Restoring dignity at work: the role of offender reintegration in moral repair outcomes

In the aftermath of workplace wrongdoing, recent research suggests that a moral repair approach, which includes reintegrating willing workplace offenders, is a more effective managerial response than simple punishment (e.g. Vives-Gabriel, Van Lent, & Wettstein, 2023; Butterfield, Cook, Liberman, & Goodstein, 2023a, Butterfield, Neale, Shin, & He, 2023b; Goodstein, Butterfield, & Neale, 2016; Wenzel et al., 2023; Woodyatt, Wenzel, Okimoto, & Thai, 2022). Scholars have claimed that reintegrating offenders reaps numerous benefits, not just for the offender, but for the organization. But does it? The current literature is generally lacking in actual empirical evidence; thus, we investigate this claim by collecting and examining new evidence.

Moral repair is a growing area of inquiry that refers to a collaborative effort by managers, offenders, victims/targets, coworkers and other interested third parties to repair harm and restore damaged relationships following a transgression. In organizational settings, these efforts may include restoring victims’ lost power and status, restoring offenders’ sense of dignity and personal integrity, repairing damaged workplace relationships and restoring confidence and trust within the broader organizational community. Established streams of moral repair research include restorative justice, offender amends and reintegration, victim harm repair, third-party trust repair and moral self-repair.

Within this literature, a topic that has received relatively little empirical research attention is the reintegration of offenders back into the workplace community (e.g. Frey, 2022; Goodstein, Butterfield, Pfarrer, & Wicks, 2014; Gromet & Okimoto, 2014; Okimoto & Wenzel, 2014). In this paper, we focus on the reintegration of employees who have committed offenses within the organization, rather than on ex-convicts or others whose infractions occurred externally. Goodstein and colleagues define reintegration as “regaining support such as legitimacy, trust and respect, from key internal and external stakeholders, to once again be truly included as a member of the organization” (2014, p. 316). Reintegration is a mutual process in which offenders reciprocate community support by demonstrating a renewed commitment to the broader organizational community and the community’s norms and values (Okimoto & Wenzel, 2014). It is conceptually distinct from other moral repair processes such as amends-making, forgiveness and reconciliation. For example, whereas amends and forgiveness reflect specific reparative actions or psychological shifts following wrongdoing, reintegration involves status restoration in which the offender is once again socially accepted and recognized as a legitimate member of the organizational community. Thus, we focus on reintegration in terms of perceived status restoration rather than on specific practices or managerial interventions (e.g. meetings, apologies, forgiveness) that may precede it. Reintegration is also distinct from related concepts such as self-repair (e.g. moral cleansing; West & Zhong, 2015). Whereas moral cleansing focuses on individuals restoring their own sense of moral self-worth following moral injury through restitution or symbolic acts, often independent of others’ reactions, offender reintegration is a collective effort focused on addressing unresolved relational harm as well as the offender’s social standing (e.g. Butterfield et al., 2023a, 2023b).

The small amount of empirical work on workplace reintegration includes Frey’s (2022) qualitative examination of offender reintegration at a military service academy and a small number of studies that have examined antecedents of offender workplace reintegration (e.g. Gromet & Okimoto, 2014). However, much of the prior work on moral repair and offender reintegration in the workplace has been conceptual in nature (e.g. Goodstein et al., 2014). Across these conceptual works, scholars have consistently suggested that in the aftermath of wrongdoing, effective reintegration can lead to a wide range of desirable offender-related outcomes compared to traditional (particularly retributive) responses to wrongdoing. These outcomes include reduced turnover and recidivism, increased offender commitment, participant satisfaction, the reinforcement of pro-social behaviors, the healing of damaged or broken relationships, less negative feelings and calmer physiological reactions, perceived justice, strengthened social bonds and restored feelings of inclusion, support and trust between offenders, victims and third-party observers (e.g. Goodstein et al., 2014). Because this previous work is largely conceptual, our primary goal is to empirically examine relationships between reintegration and desirable offender- and workplace-related outcomes that to date have largely been established only in a theoretical manner. A second goal is to examine how (i.e. the process by which) offender reintegration leads to these desirable outcomes. As such, we examine a set of need-based factors (e.g. the offender’s personal sense of integrity, identity as a moral actor, organizational belonging and dignity) that may mediate the relationship between offender reintegration and desirable outcomes. We also examine additional theoretically derived outcomes of reintegration (e.g. reduced counterproductive work behavior (CWB), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), commitment to the supervisor) that have not been emphasized in previous conceptual work.

Examining the influence of offender reintegration on desirable offender-related outcomes is important for a variety of reasons. First, existing research on workplace reintegration has focused almost exclusively on its antecedents (for an exception, see Frey, 2022). We see value in determining whether reparative practices such as offender reintegration actually lead to the positive outcomes suggested by previous moral repair scholars. By examining important outcomes, our work offers insight into the relevance of offender reintegration (i.e. the “so what?” question). Second, we extend the moral repair and reintegration literatures by examining the process by which offender reintegration leads to key desirable outcomes. Providing empirical evidence of mediating factors and outcomes of offender reintegration also has practical relevance. Managers who favor reparative over retributive responses to workplace wrongdoing (e.g. Gromet & Darley, 2006; Okimoto, Wenzel, & Feather, 2009) currently have limited empirical evidence to support the implementation of reintegrative practices. This may be particularly relevant in conditions of high interdependence and accountability, where misconduct is often highly visible and reputational consequences may be more pronounced. In these circumstances, processes of moral repair, including reintegration, can take on particular managerial significance.

In this study, we examine offender reintegration as a perceptual phenomenon; that is, reintegration as perceived by the offender, rather than as a relatively objective phenomenon. We begin with a review of the workplace restorative justice literature, which provides the theoretical foundation for this study. We then offer a series of hypotheses that link reintegration directly to a set of desirable outcomes (Study 1) and then examine the process by which reintegration leads to these outcomes by examining offender need satisfaction as a mediating mechanism (Study 2; see Figure 1). We conclude with implications for practicing managers and future research.

The restorative justice approach provides a useful foundation for understanding offender reintegration and its outcomes. Restorative justice is “a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (Braithwaite, 1999, p. 5). This approach promotes community healing through three interrelated actions: offender amends, victim forgiveness and offender reintegration (Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010). In organizational settings, restorative justice offers an alternative to traditional punitive approaches to workplace wrongdoing that focus on retribution (e.g. Treviño & Weaver, 2010). Restorative justice is forward-looking, emphasizing harm repair and restoring relationships between the offender and those impacted by the transgression. Previous research has suggested that restorative justice outcomes can include restoring the offender’s sense of personal integrity, repairing interpersonal trust, enhancing satisfaction, commitment and perceived justice among affected parties and reducing the likelihood of future wrongdoing (Goodstein & Butterfield, 2015).

Our theoretical framework integrates restorative justice, the need-based perspective and social exchange theory to explain how offender reintegration produces desirable outcomes. Restorative justice emphasizes repairing harm and restoring relationships following wrongdoing, while the need-based perspective highlights the importance of restoring offenders’ threatened moral and relational needs, such as dignity and organizational belonging (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). Social exchange theory helps explain why the restoration of these needs motivates offenders to reciprocate with positive attitudes and prosocial behaviors through norms of reciprocity (Blau, 1964). Viewed through this integrated lens, reintegration restores offenders’ standing within the organizational community and, in turn, fosters reciprocal responses that benefit both offenders and organizations. We draw on this framework to develop the hypotheses below.

Our first overall proposition is that successful reintegration, as perceived by the offender, will be associated with a variety of desirable organizational and offender-related outcomes. The relationship between offender reintegration and many of these outcomes can be explained by reciprocity (e.g. Sharpe, 2007) and positive social exchange (Blau, 1964), which are common themes in the restorative justice literature. When victims and the wider organizational community acknowledge offender efforts to make amends and treat offenders with compassion by assisting in the reintegration process, offenders are likely to feel a sense of indebtedness and will be motivated to reciprocate beneficial treatment toward their organization. Such beneficial treatment may include and we investigate here, OCBs, affective commitment, job satisfaction and reduced counterproductive workplace behavior.

OCBs are discretionary pro-organizational behaviors that are not formally rewarded or recognized and are distinct from in-role behavior specified by one’s job description (Dalal, 2005; Organ, 1988). Prior research has identified two types of OCBs – those aimed at helping the organization as a whole (OCB-O), such as employee volunteering to improve organizational image, and those aimed at helping other individuals in the workplace (OCB-I) such as helping coworkers (e.g. Lee & Allen, 2002). Based on social exchange theory and norms regarding reciprocity, we propose that offenders who perceive that they were successfully reintegrated back into the organization are likely to have a sense of obligation to those organizational members who have facilitated this process and to the organization more broadly. Reintegrated offenders are therefore more likely to engage in OCBs to reciprocate positive treatment from their organization (e.g. Deckop, Cirka, & Andersson, 2003). As such, we offer the following hypothesis:

Organizational commitment refers to an individual’s psychological attachment to one’s organization based on similarities between the organization and individual common interests or values (Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990). Often viewed as a measure of employee attitudes toward their organization, organizational commitment is associated with a wide range of work-related outcomes. This construct is composed of three core components: affective commitment (based on emotional attachment to the organization); continuance commitment (based on the perceived sacrifices of leaving the organization); and normative commitment (based on the personal responsibility of staying with the organization; e.g. Meyer & Allen, 1997). We focus on affective commitment because previous research suggests it is particularly relevant in predicting positive reciprocity behaviors such as job performance, turnover, counterproductive behavior and citizenship behavior (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 2010).

Affective commitment reflects the degree to which exchange partners have emotional attachment toward each other (Meyer et al., 1990) and is sensitive to an individual’s experience in the organization as well as to supervisor support. Consistent with social exchange theory, when employees perceive that their organization values and cares about them, employees are more likely to form attachments to the organization (e.g. Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Individuals can also develop psychological attachment toward their supervisor, which is referred to as supervisory commitment (e.g. Meyer & Allen, 1997). We propose that offenders who perceive that they have been successfully reintegrated are likely to experience increased affective commitment to the organization and to supervisors who helped facilitate the reintegration process:

Job satisfaction is a multifaceted construct that represents how employees feel about a variety of extrinsic and intrinsic job aspects, excluding elements outside their work environment. More specifically, job satisfaction refers to how content employees are with different facets of their jobs, such as workplace climate, coworkers, supervisors, compensation, pay and promotion (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010).

The restorative justice literature has established increased satisfaction with both the process and the outcomes as a primary benefit of restorative justice practices (e.g. Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010). Repairing relationships among affected parties is part of the reintegration process (e.g. Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010; Okimoto & Wenzel, 2014) and research has shown that having good relationships with colleagues and supervisors is connected to job satisfaction (Rich et al., 2010). Conversely, when offenders have not been successfully reintegrated, they are likely to have lower levels of job satisfaction, particularly if the organization engages in alternative responses to wrongdoing, such as retribution (Treviño & Weaver, 2010):

As part of reciprocating positive organizational treatment, employees may also resist engaging in negative behaviors, such as reoffending (i.e. committing the same offense multiple times) or engaging in other forms of CWB. CWB includes a wide range of individual behaviors that are not in accordance with organizational norms and can adversely affect organizational outcomes (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). Forms of CWB include workplace incivility, workplace aggression, workplace revenge and antisocial behavior.

Restorative responses to offender wrongdoing can mitigate CWBs because it provides offenders a chance to understand the repercussions of their wrongdoing and offers support through honest, open discussions between parties, encouraging offenders and victims to reconcile rather than retaliate (Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2007; Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006). Offenders who were successfully reintegrated back into their organization are less likely to engage in retaliatory behaviors such as CWB and other reoffending behaviors (Sherman et al., 2005). Conversely, when offenders are not successfully reintegrated, this can trigger negative reciprocity, intended to harm the organization or its members (e.g. Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Those who favor negative reciprocity are more likely to believe that it is suitable to mirror the mistreatment they experienced from their exchange partners to sustain the balance with their exchange relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005):

We next turn to a need-based perspective (e.g. Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich, Dovidio, & Carmi, 2009) to examine the process by which offender reintegration influences these desirable outcomes. Research has shown that satisfying the needs of affected parties can facilitate moral repair-related outcomes such as reconciliation (e.g. Shnabel et al., 2009) and offender reintegration (Goodstein & Aquino, 2010); satisfying parties’ needs can reduce negative feelings toward the offender because parties are more able to move forward on “equal footing” (e.g. Shnabel et al., 2009). We propose that offender need satisfaction is an important mechanism that mediates the relationship between offender reintegration and the desirable outcomes discussed above. We examine four specific needs emphasized in previous literature: the need for offenders to restore their sense of personal integrity, identity as a moral actor, sense of dignity and sense of belonging.

Scholars have proposed that offenders often experience a need to restore their sense of personal integrity following instances of workplace wrongdoing (e.g. Butterfield et al., 2023a, 2023b; Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Shnabel et al., 2009). Palanski & Yammarino (2009) defined personal integrity as consistency between an individual’s convictions, words and actions. It includes the perceived match between spoken and enacted behavior, and the extent to which others view that one’s promises are kept (Simons, 2002). Workplace transgressions have clear implications for offender integrity with regard to how they are viewed by the wider organizational community and how offenders judge their own self-worth (e.g. Shao, Aquino, & Freeman, 2008).

Research has also suggested that, after engaging in misconduct at work, offenders have the need to restore their identity as a moral actor (e.g. Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010, 2015). When offenders engage in workplace transgressions, victims and third parties may accuse offenders of violating group norms and moral standards (Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010). The fear of social exclusion may motivate offenders to want to be seen as “good” people, which can be validated by others expressing empathy for why offenders acted in a socially unacceptable way (e.g. Bies, Tripp, & Barclay, 2021). Understanding, empathy and forgiveness by the victim and the wider organizational community can restore offenders’ public moral image (e.g. their own perceptions of being seen as moral individuals) as well as their moral identity. These factors also reduce offenders’ sense of moral inferiority invoked by the wrongdoing (Exline & Baumeister, 2000) and assure offenders that their membership in the moral community is no longer questioned.

Conceptual work suggests that offenders who have committed transgressions often seek to restore their sense of personal dignity (e.g. Goodstein & Butterfield, 2015). Dignity has been defined as “the ability to establish a sense of self-worth and self-respect and to appreciate the respect of others” (Hodson, 2001, p. 3). It is worth noting that dignity is conditional; it is an attribute that individuals earn through their actions (Pirson, Goodpaster, & Dierksmeier, 2016).

A need for belonging often emerges among offenders following acts of misconduct (e.g. Frey, 2022). Organizational belonging is the feeling of being accepted and valued by other members of an organization (e.g. Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Individuals develop a sense of belonging when they have positive interactions, affirming relationships and feel sought out by other organizational members (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, 2010; Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007).

The workplace restorative justice literature suggests that the process of offender reintegration (e.g. restorative justice meetings) can satisfy participants’ needs, including those of the offender (e.g. Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010, 2015). Consistent with the need-based perspective, we expect that offender need satisfaction will then influence downstream outcomes, including a greater likelihood of OCB, job satisfaction, organizational and supervisor commitment and a reduced likelihood of reoffending and CWB:

Overall, we propose that perceived offender reintegration is associated with desirable organizational and offender-related outcomes and that these relationships operate through the satisfaction of key offender needs. Study 1 examines the direct effects of perceived reintegration on these outcomes, while Study 2 tests the mediating role of offender need satisfaction (see Figure 1).

We surveyed full-time employees from a wide range of industries via a Qualtrics research panel. Panel participants self-selected into our project based on their interest and availability and were compensated for their time. Prior research has suggested that online panels provide access to reliable data that is similar to the labor force and is of similar quality compared to data collected from other sources (e.g. Roulin, 2015). We gathered data in two waves from full-time US employees. Two-hundred 50 respondents were surveyed at Time 1, with 12 respondents removed and replaced due to inappropriate responses (e.g. failing attention checks). All 250 respondents were contacted approximately 10 days later to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012) and were asked to take the Time 2 survey. The final sample was 133 respondents. Thirty-seven percent of respondents were female. One respondent was between the ages of 18–24, 25 respondents were between the ages of 25–34, 27 respondents were between the ages of 35–44, 41 respondents were between the ages of 45–54 and 39 respondents were 55 or older. The average work experience was approximately 18 years, 93% reported that they had 10 or more years of full-time work experience and 53% reported that they currently manage two or more people. The surveys asked participants to reflect on a specific recent situation where they engaged in some form of wrongdoing (not illegal in nature) within their workgroup and then genuinely attempted to make amends. Consistent with the sequence in our theoretical model, offender perceptions of reintegration and demographic information were measured at Time 1, followed by measures of offender need satisfaction and subsequent outcomes at Time 2.

Except for demographic variables, all study items were assessed using Likert scales.

Reintegration was measured using a 10-item scale based on previous conceptual work (e.g. Goodstein et al., 2014). Items were presented on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a very high degree). To increase validity, we conducted exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation, with items retained using the criterion of 0.60 for inclusion in a factor and eliminated if an item’s loading was 0.40 or greater for more than one factor. Final results revealed a single six-item factor with factor loadings for all six items exceeding 0.90 (see supplementary materials). Cronbach’s alpha for the measure was 0.97.

We used Williams & Anderson’s (1991) 14-item measure to measure OCB. The first seven items measure OCB-I. Participants indicated the frequency which they engaged in behaviors such as “I helped others who were absent” and “I helped others who had heavy workloads” (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always; α = 0.93). The remaining seven items measure OCB-O. Sample items include “I conserved and protected organizational property” and “I adhered to informal rules devised to maintain order” (α = 0.89).

CWB was assessed using Ciampa, Sirowatka, Schuh, Fraccaroli, & van Dick’s (2019) 10-item measure. A sample item is “I blamed another person for a mistake that I actually made” (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always; α = 0.96).

Likelihood of reoffending was measured using a four-item scale based on existing conceptual work on organizational reintegration (e.g. Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010). The prompt asked respondents to what extent they engaged in reoffending behaviors after their reintegration experience. The items were “Committed the same offense again,” “Engaged in my original offense,” “Carried out the same offense a second time” and “Repeated the same offense again” (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always; α = 0.96).

Affective organizational commitment was examined using Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) seven-item measure. Sample items include “This organization had a great deal of personal meaning for me” and “I would have been very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization” (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree; α = 0.78).

We used Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber’s (2004) six-item measure of affective commitment to one’s supervisor. Sample items for supervisor commitment include “I felt a sense of respect for my supervisor” and “My supervisor meant a lot to me” (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree; α = 0.81).

Job satisfaction was assessed using Brayfield & Rothe’s (1951) five-item measure. A sample item is “I felt fairly satisfied with my present job” (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree; α = 0.83).

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach’s alphas for all study measures. Cronbach’s alpha was above 0.70 for all scales.

We tested H1–H4 by conducting a path analysis using SPSS AMOS v.27. The standardized parameters and standard errors for the resulting model are shown in Figure 1. The model demonstrates acceptable fit [X² (1, N = 33) = 2.50, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.10]. The results show that successful reintegration, as perceived by the offender, was directly and positively associated with OCB-I (β = 0.29, SE = 0.07, p < 0.01), organizational commitment (β = 0.37, SE = 0.07, p < 0.01), supervisor commitment, (β = 0.34, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01) and job satisfaction (β = 0.40, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01) and negatively associated with CWB (β = −0.14, SE = 0.07, p < 0.05) and likelihood of reoffending (β = −0.15, SE = 0.08, p < 0.05). Thus, H1a, H2, H3 and H4 were fully supported. H1b (OCB-O) was not supported.

These findings support our first overall proposition, that offender perceptions of successful reintegration are associated with a variety of desirable organizational and offender-related outcomes, including OCB-I, organizational and supervisor commitment and job satisfaction and negatively related to the likelihood of reoffending and CWB. To provide further insight into these relationships, we retested H1–H4 in Study 2 using a sample of full-time employees from a different data source. In Study 2, we also test H5 (need-based mediating mechanisms).

Data were collected from a sample of full-time US employees working in a wide range of industries using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Respondents were required to have a minimum 98% approval rating. Research has shown that MTurk samples are of comparable quality to traditional data sources (e.g. Walter, Seibert, Goering, & O’Boyle Jr, 2019). We again collected data in two waves separated by approximately 10 days. The first survey was completed by 360 participants. Thirteen respondents were excluded (e.g. for failing attention checks). A second survey was sent to the remaining 347 individuals, with a final data set of 295 participants. Forty-six percent were female. Fourteen respondents were between the ages of 18–24, 103 respondents were between the ages of 25–34, 86 respondents were between the ages of 35–44, 51 respondents were between the ages of 45–54 and 41 respondents were 55 or older. The average work experience was approximately nine years, 69% reported that they had 10 or more years of full-time work experience and 41% reported that they currently manage two or more people. The data collection procedure was the same as Study 1, except that the Time 2 survey also included measures of the mediating variables.

The same scales used in Study 1 were used in Study 2 to measure the independent and dependent variables. All mediating measures were in response to the prompt, “To what degree did the reintegration process satisfy your need or desire […]” and ranged on Likert scales from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high degree. We conducted exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation to assess the validity of the mediator scales. Items were retained using a criterion of 0.60 for inclusion in a factor, and items were eliminated if an item’s loading was 0.40 or greater in more than one factor. As expected, this analysis revealed four factors that corresponded with our four mediating factors: personal integrity, identity as a moral actor, dignity and organizational belonging (see Supplementary materials).

We adapted Moorman, Darnold, & Priesemuth’s (2013) six-item scale to measure the degree to which the respondent’s need to restore personal integrity was satisfied. A five-item factor emerged from the factor analysis. Sample items include “[…] to restore my sense of personal integrity” and “to view myself as having integrity” (α = 0.97).

We created an eight-item measure based on the work of Shnabel and Nadler (2008) and Schnabel et al. (2009) to measure the degree to which the respondents’ need to restore their identity as a moral actor was satisfied. Example items include “[…] to perceive myself as a moral individual” and “[…] to regain a sense of myself as a moral person” (α = 0.98).

Dignity was measured with six items adapted from Thomas and Lucas’s (2019) workplace dignity scale. Examples include “[…] to regain my sense of dignity” and “[…] to be treated with dignity at work” (α = 0.96).

Organizational belonging was measured with six items adapted from Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, and Schreindorfer’s (2013) “Need to Belong” scale to refer to a workplace context. Sample items include “ […] to feel that my organization cares about me” and “ […] to feel included in my organization’s plans” (α = 0.95).

Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1. We again used path analysis to test our hypotheses. The model demonstrates good fit [X2 (16, N = 295) = 17.13, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02] (see Figure 1). We also conducted a robustness check involving a path analysis that included demographic control variables (e.g. age, gender, years of work experience). Inclusion of these variables did not materially alter the results.

As with Study 1, successful reintegration, as perceived by the offender, was directly associated with OCB-I (β = 0.26, SE = 0.05, p < 0.01), organizational and supervisor affective commitment (β = 0.37, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01; β = 0.43, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01) and job satisfaction (β = 0.56, SE = 0.07, p < 0.01). However, Study 2 did not reveal significant relationships between reintegration and CWB (β = −0.08, SE = 0.03, p < 0.1) or the likelihood of reoffending (β = −0.01, SE = 0.03, p < 0.1). As with Study 1, Study 2 did not show a significant relationship between reintegration and OCB-O (β = 0.03, SE = 0.02, p < 0.1). Thus, H1a, H2, H3, H5c and H5d were supported. H1b, H4, H5a and H5b were not supported.

With regard to mediation effects, perceived successful reintegration was directly associated with the satisfaction of all four offender needs: personal integrity, identity as a moral actor, dignity and organizational belonging. Two offender needs – dignity and organizational belonging – mediated relationships between reintegration and desirable outcomes. Specifically, dignity fully mediated the relationship between reintegration (β = 0.05, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01) and CWB (β = −0.07, SE = 0.03, p < 0.05) and partially mediated the effects on OCB-I (β = 0.11, SE = 0.06, p < 0.05) and organizational commitment (β = −0.12, SE = 0.06, p < 0.05). Organizational belonging partially mediated the relationship between reintegration and OCB-I (β = 0.12, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05), organizational (β = 0.46, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01), supervisor commitment (β = 0.20, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01) and job satisfaction (β = 0.16, SE = 0.08, p < 0.05). Although offender reintegration was significantly related to personal integrity and identity as a moral actor, these two needs were not associated with any of the outcome variables and thus did not act as mediating mechanisms.

This study examined direct and indirect relationships between offender perceptions of reintegration in the aftermath of wrongdoing and a variety of organizational and offender-related outcomes. The results of two studies demonstrate that successful reintegration, as perceived by the offender, can lead to OCB aimed at helping other individuals in the workplace (OCB-I), affective commitment to the organization as well as to the supervisor, job satisfaction, reduced CWB and reduced likelihood of reoffending. The results also show that offender perceptions of reintegration can satisfy a variety of offender needs (need for personal integrity, identity as a moral actor, dignity and organizational belonging) and that satisfying the offender’s need for dignity and organizational belonging can mediate the relationship between perceived reintegration and desirable workplace outcomes.

Our findings offer a variety of contributions to the organizational, management and moral repair literatures. Consistent with our first overall proposition, one key contribution is simultaneously testing direct and mediating effects across multiple outcomes, demonstrating that offender reintegration can influence desirable workplace outcomes suggested by previous conceptual literature (e.g. Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010). This study also contributes by providing initial evidence of the influence of perceived reintegration on two outcomes, supervisor affective commitment and reduced CWB, that have not been emphasized in prior literature. Across both studies, offender perceptions of reintegration were directly related to OCB-I, affective commitment to the organization and supervisor and job satisfaction.

Consistent with our second overall proposition, another contribution is in surfacing need-based mechanisms that mediate the relationship between reintegration and desirable outcomes. The Study 2 findings show that successful offender reintegration leads to the satisfaction of four important moral repair-related offender needs: a need for personal integrity, identity as a moral actor, dignity and organizational belonging. The findings also showed that a satisfied need for dignity fully mediated the relationship between offender reintegration and CWB and partially mediated the effects on OCB-I and organizational affective commitment. We also found that a satisfied need for organizational belonging partially mediated the relationships between perceived reintegration and OCB-I, organizational and supervisor affective commitment and job satisfaction. The mediation pattern, where relatively interpersonal moral needs (dignity and organizational belonging) mediated the effects of perceived reintegration while relatively intrapersonal needs (personal integrity and moral identity) did not, suggests that workplace moral repair may be fundamentally socially constructed and relational rather than primarily self-focused. This interpretation aligns with relational models of morality, which emphasize that moral judgments and motivations are shaped through social appraisal and community affirmation rather than through purely internal processes (Haidt, 2003; Aquino & Reed, 2002). Reintegration unfolds publicly, and our findings indicate that desirable outcomes such as OCB-I, affective commitment, job satisfaction and reduced CWB are more likely to emerge when offenders’ relational needs are met and their reintegration is socially facilitated and recognized. The non-significant effects for moral identity and OCB-O further reinforce this account by suggesting that offenders initially prioritize repairing specific, dyadic relationships over restoring their standing with the broader organization. Reintegration may thus operate first at the interpersonal level, where rebuilding trust and status with directly involved others takes precedence, before extending goodwill and prosocial behavior to the broader organization. Although these interpretations are theoretically promising, they remain speculative and warrant further empirical investigation.

Distinguishing the targets of reciprocity further clarifies some of the non-significant findings. Dyadic restoration is likely to produce person-focused helping (OCB-I), whereas organization-directed reciprocity (OCB-O) may require more visible, collective signals that the organization as a whole has reinstated the offender’s standing. Similarly, variability in CWB and reoffending across studies may reflect whether offenders perceive system-level acceptance, rather than merely localized repair. The absence of mediation for personal integrity and moral identity also suggests that these intrapersonal needs may represent slower-moving, downstream aspects of moral repair. Offenders may reconstruct a coherent moral self only after their social standing has been visibly restored, meaning that integrity and moral identity may require time and repeated social confirmation before they translate into observable workplace behavior.

Overall, offender reintegration appears to hinge on the collective willingness of organizational members to restore the offender’s status, dignity and sense of belonging. In addition, moral repair in organizational contexts appears to function as a social process that depends on shared interpretations among coworkers, supervisors and the broader community rather than as a managerial technique that can be uniformly applied.

Our results confirm what previous literature has proposed – that offender reintegration can promote a variety of desirable benefits (e.g. Goodstein & Butterfield, 2010) for offenders and their organizations. To increase these benefits, the results suggest that managers should pay attention to, attempt to understand and try to satisfy offenders’ needs in the wake of wrongdoing. Addressing offenders’ need to restore their sense of personal dignity and feelings of organizational belonging are arguably important in their own right, but they also appear to aid in achieving other desirable outcomes such as OCB-I, affective commitment to the organization as well as to the supervisor, job satisfaction and reduced CWB. However, it is important to recognize that the effects of need satisfaction may not always be visible in the short term but instead may emerge over time; in other words, positive organizational outcomes may happen gradually after reintegration is perceived as successful rather than instantly. These studies also provide empirical evidence that the completion of the reintegration process is not the “end of the road” for managers and organizations seeking beneficial outcomes in the aftermath of employee wrongdoing. Rather, the end of the reintegration process can potentially be the starting point for a variety of offender-related attitudes and behaviors.

We were interested to find that, although reintegration was related to OCB-I in both studies, the results for OCB-O were not significant. This suggests that offenders who perceive reintegration as successful may feel a stronger sense of obligation to reciprocate positive treatment with regard to specific individuals who aided in their reintegration process (e.g. victims, workgroups members, managers) rather than an obligation to the organization as a whole. However, this explanation is tempered somewhat by the finding that perceived reintegration was strongly related to both organizational and supervisor commitment. Nevertheless, future research is needed to shed additional light on why reintegration fosters OCB-I but perhaps not OCB-O. In addition, the finding that a satisfied need for personal dignity fully mediated the relationship between reintegration and CWB was somewhat unexpected in Study 2 given that we found a direct relationship between reintegration and reduced CWB in Study 1. Additional research is needed to determine whether reintegration directly reduces CWB, or whether restoring the offender’s need for dignity is a necessary intervening step. Finally, it is worth noting that our need satisfaction scales were asked in relation to the offenders’ immediate workgroup. Future research might build upon these findings by examining need satisfaction stemming from other parties, such as the victim (if outside the workgroup), the manager and the broader organization.

Future research might also examine moderators of relationships between offender reintegration and desirable outcomes. Examples of potentially important moderators include aspects of the work environment, such as perceived organizational justice (e.g. Colquitt, 2001), perceived organizational support (e.g. Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001) and a forgiveness climate (e.g. Fehr & Gelfand, 2012) or offenders’ personal characteristics (e.g. personality differences, age, gender). Future research might also investigate the role of the supervisor and victim (e.g. via forgiveness) in influencing desirable outcomes. It is also possible that reintegration is bounded by offense characteristics: when misconduct is severe, morally egregious or violates core values, community members may resist reintegration. Mapping how factors such as offense severity and value incongruence affect reintegration represents a promising direction for future work.

The mediation findings, which indicated the importance of relatively interpersonal moral needs (dignity and organizational belonging), also suggest that managerial reintegration efforts should emphasize relational aspects, such as visible signs of respect, status-restoring interactions and opportunities to reconnect with coworkers. This is because these practices target dignity and belonging, the needs most strongly tied to positive outcomes. Approaches focused solely on offenders’ internal moral reflection may be insufficient without corresponding social affirmation from the work community.

Our study has potential limitations. First, we used a single survey method that used self-report responses, which creates the potential for mono-method bias. However, we used procedural safeguards to reduce this bias, including gathering data at two different points in time (Podsakoff et al., 2012).

Second, certain variables examined in our studies, such as self-reported reoffending, are difficult to capture in organizational settings. Future research would benefit from using multi-source and multi-method designs, such as obtaining supervisor or coworker reports of reintegration experiences or citizenship behaviors or acquiring HR policy-violation records as additional data to examine reoffending. Such approaches would reduce reliance on self-report data and offer a more comprehensive view of how reintegration is perceived across the social environment.

Another potential limitation is social desirability bias due to asking respondents to recall an offense that they had personally committed and to consider its work-related implications. We attempted to minimize this bias by ensuring complete respondent anonymity. Another potential limitation is conceptual overlap between offender reintegration and the mediating variables, particularly dignity and organizational belonging. To address this, we conducted a post-hoc exploratory factor analysis using the Study 2 data that included the offender reintegration items and the four needs-based mediating variables. The EFA revealed five distinct factors that correspond with our conceptual model, with each variable loading separately from the other variables. Table 1 also shows that the correlations between reintegration and the mediating variables were generally lower than the correlations between reintegration and the study’s dependent variables. These results suggest that reintegration and the need-based mediating variables are both conceptually and empirically distinct. Finally, because our studies rely on a non-experimental, survey-based design, caution should be used in interpreting causal inferences.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.