THE NORMALIZATION OF CORRUPTION IN ORGANIZATIONS

By Blake E. Ashforth, Vikas Anand. 2003

1,330 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf74ad6f32d51e5ff4840a640af503fc6688e818

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review (2017, background): “…effects of proenvironmental behaviors and emotional contagion (Robertson & Barling, 2013) and the normalization of corruption in organizations (Ashforth & Anand, 2003) have the potential to clarify the institutionalization and learning processes that guide CSR actions and behaviors over time…”
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives and Toward a More Holistic Definition (2016, background): “justified, and, in turn, results in the socialization of newcomers into unethical conduct (Ashforth and Anand 2003).”
A Model of Neutralization Techniques (2018, methodology): “This is what Ashforth and Anand (2003) call minimization: People technically accept what happened but only in a “watered down” form, and by suppressing the knowledge, at the extreme, they selectively forget the deviant behavior such that in some sense it never happened.”
Moral Disengagement in Processes of Organizational Corruption (2008, background): “…facilitate unethical decision making are more likely than others to advance within organizations, they will then be in positions of leadership replete with opportunities to model, reward, or further embed corrupt practices into the social structure of the organization (Ashforth and Anand, 2003).”
The Psychic Cost of Doing Wrong (2012, background): “People have a tendency to normalize and justify away unethical actions like organizational corruption (Ashforth & Anand, 2003).”
The impact of anti-corruption strategies on corruption free performance in public construction projects (2012, background): “This also validates earlier studies, wherein the importance of leadership has been stressed in the fight against corruption (Ruzindana, 1997; Tanzi, 1998; Ashforth and Anand, 2003).”
Master of Puppets: How Narcissistic CEOs Construct Their Professional Worlds (2017, background): “Although the CEO can be personally responsible for the malfeasance, excessive risk taking or intentional financial misreporting can also be routinized, rationalized, and eventually made permissible by other top executives (Ashforth & Anand, 2003).”
Doing good, doing harm, being well and burning out: The interactions of perceived prosocial and antisocial impact in service work (2007, background): “…in stigmatized work, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) proposed that service employees are able to justify doing harm to others by reframing, recalibrating and refocusing their attention to the ways in which their jobs are beneficial to others, thereby avoiding distress (see also Ashforth & Anand, 2003).”
Navigating the Bind of Necessary Evils: Psychological Engagement and the Production of Interpersonally Sensitive Behavior (2008, background): “In a broader model of how organizational corruption comes to be taken for granted and perpetuated, Ashforth and Anand (2003) identified eight “rationalizing ideologies” that reframe the meaning of misconduct even for those ambivalent about what they are doing.”
Putting job design in context: Introduction to the special issue (2010, background): “Other research similarly suggests that narrow, simplified jobs lead to a ‘that’s not my job’ mentality (Parker et al., 1997), which Ashforth and Anand (2003) suggested will promote corruption.”
Rationalization, Overcompensation and the Escalation of Corruption in Organizations (2009, background): “Ashforth and Anand (2003) cite socialization structures, euphemistic language and other organizational properties associated with sanctions and punishments that help individual actors to neutralize feelings of impropriety (also see Bauman, 1991; Jackall, 1988).”
Egoistic norms, organizational identification, and the perceived ethicality of unethical pro-organizational behavior: A moral maturation perspective (2020, background): “In settings with egoistic norms, employees who identify strongly with the organization are likely to internalize these norms and emphasize actions that benefit themselves, and simultaneously their organization, while ignoring actions that adversely impact external stakeholders (Ashforth and Anand, 2”
Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it (2016, background): “…act unethically for the benefit of others (e.g., Gino & Pierce, 2009, 2010; Wiltermuth, 2011) but don’t view themselves or their actions as immoral (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Benson, 1985) and tend to discount, rationalize, or justify the unethical actions of other members of their groups…”
Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review (2006, background): “…and thus our review considers a broader range of topics than recent reviews on, for example, ethical decision making (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005), ethical conduct (Treviño & Weaver, 2003), and processes by which unethical behavior becomes normalized in organizations (Ashforth & Anand, 2003).”
Developing a Measure of Unethical Behavior in the Workplace: A Stakeholder Perspective (2008, background): “The identified factors also did not correspond with the type of motives usually advanced to categorize different types of unethical behavior—unethical behavior for personal gain and for organizational gain (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Coleman, 1987).”
Status Differentiation and the Protean Self: A Social-Cognitive Model of Unethical Behavior in Organizations (2011, methodology): “Ashforth and Anand (2003) suggest that physical and social distance between groups enhances group members’ ability to depersonalize or dehumanize the other group and hence to psychologically distance themselves from the other groups’ experiences.”