Ethical Decision Making and Psychological Entitlement

Job candidates who possess characteristics likely to result in organizationally desired outcomes are valuable, yet not always easily identified. Offering validation support for selection tools that organizations can use to identify such candidates is therefore important. The present study examines the construct of psychological entitlement to determine if it can be used to identify individuals who are more likely to make sound ethical judgments in organizations. Specifically, we examine the relationship between psychological entitlement and ethical decision making, positing that individuals with high levels of psychological entitlement are more likely to make less ethical decisions and to use less ethical upward influence tactics than those with opposing characteristics. We administered a survey to 174 participants using the Multidimensional Ethics Scale, the Subordinate Influence Ethics Scale, and the Psychological Entitlement Scale. To test our hypotheses, we used hierarchical multiple regression. Results suggest that individuals with high levels of psychological entitlement are more likely to consider unethical actions as ethical, given several scenarios. In addition, individuals with high levels of psychological entitlement are more likely to consider self-serving and maliciously-intended upward influence tactics as acceptable when used to advance in an organization. They are also less likely to consider pro-organizational upward influence tactics to be acceptable when used to advance in organizations.