(Un)Ethical Behavior and Performance Appraisal: The Role of Affect, Support, and

Organizational Justice
Author(s): Gabriele Jacobs, Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog
Source: Journal of Business Ethics , April 2014, Vol. 121, No. 1 (April 2014), pp. 63-76
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: [Link]

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
J Bus Ethics (2014) 121:63-76
DOI 10.1007/s 1055 1-0 13- 1687-1

(Un)Ethical Behavior and Performance Appraisal:

The Role of Affect, Support, and Organizational Justice

Gabriele Jacobs * Frank D. Belschak *

Deanne N. Den Hartog

Received: 8 June 2012/ Accepted: 17 March 201 3 /Published online: 27 March 2013
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Performance appraisals are widely used as an HR Introduction

instrument. This study among 332 police officers examines
the effects of performance appraisals from a behavioral ethicsScandals relating to unethical behavior, ranging from cor-
perspective. A mediation model relating justice perceptions of ruption to abuse to plagiarism, in the financial sector, busi-
police officers' last performance appraisal to their work affect,ness world, politics, and religion have dominated the news in
perceived supervisor and organizational support and, in turn,recent years. Regardless of whether this is due to a genuine
their ethical (pro-organizational proactive) and unethical increase in unethical behavior or to a media effect, it does
(counterproductive) work behavior was tested empirically. show that unethical behavior is a serious problem for orga-
The relationship between justice perceptions and both, ethical nizations, economies, and society as a whole (see Cropanz-
and unethical behavior was mediated by perceived supportano and Stein 2009; De Cremer et al. 2010; Treviño et al.
and work affect. Hence, a singular yearly performance2006). Enhancing ethical and reducing unethical behavior is
appraisal was linked to both ethical and unethical behaviors at even more needed in professions where single employee
work. The finding that ethical and unethical aspects ofactions can have crucial consequences for others, such as in
employee behavior share several of the same organizational health care, the fire brigade, or policing (Armeli et al. 1998;
antecedents, namely organizational justice perceptions, hasMichie and West 2004). Unethical behavior in these contexts
strong practical implications which are discussed as well. might endanger the very people that rely on these workers
for their protection. In this study, we explore antecedents
Keywords Ethical behavior • Counterproductive work of ethical and unethical work behaviors in a police context.
behavior • Performance appraisal • Organizational justice • Specifically, we investigate how organizations can effec-
Proactive behavior • Work affect tively manage their employees' ethical and responsible
behaviors while avoiding unethical ones (Treviño et al.
1999). We focus on the daily examples of organization-
related ethical and unethical behavior, such as acting
responsibly by showing extra work effort if needed or taking
G. Jacobs the initiative to improve faulty procedures (ethical behav-
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University iors) versus ignoring orders or being intentionally careless
Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam,
The Netherlands with organizational resources (unethical behaviors).
e-mail: gjacobs@[Link] Organizations aim to guide the ethical behavior of their
employees by communicating codes of conducts, training,
F. D. Belschak (El) • D. N. Den Hartog behavioral guidelines, and monitoring of ethical decision-
Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam,
Plantage Muidergracht 12, 1018 TV Amsterdam, making (e.g., Brown et al. 2005). Especially organizations
The Netherlands in the health and public safety sector are characterized by a
e-mail: [Link]@[Link] large set of legally enforced ethical rules. Yet, such formal
D. N. Den Hartog measures only work if supported by the informal side of the
e-mail: [Link]@[Link] organization (i.e., its ethical culture; e.g., Kaptein 2009;

^ Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 64 G. Jacobs et al.

Tenbrunsel et
affect as an important individual characteristic al.
which can
perceptions
influence (un)ethical behavior of
(see e.g., Eisenberg org
2000;
as an Gaudine and Thorne 2001). To our knowledge, the role fa
important
(Kapteinof performance2008; Tr
appraisal-related justice perceptions for
ical culture
(un)ethical behavior has not yetis com
been investigated to date.
factors We propose an integrative model (seeKapt
(e.g., Fig. 1) elaborat-
justice perception
ing on the mechanisms through which organizational jus-
the tice perceptions are linked
ethical to employees' ethical and
culture
behavior. unethical behaviors. We test this model in a multisource
Under
practice (the performance appraisal) on (un)ethical sample of 332 German police officers and their peers.
behavior is of importance for organizations, since the
effects of such singular practices are often underestimated
or overlooked. The understanding of the behavioral con- Ethical and Unethical Behavior in Organizations
sequences of justice perceptions of specific practices also
has important practical implications; interventions target- In the last two decades, (un)ethical behaviors in organi-
ing specific organizational or managerial activities can be zations have received increased scholarly attention (De
more easily developed and implemented than interventions Cremer et al. 2010; Treviño et al. 2006). Three different
addressing the more general justice or ethical climate of streams of research on (un)ethical behavior have been
organizations. identified in the field of behavioral ethics (see Treviño et al.
The performance appraisal interview is an important 2006). The first stream of research focuses on unethical
managerial practice that triggers justice perceptions (Folger behavior (stealing, lying, cheating, counterproductive work
and Cropanzano 1998; Greenberg 1990; Heslin and Van- behavior; e.g., Chang 1998; Peterson 2002); the second
deWalle 2011; Holbrook 2002). Even though appraisals focuses on ethical behavior defined as behavior that
represent short, single events in the magnitude of daily reaches some minimum moral standards and is therefore
interactions at the workplace, they have a huge impact on not unethical (e.g., obeying the law; e.g., Wimbush et al.
employees. Appraisals offer supervisors the opportunity to1997); a third stream of research covers ethical behavior
give performance feedback, agree on targets or work goals, that exceeds moral minimums (e.g., whistle-blowing; Tre-
establish a basis for promotion and salary decisions, and viño and Youngblood 1990). While the first and the second
discuss employees' career ambitions. These activities, in streams of research assume that ethical and unethical
turn, have strong implications for employees' position in the behavior are opposite poles of one dimension, the third
organization and their career development, which affects stream addresses qualitatively different types of behaviors
their attitudes (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, trust) and as ethical and goes beyond "reverse coded unethical
work behaviors (e.g., Mayer and Davis 1999). Thus, a sense behaviors". Here, we focus on the first and third stream of
of justice in relation to appraisal is important for employees. research in our conceptualization of unethical and ethical
Here, we develop and test a justice-based model of behavior.
the (un)ethical behavioral consequences of performance We see unethical behavior as referring to behavior that
appraisals. Model development was driven by three con- violates moral norms that are accepted by a larger com-
tributions to the extant literature. First, we aim at munity (Vardi and Weitz 2004) and that goes beyond local
enhancing the understanding of factors that simultaneously organizational norms (Velasquez 2005; Kaptein 2008).
enable ethical and suppress unethical behavior. The liter-Ethical behavior implies adherence to such generally
atures on voluntary work behavior as well as behavioral accepted moral norms (Kaptein 2008). Many past field
ethics suggest that ethical and unethical behavior might
share the same antecedents (e.g., Fay and Sonnentag 2010;
Treviño et al. 2006). Second, as an important contextual
factor, we analyze the impact of a specific HR practice, the
yearly performance appraisal, on (unethical behavior. This
answers a call of behavioral ethics researchers to explore
the role of specific contextual antecedents of (un)ethical
behavior (e.g., Treviño et al. 2006). Third, in this context of
performance appraisals, we explore justice- and support-
related variables as particularly relevant aspects of the
organizational and managerial environment (Brown et [Link]. 1 An integrative model: the effects of organizational justice on
2005; Cropanzano and Stein 2009; Weaver et al. 2005) andethical and unethical behavior

Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
(Un)Ethical Behavior and Performance Appraisal 65

day-to-day
studies have focused on specific ethical proactive behaviors
impactful ethical of people who take
behav-
iors such as whistle-blowing (Mesmer-Magnus
responsibility and
and show anticipatory, future- Vis-
and change-
oriented
wesvaran 2005) or on specific behavior that unethical
extreme aims at furthering the welfare of the
behaviors
organization
such as stealing and corruption and its members2002;
(Greenberg (see Frese and Fay 2001).
Ashforth
and Anand 2003). While it is Both proactive behavior
important to andfurther
counterproductive behav-
develop
ior impactful
our understanding of specific are voluntary, discretionary forms of work
or extreme behavior
cases of
(un)ethical behavior, such (Fay and Sonnentag are
behaviors 2010; Spector
usuallyand Foxcharac-
2002). Even
though
terized by a low base rate and discretionary
even lowerbehavior can be encouragedthat
likelihood by the
organizational culture,
these extreme (especially unethical) it is free of direct
behaviors are organizational
reported
(Treviño and Weaver 2003). We intherefore
guidance the sense of orders ortake a broader
explicit job descriptions.
Pro-organizational
perspective and focus on more commonly proactiveor
behavior
dailyqualifies as ethical
occur-
ring (un)ethical behaviors. behavior in the sense
Via social that it not only reaches
contagion minimal
processes
and role modeling, organizational members may copy law moral standards such as honesty or obeying the but
each
other in such (un)ethical behaviors exceeds those moral and contribute
minimums totoan
by contributing more
(un)ethical organizational the organization than
climate is directly expected
(Skarlicki and and Kulik
enforced
2005). (Treviño et al. 2006). As proactive behavior can be subtle
We also follow the call in the behavioral ethics literature and enacted "behind the scenes" (for example, taking the
to investigate (un)ethical behaviors as clusters that may be initiative to help out a new colleague or to solve a problem
triggered by the same antecedents (e.g., Treviño et al. for a customer), it is often not directly observable by
2006). The study of clusters of (un)ethical behavior pro- supervisors. It thus often yields no direct benefits for the
vides more valid and reliable information on the underlying employee and can therefore be considered as genuinely
theoretical construct (Kaptein 2008). Specifically, we focus pro-organizational behavior. Pro-organizational proactive
on day-to-day counterproductive work behavior and on behavior may be fueled by utilitarian ethics considerations
pro-organizational proactive behavior as clusters of (Brady and Wheeler 1996) or by a more deontic, principle-
(un)ethical work behaviors that are of particular relevance based type of ethics (Cropanzano et al. 2003), both of
for organizations (e.g., Rotundo and Sackett 2002). In which reflect an ethical motivational basis.
organizational behavior, unethical behavior of employees To our knowledge, research has not yet investigated to
such as theft (Greenberg 1990) is often clustered or labeled what extent unethical and ethical work behaviors share the

as counterproductive behavior (which can be defined as same antecedents. Both the literature on organizational
behavior that is intended to hurt the organization or other behavior and on behavioral ethics suggests that this might be
members of the organization; see Marcus and Schüler the case though (e.g., Fay and Sonnentag 2010; Treviño et al.
2004; Fox et al. 2001). Unethical behavior can be broader 2006) and argues that organizational justice plays an impor-
than only counterproductive behavior. Unethical behavior tant role here (e.g., Cropanzano and Stein 2009; Fox et al.
may bring harm, but it does not necessarily (intend to) do 2001).
so (Kaptein 2008). Thus counterproductive behavior is a
specific form or subclass of unethical behavior intended
to harm, which can have a detrimental impact on organi- Organizational Justice and (Un)Ethical Behavior
zational performance. While counterproductive behavior
damages the organization it is not always necessarily In line with other field research on organizational justice
intended to be unethical. In specific cases, disobeying (e.g., Korsgaard and Roberson 1995; Heslin and Van-
orders (e.g., strikes) or stealing material (e.g., to prove deWalle 201 1), we investigate employees' justice percep-
organizational misbehavior) might reflect ethical behavior tions of an important organizational event, that is, their
in the sense of civil courage. However, here we focus on performance appraisal interview. Performance appraisals
the daily context of work behavior, in which counterpro- that are perceived as unfair have been found to reduce
ductive work behavior can be considered as [Link]' work attitudes and performance (e.g., Latham
The same argument applies to pro-organizational proac-
and Mann 2006). Building on an emotion-centered model,
we further elaborate on the mechanism through which
tive behavior: proactively improving the efficiency of work
(un)fair appraisals affect employees' work behavior. More
procedures might take unethical forms in some specific, rare
cases (e.g., suggesting unethical work practices by blindly
specifically, we argue that employees' justice perceptions
regarding their appraisal evoke strong affect, which is
obeying an unethical organization) but in general such work
behavior on part of employees are ethical behaviors that
related to both ethical and unethical behavior (cf. Fox et al.
demonstrate their sense of responsibility (e.g., Ralshoven 2001 ; Spector and Fox 2002). There are several reasons for
et al. in press; Frese and Fay 2001 ). Hence, here, we focusthis
on expectation.

^ Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 66 G. Jacobs et al.

First, accountab
justice per
forms strong
of work e
b
For labeled
instance, inast
and Ryan (1995)
behaved f
d
dural, and overal
favorable.
can
citizenship. be ju
Simil
unfair supervisor
ability an
unfair procedures
facilitates retaliat
punish Affect
those a
respo
justice (Skarlicki
Such 'organizatio
Theory su
2001) is behavior
a specific
intentionally
2007; har
Frit
productive work
positive
interpersonal-or
cooperati
1999). Organizati
their pos
acts that are
Levin aim
197
late, Thorne
ignoring a (
su
property thus
in faci
an un
terproductive
(2001, beh
p.
specific,of positi
such as t
supervisor. Fox
momentaret
was linked
of to or
though
behavior. people to
Second, organiz
ages proa
includes
perceptions of woa
als to direct attention
Appraisal at their environment and take
theory
et al. initiative on 1
201 its behalf (e.g.,
) Fritz and Sonnentag 2009).
argue
to an Combined, these arguments suggest that PA isof
appraisal likely to
to the focus individuals' action tendencies related to ethical
personal
behavior.
individual, it will
tional In contrast, the relationship between ethical
justice proactive
ofte
(see Weiss etscholars
behavior and NA is less clear. Conceptually, al.
on
emotions
outcomes have argued that
(distribu positive and negative affect
(NA) are distinct constructs goal
employees' that can be meaningfully rep- ac
and resented as orthogonal dimensions in factor analytic studies ju
procedural
able to influence
of affect (e.g., Watson et al. 1988; Cropanzano et al. 2003). t
to Similarly, several studies have notedfeelin
positive that PA and NA have
spectfuldifferent antecedents
behavioand lead to different consequences.
In particular in the field of ethical and unethical behavior
(interactional jus
scholars
well-being have argued that
and PA and NA lead to different
hen
outcomes via different psychological pathwaysor
frustration, (e.g.,
Spector and Fox 2002; Miles et al. 2002).
Cropanzano et After perceptions
al.
that theof injustice triggered moral awareness, NA may stimulate ca
largest
place cognitive reasoning for moral judgment (proactive
relates to problem pe
falsely solving), but NA may also inhibit the actual moral response
accused of
Third, innext
terms of proactivity (freeze reaction,to
learned helpless- ec
fair ness) (Treviño et al. 2006). Consistently, the few empirical
treatment,
theory studiesstresses
on NA and proactivity have yielded null- or con- t
to tradictory
perceived results (e.g., Den Hartog and Belschak 2007). in
A We therefore do not
deontic hypothesize a specific relationship
respons
between NA and proactivity here.
sometimes irrat

Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 (Un)Ethical Behavior and Performance Appraisal 67

employees' perceived
Research on unethical work support as an additional
behavior potential
emphasizes the
importance of situational mediation mechanism.
constraints that block employees
from attaining valued work Employees
[Link] These
globalized beliefs about the extent to
constraints caus
which their
feelings of frustration that organization seesemployees'
facilitate them as favorable or unfa-
engage-
vorable
ment in counterproductive workand takes behavior
their goals and values into account,
(Fox and the Specto
so-
called seen
1999). Such behavior can be perceived organizational
as aggressive support (POS) (Eisenberger
and, based
on frustration-aggressionet theory,
al. 1986; Rhoades has
and Eisenberger
been2002). POS scholars
embedded in
an affect-based theory ofhave noted that employees also develop
organizational general views on the(e.g.,
aggression
Chen and Spector 1992; degree
Cropanzano etvalues
to which their supervisor [Link]
2011). Analo
contributions
and cares about
gous to the emotional mediation oftheirthe
well-being (Kottke and Sharafinski
general frustration
1988) and have labeled
aggression link, authors suggest that this perceived supervisor support
the relationship of
work frustrations with(PSS). Research on POS and PSS usually finds
counterproductive positive
behavior i
mediated by NA (e.g., Belschak and Den Hartog 2009
relationships between the two constructs, and studies argue
Fox and Spector 1999). Frustrating orarenegative
and find that supervisors work
agents and representatives of the event
lead to emotional reactions, especially
organization: employees thus anger and
seem to see PSS frustra-
as an indicator
or antecedent
tion. These, in turn, lead to of POS (e.g., Eisenberger
retaliatory behavioral et al. 1986, 2002;
intention
Shannock and Eisenberger
in form of unethical behavior (e.g.,2006). Still, the studies also et a
Cropanzano
2011). In contrast, PA stimulates
consistently show thatpro-organizational
PSS and POS are distinct constructs an
cooperative behavior (e.g.,
that can Levin
be distinguishedand Isen
theoretically as well 1975)
as empirically,and
should thus reduce unethical behavior as such behavior that is, PSS is only one component of POS, and supervisors
usually comes with negative consequences for [Link] also be perceived as supportive even if the organization
in general is not (e.g., Eisenberger et al. 1986, 2002; Shan-
In sum, we argue that the relationship between employ-
nock
ees' justice perceptions with: (a) ethical work behavior is and Eisenberger 2006).
mediated by PA as justice triggers PA which broadens
Organizational justice researchers argue that different
individuals' thought-action repertoire and stimulatesdimensions
pro- of justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and
organizational behavior; (b) unethical work behavior is
interactional) are related to perceptions of being support
(Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). For example, distributive
mediated by NA as injustice invokes NA which can trigger
aggressive behavior. justice signals the organization's concern for the employ-
ee's welfare and therefore affects the perception of being
Hypothesis 1 The relationship between organizational
supported (e.g., Shore and Shore 1995). Eisenberger et al.
justice perceptions and (un)ethical behavior is mediated by
(1990) argue more broadly that all positive activities by the
affect.
organization that might benefit the employee may be taken
as evidence by employees that the organization cares about
them. Such activities cover the different forms of justice
Perceived Support and Justice and function as an antecedent to POS (e.g., Moorman et al.
1998; see Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002).
The support that employees receive is a key construct in the In the context of performance appraisals, distributive
justice literature (see Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). and procedural justice is likely related to both POS and
More specifically, researchers argue that employees' jus- PSS as an employee can hold both the organization and
tice perceptions affect their perception of the extent to supervisor responsible for the outcome of a performance
which they are valued by the organization (distributive and appraisal. Similarly, both organization and supervisor
procedural justice) or by their supervisor (interactional might be seen as responsible for the use of fair procedures.
justice) (Moorman et al. 1998; see Rhoades and Eisen- However, as interactional justice is more closely linked to
berger 2002). Also, support has received some attention in the supervisor treating employees with dignity and respect,
the literatures on proactive (e.g., Parker et al. 2006) and we argue that interactional justice should be linked to PSS
counterproductive behavior (Miles et al. 2002). Research rather than POS. We hypothesize:
suggests, that social influence is of high importance for
Hypothesis 2 Both (a) distributive justice and (b) proce-
the development of (un)ethical behavior. Role modeling
dural justice, are positively related to perceived organiza-
ethical behavior by leaders is effective (e.g., Brown et al.
tional support.
2005), since in many situations employees do not behave
according to internalized standards and convictions, but Hypothesis 3 All three, (a) distributive, (b) procedural,
according to material outcomes and social influence and (c) interactional justice are positively related to per-
(Treviño and Brown 2004). Given these arguments, we add ceived supervisor support.

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 68 G. Jacobs et al.

Perceived Suppo
on counterproductive behavior. Their measure of organi-
zational constraints was the frequency with which the job
As PSS performance
is mostly
of employees was hindered, the limited
direct impact
availability of resources, or disturbing rules and proce- of
dures. Employees experience
attention than such constraints as a frus- th
at both tration,
POS which can ultimately lead toand
retaliatory behavior P
Eisenberger et
(e.g., Chen and Spector 1992). We expect that employees al.
Eisenberger
experience support both by the organization and 200
supervisor
explainas the opposite
unique of constraints and thus will reduce their v
unethical behavior when
therefore they feel supported (Chen and
include
ents of Spector
(un)ethica
1992; Fox and Spector 1999). We hypothesize:
The characteristi
Hypothesis 4 Both (a) perceived organizational support,
2005) cover core a
and (b) perceived supervisor support are significantly
ers show helpful,
related to (un)ethical behavior.
behavior. Resear
Followers wish
In sum, we argue that the relationship between organi- to
ethical behavior
zational justice perceptions and ethical as well as unethical (
POS behavior is play
can mediated by POS and PSS. Organizational
a r
justice signals
efficacy as employees that well
their organization and a
behaviors (Manz and Sims 1987; Parker et al. 2006). supervisor cares about them and supports them; employees
Clearly, employees expect at least not to suffer because of likely reciprocate such POS and PSS by engaging in pro-
their ethical behavior (Treviño et al. 1999). POS and PSS organizational behavior (showing ethical behavior) and by
can signal to employees that their organization and super- reducing behavior potentially damaging to the organization
visor trust in their abilities and will likely reward their or supervisor (unethical behavior).
efforts to be proactive on behalf of the organization.
Hypothesis 5 The relationship between organizational
Empirical work on support and proactivity shows
justice perceptions and (un)ethical behavior is mediated by
inconsistent results. While Frese et al. (1999) did not find
(a) perceived supervisor support and (b) perceived orga-
an effect, Parker et al. (2006) did find a positive effect of
nizational support.
perceived support on proactive behavior. As Frese and Fay
(2001) argue, discretionary behavior, even if pro-organi-
zational, may sometimes challenge supervisors' decisions, Method

and supervisors may therefore at times find it difficult to

support their employees' initiatives. In a policing context, Sample and Procedure
however, supervisors can hardly offer detailed procedural
guidelines or directives to police officers as situations often This study was carried out among police officers in Ger-
are complex, novel, and dynamic. Supervisors and the many. Typically these police officers have one perfor-
police organization are therefore dependent on the moral mance appraisal per year. In cooperation with the German
judgment of their officers, and supporting their officers is Police Academy (the only training centre within the Ger-
likely to stimulate their ethical behavior. We expect that, man police where senior police officers from all states as
in such a context, supervisor and organizational support is well as from the federal police forces receive training to
authentic and taken seriously by employees, who will show qualify them for the higher ranks in the German police
more ethical behavior to benefit their organization when forces), we contacted the heads of the police forces of two
feeling supported. To our knowledge, research on ethical German states asking them to cooperate in a study on the
behavior has not yet empirically investigated the effects of perception and acceptance of appraisal interviews within
POS and PSS. For the theoretical reasons mentioned above the German police force. Both agreed to send surveys to a
support should enhance employee ethical behavior. representative sample of their police officers of lower to
We also expect that perceived support relates to uneth- intermediate level (i.e., ranks lower to that of police cap-
ical work behavior because support increases employees' tain). In total, we sent 500 questionnaires with stamped
caring about and loyalty to the organization (e.g., Eisen- return envelopes to randomly selected police officers.
berger et al. 2001), which reduces behavior that might Besides filling out their own survey, we asked these offi-
damage the organization. Direct research evidence on POS cers also to give a short questionnaire with a separate letter
or PSS and unethical work behavior is scarce. Miles et al. and return envelope to the colleague who would be best
(2002) investigated the effects of organizational constraints able to evaluate their work behavior. Police officers often

Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 (Un)Ethical Behavior and Performance Appraisal 69

of the appraisal
spend much of their working time wasin
measured
teams by four
ofitems (e.g., "Does
two (being
on the beat, driving). Therefore close
the outcome of the appraisal colleagues
reflect what you have con-have
tributed to the
good insight into each other's organization?");
daily work procedural justice per-
behavior. The
ceptionsto
close colleague was requested withthink
three items (e.g.,
of "Were
and yourate
able to express
recent
work behavior of the focalyourofficer
views and feelings
andduring the performance
send apprai-
the question-
sal?"); andin
naire back to the researchers interactional
a sealed justice perceptions
return withenvelope.
six items
Only questionnaires that covering
were both informational and interpersonal
completely filledaspects
out(e.g.,
and
for which a matching colleague evaluation
"Has the person who was
conducted the appraisal obtained
treated you
with respect?").
were included in the analyses. The final sample consisted
of 332 complete employee-colleague dyads (a 66 % Police officers' work affect was measured by 10 items
response rate for complete dyads). Respondents partici- taken from Belschak and Den Hartog (2009) who devel-
pated voluntarily and anonymously and did not receive oped the scale to capture emotional reactions to feedback
anything in return for participation. Of the responding in a performance appraisal context. These affect items are
officers, 85 % were men; 1 1 % were up to 30 years old, also used in other scales such as the PANAS (Watson et al.
26 % between 30 and 40, 49 % between 41 and 50, 1988) or the measure capturing emotions at work devel-
and 14 % older than 50. Average tenure was 23.2 years
oped by Fisher (2000). After respondents had remembered
(SD = 9.0). and described their last performance appraisal interview,
we asked them how intensely they felt a list of discrete
emotions during and immediately after the appraisal.
Measures Positive affect covered five positive emotions (e.g., pride,
enthusiasm, joy); negative affect included five negative
While justice perceptions, perceived supervisor and orga-
emotions (e.g., frustration, anger, anxiety).
nizational support, PA and NA, and unethical (counter-
Perceived organizational support and perceived super-
productive) behavior were collected from the focal police
visor support were both measured with the three highest-
officer, officers' ethical (pro-organizational proactive)
loading items from the short version of the POS scale of
behavior and complaining behavior (a form of counter- Eisenberger et al. (1986) and, for PSS, by replacing the
productive behavior visible to colleagues) were collected
word organization by supervisor (e.g., "The organization/
as colleague-ratings. Items had 7-point Likert [Link] supervisor strongly considers my goals and values").
These measures (in full and short form) have been vali-
Organizational justice perceptions were measured spe-
dated and successfully applied in earlier research (e.g.,
cifically related to respondents' last performance appraisal.
This is in line with Heslin and VandeWalle (2011) who
Eisenberger et al. 1986, 2001, 2002; Rhoades and Eisen-
berger 2002, 2006).
suggest tailoring justice operational izations to study con-
ditions and who also measured justice related to perfor-Unethical work behavior was measured both through
self- and colleague ratings. Specifically we asked focal
mance appraisal. To help respondents remember their last
performance appraisal, we asked them to think back to this
police officers to what extent they had engaged in a number
event and try to remember the process as well as the out-of organization-focused counterproductive work behaviors
come of it as detailed as possible. They were first asked(CWB)
to since their last performance appraisal. For self-
ratings we used 11 items from Fox and Spector (1999)
make this memory as vivid as possible, re-experience the
focusing on production deviance (i.e., minor behaviors
event, and write it down in response to an open question
('Please think back to your last performance appraisaltargeting the organization, not those directed at co-work-
interview. Please try to remember this event as vividly as as we expect that employees will engage specifically in
ers)
possible and re-experience the conversation with your unethical behavior directed against the source of injustice.
supervisor. Can you please describe the interview now?').
This is in line with earlier research investigating counter-
After describing their last performance appraisal, police
productive work behavior as a reaction to performance
officers filled out items on justice perceptions of the
appraisals (e.g., Belschak and Den Hartog 2009; see also
appraisal interview. The justice items were adapted from Fox et al. 2001). Sample items read "I falsified or exag-
Colquitt (2001) by adjusting the general justice items to gerated
the my work results", "I intentionally worked slowly
specific performance appraisal context (i.e., replacingor acarelessly" or "I purposively did not work hard when
general procedural term in the original items by a perfor-
there were things to be done". The measure by Fox and
Spector (1999) is well-validated and has been used in
mance appraisal-specific term for our specific context; for
instance, "Has he/she treated you with respect?" was different studies on workplace deviance before (e.g.,
changed to "Has the person who conducted the appraisal Belschak and Den Hartog 2009, 2012; Fox et al. 2001;
treated you with respect?"). Perceived distributive justice
Penney and Spector 2005).

ô Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 70 G. Jacobs et al.

The use of
constructs, self-rep
we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
ongoing (CFA). The goodness-of-fit of the models was assessed
concern, al
highly contingent
with X2 tests, the root mean square error of approximation o
for delinquent acts
(RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the incre-
better-suited and less-biased alternative measures than mental fit index (IFI). The fit indices showed that
the proposed nine-factor model fits satisfactorily:
self-reports (e.g., Fox and Spector 1999). Thus, self-reports
of delinquent acts are still the most frequently used way X2to(1,130) = 2,247.15 (p < .01), CFI = .91, IFI = .91,
measure CWB (e.g., Belschak and Den Hartog 2009; Fox
and RMSEA = .06. The factor loadings were high: dis-
et al. 2001). To provide some validation for the self-report
tributive justice (ranging from .75 to .96), procedural jus-
measure of CWB we also measured police officers' com-tice (.47 to .92), interactional justice (.55 and .84), PA
(.71-95), NA (.37-97), POS (.74-.94), PSS (.83-.92),
plaining behavior as a peer (colleague) rating. Complain-
unethical behavior (.54-79), complaining (.77-87), and
ing can be considered as CWB as it may harm the internal
morale and external reputation of the organization and ethical
can behavior (.82-.89). The factor inter-correlations
be contagious. In contrast to general CWB, which is mostly
ranged from -.66 (PA and NA) to .72 (procedural justice
and PA).
hidden even from close colleagues (certainly in a policing
context with its strong emphasis on integrity), complain-
ing presents a visible part of CWB that colleagues Descriptive
can Analysis
observe and rate. When selecting the items we focused on
types of complaining that are destructive and negativeThe
indescriptives and inter-correlations of the study vari-
nature (to ensure we measured an unethical form of work
ables are presented in Table 1. All three justice dimensions
behavior), instead of forms of complaining that could are
be significantly related with affect, support, and ethical
considered as voicing legitimate issues. We measured
and unethical behavior (with the exception of the rela-
police officers' complaining behavior with three items
tionship between distributive justice and ethical behavior).
adapted from MacKenzie et al. (1991) (e.g., "My col-
Also, both PA and NA as well as POS and PSS were sig-
league often approached me to complain about trivial
nificantly related to ethical and unethical behavior. The
matters", "My colleague made problems bigger than they
correlational pattern is thus similar for ethical and unethical
actually are"). behavior.

Finally, police officers' ethical behavior was defined as

the degree to which they took initiatives at work to help the Test of Structural Hypotheses
organization. It was measured through seven items with
which a colleague rated the focal police officer's behavior We conducted Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS
since the officer's last performance appraisal. Specifically, software to test our hypotheses. This yields the advantage
we took the seven items of the personal initiative scale by of estimating all relationships simultaneously and thus
Frese et al. (1996, 1997) which is a validated measure (see providing more accurate significance levels and allows us
Frese et al. 1996, 1997; Fay and Frese 2001) that other to compare different models to each other through a %2
studies have also successfully used (e.g., Den Hartog and difference test. Given that the extant literature notes that
Belschak 2007, 2012; Fay and Sonnentag 2002). In our the three justice dimensions are usually highly correlated
survey, personal initiative was defined as pro-organiza- and that ethical and unethical behavior are in general
tional proactive behavior in an introductory sentence; after negatively correlated with each other, we allowed these
that, the seven items were presented (e.g., "At work, my measures to be correlated. In general, the hypothesized
colleague took the initiative immediately even if others model fits the data relatively well: %2 (16) = 32.21
didn't", "My colleague usually did more than was expec- C p < .01), CFI = .98; IH = .98; RMSEA = .06. Percep-
ted from her/him", "My colleague tried to make a differ- tions of distributive and interactional justice were signifi-
ence." and "When something went wrong, my colleague cantly related to both PA ( ß = .62, p < .01, and ß =
immediately looked for a solution"). .18, p < .01) and NA (ß = -.63, p < .01, and ß = -.14,
p < .01). Procedural justice perceptions, however, were not
significantly related to PA ( ß = .09, n.s.) or NA ( ß = .05,
Results n.s.). Also, PA was neither significantly related to
employees' ethical behavior ( ß = .05, n.s.) nor to their
Confirmatory Factor Analysis unethical behavior (CWB or complaining, ß = .04, n.s.,
and ß = .03, n.s.). NA was significantly positively linked
to unethical behavior (CWB: ß = .25, p < .01; complain-
To test the proposed factor structure, as well as convergent
and discriminant validity of the above measures of ing: ß = .12, p < .05).

ô Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
(Un)Ethical Behavior and Performance Appraisal 71

Table 1 Descriptives and inter-correlations of the variables included

123456789 10

1 . Distributive justice (.93)

2. Procedural justice .68** (.71)
3. Interactional justice .38** .45** (.88)
4. Positive affect .75** .58** .45** (.92)
5. Negative affect -.65** -.44** -.35** -.56** (.85)
6. Organizational support .36** .36** .23** .37** -.29** (.86)
7. Supervisor support .23** .32** .50** .34** -.15* .35** (.90)
8. Counterproductive work behavior -.18** -.14** -.20** -.20** .29** -.23** -.22** (.88)
9. Ethical behavior .06 .13* .17** .14** -.12* .16** .23** -.14** (.95)
10. Complaining -.08 -.15** -.09 -.11* .17** -.16** -.18** .21** -.44** (.86)
Mean 3.79 2.75 5.09 3.19 2.68 2.96 4.27 2.04 5.24 3.17
SD 1.67 1.26 1.32 1.63 1.54 1.38 1.63 .98 1.22 1.51

N = 332; * p < .05. ** p < .01

Next, POS was significantly related to

analyses exploring theperc
rela
ables.
distributive justice (ß Specifically,
= .21, p < .01) andwe proe
tice (ß = .14, p < .05). Hypothesis
(squared) 2 is thus
relationship betw
PSS was significantly related to
significant andprocedural
added this
p < .05) and interactional justice of
the coefficient (ß the
= .46, p
squar
not to distributive justice
to the ( ß = -.03, n.s.)
employees' pa
ethica
porting Hypothesis 3.
Finally, ethical behavior, CWB,
Test of and complaini
Additional Hypoth
significantly linked to PSS (ß = .18, p < .01
p < .01, and ß = -.14, p < .05, respective
The hypotheses developed
CWB was significantly related
stitute to POS specifi
relatively ( ß = -
ethical behavior andparticular
complaining were not
predictions for(ß
and ß = -.09, n.s.). Hypothesis 4 isexplanatio
for alternative thus par
stantiated. Figure 2 summarizes
effects of the significant
employees' just
the analyses. we computed two addit
Given the strong compared
theoretical the
and model sup
empirical abo
relationship between model
ethicalincluding
(pro-organizationa
direct pa
behavior and PA in the literature, we conducted
to ethical behavior (M2)

Fig. 2 Findings for structural

equation model (non-significant
paths are omitted). Note :
Standardized coefficients are
presented. Dashed line referring
to coefficient of squared effect.
*p < .05. **p < .01

â Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 72 G. Jacobs et al.

and complaining
find the expected negative relationship between PA and
unethical behavior. Perhaps
additional direct this is because unethical
behavior is exceptional
unethical behavior that is usually not shown.
behavio
Without reason - such as a frustrating, unfairnei
Consistently, event
resulting in negative emotions
nificantly better- employees do not easily
Ml (Ax2 (3)
engage in counterproductive behavior, and=
thus likely no2.
paths general negative behavioral intention justi
from exists that could be
fully mediated
reduced by PA.
PA was related to employees'
supported; Hypotethical behavior, but only
results in presented
a curvilinear way. This is not fully in line with existing
for thestudies proposed
that found a linear link between PA and proactive
behavior (e.g., Den Hartog and Belschak 2007; Fritz and
Sonnentag 2009). It may be that the specific context of our
Discussion study plays a role here: police organizations in Germany
are rather bureaucratic and are characterized by formal
procedures and a clear distribution of responsibilities. In
This study in a policing context tested a conceptual model
proposing that employees' justice perceptions relatedthis
to sense, PA (and the related motivation to show ethical
behavior) may have to overcome a certain threshold before
their last performance appraisal influenced their affect and
police officers decide to go beyond existing responsibilities
their feelings of support as well as subsequently their ethical
and procedures to become proactive. In line with this
and unethical behaviors. We assumed an interdisciplinary
explanation, we found a significant positive quadratic
perspective by applying existing theoretical frameworks
relationship between ethical behavior and PA in our post
from organizational behavior to the domain of behavioral
hoc analyses. This finding adds to the extant literature on
ethics. In doing so, we aimed to further understanding of the
role of affect and contextual aspects in behavioral [Link] and ethical behavior by suggesting that while PA is
significantly linked to ethical behavior, the actual form of
Our results suggest that employees interpret their per-
formance appraisal as a symbolic situation in which theythe relationship (i.e., linear or non-linear) needs to be tested
and may be contingent on the context.
test the trustworthiness of both their superior and organi-
zation towards them (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). Finally, in line with the existing literature, we found that
Individuals expect just treatment, and injustice creates
the extent to which employees perceived their performance
tension that motivates behaviors to decrease feelingsappraisal
of to be fair was significantly related to their per-
ception of being supported by the organization and super-
injustice (e.g., Cropanzano and Stein 2009). As a conse-
quence, the justice perceptions in performance appraisalsvisor. Employees' perceptions of support, in turn, formed an
important antecedent of (un)ethical work behaviors. Yet, it
can trigger long-lasting effects on organizational outcomes.
was mainly perceived supervisor rather than organizational
Here, we found that police officers evaluated their perfor-
support that was related to (un)ethical behavior. This finding
mance appraisals in terms of justice, and that through their
impact on affect and perceived support these justice per-adds to the emerging stream of research investigating the
direct effects of PSS on outcome variables rather than
ceptions had strong implications for their (un)ethical work
behaviors. This adds to the literatures on behavioral ethics,
focusing only on the indirect effects as mediated by POS
(e.g., Shanock and Eisenberger 2006). Given work on ethical
performance appraisal, and organizational justice as, to our
knowledge, the link between justice perceptions, HR leadership (see Brown and Treviño 2006), the strong impact
practices (here: performance appraisal), and (un)ethical leader-related variables such as interactional justice and
of
behavior has not been investigated to date. PSS on (unethical behavior is not surprising. Leaders are
considered as role models (e.g., Brown et al. 2005). Their
First, in line with expectations we found distributive and
interactional justice were related to PA and NA. Interest-(un)fair behavior in performance appraisals is likely to affect
ingly, procedural justice was linked to neither formthe of perception of their (un)supportiveness and ultimately
translate in follower (un)ethical behavior.
affect. Similar results were found in an earlier study for
specific, discrete emotions such as anger, anxiety, happi- POS was only significantly related to unethical work
ness, or joy (Krehbiel and Cropanzano 2000). behavior. Employees' unethical activities are reduced if
either the supervisor or the organization supports them.
Next, we found that the relationships of justice percep-
tions with ethical and unethical behaviors were mediated This further substantiates the proposition that unethical
work behavior is not easily shown, and this may be even
by affect. This demonstrates the role of affect in ethical
more so in a policing context in which strong ethical
and unethical behavior (Spector and Fox 2002; Fay and
standards operate.
Sonnentag 2010; Gaudine and Thorne 2001). We did not

Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 (Un)Ethical Behavior and Performance Appraisal 73

Limitations and Future Research As much as it is the duty of employees to show ethical
behavior and avoid unethical behavior, it is the duty of
Like most research, this study suffers from a number of
organizations to treat their employees in fair and ethical
ways. In the open question in our survey where we asked
limitations. First, the independent and mediating variables
respondents to describe their last performance appraisal
in our study were collected from the same source, that is, the
individual police officer. For variables aimed to measure many respondents wrote long and highly emotional
respondents' perceptions and affect there was no real
descriptions how they perceived the distanced and formal
atmosphere of performance appraisal situations as inap-
alternative to the use of self-reports as other people do not
propriate. Leaders need to be aware that interactional jus-
have sufficient insights into respondents' inner experiences.
We measured most dependent variables from a differenttice matters certainly also when conveying job appraisals.
source. While we partially used self-reports of police offi- Inspired by the literatures on voluntary work behavior
cers' for measuring unethical behavior as such behavior isand behavioral ethics (e.g., Fay and Sonnentag 2010;
often not visible for others (see the methods section for Tre
a vino et al. 2006) we find that ethical and unethical
brief discussion), we also measured colleague ratings of abehavior share many of the same antecedents. Justice
perceptions of performance appraisals - and especially
subset of unethical behavior (complaining) that is visible for
interactive justice - mediated by supervisor support and
colleagues. The results for self-reported and colleague-rated
measures of unethical behavior largely converged, provid-
affect both encourage ethical behavior and reduce unethical
behavior. This is an important finding which stresses that
ing support for the validity of the self-report measure of
counterproductive behavior. We therefore did not applyfair organizational processes and leader behavior can catch
two birds with one stone.
statistical corrections for common method variance (CMV)
in our computations as such corrections can produce less To conclude, understanding performance appraisals as
part of an ethical infrastructure (Tenbrunsel et al. 2003)
accurate results than applying no corrections in most cases.
As Richardson et al. (2009, p. 796) argue based on recent opens up new opportunities. Official codes of conducts and
simulations, "we cannot recommend any post hoc CMV reward systems for ethical behavior gain credibility when
technique as a means for correcting CMV' s potential effects ethical guidelines are also reflected in HR practices and
in a given data set, nor can we recommend any technique leader
as behavior. HR and justice researchers have refrained
a means of detecting bias." from normative or moral judgment (Cropanzano and Stein
2009; Folger and Salvador 2008), which has led to an
Next, our data was collected in a specific setting, that is,
the German police organization. While our hypotheses are underestimation of emotional (deontic) responses to jus-
tice. In the context of our study, namely policing, perceived
based on general, not context-specific theories some of our
findings differed from our expectations and might be injustice during a performance appraisal and perceived lack
explained by contextual factors. Replicating the results inof
a support by a supervisor is likely judged against the
different context might therefore be desirable. general moral identity (Aquino and Reed 2002; Weaver
Finally, we measured our data at one specific point inand Agle 2002) of the police profession. Moral judgments
are an integral part of police work and "being the good
time, whereas certain processes may unfold or change over
time. For instance, it might be interesting to measure guys" is fundamental to police professional identity (Van
Maanen 1975; Jacobs et al. 2008). The observation that
whether effects of justice perceptions diminish over time.
Also, the direction of causality where assumed in this
one's own organization is accountable for unfair behavior
then triggers strong emotional and behavioral responses.
article is inferred from theoretical arguments rather than
tested here as our cross-sectional design did not allow
testing for this. In this regard, experimental and longitu-
dinal research could strengthen our conclusions.
References

Managerial Implications
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83(6),
Our study suggests that a single organizational event, 1423-1440.
namely a yearly performance appraisal has a strong impactAquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs,
on subsequent (un)ethical behavior. The careful handling negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model
of such HR practices is vital, since these effects are and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20(7),
1073-1091.
pervasive and long lasting. Consistently, scholars in
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived
behavioral ethics encourage looking at events such as organizational support and police performance: The moderating
performance appraisals from a normative perspective (e.g., influence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Cropanzano and Stein 2009; Folger and Salvador 2008). ogy , 83(2 ), 288-297.

^ Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 74 G. Jacobs et al.

Eisenberger, R.,B.
Ashforth, Armeli, S., Rexwinkel,
E., B., Lynch, P. D.,&
& Rhoades, A
in organizations.
L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support.
1-52. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 42-51.
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Consequences of Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L.,
positive and negative feedback: The impact on emotions and & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contribu-
extra-role behaviors. Applied Psychology: An International tions to perceived organizational support and employee reten-
Review, 58(2), 274-303. tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.
Bidder, S. L., Chang, C. C., & Tyler, T. R. (2001). Procedural justice Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative:
and retaliation in organizations: Comparing cross-nationally the An overview of validity studies. Human Performance , 14('),
importance of fair group processes. International Journal of 97-124.
Conflict Management, 72(4), 295-3 1 1 . Fay, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the effects of stressors:
Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical A longitudinal study on personal initiative. Journal of Occupa-
predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, /5(9), 927-940. tional Health Psychology, 7(3), 221-234.
Brown, M., & Tre vino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). A look back to move ahead: New
future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 77(6), 595-616. directions for research on proactive performance and other
Brown, M., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: discretionary work behaviours. Applied Psychology: An Inter-
A social learning perspective for construct development and national Review, 59(1), 1-20.
testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing
cesses, 97(2), 117-134. pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of 21(2), 185-202.
the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script
Journal of Business Ethics, 77(16), 1825-1834. approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors,
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behav-
with aggression, withdrawal, theft, and substance use: An ior, 21(2), 147-162.
exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and
Psychology, 65(3), 117-184. human resource management . Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as
A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.),
Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-118). Stanford,
Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, C. J. (2001). How does CA: Stanford University Press.
organizational justice affect performance, withdrawal, and Folger, R., & Salvador, R. (2008). Is management theory too "self-
counterproductive behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt ish"? Journal of Management, 34(6), 1127-1151.
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 301-328). Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-
Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 915-931.
Cropanzano, R., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justice and
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work
behavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business Ethics behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational
Quarterly, 2(2), 193-233. justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003a). Deontic justice: emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309.
The role of morale principles in workplace fairness. Journal Fredrickson,
of B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review
Organizational Behavior ; 24( 8), 1019-1024. of General Psychology, 2(3), 300-319.
Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., Hale, J. M. S., & Reb, J. (2003b). Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
The structure of affect: Reconsidering the relationship between psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.
negative and positive affectivity. Journal of Management, 29(6), American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
831-857. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An active
Cropanzano, R., Stein, J. H., & Nadisic, T. (201 1). Social justice and
performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in
the experience of emotion. New York: Routledge. Organizational Beiuivior, 23, 133-187.
De Cremer, D., Mayer, D., & Schminke, M. (2010). Guest editors' Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal
introduction on understanding ethical behavior and decision initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany.
making: A behavioral ethics approach. Business Ethics Quar- Academy of Management Journal , 59(1), 37-63.
terly, 20(1), 1-6. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative,concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and
commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 601-622. Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139-161.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagementFrese,
and M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. (1999). Helping to improve
Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal ofsuggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in com-
Business Ethics, 707(1), 35-47. panies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 1139-1155.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 665-697. behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986).workday. Journal of Management , 35( 1 ), 827-856.
Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-
Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 77(3), 500-507. making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2),
175-187.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and
organizational support and employee diligence, commitment,
and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59. tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-432.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 (Un)Ethical Behavior and Performance Appraisal 75

Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole Michie,

the S., & West, M. A.
money and(2004). when?
Managing people and perfor-
Individual and
situational determinants of employee theft.
mance: An evidence based Organizational
framework applied to health service.
Behavior and Human Decision International
Processes, Journal of#9(1), 985-1003.
Management Reviews, 5(2), 91-111.
Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle,Miles,
D.D. (2011).
E., Borman, [Link]
E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002).
appraisal
procedural justice: The role of a and
Building manager's implicit
integrative model of extra person
role work behaviors: A
theorv. Journal of Management. 37(6). 1694-1718. comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organiza-
Holbrook, R. L. (2002). Contact points and flash points: Conceptu-
tional citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection
alizing the use of justice mechanisms in the performanceand Assessment, /0(1/2), 51-57.
appraisal interview. Human Resource Management Review Moorman,
, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does
/2(1), 101-123. perceived organizational support mediate the relationship
Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). The effect of feeling good on
between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behav-
helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality andior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351-357.
Social Psychology , 2/(3), 384-388. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of
Jacobs, G., Christe-Zeyse, J., Keegan, A., & Polos, L. (2008).
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizen-
Reactions to organizational identity threats in times of change: ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the
Illustrations from the German police. Corporate Reputation
Review , //(3), 245-261. antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 9/(3), 636-652.
Kaishoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. Ethical
Penney,
leadership and followers' helping and initiative: The role of L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and
demonstrated responsibility and job autonomy. European Jour- counterproductive work behavior: The moderating role of
nal of Work and Organizational Psychology (in press). negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On26(1), 775-796.
Peterson, D. (2002). The relationship between unethical behavior and
the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance:
A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology the, dimensions of the ethical climate questionnaire. Journal of
94( 1 ), 162-176. Business Ethics, 41(4), 313-326.
Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing a measure of unethical behaviorRhoades,
in L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational
the workplace: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Manage- support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ment , 34(5), 978-1008. ogy , 87(4), 698-714.
Richardson,
Kaptein, M. (2009). Ethics programs and ethical culture: A next step H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale
in unravelling their multi-faceted relationship. Journal of of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques
Business Ethics, #9(2), 261-281. for detection and correction of common method variance.
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762-800.
performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and Rotundo,
non- M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings
instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal
of Management, 2/(4), 657-669. of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceivedApplied Psychology, 87( 1 ), 66-80.
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel
supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 48(4), 1075-1079. supported: Relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor
support, perceived organizational support, and performance.
Krehbiel, P. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, outcome
favorability and emotion. Social Justice Research, /5(4), Journal of Applied Psychology, 9/(3), 689-695.
339-360. Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support
Latham, G. P., & Mann, S. (2006). Advances in the science of and organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano & K. Kacmar
performance appraisal: Implications for practice. In G. P. Hodg- (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support (pp.
kinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and 149-164). Westport, CT: Quorum.
organizational psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 295-337). Hoboken, Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace:
NJ: Wiley. The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
Levin, P. F., & Isen, A. M. (1975). Further studies on the effect of Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.
feeling good on helping. Sociometry, 5#(1), 141-147. Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. (2005). Third party reactions to
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organiza- employee (mis) treatment: A justice perspective. Research in
tional citizenship behavior and objective productivity as deter- organizational behavior : An annual series of analytical essays
minants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. and critical reviews, 26, 1 83-229.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 5(Ķ 1 ), Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a
123-150. moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead Academy of Management Journal, 42( 1), 100-108.
themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32( 1), 106-129. voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counter
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive productive work behavior and organizational citizenship behav-
behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied ior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269-292.
Psychology, #9(4), 647-660. Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. (2003).
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure
appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi- in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16(3), 223-235.
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, #4(1), 123-136. Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical:
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Management
organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing Executive, 18(2), 69-83.
intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational justice and
62(3), 277-297. ethics program follow through: Influences on employees' helpful

^ Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 76 G. Jacobs et al.

and harmful behav

Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior
651-4571. in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2003). Managing ethics in business of Management Review, 27(1), 77-97.
organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D., & Toffler, B. (1999). and decoupled corporate social performance: Management
Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what commitments, external pressure, and corporate ethics practices.
hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131-151. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539-552.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Agle, B. R. (2005). "Somebody I
ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6),
look up to": Ethical role modeling in organizations. Organiza-
951-989. tional Dynamics, 34(4), 313-330.
Treviño, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory:
Weiss,
A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and conse-
barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378-385. quences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organi-
Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal exam-
zational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of
ination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 207-228. justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(5), 786-794.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory,
research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wimbush, J. C., Shepard, J. M., & Markham, S. E. (1997). An
Velasquez, M. G. (2005). Business ethics : Concepts and cases. Upper
empirical examination of the relationship between ethical
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. climate and ethical behavior from multiple levels of analysis.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). The development
Journal of Business Ethics, /6(1), 1705-1716.
and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:
The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 54(6), 1063-1070.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 06 May 2021 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]