Moral Character in the Workplace

被引:200
作者
Cohen, Taya R. [1 ]
Panter, A. T. [2 ]
Turan, Nazli [3 ]
Morse, Lily [1 ]
Kim, Yeonjeong [1 ]
机构
[1] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Tepper Sch Business, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Dept Psychol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[3] Catolica Lisbon Sch Business & Econ, Lisbon, Portugal
关键词
moral character; unethical behavior; counterproductive work behavior; organizational citizenship behavior; personality; COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL VALUE ORIENTATION; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; (UN)ETHICAL BEHAVIOR; HONESTY-HUMILITY; DECISION-MAKING; INTEGRITY TESTS; HEXACO MODEL; SELF-REPORTS; PERSONALITY;
D O I
10.1037/a0037245
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Using two 3-month diary studies and a large cross-sectional survey, we identified distinguishing features of adults with low versus high levels of moral character. Adults with high levels of moral character tend to: consider the needs and interests of others and how their actions affect other people (e. g., they have high levels of Honesty-Humility, empathic concern, guilt proneness); regulate their behavior effectively, specifically with reference to behaviors that have positive short-term consequences but negative long-term consequences (e. g., they have high levels of Conscientiousness, self-control, consideration of future consequences); and value being moral (e. g., they have high levels of moral identity-internalization). Cognitive moral development, Emotionality, and social value orientation were found to be relatively undiagnostic of moral character. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that employees with low moral character committed harmful work behaviors more frequently and helpful work behaviors less frequently than did employees with high moral character, according to their own admissions and coworkers' observations. Study 3 revealed that adults with low moral character committed more delinquent behavior and had more lenient attitudes toward unethical negotiation tactics than did adults with high moral character. By showing that individual differences have consistent, meaningful effects on employees' behaviors, after controlling for demographic variables (e. g., gender, age, income) and basic attributes of the work setting (e. g., enforcement of an ethics code), our results contest situationist perspectives that deemphasize the importance of personality. Moral people can be identified by self-reports in surveys, and these self-reports predict consequential behaviors months after the initial assessment.
引用
收藏
页码:943 / 963
页数:21
相关论文
共 108 条
[1]  
Allport GW., 1937, PERSONALITY PSYCHOL
[2]   The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism [J].
Ames, Daniel R. ;
Rose, Paul ;
Anderson, Cameron P. .
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY, 2006, 40 (04) :440-450
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010 SOC US GUID
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2014, Moral Tribes. Emotion, Reason
[5]   The self-importance of moral identity [J].
Aquino, K ;
Reed, A .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 83 (06) :1423-1440
[6]   Testing a Social-Cognitive Model of Moral Behavior: The Interactive Influence of Situations and Moral Identity Centrality [J].
Aquino, Karl ;
Freeman, Dan ;
Reed, Americus, II ;
Lim, Vivien K. G. ;
Felps, Will .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 97 (01) :123-141
[7]   The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality [J].
Ashton, Michael C. ;
Lee, Kibeom .
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY, 2008, 42 (05) :1216-1228
[8]   Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure [J].
Ashton, Michael C. ;
Lee, Kibeom .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2007, 11 (02) :150-166
[9]   The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors A Review of Research and Theory [J].
Ashton, Michael C. ;
Lee, Kibeom ;
de Vries, Reinout E. .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2014, 18 (02) :139-152
[10]   The HEXACO Model of Personality Structure and the Importance of the H Factor [J].
Ashton, Michael C. ;
Lee, Kibeom .
SOCIAL AND PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY COMPASS, 2008, 2 (05) :1952-1962