal of Human Resource Management34(22): 4313–4343. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2023.2191209.
50.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Y, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
51.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology63(1): 539–569. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
52.
PoonJML (2013) Relationships among perceived career support, affective commitment, and work engagement. International Journal of Psychology48(6): 1148–1155. DOI: 10.1080/00207594.2013.768768.
53.
RaytonBYalabikZYRaptiA (2019) Fit perceptions, work engagement, satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology34(6): 401–414. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-02-2018-0074.
54.
RichmanALCivianJTShannonLL, et al. (2008) The relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work–life policies, and use of formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected retention. Community, Work & Family11(2): 183–197. DOI: 10.1080/13668800802050350.
55.
RikettaM (2005) Organizational identification: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior66(2): 358–384. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005.
56.
SchaufeliWBBakkerABSalanovaM (2006) Measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement66(4): 701–716. DOI: 10.1177/0013164405282471.
57.
SchumackerRELomaxRG (2016) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation. New York: Routledge.
58.
ShuckBReioTGRoccoTS (2011) Employee engagement: an examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International14(4): 427–445. DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2011.601587.
59.
ShuckBTwyfordDReioTGJr, et al. (2014) Human resource development practices and employee engagement: examining the connection with employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly25(2): 239–270. DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21190.
60.
ShuckBNimonKZigarmiD (2017) Untangling the predictive nomological validity of employee engagement: partitioning variance in employee engagement using job attitude measures. Group & Organization Management42(1): 79–112. DOI: 10.1177/1059601116642364.
61.
SteeleNLBransonL (2014) A calculated morality: development and validation of a business specific test of moral reasoning. International Journal of Business & Public Administration11(2): 73–83.
62.
TajfelH (1978) Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In: TajfelH (ed) Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press, 77–98.
63.
ThompsonER (2007) Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology38(2): 227–242. DOI: 10.1177/0022022106297301.
64.
TianQPetersonDK (2016) The effects of ethical pressure and power distance orientation on unethical pro‐organizational behavior: the case of earnings management. Business Ethics: A European Review25(2): 159–171. DOI: 10.1111/beer.12109.
65.
UmphressEEBinghamJB (2011) When employees do bad things for good reasons: examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science22(3): 621–640. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0559.
66.
UmphressEEBinghamJBMitchellMS (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 Psychology95(4): 769–780. DOI: 10.1037/a0019214.
67.
WangJWeiSLiuG, et al. (2021) Moving beyond initiative: the reconceptualization and measurement of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Frontiers in Psychology12(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640107.
68.
WeissHM (2002) Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review12(2): 173–195. DOI: 10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1.
69.
WilliamsLJHartmanNCavazotteF (2010) Method variance and marker variables: a review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods13(3): 477–514. DOI: 10.1177/1094428110366036.
70.
XiaocunS (2015) Contagion effect of unethical pro-organizational behavior among members within organization. Metallurgical and Mining Industry5(1): 235–242. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01102.
71.
YalabikZYPopaitoonPChowneJA, et al. (2013) Work engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource Management24(14): 2799–2823. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2013.763844.
72.
YalabikZYRaytonBARaptiA (2017) Facets of job satisfaction and work engagement. Evidence-based Healthcare: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship5(3): 248–265. DOI: 10.1108/EBHRM-08-2015-0036.
73.
ZhangS (2020) Workplace spirituality and unethical pro-organizational behavior: the mediating effect of job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics161(3): 687–705. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018-3966-3.
74.
ZhangCXiaoX (2020) Review of the influencing factors of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies08(1): 35–47. DOI: 10.4236/jhrss.2020.81003.
75.
ZigarmiDNimonKHousonD, et al. (2011) A preliminary field test of an employee work passion model. Human Resource Development Quarterly22(2): 195–221. DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.20076.
76.
ZigarmiDNimonKConleyD (2018) Employee affect‐and cognition‐based trust in their leader and the implications for employee work intentions: a canonical correlation study. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development30(3): 23–40. DOI: 10.1002/nha3.20221.
