IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v24y2014i03p411-441_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Back into the Fold: The Influence of Offender Amends and Victim Forgiveness on Peer Reintegration

Author

Listed:
  • Gromet, Dena M.
  • Okimoto, Tyler G.

Abstract

After a transgression has occurred within an organization, a primary concern is the reintegration of the affected parties (namely offenders and victims) back into the organizational community. However, beyond offenders and victims, reintegration depends on the views of organizational peers and their desire to interact with these parties. In two studies, we demonstrated that offender amends and victim forgiveness interact to predict peer reintegrative outcomes. We found evidence of backlash against unforgiving victims: Peers wanted to work the least with victims who rejected appropriate amends, thus penalizing them for their failure to contribute to the restoration process. This backlash effect was due to decreased liking of the victim and the perceived failure to repair the offender-victim relationship. These findings demonstrate that peers expect both offenders and victims to do their part to achieve reconciliation following transgression, and both may suffer the consequences of failing to meet peer expectations. Implications for reintegration within organizations are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Gromet, Dena M. & Okimoto, Tyler G., 2014. "Back into the Fold: The Influence of Offender Amends and Victim Forgiveness on Peer Reintegration," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 411-441, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:24:y:2014:i:03:p:411-441_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00006187/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reynolds, Tania & Howard, Chuck & Sjåstad, Hallgeir & Zhu, Luke & Okimoto, Tyler G. & Baumeister, Roy F. & Aquino, Karl & Kim, JongHan, 2020. "Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 120-141.
    2. Nathan Robert Neale & Kenneth D. Butterfield & Jerry Goodstein & Thomas M. Tripp, 2020. "Managers’ Restorative Versus Punitive Responses to Employee Wrongdoing: A Qualitative Investigation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 603-625, January.
    3. Bauman, Christopher W. & Tost, Leigh Plunkett & Ong, Madeline, 2016. "Blame the shepherd not the sheep: Imitating higher-ranking transgressors mitigates punishment for unethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 123-141.
    4. Gareth R. T. White & Anthony Samuel & Robert J. Thomas, 2023. "Exploring and Expanding Supererogatory Acts: Beyond Duty for a Sustainable Future," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 665-688, July.
    5. Eva Baarle & Steven Baarle & Guy Widdershoven & Roland Bal & Jan-Willem Weenink, 2024. "Sexual Boundary Violations: Exploring How the Interplay Between Violations, Retributive, and Restorative Responses Affects Teams," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 131-146, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:24:y:2014:i:03:p:411-441_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.