The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations
Abstract
Executive Summary Many of the recent corruption scandals at formerly venerated organizations such as Enron, WorldCom, and Parmalat have some noteworthy features in common. In most instances, the fraudulent acts involved knowing cooperation among numerous employees who were upstanding community members, givers to charity, and caring parents—far removed from the prototypical image of a criminal. The involvement of such individuals in corrupt acts, and the persistence of the acts over time, is both disturbing and puzzling. We argue that the above phenomenon can be explained in part by the rationalization tactics used by individuals committing unethical or fraudulent acts. Rationalizations are mental strategies that allow employees (and others around them) to view their corrupt acts as justified. Employees may collectively use rationalizations to neutralize any regrets or negative feelings that emanate from their participation in unethical acts. Further, rationalizations are often accompanied by socialization tactics through which newcomers entering corrupt units are induced to accept and practice the ongoing unethical acts and their associated rationalizations. We describe the different forms of rationalization and socialization tactics and the ways in which firms can prevent or reverse their occurrence among employees. The onset of these two tactics can establish enduring corruption in organizations and become institutionalized in seemingly innocuous processes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089195 · Cited by 5,845
"How Can You Do It?": Dirty Work and the Challenge of Constructing a Positive Identity
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259134 · Cited by 1,658
Self-citationTHE NORMALIZATION OF CORRUPTION IN ORGANIZATIONS
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25001-2 · Cited by 1,510
Self-citationMoral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction
Opotow, S. (1990) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x · Cited by 1,313
The IT way of loafing on the job: cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice
Lim, V. K. G. (2002) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.161 · Cited by 994
The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, by Robert Jay Lifton
Kuper, L. (1987) · Political Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2151532 · Cited by 791
Dukerich, J. M. (2001) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2001.5393915 · Cited by 606
The smartest guys in the room: the amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-0423 · Cited by 556
DENYING THE GUILTY MIND: ACCOUNTING FOR INVOLVEMENT IN A WHITE‐COLLAR CRIME*
BENSON, M. L. (1985) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00365.x · Cited by 415
Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities
Gioia, D. A. (1992) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/bf00870550 · Cited by 387
Cited by
Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206306294258 · Cited by 1,837
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-005-0849-1 · Cited by 854
Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2016) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.30.3.141 · Cited by 817
Destructive Leadership: A Theoretical Review, Integration, and Future Research Agenda
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312471388 · Cited by 569
Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2008.32465726 · Cited by 543
Metadata
- Authors
- Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2004-05
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 39-53
- ISSN
- 1558-9080 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4529
- OpenAlex
- W2042822836
- Cited by
- 709
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 43.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/ame.2004.13837437
- The paper
- Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.13837437
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.