Assessing Ethical Organizational Culture

Abstract

An important element in discussions of organizational ethicality is the diagnosis of organizational culture. Kaptein developed the Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale (CEVMS) to facilitate this task. We build on this work by developing a short form of Kaptein’s scale, the CEVMS–Short Form (CEVMS-SF). In a series of studies, using three independent samples, we (a) developed the CEVMS-SF (Study 1, n = 274), (b) tested the psychometric properties of the short form (Study 2, n = 417), and (c) found validity evidence (Study 3, n = 204) for the measure. The primary implication of this research is that the CEVMS-SF can be combined with existing scales allowing diagnosticians to conduct more comprehensive diagnoses by including ethical culture. We also explain how the CEVMS-SF is applicable in the action research process when conducting a diagnosis or evaluating change interventions during the transformation of an unethical organizational culture to an ethical one.

Keywords

ethics culture assessment

Organizational change usually proceeds by initiating four steps: (a) conducting an organizational diagnosis to identify problem symptoms and causes, (b) planning interventions to eliminate problem causes (i.e., action planning), (c) implementing change interventions, and (d) evaluating effects of the interventions to determine if change objectives have been accomplished (Lewin, 1946). Diagnostic data are collected through means such as observing and interviewing organizational members, administering survey questionnaires, and analyzing archival records. The collected data can then be presented back to employees to solicit input and facilitate employee ownership in the change process.

Organizational culture is often the focus of organizational change efforts because culture is responsible for an organization’s effectiveness (Schein, 2004; Treviño, 1990)—it reflects the collective mindset of the organization’s leaders and followers. Transforming an organization’s culture can include changing (a) organizational strategy; (b) operational practices followed in executing the strategy; (c) employee expectations and knowledge, skills, and abilities; (d) day-to-day interactions among employees; (e) physical facilities; and so on. Thus, organizational culture is created by the interactions among organizational members, leaders, behaviors and norms, and consequently, influences individuals’ behavior in an organization. The cliché, “culture influences the way we do things around here,” is often used to sum up the role of culture in determining an organization’s effectiveness.

If organizational decision makers behave unethically, structures, routines, rules, and norms will reflect this and influence the behavior of others throughout the organization, creating an unethical culture. In a recent meta-analysis Kish-Gephart, Harrison, and Treviño (2010) found a negative relationship between stronger ethical cultures and unethical intentions (r = −.15) and unethical behaviors (r = −.44). Because ethical cultures play an important role in higher levels of organizational effectiveness (cf. Burns & Stalker, 1961; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Kotter & Heskett, 1992), we can infer that unethical cultures negatively influence organizational effectiveness. Indeed, examples like Enron (e.g., McLean & Elkind, 2003) suggest that unethical cultures may result in unethical behavior that is ultimately bad for employees, organizations, and society as a whole.

The costs associated with unethical organizational actions are colossal. For example, Karpoff, Lee, and Martin (2008) noted that, on average, firms found guilty of financial misrepresentation (a form of unethical organizational behavior) between 1978 and 2002 were fined $23.5 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, these same organizations lost substantially more because of lower sales and higher financial costs stemming from market-based reactions. Thus, organizations, and those who lead them, are incentivized to prevent such actions from occurring. We as ethics researchers are charged with understanding these events and offering practical suggestions regarding how to prevent them. One means for doing so is to measure an organization’s ethical culture using a valid, but relatively brief survey.

Ideally, to continuously improve the organization, leaders will periodically initiate organizational diagnoses. By systematically monitoring an organization’s culture, decision makers can capitalize on a company’s strengths and identify weaknesses before they become critical. These strengths and weaknesses serve as targets for focusing positive organizational change (i.e., eliminating organizational weaknesses and diffusing strengths throughout the organization). Organizational diagnosis is a crucial step in the organizational change process (Levinson, Molinari, & Spohn, 1972). Most often, self-report surveys, which offer diagnosticians several advantages over alternative data collection methods (see Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, & Falkus, 2000), serve as the means for collecting much of the diagnostic data.

Numerous cultural questionnaires having adequate psychometric properties are available for measuring various aspects of organizational culture (see, e.g., Ashkanasy et al., 2000; Scott, Mannion, Davies, & Marshall, 2003; Xenikou & Furnham, 1996). However, few, if any scales, specifically assess dimensions related to ethical culture. Thus, if an organizational leader is interested in conducting an organizational diagnosis that includes ethical cultural dimensions, a separate questionnaire must be combined with an organizational culture questionnaire. This strategy can lead to surveys having 100 or more items, requiring significant respondent time and effort which affect not only the willingness of respondents to complete and return the survey but also the quality of data collected from those choosing to respond (Yammarino, Skinner, & Childers, 1991). In practice, surveys must allow diagnosticians to achieve an accurate diagnosis within reasonable requirements (i.e., time and effort) for data collection.

Our purpose in conducting the current research was to identify a standardized and valid means for diagnosing an organization’s ethical culture. Importantly, we draw on previous research with an aim to produce a scale that is short enough to incorporate with other measures in an overall organizational diagnosis effort.

Research on Ethical Culture

As noted by Kish-Gephart et al. (2010), for more than 30 years, researchers have sought to understand why employees behave unethically at work. Though many explanations have been considered (see Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005, for reviews), further contributions to this literature are needed (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). We submit that organizational culture—those aspects that stimulate ethical/unethical conduct at work (Treviño & Weaver, 2003)—is poised to contribute to this important literature. In responding to the need for assessing ethical organizational culture, Kaptein (2008) developed the Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale.

The Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale

Based largely on his prior work (Kaptein, 1998, 1999) and on the values-based theory of business ethics (Solomon, 1993, 1999, 2004), Kaptein’s (2008) Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale (CEVMS) is composed of 58 items that assess eight dimensions of organizational ethical cultures. The first dimension of the scale, Clarity (10 items) refers to the extent to which an organization’s expectations are clear to its employees that they behave in an ethical manner. Congruency of Supervisors (6 items) reflects the extent to which employees’ immediate supervisor models appropriate ethical behaviors. Similarly, Congruency of Management (4 items) examines the extent to which the Board of Directors and senior management model ethical workplace behaviors. Feasibility (6 items) refers to whether an organization creates working conditions that facilitate violation of ethical norms for behavior. Supportability (6 items) denotes the extent to which employees are motivated to behave in accordance with their organization’s ethical standards. Transparency (7 items) focuses on whether employees know the consequences of unethical behavior and rewards for ethical behavior. Discussability (10 items) concerns opportunities for employees to raise, discuss, and correct ethical issues and moral dilemmas at work. Finally, Sanctionability (9 items) concerns punishments handed down by the organization in response to unethical employee behavior.

Kaptein (2008) reported validity and reliability evidence for the CEVMS. Additional work has successfully linked the CEVMS dimensions to meaningful organizational constructs, finding that established organizational ethics programs are related to different CEVMS dimensions (Kaptein, 2009). Others have found that CEVMS dimensions are negatively related to unethical behaviors at work (Kaptein, 2011b), ethical strain, and emotional exhaustion but positively related to work engagement (Huhtala, Feldt, Lämsä, Mauno, & Kinnunen, 2011). Still others have reported that CEVMS dimensions influence employee engagement in responding to perceived wrongdoing (e.g., inaction, whistle-blowing, reporting to management, calling an ethics hotline; Kaptein, 2011a). These findings underscore the CEVMS’ viability for future ethics researchers.

Kaptein (2008) noted two important limitations of his research using the CEVMS: (a) reliance on one national culture (i.e., Dutch) in three of his studies, thereby indicating a need for validation in different cultures; and (b) limited convergent and discriminant validity evidence. Our study contributes to the organizational culture, change, and ethics literatures by developing a shortened version of the CEVMS for use in ethics-related studies. Specifically, we examine the shortened scale’s validity (e.g., convergent, discriminant) and generalizability across multiple organizations in a different culture (i.e., United States).

The primary concern with scales developed in one culture is explained by Sutherland’s (1973) theory of differential association. Sutherland theorized that different groups having different cultures compose many societies. People experience expectations for behavior through repeated interactions with others from various cultures. When determining which course of action individuals are likely to pursue, norms displaying increased frequency (i.e., how often the expectation is realized), duration (i.e., how long the expectation persists), priority (i.e., how early in life the expectation is realized), and intensity (i.e., prestige of the source of the expectation) are more likely to guide actual behaviors (Matsueda, 1982).

Applied to the study of ethical organizational culture, the theory of differential association suggests that employees are exposed to different cues regarding ethical behavior. To the extent one such cue stems from key organizational members (e.g., supervisors, peers, executives), it is likely such expectations occur with a high frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. As a result, the ethical behavioral norms stemming from these key individuals are of increased significance when determining actual behaviors. However, not all key organizational members have the same expectations for ethical behavior nor do they agree with what constitutes ethical behavior; each culture is unique. When a scale to assess ethical organizational cultures is developed within only one organization, a question arises as to whether a universal framework (i.e., a set of facets) for ethical organizational culture is achieved. Thus, there is a need to understand what facets of ethical organizational culture are generalizable across organizations.

One means to accomplish such a task is to administer the same ethical culture scale to multiple organizations. The CEVMS was developed within four organizations, though the majority were located in one nation—the Netherlands (see Kaptein, 2008). As a result, we are limited in our ability to generalize its findings to organizations in other countries. Thus, one goal of the present study is to administer the CEVMS to employees from multiple organizations to understand which facets of ethical behavior are common across organizations. Our goal is not to gauge the ethical culture of these organizations per se, but rather to assess the consistency of employees’ perceptions (across numerous organizations) using a shortened version of the CEVMS.

Our research proceeds as follows. First, we provide additional construct validity evidence for the full version of the CEVMS and describe the development of the CEVMS–Short-Form (CEVMS-SF; Study 1). Next, we present empirical evidence regarding the dimensionality and discriminant validity of the CEVMS-SF (Study 2). Finally, we discuss empirical evidence concerning convergent validity (Study 3). We then discuss limitations regarding our research along with implications for scholars and professional practice.

Study 1: Construct Validity of the CEVMS and Development of the CEVMS-SF

Purpose and Method

We conducted Study 1 to provide additional validity evidence for the CEVMS and to create a shortened version of the scale. Accordingly, Study 1 proceeded in two steps. First, we sought additional construct validity evidence via administration of the 58-item CEVMS in its original form and then subsequently conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the items (Furr & Bacharach, 2008). Second, based on recommendations provided by Hinkin (1995, 1998) and Smith, McCarthy, and Anderson (2000), we constructed a shortened version of the CEVMS (i.e., the CEVMS-SF).

Participants

Participants for Study 1 consisted of 275 individuals recruited from the StudyResponse project (see Stanton & Weiss, 2002), a nonprofit academic service, which supplies willing participants to researchers and has been used previously in the management literature (e.g., Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Using such a resource allowed for a customized sample of respondents. In the present study, all respondents were at least 19 years of age and currently employed in the United States for at least 1 year. All participants received a $5.00 Amazon coupon for participating in each of two waves of data collection, which took place through a secure website.

In all, StudyResponse solicited 330 participants, 275 (83.3%) of whom completed our instrument. We removed one respondent due to excessive missing data, reducing the final sample size to 274. We assessed nonresponse bias (i.e., comparing responders to nonresponders) using demographic data. Results indicated that responders did not differ in terms of ethnicity or age but were more likely to be male (χ²₁ = 4.91, p < .05) and have a higher level of education (χ²₆ = 21.59, p < .01) than nonresponders.

Measure

We administered Kaptein’s (2008) original (i.e., 58-item) version of the CEVMS to all participants in Study 1. Participants used a six-cell response format (1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree). Coefficient alphas ranged from .86 to .94 (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale Dimension Descriptive Statistics for Study 1.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale
1. Clarity	4.77	.93	(.92)
2. Congruency of Supervisors	4.74	1.06	.60**	(.92)
3. Congruency of Management	4.60	1.07	.57**	.69**	(.89)
4. Feasibility	3.48	1.39	.01	.12	−.01	(.90)
5. Supportability	4.53	1.03	.51**	.68**	.72**	−.07	(.92)
6. Transparency	4.42	.93	.57**	.55**	.52**	−.15*	.59**	(.86)
7. Discussability	4.62	.95	.62**	.75**	.72**	−.00	.78**	.68**	(.93)
8. Sanctionability	4.58	1.03	.55**	.81**	.77**	−.01	.79**	.64**	.88**	(.94)
Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale –Short Form
9. Clarity	4.87	.96	.95**	.57**	.53**	.04	.50**	.54**	.58**	.51**	(.86)
10. Congruency of Supervisors	4.71	1.08	.57**	.98**	.68**	.08	.67**	.54**	.72**	.79**	.55**	(.90)
11. Congruency of Management	4.60	1.07	.57**	.69**	1.00**	−.01	.72**	.52**	.72**	.77**	.53**	.68**	(.89)
12. Feasibility	3.56	1.46	.03	.15*	.01	.96**	−.05	−.16**	.03	.02	.06	.11	.01	(.88)
13. Supportability	4.54	1.08	.48**	.68**	.71**	−.02	.97**	.57**	.79**	.79**	.47**	.66**	.71**	−.01	(.91)
14. Transparency	4.42	1.00	.58**	.57**	.57**	−.11	.61**	.95**	.70**	.66**	.54**	.55**	.57**	.12*	.59**	(.81)
15. Discussability	4.60	1.03	.59**	.73**	.70**	.03	.75**	.64**	.97**	.85**	.55**	.71**	.70**	.06	.76**	.65**	(.88)
16. Sanctionability	4.54	1.09	.52**	.78**	.73**	−.03	.75**	.62**	.84**	.97**	.47**	.76**	.73**	−.01	.75**	.65**	.82**	(.88)

Note. N = 275. Coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses along the main diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive information (i.e., means, standard deviations, dimension intercorrelations, and coefficient alphas) for all CEVMS dimensions in Study 1. Initially, we tested for evidence of construct validity by conducting a CFA on the original version of the CEVMS. Following recommendations from the literature (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004; Sharma, Mukherjee, Kumar, & Dillon, 2005), we examined a combination of absolute and incremental fit indices in conjunction with several model fit criteria to uncover the best-fitting model for our data. Results of our CFA indicated that an eight-factor solution had an acceptable fit (χ²₁₅₆₇ = 3,465.71, p < .01; comparative fit index [CFI] = .85; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .07; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .06) and provided a superior fit to that of any alternative model. Specifically, we tested three alternative models via CFA. In his original article, Kaptein (2008) initially proposed a single Congruency dimension; it was not until later in his studies that he divided this dimension. Thus, one alternative model collapsed the Congruency of Supervisors and Congruency of Management dimensions. Because of the high correlation between the Discussability and Sanctionability dimensions (see Table 1), we tested an additional alternative model, which collapsed these dimensions. Finally, we tested a one-factor model where we forced all items to load on a single CEVMS factor. Our results further substantiated the eight-dimensional structure advocated by Kaptein (2008), thereby offering support for the construct validity of the CEVMS.

Following Smith et al. (2000), our second step involved the development of a shortened version of the CEVMS. To begin, Kaptein (2008, 2009) provided initial validity evidence for the original CEVMS. In addition, our CFA of Study 1 participants’ responses confirmed the full scale’s dimensionality. In specifying short-form content, we required that each latent construct be assessed by four or more items (Harvey, Billings, & Nilan, 1985). Next, as recommended by Smith et al. (2000), we examined a variety of indicators (e.g., item-total correlations, examination of factor content) in choosing items for our short form.

We began by examining factor loadings for all items from our CFA. We retained the four highest loading items for all eight dimensions. Next, we examined each dimension and the associated items to ensure adequate construct representation as operationalized by Kaptein (2008). When concerns regarding construct representation emerged, we reviewed additional items selected from the item pool for the dimension in question. Discussions among the authors were held until 100% agreement was reached that each CEVMS dimension was adequately represented. This process resulted in a decision to retain 32 items.

Following item selection, coefficient alphas were calculated, intercorrelations computed among dimensions on the original and short-form versions of the CEVMS, and another series of CFAs computed. As shown in Table 1, coefficient alphas for all scales on the short-form ranged from .81 to .91. Correlations between corresponding dimensions on the CEVMS original and short-form versions ranged from .95 to 1.00¹ (p < .01), indicating a substantial degree of overlap between corresponding dimensions on the CEVMS and CEVMS-SF. Finally, as with the full scale, an eight-factor solution provided superior fit to the data (χ²₄₃₆ = 906.35, p < .01; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05) for the CEVMS-SF relative to our alternative models.

Discussion

We conducted Study 1 based on our assertion that development of a shorter form was possible and would further enhance the usability of Kaptein’s (2008) CEVMS. In all, we retained four items for each of Kaptein’s (2008) eight dimensions (32 items overall). Additionally, preliminary results suggested that all dimensions retained acceptable degrees of reliability using conventional standards (Hinkin, 1995; Smith et al., 2000), the dimensionality of the CEVMS was preserved, and substantial overlap between the CEVMS and CEVMS-SF dimensions existed.

Although our initial results are encouraging, both Hinkin (1995, 1998) and Smith et al. (2000) place emphasis on replication in independent samples to support the dimensionality, generalizability, and validity of a measure. Additionally, Hinkin (1995) warns against the use of negatively worded items when generating scale items, which is especially problematic for the Feasibility dimension of the CEVMS that is comprised entirely of negatively worded items.

In the present study, the influence of the negatively worded Feasibility items is evident in the pattern of correlations between the CEVMS dimensions (see Table 1). Specifically, with the exception of Feasibility, all CEVMS dimensions displayed a pattern of positive correlations in both the original (rs ranged from .51 to .88, p < .01) and shortened (rs ranged from .47 to .82, p < .05) versions. However, the Feasibility dimension had mostly nonsignificant correlations with the remaining dimensions in both the original (rs ranged from −.15 to .12) and short (rs ranged from −.01 to .12) versions. These results indicate the Feasibility dimension is not related to the remaining CEVMS dimensions, which is contrary to Kaptein’s (2008) original conceptualization.

Study 2: CEVMS-SF Scale Dimensionality and Discriminant Validity

Purpose and Method

Replication is an important step in the scale development process, as doing so can provide additional evidence of scale dimensionality and validity (Hinkin, 1995, 1998; Smith et al., 2000). Therefore, the primary goals of Study 2 were to (a) reword the four retained items in the Feasibility dimension of the CEVMS-SF to reflect a positive context, (b) replicate Study 1 results, and (c) determine if the CEVMS-SF is distinguishable from similar measures (i.e., discriminant validity).

As originally conceptualized, Kaptein’s (2008) Feasibility items focus on organizationally induced barriers to complying with normative expectations for ethical behavior. Presumably, a lack of such barriers equates to a situation that allows employees to behave ethically. Thus, lower scores on the Feasibility dimension would actually entail a more ethically feasible working environment. However, inclusion of negatively worded items introduces methodological complications to subsequent analyses using the CEVMS. Therefore, we reworded the four items in the Feasibility dimension of the CEVMS-SF and tested the short-form of the scale on a new participant sample.

As reported in Study 1, we identified four items to represent the Feasibility dimension. To preserve the original conceptualization of the Feasibility dimension, we made as few changes as possible to the items but modified them to reflect a positive theme. Table 2 shows all CEVMS-SF items, including the modified Feasibility items.

Table 2.

Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale Short-Form Items.

Dimension	Item
Clarity	The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should conduct myself appropriately toward others within the organization.
	The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should deal with confidential information responsibly.
	The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should deal with external persons and organizations responsibly.
	In my immediate working environment, it is sufficiently clear how we are expected to conduct ourselves in a responsible way.
Congruency of Supervisors	My supervisor sets a good example in terms of ethical behavior.My supervisor communicates the importance of ethics and integrity clearly and convincingly.My supervisor does as he/she says.My supervisor is honest and reliable.
Congruency of Management	The conduct of the Board and (senior) management reflects a shared set of norms and values.
	The Board and (senior) management set a good example in terms of ethical behavior.
	The Board and (senior) management communicate the importance of ethics and integrity clearly and convincingly.
	The Board and (senior) management would never authorize unethical or illegal conduct to meet business goals.
Feasibility	I am not asked to do things that conflict with my conscience in my immediate working environment.
	I do not have to sacrifice my personal norms and values in order to be successful in my organization.
	I have adequate resources at my disposal to carry out my tasks responsibly.
	I am not put under pressure to break the rules in my job.
Supportability	In my immediate working environment, everyone has the best interests of the organization at heart.
	In my immediate working environment, a mutual relationship of trust prevails between employees and management.
	In my immediate working environment, everyone takes the existing norms and standards seriously.
	In my immediate working environment, everyone treats one another with respect.
Transparency	If a colleague does something which is not permitted, my manager will find out about it.
	If my manager does something which is not permitted, someone in the organization will find out about it.
	In my immediate working environment, adequate checks are carried out to detect violations and unethical conduct.
	Management is aware of the type of incidents and unethical conduct that occur in my immediate working environment.
Discussability	In my immediate working environment, there is adequate opportunity to discuss unethical conduct.
	In my immediate working environment, reports of unethical conduct are taken seriously.
	In my immediate working environment, there is ample opportunity for discussing moral dilemmas.
	In my immediate working environment, there is adequate opportunity to correct unethical conduct.
Sanctionability	In my immediate working environment, ethical conduct is valued highly.
	In my immediate working environment, ethical conduct is rewarded.
	In my immediate working environment, employees will be disciplined if they behave unethically.
	If I reported unethical conduct to management, I believe those involved would be disciplined fairly regardless of their position.

Note. All items are scored on a six-cell response format: 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Moderately Disagree), 3 (Slightly Disagree), 4 (Slightly Agree), 5 (Moderately Agree), and 6 (Strongly Agree).

Participants

Participants in Study 2 were 417 individuals recruited from the StudyResponse pool of participants. We used the same participation incentive and criteria in drawing our sample for Study 2 that we used in Study 1. No one in Study 2 participated previously in Study 1. All solicited participants completed our survey, resulting in a participation rate of 100%.

Measures

Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale–Short-Form

Each participant completed the 32-item CEVMS-SF assessing eight dimensions. Respondents used a six-cell response format (1 = Strongly Disagree; 6 = Strongly Agree; see Table 2) to respond to the items.

Individual Beliefs About Organizational Ethics

To test for discriminant validity, we assessed participants’ beliefs about organizational ethics using the Individual Beliefs about Organizational Ethics scale (Froelich & Kottke, 1991) composed of 10 items rated on a seven-cell response format (1 = Strongly Disagree; 7 = Strongly Agree). An example scale item is, “It is sometimes necessary for the company to engage in shady practices because the competition is doing so.” Due to item wording, lower scores equate to a stronger disagreement with engaging in ethically questionable practices, thereby indicating a higher degree of individual ethics. Coefficient alpha was .96 (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale Dimension Descriptive Statistics for Study 2.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Clarity	4.77	.78	(.79)
2. Congruency of Supervisors	4.72	.84	.53**	(.84)
3. Congruency of Management	4.67	.84	.60**	.70**	(.83)
4. Feasibility	4.57	.83	.55**	.58**	.59**	(.67)
5. Supportability	4.65	.80	.57**	.69**	.70**	.58**	(.80)
6. Transparency	4.59	.73	.50**	.59**	.57**	.50**	.61**	(.71)
7. Discussability	4.59	.78	.56**	.65**	.62**	.51**	.69**	.64**	(.76)
8. Sanctionability	4.58	.82	.55**	.65**	.67**	.53**	.70**	.66**	.71*	(.79)
9. Individual Beliefs about Organizational Ethics	3.60	1.85	.14**	.07	.10*	.03	.12*	.23**	.15**	.21**	(.98)
10. Patriotism	5.79	.84	.32**	.25**	.28**	.31**	.29**	.33**	.27**	.35**	.03	(.85)

Note. N = 417. Coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses along the main diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Patriotism

Because we collected all Study 2 data at one time and from the same source, we conducted additional analyses to ensure that common method variance (CMV) did not explain the relationships between our substantive variables. Kosterman and Feshbach’s (1989) Patriotism scale assessed participants’ patriotism and was used as a marker variable (see Lindell & Whitney, 2001) in the study. The patriotism scale consists of five items rated on a seven-cell response format (1 = Strongly Disagree; 7 = Strongly Agree). An example item is, “I am proud to be an American.” Coefficient alpha was .85 (see Table 3).

Results

Table 3 summarizes descriptive information (i.e., means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, and intercorrelations) for the eight CEVMS-SF dimensions. Of particular note is the pattern of correlations among the CEVMS-SF dimensions. In Study 1, the Feasibility dimension correlated only with one other dimension, Transparency (see Table 1; r = −.15, p < .05), a trend that did not change with the creation of the CEVMS-SF in Study 1 (see lower portion of Table 1). However, after rewording its negative items, the Feasibility dimension showed positive relationships with all CEVMS-SF dimensions, with correlations ranging from .50 to .59 (p < .01).

Additionally, an eight-dimensional CFA model provided superior fit to our data (χ²₄₃₆ = 1224.86, p < .01; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .05) compared with the other alternative models. These results provide support for the generalizability of the eight-dimensional structure of the CEVMS-SF.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is established when empirical evidence indicates that a focal scale is not highly related to similar, though conceptually distinct, constructs (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Hinkin, 1998). One way to test for discriminant validity, and the method adopted in this study, is to test for weak relationships between a focal scale (i.e., the CEVMS-SF) and similar constructs. The CEVMS-SF gauges employees’ perceptions of their employer’s ethicality. A conceptually similar though distinct perception is employees’ perception of organizational ethics in general. Froelich and Kottke (1991) created the Individual Beliefs about Organizational Ethics scale (IBOES), which assesses general perceptions about organizational ethicality. Thus, these two constructs conceptually relate insofar as both gauge employees’ ethical perceptions of organizations; however, they are conceptually distinct given the focus of each scale.

The eight-factor CFA solution found in both Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence of the CEVMS-SF’s discriminant validity (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). In addition, we used CFA to empirically distinguish the CEVMS-SF from an existing scale (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001), which assesses a similar construct (i.e., the IBOES). First, we assessed a nine-factor model, which distinguishes among all eight dimensions of the CEVMS-SF and the IBOES. Results indicated this model fit acceptably (χ²₇₈₃ = 2332.34, p < .01; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .06). Subsequently, we tested nine alternative models, eight of which collapsed the IBOES and a single CEVMS-SF dimension (e.g., IBOES and Clarity were collapsed in Model 2), and a final one-factor solution that collapsed all CEVMS-SF dimensions and the IBOES. None of our alternative models fit the data as well as the nine-factor model. Taken together, the CFA results from Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence of discriminant validity for the CEVMS-SF.

Common Method Variance Analyses

Because we collected all variables at the same time and from the same source (i.e., individual, self-report data), we analyzed all correlations to rule out the possibility of CMV explaining our results (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Applied to our study, Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) guidelines indicate an appropriate marker variable would be theoretically unrelated to ethical beliefs/values and be vulnerable to the potentially negative effects of same-source cross-sectional data. Because we know of no prior work that theoretically or empirically links employees’ patriotism with their ethics, Kosterman and Feshbach’s (1989) patriotism construct meets the first of Lindell and Whitney’s criteria. Furthermore, because participants concurrently gauged it with other data in this study, the patriotism variable is susceptible to the same CMV concerns as our other variables, thereby meeting Lindell and Whitney’s second stipulation.

The smallest positive correlation between our marker variable (i.e., Patriotism) and our substantive variables was the correlation between Patriotism and the CEVMS-SF dimension of Congruency of Supervisors (r = .25, p < .01). This correlation was then partialled out of all correlations between the CEVMS-SF dimensions and all other substantive variables. Lindell and Whitney (2001) note that any relationships retaining statistical significance are likely not due to CMV. Interestingly, although virtually all correlations remained statistically significant, correlations between the CEVMS-SF dimensions of Transparency and Sanctionability and the IBOES were no longer significant following our correction. Although the presence of CMV in the Transparency and Sanctionability dimensions is of concern, we retained both dimensions to further examine the validity of the CEVMS-SF.

Discussion

The results of Study 2 are promising; they provide additional support for the eight-dimensional structure of the CEVMS-SF. However, both Hinkin (1995, 1998) and Smith et al. (2000) emphasize the need to ensure a measure is both reliable and valid. As indicated in Studies 1 and 2, we observed adequate reliability estimates for the CEVMS-SF. However, while validity evidence for the original version of the CEVMS exists (Kaptein, 2008), similar evidence is lacking for the CEVMS-SF.

Study 3: Empirical CEVMS-SF Scale Validation

Purpose and Method

The previous two studies offer evidence that supports both the generalizability of the eight-dimensional structure of the CEVMS-SF and the internal consistency of all eight dimensions. These results support the construct validity of the CEVMS-SF (Hinkin, 1998). However, as recommended by Hinkin (1995, 1998) and Smith et al. (2000), additional validity evidence is necessary. We designed Study 3 to test for evidence of construct validity by correlating CEVMS-SF with theoretically related measures (i.e., convergent validity).

Participants and Method

Data for Study 3 were collected as part of a larger data collection effort from 204 participants recruited from Qualtrics, an online survey development and administration company that has been used previously in the management literature (e.g., Long, Bendersky, & Morrill, 2011). The Qualtrics database consists of individuals from throughout the United States who are willing to participate in research projects in exchange for “credits” that are exchanged for monetary compensation. All participants were at least 19 years of age, employed full-time, and employed for no more than 1 year at the time of survey administration. All solicited, qualified individuals responded to our survey, providing a response rate of 100%.

Measures

Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale–Short-Form

Each participant completed the CEVMS-SF created in Study 1 and refined in Study 2. Reliability coefficients for the eight dimensions ranged from .87 to .94 in the present study (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale Dimension Descriptive Statistics for Study 3.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Clarity	4.76	.97	(.90)
2. Congruency of Supervisors	4.65	1.18	.56**	(.94)
3. Congruency of Management	4.53	1.06	.61**	.72**	(.95)
4. Feasibility	4.81	.99	.59**	.74**	.68**	(.87)
5. Supportability	4.54	1.10	.53**	.72**	.79**	.73**	(.93)
6. Transparency	4.37	1.07	.49**	.66**	.69**	.67**	.74**	(.89)
7. Discussability	4.48	1.12	.53**	.71**	.78**	.69**	.80**	.84**	(.93)
8. Sanctionability	4.53	1.07	.53**	.73**	.76**	.72**	.79**	.81**	.88**	(.89)
9. Patriotism	5.80	1.22	.39**	.30**	.32**	.31**	.32**	.29**	.32**	.30**	(.93)
10. Supervisor Commitment—Identification	4.06	1.42	.30**	.52**	.48**	.43**	.55**	.51**	.57**	.58**	.35**	(.90)
11. Supervisor Commitment—Internalization	4.35	1.44	.31**	.60**	.47**	.45**	.53**	.43**	.50**	.54**	.31**	.75**	(.89)
12. Organizational Commitment—Identification	4.59	1.52	.35**	.47**	.54**	.48**	.60**	.52**	.63**	.63**	.40**	.74**	.65**	(.95)
13. Organizational commitment—Internalization	4.57	1.44	.32**	.51**	.54**	.50**	.63**	.58**	.60**	.66**	.32**	.62**	.72**	.80**	(.93)

Note. N = 204. Coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses along the main diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Supervisor Commitment

We measured participants’ commitment to their immediate supervisor using Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert’s (1996) nine-item scale. Their scale consists of two dimensions: Supervisor-related Identification (five items; e.g., “When someone criticizes my supervisor, it feels like a personal insult”) and Supervisor-related Internalization (four items; e.g., “If the values of my supervisor were different, I would not be as attached to my supervisor”). Previous research (Becker et al., 1996) has indicated these dimensions have acceptable reliability (coefficient αs = .85 and .84 for identification and internalization, respectively). In the current study, coefficient alphas were .90 (Supervisor-related Identification) and .89 (Supervisor-related Internalization).

Organizational Commitment

We measured participants’ commitment to their current organization using Becker et al.’s (1996) nine-item scale. Their questionnaire consists of two dimensions: Organization-related Identification (five items; e.g., “When someone criticizes this organization, it feels like a personal insult”) and Organization-related Internalization (four items; e.g., “If the values of this organization were different, I would not be as attached to this organization). Previous research (Becker et al., 1996) indicated acceptable reliability (coefficient αs = .89 and .88 for identification and internalization, respectively). In the current study, coefficient alphas were .95 for Organization-related Identification and .93 for Organization-related Internalization.

Patriotism

We collected Study 3 data at one time and from the same source. To rule out the influence of CMV, we conducted additional analyses using Kosterman and Feshbach’s (1989) Patriotism scale as a marker variable (see Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Coefficient alpha was .93 (see Table 4).

Results

Table 4 presents descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, and intercorrelations) for all measures in Study 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Consistent with CFA results in Studies 1 and 2, our CFA in Study 3 indicated the previously supported eight-factor solution was the best fitting model to our data (χ²₄₃₆ = 1166.16, p < .01; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .09; SRMR = .04). We tested the same three alternative models via CFA as in Study 1; all chi-square difference tests were significant indicating that as we collapsed dimensions, model fit became significantly worse. Thus, these results further support our eight-factor solution.

Convergent Validity

Prior research has indicated that a common method for assessing convergent validity is to examine factor loadings from factor analyses and compare them to loadings expected from theory (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). As discussed in Studies 1 and 2, there was strong evidence to suggest an eight-factor solution for the CEVMS-SF. The superiority of the eight-factor solution found in the current study provides evidence of convergent validity (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). We sought additional evidence of convergent validity by examining the correlations between the CEVMS-SF dimensions and other constructs to which, based on theory or previous empirical findings, these dimensions should be related (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Liden & Maslyn, 1998).

Previous research has linked corporate ethics and individual employees’ organizational commitment. For example, declaring ethical values as a component of an organization’s culture, Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989) found corporate ethical values positively correlated with organizational commitment of marketing employees. In a related study, Fritz, Arnett, and Conkel (1999) concluded that employee adoption of organizational ethical standards is more likely when organizations (a) make such standards readily available, (b) enforce ethical standards, and (c) allow employees to talk to their peers about these standards. To the extent organizations adopt these three guidelines, employees should perceive the organization as “living up to its stated commitments” (Fritz et al., 1999, p. 295), thereby increasing employees’ commitment toward the organization.

Valentine and Barnett (2003) provide additional support regarding our expectation. They observed that when employees were aware of codes of ethics in their organizations, commitment to their organizations resulted. Finally, Valentine, Godkin, and Lucero (2002) found that corporate ethical values were positively associated with employees’ organizational commitment. Taking the above into consideration, we hypothesized a positive correlation between all CEVMS-SF dimensions and both dimensions of organizational commitment. Additionally, because the Congruency of Supervisors dimension focuses on employees’ immediate supervisor, we expected a positive correlation between this dimension and both dimensions of supervisor commitment.

As can be seen from the correlations reported in Table 4, all dimensions of the CEVMS-SF positively correlated with both dimensions of organizational commitment. The correlations ranged from .35 to .63 (p < .01) for the identification dimension and .32 to .66 (p < .01) for the internalization dimension. Additionally, we found positive correlations between the Congruency of Supervisors dimension of the CEVMS-SF and both the identification (r = .52, p < .01) and internalization (r = .60, p < .01) dimensions of supervisor commitment. In sum, the pattern of results confirmed our expectations. Therefore, these results provide additional support for convergent validity of the CEVMS-SF.

Common Method Variance Analyses

As with Study 2, we collected all Study 3 variables at the same time and from the same source (i.e., individual, self-report data). As before, Kosterman and Feshbach’s (1989) Patriotism construct was included as a marker variable in our study. The smallest positive correlation between our marker variable (i.e., Patriotism) and our substantive variables was the correlation between Patriotism and the CEVMS-SF dimension of Congruency of Supervisors (r = .29, p < .01). This correlation was then partialled out of all correlations between the CEVMS-SF dimensions and all other substantive variables. Though most relationships remained significant, correlations between the CEVMS-SF dimension of Clarity and our outcome variables were no longer significant. We return to this issue in our directions for future research.

Discussion

The results of Study 3 are encouraging as they provide additional support for the CEVMS-SF. Specifically, we found evidence further substantiating the eight-dimensional factor structure of the scale and the internal consistency of each dimension. Additionally, we found evidence of convergent validity, further supporting the construct validity of the CEVMS-SF.

General Discussion

We designed this three-study research project to integrate the organizational culture, change, and ethics literatures. Despite impressive advances made in the organizational culture literature, we believe the discussion of organizational culture is incomplete without considering the ethical aspects of organizational cultures and without specific attention focused on the psychometric properties of measures used to assess ethical cultures. We sought to systematically develop a short form of Kaptein’s (2008) CEVMS that allowed us to assess facet generalizability as well as construct validity. Our findings suggest a shorter measure is now available for future diagnoses of ethical organizational cultures. We make no pretense of assessing the culture of the numerous organizations that employed our hundreds of respondents. Our objective was to determine if the CEVMS facets were generalizable across organizations; our findings led us to conclude these facets are, indeed, generalizable.

With respect to the psychometric qualities of the CEVMS-SF, the results are encouraging. Regarding reliability, coefficient alphas for all eight dimensions in each of the studies exceeded .70 with one exception (i.e., Feasibility in Study 2, α = .67). Regarding validity, we also view our results as encouraging. Results of all CFAs support the contention that the CEVMS-SF dimensions, though related, tap different theoretical constructs. Moreover, having carefully followed recommendations from the literature (Hinkin, 1995, 1998; Smith et al., 2000), we believe we have preliminary evidence regarding the construct validity of the CEVMS-SF. Finally, given the substantial correlations between the CEVMS and CEVMS-SF in Study 1 (see Table 1), we have evidence that suggests the CEVMS-SF is assessing the same constructs but is doing so more efficiently.

Earlier, we mentioned the problem of survey length curtailing participation rates in organizational diagnoses involving empirical diagnostic measures. Our research demonstrated that an acceptable ethical organizational culture questionnaire comprised of 58 items could be shortened to 32 items. The shorter scale will allow diagnosticians to combine it with other questionnaires to facilitate a more comprehensive diagnosis (i.e., including ethical culture). Thus, the shorter length will likely make the instrument more attractive to practitioners and researchers who might shy away from longer diagnostic scales requiring more of their resources.

Application of the CEVMS-SF to Organizational Change

Schein (2004) found that organizational culture consists of three common elements: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and underlying assumptions. Thus, the uniqueness of an organization’s culture is manifested in the specific ways each facet is operationalized. Artifacts are the obvious elements of an organization and include mission statements, formal policies, and adherence to formal procedures for reporting organizational performance. From an ethics perspective, an artifact could be a code of ethics or a fraudulent report of the organization’s performance. Espoused beliefs and values (which affect artifacts) are the ways managers and subordinates make and implement decisions throughout the organization. An example from an ethics perspective is the belief/value that managers should set good examples of ethical behavior. Underlying assumptions are usually unconscious, unspoken, and taken for granted mindsets of organizational members and provide the foundation that influences the other two cultural elements. An example from an ethics perspective is that the company must operate ethically in the industry or should not continue in operation. Alternatively, an underlying assumption could be we will meet/exceed Wall Street expectations, even if we must fraudulently report our performance. To change culture, the underlying assumptions must be made conscious and changed.

The actual process of changing an unethical culture to an ethical one begins with the organizational diagnostic step in the action research process (Lewin, 1946). A survey feedback strategy (Nadler, 1977) consists of collecting data that reflect the artifacts and espoused beliefs and values. Examples of artifacts can come from observing the organization’s physical facilities and interviewing select organizational informants. Espoused beliefs and values are assessable by administering the CEVMS-SF to organizational members. A review of the items in Table 2 provides the questions that capture the beliefs of organizational members regarding the eight CEVMS dimensions.

In practice, diagnosticians should analyze the subscales’ content, determine the ones appropriate for a particular diagnosis, and incorporate the most relevant subscales. For example, the Congruency of Management subscale addresses issues related to the Board of Directors and senior management. This subscale might not be appropriate for a diagnosis conducted at lower levels of an organization.

By adding descriptive items to the CEVMS-SF, a diagnostician can determine the extent to which all departments within an organization share the same ethical standards and practices. That is, the downfall of some organizations is attributable to the ethical transgressions of a single department and not the entire organization per se. In the HealthSouth case (Beam, 2009), for example, the finance and accounting departments were involved in a multi-billion dollar fraud. Sixteen high-level managers (including five former Chief Financial Officers) either pled guilty or were found guilty of fraud. At the same time, the actual medical services representing the majority of the organization’s overall output were judged to be of very high quality and of possessing very high ethical standards. Thus, from a practical perspective, managers may use the CEVMS-SF as a diagnostic tool in determining if any departments and work units have unethical cultures.

Responses to the CEVMS-SF can be fed back to groups of employees with the goal of identifying the underlying assumptions and then engaging in the next action research step, action planning. During this step, organizational members participate in generating interventions to correct underlying assumptions. Examples include revising the mission statement and business strategy, restructuring to add a Chief Compliance Officer, and providing professional development on ethical management practices and operational procedures. The third step in action research, implementation, involves carrying out the interventions generated during the previous step. This step can be accomplished through forming action groups (Moates, Armenakis, Gregory, Albritton, & Feild, 2005) given the responsibility for managing the implementation process.

The final step, evaluation, consists of administering the CEVMS-SF again to determine the effectiveness of the change process; that is, have the beliefs/values improved? Ideally, this action research process should become a standard procedure periodically executed to monitor and continually improve organizational performance.

Study Limitations

Given the aforementioned strengths of our studies, we believe that the CEVMS-SF is useful to future diagnosticians. That said, we highlight three limitations below.

First, while we found similar results in all three studies, all participants in Study 3 were employees who had been with their current organization for no more than 1 year at the time they participated in our study. It remains unknown whether such short-tenure employees have a firm grasp of their organization’s ethics. However, because Study 3 produced results similar to Studies 1 and 2, we are confident in our findings. We encourage additional work to examine the congruency of perceptions between short-tenured and seasoned organizational members.

Second, while we believe the CEVMS-SF is a viable ethical culture diagnostic scale, we question whether it taps all relevant dimensions of an ethical culture. Although the original CEVMS was developed from studies of unethical case descriptions and scrutinized by business ethics experts, practitioners, and consultants, we wonder whether a qualitative research study would reveal additional dimensions.

Finally, we acknowledge that all data in Studies 1, 2, and 3 were cross-sectional (i.e., collected at the same time) and self-report, raising concerns about CMV. We examined this concern via the use of a marker variable (Lindell & Whitney, 2001) in Studies 2 and 3. In Study 2, relationships between the Transparency and Sanctionability dimensions and the IBOES were of concern, while the relationships between the Clarity dimension and our outcome variables (i.e., supervisor and organizational commitments) were suspect in Study 3. To help avoid concerns with CMV, future researchers should consider including outcome variables such as self-report assessments of organization citizenship behavior and customer-service orientation as well as archival data such as employee turnover in conjunction with employees’ perceptions.

Future Research

Though preliminary in nature, our results are encouraging and should serve as a springboard for additional research. First, along with Treviño and Weaver (2003) and Kaptein (2008), we encourage future researchers to replicate our results, thereby providing additional support for the dimensionality, generalizability, reliability, and validity of the short form. Second, we encourage further refinement of the CEVMS-SF. One such avenue is to determine whether additional dimensions exist (e.g., Kaptein, 2008) or whether the presence of observable artifacts (e.g., codes of ethics) can be built into the instrument. Finally, in his original article, Kaptein (2008) reported that organizations differed in the extent to which the eight dimensions were exhibited. Future researchers may wish to understand what implications the presence (or absence) of certain CEVMS-SF dimensions has, for example, for organizations’ reputation (see Highhouse, Broadfoot, Yugo, & Devendorf, 2009) or performance.

In conclusion, for many years scholars have labored to understand the mechanisms that underlie organizational ethics (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). We hope our results offer ethics and change researchers a new scale with which to gauge organizational ethics to continue the tradition of making impressive, meaningful, and interesting contributions to this important literature.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

An unabridged version of this article can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author or by visiting the Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures at Auburn University ().

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported with funding from the Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures in the Raymond J. Harbert College of Business at Auburn University.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jason D. DeBode is a doctoral candidate in the Management Department in the Raymond J. Harbert College of Business at Auburn University. His research interests lie primarily in strategic leadership/corporate governance, research methods, and organizational ethics.

Achilles A. Armenakis is the James T. Pursell, Sr., eminent scholar in management ethics and director of the Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures at Auburn University. His research efforts have concentrated on organizational change and management ethics. Detailed biographical information can be obtained at .

Hubert S. Feild is Torchmark Professor of Management in the Harbert College of Business at Auburn University. His professional interests include human resource management recruitment/selection and research methods in human resource management.

Alan G. Walker serves as an Associate Professor in the Management Department at Auburn University where he teaches both undergraduate classes in Human Resource Management as well as graduate classes in leadership and organizational change. Alan’s main research interests lie in ethics, multisource feedback systems, and the effects of religiosity on organizational behavior.

References

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Broadfoot

L. E.

Falkus

S. A.

(2000). Questionnaire measures of organizational culture. In Ashkanasy

N. M.

Wilderom

Peterson

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp.131-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beam

(2009). HealthSouth: Wagon to disaster. Fairhope, AL: Wagon.

Becker

T. E.

Billings

R. S.

Eveleth

D. M.

Gilbert

N. L.

(1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-482. doi:10.2307/256788

Burns

Stalker

G. M.

(1961). The management of innovation. London, England: Tavistock.

Campbell

D. T.

Fiske

D. W.

(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Chen

Gully

S. M.

Eden

(2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62-83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004

Denison

D. R.

Mishra

A. K.

(1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204-223. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

Fritz

J. M. H.

Arnett

R. C.

Conkel

(1999). Organizational ethical standards and organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 289-299. doi:10.1023/A:1005939325707

Froelich

K. S.

Kottke

J. L.

(1991). Measuring individuals’ beliefs about organizational ethics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 377-383. doi:10.1177/0013164491512011

10.

Furr

R. M.

Bacharach

V. R.

(2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Harvey

R. J.

Billings

R. S.

Nilan

K. J.

(1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 461-468. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.461

12.

Highhouse

Broadfoot

Yugo

J. E.

Devendorf

S. A.

(2009). Examining corporate reputation judgments with generalizability theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 782-789. doi:10.1037/a0013934

13.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967-988. doi:10.1177/014920639502100509

14.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121. doi:10.1177/109442819800100106

15.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

16.

Huhtala

Feldt

Lämsä

A. M.

Mauno

Kinnunen

(2011). Does the ethical culture of organisations promote managers’ occupational well-being? Investigating indirect links via ethical strain. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 231-247. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0719-3

17.

Hunt

S. D.

Wood

V. R.

Chonko

L. B.

(1989). Corporate ethical values and organizational commitment in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 79-90.

18.

Kaptein

(1998). Ethics management: Auditing and developing the ethical context of organizations. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

19.

Kaptein

(1999). Integrity management. European Management Journal, 17, 625-634. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00053-5

20.

Kaptein

(2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 923-947. doi:10.1002/job.520

21.

Kaptein

(2009). Ethics programs and ethical culture: A next step in unraveling their multi-faceted relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 261-281. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9998-3

22.

Kaptein

(2011a). From inaction to external whistleblowing: The influence of the ethical culture of organizations on employee responses to observed wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 513-530. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0591-1

23.

Kaptein

(2011b). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64, 843-869. doi:10.1177/0018726710390536

24.

Karpoff

J. M.

Lee

D. S.

Martin

G. S.

(2008). The cost to firms of cooking the books. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43, 581-611. doi:10.1017/S0022109000004221

25.

Kish-Gephart

J. J.

Harrison

D. A.

Treviño

L. K.

(2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31. doi:10.1037/a0017103

26.

Kosterman

Feshbach

(1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257-274.

27.

Kotter

J. P.

Heskett

J. L.

(1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: Free Press.

28.

Levinson

Molinari

Spohn

A. G.

(1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

29.

Lewin

(1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

30.

Liden

R. C.

Maslyn

J. M.

(1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72. doi:10.1177/014920639802400105

31.

Lindell

M. K.

Whitney

D. J.

(2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114-121. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114

32.

Long

C. P.

Bendersky

Morrill

(2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls and fairness judgments in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1045-1068. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0008

33.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

34.

Matsueda

R. L.

(1982). Testing control theory and differential association: A causal modeling approach. American Sociological Review, 47, 489-504.

35.

McLean

Elkind

(2003). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. New York, NY: Penguin.

36.

Moates

K. N.

Armenakis

A. A.

Gregory

B. T.

Albritton

M. D.

Feild

H. S.

(2005). Achieving content representativeness in organizational diagnosis: Use of action groups for successful organizational change. Action Research, 3, 403-416. doi:10.1177/1476750305058489

37.

Nadler

D. A.

(1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based methods. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.

38.

O’Fallon

M. J.

Butterfield

K. D.

(2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375-413. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-2929-7

39.

Piccolo

R. F.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079

40.

Schein

E. H.

(2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

41.

Scott

Mannion

Davies

Marshall

(2003). The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Services Research, 38, 923-945. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.00154

42.

Sharma

Mukherjee

Kumar

Dillon

W. R.

(2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58, 935-943. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007

43.

Smith

G. T.

McCarthy

D. M.

Anderson

K. G.

(2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102-111. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102

44.

Solomon

R. C.

(1993). Ethics and excellence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

45.

Solomon

R. C.

(1999). A better way to think about business: How personal integrity leads to corporate success. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

46.

Solomon

R. C.

(2004). Aristotle, ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies, 25, 1021-1043. doi:10.1177/0170840604042409

47.

Stanton

J. M.

Weiss

E. M.

(2002). Online panels for social science research: An introduction to the StudyResponse project. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies.

48.

Sutherland

E. H.

(1973). On analyzing crime ( Schuellser

, Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

49.

Treviño

L. K.

(1990). A cultural perspective on changing and developing organizational ethics. In Woodman

Passmore

(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 4, pp. 195-230). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

50.

Treviño

L. K.

Weaver

G. R.

(2003). Managing ethics in business organizations: Social scientific perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

51.

Valentine

Barnett

(2003). Ethics code awareness, perceived ethical values, and organizational commitment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23, 359-368.

52.

Valentine

Godkin

Lucero

(2002). Ethical context, organizational commitment, and person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 349-360. doi:10.1023/A:1021203017316

53.

Xenikou

Furnham

(1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49, 349-371. doi:10.1177/001872679604900305

54.

Yammarino

F. J.

Skinner

S. J.

Childers

T. L.

(1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 613-639. doi:10.1086/269284