CS14 - Disregarding Destructive Behavior: A Qualitative Study on Moral Disengagement and Counterproductivity
SCURS Disciplines
Business
Document Type
General Poster
Invited Presentation Choice
Not Applicable
Abstract
This presentation details empirical research on justifications for unethical behavior in the workplace. Previously unpublished qualitative data from two experiments and an unrelated descriptive study were analyzed to explore working adults' explanations for why they do or don’t engage in unethical or counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). CWBs can be classified as any behavior that is extra or outside of regular working duties that cause harm or disrupt the workplace such as theft or sabotage. Often, when people engage in these behaviors, they tend to justify them in a way that lessens cognitive dissonance, or as a protective measure to justify behavior outside of their morals; this can be defined as moral disengagement. In the previous three studies, participants were asked about unethical or counterproductive behavior they engaged in and then provided an opportunity to explain that behavior. Drawing from the moral reasoning and development literature, three undergraduate research assistants coded these open-ended text responses provided by the participants. The current study explores how unethical work behaviors (e.g., CWBs) are justified morally or rationally by applying these categorization schemes. First, a description of the most commonly identified justification mechanisms will be presented. Then, quantitative data from the studies regarding situational (e.g., workplace fairness perceptions) and dispositional (e.g., dark triad personality traits) characteristics will be tethered to the justification mechanisms to identify potential patterns between those antecedents and the use of specific justifications. Ultimately, the researchers are attempting to see if there is a link between unethical acts committed in the workplace and justification mechanisms that cause a person to morally disengage from the act. In addition to examining empirical evidence of theoretical frameworks applied to other areas of research (e.g., counterterrorism), these findings may provide organizations and practitioners a more complete understanding of why individuals in the workplace would engage in behaviors that are seemingly incongruent with their stated values and moral standards.
Keywords
counterproductive work behavior (CWB), moral disengagement, justification mechanisms
Start Date
10-4-2026 9:30 AM
Location
University Readiness Center Greatroom
End Date
10-4-2026 11:30 AM
CS14 - Disregarding Destructive Behavior: A Qualitative Study on Moral Disengagement and Counterproductivity
University Readiness Center Greatroom
This presentation details empirical research on justifications for unethical behavior in the workplace. Previously unpublished qualitative data from two experiments and an unrelated descriptive study were analyzed to explore working adults' explanations for why they do or don’t engage in unethical or counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). CWBs can be classified as any behavior that is extra or outside of regular working duties that cause harm or disrupt the workplace such as theft or sabotage. Often, when people engage in these behaviors, they tend to justify them in a way that lessens cognitive dissonance, or as a protective measure to justify behavior outside of their morals; this can be defined as moral disengagement. In the previous three studies, participants were asked about unethical or counterproductive behavior they engaged in and then provided an opportunity to explain that behavior. Drawing from the moral reasoning and development literature, three undergraduate research assistants coded these open-ended text responses provided by the participants. The current study explores how unethical work behaviors (e.g., CWBs) are justified morally or rationally by applying these categorization schemes. First, a description of the most commonly identified justification mechanisms will be presented. Then, quantitative data from the studies regarding situational (e.g., workplace fairness perceptions) and dispositional (e.g., dark triad personality traits) characteristics will be tethered to the justification mechanisms to identify potential patterns between those antecedents and the use of specific justifications. Ultimately, the researchers are attempting to see if there is a link between unethical acts committed in the workplace and justification mechanisms that cause a person to morally disengage from the act. In addition to examining empirical evidence of theoretical frameworks applied to other areas of research (e.g., counterterrorism), these findings may provide organizations and practitioners a more complete understanding of why individuals in the workplace would engage in behaviors that are seemingly incongruent with their stated values and moral standards.