The study of behavioral ethics within organizations: A special issue introduction

Subjective Well-Being in Organizations: Effects of Internal Ethical Context and Ethical Leadership

The literature rarely addresses the possible effects of organizations' internal ethical context on their employees' subjective well-being, that is, people's evaluation of their lives based on positive and negative emotional experiences and perceived life satisfaction. This study explored how internal ethical context's components-specifically ethics codes, ethics programs' scope and perceived relevance, and perceived corporate social responsibility practices-are related to workers' subjective well-being. Ethical leadership's possible leveraging of ethical context variables' effect on subjective well-being was also examined. The data were collected from 222 employees from various organizations in Portugal using an electronic survey. The results from multiple regression analyses indicate that organizations' internal ethical context positively affects employees' subjective well-being. This impact is mediated by ethical leadership, suggesting that leaders play a crucial role in highlighting and embodying their organization's ethical norms and orientation, thereby directly influencing their staff members' subjective well-being.

DENIAL: A conceptual framework to improve honesty nudges

Strategies to mitigate dishonesty have met with limited success, leading behavioral ethics scholars to call for a deeper understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying dishonesty. In this article, I introduce a conceptual framework, DENIAL, that identifies four fundamental mechanisms, or justifications, which provide people a rationale to consider themselves as ethical while acting unethically. I derive these justifications from a review of scholarship within cognate fields, drawing on Moral Disengagement Theory and Neutralization Theory. I identify the victim (they Deserve it), the situation (I blame my Environment), the harm (I cause No Injury), and the social relationship (I have other ALlegiances) as fundamental justifications for dishonesty. I discuss how future mitigation strategies might harness these justifications to improve their efficacy.