The article examines the problem of employee theft and its impact on a company. There are various reasons why employees decide to steal; some of them indicate that employees are driven to steal for reasons not necessarily related to seeing themselves as underpaid.
Summary
Purpose
The purpose of the study is to understand what factors might deter employee theft and how it can be prevented. The authors focused on ethics programs as a means of theft prevention.
Design/methodology/approach
A 2x2x2 factorial design was used to conduct the study. The independent variables were the following: victim of theft, moral development, and ethics program (Greenberg, 2002). The sample size consisted of 270 customer service representatives; 142 participants were working in an office where an ethics program was engaged, while 128 participants were employed in an office that did not provide any ethics program. The mean age of the participants was 28.4 years and their gender split included 69.5% female. Ethnically, 64.5% of the participants were white, 12.3% were African-American, 8.0% were Asian, and 7.9% were from other racial groups. A specific experimental setting was created to conduct the research. During the experiment, the participants of the study had to complete a task during their non-working hours, for which they were paid 2$.
Findings
Greenberg (2002) provides five hypotheses; all of which were supported by the study findings: participants stole less if they were classified as conventional if they were told that the money was coming from an individual, and if their company had an ethics program. The findings of the study indicate that theft can be greater among those employees whose moral development was lower, in an office that does not have an ethics program, and when the company was seen as victimized. The findings of the study are supported by other researches from Murphy (1993), Trevino, and Nelson (1995).
Nevertheless, the study provided new information regarding the theft, as well. While the previous studies examined the variables separately, this study stresses the importance of the interaction between the previously mentioned variables. In short, those employees whose cognitive development demanded being honest were less likely to steal than those whose development was preconventional, even if the latter took part in their company’s ethics program. Moreover, the source of money also had a significant influence on the probability of theft. If the employees believed the money was provided by a colleague, the probability of theft decreased drastically (Greenberg, 2002). Thus, the idea of stealing from a colleague was seen as extremely inappropriate.
Research limitations/implications
The study limitations include the small sample size, the high probability of biases, and generalizations since only two offices took part in the study. First, small sample size can provide limited information that can be generalized in favor of the expected results. Second, these results might be only applicable to the employees and companies that took part in the study. If the research was conducted with employees of a multinational corporation from different offices or at several independent small offices, the results could have been different. Third, as Greenberg (2002) himself notices, the newness of the ethics program could have reduced its effect on employees. It is possible to assume that its impact was lower than the investigator had expected. This assumption leads us to the fourth problem, which is the bias of the study. As the investigator himself conducted the experiment and analyzed the results, the findings could have been biased.
A suggestion for further studies would be to conduct similar research but with a bigger sample size from multiple offices. Moreover, the researcher should not take part in the experiment, as this can lead to biases. The conditions of the experiment should also be changed because the employees could have stolen more if they were treated unprofessionally or exploited by the company.
Practical and social implications
The practical implications suggest that the companies should develop an ethics program and engage it; although it can be hard to change employees’ moral reasoning, ethics programs can do it. Moreover, employees tend not to steal if they can relate to the victim; it is important to discuss theft directly with employees so that they could better understand what losses the company can suffer from it.
Originality/value
Other researches similar to this one had previously been conducted; however, this research pays more attention to details and stresses the importance of moral reasoning and ethics programs combined. This approach might help companies and employees understand that ethics programs, alone, might not be enough. Moreover, the importance of “personalizing” the victim of theft is also a relatively new idea that has not been discussed widely.
Critique (Positive)
The study has proven that employees are more likely to steal from their companies rather than from their coworkers. Ethics programs can be helpful both to those employees who are more likely to steal and to those who are not. The study stresses the importance of viewing these factors as a combination of causes and suggests that this combination can be used as a means to prevent theft.
Critique (Negative)
The research relied on small sample size, and the investigator took part in the experiment, which could lead to biases. The results of the research might only apply to the offices that were tested and may not apply to multinational corporations or smaller offices in different countries.
Reference
Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 985-1003.