12/28/2021

2 ORGANIZATIONAL WRONGDOING

3
Bad Apple or Bad Barrel?
Who is responsible for organizational wrongdoing?

7 Organizational wrongdoing

8 OW: An abnormal phenomenon

• Why OW is an abnormal phenomenon?
• Who is responsible?
• Structure: Structuralism, Functionalism
• Agent: Interactionism
• Corrective measures:
• Agent: Moral character building, Development of moral imagination
• Structure: Systematic and conscious modification

9 OW: A normal phenomenon

• Why OW is a normal phenomenon?
• It is prevalent
• Difficult to decide how much departure it is from right doing (gift giving)
• Wrong doers are morally upstanding people and firms
• Wrongdoing can stem from structures that are pervasive and are generally responsible for
right-doing
• Who is responsible?
• Neither agent not structure solely responsible (Palmer 2013)
• How does OW happen?
• Power structures
• Administrative systems
• Situational social influence
• Accidental and technological glitches
•

10 Organizational wrongdoing

11 Managerial Implications
• Reporting to Multiple heads. Improving the communication channels
• Referring to international standards while dealing with administrative structure, periodic review
and addressing issues in administrative structure
• Decreasing technological and bureaucratic complexity
• Being trained to minimise susceptibility to pressure from others
•

12 Explanation of OW through Structuration

 12/28/2021

13 Conclusion: What leads to OW

• Coercive structure or absolutely autonomous agent
• Lack of interaction or Barriers in interaction between agent and structure
• Agents always have to rationalize their actions
• No scope for applying practical consciousness and interpretation
• Centralization of power
• Rigid norms and regulations
• Lack of ontological security and sense of trust

•
•
•
•
•

14 Managerial Implications
• Facilitating agent structure interaction
• Organization is required to have a mechanism to facilitate proper and healthy interaction
between agent and structure
• Imbibing the awareness
• That anytime there is chance that one himself or his co-employees may be involved in
wrongdoing
• Building a perceived efficient structure may not always protect you from wrongful actions

15 Reference
• Coffee, J. C. (2006). Gatekeepers: The professions and corporate governance. Oxford University
Press.
• Coffee, J. C. (2005). A theory of corporate scandals: Why the USA and Europe differ. Oxford
review of economic policy 21(2), 198-211.
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Oxford:
Polity Press.
• Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels:
meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 1-31.
• Palmer, D. A. (2013). The new perspective on organizational wrongdoing. California
Management Review, 56(1), 5-23.
• Turner, J. H. (1986). Review Essay: The Theory of Structuration. American Journal of
Sociology, 91(4), 969-977.

16