Abstract:Purpose The literature on unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPOB) has experienced significant growth in the past decade. However, there is limited research on the effects of organizational, team and malleable individual factors on UPOB. It is also necessary to explore its adverse effects for theoretical advancement and to uncover unexplored opportunities. This study aims to systematically examine the existing body of literature on UPOB, providing thorough theoretical, contextual and methodological insights. Design/methodology/approach Using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis technique, the authors identified 43 articles on UPOB from journals included in the ABDC-2019 list. The authors conducted an analysis of the identified articles and categorized them using a modified version of Paul and Rosado-Serrano's (2019) TCCM framework. Findings Existing literature primarily focuses on attitudinal and contextual antecedents of UPOB, neglecting individual differences and their consequences. The review suggests that certain desired employee attitudes may also lead to UPOB. In addition, the study highlights underutilization of established behavioral theories, emphasizing the need for a more inclusive theoretical framework. The exploration identifies research gaps, including in multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies, aiming to broaden the research scope in this field. Research limitations/implications The study highlights the need for a more comprehensive theoretical framework to understand UPOB. Practical implications It cautions organizations fostering positive employee attitudes, such as job satisfaction, workplace spirituality and organizational commitment, as these may inadvertently promote UPOB. Social implications Socially, the paper highlights how engaging in UPOB affects the lives of involved employees. Originality/value This paper's originality arises from its methodical review and categorization of prior research on UPOB using a distinctive, multidisciplinary research framework.

Common Method Bias: It's Bad, It's Complex, It's Widespread, and It's Not Easy to Fix

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

The biasing effect of common method variance: some clarifications

Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods

Method Bias Mechanisms and Procedural Remedies

Dealing with Common Method Variance in International Marketing Research

EXPRESS: Dealing with Common Method Variance in International Marketing Research

The Influence of Common Method Variance in Marketing Research: Reanalysis of Past Studies Using a Marker-Variable Technique

Publication Bias in the Organizational Sciences

How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature

Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs.

Towards implementation of cognitive bias modification in mental health care: State of the science, best practices, and ways forward

Potential types of bias when estimating causal effects in environmental research and how to interpret them

Unethical pro-organizational behavior: a systematic literature review and research agenda

Can Harman's single-factor test reliably distinguish between research designs? Not in published management studies

Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods

The Impact of Cognitive Biases on Professionals’ Decision-Making: A Review of Four Occupational Areas

A Comprehensive Empirical Study of Bias Mitigation Methods for Machine Learning Classifiers

Controlling Bias In Observational Studies: A Review

The Bias of Individuals (in Crowds): Why Implicit Bias Is Probably a Noisily Measured Individual-Level Construct

Common Method Variance in International Business Research