Journal of Business Ethics 56: 219–230, 2005.

2005 Springer
The Role of Ethical
Ideology in Workplace
Deviance
ABSTRACT. Ethical ideology is predicted to play a role
in the occurrence of workplace deviance. Forsyth’s (1980)
Ethics Position Questionnaire measures two dimensions
of ethical ideology: idealism and relativism. It is
hypothesized that idealism will be negatively correlated
with employee deviance while relativism will be posi-
tively related. Further, it is predicted that idealism and
relativism will interact in such a way that there will only
Christine (Chris) A. Henle, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of
Management at the University of North Carolina at Char-
lotte. Her research interests include counterproductive em-
ployee behaviors, employment law, and organizational
justice. Her current research focuses on cyberloafing at work,
religious discrimination in employment, and the role of su-
pervisor and coworker norms in predicting counterproductive
work behaviors. She has provided consulting services in the
areas of job analysis, recruiting, selection, and performance
management.
Robert A. Giacalone, Ph.D. (State Univeristy of New York-
Albany) is Professor of Human Resource Management at the
Fox School of Business and Management, Temple Uni-
versity, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Dr. Giacalone is co-
editor of five books, co-author of two books and has authored
over 90 articles on ethics, employee sabotage, impression
management and exit interviewing, appearing in journals
such as Human Relations, Business and Society Review,
Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of the Organizational
Behavior, and the Journal of Social Psychology. His current
research focuses on the impact of materialism/postmaterialism
and workplace spirituality on business ethics.
Carole L. Jurkiewicz, Ph.D. is the John W. Dupuy Endowed
Professor and the Women’s Hospital Distinguished Professor
of Healthcare Ethics at Louisiana State University. Her
publications include a wide array of scholarly articles, books,
and the general press. She maintains an active consulting
practice in the areas of organizational psychology, ethics, and
leadership.
Christine A. Henle
Robert A. Giacalone
Carole L. Jurkiewicz
be a relationship between idealism and deviance when
relativism is higher. Results supported the hypothesized
correlations and idealism and relativism interacted to
predict organizational deviance. Idealism was a significant
predictor of interpersonal deviance, but no interaction
was found.
KEY WORDS: ethical ideology, idealism, relativism,
workplace deviance
Introduction
Researchers have long studied what makes individ-
uals engage in morally proscribed behavior (e.g.
Kohlberg, 1983, 1984; Rest, 1990). The outcomes
of these studies have revealed much about what
motivates or inhibits ethical behavior, what impacts
its judgment, and how individuals respond to ethi-
cally questionable requests and behaviors. Although
there are many factors influencing when and how an
individual decides to engage in socially disapproved
behavior, it is now recognized that personal ethical
ideology has a considerable impact upon such
decisions (Forsyth, 1992). Ethical ideology refers to a
system of ethics used to make moral judgments,
which offers guidelines for judging and resolving
behavior that may be ethically questionable. For
example, individuals with an ethical ideology char-
acterized by a belief in preserving the personal well-
being of others would refrain from any actions or
decisions that could potentially harm others.
One type of unethical or socially disapproved
behavior that ethical ideology can be used to predict is
workplace deviance. Workplace deviance refers to
voluntary behaviors that violate significant company
220 Christine A. Henle et al.
norms, policies, or rules and threaten the well-being
of the organization and/or its employees (Robinson
and Bennett, 1995). Bennett and Robinson (2000)
proposed two types of workplace deviance and con-
firmatory factor analyses conducted by the authors
support this two-factor structure. The first type,
organizational deviance, refers to deviant behaviors
targeting the organization such as theft, sabotage,
coming to work late without permission, or putting
little effort into work. Conversely, interpersonal
deviance pertains to deviant acts directed toward
individuals in the workplace such as coworkers,
supervisors, and subordinates and includes behaviors
like making fun of others, playing mean pranks, act-
ing rudely, arguing, and physical aggression.
Workplace deviance is an important issue for
researchers and organizations alike due to its preva-
lence and potential consequences. For example, it
has been estimated that three quarters of employees
steal at least once from their employer (Coffin, 2003)
and that 95% of all organizations experience
employee theft (Case, 2000). The prevalence of
workplace deviance is especially disturbing when the
costs to both affected organizations and individuals
are considered. For instance, the financial costs
associated with theft by employees in the U.S. have
been estimated at $50 billion annually (Coffin,
2003). Further, employees who are targets of
workplace deviance are more likely to turnover
(Giacalone et al., 1997) and have stress related
problems, decreased productivity, low morale, lost
work time (O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996), damaged
self-esteem, increased fear and insecurity at work, and
psychological and physical pain (Griffin et al., 1998).
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the
ethics literature by empirically examining the rela-
tionship between employees’ ethical ideology and
the occurrence of deviant work behaviors. Because
workplace deviance involves ethically questionable
activities, employees will vary in their decision to
engage in it as a function of differences in their
personal ethical ideology. In the case of employee
deviance, understanding how ethical ideology
influences morally questionable behaviors will help
managers identify, predict, and explain when
employees are likely to behave in ethical and
unethical ways at work (Forsyth, 1992). Below we
discuss ethical ideology and its potential relationship
to workplace deviance in more detail.
Ethical ideology and workplace deviance
Much research on workplace deviance has focused
on identifying individual difference variables that
predict deviant behavior in the workplace. This
body of literature suggests that personality traits such
as conscientiousness, impulsivity, negative affectiv-
ity, agreeableness, trait anger, and socialization are
related to employee participation in deviant work
behaviors (Skarlicki et al., 1999; Douglas and
Martinko, 2001; Salgado, 2002; Henle, in press).
However, there is a paucity of research investigating
the relationship between workplace deviance and
individual differences in moral thought or philoso-
phy. Many theories have been proposed relating to
individual differences in ethical ideology. For
example, Kohlberg’s (1983) stages of moral devel-
opment emphasize the reasons individuals use to
justify moral decisions (e.g. consequences, moral
standards of others, self generated moral standards).
Likewise, Hogan (1973) believes ethical ideologies
can be categorized as ethics of responsibility (use of
societal rules and norms when making ethical deci-
sions) or ethics of personal conscience (use of self-
generated rules and norms when making ethical
decisions). Although many different models of eth-
ical ideology have been offered, research by Forsyth
and colleagues argues that most of these different
conceptualizations can be parsimoniously distin-
guished in terms of two general dimensions: idealism
and relativism.
Forsyth (1980) developed the Ethical Position
Questionnaire (EPQ) to measure ethical ideology,
which impacts ethical perceptions and explains
individual differences in ethical decision making.
The first dimension, idealism, refers to an inherent
interest in the welfare of others and the degree that
the intrinsic rightness of behavior determines which
behaviors to engage in. Idealists believe harming
others is universally wrong and are committed to
avoid harming others, even in cases of situational
urgency. Further, idealists optimistically assume
desirable outcomes can be obtained by engaging in
moral actions. Conversely, those low in idealism
recognize that moral actions do not always lead to
desirable outcomes and that harm to others is
sometimes necessary to produce the greatest good
for the greatest number affected by a decision
(Forsyth, 1992).
 Role of Ethical Ideology
The second dimension, relativism, is the degree
that individuals reject universal moral rules (e.g. do
not steal, tell the truth, do onto others as you would
have them do onto you) when making moral deci-
sions. Relativists are skeptical of and tend to disre-
gard universal moral rules when distinguishing
between right and wrong. Instead, relativists believe
that moral actions are predicated on elements within
the situation and individuals involved. As a result,
relativists weigh specific circumstances and personal
values more than the relevant ethical principle when
making an ethical decision (Forsyth, 1992). In
contrast, those low in relativism strongly believe in
and strictly adhere to universal moral absolutes when
making ethical decisions. These universal rules must
be followed with no exceptions even if violations
will lead to positive outcomes. Forsyth (1980) and
subsequent researchers (Forsyth et al., 1988; Davis
et al., 2001) have demonstrated that idealism and
relativism are orthogonal dimensions of ethical
ideology.
Previous studies have explored the ability of
ethical ideology to predict reactions to psychological
(e.g. Schlenker and Forsyth, 1977; Forsyth and
Pope, 1984) and animal research studies (e.g. Galvin
and Herzog, 1992; Wuensch and Poteat, 1998),
sexual attitudes (Singh and Forsyth, 1989), evalua-
tions of social–sexual behavior (Bowes-Sperry and
Powell, 1999), tolerance for ambiguity (Yurtsever,
2000), right-wing authoritarianism (McHoskey,
1996), Machiavellianism (Leary et al., 1986), self-
monitoring (Rim, 1982), attributions for wrong-
doing (Forsyth, 1981), and creativity (Yurtsever, 1998).
However, there is a paucity of research examining
the relationship between ethical ideology and ethical
behavior (for exceptions see Forsyth and Berger,
1982; Forsyth and Nye, 1990). In fact, Forsyth
(1980) noted a tenuous link between the two and
called for more empirical research to determine the
predictive validity of ethical ideology with regards to
moral behavior.
Hypotheses
In response to Forsyth’s call for research exploring
the relationship between ethical ideology and ethical
behavior, we hypothesize that employees higher in
idealism will be less likely than those lower in ide-
221
alism to engage in workplace deviance directed at
both the organization and individuals within it.
Individuals high in idealism are concerned with the
welfare of others, and in particular, maximizing
positive outcomes for all impacted by a decision or
behavior. As such, idealists should be more likely to
refrain from workplace deviance because not only
can it hurt their employer financially, but it can have
negative psychological and physical consequences
for other employees in the work setting.
Support for this proposition is offered by Forsyth
et al. (1988) who examined the relationship between
ethical ideology and ethic of caring, which refers to
the principle that hurting others is selfish and im-
moral (Gilligan, 1982). Those espousing an ethic of
caring emphasize the wellbeing of others and try to
minimize their suffering and pain. Using a sample of
undergraduate college students, the authors found
that idealistic individuals were more likely to adopt
an ethic of caring. Forsyth (1981) also demonstrated
that idealists believe that harm to others should be
minimized. He did this by having participants eval-
uate scenarios in which a person is responsible for a
particular event. Results indicated that when the
individual in the scenario acted in a way that led to
negative consequences that were foreseen or inten-
tional, those high in idealism perceived the indi-
vidual more negatively than those low in idealism.
Finally, researchers have found that idealists are
more likely to recognize morally questionable
behaviors as ethical issues (Bowes-Sperry and Powell,
1999) and have greater perceptions of moral
intensity, which refers to the extent that a situation is
perceived as having an ethical component
(Singhapakdi, 1999). In addition, idealists perceive
the importance of ethics in achieving organizational
effectiveness (Singhapakdi et al., 1995) and are more
likely to exhibit higher levels of honesty and integ-
rity (Vitell et al., 1993) as well as perceive ethics and
social responsibility as more important than less
idealistic individuals (Singhapakdi et al., 1995). Ta-
ken together, these studies suggest that idealists will
recognize workplace deviance as an ethical issue and
refrain from these acts in an effort to protect their
employers and coworkers from harm that can result
from deviant work behaviors.
Hypothesis 1: Idealism will be negatively corre-
lated with organizational and interpersonal deviance.
222 Christine A. Henle et al.
Second, we hypothesize that employees higher in
relativism will be more likely to engage in workplace
deviance targeting both organizations and other
employees than those lower in relativism. As pre-
viously stated, individuals who are high in relativism
do not adhere to universal moral beliefs whereas
those low in relativism diligently obey moral rules.
Thus, individuals lower in relativism will be less
likely to engage in workplace deviance because it
would involve violating moral standards such as the
‘‘Golden Rule’’ or ‘‘Thou shall not steal.’’ Con-
versely, those higher in relativism are more likely to
reject universal moral codes, thus, increasing the
likelihood of them being able to justify workplace
deviance. Relativists evaluate situations and their
personal values then making ethical decisions, which
provides them with justifications unavailable to
those low in relativism (e.g. ‘‘I have been under a lot
of stress at work’’, ‘‘Organizations often mistreat
workers’’). As research has found, relativists are less
likely to espouse an ethic of caring (Forsyth et al.,
1988), less likely to perceive those who intentionally
harm others negatively (Forsyth, 1981), and less
likely to exhibit honesty and integrity (Vitell et al.,
1993). Also, higher levels of relativism tend to in-
hibit an individual’s ability to recognize ethical issues
(Forsyth, 1981, 1985; Forsyth and Pope, 1984;
Forsyth et al., 1988; Bowes-Sperry and Powell,
1999), lower perceptions of moral intensity
(Singhapakdi, 1999), and decrease the perceived
importance of ethics and social responsibility
(Singhapakdi et al., 1995). In summary, these studies
suggest that relativists will be more likely to participate
in workplace deviance than those lower in relativism.
Hypothesis 2: Relativism will be positively cor-
related with organizational and interpersonal devi-
ance.
Finally, we hypothesize that idealism and relativism
will interact to predict workplace deviance.
Employees lower in relativism firmly adhere to uni-
versal moral rules and as such are not likely to engage
in deviance targeting organizations and other
employees. Thus, there will only be a relationship
between idealism and deviance when relativism is
higher. Employees higher in relativism disregard so-
cially accepted codes of conduct, which predisposes
them toward workplace deviance. Further, relativists
will be even more likely to be deviant when they are
also lower in idealism because they not only reject
moral rules, but recognize that sometimes harming
others is unavoidable. Conversely, relativists will be
less likely to perform deviant work behaviors when
they are also higher in idealism because the value
placed on the welfare of others.
Research in marketing provides some evidence
for this interaction effect. First, in their examination
of elderly consumers, Vitell et al. (1991) found that
individuals higher in relativism and lower in idealism
were more likely to believe that unethical or illegal
consumer behaviors (e.g. changing price tags,
stretching the truth on an income tax return) were
ethical. Similarly, Rawwas (1996) replicated this
finding with a sample of Austrian consumers. Al-
though these studies did not directly assess the
relationship between ethical ideology and unethical
behaviors, they do suggest that individuals who are
higher in relativism and lower in idealism should be
less likely to perceive workplace deviance as
unethical and thus more likely to engage in these
behaviors. Therefore, we offer the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Idealism and relativism will interact
to predict organizational and interpersonal deviance
in such a way that idealism and deviance will only be
related when relativism is higher.
Method
Procedure and sample
As part of a required class project, 84 employed MBA
students enrolled in the business school programs at
two southeastern U.S. universities were administered
and completed a series of questionnaires throughout
the semester. Respondents received an optical scan
sheet each time the questionnaires were adminis-
tered. In order to maintain anonymity and still be
able to match each respondent’s survey to those
previously completed, respondents were asked to
create a fictitious name by inserting the two initials of
a favorite sports figure, the last name of a performer,
and the name of a food in the space on the optical
sheet reserved for the respondent’s name. This ficti-
 Role of Ethical Ideology
tious name became their code name and allowed us
to match questionnaires completed at different times.
Respondents completed the questionnaire pertaining
to their ethical ideology at the beginning of the
semester and the survey asking about the frequency
in which they commit deviant acts in the workplace
4 months later.
The sample was mostly female (49% female, 37%
male, 14% unknown), white (66% white, 12%
African American, 5% Asian American, 2% Latino,
1% other, 14% unknown), and between the ages of
26 and 35 (19% between 18 and 25, 67% between 26
and 35, 6% between 36 and 45, 2% between 46 and
55, 6% unknown). Most participants worked
full-time (61% full-time, 21% part-time, 18% unknown),
in the public sector (42% public, 39% private, 19%
unknown), and for their current employer for 5 years
or less (73% 5 years or less, 13% more than 5 years,
14% unknown). Participants worked in a variety of
industries with most employed in banking/financial
(29%), marketing/sales (16%), manufacturing (13%),
medical (8%), and education (7%).
Measures
Ethical ideology. Ethical ideology was measured using
the Ethics Position Questionnaire (Forsyth, 1980).
The EPQ requires that individuals indicate their
acceptance of items that vary in terms of relativism
and idealism on a 9-point scale (1 ¼ completely
disagree, 9 ¼ completely agree) with higher scores
indicating greater relativism and idealism. The
10-item relativism scale includes items like ‘‘Different
types of moralities cannot be compared as to
‘rightness’.’’ and ‘‘What is ethical varies from one
situation and society to another.’’ The 10-item
idealism scale, in contrast, uses items such as ‘‘A
person should make certain that their actions never
intentionally harm another even to a small degree.’’
and ‘‘If an action could harm an innocent other,
then it should not be done.’’ Mean scores were
calculated for each scale. Previous research has sup-
ported the two-factor structure and the reliability
and validity of the scales (e.g. Forsyth, 1980; Forsyth
and Pope, 1984). The idealism scale had a coefficient
alpha of 0.83 while the relativism scale had a coef-
ficient alpha of 0.79 in the current study.
223
Workplace deviance. Workplace deviance was mea-
sured using a scale developed by Bennett and Rob-
inson (2000) that asks employees the frequency in
which they engage in deviant work behaviors rang-
ing from 1 ¼ never to 7 ¼ daily. This scale differ-
entiates between deviance directed at organizations
and deviance directed at individuals. The organiza-
tional deviance scale contains 12 items (e.g. ‘‘Taken
property from work without permission’’) while the
interpersonal deviance scale includes 7 items (e.g.
‘‘Acted rudely toward or argued with someone at
work’’). This measure was designed to be general-
izable across many organizational settings. Bennett
and Robinson (2000) conducted confirmatory factor
analyses and found good fit for the two-factor model
and provided preliminary evidence of the scales’
convergent and discriminant validity.
Self-reports were used because supervisors and
coworkers are unlikely to have knowledge of these
behaviors as they are often performed covertly and
research has shown self-reports are accurate measures
of behavior (Spector, 1992). Further, previous re-
search suggests that workplace deviance can be
measured through self-reports if participants are
guaranteed anonymity (e.g. Bennett and Robinson,
2000), which was provided in the current study. And
finally, as researchers have pointed out, no study has
demonstrated different results for self-reports in
comparison to other methods of assessing workplace
deviance (e.g. Fox and Spector, 1999). In this study,
the coefficient alpha for organizational deviance was
0.73 and 0.83 for interpersonal deviance.
Control variables. Three demographic variables were
measured because of their potential relationship with
workplace deviance and to ensure that the rela-
tionship between ethical ideology and deviance was
not confounded. For instance, gender was controlled
for because males tend to engage in more aggressive
behavior at work (e.g. Baron et al., 1999), absen-
teeism (e.g. Johns, 1997), theft (e.g. Hollinger and
Clark, 1983), substance abuse (e.g. Hollinger, 1988),
and vandalism (e.g. DeMore et al., 1988). Age was
also controlled because empirical evidence indicates
that older employees tend to be more honest than
younger employees (Lewicki et al., 1997) as well as
less likely to abuse alcohol and controlled substances
(e.g. Lehman and Bennett, 2002), steal (e.g.
Hollinger and Clark, 1983), and engage in organizational
224 Christine A. Henle et al.

TABLE I
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among study variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a
1. Gender 1.43 0.50 –
2. Ageb 1.91 0.60 )0.04 –
3. Tenurec 2.01 0.59 0.12 0.30** –
4. Idealism 6.20 1.30 )0.20* 0.04 0.20* (0.83)
5. Relativism 5.10 1.32 0.10 )0.05 )0.17 0.27** (0.79)
6. Organizational 2.63 0.91 0.19* 0.19* )0.08 )0.26** )0.09 (0.73)
deviance
7. Interpersonal deviance 2.00 0.96 0.20* 0.14 )0.11 )0.24* 0.10 0.57*** (0.83)
Note. N = 84. Alpha coefficients listed in parenthesis along diagonal. a1 = Female and 2 = Male. bl = 18–25 years old,
2 = 26–35 years old, 3 = 36–45 years old, 4 = 46–55 years old, 5 = 56–65 years old, 6 = over 65 years old. cl = less
than 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 6–10 years, 4 = 11–20 years, 5 = 21–25 years, 6 = over 25 years.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

deviance (Hollinger, 1986). Finally, we controlled To test Hypothesis 3, hierarchical regression

for tenure because research by Hollinger et al.
(1992) suggests that employees with less tenure are
more likely to commit organizational deviance.
Results
Table I summarizes the means, standard deviations,
reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the vari-
ables. On average, participants indicated that they
slightly agreed that they were idealistic and relativis-
tic. Further, they engaged in organizational deviance
almost on a monthly basis and interpersonal deviance
once a year. Gender was significantly correlated with
both organizational and interpersonal deviance (males
were more likely to be deviant) while age was sig-
nificantly correlated with organizational deviance
(older employees were more likely to be deviant), but
not interpersonal deviance. Tenure was not signifi-
cantly related to either type of deviance. Hypothesis 1
predicted that idealism would be negatively corre-
lated with organizational and interpersonal deviance.
As Table I indicates, employees lower in idealism
were more likely to engage in both organizational
(r ¼ )0.26, p < 0.01) and interpersonal deviance
(r ¼ )0.24, p < 0.05) than those higher in idealism,
thus supporting Hypothesis 1. Conversely, no sup-
port was found for Hypothesis 2 as relativism was not
significantly related to either organizational or inter-
personal deviance.
analyses were conducted to determine if idealism and
relativism interact to predict organizational and
interpersonal deviance. Separate regression equations
were run for each type of deviance and the control
variables were entered in Step 1, followed by the
main effects of idealism and relativism in Step 2, and
the interaction term for idealism and relativism in
Step 3. As recommended by Aiken and West (1991),
ethical ideology was centered before forming the
interaction terms to reduce multicollinearity that is
typically associated with regression equations con-
taining interaction terms.
Table II indicates that the control variables were
not significant predictors of organizational deviance.
However, ethical ideology significantly predicted
organizational deviance beyond the effects of the
control variables (DR2 ¼ 0.09, p < 0.05) and this
effect was driven by idealism (b ¼ )0.32, p < 0.05).
More importantly, the interaction between idealism
and relativism was significant for organizational
deviance (b ¼ )0.27, p < 0.05). To determine the
nature of this interaction, it was probed and plotted
using the method recommended by Aiken and West
(1991). First, the regression equation was restruc-
tured to represent the regression of organizational
deviance on idealism at low and high levels of rel-
ativism. Low and high values of relativism were
computed as one standard deviation below the mean
and one standard deviation above the mean,
respectively. Then, the simple slopes of the equa-
 Role of Ethical Ideology 225

TABLE II
Results of hierarchical regression analysis predicting workplace deviance

Variable Organizational deviance Interpersonal deviance

2
b R b R2
Step 1 0.08 0.10
Gendera 0.21 0.23
Ageb 0.21 0.21
Tenurec )0.17 )0.20
Step 2 0.17* 0.18*
Idealism )0.32* )0.32*
Relativism 0.01 0.20
Step 3 0.24** 0.19*
Idealism · relativism )0.27* )0.12
Note. N = 84. al = Female and 2 = Male. bl = 18–25 years old, 2 = 26–35 years old, 3 = 36–45 years old, 4 = 46–
55 years old, 5 = 56–65 years old, 6 = over 65 years old. cl = less than 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 6–10 years, 4 = 11–
20 years, 5 = 21–25 years, 6 = over 25 years.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

TABLE III
Tests of simple slopes of regression for interaction
between idealism and relativism in the prediction of
organizational deviance

Level of relativism Simple slope SE t

Low )0.11 0.10 )0.70
High )0.50 0.10 )3.40**
Note. **p < 0.01.
tions were evaluated determine if they differed from
zero (see Table III). As shown in Figure 1 and
Table III, there was no relationship between idealism
and organizational deviance when relativism was
lower. However, at higher levels of relativism, ide-
alism was related to organizational deviance. That is,
employees higher in relativism were more likely to
commit organizational deviance when they were
lower in idealism and less likely when they were
higher in idealism, thus supporting Hypothesis 3.
As shown in Table II, the control variables did
not significantly predict interpersonal deviance.
However, ethical ideology did explain variance in
interpersonal deviance beyond that explained by the
control variables (DR2 ¼ 0.08, p < 0.05) and again,
idealism explained this effect (b ¼ )0.32, p < 0.05).
This indicates that employees lower in idealism are
more likely to perform interpersonal deviance.
Figure 1. Interaction between idealism and relativism in
predicting organizational deviance.
Unfortunately, there was not a significant interaction
between idealism and relativism for interpersonal
deviance. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported for
interpersonal deviance.
Discussion
An individual’s ethical ideology provides guidelines
for evaluating ethically questionable behaviors and
ultimately deciding to refrain or engage in them. As
shown in this study, employees differ in their deci-
sion to participate in workplace deviance depending
on their personal ethical ideology. Correlational
analyses indicated that idealism was negatively re-
lated to both organizational and interpersonal devi-
ance while, contrary to prediction, relativism was
226 Christine A. Henle et al.
not related to either type of deviance. Regression
analyses demonstrated that idealism and relativism
interacted to predict organizational deviance in such
a way that there was only a relationship between
idealism and deviant behavior when relativism was
higher. Employees higher in relativism were more
likely to engage in deviant behaviors targeting their
organization when they were lower in idealism and
less likely to participate in deviance when they were
higher in idealism. Next, idealism predicted inter-
personal deviance; employees lower in idealism were
more likely to act deviantly towards others in their
work environment. However, there was not a sig-
nificant interaction between idealism and relativism
for interpersonal deviance. In summary, this study
demonstrates that certain ethical standards are asso-
ciated with greater or lesser degrees of employee
deviance. While this does not argue for the superi-
ority of one ideology over another, it indicates that
some ideologies are linked to lower levels of deviant
behavior.
There was an unexpected finding that warrants
further discussion. Relativism was not highly cor-
related with workplace deviance and did not interact
with idealism to predict interpersonal deviance. Al-
though this was contrary to the study’s hypotheses,
in retrospect, it is not surprising. Relativists reject
universal moral rules in favor of acting based on the
circumstances of the situation. Thus, had we in-
cluded situational moderators (e.g. organizational
justice), we might have found that there is a rela-
tionship between relativism and workplace deviance
(e.g. relativism predicts workplace deviance when
perceptions of justice are low). Future research
should experimentally manipulate a precipitating
event for workplace deviance (e.g. abusive supervi-
sion) or measure aspects of the workplace that might
induce relativists to act in a deviant manner (e.g. low
pay, job insecurity, negative performance evalua-
tions).
The implications of this study extend beyond
simply demonstrating an ethical ideology-workplace
deviance relationship. First, if ethical ideology can
impact deviance propensity, it undoubtedly impacts
individual perceptions of deviant actions and how
others respond to the deviance (Singhapakdi, 1999).
Thus, employees with particular ethical ideologies
may not only be willing to behave deviantly, but also
may be tolerant of others’ deviance and less willing
to report these behaviors to management. Thus,
whistleblowing may be likely only among employ-
ees higher in idealism and lower in relativism. Not
only will colleagues witnessing deviant behavior be
impacted by their ethical ideology, but managers
tasked with making disciplinary decisions are also
affected. Managers’ ideologies may make them more
or less willing to adhere to organizational policies
and procedures regarding discipline in the work-
place. As such, some employees engaging in work-
place deviance may be disciplined while others go
unpunished, depending on the ethical ideology of
their manager. In summary, an individual’s personal
standards will impact how he or she responds to a
coworker’s deviant behavior (Giacalone et al.,
1999), or disciplines a subordinate’s deviant behavior
(Eylon et al., 2000). Such personalized standards not
only lead to disparate reporting and inconsistent
disciplinary standards, but may motivate even more
deviant behavior (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997).
To remedy these issues, organizations may want
to provide incentives, such as monetary rewards or
formal recognition, to encourage the reporting of
these acts. Further, the detrimental effects of these
behaviors should be clearly outlined for employees
to demonstrate that these behaviors have far reaching
consequences for not only the organization, but for
its employees. Likewise, top management needs to
hold managers accountable for detecting and pun-
ishing these behaviors according to an established
organizational policy. The frequency of these
behaviors could be tracked and tied to managerial
performance evaluations with reductions in occur-
rence within work groups recognized and rewarded.
Second, the results further support claims that
effective training to prevent unethical and deviant
behavior requires attention to both individual dif-
ferences and company codes of conduct (Knouse and
Giacalone, 1997). Because individual differences in
ethical ideology result in varying perceptions of
ethical acceptability (Forsyth, 1992), employees will
respond to deviance within their personal ideological
framework, leading to disparate and idiosyncratic
behavioral responses and consequences. Given that
the current results demonstrate the impact of ethical
ideology, effective training would need to achieve
three outcomes in order to create more consistent
behavioral responses and consequences within orga-
nizations. First, training should help employees rec-
 Role of Ethical Ideology
ognize how their ideological stances impact decision
making, making particular note of the judgment
deficits that result from ideological limitations. For
example, because those low in idealism tend to be less
concerned with the negative repercussions of a
decision on others, they may fail to gather more basic
data about potentially deleterious consequences. This
failure to gather adequate information may result in a
decision in which the negative impact on others
would be too severe even for one low in idealism.
Next, training should help foster a way to critically
evaluate one’s own decision making ideology, as well
as the ideologies of others, so as to better understand
(and utilize) these divergent ideological positions in
searching for ethical alternatives (see Paul, 1993).
Finally, training should provide a way to resolve
these ideological disparities and help employees make
decisions within the context of the organization’s
code of conduct. In summary, awareness of the code
of conduct is a necessary first step for training pro-
grams, but without addressing the various personal
ideologies, this code may be interpreted in many
different ways, some of which are contrary to the
organizational intentions.
As with any empirical study, there are limitations
that must be acknowledged. First, the results of the
current study are based on a small sample size. Given
the difficulty in detecting moderation effects
(Aguinis et al., in press), a larger sample might have
increased our ability to detect the hypothesized
interaction effects for interpersonal deviance. Thus,
it may be premature to conclude that idealism and
relativism do not interact in the prediction of devi-
ance targeting others at work. Future research
should further explore these relationships with larger
sample sizes. Second, the data were collected from
self-reports, which leads to the potential for com-
mon method bias. As previously mentioned,
self-reports have been found to be an accurate
method of assessing behaviors like workplace devi-
ance. It seems likely that if participants were to
respond inaccurately, they would underreport devi-
ance in an effort to engage in impression management.
Thus, the results of the current study may actually be
underestimating the true relationship between ethical
ideology and deviance. In an attempt to address this
issue, participants were ensured anonymity and were
not given all the measures at once, but rather they were
spread out over a four month period. Although this
227
does not completely alleviate the problem, it does
make it less likely that common method bias explains
the relationships found in this study.
Despite these limitations, we believe the current
study provides a useful contribution to the ethics
literature. Future research should extend this work by
investigating potential moderators of the relationship
between ethical ideology and workplace deviance.
For instance, employees espousing an ideology that
enables them to justify deviance may be less likely to
do so in the presence of organizational, supervisory,
or coworker norms condemning these acts. Likewise,
organizations implementing strict policies and disci-
plinary procedures against workplace deviance may
be more likely to curtail employees from behaving in
a deviant manner despite their ethical ideology. In
addition, future research should explore the possi-
bility that certain personality traits may mediate the
relationship between ethical ideology and workplace
deviance. Individuals with certain ideologies may
also hold particular personality traits, which may
make it more or less likely for them to engage in
workplace deviance. For example, individuals high in
idealism might also be high in conscientiousness or
those high in relativism might also be characterized as
rebellious. Thus, it may be that these personality traits
drive the likelihood of employees participating in
workplace deviance.
In conclusion, the above results suggest that
ethical ideology may be an important mechanism
through which organizations can determine which
employees will engage in socially disapproved
behavior. Reducing, and ultimately, controlling the
occurrence of these behaviors is paramount to
organizations as the costs are high, both in imme-
diate economic impact and in long-term effect on
organizational culture and human resource man-
agement. These findings also suggest managing this
component of workplace life requires skillful
managerial input in creating organizational systems
that reward accountability and underscores the
importance of creating an ethical work environ-
ment. Beyond the empirical understanding of the
relationship between individual differences and
behaviors, offering managerial support in encour-
aging the reporting and consistent discipline of
deviant work behaviors as well as training regarding
ethical ideology appears useful in addressing this
problem.
228 Christine A. Henle et al.
References
Aguinis, H., J. C. Beaty, R. J. Boik and C. A. Pierce: in press,
‘Effect Size and Power in Assessing Moderating Effects
of Categorical Variables using Multiple Regression:
A 30 year Review’, Journal of Applied Psychology.
Aiken, L. S. and S. G. West: 1991, Multiple Regression: Testing
and Interpreting Interactions (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).
Baron, R. A., J. H. Neuman and D. Geddes: 1999,
‘Social and Personal Determinants of Workplace
Aggression: Evidence for the Impact of Perceived
Injustice and the Type A Behavior Pattern’, Aggressive
Behavior 25, 281–296.
Bennett, R. J. and S. L. Robinson: 2000, ‘The Devel-
opment of a Measure of Workplace Deviance’, Journal
of Applied Psychology 85, 349–360.
Bowes-Sperry, L. and G. N. Powell: 1999, ‘Observers’
Reaction to Social–Sexual Behavior at Work: An
Ethical Decision Making Perspective’, Journal of Man-
agement 25, 779–802.
Case, J.: 2000, Employee Theft: The Profit Killer (John Case
& Associates, Del Mar, CA).
Coffin, B.: 2003, ‘Breaking the Silence on White Collar
Crime’, Risk Management 50, 8.
Davis, M. A., M. G. Andersen and M. B. Curtis: 2001,
‘Measuring Ethical Ideology in Business Ethics: A
Critical Analysis of the Ethics Position Questionnaire’,
Journal of Business Ethics 32, 35–53.
DeMore, S. W., J. D. Fisher and R. M. Baron: 1988,
‘The Equity-Control Model as a Predictor of
Vandalism among College Students’, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 18, 80–91.
Douglas, S. C. and M. J. Martinko: 2001, ‘Exploring the
Role of Individual Differences in the Prediction of
Workplace Aggression’, Journal of Applied Psychology
86, 547–559.
Eylon, D., R A. Giacalone and H. G. Pollard: 2000,
‘Beyond Contractual Interpretation: Bias in Arbitra-
tors’ Case Perceptions and Award Recommendation’,
Journal of Organizational Behavior 21, 513–524.
Forsyth, D. R.: 1980, ‘A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideolo-
gies’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 175–
184.
Forsyth, D. R.: 1981, ‘Moral judgment: The Influence of
Ethical Ideology’, Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin 7, 218–223.
Forsyth, D. R.: 1985, ‘Individual Differences Information
Integration during Moral Judgment’, Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 49, 264–272.
Forsyth, D. R.: 1992, ‘Judging the Morality of Business
Practices: The Influence of Personal Moral Philoso-
phies’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 461–470.
Forsyth, D. R. and R. E. Berger: 1982, ‘The Effects of
Ethical Ideology on Moral Behavior’, The Journal of
Social Psychology 117, 53–56.
Forsyth, D. R and J. L. Nye: 1990, ‘Personal Moral
Philosophies and Moral Choice’, Journal of Research in
Personality 24, 398–414.
Forsyth, D. K., J. L. Nye and K. Kelley: 1988, ‘Idealism,
Relativism, and the Ethic of Caring’, Journal of Psy-
chology 122, 243–248.
Forsyth, D. R. and W. R. Pope: 1984, ‘Ethical Ideology
and Judgments of Social Psychological Research:
Multidimensional Analysis’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 46, 1365–1375.
Fox, S. and P. E. Spector: 1999, ‘A Model of Work
Frustration-Aggression’, Journal of Organizational
Behavior 20, 915–931.
Galvin, S. L. and H. A. Herzog: 1992, ‘Ethical Ideology,
Animal Rights Activism, and Attitudes toward the
Treatment of Animals’, Ethics & Behavior 2, 141–149.
Giacalone, R. A. and J. Greenberg (eds.): 1997, Antisocial
Behavior in Organizations (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).
Giacalone, R. A., H. G. Pollard and S. B. Knouse: 1999,
‘Willingness to Report Unethical Behavior in Exit
Surveys’, Teaching Business Ethics 3, 309–321.
Giacalone, R. A., C. A. Riordan and P. Rosenfeld: 1997,
‘Employee Sabotage: Toward a Practitioner-Scholar
Understanding’ , in R. A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg
(eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, (Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 109–129.
Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA).
Griffin, R. W., A. O’Leary-Kelly and J. Collins: 1998,
‘Dysfunctional Work Behaviors in Organizations’, in
C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau (eds.), Trends in
Organizational Behavior, Volume 5 (John Wiley & Sons,
New York), pp. 65–82.
Henle, C. A.: in press. Predicting Workplace Deviance
from the interaction between Organizational Justice
and Personality; Journal of Managerial Issues.
Hogan, R.: 1973, ‘Moral Conduct and Moral Character:
A Psychological Perspective’, Psychological Bulletin 79,
217–232.
Hollinger, R. C.: 1986, ‘Acts against the Workplace:
Social Bonding and Employee Deviance’, Deviant
Behavior 7, 53–75.
Hollinger, R. C.: 1988, ‘Working under the Influence
(WUI): Correlates of Employees’ Use of Alcohol and
Other Drugs’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 24,
439–454.
Hollinger, R. C. and J. P. Clark: 1983, ‘Deterrence in
the Workplace: Perceived Certainty, Perceived Sever-
ity, and Employee Theft’, Social Forces 62, 398–418.
 Role of Ethical Ideology
Hollinger, R. C., K. B. Slora and W. Terris: 1992,
‘Deviance in the Fast-Food Restaurant: Correlates of
Employee Theft, Altruism, and Counterproductivity’,
Deviant Behavior 13, 155–184.
Johns, G.: 1997, ‘Contemporary Research on Absence
from Work: Correlates, Causes, and Consequences’, in
C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds.), International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Wiley, London), pp. 115–174.
Knouse, S. B. and R. A. Giacalone: 1997, ‘The Six
Components of Ethics Training’, Business and Society
Review 98, 10–13.
Kohlberg, L.: 1983, Moral Stages: A Current Formulation
and a Response to Critics (Karger, New York).
Kohlberg, L.: 1984, The Psychology of Moral Development:
Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Harper & Row, San
Francisco).
Leary, M. R., P. D. Knight and B. D. Barnes: 1986,
‘Ethical Ideologies of the Machiavellian’, Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 12, 75–80.
Lehman, W. E. K. and J. B. Bennett: 2002, ‘Job Risk and
Employee Substance Use: The Influence of Personal
Background and Work Environment Factors’, Ameri-
can Journal of Alcohol Abuse 28, 263–286.
Lewicki, R. J., T. Poland, J. W. Minton and
B. H. Sheppard: 1997, ‘Dishonesty as Deviance: A
Typology of Workplace Dishonesty and Contributing
Factors’, in R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard and R. J. Bies
(eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Volume 6
(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 53–86.
McHoskey, J. H.: 1996, ‘Authoritarianism and Ethical
Ideology’, Journal of Social Psychology 136, 709–717.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., R. W., Griffin and D. J. Glew:
1996, ‘Organization-Motivated Aggression: A
Research Framework’, Academy of Management Journal
21, 225–253.
Paul, R.: 1993, Critical Thinking (Foundation for Critical
Thinking, Santa Rosa, CA).
Rawwas, M. Y. A: 1996, ‘Consumer Ethics: An Empir-
ical Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Austrian
Consumers’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 1009–1019.
Rest J. R. (ed.): 1990, Moral Development: Advances in
Research and Therapy (Prager Publishers, Boston).
Rim, Y.: 1982, ‘Self-Monitoring, Ethical Position, Per-
sonality, Values, and Cognitive Performance’, Person-
ality and Individual Differences 3, 219–220.
Robinson, S. L. and R. J. Bennett: 1995, ‘A Typology
of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional
Scaling Study’, Academy of Management Journal 38, 555–572.
229
Salgado, J. F.: 2002, ‘The Big Five Personality Dimen-
sions and Counterproductive Behaviors’, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment 10, 117–125.
Schlenker, B. R. and D. R. Forsyth: 1977, ‘On the Ethics
of Psychological Research’, Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology 13, 369–396.
Singh, B. and D. R. Forsyth: 1989, ‘Sexual Attitudes
and Moral Values: The Importance of Idealism and
Relativism’, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 27,
160–162.
Singhapakdi, A.: 1999, ‘Antecedents, Consequences, and
Mediating Effects of Perceived Moral Intensity and
Personal Moral Philosophies’, Academy of Marketing
Science Journal 27, 19–36.
Singhapakdi, A., K. L. Kraft, S. J. Vitell and K. C. Rallapalli:
1995, ‘The Perceived Importance of Ethics and
Social Responsibility on Organizational Effectiveness: A
Survey of Marketers’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 23, 49–56.
Skarlicki, D. P., R. Folger and P. Tesluk: 1999, ‘Per-
sonality as a Moderator in the Relationship between
Fairness and Retaliation’, Academy of Management
Journal 42, 100–108.
Spector, P. E.: 1992, ‘A Consideration of the Validity
and Meaning of Self-Report Measures of Job Con-
ditions’, in C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds.),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Volume 7 (Wiley, New York), pp.
123–155.
Vitell, S. J., J. R. Lumpkin and M. Y. A. Rawwas: 1991,
‘Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical
Beliefs of Elderly Consumers’, Journal of Business Ethics
10, 365–375.
Vitell, S. J., K. C. Rallapalli and A. Singhapakdi: 1993,
‘Marketing Norms: The Influences of Personal
Moral Philosophies and Organizational Ethical Cul-
ture’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21,
331–337.
Wuensch, K. L. and G. M. Poteat: 1998, ‘Evaluating the
Morality of Animal Research: Effects of Ethical Ide-
ology, Gender, and Purpose’, Journal of Social Behavior
& Personality 13, 139–150.
Yurtsever, G.: 1998, ‘Ethical Beliefs and Creativity’,
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 13, 747–754.
Yurtsever, G.: 2000, ‘Ethical Beliefs and Tolerance of
Ambiguity’, Social Behavior and Personality 28,
141–148.
230 Christine A. Henle et al.

Christine A. Henle Carole L. Jurkiewicz

Department of Management, Public Administration Institute,
Belk College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University, U.S.A.
University of North Carolina-Charlotte, Charlotte, N C 28223, U.S.A.
E-mail: cahenle@email.uncc.edu

Robert A. Giacalone
Department of Human Resource Management,
Temple University, U.S.A.