Journal of Business Ethics (2006)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9074-9
Ó Springer 2006
Anomie and Ethics at Work
Eva E. Tsahuridu
ABSTRACT. The paper reports on research undertaken
in three organisations seeking to explore anomie at work.
This research explores whether a distinction in the levels
of anomie between peopleÕs perception of the work and
non-work contexts exists in three organisations, that is
whether people are more likely to feel more hopeless and
helpless in their work or non-work life. It also looks at
whether people in different organisations have significantly different levels of anomie. A significant difference
in the non-work anomie between organisations, but no
significant difference in work anomie between organisations, was found. In the three organisations researched,
the anomie score in the non-work context is lower than
in the work context, indicating that respondents perceive
the work context as more anomic. The work anomie for
the total sample was found to be significantly higher that
the non-work anomie. The implications for ethical
behaviour at work and business ethics are discussed.
behaviour. Anomie is related to helplessness and
hopelessness. It is the lack of purpose, identity or
values in a person or in a society that leads to a
breakdown of the norms that rule the conduct of
people and assure the social order (Kuczmarski and
Kuczmarski, 1995, cited in Roshto, 1995). AnomieÕs
essence is normlessness (Cohen, 1993) and it
results in loss of meaning and a sense of injustice
(Thorlindsson and Bernburg, 2004).
Despite the numerous factors identified for the
moral regression at work (Fassin, 2005), one element
that remains relatively unexplored is anomie; and its
possible effect on moral regression at work, stress, wellbeing and performance, not yet addressed. The
normlessness that is anomie, may be responsible for the
moral regression that has been found by people in
organisations (French and Allbright, 1998; Schminke
and Ambrose, 1997; Weber; 1990). Anomie may
result in moral regression because the values that regulate the ends and means of humans who are anomic
are weakened, and as a consequence the common
meaning that is created in society and leads to morality
and ethics, disappears (Bernburg, 2002) or as Merton
(1957) more strongly claims, capitalistic competitiveness makes people lose their ethical goals. For Durkheim, anomie is a state of amorality (Horton, 1964).
This paper reports on a research project conducted
in three disparate organisations in Australia, and
explores anomie in the business and non-business
contexts and anomie and organisational ethical
climates (Victor and Cullen, 1988) and personal
ethical ideologies (Forsyth, 1980). The typology for
differentiating between organisations used was
OuchiÕs (1980) bureaucracies, markets and clans.
OuchiÕs organisational types were used because they
have been found to affect the development of the
ethical climate (Wimbush et al., 1997). The organisations were selected based on secondary research and
interviews with their top management, which
revealed that organisation Alpha possessed the
KEY WORDS: Anomie, morality, business ethics, work
anomie
Introduction
The inconsistency between the moral behaviour of
people in their work organisations and their moral
behaviour outside work is recognised in practice and
research. People at work are generally found to be
less ethical than they are outside work. Consequently, efforts have been made to identify the
factors that make ‘goodÕ people do ‘badÕ things
(Bersoff, 1999), to distinguish their judgements and
actions between their life at work and life outside
work. Exploring anomie at work may improve
understanding of the influence of the work environment on behaviour at work, especially ethical
Dr Eva E. Tsahuridu is a Senior Lecturer at the University of
Greenwich Business School in London, UK, Her main research
interests include moral autonomy, anomie, and ethical leadership.
Eva E. Tsahuridu
characteristics of a bureaucracy, organisation Beta
those of clan and organisation Gamma those of a
market. This research explores whether a distinction
in the levels of anomie between the work and nonwork contexts exists, and whether people in different
types of organisations have significantly different
levels of anomie i.e. whether the organisational climate affects anomie at work. This research also
looked at the ethical ideologies of the respondents to
see if a relationship exists between ethical climate and
ethical ideology i.e. if people with certain ethical
ideologies are attracted to organisations with different
climates.
Moral behaviour at work
The distinction between moral behaviour at work
and other contexts may be the outcome of the different requirements in the workplace, such as specialisation, division of labour and the emphasis on
goal achievement. This difference in requirements is
characteristically explained by David Ewing (1978,
p. 168), who states that ‘‘only in America do we
make a big production of guaranteeing such civil
liberties as free speech, privacy, conscience and due
process to all people, except from the hours of 9 to
5, Monday through Friday.’’ The same sentiments
are expressed by Werhane (1999) in discussing the
individual in the organisation. She explains that not
all employees in the private sector enjoy rights to
due process, freedom of speech, privacy, rights to
employment information and job security, whilst the
public sector does not guarantee the right to form
unions. It is noted, however, that the U.S. constitution applies to interactions between persons or
institutions and the state, and not to the private
sector (Radin and Werhane, 2003).
The ‘‘apples and barrels’’ debate (Treviño and
Youngblood, 1990) developed to understand and
prescribe ethical behaviour at work. The debate
focuses on the causes of bad behaviour and offers the
bad organisation and the bad individual as the two
possibilities for its cause. It is increasingly realised
that the context (the barrel) plays the major role in
shaping behaviour at work (Treviño and Brown,
2004). This realisation is in line with the general
acceptance of the influence of context in all human
behaviour (Zimbardo, 2004). In the sphere of work,
however, what is different is the perception that
business has its own ethics and the ethical values of
life do not apply there. Freeman (1994) called this
false idea that ethics and business are separate and
mutually exclusive, the separation thesis, and appeals
for its rejection in order to make the clarification of
the moral content of business activity possible. In
addition to the organisational requirements and
influence of the context, persons at work are also
responsible for differences in behaviour. Jackall
(1988) explains that at work individuals abdicate
their personal responsibility and autonomy to the
imperatives of the work place, while Fassin (2005)
develops a number of micro and macro level
elements that explain unethical behaviour at work,
such as stakeholder expectations, the short term
focus of business, the Anglo-Saxon model of governance, the psychology of the people in business
and their rationalisations as well as pressure for success, and role models and dominance of financial
over ethical considerations.
In parallel to the attempts to identify why people
behave differently in organisations and the influence of
the workplace, there is an ongoing debate about the
moral status of the organisation. This debate also has
implications on how and why people behave in organisations and who is responsible for such behaviour.
Different shades of moral personhood (absent, secondary, limited, full) are attributed to organisations (see
Ewin, 1991; French, 1979, 1996; Garrett, 1989; Ladd,
1970/1984; Metzger and Dalton, 1996; Nagel, 1979;
Weaver, 1998; Wilmot, 2001). The view that sees
organisations lacking moral personhood perceives
them as ‘‘incapable of exercising moral freedom, i.e.
acting on the basis of moral considerations’’ (Nesteruk,
1991, p. 80). This view sees organisations as amoral
structures whose bases for action are economic and
market considerations (Nesteruk, 1991), a view that is
grounded on the separation thesis discussed earlier
(Freeman, 1994). The moral personhood issue of organisations remains unresolved, and it appears unlikely
that organisations will be recognised as having full
moral personhood as this gives rise to unresolvable
consequences for individual agency and responsibility.
Beyond the question of personhood, however,
organisations are environments in which human agents
play roles, follow rules and exercise morality (Nesteruk,
1991), a view that is less controversial and generally
more acceptable. The literature identifies that business
Anomie and Ethics at Work
organisations, regardless of their moral status that has
great implications for moral agency and moral
responsibility, are likely to make people feel less
responsible for decisions and actions taken within
them. Williams (1997), for example, argues that
business organisations shape the individual in them, so
much that they do not see the ethical dimension of
business life. Jackall (1988) claims that organisational
life makes managers unable to see most issues that
confront them as moral, even when the problems they
face are presented in moral terms. This is an outcome
of the nature of the employment relationship which
grants a certain degree of control to employers over
the behaviour of their employees, resulting in the
relinquishment of some of their autonomy (Radin and
Werhane, 1996), a phenomenon that can be explained
by the zone of indifference (Barnard, 1938), the range
within which individuals are willing to obey authority
without questioning it. Barnard called this phenomenon irresponsible because people in organisations do
not affect their morality in their behaviour. Beach
(1990) explains that organisational influence is exercised by dividing tasks among members, establishing
standard practices, transmitting objectives, providing
communication channels and training and indoctrinating its members with knowledge, skill and loyalties.
These influences ‘‘allow them to make the decisions
the organisation wants made in the way the organisation wants them made’’ (Beach, 1990, p. 11). As
such, the organisation provides both the ends and the
means of their activities. The organisation also affects
the locus of choice on decision-making (Vaughan,
1998). Vaughan explains that the organisation as a
social context shapes what a person perceives as rational. The specialisation and division of labour that
occurs in organisations may make people within organisations unable to see the immorality of certain
actions. Each action is a part of a chain of actions and,
even though each individual act may be legitimate and
moral, all the actions linked together may constitute an
immoral activity.
Business organisations are subjected to increased
pressure for more responsible behaviour and are now
seeking to improve the ethicality of their decisions
and actions, including their behaviour towards
employees. Anomie, leads to moral regression and
amorality, so understating anomie can help businesses to understand one of the elements that affects
peopleÕs ethical behaviour at work.
Anomie
Anomie and anomia is a measure of relatedness to
society. Anomie is primarily a phenomenon developed in sociology, however, moral anomie is used in
philosophy to explain moral lawlessness, a state
where there is no freedom, but only a lack of
orientation (Benn, 1988). Anomie, developed by
Durkheim (1947) and, later, Merton (1957, 1968), is
a state in which there is ‘no legitimate end to oneÕs
desires, no goal, no conclusionÕ (Lindholm, 1997,
p. 754).
Durkheim examined different characteristics of
societies and discussed that a society where differentiation and individualism are prevalent is more
likely to lead to anomie (Aron, 1967). Such societies
are more likely to lead to anomie because the more
society encourages individuals to fulfil their own
personalities and gratify their desires, the greater the
risk of social disintegration. Durkheim perceived
that the complex division of labour would eliminate
the historic forms of normative regulation, and
render them inappropriate (Toddington, 1993). He
believed that society provided ethics to individuals,
so the elimination of its normative regulation would
lead to anomie. Anomie, DurkheimÕs research
revealed leads to suicide, while Merton found that
anomie leads to increases in deviant behaviour
(Mansfield, 2004).
For Durkheim the concept of anomie refers to
deregulation and normlessness, whilst for Merton it is
the result of relative deprivation (Box, 1981). Bernburg (2002) also distinguishes between DurkheimÕs
and MertonÕs anomie, and explains that for Durkheim anomie results because economic activity is
deregulated and society does not provide a normative
framework to limit peopleÕs desires. This lack of
framework is consistent with PolanyiÕs (1957)
development of the lack of embeddedness of the
economic activity of the market, which for Durkheim was at a state of chronic anomie (Rose, 1966).
Anomie theorists such as Merton, which are from the
American context, explains Bernburg (2002), do not
emphasise anomie as the lack of ‘socially valued goalsÕ
(p. 729) as Durkheim does, but rather as lack of
regulation in goal achievement with no reference to
the appropriateness of the goals themselves.
Polanyi (1957) explains that modern society
unlike societies that existed in the past lack the
Eva E. Tsahuridu
embeddedness of the market system. As a consequence, Polanyi argues (in Bernburg, 2002) the
market becomes self-regulated instead of being
regulated by other social institutions. Social relationships in such a context are embedded in the
economic system instead of the economic system
being embedded in social relationships. Polanyi
(1957, p. 3) explains that a self-regulated market
‘could not exist for any length of time without
annihilating the human and natural substance of
societyÕ. The lack of embeddedness of the market
leads it to become unregulated from society and
loose its moral, political and social regulation
(Munck, 2004), thus making it a context where
anomie is more likely to exist.
Merton (1968) distinguished between social and
individual anomie. Individual anomie, or anomia
(Rose, 1966), refers to a state of mind expressed by
individuals who live under anomic conditions (Stole,
1956, cited in Deflem, 1989). DurkheimÕs and
MertonÕs anomie refers to a state of society, while
anomia refers to an individualÕs state of mind
(Deflem, 1989). As a psychological state, anomia
refers to a state of amoral existence where there are
no values to which one can refer and adopt for use in
deciding and living and, as a result, people feel
detached from society.
Anomous individuals are those who fail to conceive themselves as choosers, makers and testers of
norms (Hampden-Turner, 1970). Hampden-Turner
defines anomie as meaninglessness and normlessness,
because the ability to choose between norms,
combine norms and invest norms into the human
environment enable people to discover human
meaning. ‘‘The anomic person does not see and does
not want to know. It is all too big and too complicated and besides what can he do?’’ (HampdenTurner, 1970, p. 74), which leads to a common
experience by anomic people of becoming ‘‘a thing’’
(p. 75). The anomic person, he comments, is often
‘deluded, helpless, obedient, hostile, conforming and
cruelÕ (p. 97). Similarly, Fromm (1955) sees people
in the market society as ‘dehumanisedÕ, considering
themselves successfully employed elements instead of
agents who possess human powers.
The detachment from society and the subsequent
formlessness is blamed on a number of factors,
including the industrial revolution (Emler and
Hogan, 1992; Shepard et al., 1995), the rise of
emotivism (Lindholm, 1997; MacIntyre, 1993), the
replacement of virtues with values (Himmelfarb,
1995), scientific rationalism, neo-classical economics
(Fromm, 1942; McKenna and Tsahuridu, 2001) and
capitalist economies (Lindholm, 1997). Emler and
Hogan (1992) discuss the loss of community that
resulted from the industrial revolution in the
18th century and the accompanying loss of moral
authority and supervision. The outcome of this
change in society and business is the assumption,
accepted by psychology and Durkheim, that ‘‘people
will be inclined to transgress when their actions are
anonymous’’ (Emler and Hogan, 1992, p. 203). This
provides an explanation for the regression in
morality by people in organisations.
The recent interest of ethics in business and the
attempts to remoralise it (Tsahuridu, 2002) can benefit from a clearer understanding of organisational
anomie and anomia at work. Anomia is related to the
ethical climate the organisation provides (Cohen,
1993), to ethical decisions and to ethical behaviour.
Anomia, by definition, appears to exclude moral
consideration and be more closely associated with
amorality. Anomia precludes meaningful and free
human action because it does not allow for the
autonomy of self-government by the values of a
conscious person (Toddington, 1993). Anomie may
explain why the assumption of ethical decisionmaking models (Butterfield et al., 2000; Treviño,
1986) in organisations, that people recognise and
think about an ethical dilemma when they are confronted with one, is questionable (Gioia, 1992), since
anomie results in normlessness, therefore lack of
norms to trigger moral awareness.
There is very little evidence of research on anomie in organisations. Zahra (1989) used anomie as
one of the elements that make up attitudes and affect
the perceptions of organisational politics. More
recently, Caruana et al. (2000, 2001) used anomie to
research studentsÕ and marketing professionalsÕ
behaviour and found some evidence for a relationship between anomie and fraudulent behaviour.
Passas (2001) worked on anomie and white-collar
crime. Finally, Mansfield (2004) proposed that
anomie contributes to role ambiguity, stress and
uncertain relationships in the work context.
Generally, anomie and anomia are developed in
sociology and, despite the disagreement as to their
exact definition and cause; there is a consensus that
Anomie and Ethics at Work
they are undesirable. Anomie impedes morality,
personal well-being, dehumanises people and makes
them hopeless and helpless things. Anomie is also
found to affect peopleÕs behaviour and it has been
linked with fraudulent and dishonest behaviour. So
anomie seems to have negative consequences not
only for the anomic individuals but also for ethics at
work and in society. In business organisations, the
anomic manager is described as parallel to a sociopathic manager (Miceli, 1996), where pursuit
for profit excludes all moral considerations from
decision-making. Certain formal and informal aspects
of the goal-pursuing nature of corporations, such as
end-focused leadership conducted without concern
for the means, limited participation and autonomy by
members, the strict compartmentalisation of peopleÕs
activities at work, reward systems and socialisation,
are likely to increase the presence of anomie at work
(Cohen, 1993). This research is a first attempt to find
out if in fact anomie increases in the work context
and if organisations with different ethical climates
have different levels of anomie at work.
Ethical climate and ethical ideologies
The ethical climate of organisations examines
employeesÕ perceptions of the organisational influence on ethical judgements and also reflects
behavioural expectations the organisation places on
them. An organisationÕs ethical climate helps to
determine ‘‘(a) which issues members of an organisation consider to be ethically pertinent, and (b)
what criteria members of an organisation use to
understand, weigh, and resolve these issues’’ (Cullen
et al., 1989, p. 51). An organisationÕs ethical climate
sets the behavioural expectations of ethics at work. It
does not necessarily define what is right and wrong
but focuses on what the individuals in an organisation think the organisation considers ethical (Dickson et al., 2001). A basic assumption of Victor and
CullenÕs (1987) ethical climate research is that ethical
criteria are prevalent and significant in organisational
decision-making. That is, organisational decisionmaking does not only involve statements of fact but
also it frequently involves questions about ‘‘what
ought to be’’ (p. 52). This understanding of ethical
climate is important because it clarifies that an
organisationÕs ethical climate has normative content
and it communicates to an organisationÕs members
what they ought to do, as well as what is acceptable
and expected. The capacity of an organisation to
influence moral behaviour is a consequence of its
possession of the ethical climate. An ethical climate
does not necessarily prescribe ethical behaviour.
Organisations that have instrumental ethical climates
will not promote ethical judgements or behaviour
and are more likely to produce unethical and
criminal behaviour (Cohen, 1993).
Different types of ethical climate are associated
with different types of ethical behaviour (Cullen
et al., 1989). Victor and Cullen (1988) proposed
nine ethical climates based on the philosophical
distinctions of egoism, benevolence and principle at
the individual, local and cosmopolitan levels of
analysis. Each proposed ethical climate is distinct and
represents a form of reasoning that might be used in
organisational decision-making. Empirically, Victor
and Cullen confirmed the existence of five climates:
Caring, Rules, Law and Code, Independence and
Instrumental. In this research, the ethical climate of
the three organisations is measured to explore if
different climates lead to different levels of anomie.
Ethical ideologies were examined using the Ethics
Position Questionnaire (EPQ) (Forsyth, 1980,
1992). The EPQ contains 20 statements and assesses
respondents in terms of relativism and idealism.
Individuals who score high on the 10-item relativism scale, eschew universal moral principles and
believe that morality depends upon the nature of the
situation and the individuals involved. Idealists,
individuals who score high on the 10-item idealism
scale, believe that morality requires acting consistently with moral principles, norms or laws. The
EPQ is a useful tool for the assessment of ethical
ideologies in business ethics research (Davis et al.,
2001). The ethical ideologies were examined to see
if people with different personal ethics were attracted
and selected by the different organisations.
Methodology and measurement instruments
This research explores whether a difference in the
levels of anomie between the work and non-work
contexts exists, and whether people in organisations
with different ethical climates have significantly
different levels of anomie. This research also looked
Eva E. Tsahuridu
at the ethical ideologies of the respondents to see if
people with different ethical ideologies are attracted
to organisations with different climates.
The research was undertaken in three Australian
organisations that differ in form and approximate
OuchiÕs (1980) distinction of bureaucracy, clan and
market. OuchiÕs organisational types are used
because they affect the development of the ethical
climate and also differ in ethical climate dimensions.
The organisations were guaranteed anonymity and
are referred as Alpha, Beta and Gamma. Organisation Alpha is a public organisation and is considered
a bureaucracy. The ethical climate of a bureaucracy
is predominantly Law & Code and Rules in terms of
Victor and CullenÕs (1987, 1988) ethical climate
types. Organisation Beta, a private service provision
organisation, is considered a clan and the most
democratic of the three organisations examined with
Caring and Independence as its expected climate
dimensions. Organisation Gamma is a tertiary educational institution and is considered a market
organisation, which is expected to have a predominantly Instrumental climate.
The sample consisted of managers (N = 93) from
the three organisations, with all individuals from the
same hierarchical level (middle management). Sections or departments of the organisations with similar
characteristics were used to recruit the subjects, thus
limiting intra-organisational variance. The individuals were required to have at least 1 yearÕs experience in the organisation and be in a middle
management position, with project or personnel
supervisory experience similar to the criteria used by
Elm and Nichols-Lippitt (1993). A total of 32 valid
questionnaires were collected from organisation
Alpha (a response rate of 64%), 31 from organisation
Beta (a response rate of 77.5%) and 30 from organisation Gamma (a response rate of 69.8%).
The respondents were presented with Victor and
CullenÕs (1988) Ethical Climate Questionnaire
(ECQ), which also contained the Work Anomie
Scale. They were also asked to resolve six work and six
personal dilemmas (their analysis is outside the scope
of this paper). They then were presented with ForsythÕs (1980) EPQ that contained the Personal Anomie Scale, followed by demographic questions. All
instruments in this research involved ethical overtones
and choices, but the EPQ instrument is the most
intimate and thus presented last to minimise social
desirability responses. The ECQ, EPQ and Work and
Non-work Anomie Scales required responses on a
7 point Likert scale (from: 1 = Completely Disagree,
to: 7 = Completely Agree).
The anomie scale (Table I) developed by Bachman, Kahn, Davidson, and Velasquez (1967 cited in
Zahra, 1989), and used by Zahra (1989), referred to
general estrangement and it was used in this research
with the EPQ.
The scale was also converted for the purposes of
this research (Table II), to reflect organisational
estrangement, by translating the questions to reflect
organisational life hopelessness. These statements
were tested for clarity and face validity.
It must be stressed that the non-work and work
anomie scales were presented with the EPQ and the
ECQ, respectively. As mentioned earlier the
objective was to explore if people were more likely
to report different levels of anomie between the
different organisations and between the work and
non-work contexts.
TABLE I
Anomie scale – non-work
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
I feel no one really cares much about what happens to me.
The life of the average person is getting worse, not better.
These days I do not know whom I can depend on.
These days I get the feeling that I am just not a part of things.
I get the feeling that life is not very useful.
No one cares what happens, when you get right down to it.
People do not really care what happens to the next person.
It is hardly fair to bring a child into the world the way things look now.
Source: Bachman et al. (1967, cited in Zahra, 1989, p. 27).
Anomie and Ethics at Work
TABLE II
Anomie scale – work
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
These days I get the feeling that in business, individuals are just not a part of things.
The life of the average person in business is getting worse, not better.
These days in business, I do not really know whom one can depend on.
I feel no one in business really cares much about what happens to individuals.
I get the feeling that life at work is not very useful.
I find it hard to be hopeful for the future of the world the way things look now.
In this organisation no one cares what happens, when you get right down to it
People in business do not really care what happens to the next person.
The reliability of the ECQ was confirmed by Elm
and Nichols-Lippitt (1993) and Victor and Cullen
(1987). The reliability of the EPQ has been confirmed by Forsyth (1980) and Van Kenhove et al.
(2001). The reliability of the non-work anomie scale
developed by Bachman et al. (1967, cited in Zahra,
1989) was confirmed (a = 0.76). The reliability of
the non-work anomie scale was a = 0.86 and that of
the work anomie scale was a = 0.85.
Analysis and discussion
In the ethical climate dimensions, differences were
found in Caring, Law & Code and Rules between
the organisations (see Table III).
The overall inter-organisational difference in the
Caring, Law & Code and Rules dimensions is significant (at the 0.01 level). As expected, organisation
Beta had the highest score in Caring, organisation
Alpha the highest in the Law & Code and Rules
dimensions. Organisation Beta was also expected to
have the highest Independence score, but that was
not confirmed in this study. Organisation Gamma
scored higher in Independence, a fact that can be
explained by the nature of work and greater
autonomy in tertiary educational institutions, while
organisation Beta is greatly affected by government
and funding department regulations in addition to
professional body codes. Organisation Alpha scored
higher in the Instrumental dimension but the
difference was not significant.
The Scheffe test performed on the inter-group
differences (Table III), confirmed their statistical
significance (p < 0.05) in the Caring climate between
organisations Beta and Gamma. It also confirmed the
difference in the Law & Code climate between all
three organisations and in the Rules climate between
organisations Alpha and Gamma.
In the ethical ideologies measured by the EPQ,
organisation Beta had the lowest mean score in
relativism and the highest in idealism. Organisation
Alpha had the lowest score in idealism while
organisation Gamma scored the highest in relativism.
To test the significance of these differences, an
ANOVA was performed but there were no significant differences in the idealism and relativism scores
between the three organisations (See Appendix A).
TABLE III
Differences in ethical climate by organisation* (ANOVA)
Caring
Law and Code
Rules
Instrumental
Independence
Total
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
3.79
4.87
4.34
3.93
3.79
3.80
5.58
4.76
4.08
3.63
4.19
4.86
4.30
3.81
3.70
3.35
4.12
3.93
3.89
4.06
*Mean score on a 7 point scale with 1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree.
ANOVA (Scheffe)
b>c
a>b>c
a>c
NS
NS
Eva E. Tsahuridu
This finding indicates that people who are attracted
to and retained in the different types of organisations
are not significantly different in terms of their
ideologies.
In analysing anomie there is no significant difference in work anomie (see Table IV) between the
three organisations, although organisation Beta,
which was the most caring, has the lowest mean.
There is, however, a significant difference in nonwork anomie. Organisation Beta has again the lower
level of non-work anomie, while organisation
Alpha, which was the most bureaucratic organisation, showed the highest level of non-work anomie.
An interesting finding presented in Table IV is
that, in all three organisations, the anomie score in
the non-work construct is lower than in the work
construct. In order to test whether that difference is
significant a Paired Differences Test was performed
(see Table V), which revealed that overall non-work
anomie is significantly lower than work anomie, in
the total sample.
This finding indicates that people in this research
were more likely to feel helpless and hopeless when
they were thinking about work and business than
when they were thinking about life in general.
These findings give some support to the claim that
the business realm is in a state of anomie (Rose,
1966) and that it may be impossible to make business
organisations anomie free (Cohen, 1993).
Overall, there was no significant difference in the
anomie scores between organisations in the work
anomie scale, even though organisation Beta, which
had a caring climate, has the lowest mean, therefore
further research in different organisations and larger
samples is required. There was a significant difference, however, in the non-work anomie scale. This
TABLE IV
Differences in work and non-work anomie by organisation (ANOVA)
Organisation
n
Work anomie
M (SD)
Non-work anomie
M (SD)
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
F
32
31
30
4.27 (1.15)
3.67 (1.27)
4.18 (1.05)
2.4
3.18 (1.20)
2.32 (0.92)
2.81 (1.08)
5.1*
*p < .01.
TABLE V
Work and non-work anomie
Work anomie
Non work anomie
Paired differences
T
N
M (SD)
93
93
4.04 (1.18)
2.77 (1.12)
1.27 (0.97)
12.55*
*p < .01.
finding needs to be explored further to understand
what makes people perceive work and non-work
anomie differently, and understand why the organisational context renders people more hopeless and
helpless.
Conclusion
Efforts to address moral regression at work may not be
effective until we understand the effect of the work
context on its people. Anomie appears to be an
important element we need to understand if we are to
improve our knowledge of the factors that affect
peopleÕs decisions and behaviour in the work context,
since as it has been established, anomie may result in
moral regression or amorality. The work context
seems to be perceived as generally more normless by
people at work, despite differences in ethical climates.
Anomie lies at the centre of this normlessness and the
emphasis on costs, profits, returns to shareholders, and
market share, may provide the reasons that lead to
anomie. Anomie leads to more deviant and criminal
behaviour. Our attempts to improve the ethics in
business may fail if we do not understand anomie and
its causes and symptoms. An important element that
needs to be explained is whether the relinquishment
of our autonomy at work leads us to feel more anomic
in that context. It is important to understand which
market characteristics lead to increased levels of
anomie and the possibilities of redesigning the philosophy and purpose of organisations to reduce the
negative effects work seems to have on people, as well
as work itself. It thus seems appropriate to question
not only the means of business organisations but also
the ends, the appropriateness of the goals and the
effects these goals may have on levels of anomie.
Anomie and Ethics at Work
The research findings indicate that people at work
are more likely to feel hopeless and helpless, and also
more likely to behave deviantly, as anomie at work
context is higher that in the non-work context in
the three organisations. They also showed that the
people in organisation Alpha, which was the most
rule and law based organisation, had the highest
work anomie, and a significantly higher level of
non-work anomie. This may indicate that people in
more anomic work places are greatly affected in their
non-work life i.e. they take work at home; or there
are other elements in a rule and law context that
impact on how life in general is perceived. The
impact of autonomy at work on anomie may shed
some light on this phenomenon.
Anomie disables moral thinking which, argues
Paine (1996), is needed by managers, not only
because it is the right thing to do but also because it
strengthens organisations and contributes to their
performance, thus moral thinking has ethical and
instrumental implications. In terms of the individual
at work, it is important to refer to the pursuit of the
human ideal of happiness and the effect-increased
levels of anomie have on the pursuit of that ideal.
The implications of these findings are that the
work sphere, in general, may contain a fundamental
ingredient that increases the feeling of hopelessness
and helplessness. Efforts to identify this element will
help organisations increase their contribution to a
sustainable future, where sustainability is defined as
‘‘flourishing in time immemorial’’ to make life good
and meaningful (Ehrenfeld 2000, cited in Wheeler,
Colbert, and Freeman, 2003, p. 17). Identifying this
element in organisations may also help people to be
morally autonomous and not helpless and hopeless
‘thingsÕ. It also explains why good people do bad
things, given that people feel less like moral agents
at work and feel the work norms weak in affecting decisions and behaviour. Attempts made to
improve work-life balance, decrease stress at work
and improve employee well-being may be better
informed by an understanding of anomie. The
incidents of unethical behaviour will also be better
explained. Attempts to improve ethics at work, and
reliance of those attempts on codes and regulations
may continue to be ineffective if people continue to
perceive the work context as highly anomic.
The small number of the sample both in terms of
organisations and respondents from each organisa-
tion, limited to an Australian city, affect the generalisability of the findings. Further research in other
geographic locations and types of organisations
would contribute to the validation of the current
findings. In addition, the current research was limited to managers or supervisors. Research in different
organisational levels may reveal different levels of
anomie. It is expected that people in the lower levels
of organisations who typically have less autonomy,
will exhibit higher levels of anomie in comparison to
those of managers. Further research in corporations
that fulfill to a greater extent the profile of market
organisations will also be valuable, as these organisations better fulfill the characteristics that lead to
anomie.
APPENDIX A
Differences in ethical ideologies by organisation
(ANOVA)
Organisation
n
Individual
idealism
M (SD)
Individual
relativism
M (SD)
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
F
32
31
30
4.49 (1.05)
4.95 (0.76)
4.64 (0.90)
2.1
4.25 (0.94)
3.80 (0.87)
4.26 (1.12)
2.2
References
Aron, R.: 1967, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, R.
Howard and H. Weaver (Trans.), Vol. 1 (New York,
Doubleday).
Barnard, C. I.: 1938, The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
Beach, L. R.: 1990, Image Theory: Decision Making in
Personal and Organizational Contexts (John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester)
Benn, S. I.: 1988, A Theory of Freedom (Cambridge
University Press, New York)
Bersoff, D. M.: 1999, ÔWhy Good People Sometimes do
Bad Things: Motivated Reasoning and Unethical
BehaviorÕ, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 25(1),
28–39.
Box, S.: 1981, Deviance, Reality and Society 2nd edn (Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, London).
Bernburg, J. G.: 2002, ÔAnomie, Social Change and
CrimeÕ, British Journal of Criminology 42, 729–742.
Eva E. Tsahuridu
Butterfield, K. D., L. K. Trevino and G. R. Weaver:
2000, ÔMoral Awareness in Business Organizations:
Influences of Issue-related and Social Context FactorsÕ,
Human Relations 53(7), 981–1018.
Caruana, A., B. Ramaseshan and M. T. Ewing: 2000,
ÔThe Effect of Anomie on Academic Dishonesty
Among University StudentsÕ, The International Journal of
Educational Management 14(1), 23–30.
Caruana, A., B. Ramaseshan and M. T. Ewing: 2001,
ÔAnomia and Deviant Behavior in Marketing: Some
Prelimimary EvidenceÕ, Journal of Managerial Psychology
16(5), 322–338.
Cohen, D. V.: 1993, ÔCreating and Maintaining Ethical
Work Climate: Anomie in the Workplace and
Implications for Managing ChangeÕ, Business Ethics
Quarterly 3(4), 343–358.
Cullen, J. B., B. Victor and C. Stephens: 1989, ÔAn Ethical
Weather Report: Assessing the OrganizationÕs Ethical
ClimateÕ, Organizational Dynamics 18(2), 50–62.
Davis, M. A., M. G. Andersen and M. B. Curtis: 2001,
ÔMeasuring Ethical Ideology in Business Ethics: A
Critical Analysis of the Ethics Position QuestionnaireÕ,
Journal of Business Ethics 32, 35–53.
Deflem, M.: 1989, ÔFrom Anomie to Anomia and Anomic Depression: A Sociological Critique on the Use of
Anomie in Psychiatric ResearchÕ, Social Science and
Medicine 29(5), 627–634.
Dickson, M. W., B. D. Smith, M. W. Grojean and M.
Ehrhart: 2001, ÔAn Organizational Climate Regarding
Ethics: The Outcome of Leader Values and the Practices that Reflect ThemÕ, The Leadership Quarterly 12,
197–217.
Durkheim, E.: 1947, The Division of Labor in Society, G.
Simpson (Trans.) (Free Press, New York).
Elm, D. R. and M. Nichols-Lippitt: 1993, ÔAn Investigation of the Moral Reasoning of ManagersÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 12, 817–833.
Emler, N. and R. Hogan: 1992, ÔIndividualizing Conscience: New Thoughts on Old IssuesÕ, in W. M.
Kurtines, M. Azmitia and J. L. Gewirtz (eds.), The Role
of Values in Psychology and Human Development (John
Wiley & Sons, New York), pp. 200–238.
Ewing, D.: 1978, ‘Employee Freedom within the OrganizationÕ, Paper presented at the Power and Responsibility in the American Business System: Proceedings
of the Second National Conference on Business Ethics, Bentley College, April 7 & 8.
Ewin, R. E.: 1991, ÔThe Moral Status of the CorporationÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 10, 749–756.
Fassin, Y.: 2005, ÔThe Reasons Behind Non-ethical
Behaviour in Business and EntrepreneurshipÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 60, 265–279.
Forsyth, D. R.: 1980, ÔA Taxonomy of Ethical IdeologiesÕ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(1),
175–184.
Forsyth, D. R.: 1992, ÔJudging the Morality of Business
Practices: The Influence of Personal Moral PhilosophiesÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 461–470.
Freeman, R. E.: 1994, ÔThe Politics of Stakeholder
Theory: Some Future DirectionsÕ, Business Ethics
Quarterly 4(4), 409–421.
French, P.: 1979, ÔThe Corporation as a Moral PersonÕ,
in T. Donaldson and P. H. Werhane (eds.), Ethical
Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach 3rd edition,
(Prentice Hall, New Jersey), pp. 100–109.
French, P. A.: 1996, ÔIntegrity, Intentions and CorporationsÕ, American Business Law Journal 34(2), 141–155.
French, W. and D. Allbright: 1998, ÔResolving a Moral
Conflict Through DiscourseÕ, Journal of Business Ethics
17, 177–194.
Fromm, E.: 1942, The Fear of Freedom (Routledge &
Kegan Paul, London)
Fromm, E.: 1955, The Sane Society (Fawcett Premier
Books, New York)
Garrett, J. E.: 1989, ÔUnredistributable Corporate Moral
ResponsibilityÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 535–545.
Gioia, D. A.: 1992, ÔPinto Fires and Personal Ethics: A
Script Analysis of Missed OpportunitiesÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 11, 379–389.
Hampden-Turner, C.: 1970, Radical Man: The Process of
Psycho-social Development (Schenkman Publishing,
Cambridge)
Himmelfarb, G.: 1995, The De-moralization of Society:
From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values (Alfred A
Knopf, New York).
Horton, J.: 1964, ÔThe Dehumanization of Anomie and
Alienation: A Problem in the Ideology of SociologyÕ,
British Journal of Sociology 15(4), 283.
Jackall, R.: 1988, Moral Mazes (Oxford University Press,
New York)
Ladd, J.: 1970/1988, ÔMorality and the Ideal of Rationality in Formal OrganizationsÕ, in T. Donaldson and
P. H. Werhane (eds.), Ethical Issues in Business: A
Philosophical Approach 3rd edition, (Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey), pp. 110–122.
Lindholm, C.: 1997, ÔLogical and Moral Dilemmas of
PostmodernismÕ, Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 3(4), 747–760.
MacIntyre, A.: 1993, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory
2nd edn (Duckworth, London)
McKenna, R. J. and E. E. Tsahuridu: 2001, ÔMust
Managers Leave Ethics at Home? Economics and
Moral Anomy in Business OrganisationsÕ, Reason in
Practice 1(3), 67–76.
Anomie and Ethics at Work
Mansfield, P.: 2004, ÔAnomie and Disaster in Corporate
Culture: The Impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on
the Ethical Climate of Marketing OrganisationsÕ,
Marketing Management Journal 14(2), 88–99.
Merton, R. K.: 1957, ÔSocial Structure and AnomieÕ,
American Sociological Review 3, 672–682.
Merton, R. K.: 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure
3(The Free Press, New York)
Metzger, M. B. and D. R. Dalton: 1996, ÔSeeing the
Elephant: An Organizational Perspective on Corporate
Moral AgencyÕ, American Business Law Journal 33, 489–
576.
Miceli, N. S.: 1996, ÔDeviant Managerial Behavior: Costs,
Outcomes and PreventionÕ, Journal of Business Ethics
15, 703–709.
Munck, R.: 2004, ÔGlobalization, Labor and the ‘Polanyi
ProblemÕÕ, Labor History 45(3), 251–269.
Nagel, T.: 1979, Mortal Questions (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge)
Nesteruk, J.: 1991, ÔLegal Persons and Moral Worlds:
Ethical Choices within the Corporate EnvironmentÕ,
American Business Law Journal 29, 75–97.
Ouchi, W. G.: 1980, ÔMarkets, Bureaucracies, and ClansÕ,
Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 129–141.
Paine, S. L.: 1996, ÔMoral Thinking in Management: An
Essential CapabilityÕ, Business Ethics Quarterly 6(4),
477–492.
Passas, N.: 2001, ÔFalse Accounts: Why Do Company
Statements Often Offer a True and Fair View of
Virtual RealityÕ, European Journal On Criminal Policy
and Research 9(2), 117–135.
Polanyi, K.: 1957, The Great Transformation: The Political
and Economic Origins of Our Time (Beacon, Boston)
Radin, T. J. and P. H. Werhane: 1996, ÔThe Public/
Private Distinction and the Political Status of
EmploymentÕ, American Business Law Journal 34(2),
245–260.
Radin, T. J. and P. H. Werhane: 2003, ÔEmployment-atwill, Employee Rights, and Future Directions for
EmploymentÕ, Business Ethics Quarterly 13(2), 113–130.
Rose, G.: 1966, ÔAnomie and Deviation: A Conceptual
Framework for Empirical StudiesÕ, British Journal of
Sociology 17(1), 29–45.
Roshto, P. G.: 1995, ‘A Review of ‘‘Values Based
Leadership Rebuilding Employee Commitment, Performance, & Productivity’’Õ, Retrieved 8/8/1997,
from www.cber.nlu.edu/DBR/ROSHTO.htm.
Schminke, M. and M. L. Ambrose: 1997, ÔAsymmetric
Perceptions of Ethical Frameworks of Men and Women in Business and Nonbusiness SettingsÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 16, 719–729.
Shepard, J. M., J. Shepard, J. C. Wimbush and C. U.
Stephens: 1995, ÔThe Place of Ethics in Business:
Shifting Paradigms?Õ, Business Ethics Quarterly 5(3),
577–601.
Thorlindsson, T. and J. G. Bernburg: 2004, ÔDurkheims
Theory of Social Order and Deviance: A Multi-level
TestÕ, European Sociological Review 20(4), 271–285.
Toddington, S.: 1993, Rationality, Social Action and Moral
Judgement (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh)
Treviño, L. K.: 1986, ÔEthical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-situation Interactionist ModelÕ,
Academy of Management Review 11(3), 601–617.
Treviño, L. K. and S. A. Youngblood: 1990, ÔBad Apples
in Bad Barrels: A Causal Analysis of Ethical Decisionmaking BehaviorÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 75(4),
378–385.
Treviño, L. K. and M. Brown: 2004, ÔManaging to be
Ethical: Debunking Five Business Ethics MythsÕ,
Academy of Management Executive 18(2), 69–81.
Tsahuridu, E. E.: 2002, ‘The Remoralisation of BusinessÕ,
Paper presented at the International Conference of
Reason in Practice and the Forum for European
Philosophy: Developing Philosophy of Management,
St AnneÕs College, Oxford, 26–29 June.
Van Kenhove, P., I. Vermeir and S. Verniers: 2001, ÔAn
Empirical Investigation of the Relationships between
Ethical Beliefs, Ethical Ideology, Political Preference
and Need for ClosureÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 32,
347–361.
Vaughan, D.: 1998, ÔRational Choice, Situated Action,
and the Social Control of OrganizationsÕ, Law & Society
Review 32(1), 23–61.
Victor, B. and J. B. Cullen: 1987, ÔA Theory and
Measure of Ethical Climate in OrganizationsÕ, in W.
C. Frederick (eds.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 9 (JAI Press, Greenwich), pp. 51–71.
Victor, B. and J. B. Cullen: 1988, ÔThe Organizational
Bases of Ethical Work ClimatesÕ, Administrative Science
Quarterly 33, 101–125.
Weaver, W. G.: 1998, ÔCorporations as Intentional SystemsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 87–97.
Weber, J.: 1990, ÔManagersÕ Moral Reasoning: Assessing
their Responses to Three Moral DilemmasÕ, Human
Relations 43(7), 687–703.
Werhane, P. H.: 1999, ÔJustice and TrustÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 21, 237–249.
Wheeler, D., B. Colbert and R. E. Freeman: 2003,
ÔFocusing on Value: Reconciling Corporate Social
Responsibility, Sustainability and a Stakeholder
Approach in a Network WorldÕ, Journal of General
Management 28(3), 1–28.
Williams, O. F.: 1997, ÔThe Challenge: Envisioning
the Good LifeÕ, in O. F. Williams (eds.), The Moral
Imagination (The University of Notre Dame Press,
Notre Dame, Indiana), pp. 1–15.
Eva E. Tsahuridu
Wilmot, S.: 2001, ÔCorporate Moral Responsibility:
What Can We Infer from Our Understanding
of Organisations?Õ, Journal of Business Ethics 30, 161–
169.
Wimbush, J. C., J. M. Shepard and S. E. Markham: 1997,
ÔAn Empirical Examination of the Multi-dimensionality of Ethical Climate in OrganizationsÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 16, 67–77.
Zahra, S. A.: 1989, ÔExecutive Values and the Ethics of
Company Politics: Some Preliminary FindingsÕ, Journal
of Business Ethics 8(1), 15–29.
Zimbardo, P. G.: 2004, ÔA Situationist Perspective on the
Psychology of Evil: Understanding How Good People
are Transformed into PerpetratorsÕ, in A. G. Miller
(eds.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (Guilford
Press, New York), pp. 21–50.
Business School
University of Greenwich,
Park Row, London, SE10 9LS,
U.K.
E-mail: te21@gre.ac.uk