The manipulative business and society

• Author: Manjula S. Salimath,Michelle Alarcon,Brian W. Kulik
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12195
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Date: 01 March 2020

Bus Soc Rev. 2020;125:89–118.

|

89

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/basr

Received: 28 January 2020

|

Accepted: 29 January 2020

DOI: 10.1111/basr.12195

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The manipulative business and society

Brian W.Kulik1

|

MichelleAlarcon2

|

Manjula S.Salimath3

© 2020 W. Michael Hoffman Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden,

MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.

1College of Business and Technology,

Northeastern State University, Tahlequah,

OK, USA

2College of Business, Hawaii Pacific

University, Honolulu, HI, USA

3G. Brint Ryan College of Business,

University of North Texas, Denton, TX,

USA

Correspondence

Brian W. Kulik, College of Business and

Technology, Northeastern State University,

710 N Grand Ave, Tahlequah, OK 74464,

USA.

Email: kulik@nsuok.edu

Abstract

We extend the theory of secular business cults (SBCs) to

manipulative businesses (MBs), which we define as a fi-

nancially-successful type of reformed SBC, and explain

their influence on industry, government, and social environ-

ments. Prior work on irresponsible, illegally-behaving, and

anti-social SBCs suggests that they arise when antisocial

business leaders are left unconstrained. This article exam-

ines the other side of this argument: What emerges from

the 'toxic triangle' when such leaders are constrained by

legal limits? We posit that pressure from lawsuits leads to

the metamorphosis of an SBC into an MB that retains the

intent and "formula of success" of the SBC. In both business

types (SBCs and MBs), the underlying process involves the

unethical manipulation of the employee's commitment, and

the buyer's interest, through established policies and busi-

ness models for higher profits. We further explain how the

profit-seeking anti-social business leaders who find success

in the toxic triangle lead to the emergence of manipulative

policies and practices in businesses, legal systems, and in-

dustries (the “iron triangle”), and eventually influences gen-

eral societal norms.

KEYWORDS

business ethics, corporate social responsibility, iron triangle,

Machiavellian behavior, manipulative business, narcissist behavior,

psychopath behavior, revolving door, secular business cults, toxic triangle

90

|

KULIK etaL.

1

|

INTRODUCTION

Growing attention has been paid to the negative aspects in management practice and theory, per-

haps stimulated by the array of corporate scandals since Enron's fall and dissolution. The term “dark

side” first used by Ferber (1971) on managerial decision making, has garnered “increasing fascina-

tion over the past 25years” among scholars as a specific subject of inquiry (Thoroughgood, Sawyer,

Padilla, & Lunsford, 2018). For example, prior research has identified and explored aspects of the

“dark side” of corporate governance (Goranova, Priem, Ndofor, & Trahms, 2017), innovation (Crane,

LeBaron, Phung, Behbahani, & Allain, 2018; Noordhoff, Kyriakopoulos, Moorman, Pauwels, &

Dellaert, 2011), small business development (Amankwah, Antwi, & Zhang, 2018), software develop-

ment (Bjørn, Søderberg, & Krishna, 2019), teamwork (Carbonell & Rodríguez Escudero, 2019; Stein

& Pinto, 2011), leadership (Clifton, 2019; Conger, 1990; Stahl & Zilinskaite, 2017; Thoroughgood

et al., 2018), social networking (Polites, Serrano, Thatcher, & Matthews, 2018), management devel-

opment (Kamoche, 2000), organizational politics and behavior (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2017; Kulik,

2005; Olafsen, Niemiec, Halvari, Deci, & Williams, 2017; Race, 2018; Stein, 2011; Williams &

Dutton, 2000; Yang, Sliter, Cheung, Sinclair, & Mohr, 2018), positive organizational scholarship

(Fineman, 2006), employability (Forrier, De Cuyper, & Akkermans, 2018), intrafirm competition

(Kulik, O'Fallon, & Salimath, 2008), capital markets (Clark & Newell, 2013), sustainability (Longo,

Shankar, & Nuttall, 2019), workplace spirituality (Lips-Wiersema, Lund Dean & Formaciari, 2009),

and industrial organization (Pattnaik, Lu, & Gaur, 2018).

One particularly relevant area of study in this stream is the presence and influence of antisocial ac-

tors (psychopaths, individuals with antisocial personality disorder, sociopaths, narcissists, etc.) (Kulik

& Alarcon, 2016), possibly because their traits of manipulative behavior acutely describe a common

“dark-side” among modern businesses, and because of the purported usefulness of the psychoanalytic

view (Brown, 1997; Stein, 2011). In this article, we follow extant research (Kulik & Alarcon, 2016;

O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996) in using the term “antisocial behavior” (ASB) to refer to ASB

in the workplace, regardless of whether the actor exhibiting the ASB has an antisocial personality

behavior or not. We posit that ASB significantly increases even with just one or two individuals with

antisocial personality disorder infiltrating the workplace, because they may eventually develop a sus-

tainable, but manipulative “formula for success.” Kulik and Alarcon (2016) theorized how ASB can

lead a business to develop a dark “formula for success” through manipulative organizational culture,

competition, operations, policies, procedures, illegal practices, overcommunication, and hierarchical

relationships. We might expect many such companies, termed “secular business cults” (SBCs) (Kulik

& Alarcon, 2016—see also Figure1 of this article for its characteristics), to be sued out of business be-

cause of their “illegal practices” component. Yet, given that Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser's (2006) toxic

triangle still exists as environmental context to support SBCs, the business cult may avoid dissolution

and instead transform itself into a “manipulative business (MB).”

In this article, we investigate the transformation from “SBC” to a successful, legally-compliant

“MB” and consider the dark effects that surviving, persisting and successful MBs have on societies,

governments, and legal systems. Our specific observations are not surprising—such as our identifica-

tion of revolving-door and manipulative lobbying practices—but this work is set apart in that we show

how such now-commonplace manipulative practices in our society may be linked to the persistence

of manipulative businesses. The “unsurprisingness” of our specific theory suggests that research is

needed in this area in order to “catch up” with, and counteract, the unfortunate new normal of uneth-

ical organizations in modern society.

Our article is organized as follows. First, we discuss how SBCs may transform into persistent and

successful MBs; second, we discuss the characteristics of a successful MB, and how these unethical