Considerable research to-date has examined determinants of corruption (Rose-Ackerman and Palifka, 2016). Much of this research, however, has focused on the extent to which country-level institutional factors including the nature of the political system (democratic versus autocratic), the effectiveness of courts, the strength of the civil society, the level of press freedom, the representation of women in the government, the effectiveness of regulatory controls, and societal norms explain variation in perceived corruption (Keefer, 2007; Martin, Cullen, Johnson, and Parboteeah, 2007; Raunch and Evans, 2000; Stensöta, Längnerud, and Svensson, 2015; Themudo, 2013; Triesman, 2000, 2007). While the accumulated evidence from the cross-national research has provided valuable insight, a major criticism of this research is its reliance on secondary sources and public perceptions to measure corruption (Andersson and Heywood, 2009; Treisman, 2007). Furthermore, there are few studies on within-country variation in corruption (Sahling and Mikkelsen, 2016), in particular on how the organizational and job related factors affect bureaucrats’ propensity to engage in corruption. One study by De Graaf and Huberts' (2008) showed that public officials’ motives for engaging in corruption, aside from personal gain, included friendship, status, and desire to impress others. Kwon (2013) found that bureaucrats with limited discretion and higher intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were less susceptible to accepting bribes. A recent ethnographic study by Sundstrom (2016) revealed that public employees may engage in corruption in order to protect themselves from intimidation and violence by criminals and colluding colleagues. These studies have enriched our understanding of the individual causes of corruption, but more research is needed to identify effective organizational mechanisms to tackle this problem, especially in the developing countries.
The current study builds upon the extant research and evidence on public sector corruption. But more importantly, we consider broader organizational research and theories that may provide unique insight on the causes of unethical employee and organizational behavior (Ashforth & Anand, 2003; Bazerman & Gino, 2012; Lange, 2008; Pinto, Leana, and Pil, 2008; Trevino, 1986; Trevino, Weaver, Gibson, and Toffler, 1999). We examine the influence of four important contextual variables: the extent of bureaucratic red tape (Bozeman, 1995), employee perceptions of distributive fairness (Adams, 1965) and procedural fairness (Leventhal, 1980; Lind and Tyler, 1988), and ethical leadership (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005), on the prevalence of corruption in government and nonprofit organizations in Pakistan. We examine these linkages with survey data that we collected from a large number of managers who took part in a leadership training program offered by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The preliminary analysis shows no link between perceived red tape and corruption, but we find a significant negative correlation between corruption and manager perceptions of distributive fairness and ethical leadership. We also observe that the link between ethical leadership and corruption is significantly stronger in organizations with low levels of procedural fairness. Implications of these results for research and practice on corruption are discussed.
B1 - Bureaucratic Leadership and Public Sector Management in Developing and Transitional C
