If You Can’t Take the Heat: Cultural Beliefs about Questionable Conduct,Stigma,Punishment,and Withdrawal among Mexican Police Officers

Normalized and deviant misconduct

Scholars distinguish across deviant, dysfunctional, and corrupt behavior to examine their antecedents and outcomes. Deviant behavior refers to aberrant conduct that violates organizational norms and threatens its well-being (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). It can be constructive or destructive (Warren, 2003). In contrast, dysfunctional behavior can stem from institutionalized practices that actually are common. Thus, workplace deviance refers to divergence from norms that may or may not be dysfunctional (Griffin & Lopez, 2005).

Corruption refers to the illicit use of position or power for personal or collective gain. It implies a willful perversion of morals, order, and ideals (Ashforth et al., 2008). Corruption can be embedded in organizational processes and routines (e.g. Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Sarchione, Cuttler, Muchinsky, & Nelson-Gray, 1998). People are ‘infected’ or initiate, perpetuate, and succumb to corruption through coercion, or by condoning and complying with dysfunctional practices (Pinto et al., 2008). Attraction-selection-attrition forces (Schneider, 1987) drive people to self-select and be socialized into corrupt settings, while misfits are selected out. Supervisors have an important role as they model (un)ethical behavior to subordinates (Treviño et al., 2006).

Dysfunctional behavior thus includes corrupt behavior that does not deviate from institutional norms (e.g. whistle-blowing is deviant, but not corrupt; Park, Blenkinsopp, Oktem, & Omurgonulsen, 2008). Corrupt behavior is dysfunctional to society, but can benefit the organization and/or the perpetrator (Linstead et al., 2014; Pinto et al., 2008). Therefore, we term dysfunctional and corrupt behavior accepted by the organization normalized misconduct and dysfunctional and corrupt behavior going beyond institutionalized norms deviant misconduct.

Misconduct, punishment, and withdrawal behavior

Punishment is an exercise of coercive power. It consists of the administration of negative consequences to modify undesired behavior (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Butterfield, Treviño, & Ball, 1996; Treviño et al., 2006). Research on workplace punishment is scant as many scholars consider it unfair, harsh, as well as ineffective, as it has unintended adverse consequences such as absenteeism and turnover (Podsakoff et al., 2006). Others consider its ineffectiveness to be a misconception (Atwater, Waldman, Carey, & Cartier, 2001). Punishment is common in the police and militarized organizations (Cancino & Enriquez, 2004; Godfrey, Lilley, & Brewis, 2012; Gordon, Clegg & Kornberg, 2009). It is often implemented to correct misconduct, but it is also used to coerce people into compliance with normalized misconduct.

Cultural beliefs about questionable conduct

Corruption is influenced by a nation’s political, economic, institutional (Jong-Sung & Khagram, 2005) and cultural environment (Husted, 2002; Sanchez, Gomez, & Wated, 2008). Culture includes values, norms, traditions, assumptions, and beliefs (Hofstede, 1998). This last element refers to convictions about the truth or reality of a phenomenon. Cultural beliefs are the basis for assumptions (Schein, 2006) and are conducive to behavior and rationalizations for such behavior. Bond et al. (2004) advanced the concept of social axioms – the ‘basic premises that people endorse and use to guide their behavior in different situations’ (p. 288) – to refer to beliefs about ‘the way things are’ or how the world works (Leung et al., 2002).

We studied beliefs related to the prevalence, justification, and rationalization of misconduct in this national, occupational, and organizational context. First, we considered cultural beliefs about greed – an excessive desire for more of something (Wang & Murnighan, 2011), such as monetary gain. This belief reflects the idea that money is a valuable and powerful resource regardless of the means used to obtain it, and that people with money are admirable and deserve it. Greed is related to ambition, but implies avarice. Greed can elicit unethical behavior when people are exposed to opportunities for monetary gain (Gino & Pierce, 2009; Kouchaki, Smith-Crowe, Brief, & Sousa, 2013).

Second, we considered cultural beliefs about wariness – the notion that people should be cautious of out-group members and that silence and secrecy about misconduct is desirable. Wariness may stem from the need to comply with perceptions of cultural norms (Costas & Grey, 2014; Park et al., 2008) and condone the misconduct of others (Gabriel, 2012). Wariness can reflect group loyalty used to promote and obtain benefits, such as protection and solidarity (Bittner, 1970; Van Maanen, 1978).

Third, we considered toughness, which entails beliefs in roughness and brute force to accomplish goals, and the virtuousness of courage and valor to withstand danger. Toughness is similar to rugged individualism, a coping strategy common among police officers (Beehr, Johnson, & Nieva, 1995). It resembles the Mexican value of ‘machismo,’ which equates fearlessness, toughness, and bravado with masculinity (Paredes, 1971). Although bravery, courage, and valor have positive connotations, toughness can degenerate into ruthlessness, cruelty, and brutality.

Fourth, we considered savvy, which refers to beliefs about the importance of personal wit and being ‘street-smart.’ Savvy is related to the use of manipulation to obtain power and influence, and the exercise of authority through ‘palancas’ (verbatim: leverage) or influential personal connections. Both are common in police organizations (Bittner, 1970). Although potentially positive, savvy can degrade into cunning and guile.

These beliefs are neither exhaustive nor unique to the present study’s setting. Greed is common in other masculine cultures (Hofstede, 1998). Savvy is similar to practices such as the jeithino in Brazil (Duarte, 2006), guanxi in China (Xin & Pearce, 1996), and Machiavellianism, which is universal. Toughness is common in assertive and masculine cultures (Aditya & House, 2002; Hofstede, 1998), ‘cultures of honor’ such as the American South (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996), and military occupations (Godfrey et al., 2012). Lastly, wariness is common in high-power distance (Park et al., 2008) and secretive cultures (Costas & Grey, 2014).

We surmise that these four cultural beliefs are related to individual adherence to organizational norms. As we describe later, three of these beliefs conform to police organizational and occupational normative expectations. Toughness, greed, and wariness are expected in an organization dealing with constant danger, where people need to cover for one another, and where money on-the-side is considered the only way to earn a living. People with such beliefs fit the organization better and face lower attrition pressures. Thus, they are less likely to distance themselves from the organization through absenteeism or to leave it, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Beliefs about savvy, however, may lead to reprimands and withdrawal behavior. Savvy may help new recruits learn on the street faster and use the cultural structure to their advantage. However, people who believe in savvy are likely to rely on individual abilities to manage adversity, and to take advantage of questionable opportunities for individual rather than group gain. Savvy and cunning are considered positive leadership attributes in Mexico and Latin America (Aditya & House, 2002). Nonetheless, savvy may not be desirable or tolerated from rank-and-file employees in high power distance and collective cultures. Moreover, organizational members in low hierarchical roles are expected to display greater norm conformity or risk being perceived as deviant (Bowles & Gelfand, 2010). Therefore, those who are savvy or cunning may be thought to be different, ‘too smart for their own good,’ and to fail to comply with normalized misconduct norms. For example, savvy rank officers may be considered the ones who engage in deviant misconduct and threaten the organization’s welfare.

Awareness of a dirty work stigma

Dirty work refers to occupational activities considered to be disgusting or degrading (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). People who perform ‘dirty’ jobs are tainted by others who seek to distance themselves from such activities. Researchers have identified three types of occupational stigmas: the moral taint of dubious ethics (e.g. exotic dancer, pawnbroker), the physical taint of danger or contact with physical or symbolic ‘dirt’ (e.g. miner, garbage collector), and the social taint of contact with other stigmatized people (e.g. prison guard) (Ashforth & Kreiner, 2014). Policing possesses the three components due to its danger, corruption, brutality, violence, and contact with criminals (Dick, 2005; Drew & Hulvey, 2007; Rubinstein, 1973).

Stigma consciousness refers to awareness and sensitivity to a stereotyped status (Pinel & Paulin, 2005). It influences behavior given the importance of occupation to people’s self-concepts. People identify less and are more likely to leave jobs with a dirty-work stigma (Lai et al., 2013), but those who cannot distance themselves from a stigma (e.g. due to low job alternatives or sunk costs) may embrace the stigma to maintain self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989; Goffman, 1963). They can rely on social validation from others in the same situation, construct a positive identity, and protect themselves from identity threat and marginalization. They may reframe or change the meaning attached to the occupation, recalibrate the standards used to judge it, and refocus their attention to other occupational attributes (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). These identity strategies, common in police organizations (Lester & Brink, 1985; Perrott & Taylor, 1994; Pinel & Paulin, 2005), allow the emergence of strong occupational cultures, occupational and organizational identification, and stigmatized group solidarity and norm conformity (Kreiner, Ashforth, & Sluss, 2006; Manning, 2008).

As occupational dirty-work stigmas can lead to withdrawal but also solidarity and identification, we do not hypothesize a main effect but explore stigma consciousness as a moderator. We posit that people who are more conscious of the police stigma are likely to comply with organizational expectations, including condoned normalized misconduct, and to justify such behavior. Relying on the premise that beliefs and attitudes interact to influence behavior (Bond et al., 2004; Pinel, 1999), we surmise that the role of beliefs about questionable conduct on withdrawal behavior and reprimands is contingent upon stigma consciousness.

As stated earlier, organizational members may consider savvy in rank employees to be guile or cunning. People who are stigma conscious and who possess savvy beliefs may be less likely to perceive the bonding effects of stigma given that they may have (or believe to have) the ability to exit the group. They are likely to distance themselves from the identity rather than to display group identification and solidarity, conform to social expectations, or be considered team players. As such, they may deviate from established norms, withdraw, and receive punishments.

Qualitative phase

In this phase, we explored the presence and implications of institutionalized beliefs about danger, stigma, and misconduct. We sought to identify and narrow the research focus, develop measurement instruments, and illustrate and interpret quantitative findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). We used semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited from a group of organizational members receiving coaching from the second author, who also conducted the interviews, as part of an administration-initiated change intervention. We implemented purposive (theoretical) sampling. Given potential gender differences and the formation of subcultures across hierarchical roles (Prenzler & Drew, 2013; Trice, 1993), we further set a premium on gender and role diversity to obtain a broad range of experiences (Cassell & Symon, 2004). We recruited to the point of redundancy – when we expected no new information from subsequent participants. Ten officers – three male administrators and seven municipal officers (including three female officers) – were interviewed. Using an interpretive approach, we assessed the responses to find common patterns and themes (Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011). To be reflexive (Cassell & Symon, 2004), both authors engaged in an ongoing discussion of the responses to critically assess the research process and question presuppositions. For example, we disregarded an initial emphasis on crime risk as precursor to withdrawal as we found that respondents were well aware of occupational risks and self-selected into a dangerous occupation.

Respondents were initially asked about satisfying and dissatisfying aspects of the job. Interview questions then turned to relevant thoughts and experiences on occupational attributes emphasized in the literature, such as socialization, ‘real police work,’ and ‘learning on the street’ (Van Maanen, 1978). Interview themes were allowed to deviate to give voice to the interviewees and focus on their experience. Interviewees were not directly asked about corruption and danger due to their sensitive nature, but these themes surfaced naturally. Although not part of the research design, we were able corroborate our results and interpretations with a few police administrators during a formal presentation of the results.

The information gathered helped us understand the relevance of withdrawal behavior in this culture and to interpret objective quantitative data. Responses suggested that the receipt of formal reprimands itself may be subject to questionable practices such as cronyism and favoritism by police superiors, who may pardon or ‘bend the rules’ for officers who are well socialized or liked. Also, police administrators commented about sales of excused absences, which we corroborated with local newspaper articles reporting that local state-hospital physicians were caught selling formal sick-leave to police officers.

Responses revealed that officers were aware of their corrupt and violent stigma, but that those who were ashamed of their occupation were shunned or informally penalized by colleagues. Respondents justified questionable conduct, blaming civilians, and the idea of stigma as the precursor of a self-fulfilling prophecy resonated with interviewees.

If they put all corrupt people in jail, who would lock the cell?

If you [society] tell me that I am [corrupt], then I am.

If the officer never asks for money and the citizens offer it, who is the corrupt one?

The idea of toughness arose from the discussion of risk, courage, and ‘real police work.’ Contrary to initial expectations, danger was not deemed a negative occupational attribute, and most respondents described the importance of toughness, bravery, and valor. Bravery was equated to masculinity, a ‘professional badge,’ and what it takes to enter an inner-circle.

Becoming one of the guys requires behaving like a real man.

Respondents manifested that being weak or showing fear was despised. Three officers described the story of a colleague who would freeze in encounters when others expected him to cover them. He was blamed for the decease of former partners and earned social rejection, illustrated by being nicknamed an animal that plays dead when facing danger:

The ‘zarigüeya’ [possum] killed three of his partners.

Interviewees described the importance of courage in the attraction and retention of police officers. One female officer described a criminal chase and cross-fire that required her to slide under a van with the motor running. Her feelings about the episode were positive:

I felt the adrenaline rush. At that moment I realized that this [being a police officer] was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.

Some respondents confounded bravado, courage, and toughness with ruthlessness, violence, and lack of mercy. This was justified by the behavior being common and by the guilt of presumed criminals:

…we go to ‘el bordo’ to pick up bums [most are homeless or drug addicts deported from the U.S.] … Do I like going? Are you kidding? I love it! We go on the pick-up trucks, chase them like rabbits, give them a scolding, and ‘pa’ dentro’ [on to detention].

The use of proverbs to justify and explain behavior resonated with interviewees. For instance, respondents reiterated a common Mexican proverb used to describe how officers learned through socialization, including the spread of misconduct and social stigma. This proverb equates institutionalized cheating and learning to cheat to teamwork, consistent with Mars’ (1982) animal metaphors distinguishing workplaces ‘cheats’ based on how they learn and justify misconduct:

He who hangs out with wolves learns to howl.

The consequences of the stigma were known, but interviewees also described love for the uniform and strong occupational identification. A police administrator stated that there is no choice but to love what they do because there are few alternatives:

Becoming a cop implies entering an industry loaded with opprobrium … if an officer wants to change occupation, he [or she] will be told ‘you were a police officer, [you will not get this job because] we want honest people’ … If you worked in the ‘ministerio público’ [courthouse] you can’t become a judge even though police work is the natural [job] training because we are considered to be ‘rats’ [thieves] … it’s because of the police image that [rank officers] can’t take other jobs. This leads them to do [corrupt] things.

Another administrator indicated that the officers who are the most committed and cope with adversity are those who join the force due to family tradition and are pre-socialized by families. Others supported this:

My wife divorced me, she could not put up with this. We moved from our house when the violence got bad, cars would stop in front every other night and make screeching tire noises … but my father was a cop and me and my brothers were always more serious [about being police officers] than others … I am also worried about my kids and tell them to be careful.

Being socialized and learning from one another was a common theme, but also the reason some ‘go to the other side’ or engage in deviant misconduct. In contrast to other beliefs, respondents perceived savvy to be negative and equated it to being ‘tranza’ [displaying cunning and guile] and earning the group’s rejection:

When someone goes to the other side, other people shun him [or her].

One year [Jane Doe] was given a medal for being the best police officer in the corporation … A couple of years later she died in jail. She was the commander’s pet, but she got involved with heavy ‘narcos’ and things got rough for her when [police leadership] changed.

A few officers stated that ‘everybody’ was involved in violence or corruption, but also that some officers take pride in their ethics and value of the uniform. To show occupational pride, some officers described an episode when rank officers were deprived of their guns during a corruption investigation. This led to protests, including officers who brought slingshots to work and posed with them for newspaper photos.

Overall, respondents described the presence of corrupt conduct and questionable behavior involving greed, toughness, wariness, and savvy. They described rationalizations through the description of dirty-work attributes in other occupations (e.g. politics, law, finance) and the role of civilians in bribery. Similar to the idea of corruption in pursuit of a noble cause (Wolfe & Piquero, 2011), respondents argued that questionable conduct ultimately helps society, regardless of the means. In contrast, another officer described how he fought the stigma via reframing and recalibrating (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999) by enhancing occupational ends and means, but not at the expense of others.

One evening, my partner and I found a couple stranded on the highway with car problems. We approached them and the woman became nervous and asked us to leave … but we helped them and managed to restart their car [which had California license plates]. They were grateful and insisted on giving us money, and we said no. They apologized and said they had heard many bad stories about us [Mexican police] and thought we were not going to be any different. We left and I felt very good about changing their attitude towards us.

Quantitative phase

We gathered quantitative data using a convenience sample. The results of the qualitative study helped the design of this phase and the interpretation of its results. Approximately 600 municipal police officers (constituted by about 2500 members) were provided with a copy of the survey and asked to complete it. We offered either anonymity or confidentiality. 352 officers returned the survey, including 41 police administrators provided with anonymity. Men comprised 92% (n = 320) of the total sample. The average age was 32 (SD = 7.59) and the average tenure was 7.44 (SD = 6.79). For the hypotheses tests, we used the sample of 192 rank officers opting for confidentiality We did not find any significant differences in cultural beliefs or stigma consciousness between rank officers who selected confidentiality and those who selected anonymity.

Mexican cultural beliefs about questionable conduct (MCBQC)

We developed the MCBQC scale to assess the extent to which people believe that behavior with questionable ethical underpinnings is widespread among their peers and community and represents life or ‘the way things are.’ The scale consists of common Mexican proverbs (Pérez Martínez, 2002). Adages, sayings, or proverbs are objective cultural artifacts and examples of folk wisdom used by members of a culture to communicate common sense and experiential knowledge to one another. As such, they express societal norms and values (Sellers, 1994). Proverbs can be used to rationalize questionable behavior since they are dicta or rule-like propositions that shape judgment and guide conduct (Shapin, 2001). Researchers have used them as objective measures of culture, value orientation, and risk-taking behavior (Weber et al., 1988).

Several proverbs were retrieved from a dictionary of Mexican proverbs (Pérez Martínez, 2002). We selected 150 proverbs relevant to cultural beliefs about dysfunctional misconduct and general work-related issues. We included proverbs resembling Bond et al.’s (2004) ‘societal cynicism’ belief. We used a pilot study involving 630 Mexican college students to gauge clarity, recognition, and relevance to stigma, misconduct, and danger. We selected 48 proverbs from this pilot study, including 30 proverbs judged to be related to these issues based on pilot comments and author agreement, and 18 general work-related proverbs. A second pilot study of 171 Mexican working professionals was used to corroborate the results. A preliminary exploratory factor analysis involving the two pilot study samples yielded four factors (greed, toughness, wariness, and savvy) (eigenvalues > 1.0) explaining 53% of the variance.

The final MCBQC scale focuses on proverbs related to beliefs about ethics, misconduct, and a certain disdain about ‘the way things are.’ We included the 48 proverbs (including work-related proverbs) in the final scale to present it as an assessment of how proverbial wisdom reflects reality. The participants were instructed: ‘Think of your daily life as a police officer and resident of (your city) and indicate how much you agree (5) or disagree (1) with the following proverbs.’ An option for not understanding a proverb was provided, but no one selected it.

We conducted an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation of the 30 relevant proverbs and retained 22 proverbs loading in 4 factors (greed, wariness, toughness, and savvy) explaining 53% of the variance. The final scale is shown in the appendix, and reliabilities are reported in Table 1. We explored convergent validity using Rosenbaum and Kuntze’s (2003) measure of anomie, which assesses disdain for human nature and mistrust in social institutions. Anomie was related to greed (r = 0.45, p < .001), toughness (r = 0.36, p < .001), wariness (r = 0.40, p < .001), and savvy (r = 0.35, p < .001).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variables		Mean	S.D.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1	Reprimands	1.18	1.79
2	Absenteeism	.84	1.26	−.03
3	Turnover	–	–	−.03	.18 *
4	Tenure	7.44	6.79	.10	.15 *	.09
5	Gender	–	–	.09	.01	.17 *	−.14 **
6	Workplace Injury	–	–	−.01	.28 *	.13	.25 **	−.06
7	Greed	2.22	.86	−.07	−.06	.06	.12 *	−.02	.03	(.85)
8	Toughness	2.77	.97	−.08	−.09	.09	.04	.04	.04	.48 **	(.81)
9	Wariness	3.00	.94	−.05	.06	.09	.09	−.03	.09	.41 **	.62 **	(.77)
10	Savvy	3.23	1.00	−.02	.00	.07	.07	−.04	.02	.50 **	.56 **	.56 **	(.70)
11	Stigma Consciousness	3.45	.94	−.01	−.07	.14 *	.06	−.09	.08	.40 **	.36 **	.35 **	.24 **	(.70)

Note: N = 352 (N = 192 for variables 1-3) Two-tailed tests. Coefficient alphas are in parentheses along the diagonal. Absenteeism is a logarithmic transformation. Turnover is coded left = 1, stayed = 0. Gender is coded female = 1, male = 0. Workplace injury is coded yes = 1, no = 0. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

We further conducted a CFA with maximum likelihood estimation using AMOS. The four-factor model showed good fit using recognized standards (χ² [197] = 382.00, p < .001, the comparative fit index = .93, root mean square error of approximation = .05, standardized root mean square residual = .05). All indicator items loaded significantly on their specified latent construct. Standardized factor loadings ranged from .53 to .75, averaging .62. This model showed superior fit than several alternative models, including a single-factor model (χ²_diff [6] = 64.45, p < .001), a three-factor model where the covariance between toughness and savvy was fixed to one (χ²_diff [1] = 16.89, p < .001), and all other possible three-factor models.

Reprimands

Main effect results show that none of the beliefs were related to reprimands, failing to support Hypotheses 1a and 2a. Model 2 incorporates the interaction effect and showed significance for the interaction of toughness and stigma (β = –.24, p < .05). The interaction plot in Figure 3 depicts that toughness was related to reprimands, but only for people with low stigma consciousness. In support of Hypothesis 4a, beliefs in toughness led to lower reprimands among people high in stigma consciousness. Hypotheses 3a and 5a, related to greed and wariness, were not supported. The results also showed a significant interaction for savvy and stigma consciousness on reprimands (β = .22, p < .05). The plot in Figure 1 shows that savvy was related to reprimands for people with high stigma consciousness, supporting Hypothesis 6a.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The relationship between beliefs about questionable conduct and reprimands moderated by stigma consciousness.

Absenteeism

None of the beliefs had a significant main effect on absenteeism, failing to support Hypotheses 1b and 2b. Nonetheless, wariness beliefs had a significant correlation with absenteeism (r = .15, p < .05), suggesting that there is a relationship independent of other variables and controls. Furthermore, model 2 results show that the interaction of savvy and stigma was significant (β = –.22, p < .05), although the plot in Figure 2 shows that it was in the opposite direction to the one hypothesized. Savvy was positively related to absenteeism for people with low stigma consciousness. These results fail to support Hypotheses 3b, 4b, 5b, and 6b.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The relationship between beliefs about questionable conduct and absenteeism moderated by stigma consciousness.

Turnover

Main effects results showed that none of the beliefs were significantly related to turnover, failing to support Hypotheses 1c and 2c.

We did not hypothesize a main effect for stigma consciousness, but it is noteworthy that stigma consciousness had a significant positive correlation with turnover (r = .14, p < .05). Also, although the role of stigma consciousness on turnover in the regression was marginal (B = .40, p < .10), a post-hoc one-way ANOVA showed that leavers were more conscious of stigma than stayers (Means = 3.63, 3.33, F = 3.89, p < .05).

The interaction of greed and stigma consciousness was significantly related to turnover (β = −1.09, p < .01). Its plot in Figure 3 showed that greed was negatively related to turnover for those with high stigma consciousness, supporting Hypothesis 3c. The interaction of stigma consciousness and toughness was not significant, and Hypothesis 4c was not supported. The interaction of wariness and stigma consciousness was negatively related to turnover (β = –.73, < .05), and the plot in Figure 3 indicated that wariness was negatively related to turnover for those with high stigma consciousness, supporting Hypothesis 5c. The interaction of savvy and stigma consciousness was significantly related to turnover (β = .89, p < .05). The plot in Figure 3 indicated that savvy was positively related to turnover among those with high stigma consciousness, supporting Hypothesis 6a.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

The relationship between beliefs about questionable conduct and (log odds) turnover moderated by stigma consciousness.

Key findings

Limitations and directions for future research

As in all studies, a number of limitations have to be considered. First, we were not able to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary turnover. The lack of alternatives and the socialization processes present in the setting may blur this distinction, and our hypotheses were related to turnover in general; however, this distinction may be relevant in future studies. Second, we were not able to measure actual or self-reported corrupt behavior given the theme’s sensitive nature and sample characteristics. Nonetheless, we provided a novel manner to measure cultural beliefs about questionable conduct. Third, our measure of absenteeism relied on management records of excused absences. Organizational rules implied that absences should occur due to illness, but we had to consider the possibility that some absences are not documented and that participants engage in the purchase of sick leave. We interpreted the limited and counterintuitive findings with these possibilities in mind. Fourth, the theory behind stigma consciousness referenced mechanisms such as psychological withdrawal, group solidarity, cynicism, and identification, but we did not measure these variables in the quantitative phase. Nonetheless, qualitative phase findings suggested that these mechanisms were present.

The study was carried out in a unique geographic and cultural context, and caution should be exercised when generalizing these results. Despite the setting’s uniqueness, the cultural beliefs and behaviors studied are relevant to other nations, occupations, and organizations. For instance, the police and the military around the world share similar stigmas, but also a ‘heroic’ component. This identity has implications for positive deviance behaviors such as principled dissent and whistle-blowing (Treviño et al., 2006). Toughness can become ruthlessness, but also foster the courage and valor to be ethical and not conform to corrupt organizational norms. Being conscious of a stigmatized identity but able to reject it from one’s self-concept could incite principled dissent that resembles heroic behavior. Moreover, high-status professions mentioned by the respondents (e.g. politics, law, finance) possess negative stigmas. Our findings may generalize to those contexts, but future research in such settings would be fruitful.

The MCBQC employed the use of objective cultural artifacts – proverbs. The use of culturally relevant methodologies to capture implicit meaning, metaphorical nuance, and contextual idiosyncrasies is a fertile area. Proverbs are cultural artifacts, but have been used scantly (Bond et al., 2004; Shapin, 2001; Weber et al., 1988). Scholars can continue to use proverbs and beliefs to study sensitive subjects such as corruption, stigma, and ethics. This opens the door to future inquiry employing our scale in other Latin American organizations. Scholars may also develop similar proverb-based instruments to fit other languages and cultural contexts.

The results also suggest that the meaning of organizational metrics (e.g. absenteeism and reprimands) depends on context. Despite our unique setting, our results suggest that rich contextual description is helpful to quantitative analyses. Future mixed-method approaches can inform archival and self-reported measures to understand turnover, leader-member exchange, person-environment fit, and incentives driving (un)ethical behavior. Implementing longitudinal designs can reveal how beliefs and stigma awareness change as people are socialized or rejected from a group. Future research may also investigate cognitive and affective processes related to dirty work and stigmatized identities. Cultural beliefs can be studied at group and dyad (e.g. partners) levels to assess cultural strength and person-organization (or person-person) fit.

Implications for policy and practice

This research ended at a time when the Mexican government embarked on an ongoing police cleanup involving confidence control testing and dismissals, which has had positive but also unintended adverse consequences (Sabet, 2012; Uildriks, 2010). Policy implications derived from the present study are consistent with radical organizational change involving ‘weeding out rotten apples’ through dismissals. Nonetheless, our results further imply that such efforts could be futile if (un)ethical leadership and socialization processes are not addressed.

Our results also have an optimistic managerial implication, ratifying organizational change though development, training, and identity management. Management efforts to address misconduct and promote ethical behavior should address stigma and cultural beliefs, particularly in strong cultures. Occupational stigmas can stimulate a self-fulfilling prophecy by reinforcing misconduct and its rationalization and justification. Occupational identity strategies can serve to help workers distance themselves from the adverse aspects of stigmatized identity, and dysfunctional and corrupt behavior may be reduced through identity management.

Adverse stigmas influence the rationalization and justification of misconduct, but managers can use identity strategies to enhance group solidarity and identification by refocusing on positive occupational identity characteristics. Managing stigmatized identities can reduce the adverse-attribute salience, offer defensive tactics, and change occupational ideologies (Ashforth & Krainer, 2014). Promoting or debunking beliefs can change attitudes and behavior, guide ethical decisions, and promote the retention of principled employees. Symbolic management through positive storytelling can be included into training and development. In addition, management can disseminate values and beliefs informally. These initiatives could include hero stories of people who exhibited positive but culturally consistent behavior, such as depicting the toughness of principled dissent. Given the importance of socialization and informal learning, managers should understand and manage members’ formal and informal interaction. Lastly, the prevalence of top-down processes in corrupt organizations implies that concerted efforts to change culture and behavior must start at the top.