Religiosity and Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective Author(s): Gary R. Weaver and Bradley R.

Agle Reviewed work(s): Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 77-97 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4134370 . Accessed: 13/03/2012 10:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

@ Academy of Management Review 2002,Vol. 27, No. 1, 77-97.

AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN RELIGIOSITY A ORGANIZATIONS: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE

GARYR. WEAVER University of Delaware BRADLEY AGLE R. of Pittsburgh University
Claims that religion can influence ethical behavior in business are plausible to many people but problematic in light of existing research. Our analysis indicates that religious role expectations, internalized as a religious self-identity, can influence ethical behavior. However, relationships of religious role expectations to behavior are moderated by religious identity salience and religious motivational orientation. We conclude by discussing the influence of organizational context on religious identity salience and the need for innovative and interdisciplinary empirical research on religion and ethical behavior in organizations.

Religions often have much to say about ethical behavior in business organizations, either directly or by implication. National meetings at both the Academy of Management and the Society for Business Ethics have featured sessions focused on the ethical implications of religious perspectives for business behavior, and in 1997 Business Ethics Quarterly devoted an entire issue to the topic. However, business ethics involves not only evaluative questions but also empirical ones (Trevifio & Weaver, 1994). We may grant, for example, that a particular religion has ethical implications for business practice but still wonder whether or not those implications actually make a difference in the business behavior of that religion's adherents. Certainly, the self-image of many executives includes a belief that their business decisions are guided by their religious commitments (Nash, 1995). For example, Aaron Feuerstein, CEO of Malden Mills, sometimes cited his Jewish religious convictions among the reasons for continuing to pay his production workers after his manufacturing facilities burned down. Similarly, TruettCathey, founder and chief executive of the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain, closes restaurants on Sundays, in keeping with Christian scruples concerning a sabbath day; moreover,

We thank associate editor Art Brief and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
77

Chick-fil-A's corporate statement of purpose begins with "Toglorify God...." Popular wisdom often concurs: a search through the business section of a large bookstore will yield multiple titles claiming to address religious or spiritual dimensions of work or management. Yet, sometimes managers' self-understanding and popular assumptions are erroneous. For example, most people probably can think of a business manager who, although a practitioner of a particular religion, shows little or no awareness that those religious beliefs might have any relevance to business decisions and behavior. Much empirical research in the psychology and sociology of religion also indicates that religiosity does not automatically lead to ethical behavior, whether religiosity is defined in terms of the tenets of a specific religion or in more general terms of an individual's overall religiousness (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993;Hood, Spilka, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 1996).In short, even though it might seem commonsensical, at first, to claim that religion influences a manager's business ethics, the actual situation is likely to be much more complex. Thus, there is a need for management research at least to assess the accuracy of common conventions regarding the influence of religion on managerial behavior. But computerized library searches on topics such as "religion and management," "religion and business," or "religion and work"yield few empirical

78

Academy of Management Review

January

studies that resemble or involve typical issues of descriptive or explanatory research on ethical behavior within organizations. Rather,one typically finds works addressing legal and ethical aspects of the expression or suppression of religion in orSchaner &Erlemeier,1995), ganizations (Fort,1996; normative works applying religious explicitly principles to questions of business ethics (Epstein, 2000; Stackhouse, McCann, Roels, & Williams, 1995), analyses of religious institutions (e.g., church denominations) that invoke elements of organizational sociology (e.g., institutional theory, legitimation theory [Demerath, Hall, Schmitt, & or Williams, 1998]), the relationof religion to extraorganizational categories of economic activity (e.g., the sacralization of consumer behavior [Belk,Wallendorf, & Sherry, 1989],agricultural productivity or among the Amish [Cosgel, 1993], socioeconomic attainment in relation to expressions of Jewish identity [Wilder, 1996]).Missing is any thorough understanding of how religiosity actually might affect a manager's ethical behavior. In this article we develop a theoretical approach for assessing religion's influence, if any, on individuals' ethical behavior in organizations. Our account is developed from social structural symbolic interactionist theorizing about self-identity (Burke, 1980; Hoelter, 1985; Stryker, 1980;Stryker & Serpe, 1982;Wimberley, 1989), in combination with theoretical claims and empirical discoveries from the psychology of religion. Within a symbolic interactionist framework, we (1) identify categories of religious role expectations that constitute a person's religious self-identity, (2) explain the potential impact of these types of religious role expectations on ethical behavior in organizations, (3) explain the variation in the impact of religious role expectations across individuals by appealing to the idea of identity salience (from symbolic interactionism) and religious motivational orientation (fromthe psychology of religion), and (4) discuss how organizational contexts affect the salience of a religious selfidentity and, thus, explain variation in the extent to which individuals' behavior conforms to their religious self-identity.

ligion's relationship to behavior. But although religion appears to have clear implications for particular areas of behavioral inquiry, suggesting the potential importance of religion for other areas of inquiry such as business ethics, religion's actual influence on ethical behavior is considerably less clear, suggesting that better theory is needed to direct empirical research in fruitful directions. Religiosity and Behavior: Representative Findings In psychology and sociology researchers have addressed the relationship between religion and various behavioral, affective, and cognitive phenomena. In psychology, for example, multiple studies have supported the claim that religiosity is related to personality (e.g., Maltby, 1999) and cognition (e.g., Pancer, Jackson, Hunsberger, Pratt, & Lea, 1995).Much research also supports the general claim that at least some forms of religion aid individuals in coping with stressful situations and negative life events, such as illness (Pargament, 1990;Pargament, Olsen, Reilly, Falgout, Ensing, & Van Haitsma, 1992).Religiosity also has been related to overall health. In a recent review of this literature, Levin and Puchalski note that "systematic reviews (Larson, Pattison, Blazer, Omran, & Kaplan, 1986; Levin, 1997) and metaanalyses (Witter, Stock, Okun, & Haring, 1985) quantitatively confirm that religious involvement is an epidemiologically protective factor" (1997:792). In sociological research scholars have found strong relationships between religion and more macrosocial phenomena, such as marital patterns and political behavior. For example, Lehrer and Chiswick (1993) found that interfaith marriages and marriages of individuals without religious identification have significantly higher rates of dissolution than intrafaith unions. Also, particular aspects of religiosity (e.g., degree of religious commitment) clearly
influence voting behavior, both among the general public (Layman, 1997) and among members of Congress in the United States (Fastnow, Grant, & Rudolph, 1999). Indeed, Fastnow et al. found the role of religion in congressional behavior sufficiently strong as to suggest that "models of legislative decision making that exclude religion are underspecified" (1999: 687). Overall, then, it is not surprising that there is

REVIEW AND ETHICS: RELIGION, BEHAVIOR, FINDINGS OF EMPIRICAL

Research in diverse disciplines is generating growing and significant findings regarding re-

2002

Weaver and Agle

79

growing institutional support for the study of religion's impact on behavioral and social phenomena, as manifested by significant funding of such studies by the National Institutes of Health and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a well-established section of the American Political Science Association devoted to the subject, and increasing numbers of university and professional school courses on the subject (Jelen, 1998;Levin & Puchalski, 1997). Religiosity and Ethical Behavior Although an individual's religiosity has important impacts on many attitudes and behaviors, the picture is less clear regarding religiosity and ethical behavior. Hood et al. describe their review of research on religion and ethical behavior as "something of a roller-coaster ride" (1996:371).On some issues, connections between religiosity and ethical behavior seem clear. For example, in multiple studies negative relationships between individual religiousness and the use of illicit or illegal substances have been found (e.g., Khavari & Harmon, 1982). But on other ethical issues, the relationships, if any, are more complex. In several studies no difference between religious and nonreligious persons regarding behavior such as dishonesty or cheating has been found (e.g., Smith, Wheeler, & Diener, 1975),and Hood et al. observe in their review that "we are left to ponder why religion does not have a significant impact in reducing cheating behavior" (1996:341).Empirical data on criminal behavior and religion also are mixed at best (Cochran, Wood, & Arneklev, 1994).Any potential linkage likely needs to be assessed in terms of specific crimes (Bainbridge, 1989; Ellison, 1991)and specific approaches to religion (Grasmick, Kinsey, & Cochran, 1991;Jenson & Erickson, 1979). Also addressed in much empirical study are linkages between religion and prejudicial or discriminatory behavior, again with mixed results. Some findings show a curvilinear relationship between religion and prejudice, typically with moderately religious people being more prejudiced than those who are deeply religious and those with little or no religious commitment (Gorsuch, 1993). But results vary depending on the measures of religiosity and prejudice used. Moreover, the stance taken by an individual's religious reference group (e.g., official church

policy) makes a difference; religious individuals may be less prejudicial toward a particular minority, but only if their religion has specifically proscribed prejudice against that minority (Batson et al., 1993;Griffin, Gorsuch, & Davis, 1987). Finally, efforts to link particular types of religiosity to kinds of moral reasoning (e.g., principled moral reasoning [Kohlberg, 1967; Rest, 1986])yield mixed results (Sapp & Jones, 1986). Mixed findings also characterize the very small amount of empirical research conducted specifically on religiosity and business ethics. In early experimental studies Hegarty and Sims (1978,1979)found no relationship between a person's religious orientation and business ethics decision making (i.e., acceptance/rejection of a kickback). Limited survey evidence from managers similarly shows no relation between measures of religiosity and ethical judgments (Kidwell, Stevens, & Bethke, 1987),and a scenario-based study shows negative correlations between some measures of religiosity and judgments about business ethics (Clark & Dawson, 1996). But other scenario studies sometimes show significant positive relationships between some measures of religiosity and ethical business behavior (Kennedy & Lawton, 1998; McNichols & Zimmerer, 1985).Agle and Van Buren (1999)found a very small positive relationship of a small set of religious beliefs and practices to attitudes toward statements of corporate social responsibility. Thus, it is difficult to draw any wide-ranging conclusions from these studies concerning religion and business ethics. Apart from the widely different findings, they (1) mostly use undergraduate or MBA student samples or subjects (except for Kidwell et al., 1987;Agle &Van Buren include some executive MBA students among their student respondents); (2) mostly focus on attitudinal measures of business ethics, which may suffer from social desirability biases, especially if both they and the religiosity measures are assessed at the same time (only Hegarty &
Sims' experimental study [1978, 1979] avoided using self-reported attitudinal dependent variables; these researchers asked subjects to make a decision to accept or reject a kickback); and (3) use widely varying definitions and measures of religiosity. The last point is particularly important. Some studies, for example, address the impact of religiosity understood as affiliation with a specific

80

Academy of Management Review

January

religious institution (e.g., Roman Catholicism [Welch, Tittle, & Petee, 1991]). Others invoke more general categories or families of religion (e.g., fundamentalisms [Grasmick et al., 19911). Still other studies focus on several categories of behavior that can be applied across several religions, such as participation in public worship or time spent in private devotions (Agle & Van Buren, 1999), and others focus on the motivational orientation a person takes toward religion (i.e., affiliating with a religion for extrinsic benefits, such as opportunities to "rub shoulders" with a community's business and political elite, versus affiliating for reasons intrinsic to the religion itself, such as convictions that its creed is true in some ultimate sense [Allport & Ross, 1967]). If religiosity is conceptualized and measured just in terms of easily observed behaviors such as church attendance, we risk missing potentially important motivational and cognitive differences, and vice versa. Some scholarship on ethical behavior in business organizations occasionally inserts religion into a model aimed at explaining influences on ethical behavior (e.g., Bommer, Grato, Gravander, & Tuttle, 1987).But this is problematic; the complexity indicated by our review of prior research on religiosity and ethical behavior suggests the empirical futility of theoretical attempts to incorporate "generic" religiosity as an influence on ethical behavior in organizations. Consequently, a key task in assessing the influence of religiosity on ethical behavior in organizations is to identify the relevant elements of the phenomenon and the ways in which those elements can influence behavior. So, we next turn to the task of developing a more theoretically complex account of religion and its impact on ethical behavior. Our overall goal is twofold. First, we aim to explain the potential direct effects of an individual's religiosity on ethical behavior in organizations. In effect, we want to spell out the processes underlying the intuitive idea that religiosity sometimes does affect ethical behavior. But, second, we identify other elements of individual religiosity that can explain why the potential effects of religiosity on ethical behavior vary from one adherent of a religion to another and how they are affected by organizational contexts.

AND RELIGIOUS SELF-IDENTITY BEHAVIOR ETHICAL

Much of the research examining relationships between religiosity and behavior has been relatively atheoretical, being focused primarily on specific empirical phenomena and detached from general theories in social psychology (Bock, Cochran, & Beeghley, 1987; Hammond, 1980; Wimberley, 1989). But broad-ranging approaches to religiosity and its relations occasionally surface (e.g., reference group theory [Bock et al., 19871).Probably the most developed theoretical framework for understanding religiosity stresses the ideas of role expectations, identity, and identity salience as developed in social structural versions of symbolic interactionism (Burke, 1980; Hoelter, 1985; Stryker, 1980; Stryker & Serpe, 1982; Wimberley, 1984, 1989). We also adopt this perspective. According to this theoretical position, religions offer role expectations that, when internalized through repeated social interaction, contribute to a person's selfidentity as an adherent of a specific religion. Yet a religious identity need not have the same salience for each member of a particular religion, thus leading to individual differences in religiously influenced behavior. But we also incorporate into this theory the insights of research in the psychology of religion regarding categories of religious role expectations that are likely to influence ethical behavior, and we consider how organizational contexts can affect the salience of a person's religious role identity.

Religious Self-Identity
In symbolic interactionism it is posited that role expectations are developed in the social interactions among people. Individuals enter into multiple interactions with others (or with groups or institutions). These interactions involve behavioral expectations in the form of social roles. For example, individuals occupy positions in various social structures (spouse, parent, employee, and so forth), and these positions incorporate role expectations. The set of roles associated with a position, when internalized over time by an individual, constitutes a component of that person's identity (Burke, 1980; Burke & Tully, 1977). This role set generates a sense of self-identity as a particular kind of person (spouse, parent, employee, and so forth).

2002

Weaver and Agle

81

Religious groups, like other groups, expect certain forms of role performance from their members. These religious role expectations can involve various things, depending on the religion: engaging in ritual behaviors (private or public); holding to certain beliefs about a deity; experiencing certain spiritual, cognitive, or emotional status; and so on. Taken together and internalized, these role expectations constitute a person's identity as a member of a specific religion. An extensive stream of research has been aimed at accurately conceptualizing the various elements of religious role identity, beginning with Durkheim's (1915)categorization in terms of beliefs, rites, and identification with a group that shares those beliefs and rites. Glock and Stark (Glock, 1959, 1962; Glock & Stark, 1965; Stark & Glock, 1968)most noticeably advanced the task of identifying dimensions of religiosity in the psychology of religion. Their framework is used frequently in studies of religion (e.g., DeJong, Faulkner, & Warland, 1976),although it is typically treated as a freestanding account of dimensions of religiosity, rather than as part of an account of the role expectations attached to a religious self-identity (as in symbolic interactionism). According to the Glock and Stark framework, religious role expectations (i.e., dimensions of religiosity) come in five forms: (1)an experiential dimension, involving expectations that adherents will have particular religious experiences; (2) a belief dimension, involving expectations that one will hold to particular religious beliefs (e.g., belief in God as the creator of the world); (3) a ritual dimension, covering expectations for public religious practices, such as corporate worship; (4) a devotional dimension, concerning private religious practices and attitudes; and (5) an intellectual dimension, concerning expectations for being knowledgeable about one's religion (Stark & Glock, 1968).Other proposed categorizations of religious role expectations invoke similar categories (e.g., Verstudies of bit, 1970), as do dimensionalizing other realms of behavior (e.g., political commitment [Wimberley, 19781). Religious Identity Salience Because people normally occupy multiple social positions (spouse, parent, employee, and so on), each with its own unique set of role expec-

tations, an individual's self-identity typically is multifaceted. The role expectations and corresponding self-identities attached to various social positions can conflict with each other: role expectations someone faces as a parent may be incompatible with role expectations that person faces as an employee. Even in the absence of direct conflict among role expectations, questions arise as to how people will allocate resources among their different identities-do they devote unexpected free time to leisure, children, or civic volunteer work? These questions are answerable by considering the salience of the various identities that collectively constitute the self. Identities can be ordered in a salience hierarchy (Stryker, 1980; Stryker & Serpe, 1982) or space (Hoelter, 1985), indicating the relative importance of a particular identity in constituting the self. In short, besides considering an individual's apparent ties to a particular set of religious beliefs and practices, we also can consider the degree to which that religion constitutes a central part of selfidentity (Davidson & Knudsen, 1977; Putney & Middleton, 1961). Identity salience typically is measured by examining rankings of selfdescriptions (Stryker& Serpe, 1982)or semantic differentials (Hoelter, 1985).The more salient an identity, the more likely it will be activated in social situations, and the more likely that behavior will be guided by the role expectations associated with that identity (Zahn, 1970).This is because failure to behave in conformity to a highly salient self-identity is likely to generate strong levels of cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort (Festinger, 1957; Wimberley, 1989). Influences on Salience: Commitments and Contexts In symbolic interactionist theory, the greater the number and importance of interpersonal commitments based on a particulac identity
(e.g., religious believer), the more salient that identity becomes. Salience reflects "the degree to which the person's relationships to specified sets of others depends on his or her being a particular kind of person, i.e., occupying a particular position in an organized structure of reand playing a particular role" lationships (Stryker & Serpe, 1982: 207). Consequently, situational factors-in particular, the breadth and

82

Academy of Management Review

January

depth of the networks of relationships based on one's various role identities-can affect the salience of an identity and, thus, that identity's influence on behavior. Empirical research has affirmed the role of "moral communities" of coreligionists in determining religion's impact on various kinds of behavior (e.g., deviance [Welch et al., 1991]). Thus, the salience of a religious self-identity and the role expectations that constitute it can be influenced by contextual factors. Obviously, this can occur because different contexts provide different sets of interpersonal commitments. But contexts can affect the salience of religious self-identities in other ways. Tittle and Welch's theory of secular moral dissolution provides an example of this. They note that "when secular moral guidelines are unavailable, in flux, or have lost their authority and hence their power to compel, the salience of religious proscriptions is enhanced" (1983: 672). Similarly, when the social context poses little challenge to or conflict with religion, appearing largely harmonious with it, the salience of religion as a basis for cognition and behavior is reduced; little in the situation reminds the religious person that he or she is different and accountable to unique expectations (Cochran, 1988). IDENTITY ROLEIDENTITY, RELIGIOUS AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR SALIENCE, Social structural versions of symbolic interactionist theory provide a framework for understanding the potential influence of religion on behavior (through the role expectations of a person's religious identity) and also religion's frequent failure to make much of a difference in behavior (through variations in identity salience and in the influences on identity salience). So, in this section we look at how the role expectations religions provide for their adherents (belief and knowledge, affect, ritual, devotion, and experience) can influence ethical behavior. In later
sections we consider the role of factors, such as identity salience, that help to explain the variable impact of religious role expectations on ethical behavior in organizational contexts. It is important to note, however, that just as religiosity is complex, so too is the process of ethical decision making and behavior. Much empirically oriented theory on individuals' ethical behavior in organizations is built around

the general framework proposed by Rest (1986; Jones [1991] summarizes management scholarship's use of Rest's framework). In Rest's framework ethical behavior is the outcome of a fourstage process. The first stage involves the individual's recognition or awareness of the ethical character or significance of a situation, which is sometimes called "issue recognition" (Jones, 1991) or "moral awareness" (Butterfield, Trevifio, & Weaver, 2000). The second stage involves the act of making an ethical decision or judgment about the proper course of action, given that the situation has been identified as calling for ethical judgment. Determination of the ethical course of action, however, does not guarantee that the individual in question actually forms an intention to carry out that course of action (stage 3); clear moral reasoning does not necessarily entail behavioral resolve. Nor, for that matter, does the intention to follow the dictates of moral reasoning guarantee an ability to succeed at doing so; intentions may fail to yield the appropriate behavior (stage 4). This four-stage analysis is not without potential problems. Particularly, in this framework clear distinctions and direct causal relations among the cognitive and behavioral stages are posited that may be untenable, insofar as cognition and behavior are not fully separable. Also, it is assumed that ethics primarily is a matter of right action, as opposed to the possession of character virtues (Koehn, 1995).Nevertheless, because the framework has guided much social science research on ethical behavior, we think it a useful starting point for considering how religion might affect the behavior of individuals in organizations. So how, then, might the various role expectations informing the selfidentity of religious persons impact one or more of the stages of ethical decision making and behavior? Role Expectations for Religious Belief and Knowledge
In all of the various research efforts delineating dimensions of religiosity, it is recognized that religions incorporate role expectations for holding to particular beliefs and assenting to specific intellectual claims. The obvious way in which such cognitively oriented role expectations can influence ethical behavior is by affecting the basis on which moral judgments are

2002

Weaver and Agle

83

formed (stage 2 in Rest's framework). Of course, this will not be a simple, guaranteed process. The implications of a religion for a particular issue may be complex or indirect, to the point that adherents who are not professional theologians may have difficulty recognizing those implications. But for simpler, more direct role expectations of a religious self-identity-the sort of expectations embodied in Ten Commandments-style prohibitions (e.g., no stealing), religious role models (e.g., the good Samaritan), or clerical pleas (e.g., to feed the hungry)-we would expect self-identification with a particular religion to lead to a greater likelihood of moral judgment in keeping with that religion's teachings, leading, in turn, to behavior in keeping with that judgment. For example, research by Batson et al. (1993) shows connections between religiosity and reduced levels of prejudice toward particular groups, provided that a person's religion actually proscribes prejudice toward those groups. Religious beliefs and knowledge not only incorporate specific ethical implications but also more general claims about the overall importance of ethical behavior. In short, religions include not only ethical values but beliefs about the place of ethics within a larger realm of religious concerns. For example, some branches of Christianity (e.g., some radical elements within the Protestant reformation) have, historically, emphasized the forgiveness and mercy of God to such an extent that one's own ethical behavior is of little religious import. Other strands of Christianity have placed much stronger emphases on a person's moral behavior as a necessary element of her or his religious standing. Thus, even when two persons reach the same moral judgment regarding what should be done in a particular situation, their motivations to act in accord with that judgment can vary for religious reasons. For one person, ethical behavior may be of no consequence to one's religious status,
and, thus, religion may provide little or no motive to act according to one's moral judgments. But for the other person, ethical behavior may be relevant to religious salvation, and so religion provides a motive for right behavior (in addition to any other motives). Thus, religious belief not only can affect ethical judgment but also the formation of intentions to act in accordance with that judgment (stage 3 in Rest's framework).

Religious beliefs and knowledge can affect the ethical behavior process in other ways. Religions provide their adherents with a language or set of categories for describing and understanding experience, such as categories of supernatural agency (e.g., divine providence) and explicitly moral categories (e.g., sin). For example, whereas an atheist might think in terms of a natural disaster, a member of a particular religion might think in terms of divine retribution. Research on the recognition of ethical issues (stage 1 in Rest's framework) has indicated the role of language in affecting how people perceive a situation (Butterfield et al., 2000). Language provides a framework for categorizing experience, such as characterizing a particular business practice as a matter of "driving a hard bargain" versus unethical intimidation and manipulation. Thus, for example, many contemporary business persons may think of pricing decisions in terms of "what the market will bear" (justifying a high price) or in terms of forming long-term, profitable bonds with a customer (justifying a price below current market levels). Yet, consider a Roman Catholic reasonably informed about papal encyclicals that talk in terms of fair prices or fair wages, or whose family is active in the left-leaning Catholic Worker movement. Such a person has a different language for describing the commercial world-a different set of cognitive schemata according to which practices can be delineated-and may perceive an ethical issue about fair prices and wages while someone else may see only the natural order of the market (i.e., "what the market will bear") and no question of ethics. Thus, the fact that religious role expectations require assent to certain beliefs and foster the use of particular linguistic and cognitive categories should influence a person's awareness of ethical issues (Rest's stage 1),as well as judgments and behavioral intentions. Behavioral responses to ethically significant situations sometimes can be scripted, in the
sense of being embedded in routines or triggered by contextual clues rather than developing out of conscious and deliberative cognitive processes (Gioia, 1992; Gioia & Manz, 1985). Religions often highlight narratives of faithful persons responding to particular situations in specific ways (e.g., the good Samaritan); such narratives can provide scripts delineating appropriate responses to ethical issues. Through

84

Academy of Management Review

January

such scripted behavior, the belief/knowledge dimension of religious role expectations can provide a direct impetus to ethical behavior that is not mediated by conscious processes of moral reasoning. Behavioral scripts provided by religion (e.g., the good Samaritan script) may be triggered by a specific type of situation so that a person engages that script without going through processes of moral deliberation. In short, there can be a direct relationship of religious beliefs and knowledge to ethical behavior (Rest's stage 4). Affective Religious Role Expectations Empirical research also has identified role expectations for practitioners' emotional states as a common characteristic of religions (e.g., Glock & Stark, 1965; Stark & Glock, 1968). Religions make distinctions between righteous and nonrighteous anger, viewing the former in a positive light; they sometimes espouse the value of certain forms of depressive sentiments, and they often view guilt or shame as desirable and functional (Watts, 1997).Any of these expected emotional responses might impact the ethical behavior process. Moral anger may influence the formation of ethical intentions (Rest's stage 3) insofar as it motivates efforts to redress moral wrongs. Depressive feelings may be ethically helpful insofar as they generate more realistic perceptions of a situation's or individual's potential for ethical failure (Rest's stage 1);such a "depressive realism" (Dobson & Franche, 1989) may enhance recognition of moral issues, in contrast to a more naively optimistic outlook. Guilt over a past ethical failure also may sensitize a person to the ethical aspects of similar situations in the future and may motivate efforts at moral improvement. Emotional reaction can be crucial as well in altering or stopping established or scripted courses of behavior (Gioia, 1992;Oatley, 1992);affective responses of guilt, shame, or anger may function to thwart the ethical decision/behavior process when it is going
awry and contribute to the recognition of a moral issue where previously one had not been noted. Expectations for Ritual, Devotionalism, Religious Experiences and

ioral and experiential expectations other than explicitly cognitive and affective ones, most prominently having to do with ritual behavior (e.g., public worship), devotional practices (e.g., private prayer), and unique spiritual experiences (e.g., mystical experiences of a deity). Although we see little reason to think that ritual behavior in accordance with religious role expectations will directly influence ethical behavior, it can have an indirect effect through its influence on cognitive and affective elements of a religious role identity. Research on behavior and cognition in other venues indicates that behavior can create or reinforce particular cognitive stances (Bandura, 1986;Gioia & Manz, 1985). Ritual behavior can clarify and entrench particular religious beliefs and knowledge claims. Roman Catholic liturgy, for example, symbolically replicates in its structural and behavioral form certain key elements of Roman Catholic doctrine. Similarly, some Protestant groups practice ritual foot-washing, in which a person takes on the humble role of a servant by ritually washing the feet of another person. Such ritual practice demonstrates and reinforces the sects' ethical claims about the importance of humility, selfsacrifice, and service, and it also may support feelings of guilt or anger in the face of arrogant or self-serving behavior by oneself or others, respectively. Similarly, devotionalism-private prayer, religious study, and so forth-can serve to affirm and reinforce the cognitive and affective expectations of a religion. Religions often incorporate role expectations for their adherents to have particular religious experiences. Often, such experiences are largely self-contained, as in a private, personal experience of a deity, so that we could not expect any obvious connection to ethical behavior, especially in organizations. However, religious persons sometimes are expected to experience or perceive mundane aspects of life in religiously special ways. Sociological observers since Weber have noted how Protestant Christianity sacralized the ordinary tasks of everyday life so that the life of a tradesperson or artisan became as much a sacred religious vocation as the life of a priest (Ozmet, 1992; Weber, 1930). An experience or perception of work life as sacred or spiritual, or having some other religious significance, could lead to increased attention to potential ethical issues. If work is sacred-that is, an explicit part of one's religious role identi-

Empirical studies of dimensions of religious role expectations also identify a range of behav-

2002

Weaver and Agle

85

ty-other elements of one's religious identity become more relevant to the conduct of work. Work is perceived not as "just a job" but as a vocation or calling (Davidson & Caddell, 1994; Ozmet, 1992). Failure to accurately anticipate and address ethical issues in vocational life would risk profaning that sacred calling and would generate cognitive and emotional dissonance. Thus, ethical issue recognition, judgment, and intention formation all should be affected if work is experienced religiously.

Religious Identity Salience and Ethical Behavior Identity salience differences-whatever their origins or triggers-can help explain how two persons may practice the same religion (i.e., have similar religious self-identities) but show very different effects of that religion, and its role expectations, on behavior. For one of these persons the beliefs and practices of the religion might be central to self-identity, whereas for the other person those beliefs and practices might be peripheral elements of self-identity (Wimberley, 1978;Wimberley, 1984, 1989).When religion is relatively central to a person's self-identity, departures from religious role expectations should generate higher levels of cognitive and emotional discomfort for the individual, leading to efforts to bring behavior into line with religious role expectations. Also, larger investments in a religious self-identity may constitute a form of "sunk costs" from which it is difficult to walk away without generating cognitive and emotional dissonance. Consequently, we can expect variations in the salience of religion across individuals to moderate the impact of religious role expectations on the ethical awareness-judgment-intention-behavior process. For example, the more salient religion is to an individual, the more likely it is that perception and judgment will be framed using religious language and cognitive schemata and that religiously based behavioral scripts will be triggered. Overall, symbolic interactionist theory implies that the relative positions of religious and nonreligious role identities in a person's identity salience hierarchy will determine the amount of influence they have on the ethical behavior process. All other things being equal, the more salient the religious identity, the more likely an individual will act in accordance with the role expectations of his or her religion. The more salient religion is for a person-that is,
the larger a role it plays in one's self-identitythe more difficult it will be for other factors to push aside or thwart the influence of religious role expectations. Since the salience of a religion varies even among its adherents, we should expect to find differences in the degree to which religious expectations for belief, knowledge, and emotion inform perception, judgment, intentions, and be-

Summary: Religiosity, Self-Identity, and Ethics The foregoing discussion provides a framework for understanding the ways in which religiosity can influence ethical behavior. The overall influence of religion is made possible by the existence of religious role identities and the role expectations they involve. Each kind of religious role expectation can influence one or more of the stages in the ethical awareness-judgmentintention-behavior process. But, if specific religious role expectations can affect the ethical decision process, it is doubtful that research can say much, if anything, about the impact of religion in general on ethical behavior. After all, role expectations vary widely among religions. Even within broad categories such as Christianity or Judaism, there are ethically significant differences (e.g., Reform versus Orthodox Judaism). Thus, failure to discover clear connections between religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations may merely reflect failure to examine religious role expectations in sufficient detail. In short, when dealing with religion's impact on behavior, fine-grained analyses are important (Kirkpatrick& Hood, 1990;Wimberley, 1989).

IN VARIATION RELIGIOUS ROLE PERFORMANCE: IDENTITY AND SALIENCE RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION MOTIVATIONAL
A symbolic interactionist theory of role expectations shows how religion can influence behavior. But why do coreligionists vary in the degree to which their behavior is consistent with the ethical implications of their religious selfidentity? How do organizational contexts influence this variation?

86

Academy of Management Review

January

havior. Thus, it should be no surprise that findings are often mixed, and explained variance low, in studies of the impact of religiosity on ethical behavior that do not take identity salience into account. As noted earlier, however, salience differences reflect both the nature of a person's commitments and the presence or absence of various contextual triggers. This opens the door to understanding how organizational contexts can affect the ethical behavior of religious people. Organizational Influences on Religious Identity Salience In a rich body of theory and empirical research, scholars have addressed the organizational context of ethical behavior. Among others, Trevinio (1986), Jackall (1988), and Jones (1991) provide theoretical models and descriptions of business ethics behavior in which organizational influences play a strong role. In fact, Frederick (1995)has argued that the values of economizing and power aggrandizing often found in business organizations completely overpower employees' personal values. However, this view of organizational influences and personal values simplifies what is, from a symbolic interactionist perspective, a complex process involving a range of commitments and contextual factors that influence the salience of one or another element of a person's identity. Organizational commitments and status. Jackall's (1988) in-depth, multiorganization qualitative study of the nature of moral behavior in organizations provides a good basis for understanding how the context and interpersonal commitments of a manager's organizational role can minimize the relevance of role expectations rooted in life outside the organization. As one of Jackall's informants observed, "What is right in the corporation is not what is right in a man's home or in his church" (1988:6). Jackall's main conclusion is that managers' rules for survival
and success form the heart of what he calls the "bureaucratic ethic," a moral code that guides managers through the choices they encounter in the organization. Such a code includes the necessity of separating personal morality-the familial, civic, and religious role expectations that can drive behavior outside of the workplacefrom the prevailing morality of the work organization. In particular, Jackall's findings indicate

that the story of organizational ethics is preeminently the story of power and status in the organization. As the informant above continued, "Whatis right in the corporation is what the guy above you wants from you" (1988:6). To the extent that managers are attempting to "climb the ladder" of success, or even merely survive in the corporation, Jackall argues that they will sublimate personal values, including religious ones, and conform to the moral ethos of those in the corporate hierarchy whom they need to please. In symbolic interactionist terms, the importance of a manager's commitments to higher-status individuals makes it likely that the role expectations defined by those highstatus individuals will be more influential than role expectations with other origins, including religious ones. According to Jackall's study, the "climbing the ladder" phenomenon necessitates that managers have a strong interpersonal network within the organization, including strong relationships with those higher up in the hierarchy and with one or more corporate "patrons." But to the extent that an individual is building networks within the organization, with concomitant commitments, and not building them with others outside the organization, including with other coreligionists, the relative salience of religious role expectations will decrease. Overall, individuals' organizational commitments will affect the salience of competing role identities. The more numerous and important commitments based on an organizational role identity are, the stronger the salience of the organizational identity relative to a religious role identity will be. Of course, some organization in posimanagers-are members-top-level tions of power and status that can enable them to define the steps of the success ladder and, thus, enjoy greater freedom to invoke religiously based ethical expectations at work. Whether they actually choose do so is another question, however. Given the number and depth of commitments they have built in the course of reaching a position of high status and power, the salience of self-identities established outside the organization may be quite marginal. At the same time, those with very little power or status, or little likelihood of gaining such, might be more likely than the average employee to attempt to invoke religiously based values. The janitor, the line worker protected by a union contract, or the manager who is knowingly pla-

2002

Weaver and Agle

87

teaued or who has opted out of the "climb the ladder" contest, has fewer or less important commitments that are tied to a success ladder within the organization than does the manager oriented toward upward mobility. Persons with less important or fewer commitments based on an organizational role will be less likely to act on organizational role expectations when they conflict with role expectations based on other self-identities, including religious identities. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, those at the top of an organizational hierarchy may have greater freedom to define organizational role expectations and, thus, greater freedom to be guided by religious values, but less psychological capacity to attempt such in comparison to persons on the periphery of an organization, who have fewer or weaker organization-based commitments. Organizational cultural norms. Jackall's analysis of organizational life focuses on situations in which norms of acceptable behavior are well defined within an organization. But what occurs when organizational cultural norms are weak or conflicted, or when top-level management is relatively weak in authority? Tittle and Welch's (1983)theory of secular moral dissolution is relevant in such a setting. Their research indicates that absence, decline, or fluidity in secular moral norms tends to enhance the salience of religious role expectations among religious adherents. That is, weak organizational norms and authorities will not only make religiously influenced behavior easier to carry out but actually can enhance the salience of religion in organizational settings. In an organization characterized by weak or multiple organizational cultures, or by a culture that encourages some degree of diversity, we may find that religion more often becomes a guiding force for people-especially if the religious reference group itself constitutes a strong and homogeneous cultural entity. Coreligionists in the organization. The presence of coreligionists in the workplace provides additional commitments based on a person's religious role identity and, thus, strengthens the salience of that identity. Moreover, coreligionists' use of religious language or other forms of religious behavior (e.g., keeping a Bible on one's desk) can function as a contextual cue for triggering the salience of a religious role identity. But the presence of coreligionists should have

little impact on a person's religious identity salience if those coreligionists are not identifiable as such. Organizations embody cultural norms regarding language and behavior; for example, in some organizations discussion of topics thought personal or controversial is minimized, and language is centered around task-related concerns (Bird, 1996).Thus, organizational cultural norms (discussed above) will affect religious identity salience not only through their overall strength and uniformity but also by the way in which they discourage or permit individuals to identify themselves as religious. This means that public policy initiatives, such as recent U.S. federal directives protecting religious expression in the workplace, have the potential to change ethical behavior in organizations. The more individuals can freely express their religious identity, the more they function as visible coreligionists whose presence enhances the salience and, thus, the behavioral impact of religion for coreligionists. Reflexivity between religious behavior and organizational context. In much research in organization studies, scholars have considered the reflexive relationship between agency and structure-that is, the ways in which individuals' actions create the social structural context that, in turn, influences their action (Barley, 1986; Giddens, 1984;Weaver & Gioia, 1994).Thus, in considering the impact of organizational commitments and contexts on religious identity salience, we also should consider how behavior driven by a person's religiosity might, in turn, influence organizational commitments and contexts. As discussed earlier, many researchers have considered the potential relationship between various forms of religiosity and interpersonal prejudices and preferences. Therefore, it is possible that the behavioral outcomes of a person's religiosity will affect the formation of interpersonal commitments in the workplace. For example, people may seek out relationships or task and workgroup assignments in which
they expect low levels of conflict between religious and organizational roles. Religiously based behavior also can influence the way others in the organization treat religious persons, at least if the religious basis for behavior is visible. Openly religious behavior may affect one's status or influence in an organization, reducing pressures to act unethically; an individual's openly religious behavior may

88

Academy of Management Review

January

lead others to stereotype the individual as not being the kind of person who would act unethically or as not being the kind of person for an aggressive, fast-moving career track. For example, a supervisor may assume that there is no point in asking a particular person to engage in questionable business behavior because of that person's visible piety. Religiously guided behavior may unearth coreligionists at work, who might not have identified themselves in terms of their religion had they not observed another member of their religion. Religiously motivated behavior also can influence the culture of an organization, minimally by increasing the diversity within the culture or weakening existing norms, and maximally by leading to the development of new cultural norms should the individual in question be in a position of extensive influence. In short, individuals may have some degree of influence over the extent to which their religious role identities are forced to compete with workbased role identities; they are not completely powerless to influence the context around them. By their religiously influenced ethical behavior, organization members can create or alter interpersonal commitments, identify coreligionists, alter organizational cultural norms, and affect perceptions of their own status within the organization. Religious Motivational Orientation A major research stream in the psychology of religion has focused on the motivational orientation that adherents take toward their religion, on the grounds that an individual's reasons for practicing a particular religion are likely to influence the relationship between religion and behavior, either directly or as a moderating factor (Rokeach, 1960).This motivational approach to understanding the religion/behavior linkage most often has been framed in terms of Allport's distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations (Allport, 1954, 1966; Allport & Ross, 1967). This distinction is generally parallel to the intrinsic/extrinsic motivation distinction as it appears in other theoretical venues (e.g., rewards at work, political behavior [Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990; Masters, 1991]). An intrinsically oriented person treats religious belief and practice as an end in itself. An extrinsically oriented person, in contrast, treats

religion in terms of its usefulness-that is, as a means for procuring other benefits. In Allport and Ross's language, "The extrinsically motivated individual uses his religion, whereas the intrinsically motivated lives his" (1967:434). For example, the intrinsic goes to church because doing so is thought of as an ultimate good or obligation, perhaps reflecting a sense of ultimate truth, whereas the extrinsic does so in order to satisfy social needs, to foster valuable connections in a community, or to achieve other benefits. Intrinsic and extrinsic religion, however, are not polar opposites. Some individuals a display both motivations (Allport&Ross, 1967): person might view religion as intrinsically valuable yet also be motivated to practice it because of its benefits. Some psychologists of religion have argued for a trichotomy of religion as a means (capturing the extrinsic orientation), religion as an end (capturing the intrinsic orientation), and religion as a quest (Batson et al., 1993;Batson & Ventis, 1982).Religion as a quest, in their view, captures a self-critical and open-ended form of religious belief that, they argue, the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy misses. Critics, however, have argued that a quest orientation is a measure of agnosticism, ambiguity, or conflict, rather than of religious commitment and its motivation (Donahue, 1985; Kojetin, McIntosh, Bridges, & Spilka, 1987).Thus, we limit our discussion to the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction. Motivational Orientation and Ethical Behavior Although some questions linger concerning the specific measures used to empirically assess intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity (Gorsuch, 1984;Kirkpatrick& Hood, 1990;but cf. Masters, 1991),in much empirical research scholars have assessed behavioral differences, including ethically relevant differences, between intrinsically and extrinsically oriented religious persons. For example, researchers have discovered
relationships of religious orientation to moral reasoning (Sapp & Jones, 1986), helping behavior (Batson & Gray, 1981; Hunsberger & Platonow, 1986), and the way individuals cope with negative life events (Hathaway & Pargament, 1990; Pargament, 1990; Pargament et al., 1992). Early research also seemed to indicate that intrinsically religious people display reduced levels of prejudice and discrimination based on

2002

Weaver and Agle

89

race (e.g., Allen & Spilka, 1967;Allport & Ross, 1967) and religion (e.g., Allport & Ross, 1967). Others (e.g., Donahue), however, found that there is little or no relationship between intrinsic religion and prejudice and a weak positive relationship between extrinsic religion and prejudice. More recent studies have suggested the picture is complicated. In particular, the impact of intrinsic or extrinsic religion on something like prejudice may depend on which specific forms of prejudice are explicitly proscribed by a person's particular religion (Batson et al., 1993). For example, McFarland (1989)found that intrinsic religion was positively related to discriminatory attitudes toward communists and homosexuals, but not toward blacks and women--a relationship that may have mirrored the teachings of the church bodies to which his subjects predominantly belonged. Religious motivations matter, but not in isolation from the specific role expectations that religions place on their members (Donahue, 1985;Kirkpatrick& Hood, 1990). Rather, religious motivational orientation is likely to function as a moderating factor, influencing the extent to which an individual actually carries out the role expectations of his or her religion. How can this occur? The different motivational stances persons can have toward their religions should influence their willingness to intend, and actually behave, in accordance with their understanding of the ethical implications of their religion. Specifically, we expect that intentions to behave and actual behavior in accordance with the ethical perceptions and judgments encouraged by one's religion will be lower for persons whose religiosity is more extrinsic than intrinsic. In the case of extrinsic religiosity, religion is a means to other ends and, thus, can be traded off or negotiated away in the face of conflicting demands. The transition from ethical issue recognition and judgment to intention and behavior, therefore, will be weaker. For example, suppose that two individuals are
members of the same religion, that their religion is equally central to the self-identity of each, and that they have the same level of familiarity with and internalization of the religion's role expectations. Also, suppose that each is under pressure from a work supervisor to deceive a customer and that each realizes there is an ethical issue involved and correctly judges that such deception is wrong, at least in part be-

cause their religion implies that such behavior is wrong. Suppose, however, that one of these persons is characterized by extrinsic religiosity; religion is very important to this person because it provides social status and affiliation. Yet membership in various organizations, including the work organization, also can provide social status and affiliation for this individual. Consequently, this person can trade one source of status and affiliation for another; each is a means to the same end. Thus, it will be easier for this individual to depart from religious role expectations as long as other sources of status or affiliation are available. Now suppose that the other individual is characterized by intrinsic religiosity. Religion is very important to this person as well and is seen as an end in itself; religious belief and practice are valued for themselves, as good and right in themselves, and so there is nothing that will substitute for them. All else being equal, the supervisor's efforts to get this person to act contrary to the ethical implications of her religion will be less successful; the supervisor will be hard pressed to offer a substitute for religion, because it is religion itself that is valued by this person. Intrinsic religion, in effect, provides a stronger link between judgment and behavior. Put differently, a person's motivational orientation toward religion will moderate the relationship between religiously based ethical judgment (Rest's stage 2) and the development of intentions and behavior conforming to that judgment (stages 3 and 4). DISCUSSION: AN REINVIGORATING OLD SUBJECT By some accounts, a twenty-first-century discussion of the role of religion in understanding behavior in organization never should have seemed necessary. Nineteenth-century social scientists, influenced by Enlightenment-era rationalism and scientism, usually assumed the
eventual secularization of society. Thus, even though Comte advocated creation of a nonsupernatural "Church of Humanity" as a necessary element of social control, others, such as Lester Ward, the dean of nineteenth-century American sociologists, could envision a kind of secular "positivist republic" in the future (Harp, 1995). Theories of near-inevitable secularization (Bellah, 1970; Berger, 1969; Luckmann, 1970, 1987;

90

Academy of Management Review

January

Parsons, 1971; Wilson, 1966, 1982) are common enough in modern social science that sociologist Jeffrey Hadden has claimed secularization theory to be a sacred principle of modern social science (1987). More forcefully, economist Laurence Iannaccone and sociologists Rodney Stark and Roger Finke argued, at the 1995 American Economic Association (AEA)meetings, that the "scientific study of religion was nothing of the sort" and that "despite the immense antagonism expressed toward 'faith,' the field itself rested almost entirely on faith" in the pathological irrationality of religion (Stark, Iannaccone, & Finke, 1996:436; see also Iannaccone, Stark, & Finke, 1998).Their call was for new approaches to the study of the workings of religion amidst other social institutions and practices. Their AEA venue in part reflects the recent flurryof activity among behavioral economists to give cognitively oriented rational choice accounts of religion and religiously driven behavior-whether it be denominational mobility, conversion, and intermarriage (Iannaccone, 1990);labor market or involvement (Lehrer,1995); even the medieval Crusades (Anderson, Ekelund, Hebert, & Tollison, 1992).Critics may see this as economic imperalism (Bruce, 1993; Chaves & Montgomery, 1996), but scholars in other fields as well are articulating new accounts of the place of religion in cognition and behavior (Boyer, 1994). There is no reason in theory why management and organization scholars cannot add their own insights to the foregoing list, but so far they have not done so. Even though texts in management and business ethics often appeal to the Weber thesis concerning Protestantism and capitalism, the references are cursory and detached from ongoing debate concerning Weber's claims. Management scholarship appears uninvolved in serious questions about the accuracy of Weber's history, his characterization of Calvinism, the applicability of his notion of ideal
types to actual behavior, or the ways in which Weber's thesis itself reflects the intellectual and social context of nineteenth-century Germany (Lehmann & Roth, 1993). Scholars also seem uninterested in applying Weberian-style analyses to other aspects of organizations. Stranger still, when management theorists address organizational practices in non-Western cultures, they often grant a role for religious belief among the cultural factors influencing organizational be-

havior. Why, then, should they treat Western organizations differently? Whether intentionally or by oversight, management research appears to embody its own version of a taken-for-granted secularization thesis, at least to the extent that religious influences on organizational behavior generally have not been examined. Our goal has been to remedy this deficiency by providing a theoretical account of the varying influence of religiosity on ethical behavior in organizations. In our account, the religious role expectations that, when internalized, constitute a person's religious self-identity create a potential for religiously influenced ethical behavior. But whether that behavior actually occurs reflects the salience of a person's religious self-identity, and also the individual's motivational orientation for being religious. These two moderating influences help to account for the variability in people's responses to religious role expectations (and, thus, help explain the conflicting findings among the studies in which these moderating influences are ignored). But they also help to identify ways in which organizational contexts can have an influence in the process linking religious self-identity with actual ethical behavior. Research Challenges in Studying Religion's Influence on Ethics in Organizations Empirical research on ethical behavior in organizations is conceptually challenging (Trevifio & Weaver, 1994). One key conceptual issue concerns the relationship between empirical and normative (i.e., evaluative, in a philosophical sense) inquiry about ethics (Weaver & Trevifio, 1994).In the case of religiosity and business ethics, questions will arise as to whether one can conduct empirical research on religion in a way that is religiously neutral. One could argue, for example, that a social structural symbolic interactionist account fails to do justice to certain religious beliefs and practices (e.g., the
truth claims of specific religions, or religiously based accounts of religious belief and practice). Researchers will need to deal with these highlevel conceptual issues much as business ethics researchers have had to address questions of integrating normative and empirical inquiry. Empirical ethics research also can be methodThe challenging. ologically and logistically subject often is quite sensitive and rife with

2002

Weaver and Agle

91

potential social desirability biases and selfdeceptions, leading to difficulties in access to willing and reliable research subjects. (Research on self-deception, for example [Litz,1998], suggests that the best informants for this type of information may not be individual subjects themselves but, rather, other persons who are close to those subjects.) Bringing religion into the mix adds another sensitive, personal subject, requiring the same kind of careful treatment that has contributed to successful research on ethics in organizations. As indicated earlier, measures of identity salience and religious motivational orientation have received much research attention for several decades. Thus, researchers interested in the empirical study of religion's impact on ethical behavior have much material to work with regarding these key concepts. But other key aspects of successful research into religion's influence on ethical behavior in organizations will pose challenges insofar as they take management researchers into unfamiliar territory. For example, the diversity of role expectations across religions-for belief, emotion, experience, ritual, and so forth-means that researchers will need to learn more about the details of the specific religious subcultures represented in any population being studied. To take one simple case, even within Christianity there are multiple variants that differ regarding questions of whether or not the adherent is expected to assimilate into, separate from, or confront secular culture (Niebuhr, 1951),and these perspectives are not necessarily isomorphic with the formal institutional boundaries delineating various Christian groups. Thus, there is no reason to expect a monolithic impact of Christianity on the behavior of Christians in business organizations. Meaningful examination of the potential impact of religion on ethical behavior in organizations, then, may require the researcher to engage in unfamiliar fields of study, such as
cultural anthropology and the history of religions, in order to accurately measure the religious beliefs of organization members. It will be necessary to define relevant variables at the level of specific role expectations for belief, affect, and behavior, rather than in terms of generic measures of religiosity (e.g., "very religious," "not very religious") or highly general institutional identities (e.g., Christian, Jewish,

Islamic). (Of course, this means forsaking efforts to determine the overall impact of religion in general on ethical behavior in organizations, but one goal of our analysis has been to highlight the untenability of such efforts.) Informative, fine-grained studies of religion's impact on behavior are feasible, however. Illustrating such a religiously fine-grained approach, Davidson and Caddell (1994), using a combination of exchange theory and symbolic interactionism, found that some specific aspects of religiosity influenced the extent to which people thought about work as a calling (as opposed to a job or career). In order to do this, however, they needed to frame response categories in religiously relevant ways, lest people be unable "to express their true feelings about work" (Davidson & Caddell, 1994: 145). Similarly, Smith (1990)and Kellstedt and Green (1993)have provided fine-grained distinctions among denominational groups. Dixon, Levy, and Lowery (1988) and Jelen, Smidt, and Wilcox (1993)have added studies demonstrating the different meanings of being "born again" among Christians. Others have provided insight into people who practice multiple religions (Welch &Leege, 1991)and into the impact of eschatological beliefs on environmental policies (Guth, Green, Kellstedt, & Smidt, 1995). Given the minute amount of existing research on religion's impact on ethical behavior in organizations, much initial research in this area likely will need to be of a qualitative, conceptand theory-building character. Moreover, the question of religion's impact on ethical behavior in organizations will profit from collaborative efforts among organization scholars and sociologists, anthropologists, theologians, or historians of religion so that organizational scholarship invokes defensible characterizations of religious phenomena. Indeed, much of the research from other disciplines that has been cited in this article provides theoretical lenses
and empirical tools useful in overcoming the challenges we have described. For example, our account incorporates a role for extrinsic motivational orientations toward religion. But theory regarding extrinsic motivations could be expanded by attending to rational choice and human capital accounts of religion (lannaccone, 1990; lannaccone et al., 1998). Such accounts can offer fruitful insights into the kinds of benefits or costs of religious commit-

92

Academy of Management Review

January

ment that might be balanced against other, organizationally generated social benefits and costs. From a very different standpoint, virtuebased accounts of ethics also hold promise for further expanding our understanding of religiously informed ethical behavior. Such accounts focus on the long-term development of specific forms of virtue or character excellence that are themselves rooted in the experience of being part of a specific community and in that community's nuturing capacity (Solomon, 1999). Religious communities often see themselves in this kind of nurturing role; by developing a virtue-based approach to religious ethics, we might better understand the nature of religious role expectations and the ways those expectations, and religiously-oriented interpersonal commitments, are developed. Questions for Future Research and Practice Research rooted in strategic choice theory (Child, 1972)indicates an important role for top management's values in influencing an organization's ethics policies and practices (Weaver, Trevifio, & Cochran, 1999).Our account of religious influences on ethical behavior points toward an expansion of research on managers values and behaviors so as to incorporate religiosity alongside other value phenomena. Researchers can begin to ask how managers' religious commitments influence their workplace behavior, but, by taking into account moderating factors, they can do so in a way likely to be empirically more fruitful and decisive than prior efforts. Multiple questions of this sort are readily available regarding business ethics. For example, are managers whose religions emphasize forgiveness less likely to engage in abusive behavior? Are managers whose religions emphasize charitable work less likely to implement layoffs because they know the social costs of those layoffs firsthand? Are managers whose religions emphasize self-sacrifice and the redemptive value of suffering likely to be sanguine about layoffs, projecting similar attitudes toward self-sacrifice and suffering onto terminated employees? Are managers whose religions teach that one's fate is in the hands of a deity (creating something like a religiously based external locus of control) likely to be passive in the face of pending ethical failures? A person's ethical behavior can be influenced by

perceptions of the ethics of others (Tenbrunsel, 1998), so how do perceptions of the religious status of coworkers affect ethical behavior? Although our focus has been on ethical behavior, our proposed framework can be useful in considering the impact of religion in other venues of organizational inquiry, such as performance appraisal, job satisfaction, and employee turnover. Many organizations incorporate an ethical assessment into their performance appraisal processes. Although theory suggests that this practice reflects legal, organizational, and/or professional standards (Gatewood & Carroll, 1991),might a manager's religiosity influence his or her interpretation of those performance standards? Moreover,what will occur when religiously based expectations conflict with organizational expectations? Will an employee for whom religion is highly salient and intrinsically valued show low levels of job satisfaction or organizational commitment, and strong intentions to quit, in cases where the employer's products or policies come into conflict with the implications of the employee's religion? Religion may have a role in research into emotional and cognitive phenomena in organizations. Pargament and colleagues (Hathaway & Pargament, 1990;Pargament et al., 1992)found that different kinds of religious practice generated different responses to stressful events. This suggests that the way organization members deal with stress at work, including the kinds of stresses that lead to unethical behavior, may be influenced by religious characteristics of the individual. Religiosity also may prove relevant in studies aimed at understanding how people create a sense of meaningfulness or wholeness vis6-vis their work (Milliman, Ferguson, Trickett, & Condemi, 1999).Multiple studies also have addressed the potential relationship between forms of religiosity and one or another cognitive capacity, with mixed results. For example, Batson and Raynor-Prince (1983) argued that religious motivational orientation is related to ability to handle cognitive complexity in varied ways, although Pancer et al. (1995) found that religious orthodoxy (a kind of religious role expectation) only influenced cognitive complexity on specifically religious subjects. Is there reason to believe that specific religious selfidentities, or variations in their salience, affect a

2002

Weaver and Agle

93

person's cognitive processes in organizational contexts? Our account has implications for management practice and public policy. Observers often note the extent to which religious conversation and, thus, the expression of religious selfidentity are discouraged or suppressed in work organizations (Fort, 1996;Schaner & Erlemeier, 1995).But if the kinds of religious beliefs typically found among employees were of the sort that would encourage ethical behavior were those beliefs relatively salient, tolerance of religious expression in the workplace would be relevant to encouraging ethical behavior in the workplace. Tolerance of religious expression is likely to make it easier for individuals to identify coreligionists at work, thus enhancing the salience of religion and making behavior more likely to conform to the religion's ethical standards. Management policies and role modeling regarding acceptable religious expression, along with government policy regarding free expression of religion, therefore can have an important impact on the extent to which people do, or do not, "leave their ethics at the door" when they arrive at work. Also, by explaining how a manager's religious self-identity easily can fail to generate ethical behavior, our account can help to provide a "reality check" on facile, selfserving appeals to religiosity of the sort managers might use to avoid addressing difficult ethical questions (e.g., "I'm a religious person; of course I'll do the right thing."). CONCLUSION People often assume that religion influences the ethical behavior of persons in business organizations. Such assumptions are reinforced by executive comments such as this, offered by the chairman of a chemical company: "I find it impossible to separate life and corporate involvement from my religious convictions" (Van Bierma, 1997:53). But, in fact, people sometimes
do separate corporate involvement from religious convictions. We have tried to explain both the possibility and limitations of a religionbehavior linkage by offering a social structural symbolic interactionist theory, focused primarily on individual-level religious characteristics (religious identity, identity salience, and motivational orientation) and their relationship to the ethical behavior process. We also have in-

dicated several ways in which organizational context can play a role in the religion-behavior matrix. However, we expect that the empirical study of religion's impact on ethical behavior in organizations will be challenging, because it will require researchers to attend to the specific role expectations that constitute a person's selfidentity as a practitioner of a particular religion-a task of cultural and theological identification likely to take most business ethics researchers into unfamiliar territory. Likewise, successful empirical study will require recognition of moderating influences on the religionbehavior link-influences that reflect factors in the organizational context. Overall, there is good reason to think that religiosity does influence ethical behavior in organizations, but also good reason to think that creative and interdisciplinary research will be needed to discover just what that relationship is. REFERENCES
Agle, B. R., & Van Buren, H. 1999. God and mammon: The modern relationship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9: 563582. Allen, R. O., & Spilka, B. 1967. Committed and consensual religion: A specification of religion-prejudice relationships. Journal for the Scientific 191-206. Study of Religion, 6:

Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Allport, G. W. 1966. The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5: 447-457. Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. 1967. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5: 432-443. Anderson, G. M., Ekelund, R. B., Hebert, R. F., & Tollison, R. D. 1992. An economic interpretation of the medieval crusades. Journal of European Economic History, 21: 339364. Bainbridge, W. S. 1989. The religious ecology of deviance. American Sociological Review, 54: 288-295. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Barley, S. R. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 78-108. Batson, C. D., & Gray, R. A. 1981. Religious orientation and helping behavior: Responding to one's own or to the victim's needs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40: 511-520.

94

Academy of Management Review

January

Batson, C. D., & Raynor-Prince,L. 1983.Religious orientation and complexity of thought about existential concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30: 416-429. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. 1993.Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. 1982.The religious experience: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, J. F. 1989.The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 15: 1-38. Bellah, R. N. 1970.Civil religion in America. In R. N. Bellah (Ed.), Beyond belief: Essays on religion in a posttraditional world: 168-189. New York:Harper & Row. Berger,P. L. 1969.The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. Garden City, NY:Doubleday. Bird,F. B. 1996.The muted conscience: Moral silence and the practice of ethics in business. Westport, CT:Quorum. Bock, E. W., Cochran, J. K., & Beeghley, L. 1987.Moral messages: The relative influence of denomination on the religiosity-alcohol relationship. Sociological Quarterly, 28: 89-103. Bommer, M., Grato, C., Gravander, J., & Tuttle, M. 1987. A behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6: 265-280. Boyer, P. 1994.The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bruce, S. 1993. Religion and rational choice: A critique of economic explanations of religious behavior. Sociology of Religion, 54: 193-206. Burke, P. J. 1980.The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective. Social Psychological Quarterly, 43: 18-29. Burke, P. J., & Tully, J. C. 1977. The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55: 881-897. Butterfield, K., Trevifio, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. 2000. Moral awareness in organizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53: 9811008. Chaves, M., & Montgomery, J. D. 1996. Rationality and the framing of religious choices. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35: 128-145. Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure, environment, and performance. Sociology, 6: 1-22. Clark, J.W., &Dawson, L.E. 1996.Personal religiousness and ethical judgments: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 15:359-372. Cochran, J. K. 1988. The effect of religiosity on secular and ascetic deviance. Sociological Focus, 21: 293-306. Cochran, J. K., Wood, P. B., & Arneklev, B. J. 1994. Is the religiosity-delinquency relationship spurious? Social control theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31: 92-123. Cosgel, M. M. 1993.Religious culture and economic perfor-

mance: Agricultural productivity of the Amish, 1850-80. Journal of Economic History,53: 319-331. Davidson, J.C., &Caddell, D. P. 1994.Religion and the meaning of work. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33: 135-147. Davidson, J. D., & Knudsen, D. D. 1977.A new approach to religious commitment. Sociological Focus, 10: 151-173. Dejong, G. F., Faulkner, J. E., & Warland, R. H. 1976.Dimensions of religiosity reconsidered: Evidence from a crosscultural study. Social Forces, 54: 866-889. Demerath, N. J.,Hall, P. D., Schmitt, T., &Williams, R. H. 1998. Sacred companies: Organizational aspects of religion and religious aspects of organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R. D., Levy, D. E., & Lowery, R. C. 1988. Asking the "born-again" question. Review of Religious Research, 30: 33-39. Dobson, K., & Franche, R. -L. 1989.A conceptual and empirical review of the depressive realism hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21: 419-433. Donahue, M. J. 1985. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 400-419. Durkheim, E. 1915. The elementary forms of religious life. London:Allen and Unwin. Ellison, C. G. 1991.An eye for an eye? A note on the Southern subculture of violence thesis. Social Forces, 69: 12231239. Epstein, E. M. 2000. Contemporary Jewish perspectives on business ethics: The contributions of Meir Tamari and Moses L. Pava-a review article. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10:523-542. Fastnow, C., Grant, J.T., & Rudolph, T. J. 1999.Holy roll calls: Religious tradition and voting behavior in the U.S. House. Social Science Quarterly, 80: 687-701. Festinger, L. A. 1957.A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fort, T. L. 1996. Religious belief, corporate leadership, and business ethics. American Business LawJournal,33:451472. Frederick, W. C. 1995. Values, nature, and culture in the American corporation. New York: Oxford University Press. Gatewood, R. D., & Carroll, A. B. 1991.Assessment of ethical performance of organizational members: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 16: 667690. Giddens, A. 1984.The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gioia, D. A. 1992. Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11:379-389. Gioia, D. A., & Manz, C. C. 1985.Linking cognition and behavior: A script-processing interpretation of vicarious learning. Academy of Management Review, 10:527-539. Glock, C. Y. 1959. The sociology of religion. In R. Merton,

2002

Weaver and Agle

95

L. Bloom, & L. Cottrell (Eds.), Sociology today: Problems and prospects: 153-177. New York: Basic Books. Glock, C. Y. 1962. On the study of religious commitment. Religious Education, 57(Research Supplement): S98S110. Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R. 1965. Religion and society in tension. Chicago: Rand McNally. Gorsuch, R. L. 1984. Measurement: The boon and bane of investigating religion. American Psychologist, 39: 228236. Gorsuch, R. L. 1993. Religion and prejudice: Lessons not learned from the past. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3: 29-31. Grasmick, H. G., Kinsey, K., & Cochran, J. K. 1991. Denomination, religiosity and compliance with the law: A study of adults. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30: 99-107. Griffin, G. A. E., Gorsuch, R., & Davis, A.-L. 1987. A crosscultural investigation of religious orientation, social norms, and prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26: 358-365. Guth, J. L., Green, J. C., Kellstedt, L. A., & Smidt, C. E. 1995. Faith and the environment: Religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy. American Journal of Political Science, 39: 364-382. Hadden, J. K. 1987. Toward desacralizing ory. Social Forces, 65: 587-611. secularization the-

Iannaccone, L.,Stark,R., &Finke, R. 1998.Rationality and the "religious mind." Economic Inquiry, 36: 373-390. Jackall, R. 1988.Mural mazes: The world of corporate managers. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Jelen, T. G. 1998. Research in religion and mass political behavior in the United States: Looking both ways after two decades of scholarship. American Politics Quarterly, 26: 110-125. Jelen, T. G., Smidt, C. E., & Wilcox, C. 1993. The political effects of the born-again phenomenon. In D. C. Leege & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.),Rediscovering the impact of religion on political behavior: 199-215.Armonk,NY:Sharpe. Jenson, G. F., & Erickson,M. L. 1979.The religious factor and delinquency: Another look at the hellfire hypotheses. In R. Wuthnow (Ed.),The religious dimension: New directions in quantitative research: 157-177.New York:Academic Press. Jones, T. M. 1991.Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16:366-395. Kellstedt, L. A., & Green, J. C. 1993. Knowing God's many people: Denominational preference and political behavior. In D. C. Leege & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.),Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics: 53-71. Armonk, NY:Sharpe. Kennedy, E. J.,&Lawton, L. 1998.Religiousness and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 17: 163-175. Khavari, K. A., & Harmon, T. M. 1982.The relationship between the degree of professed religious belief and use of drugs. International Journal of the Addictions, 17: 847857. Kidwell, J.M., Stevens, R. E., & Bethke, A. L. 1987.Differences in the ethical perceptions between male and female managers: Myth or reality? Journal of Business Ethics, 6: 489-493. L. Kirkpatrick, A., & Hood, R. W. 1990.Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29: 442-462. Koehn, D. 1995. A role for virtue ethics in the analysis of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5: 533-540. Kohlberg, L. 1967. Moral and religious education and the public schools: A developmental view. In T. Sizer (Ed.), Religion and public education: 164-184. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kojetin,B. A., McIntosh,D. N., Bridges, R. A., & Spilka, B. 1987. Quest: Constructive search or religious conflict? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26: 111-115. Larson, D. B., Pattison, E. M., Blazer, D. G., Omran, A. R., & Kaplan, B. H. 1986. Systematic analysis of research on religious variables in four major psychiatric journals, 1978-1982.American Journal of Psychiatry, 143:329-334. Layman, G. C. 1997.Religion and political behavior in the United States: The impact of beliefs, affiliations, and commitment from 1980-1994.Public Opinion Quarterly, 61: 288-316. Lehmann, H.,&Roth,G. (Eds.).1993.Weber'sProtestantethic:

Hammond, P. E. 1980. The gap between theory and research in the sociology of religion. In H. M. Blalock, Jr. (Ed.), Sociological theory and research: 332-338. New York: Free Press. Harp, G. 1995. Positivist republic: Auguste Comte and the reconstruction of American liberalism, 1865-1920. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press. Hathaway, W. L., & Pargament, K. I. 1990. Intrinsic religiousness, religious coping, and psychosocial competence: A covariance structure analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29: 423-441. Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1978. Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 451-457. Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1979. Organizational philosophy, policies and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 331-338. Hoelter, J. W. 1985. The structure of self-conception: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 1392-1407. Hood, R. W., Jr., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. 1996. The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. New York: Guilford Press. Hunsberger, B., & Platonow, E. 1986. Religion and helping charitable causes. Journal of Psychology, 120: 517-528. lannaccone, L. 1990. Religious practice: A human capital approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29: 297-315.

96

Academy of Management Review

January

Origins, evidence, contexts. New York:Cambridge University Press. Lehrer,E. L. 1995.The effects of religion on the labor supply of women. Social Science Research, 24: 281-302. Lehrer,E. L., & Chiswick, C. U. 1993.Religion as a determinant of marital stability. Demography, 30: 385-404. Levin, J. S. 1997. Religious research in gerontology, 19801984:A systematic review. Journal of Religious Geron3-31. tology, 10(3): Levin, J. S., & Puchalski, C. M. 1997.Religion and spirituality in medicine: Research and education. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278:792-793. Litz, R. A. 1998.Self-deception and corporate social responsibility: A micro-level conception. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 15: 125-143. Luckmann, T. 1970. The invisible religion: The problem of religion in modern society. New York:Macmillan. Luckmann, T. 1987. Social reconstruction of transcendence. In Secularization and religion: The persisting tension (Acts of the XIXthInternational Conference for the Sociology of Religion, Tfibingen):23-31. Lausanne: CISR. Maltby, J. 1999.Personality dimensions of religious orientation. Journal of Psychology, 133:631-640. Masters, K. S. 1991.Of boons, banes, babies, and bath water: A reply to the Kirkpatrick and Hood discussion of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 30: 312-317. McFarland,S. G. 1989.Religious orientations and the targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28: 324-336. McNichols, C. W., & Zimmerer,T. W. 1985.Situational ethics: An empirical study of differentiators of student attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 4: 175-180. Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D., & Condemi, B. 1999. Spirit and community at Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a spiritual values-based model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12:221-233. Nash, L. 1995.The evangelical CEO. Across the Board, 31(2): 26-34. Niebuhr, H. R. 1951.Christ and culture. New York:Harper &
Row.

relationship of religious orientations to religious coping with negative life events. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 31: 504-513. Parsons, T. 1971.Belief, unbelief and disbelief. In R. Caporale &A. Grumelli (Eds.),The culture of unbelief: Studies and proceedings from the FirstInternational Symposium on Unbelief: 207-245. Berkeley: University of California Press. Putney, S., & Middleton, R. 1961.Dimensions and correlates of religious ideologies. Social Forces, 39: 285-290. Rest, J. R. 1986. Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York:Praeger. Rokeach, M. 1960. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Sapp, G. L.,& Jones, L. 1986.Religious orientation and moral judgment.Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 25: 208-214. Schaner, D. J.,& Erlemeier, M. M. 1995.When faith and work collide: Defining standards for religious harassment in the workplace. Employee Relations Law Journal, 1995(1): 7-28. Smith, R. E., Wheeler, G., & Diener, E. 1975. Faith without works:Jesus people, resistance to temptation, and altruism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5: 320-330. Smith, T. W. 1990.Nested games: Rational choice in cooperative politics. Berkeley: University of Califonia Press. Solomon, R. C. 1999.A better way to think about business: How personal integrity leads to corporate success. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Stackhouse, M. L., McCann, D. P., Roels, S. J., & Williams, P. N. 1995.On moral business. Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans. Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. 1968.American piety: The nature of religious commitment.Berkeley:University of California Press. Stark, R., Iannaccone, L. R., & Finke, R. 1996.Religion, science, and rationality. American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings, 86: 433-437. Stryker,S. 1980.Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. 1982. Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: Theoryand research example. In W. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.),Personality, roles and social behavior: 199-218. New York:Springer-Verlag. Tenbrunsel, A. E. 1998.Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptations. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 330-339. Tittle, C., &Welch, M. 1983.Religiosity and deviance: Toward a contingency theory of constraining effects. Social Forces, 61: 653-682. Trevifio,L.K. 1986.Ethical decision-making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11:601-617. Trevifio, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. 1994. Business ETHICS/

Oatley, K. 1992.Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ozmet, S. 1992. Protestants: The birth of a revolution. New York:Doubleday. Pancer, S. M., Jackson, L. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt,M., & Lea, J. 1995. Religious orthodoxy and the complexity of thought about religious and non-religious issues. Journal of Personality, 63: 213-232. Pargament, K. 1990. God help me: Toward a theoretical framework of coping for the psychology of religion. In M. L. Lynn & D. O. Moberg, Research in the social scientific study of religion, vol. 2: 195-224.Greenwich, CT:JAI Press. Pargament, K. I., Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Falgout, K., Ensing, D. S., & Van Haitsma, K. 1992. God help me (II):The

2002

Weaver and Agle

97

BUSINESS ethics: One field or two? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4: 113-129. Van Bierma, D. 1997.Mormons,Inc: The secrets of America's most prosperous religion. Time, August 4: 53. Verbit, M. F. 1970.The components and dimensions of religious behavior: Toward a reconceptualization of religiosity. In P. E. Hammond & B. Johnson (Eds.),American mosaic: 24-39. New York:Random House. Watts, F. N. 1997.Psychological and religious perspectives on emotion. Zygon, 32: 243-260. Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. 1994.Paradigms lost: Incommensurability vs. structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15:565-590. Weaver, G. R., &Trevifio,L.K. 1994.Normative and empirical business ethics: Separation, marriage of convenience or marriage of necessity? Business Ethics Quarterly,4: 129144. Weaver, G. R., Trevifio,L.K.,& Cochran, P. L. 1999.Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 41-57. Weber, M. 1930.The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York:Scribner. Welch, M. R., & Leege, D. C. 1991.Dual reference groups and political orientations: An examination of evangelicallyoriented Catholics. American Journal of Political Science, 35: 28-56.

Welch, M. R., Tittle, C. R., & Petee, T. 1991. Religion and deviance among adult Catholics: A test of the "moral communities" hypothesis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30: 159-172. Wilder, E. I. 1996. Socioeconomic attainment and expressions of Jewish identification, 1970 and 1990. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35: 109-128. Wilson, B. R. 1966. Religion in secular society: A sociological comment. London: Watts. Wilson, B. R. 1982. Religion in sociological ford: Oxford University Press. perspective. Ox-

Wimberley, D. W. 1984. Socioeconomic deprivation and religious salience: A cognitive behavioral approach. Sociological Quarterly, 25: 223-238. Wimberley, D. W. 1989. Religion and role-identity: A structural symbolic interactionist conceptualization of religiosity. Sociological Quarterly, 30: 125-142. Wimberley, R. C. 1978. Dimensions of commitment: Generalizing from religion to politics. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17: 225-240. Witter, R. A., Stock, R. A., Okun, M. A., & Haring, M. J. 1985. Religion and subjective well-being in adulthood: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Religious Research, 26: 332-342. Zahn, G. C. 1970. The commitment dimension. Analysis, 31: 203-208. Sociological

Gary R. Weaver is an associate professor of management in the College of Business and Economics at the University of Delaware. He received a Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University (management) and a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa (philosophy). His research interests include organizational and individual-level issues of ethics in organizations, and metatheoretical issues in business ethics and organization studies. Bradley R. Agle is an associate professor and director of the David Berg Center for Ethics and Leadership in the Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. He received his Ph.D.fromthe University of Washington. His research interests include strategic and ethical leadership, stakeholder theory, and measurement of organizational ethical and social performance.