How People Judge Organizations They Cheat

Abstract

Does lying on one’s tax reports, or stealing from one’s employer affect subsequent judgement of the target of the unethical act? Existing theories offer contradicting predictions: on the one hand, people who act unethically often feel guilty for having done so, which may cause them to judge the organization more favorably. On the other hand, to protect their self-image, unethical actors may distance themselves from their misconduct by blaming the cheated organization, which may cause them to judge the organization less favorably. In two experiments, we manipulated the saliency of one’s unethical behaviors and asked employees (Study 1) and self-employed individuals (Study 2) to rate their workplace (Study 1) or government authorities (Study 2). Consistent with a distancing account, we find people tend to judge an organization more negatively the more they had cheated the organization, if their unethical behavior was made salient prior to judgment. These findings carry important implications for organizations and policy-makers because individuals often cheat and their judgments drive their own future behavior and that of others, through potentially negative word of mouth.