Printer Friendly


Employees' unethical behavior refers to an employee's behavior that is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the wider community. The negative effects of employees' unethical behavior on organizations are not only serious but also extensive. This behavior may cause pecuniary loss (e.g., through stealing or responsibility shirking), reputational damage (e.g., through cheating or dishonesty), and lack of legitimacy (e.g., through cheating or bribery), and has thus been extensively researched over the past decade (Nafei, 2015). Further, unethical behavior can spread beyond the original setting (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009; Kaptein, 2011).

The approach of previous researchers to the mechanism of unethical behavior has been from three perspectives: bad apple (Trevino & Youngblood, 1990), bad barrel (Welsh & Ordonez, 2014), and interactionist (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998; Trevino, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006), in which unethical behavior is attributed to personal traits (such as gender, age, education level, work experience, moral philosophy, moral values, Machiavellian doctrine, and locus of control), institutionalization of ethics (environmental factors, such as competitive intensity, work goal setting, and rewards and punishment), or interaction between personal and environmental factors. We considered that the interactionist perspective that integrated the other two perspectives was explanatorily advantageous. However, although the interaction's effect on unethical behavior in an organization was emphasized in this perspective (Trevino, et al, 2006), how the consequence of specific interactions affected employees' unethical behavior or when this would happen, was not explained. Thus, we aimed to refine the interactionist perspective and develop a theory to explain the mechanism of employees' unethical behavior.

Within a hierarchical organization, the most important interaction occurs between employees and their supervisor, and this results in various organizational performances and individual subjective beliefs (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). Of these subjective beliefs that determine employees' behavior change, psychological contract is one (Randall, 1989). Psychological contract refers to a belief in payment in exchange for reciprocal obligations. The belief is that some form of a promise has been made and that the terms and conditions of the contract have been accepted by both parties (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).

Psychological contract breach refers to an employee's perception that the organization has failed to meet its obligations to him or her (Robinson, 1996). Previous researchers have focused on the suppressive effect of psychological contract breach on employees' positive behavior, such as conscientiousness, creative behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction (Kiazad, Seibert, & Kraimer, 2014; Rayton & Yalabik, 2014; Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2006; Restubog, Hornsey, Bordia, & Esposo, 2008), but they have rarely focused on the facilitating effect of psychological contract breach on employees' negative behavior, such as counterproductive or deviant behavior. Recently, empirical researchers have reported that psychological contract breach can result in employees' unethical behavior (Hill, Eckerd, Wilson, & Greer, 2009; Restubog, Zagenczyk, Bordia, Bordia, & Chapman, 2015). However, although Johnson and O'Leary-Kelly (2003) explained that each psychological contract breach is not equal, to our knowledge, there is no theory that explains why psychological contract breach sometimes results in employees' unethical behavior, rather than employees reducing their positive behavior. In this study, we set out to address this gap.

We therefore aimed to make three main contributions to the literature. First, we examined a relatively new antecedent of employees' unethical behavior, namely, psychological contract breach, which we argued is a personal rather than an interactive factor. Second, we explored an underlying mechanism for the relationship between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior. We posited that employees' unethical behavior is dependent on whether or not organizational disidentification happens simultaneously. Organizational disidentification refers to the cognitive process of no longer identifying with one's organization (Ashforth, Joshi, Anand, & O'Leary-Kelly, 2013). Thus, we explored the boundary conditions that explain the relationship between organizational disidentification and employees' unethical behavior, and the mediation process that transmits the psychological contract breach effects to employees' unethical behavior. We proposed organizational ethical climate as a moderator in the psychological contract breach-employees' unethical behavior relationship, and as a mediating mechanism.

We thus aimed to develop the first model of employees' unethical behavior in the workplace as a guide for practitioners in the management of employees' unethical behavior induced by superior-subordinate interaction, and we hoped that our model would lead to more interactionist research.

Literature Review and Hypothetical Model

Psychological Contract Breach and Employees' Unethical Behavior

Employees are likely to perceive psychological contract breach when their superior fails to deliver on promised pay or reciprocal obligations (Robinson & Morrison, 2000). Thus, it is reasonable to propose that the role of environmental factors is, unlike innate personal traits, transmitted through supervisors. In other words, psychological contract breach is an immediate outcome of administrative behavior. That employees' unethical behavior results from psychological contract breach is consistent with social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976), namely, reciprocal exchange underpins psychological contracts. When an imbalance in the reciprocal relationship occurs, employees adjust their behavior and attitudes toward the organization to restore the balance. In addition to reducing their positive work behavior, employees may increase their unethical behavior (Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Psychological contract breach will have a positive effect on employees' unethical behavior.

Mediating Role of Organizational Disidentification

Psychological contract breach by a supervisor does not inevitably result in employees' unethical behavior. Many researchers have argued that moral disengagement is the prerequisite of unethical behavior (e.g., Detert, Trevino, & Sweitzer, 2008; Moore, Detert, Klebe Trevino, Baker, Mayer, 2012). Moral disengagement refers to the use of mechanisms conducive to selective disengagement of moral censure. This is achieved by reconstructing behavior, obscuring causal agency, misrepresenting injurious consequences, and blaming victims (Obermann, 2011).

According to the moral disengagement view, the mechanism of blaming victims used by employees is to rationalize their unethical behavior while simultaneously blaming the organization for dereliction of duty (Moorthy, Seetharaman, Jaffar, & Foong, 2015). They may think "You don't pay me enough, so why shouldn't I get that money in my own way?" In contrast, we proposed that the true prerequisite for employees' unethical behavior is organizational disidentification. As employees with strong organizational identification have no reason to separate themselves from their organization, moral disengagement does not succeed in these circumstances. Disidentification refers to the process of no longer identifying oneself through one's role, occupation, organization, or nation (Ashforth et al., 2013). Empirical results from previous studies show that psychological contract breach can damage organizational identification (Epitropaki, 2013). Because organizational disidentification is a more specific variable than moral disengagement (Lai, Chan, & Lam, 2013), we chose it as the mediator between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior. This choice is consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel, 2010), according to which, organizational disidentification changes individuals' social identity perception and then affects their moral behavior. When employees separate themselves from their organization in terms of their identity, they can ignore moral considerations that benefit their organization. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Organizational disidentification will play a mediating role in the relationship between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior.

Moderating Role of Organizational Ethical Climate

Organizational ethical climate is defined as an organization's general and pervasive characteristics, which affect a broad range of decisions (Victor & Cullen, 1988). Empirical researchers have found that organizational ethical climate affects employees' unethical behavior (e.g., Liu & Jing, 2010; Ma & Du, 2014). Wang and Hsieh (2013) used organizational ethical climate to explain employees' undesirable silence behavior.

According to Wyld and Jones (1997), organizational ethical climate plays an important role in the process of ethical decision making. A strong ethical climate brings about a high level of ethical reasoning, which results in a high level of ethical decision making (Martin & Cullen, 2006) and reduces the probability of unethical behavior. Organizational ethical climate also provides symbolic resources and a psychological endorsement for employees to solve ethical dilemmas (Jaramillo, Mulki, & Solomon, 2006). If a high-level organizational ethical climate is formed, it inhibits employees' unethical behavior (Trevino, 1986), because they know that if they conduct unethical behavior, they will receive harsh criticism and punishment from their colleagues or the organization, whether or not their level of organizational disidentification is high or low. Thus, the negative effect of a high-level organizational ethical climate would offset the positive effect of organizational disidentification on employees' unethical behavior.

In contrast, when the organizational ethical climate level is low, employees' unethical behavior caused by organizational disidentification will increase significantly. In other words, organizational ethical climate negatively moderates the organizational disidentification effect on employees' unethical behavior. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a: Organizational ethical climate will negatively moderate the relationship between organizational disidentification and employees' unethical behavior.

If Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3a were both supported, a moderated mediation effect could be inferred, that is, that organizational ethical climate would moderate the mediating effect of organizational disidentification. Specifically, if the level of organizational ethical climate is high, the effect of psychological contract breach on employees' unethical behavior will be low, because the organizational disidentification effect would be offset by organizational ethical climate, and vice versa. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3b: Organizational ethical climate will moderate the mediating effect of organizational disidentification on the relationship between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior. That is, the higher the organizational ethical climate level is, the lower the mediating effect will be.

Therefore, we proposed a conceptual model (see Figure 1).


Participants and Procedure

Before we distributed the questionnaires, we marked them for randomly selected supervisors and their subordinates, to obtain paired data. From October to November 2014, 500 pairs of questionnaires were sent to 47 high-tech enterprises in Shanghai, and 383 were returned. After omitting incomplete or incorrectly completed questionnaires, we had a sample of 362 valid questionnaires completed by supervisor-subordinate dyads, a response rate of 72.4%. To avoid common method bias, we adopted an evaluation method that was based on heterogeneous information sources. Direct managers evaluated unethical behavior, and employees evaluated the other variables.

Of the 97 supervisor participants, 62% were men (n = 60), 91% had a bachelor's degree or higher (n = 88), 80% were aged between 35 and 44 years (n = 78), and 75% had five to 10 years of work experience (n = 73). Of the 265 employee participants, 54% were men (n = 143), 72% had a bachelor's degree or higher (n = 191), 80% were aged between 25 and 34 years (n = 212), and 75% had two to eight years of work experience (n = 199).

All the procedures we performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from each participant.


All the scales that we used were from previous studies. Each original item was reciprocally translated between English and Chinese to guarantee the content validity of the final Chinese scale. All the items were measured by participants' responses to the items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Employees' unethical behavior. We measured employees' unethical behavior using a six-item Unethical Behavior Scale abbreviated from Chen and Tang's (2006) scale. Sample items are "Take merchandise and/or cash home" and "Take no action against shoplifting by customers." Cronbach's [alpha] for the scale was .88.

Psychological contract breach. We adopted a three-item questionnaire from Tekleab et al. (2005) to measure psychological contract breach. A sample item is "The organization has repeatedly failed to meet its obligations to me." Cronbach's [alpha] for the questionnaire was .82.

Organizational disidentification. We used a four-item scale revised from the Psychological Contract Violation Scale (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005) to measure organizational disidentification. Each item was a negative statement, such as "I do not feel emotionally attached to this team or organization." Cronbach's [alpha] for the scale was .86.

Organizational ethical climate. We adopted a five-item questionnaire from Victor and Cullen's (1988) Ethical Climate Questionnaire to measure organizational ethical climate. A sample item is "In this organization, our major concern is always what is best for the other person." Cronbach's [alpha] for the questionnaire in this study was .94.

Control variables. We used demographic factors as control variables, namely, education level, gender, age, and length of service, because it has been shown that they affect employees' unethical behavior (Kohut & Corriher, 1994; Roxas & Stoneback, 2004).


Common Method Bias

We conducted Harman's (1976) single-factor test to test for common method bias. The results showed that the first factor explained 11.22% of the total variance, and 41.55% of the total variance was explained. Thus, the factor analysis did not produce a single or general factor that accounted for the majority of the variance. Then, following Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), we tested for common method bias by comparing the structural equation models. The results showed that the goodness of fit of the four-factor model, [chi square] = 375.87, df = 129, [chi square]/df = 2.90, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .076, goodness of fit index (GFI) = .90, normed fit index (NFI) = .96, incremental fit index (IFI) = .97, was better than other factor models, such as the three-factor model that combined psychological contract breach with organizational disidentification, [chi square] = 742.97, df = 130, RMSEA = .117, GFI = .81, NFI = .93, IFI = .92. Thus, in this study, we found no common method bias.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients of the Variables

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables are presented in Table 1. The four main variables, namely, psychological contact breach (PCB), employees' unethical behavior (EUB), organizational disidentification (ODI), and organizational ethical climate (OEC) were observed to be moderately correlated. As well as the correlation coefficients of OEC and the other three variables, r OEC-PCB = -.37, p < .01; r OEC-ODI = -.58, p < .01; r OEC-EUB = -.62,p < .01, the rest were all significantly positive, r PCB-ODI = .39, p < .01; r PCB-EUB = .14, p < .01; r ODI-EUB = .44, p < .01.

Hypothesis Testing

We used multivariate linear regression analysis based on least squares estimation to test Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3a. We used the mean-centering procedure to process the data before building a new interaction term by adding two variables (organizational disidentification and organizational ethical climate). The result for Model 4 (see Table 2) showed that psychological contract breach had a significant positive effect on employees' unethical behavior ([beta] = .141, p < .01), discounting the effect of the control variables. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. The result for Model 5 (see Table 2) showed that organizational disidentification had a significant positive effect on employees' unethical behavior ([beta] = .453, p < .01). The originally significant effect of psychological contract breach on employees' unethical behavior disappeared ([beta] = -.043, p > .05). These results showed that organizational disidentification completely mediated the relationship between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported. The result for Model 7 (see Table 2) showed that organizational ethical climate had a negative moderating effect on psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior ([beta] = -.308, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3a was supported.

To further identify the moderating effect of organizational ethical climate, we conducted a simple slope analysis. The results (see Figure 2) showed that when the organizational ethical climate level was high, the level of employees' unethical behavior was mostly low, and it decreased slightly as the organizational disidentification level decreased ([beta] = .03, p > .05). In contrast, when the organizational ethical climate level was low, the level of employees' unethical behavior decreased rapidly as the organizational disidentification level decreased ([beta] = -.11, p < .01).

We used the PROCESS macro procedure developed by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) to examine the degree and significance level of the mediating effect of organizational disidentification at different levels of the moderating variables (bootstrap default autosampling 5,000 times). The results showed that the indirect effect was weaker when the organizational ethical climate level was high, estimate = .0124, standard error (SE) = 0.026, p < .05, compared to when it was low, estimate = .275, SE = 0.043, p < .01. Moreover, the bootstrap results revealed that the indirect effect from psychological contract breach to employees' unethical behavior (through organizational disidentification) was not significant at high levels, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [-0.035, 0.067] of organizational ethical climate, but was significant at medium levels, 95% CI=[0.099, 0.207] and low levels, 95% CI=[0.199, 0.366] of organizational ethical climate. Thus, the indirect effect of psychological contract breach on employees' unethical behavior was significant. This means that the weaker the organizational ethical climate is, the more likely it is that employees' unethical behavior caused by psychological contract breach will occur. The stronger the organizational ethical climate is, the weaker the mediating effect resulting from organizational disidentification will be. Thus, Hypothesis 3b was supported.


In this study, we proposed and tested a new theory on the internal mechanism of employees' unethical behavior. Our findings show that organizational disidentification is the only necessary channel between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior. We derived our theoretical views from the moral disengagement view, to which we have contributed by excluding other possible channels between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior. Our findings indicate that in the event of psychological contract breach, employees do not immediately attempt to restore the psychological balance through behavior, but reflect on their organizational relationship. If these reflections lead to employees' organizational disidentification, they tend to conduct unethical behavior in revenge against the organization. Otherwise, it would be more rational for employees to seek the organization's support to remedy the unfair treatment.

Our results have also revealed the moderating effect of organizational ethical climate on employees' unethical behavior. Because employees' unethical behavior can adversely affect innocent colleagues, a high-level organizational ethical climate is likely to make them aware of their colleagues' low tolerance for unethical behavior. Thus, employees would be more careful in their ethical decision making. If organizational identification is the first obstacle to unethical behavior, organizational ethical climate is the second. With low organizational identification (i.e., high organizational disidentification), a high-level organizational ethical climate can still effectively prevent employees from conducting unethical behavior.

Theoretical Implications

Although the interactionist perspective integrates personal and environmental factors to explicate unethical behavior in general, there has been limited theoretical progress based on this perspective. Microlevel research is needed for the exploration of the mechanism of specific unethical behavior, because unethical behavior differs. For example, some unethical behavior is conducted consciously and externally caused. Thus, further research is required to determine whether or not unethical behavior that occurs in different scenarios follows the same rules.

It can be inferred from the interactionist perspective that employees' unethical behavior has a lower probability of occurrence than general unethical behavior. The unique features of employees' unethical behavior are not conducive to its occurrence. First, the ethical offenders (adult employees) usually have a mature self-consciousness, and their ethical decisions and behavior will be more consistent and stable than those of adolescents. Second, the work environment is a context with a formal ethical code (in the form of employee handbooks and identity reminders). Employees are therefore likely to be aware of a formal external moral censor. Third, because ethical decision making by colleagues is commonly encountered by employees, this provides them with opportunities to conduct social learning by observing their colleagues' appropriate ethical behavior. Nevertheless, employees' unethical behavior does often occur (Wang & Hsieh, 2013). We thus suspected that some important variables generated in the workplace had not yet been identified.

We therefore put forward and tested psychological contract breach as an explanatory variable for employees' unethical behavior. We argued that psychological contract breach is a specific variable that triggers employees' unethical behavior. As psychological contract breach often occurs in the interaction between employees and organization agents, we regard it as an interactive consequence rather than a personal trait. It can also be inferred that psychological contract breach is not the only factor that can be caused by this interaction and that affects employees' unethical behavior. Therefore, we wish to inspire future researchers to pay attention to specific variables that result in employees' unethical behavior.

Practical Implications

We used the moral disengagement view to explain unconscious unethical behavior rather than intentional unethical behavior. When employees conduct unintentional unethical behavior, their motive is to gain private benefits, and the role of moral disengagement is to make employees ignore the existence of norms (Detert, Trevino, & Sweitzer, 2008). In contrast, employees' intentional unethical behavior motive is to balance the person-organization relationship rather than to reap private benefits (Chen & Tang, 2006). Our theoretical contribution in this study is helpful for the management of intentional unethical behavior.

Employees' unethical behavior resulting from psychological contract breach is an intentional unethical behavior. This is different from unethical behavior related to unintended neglect of moral rules (Kaptein, 2011). Therefore, this kind of unethical behavior cannot be prevented by improving ethics codes and increasing self-awareness. In other words, when employees' unethical behavior occurs, management practitioners should not select simple coping methods, such as punishing or warning employees. They should instead focus on three aspects: eliminating the cause of psychological contract breach, avoiding or repairing organizational disidentification, and strengthening the organizational ethical climate.

First, to eliminate psychological contract breach, the key is to build a good supervisor-subordinate relationship. Because supervisor-subordinate similarity is negatively related to the subordinate's perception of psychological contract breach (Suazo, Turnley, & Mai-Dalton, 2008), employee cognitive similarity should be considered in staff recruitment. Moreover, to enhance the quality of the supervisor-subordinate relationship, good practice, such as providing employees with mentors, supportive supervisors, and role models (Epitropaki, 2013), should be incorporated. This would strengthen organizational communication concerned with initial entry, day-to-day work, and more future-oriented, top-down communication (Guest & Conway, 2002). Effective communication is associated with what managers judge to be a clearer and less frequently breached set of organizational promises and commitments, as well as with a fairer exchange and a more positive impact of policies and practices on employee attitudes and behavior (Guest & Conway, 2002).

Second, psychological contract breach is sometimes hard to avoid. Large-scale psychological contract breach always occurs during organizational reform (Conway, Kiefer, Hartley, & Briner, 2014), and predominantly involves the social exchange relationship between employees and their organization rather than that between individuals and supervisors. In that situation, management practitioners should focus on preventing the negative outcome of psychological contract breach by identifying and attending to management shortcomings, such as dysfunctional leadership, work overload, conflicting job demands, poor communication, lack of opportunities for career advancement, inequities in performance evaluation and pay, restrictions on behavior, and excessive travel (Kets de Vries, 2001). The fundamental purpose of this corrective action is to show organizational effectiveness and to prevent organizational disidentification. To support this, managers can develop employees' capacity to exert self-control (Mead, Baumeister, Gino, Schweitzer, & Ariely, 2009) through computer-mediated communication technology, and they can also take steps to avoid employees' emotional exhaustion (Walker, 2009).

Third, to strengthen organizational ethical climate, two managerial practices, communication and empowerment, have been effective in the development of ethical climate. To establish a good rules-based climate, managers should formulate and publicize the code of ethics (Cleek & Leonard, 1998), and hold regular activities during which employees are involved in discussions and debates about unethical behavior. Fu and Deshpande (2012) showed that only a rules-based climate had a significant impact on the participants' ethical behavior. Other types, such as professional, caring, instrumental, independent, and efficient ethical climates, did not have an impact on the participants' ethical behavior.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are several limitations in this study. First, the cross-sectional research design we used is less suitable than a longitudinal design for testing and verifying the causal mechanism. Second, self-report questionnaires are less accurate and objective than experimental methods. Third, we treated organizational ethical climate as a single-dimension construct, whereas Peterson (2002) treated it as a multidimensional construct.

Future researchers can address the following questions: (1) Are there factors other than psychological contract breach, such as employees' turnover intention, that can lead to employees' unethical behavior? (2) Is employees' unethical behavior caused by psychological contract breach a systematic discrepancy arising from employees' unethical behavior caused by other factors? (3) Are there interactions with employees' organizational disidentification? For example, if employees recognize that organizational disidentification prevails among their colleagues, does the organizational ethical climate still moderate the relationship between organizational disidentification and employees' unethical behavior?

In conclusion, our results have shown that there is a positive correlation between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior, and that this relationship is mediated by organizational disidentification. Organizational ethical climate moderates the relationship between organizational disidentification and employees' unethical behavior, and also between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior, by weakening the mediating role of organizational disidentification. The lower the level of organizational ethical climate, the greater the effect of psychological contract breach on unethical behavior will be via organizational disidentification. 10.2224/sbp.6708


Ashforth, B. E., Joshi, M., Anand, V., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2013). Extending the expanded model of organizational identification to occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2426-2448.

Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 14-31.

Chen, Y.-J., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2006). Attitude toward and propensity to engage in unethical behavior: Measurement invariance across major among university students. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 77-93.

Cleek, M. A., & Leonard, S. L. (1998). Can corporate codes of ethics influence behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 619-630.

Conway, N., Kiefer, T., Hartley, J., & Briner, R. B. (2014). Doing more with less? Employee reactions to psychological contract breach via target similarity or spillover during public sector organizational change. British Journal of Management, 25, 737-754.

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374-391.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362. https://

Epitropaki, O. (2013). A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: Testing a moderated-mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 65-86.

Fu, W., & Deshpande, S. P. (2012). Factors impacting ethical behavior in a Chinese state-owned steel company. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 231-237.

Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20, 393-398.

Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: An employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 12, 22-38.

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hill, J. A., Eckerd, S., Wilson, D., & Greer, B. (2009). The effect of unethical behavior on trust in a buyer-supplier relationship: The mediating role of psychological contract violation. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 281-293.

Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Solomon, P. (2006). The role of ethical climate on salesperson's role stress, job attitudes, turnover intention, and job performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26, 271-282.

Johnson, J. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 627-647.

Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64, 843-869.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2001). Creating authentizotic organizations: Well-functioning individuals in vibrant companies. Human Relations, 54, 101-111.

Kiazad, K., Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2014). Psychological contract breach and employee innovation: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 535-556.

Kohut, G. F., & Corriher, S. E. (1994). The relationship of age, gender, experience and awareness of written ethics policies to business decision making. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 59, 32-39.

Lai, J. Y. M., Chan, K. W., & Lam, L. W. (2013). Defining who you are not: The roles of moral dirtiness and occupational and organizational disidentification in affecting casino employee turnover intention. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1659-1666.

Liu, W., & Jing, R. (2010). An empirical study of the relationship between organizational culture and counterproductive behavior: The perspective of organizational ethical climate [In Chinese]. China Soft Science, 9, 118-129.

Ma, L., & Du, M. (2014). Organizational ethical climate and employees' anti-ethical behavior: An empirical study of the relationship [In Chinese]. Forecasting, 33, 38-43.

Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175-194.

Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Ariely, D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 594-597.

Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Trevino, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1-48.

Moorthy, M. K., Seetharaman, A., Jaffar, N., & Foong, Y. P. (2015). Employee perceptions of workplace theft behavior: A study among supermarket retail employees in Malaysia. Ethics & Behavior, 25, 61-85.

Nafei, W. (2015). The influence of ethical climate on job attitudes: A study on nurses in Egypt. International Business Research, 8, 83-99.

Obermann, M.-L. (2011). Moral disengagement among bystanders to school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 10, 239-257.

Peterson, D. K. (2002). The relationship between unethical behavior and the dimensions of the Ethical Climate Questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 313-326.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. https://

Randall, D. M. (1989). Taking stock: Can the theory of reasoned action explain unethical conduct? Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 873-882.

Rayton, B. A., & Yalabik, Z. Y. (2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2382-2400. https://

Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2006). Effects of psychological contract breach on performance of IT employees: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 299-306.

Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behaviour: Insights from the group value model. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1377-1400.

Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Bordia, P., Bordia, S., & Chapman, G. J. (2015). If you wrong us, shall we not revenge? Moderating roles of self-control and perceived aggressive work culture in predicting responses to psychological contract breach. Journal of Management, 41, 1132-1154.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525-546. https://

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259.

Roxas, M. L., & Stoneback, J. Y. (2004). The importance of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 149-165.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (2008). Characteristics of the supervisor-subordinate relationship as predictors of psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20, 295-312.

Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 146-157.

Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.

Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951-990.

Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378-385.

Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101-125.

Walker, D. D. (2009). Predicting service employee incivility toward customers: The roles of employee boredom, emotional exhaustion, and organizational identification (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved from http://

Wang, Y.-D., & Hsieh, H.-H. (2013). Organizational ethical climate, perceived organizational support, and employee silence: A cross-level investigation. Human Relations, 66, 783-802.

Welsh, D. T., & Ordonez, L. D. (2014). Conscience without cognition: The effects of subconscious priming on ethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 723-742. b7vh

Wyld, D. C., & Jones, C. A. (1997). The importance of context: The ethical work climate construct and models of ethical decision making--an agenda for research. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 465-472.


Shanghai Normal University

Ni Ning, Department of Human Resource Management, Shanghai Normal University; Li Zhaoyi, Department of Public Administration, Shanghai Normal University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ni Ning, Department of Human Resource Management, Shanghai Normal University, 100 Guilin Road, Xuhui, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. Email: nining_xl

Caption: Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship between psychological contract breach and employees' unethical behavior.

Caption: Figure 2. The moderating effect of organizational ethical climate on the relationship between organizational disidentification and employees' unethical behavior.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Each

                             M      SD        1        2       3

1. Education level          4.77   0.60    --
2. Gender                   1.44   0.50    -.10      --
3. Age                     29.18   5.02    -.14 **   -.08    --
4. Organizational tenure    6.24   3.95    -.03      -.07    .74 **
5. PCB                      2.25   0.40     .23 **   -.05    .06
6. ODI                      1.72   0.70    -.05       .02    .05
7. OEC                      4.14    .071   -.01       .07    .05
8. EUB                      1.14   0.25    -.01      -.11*   .02

                            4        5         6         7        8

1. Education level
2. Gender
3. Age
4. Organizational tenure   --
5. PCB                     .06    (.82)
6. ODI                     -.06    .39 **   (.86)
7. OEC                     -.01   -.37 **   -.58 **   (.94)
8. EUB                     -.01    .14 **    .44 **   -.62 **   (.88)

Note. Cronbach's alpha for each variable is shown in parentheses on
the diagonal. PCB = psychological contract breach, ODI =
organizational disidentification, OEC = organizational ethical
climate, EUB = employees' unethical behavior. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results

                       Organizational disidentification

                       Model 1    Model 2     Model 3

1. Control variable
  Education level       .047      -.050        .007
  Gender               -.021      -.011       -.109 *
  Age                  -.006      -.045        .059
  Length of service    -.056      -.053       -.058
2. Main effect
  PCB                              .407 **
3. Moderating effect
[DELTA][R.sup.2]        .007       .155 ***    .014
F                      0.59      65.89 ***    1.25

                                      Unethical behavior

                       Model 4     Model 5     Model 6      Model 7

1. Control variable
  Education level      -.026       -.004         .039        .019
  Gender               -.105 *     -.100 *      -.064       -.038
  Age                   .045        .066         .146 *      .173 **
  Length of service    -.057       -.033        -.104       -.119
2. Main effect
  PCB                   .141 **    -.043        -.140       -.087
  ODI                               .453 **      .144 **     .102 **
  OEC                                           -.598 **    -.555 **
3. Moderating effect
  ODI * OEC                                                 -.308 **
[DELTA][R.sup.2]        .02 **      .17 **       .228 **     .09 **
F                      6.86 *     76.67 **    141.86 **    64.85 **

Note. Table data are standardized beta coefficients. PCB =
psychological contract breach, ODI = organizational
disidentification, OEC = organizational ethical climate, EUB =
employees' unethical behavior. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ning, Ni; Zhaoyi, Li
Publication:Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
Article Type:Report
Date:Oct 1, 2017
Previous Article:When women are dissatisfied: gender differences in product failure attribution.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters