Search results

Despite growing interest in misconduct spillovers – where unimplicated bystanders’ stock prices, reputations, resources, and opportunities are positively or negatively affected by others’ misconduct – theory about spillovers’ antecedents has largely focused on industry or product similarity, and has used the same characteristics to argue for both positive and negative spillovers. Furthermore, limited research has considered both positive and negative spillovers together, instead focusing on one kind of spillover or the other in isolation, thereby creating a lack of theoretical integration within the literature. In this chapter, we draw on attribution theory and expectancy violations theory to explain when and how misconduct incurs positive and negative spillovers. We argue that a spillover’s valence depends on the locus of attributions made by stakeholders, where the misconduct’s causes are attributed to the perpetrator alone (i.e., an isolated attribution) – resulting in positive spillovers – or the misconduct’s causes are perceived as indicative of a systemic problem shared among a broader set of organizations (i.e., a systemic attribution), leading to negative spillovers. We further suggest that the misconduct’s nature and misconduct prevalence within a perpetrator and among other firms influences stakeholders’ attributions, and ultimately the spillover’s valence. Our theory contributes to the organizational misconduct literature by providing a unifying theoretical framework to understand both positive and negative spillovers.

Corporate misconduct carries significant social and economic costs, and therefore regulators and other stakeholders seek to deter it. Despite the significant costs and deterrence efforts, corporate misconduct is widespread and our understanding of it is limited. As argued in this chapter, one key reason for this is the lack of understanding of the benefits and penalties of misconduct for the companies and individuals involved, as well as the detection of such behavior. This chapter seeks to advance our understanding of corporate misconduct and builds on the rational choice model (RCM) – where the decision to engage in misconduct hinges on a calculation of the expected costs and benefit – and links it to research in organization theory and strategy. Specifically, it sets a research agenda at the intersection of organizational and strategic perspectives, to deepen our understanding of corporate misconduct and shed light on opportunities for empirical and theoretical research which can potentially aid in developing effective deterrence strategies.

The Framers of the Constitution granted Congress the ability to punish members for misconduct to protect the institution's integrity and dignity. However, with the low approval ratings of Congress and the widespread belief that those in government are corrupt, the institution has not done an excellent job at protecting its integrity. This chapter examines all allegations investigated by the House and Senate Ethics Committees to determine if Congress has systematically punished misconduct among members. Using data on 396 misconduct investigations in Congress, this research examines the institution's likelihood of punishing a member before and after implementing permanent ethics committees in the 90th Congress. The study reveals that Congress was more likely to systematically punish members for ethical misconduct before permanently installing ethics committees. However, in the contemporary period, the only type of misconduct a member is likely to be punished for is sexual harassment. Yet, the likelihood of being punished for sexual harassment falls when a member resigns or strategically retires.

When organizations engage in misconduct, social control agents play a crucial role in sanctioning them to show the enforcement of societal norms and reduce the risk of future deviance. We study the interaction between the government and the media, two key social control agents, in the evaluation organizational misconduct. While past work has focused on the influence of the media on the government, we theorize the influence of the government on the media. The government is a social control agent with supreme formal authority to punish misconduct, and thus its actions are of particular interest to the media as they form evaluations of misbehaving organizations. However, the government, tied by conflicting demands, sometimes turns a blind eye to misconduct and supports misbehaving organizations for the greater societal good, instead of punishing them. How is the media’s perception of misbehaving organizations affected by such government actions? We explore this question by looking at the case of the 2008 government bailout of investment banks in the United States, after those were caught red-handed for their involvement in the sub-prime financial crisis. Carrying out a content analysis of newspaper reporting (2007–2011), we show that the negative perception of investment banks and their misconduct is attenuated when they receive government support. Our work contributes to the emerging literature on the social construction of organizational misconduct and illuminates the interaction between government and media in the evaluation of behavior as organizational misconduct.

Entrepreneurs and their ventures are often portrayed as unambiguously positive forces in society. Specifically, high technology and equity-funded startups are heralded for their innovative products and services that are believed to alter the economic, social, and even political fabric of life in advantageous ways. This paper draws on established theory on the causes of misconduct in and by organizations to elaborate the factors that can give rise to misconduct in entrepreneurial ventures, illustrating our arguments with case material on both widely known and less well-known instances of entrepreneurial misconduct. In venturing into the dark side of entrepreneurship, we hope to contribute to theory on entrepreneurship and organizational misconduct, augment entrepreneurship pedagogy, and offer ideas and examples that can enhance entrepreneurs’ awareness of their susceptibility to wrongdoing.

Several recent incidents of highly publicized police misconduct in the United States have intensified interest in controlling police behavior. Administrative control of police use of force is difficult because police officers are often the primary and most credible witnesses to police misconduct, effectively giving them enforcement power over rules they are subject to; police cooperation as both rule followers and rule enforcers is necessary for effectively constraining police misconduct. The authors develop a framework for examining how organizational and institutional variables can affect individual decision making. Using this framework, the authors identify three avenues for reducing police misconduct – increasing the information generated by non-police sources, increasing the incentive for officers to cooperate with external enforcement efforts, and changing the expectations of officers regarding the attitudes and behaviors of their peers – and present a case study of Oakland California Police Department to illustrate the implications.

Scandal is the disruptive publicity of alleged misconduct and it is important for organizations because of its severe consequences. Distinguishing between single-actor scandals, i.e., scandals that result from publicity of misconduct by a single actor, and multiple-actor scandals, i.e., scandals that result from publicity of misconduct of a similar type by multiple actors, we develop a framework for studying scandal dynamics that draws a distinction between how scandals start (single-actor or multiple-actor) and how they end (single-actor or multiple-actor). We focus specifically on spillover scandals (from single to multiple actors) and scapegoating scandals (from multiple to single actors) and identify several mechanisms that affect the likelihood of these two important types of scandals. We conclude by developing a research agenda that builds upon the central contribution of our framework: the distinction between single- and multiple-organization scandals and the transitions that result in spillovers and scapegoating.

This chapter investigates the effect of the geographical distance between institutional investors and firms on managers' financial misconduct. The evidence shows that the likelihood of committing financial misconduct by management is positively associated with distance. The distance effect is more prominent for firms with higher information asymmetry and more dedicated institutional investors. In line with the balance between risk-taking and benefit extraction from misconduct, the severity of financial misconduct is higher for firms closer to their institutional investors. Results show that geographical proximity can significantly reduce the cost of information production and facilitate monitoring through access to soft information.

Using data from a top-five global executive placement firm, the authors explore how an organization's financial misconduct may affect pay for former employees not implicated in wrongdoing. Drawing on stigma theory, they hypothesize that although such alumni did not participate in the financial misconduct and they had left the organization years before the misconduct, these alumni experience a compensation penalty. The stigma effect increases in relation to the job function proximity to the misconduct, recency of the misconduct, and an employee's seniority. Collectively, results suggest that the stigma of financial misconduct could reach alumni employees and need not be confined to executives and directors that oversaw the organization during the misconduct.

This study aims to examine the real effects of financial misconduct on corporate innovation.

The authors use a sample of Chinese A-share listed firms from 2006 to 2017. This study uses several empirical strategies to deal with endogeneity concerns, including Heckman’s two-stage correction approach, propensity score matching and instrumental variables.

The authors’ findings consistently show that financial misconduct impedes corporate innovation. Furthermore, the authors’ analysis demonstrates that the negative impact of financial misconduct is more pronounced in nonstate enterprises. The authors also show that financial misconduct discourages innovation through information, short-termism and financing channels.

This paper is of particular interest to policymakers, as firm behavior is heavily regulated and altered by securities laws and regulations over time. The authors recommend firms to observe financial regulatory laws to promote capital market integrity and enhance shareholder value through innovation projects. The authors also recommend that regulators provide incentives that encourage corporate transparency and use new technologies to detect financial misconduct quickly.

Few studies in literature investigate the real consequences of financial misconduct on firm investments. Hence, this paper fills this gap by analyzing the implications of financial misconduct on corporate innovation. This study is one of the first to provide new insights into the adverse effects of financial misconduct on firm-level innovation, supported by empirical evidence.