Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Crimes of Obedience
model presented in this article proposes that susceptibility to the influence of an unethical leader is related
to leadership perceptions through beliefs regarding the
relative moral responsibility of leaders versus followers.
There are unique ethical problems embedded in the
leaderfollower relationship (Hollander, 1995). Leaders
can order followers to engage in unethical behavior and
often obtain compliance because of the power imbalance. Through this process, the unethical behavior
of a person in a leadership position can be amplified
throughout an organization (Lord & DeZoort, 2001;
Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986). This dynamic, where
subordinates succumb to the influence of a leader and
the pressures of the leaderfollower relationship and
behave in ways they would otherwise deem unethical, is
termed crimes of obedience. Crimes of obedience does
not refer to instances where the leader and follower are
partners in crime but rather refers to follower behaviors
that absent a leaders influence, the follower would not
engage in (Beu & Buckley, 2004).
The importance of situational variables on a persons
likelihood to obey unethical orders is often associated
with Milgrams studies (Blass, 1991). However, situational factors alone could not explain obedience in
Milgrams experiments as, regardless of the situational
manipulation, some people refused to obey. Overall,
about 65% of the participants in Milgrams obedience
69
70
Figure 1
A Model of the Influence of Leadership
Beliefs on Follower Propensity to Commit
Crimes of Obedience
Leadership SelfEfficacy
(P2)
Affective and
Social-Normative
Motivation to Lead
Romance of
Leadership Beliefs
(P3)
(P4)
Beliefs
Regarding the
Relative Moral
Responsibility
of Leaders and
Followers
(P1)
Propensity to
Commit
Crimes of
Obedience
71
72
Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring refers to the extent a person is willing to monitor and adjust his or her behavior based on
how he or she is perceived by others (Snyder, 1974).
High self-monitors scan the environment looking for
cues as to what behavior is called for and are willing
to adjust their behavior to fit the situation (Day, 2004;
Snyder, 1974; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991). High
self-monitors want to project a positive image and
impress those around them. Low self-monitors are not
as concerned with what others think of them. They are
more interested in being true to their own values.
Consequently, they do not scan the environment for
behavioral cues as do high self-monitors. In addition,
when low self-monitors become aware of a social
expectation, they are not as willing to modify their
behavior to conform as high self-monitors are (Kilduff
& Day, 1994; Snyder, 1974; Snyder & Gangestad,
1982). It follows that high self-monitors would be
more likely to have received cues from the environment regarding their leadership capabilities.
Because high self-monitors are willing to change
their behavior to conform to social expectations
(Snyder, 1974), they are more likely to experience and
accept discrepancies between their behavior and their
own values. Low self-monitors on the other hand show
a greater continuity between who they are and how
they act (Snyder, 1974). For example, in a study of the
effects of self-monitoring on speaking up in the workplace, Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) found that low
self-monitors appeared to speak up most often when
in situations conducive to their true dispositions
(p. 1559). It follows that everything else being equal,
low self-monitors would be less likely than high selfmonitors to obey an unethical order from a leader that
was inconsistent with his or her own values.
Proposition 5: The relationship between beliefs regarding the relative moral responsibility of leaders and
followers and propensity to commit crimes of obedience is moderated by self-monitoring such that
the relationship will be weaker in low self-monitors
than in high-self monitors.
73
Cultural Differences
Obedience scholarship has identified the possibility of cross-cultural differences in obedience (Blass,
1991; Kilham & Mann, 1974). Research in the area
of responsibility attribution has also uncovered variation across cultures (Hamilton, 1992; Hamilton, &
Hagiwara, 1992). Consequently, it is reasonable to
expect that the relationship between moral responsibility beliefs and the propensity to commit crimes of
obedience may be moderated by cultural factors.
Prior research indicates that power distance and individualism and collectivism have particular relevance
to predicting ethical behavior.
Power distance is a cultural dimension that can be
defined as the degree of inequality among people
which the population of a country considers as normal:
from relatively equal (that is, small power distance) to
extremely unequal (large power distance) (Hofstede,
1993, p. 89). The construct describes how less powerful members of society accept power inequalities
(Cohen, Pant, & Sharp, 1993; Hofstede & Bond,
1988). Milgrams (1974) obedience studies established
a connection between authority and ethical behavior,
and some cross-cultural ethics literature has predicted
a connection between power distance and ethical behavior (Trevino, 1986; Vitell, Nwachukwu, & Barnes, 1993).
Proposed relationships between power distance and
ethical behavior relate to the likelihood followers
would obey unethical orders from superiors (Cohen
et al., 1995); the reaction of society to the actions of
followers who obey unethical orders (Cohen et al.,
1992, 1993; Hofstede, 1991); the likelihood that a follower would question, report, or tolerate a superiors
unethical behavior (Cohen et al., 1995; Husted, 2000;
Parboteeah, Bronson, & Cullen, 2005; Schultz,
Johnson, Morris, & Dyrnes, 1993); and the likelihood
that a follower would view questionable practices as
ethical (Cohen et al., 1996).
The results of studies testing the connection
between power distance and ethical behavior have
been mixed. One study by Cohen et al. (1995) did
find differences in ethical decision making between
countries that differ in power distance. However, a
study by Parboteeah et al. (2005) did not find support
for their hypothesis regarding the connection between
power distance and willingness to justify ethically
suspect behavior. Likewise, a study by Husted (2000)
found no connection between the level of power distance in a country and software piracy.
The model presented in this article proposes a relationship between power distance and ethical behavior
74
Conclusion
Following Gergens (1973) notion that understanding
behavior will lead to changes in such behavior, analysts
of the Milgram experiments proposed that a reduction in
crimes of obedience could be obtained by educating
people about the authority obedience process. However,
research indicates that by the time people are in a given
situation, their awareness of the process may not be of
much help (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986). It appears
that once followers accept the legitimacy of authority, it
is much more difficult to then resist even the most obviously unethical orders (Nissani, 1990). The approach
more likely to have success is to establish the moral
responsibility of all organizational members prior to the
occurrence of any specific situation where obedience
is expected.
These proposals have implications for trainers and
educators. Because it is generally acknowledged that
skills of a good leader and a good follower are not significantly different (Hollander, 1995; Lee, 1991) and
the training necessary for followership is the same as
for leadership and every bit as important, it may be wise
to educate and train assuming that all students will be
both leaders and followers. The relevant curriculum
could be taught in an egalitarian manner as a set of
behaviors, skills, and assumptions that are valuable to
an individuals career and personal satisfaction as
well as to the organization they work for, regardless
of their hierarchical position or status. Such a focus
could help develop followers who do not depend
blindly on leaders and are able to access their own internal strengths as a substitute for overreliance on a leader.
Ideally, organizations would benefit from followers
who have a sophisticated and complex understanding of
the leaderfollower relationship and are able to draw
inspiration from a leader and rally around a leader when
it is appropriate while having the wisdom and courage
to resist the leader when it is not.
Research on the leaderfollower relationship has not
adequately explored follower differences. The leader
References
Baker, V. L., Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. (2006, August). Moral
disengagement in business school students: Predictors and comparisons. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
annual meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1999a). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of
inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,
193-209.
Bandura, A. (1999b). Social cognitive theory of personality. In
D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality:
Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 185-241). New York: Guilford.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C.
(1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise
of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., &
Regalia, C. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms
governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 125-135.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G., & Zsolnai, L. (2000). Corporate transgressions through moral disengagement. Journal of Human
Values, 1, 57-64.
Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). This is war: How the politically astute achieve crimes of obedience through the use of
moral disengagement. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 551-568.
Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their
75
76
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 159-203).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership
and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 30, 91-109.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The
romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,
78-102.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental
view. New York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H., Simons, R., & Basu, K. (2002). Beyond selfishness. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 67-74.
Nissani, M. (1990). A cognitive reinterpretation of Stanley
Milgrams observations on obedience to authority. American
Psychologist, 45, 1384-1385.
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and
managers motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215-235.
Parboteeah, K. P., Bronson, J. W., & Cullen, J. B. (2005). Does
national culture affect willingness to justify ethically suspect
behaviors? International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5, 123-138.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). Toward an examination of stratification in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 553-567.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence:
The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40,
1537-1562.
Schultz, J. J., Johnson, D. A., Morris, D., & Dyrnes, S. (1993). An
investigation of the reporting of questionable acts in an international setting. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 75-103.
Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the
leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 22, 385-407.
Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1982). Choosing social situations:
Two investigations of self-monitoring processes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 123-135.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations:
A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The
effects of culture on ethical decision-making: An application of
Hofstedes typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 753-760.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Journal,
14, 361-384.
Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Selfmonitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 308-315.
Kim T. Hinrichs, PhD, is an associate professor of management at
Minnesota State University, Mankato. His research interests include
leadership, followership, obedience, authority, and stratification in
organizations; the management profession; and organizational life.