Integrating appraisal theories of emotion and the literature of self-conscious emotion, we argue that UPB has a paradoxical nature that can lead to ambivalent emotional reactions, with implications for subsequent behavior. On the one hand, because UPB benefits one’s organization, it should trigger feelings of pride. However, given its unethical nature, UPB should also trigger feelings of guilt. Using an experience sampling study of 91 customerservice agent dyads in the technology consultancy industry, we find that daily UPB is positively associated with daily pride and guilt. These emotions in turn lead to increased citizenship behavior directed towards the organization and customers, respectively. We replicate these findings with another experience sampling study of 78 triads (focal employees, co-workers, and customers) in the financial service industry. More importantly, we find that service employees’ guilt proneness moderates the link between daily UPB and pride, such that UPB leads to heightened feelings of pride especially when the service employees have lower levels of guilt proneness. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our work.

Introduction

“On a daily basis, I engage in different degrees of selling behavior that would harm the customers, yet it is good for the company…Sometimes I feel like I am achieving something…Sometimes I feel like I am doing a wrong thing…” Anonymous study participant, customer service The opening quote reflects a sentiment that many customer service employees may feel on a daily basis. Indeed, unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB), defined as “actions that are intended to promote the effective functioning of the organization or its members and violate core societal values, mores, laws, or standards of proper conduct” (Umphress & Bingham, 2011, p. 621), is ubiquitous among service industry employees. Research reveals that many employees, particularly those in the service sector, admit to engaging in these questionable behaviors in order to benefit their organizations (e.g., Bellizzi, 2008; Chen, Chen, & Sheldon, 2016; Kaptein, 2008a). Given this trend, scholars have paid increasing attention to UPB in recent years. To date, this growing literature has revealed numerous antecedents, such as organizational identification (Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010), affective commitment (Matherne & Litchfield, 2012), and leadership styles (e.g., transformational leadership; Effelsberg, Solga, & Gurt, 2014). Despite the valuable insights from prior research on UPB to date, our understanding of the nature and nomological net of UPB is incomplete for two reasons.