The impact of ethics programmesand ethical culture on misconductin public service organizations

Heungsik ParkCollege of Public Services, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and

John BlenkinsoppHull University Business School, Hull, UK

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the relationship between ethics programmes and ethicalculture, and their impact on misconduct.

Design/methodology/approach A theoretical model which posits ethical culture to be amediating variable in the relationship between ethics programmes and misconduct was tested usingdata from a national ethics survey of Korean public service organizations.

Findings The data indicates the relationship between ethics programmes and misconduct is fullymediated by ethical culture. Only two of the six elements of an ethics programme had a significanteffect on misconduct before ethical culture was controlled for, and when ethical culture was controlledfor, none of the elements had a significant impact on misconduct. The ethics programme did howeverappear to strengthen ethical culture, suggesting such programmes make an important contribution toreducing unethical behaviour in organizations.

Research limitations/implications Future research should examine the interaction of ethicsprogrammes and ethical culture using longitudinal research designs, to obtain a better understandingof how programmes serve to strengthen ethical culture.

Practical implications The findings provide insights into the role of ethics programmes inimproving ethical behaviour, suggesting resources should be deployed to those aspects of theseprogrammes which serve to strengthen ethical culture.

Originality/value The paper provides clarification of the relationship between ethics programmes,ethical culture and misconduct, an important finding given the significant resources deployed bypublic service organizations to initiatives aimed at improving ethical behaviour.

Keywords Ethical culture, Ethics programmes, Misconduct, Public service organizations

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionEfforts at enhancing ethical behaviour in public service organizations are seen asimportant and widespread (Feldheim and Wang, 2002), but the ERC (2005) concludedthat although there had been an increase in the number of ethics programmes, theirimpact on misconduct was not as great as hoped, and appeared to be strongly reliantupon culture. This highlights the need to understand the role of ethical culture in therelationship between ethics programmes and misconduct, yet there has been limitedresearch on what makes ethics programmes effective in reducing misconduct, or therole of ethical culture in the process (Pelletier and Bligh, 2006; Proenca, 2004). Thisarticle addresses this gap, examining the impact of ethics programmes on misconductand ethical culture, and clarifying the process by which ethical culture influences the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

IJPSM26,7

520

Received 12 January 2012Revised 22 October 2012Accepted 25 October 2012

International Journal of Public SectorManagementVol. 26 No. 7, 2013pp. 520-533q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-3558DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-01-2012-0004

relationship between ethics programmes and misconduct. We offers insights topolicymakers on allocating resources to promote ethical behaviour in public serviceorganizations.

Literature reviewAn ethics programme is a set of activities, policies and procedures intended to supportemployees to understand and comply with the ethical standards and policies set by theorganization. Programmes comprise various elements designed to prevent misconduct,defined as behaviour that violates the law or organizational ethics standards (ERC,2008). Companies with strong ethics programmes report improvements in ethicalconduct, and programmes have a positive effect on employee behaviour, ethicalattitudes and corporate culture (Ferrell et al., 1998). Each element is likely to have someimpact on employees attitudes and behaviour, but the manner and extent of thisimpact may vary. Proenca (2004) suggests five elements: a code of ethics, an ethicsofficer, an ethics training programme, an ethics audit system, and dedicated ethicstelephone hotlines. The Ethics Resource Center (ERC), on the other hand, proposes sixelements, based on US Federal Sentencing Guidelines (FSG): written codes of conduct,ethics training, mechanisms to seek ethics advice or information, channels to reportmisconduct anonymously, discipline of employees who violate ethical standards, andevaluation of employees ethical performance (ERC, 2005; US Office of GovernmentEthics, 2008). This widely adopted and highly influential approach is utilized here as ithas been adopted by the Korean Institute of Public Administration (KIPA) for theirethics survey, the data from which forms the basis of this study. We turn now toconsideration of each of the six elements.

An ethics programme begins with development of a code of ethical conduct to guideemployees on what is viewed as ethical behaviour. Schwartz (2004) found ethics codesinfluenced behaviour, but Clark and Leonard (1998) found them ineffective indetermining an employees ethical decision-making, and Nwachukwu et al. (1997)report no significant differences in ethical evaluations between organizations with andwithout ethics codes. The second element is ethics training, to help employeesunderstand the ethical goals and values of the organization, increase their ability todeal with ethical issues (Proenca, 2004), and encourage ethical behaviour (Baggett,2007).

The third element is implementation of mechanisms to provide ethics information,frequently through appointment of an ethics officer to advise employees, investigateallegations of ethical problems, develop and coordinate ethics and compliance policies,and oversee the ethical conduct of employees in an organization (Petry and Tietz, 1992;Smith, 2003). The fourth element is provision of an anonymous reporting system toallow employees to provide information on ethical violations in an organization, andreduce employees fear of retaliation for reporting workplace misconduct. Suchsystems are a key influencing factor on employees ethical behaviour (Schwartz, 2004).

The fifth element, disciplining of violators, is linked to the sixth element, evaluationof an employees ethical performance. A reward and punishment system is a key factorin promoting ethical behaviour (Baucus and Beck-Dudley, 2005), and manyorganizations include ethics in their performance appraisals (Petry and Tietz, 1992).One way of improving employee compliance with ethical standards is by generating a

Ethicsprogrammes and

ethical culture

521

sense of threat, while evaluation of ethical behaviour is used as a tool to incentiviseemployees to behave ethically.

Despite positive claims for the value of ethics programmes, studies suggest theirdirect effect on behaviour is rather slight. One possible explanation is that ethicalculture, rather than ethics programmes, has the strongest influence on behaviour.Scholars have thus begun to pay increasing attention to ethical culture (Whetstone,2005; Jurkiewicz, 2007), those aspects of the organization which serve to promoteethical behaviour and inhibit misconduct (Trevino and Weaver, 2003; Kaptein, 2009).The ERC (2007, p. 9) measures ethical culture in terms of four elements: ethicalleadership, supervisor reinforcement, peer commitment to ethics, and embedded ethicalvalues, and found that though ethics programmes reduce misconduct slightly, thebiggest impact comes from having a strong ethical culture. Similarly, when codes ofconduct are supported by ethical cultures, employees compliance to the ethics codescan be increased (Fiorelli, 2004). This does not mean ethics programmes areunimportant, as they may serve to nurture and strengthen ethical culture (Kaptein,2009). Desplaces et al. (2007) report that codes of conduct had a positive impact onethical culture, while Fiorelli (2004) found effective implementation of an ethicsprogramme helps build an ethical culture, and the ERC (2005, p. 2) observed thatwhere cultures are strong, it is in part because a formal program is in place. West andBerman (2004) suggest specific elements of an ethics programme, rather than theprogramme as a whole, play an important role in strengthening an ethical culture.

We therefore have three competing interpretations of the relationship betweenethics programmes, ethical culture and misconduct in organizations:

(1) an ethics programme has no effect, ethical culture alone is key to reducingmisconduct;

(2) ethics programmes reduce misconduct solely through their impact onstrengthening ethical culture; or

(3) the reduction of misconduct is an outcome of both ethics programmes andethical culture.

Figure 1 maps these possible relationships, with ethical culture presented as a potentialmediating variable in the relationship between an ethics programme and misconduct.

The total effect of an ethics programme on misconduct is shown in path C, and itsdirect effect on misconduct (labeled c0) is estimated when the effect of ethical culture iscontrolled for. The indirect or mediated effect of ethical culture is represented by theproduct of path coefficients A and B. Baron and Kenny (1986) suggest four conditionsto test the mediating effect of a variable, and these were tested in the data analysis (see

Figure 1.Relationship betweenethics programme, ethicalculture and misconduct

IJPSM26,7

522

below). In Figure 1, ethical culture is the mediator assumed to influence the effect of anethics programme on misconduct. If there is complete mediation by ethical culture, thedirect effect of an ethics programme on misconduct will not be statistically significant.

We adopted the FSG definition of an ethics programme as comprising six elements,each treated as a discrete variable and measured by employees knowledge of itsexistence in the organization. We developed the following hypotheses to test the modelshown in Figure 1:

H1. Each individual element of a formal ethics programme will decreasemisconduct, and strengthen ethical culture. Ethical culture will in turndecrease misconduct.

H2. Ethical culture will completely mediate the relationship between the elementsof an ethics programme and misconduct, such that no element of the ethicsprogramme will directly contribute to reducing misconduct once ethicalculture is controlled for.

MethodOur study used data from the KIPA ethics survey. South Korean public servicesoffered an ideal context in which to test our hypotheses, as the South Korean PublicOfficials Code of Conduct (Executive Order No. 17906, May 19, 2003) requiredexecutive branch departments and agencies of central government to put in place anethics programme, comprising six elements identical to the FSG guidelines. Like mostethics surveys the KIPA survey measures ethics programmes in terms of theseelements (Table I).

The elements were measured in terms of employees familiarity with them, whichrequired different types of responses for some elements degree of familiarity can bescaled, for others a dichotomous Yes/No response was more appropriate.

The measure for ethical culture was based on the US Office of Government Ethics(2004) survey, which measured ethical culture in terms of leadership attention to ethics,follow-up of ethical concerns, accountability for adhering to ethical rules, and employeeawareness of ethics issues. KIPA adapted and shortened this scale for their ethicssurvey (Table II).

For each item respondents were asked to indicate level of agreement on a five-pointLikert scale (1 strongly agree to 5 strongly disagree), with the mean score usedas a measure of ethical culture. In factor analysis of the six items, one component wasextracted and the total variance explained was 64.791 per cent.

The survey measured misconduct in terms of its various types, similar to previoussurveys (Andreoli and Lefkowitz, 2009; US Office of Government Ethics, 2007). Thescale listed 14 types of misconduct, based on the ERCs operational definition, andinvited respondents to indicate on a five-point Likert scale how often they thoughtthese had occurred in their organization in the previous 12 months (1 extremelyfrequently to 5 not at all) (Table III).

The mean score of the 14 items was used as a measure of misconduct. From factoranalysis using principal component method, a single component was obtained and thetotal variance explained was 60.916 per cent.

The survey was distributed by mail to 700 employees in 14 out of 50 centralgovernment departments and agencies, both respondents and departments/agencies

Ethicsprogrammes and

ethical culture

523

were randomly selected. A total of 658 employees completed the survey, but 77responses were removed due to missing values, leaving a useable sample of 581, aresponse rate of 83 per cent. This was considered a sufficient sample to represent theemployee population of central government.

The sample showed reasonable demographic heterogeneity, except for gender,where males (448, 77.1 per cent) heavily outnumbered females (133, 22.9 per cent).

Items Possible responses

Code of conduct (CCO)How familiar are you with a code of ethical conductfor your organization employees?

1 (extremely familiar) to 5 (not at all familiar)

Ethics training (ETR) a

During the past year, how often have youreceived ethics education or training?

0 (have never received any training), 1 (once),2 (twice), 3 (three times or more)

Mechanism for advice (MAD)Are you aware that there is a chief ethicsofficial in your agency who can give adviceon ethics issues?

1 (yes) or 2 (dont know/cant remember)

Hotline for reporting (HOR)Are you aware that there is a way to anonymously orconfidentially report violations of ethics rules indoing a job?

1 (yes) or 2 (dont know/cant remember)

Discipline for violators (DVI)I am aware of what disciplines employees comein for, when violating a code of ethical conducts

1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)

Evaluation of ethical behaviour (EEB)Do you know that your organization evaluatesemployees ethical conduct, separately frommerit rating?

1 (yes) or 2 (dont know/cant remember)

Notes: aThe scoring for ETR was reverse coded for analysis, to be consistent with the other elements;n 581

Table I.Scale items for keyelements of the ethicsprogramme (EPR)

Scale/item Scale a

Ethical culture (ECU) 0.890Leaders of my organization sometimes talk about the importance of ethics in discussionswith its membersLeaders of my organization are interested in ethical problems reported by its members andmake an effort to solve themMy organization typically practices ethics according to the ethical rules and standards ithas promotedThe members of my organization feel free to discuss ethics issuesLeaders of my organization periodically let its members know that they are interestedin ethicsMy organization takes fast action to solve ethical issues if they are reported by itsmembers

Note: n 581Table II.Scale items, and alpha forethical culture

IJPSM26,7

524

35 respondents (6.0 per cent) were less than 29 years old, 251 (43.2 per cent) were aged30-39, 218 (37.5 per cent) were 40-49, and 77 (13.3 per cent) were 50 or older. Educationlevel was also varied 33 (5.7 per cent) of respondents had a high school diploma orless, 386 (66.4 per cent) had junior college or four-year university degrees, and 162 (27.9per cent) had postgraduate degrees. With regard to tenure in their current organization,119 (20.5 per cent) had worked for the same employer for 20 or more years, 212 (36.5 percent) had tenure of between ten and 19 years, and 250 (43.0 per cent) had tenure of lessthan nine years.

ResultsCorrelation analysis was conducted to examine how ethical culture, misconduct andthe ethics programme elements are correlated. Table IV shows means, standarddeviations and inter-correlations for all the variables.

The correlation analysis indicates the elements of an ethics programme weresignificantly positively correlated with each other ( p , 0.001), negatively correlatedwith misconduct ( p , 0.01 or p , 0.001), and positively correlated with ethical culture( p , 0.001).

An analysis to examine the effects of each element of the ethics programme onmisconduct was conducted using bivariate regression (Table V). A variance inflationfactor (VIF) was calculated to examine possible multicollinearity problems between theelements of an ethics programme. VIF values were not high for any of the variables,indicating that fit will not be affected by multicollinearity.

The results show each ethics programme element was significantly related tomisconduct, thus satisfying the first condition for testing the mediating effect of ethicalculture, that an initiative variable should be significantly related to an outcomevariable (Baron and Kenny, 1986).

Scale/item Scale a

Misconduct (MCO) 0.9454Putting ones own interests ahead of the organizationsLying to customers, vendors, or the publicImproperly accepting gifts given to them because of where they work or what theydo in their government jobsMisusing the organizations confidential informationGiving and receiving inappropriate profitsInterfering inappropriately rights and interests by using an official positionTaking bribes, kickbacks, and improper entertainment favors for doing their governmentjobs from peopleTheft or private use of government budget, property, products, or servicesUnjust mediation and solicitationExpenditure for travel or pushing business beside original purposes on a budgetImproperly giving gifts to their supervisors or accepting gifts from their subordinatesLectures violating regulations outside the organization or violations of reporting itDoing personal businesses during office hoursSexual harassment

Note: n 581Table III.

Scale items, and alpha formisconduct

Ethicsprogrammes and

ethical culture

525

Mea

nS

DM

CO

CC

OE

TR

MA

DH

OR

DV

IE

EB

EC

U

MC

O4.

490.

511.

00C

CO

2.62

0.82

20.

232

**

*1.

00E

TR

21.

232

1.11

20.

182

**

*0.

403

**

*1.

00M

AD

1.44

0.50

20.

187

**

*0.

335

**

*0.

306

**

*1.

00H

OR

1.47

0.50

20.

166

**

*0.

377

**

*0.

313

**

*0.

464

**

*1.

00D

VI

2.43

0.80

20.

224

**

*0.

499

**

*0.

335

**

*0.

414

**

*0.

448

**

*1.

00E

EB

1.74

0.44

20.

122

**

0.34

4*

**

0.30

6*

**

0.28

6*

**

0.28

8*

**

0.27

0*

**

1.00

EC

U2.

510.

642

0.39

8*

**

0.35

2*

**

0.39

0*

**

0.35

4*

**

0.31

6*

**

0.44

8*

**

0.29

4*

**

1.00

Notes:

Sig

nifi

can

tat

:* p,

0.05

,*

* p,

0.01

and

**

* p,

0.00

1(t

wo-

tail

edte

sts)

;n

581;

see

Tab

les

I-II

Ifo

rab

bre

via

tion

sof

the

var

iab

les

Table IV.Descriptive statistics andcorrelation between thevariables

IJPSM26,7

526

To examine the effect of each element on ethical culture, a simple regression analysiswas conducted (Table VI).

The results show all ethics programme elements were significantly related to ethicalculture ( p , 0.001). The second condition for testing a mediation model, that aninitiative variable should be significantly related to the mediator, was thus met. Thesix elements adjusted R 2 values ranged from 0.085 to 0.153, indicating their impact onethical culture is much greater than on misconduct (adjusted R 2 values from 0.013 to0.052).

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to estimate the paths in the proposedmediation model (Figure 1). The results are shown in the Table VII.

The regression model for ethical culture was statistically significant, with 27 percent of the variance being explained by the combined influence of the six elements ofan ethics programme (adjusted R 2 0.266, F-value 35.980, p , 0.001). However,the t-values for two of the elements (codes of conduct and a hotline for reportingviolations) were not statistically significant. The regression model for misconduct wasalso statistically significant, showing ethical culture has a significant negative effect onmisconduct (adjusted R 2 0.157, F-value 109.099, p , 0.001).

Comparing results from the two regression analyses show the ethics programmeelements significantly explain a proportion of variance in ethical culture, while ethicalculture explains a proportion of the variance in misconduct. This suggests ethical

Dependent variablesMCO

Predictors B SE t Adjusted R 2 F-value

CCO 20.111 0.019 25.730 * * * 0.052 32.836 * * *

ETR 20.084 0.019 24.464 * * * 0.032 19.930 * * *

MAD 20.193 0.042 24.577 * * * 0.033 20.949 * * *

HOR 20.170 0.042 24.047 * * * 0.026 16.382 * * *

DVI 20.125 0.023 25.533 * * * 0.049 30.616 * * *

EEB 20.142 0.048 22.970 * * 0.013 8.818 * *

Notes: Significant at: * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001 (two-tailed tests); n 581

Table V.Relationship betweenelements of an ethics

programme andmisconduct

Dependent variablesECU

Predictors B SE t Adjusted R 2 F-value

CCO 0.209 0.023 9.039 * * * 0.122 81.703 * * *

ETR 0.223 0.022 10.177 * * * 0.150 103.572 * * *

MAD 0.454 0.050 9.112 * * * 0.124 83.030 * * *

HOR 0.402 0.050 8.003 * * * 0.098 64.046 * * *

DVI 0.273 0.027 10.303 * * * 0.153 106.155 * * *

EEB 0.423 0.057 7.389 * * * 0.085 54.591 * * *

Notes: Significant at: * * *p , 0.001 (two-tailed test); n 581

Table VI.Relationship betweenelements of an ethics

programme and ethicalculture

Ethicsprogrammes and

ethical culture

527

culture mediates the relationship between ethics programmes and misconduct, toconfirm this we need to apply the fourth condition for testing a mediation model, thatthe relationship between the initiator variable and the outcome variable is no longersignificant when the mediator variable is controlled for. We tested this by runninghierarchal regression analysis in which the path coefficients were estimated betweenthe ethics programme elements and misconduct. Ethical culture was controlled for inorder to separate the effect of ethics programmes on misconduct from that of ethicalculture on misconduct. The results are summarized in Table VIII.

The regression model for the influence of an ethics programme on misconduct wasstatistically significant (adjusted R 2 0.071, F-value 8.385, p , 0.001). However,only two elements of the programme, code of conduct and discipline for violators, had astatistically significant impact on misconduct (B 20.057 and 20.056, respectively,

Dependent variables Predictors B b t Adjusted R 2 F-value

Ethical culture (ECU) Constant 1.620 12.131 * * * 0.266 35.980 * * *

CCO 0.047 0.079 1.800ETR 0.120 0.210 5.168 * * *

MAD 0.178 0.139 3.287 * * *

HOR 0.059 0.047 1.077DVI 0.124 0.178 4.000 * * *

EEB 0.145 0.101 2.561 *

Misconduct Constant 5.291 66.577 * * * 0.157 109.099 * * *

ECU 20.321 20.398 210.445 * * *

Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001 (two-tailed tests); n 581Table VII.Results of the regressionof the relevant variables

Dependent variablesMisconduct (MCO)

Predictors B b t Adjusted R 2 F-value

Elements of an ethics Constant 4.896 40.477 * * * 0.071 8.385 * * *

programme CCO 20.057 20.119 22.406 *

ETR 20.032 20.070 21.541MAD 20.076 20.074 21.543HOR 20.018 20.018 20.362DVI 20.056 20.101 22.015 *

EEB 20.008 20.007 20.148Elements of an ethics Constant 5.355 41.543 * * * 0.160 16.818 * * *

programme plus ethical CCO 20.044 20.092 21.934culture ETR 0.002 0.003 0.076

MAD 20.025 20.025 20.537HOR 20.001 20.001 20.026DVI 20.021 20.038 20.794EEB 0.033 0.029 0.682ECU 20.283 20.352 27.878 * * *

Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001 (two-tailed tests); n 581;B unstandardized coefficients, b standardized coefficients

Table VIII.Results of the hierarchicalmultiple regression

IJPSM26,7

528

both at p , 0.05). The addition of ethical culture into the regression model increasedthe level of variance explained (adjusted R 2 0.160, F-value 16.818, p , 0.001), butthe coefficient path values for the ethics programme elements dropped sharply, withnone of them now having a statistically significant impact on misconduct. Thisindicates ethical culture fully mediates the relationship between all ethics programmeelements and misconduct. The fourth condition for testing the mediating role of anethical culture was thus met.

These results provide partial support for H1, in that only two elements of a formalethics programme significantly decrease misconduct, and four elements significantlyincreased ethical culture (the hypothesis predicted all six elements would both decreasemisconduct and increase ethical culture), and in addition ethical culture significantlydecreased misconduct. The findings fully support H2, as the ethics programmeelements did not have a significant negative impact on misconduct once ethical culturewas controlled for, indicating ethical culture fully mediates the relationship betweenethics programme elements and misconduct.

An additional check on the indirect effect of ethical culture and its significance wasmade by conducting a Sobel test (Table IX).

Table IX shows the indirect effects of ethical culture were statistically significant inmediating the relationships between each element of the ethics programme andmisconduct, confirming the impact of ethics programmes on ethical behaviour occursthrough the mediating role of ethical culture, rather than as a direct result of theprogramme itself.

DiscussionThe primary goal of this study was to clarify the role played by ethical culture in therelationship between an ethics programme and decreased misconduct. The findingsshow ethical culture completely mediates the relationship, and that most of theelements of an ethics programme significantly contribute to engendering an ethicalculture. These findings have a number of implications, both for future research and forpolicy and practice. First, since the results indicate ethical culture is key to improvingethical behaviour in organizations, the resources used to develop ethics programmesought to be deployed in a manner most likely to strengthen ethical culture. Beforecontrolling for ethical culture, the elements which had the greatest effect on ethicalculture were ethics training and discipline for violators, and these elements would thusappear to provide the best return on investment, although clearly the starting point will

Paths Test statistics p-value

CCO! ECU! MCO 26.328 0.000ETR! ECU! MCO 26.902 0.000MAD! ECU! MCO 26.488 0.000HOR! ECU! MCO 26.179 0.000DVI! ECU! MCO 26.697 0.000EEB! ECU! MCO 25.953 0.000Note: n 581

Table IX.Results of the Sobel test

Ethicsprogrammes and

ethical culture

529

continue to be the development of a code of conduct, as the basis for both training anddiscipline. Examining implementation of ethics codes in public service organizations,Grundstein-Amado (2001, p. 461) stresses internalization of the codes provisions,developing ethical standards which become embodied in employees habitual thoughtsand behaviour. This would need to be supported by ethics training specifically aimedat teaching public officials the rules and standards of ethical behaviours (Schwartz,2004), and our results provide further evidence that ethics training contributes tocreating ethical culture, and confirm its effect in a public service context.

A second issue raised by the study is the question of how ethics programmeelements serve to engender and strengthen ethical culture, as the effects may differbetween elements, both in form and extent. Considering the ways in which ethicsprogramme elements contribute to ethical culture highlights a need to develop a clearerconceptualization of ethical culture, and in particular whether it should be treated as asingle variable or something with multiple components (Kaptein, 2009). Our studytreats ethical culture as a single variable, an approach which a Cronbach a-value of0.890 for that scale would appear to support (Table II), however Kaptein (2008)suggests a multi-component model of ethical culture. If ethical culture is treated ashaving several components, a more focused analysis of the relative importance of eachcomponent is needed to increase our understanding of its role.

Lastly, the methods used to measure ethics programmes are an issue needed to beexamined further. Some studies use Likert scales to measure familiarity withindividual elements of an ethics programme, while others use Yes/No choices, whichsimply measure awareness. Other surveys invite respondents to rate the effectivenessor usefulness of an ethics programme, but such approaches may actually be gatheringinformation on ethical culture, since they relate to programme outcomes rather than theprogrammes themselves (Kaptein, 2009). Studies of the differences between the variousmethods of measuring ethics programmes or ethical culture would be very helpful, asthe observed effects of an ethics programme on misconduct or ethical culture mightvary depending on how they are measured.

This research has some limitations that need to be acknowledged and addressed.The first is regarding the possibility of self-report and mono-method bias. According toDonaldson and Grant-Vallone (2002), employees responses in a self-report survey tendto be biased by various factors, including propensity to show socially desirablebehaviours, fear of reprisal, situational pressure, sensitivity of an issue, etc. This studyused a single method for collecting data, not from multiple external sources. It allowsthat the results might be affected by a single source bias, leading the authors to falselyinterpret the relationships between variables. The second concerns generalizability. Interms of collecting data and explaining the results, this study focused the effects ofethics programme in South Korea as a whole and does not take into account othercultures. The findings might not be suitable or appropriate in certain cultures.

ConclusionThere has been little work on how an ethics programme might reduce misconduct inpublic service organizations, or on the role of ethical culture in the process. The presentstudy has begun to address this gap in the literature, showing ethical culture fullymediates the process by which ethics programmes reduce misconduct. The aim of anethics programme to decrease unethical behaviour is thus accomplished through the

IJPSM26,7

530

mediating role of ethical culture rather than directly, and this has importantimplications for policy makers and managers. Though our study demonstrates thatethics programmes influence ethical culture, the existing ethical culture may alsoinfluence the implementation and effectiveness of ethics programmes (Webley andWerner, 2008), and further study is required to understand the manner in which ethicalculture contributes to the effectiveness of ethics programmes, which in turn reinforcethe ethical culture and improve ethical behaviour.

References

Andreoli, N. and Lefkowitz, J. (2009), Individual and organizational antecedents of misconductin organizations, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 309-332.

Baggett, W.O. (2007), 7 criteria for ethics assessments, Internal Auditor, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 65-69.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

Baucus, M.S. and Beck-Dudley, C.L. (2005), Designing ethical organizations: avoiding thelong-term negative effects of rewards and punishments, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 56No. 4, pp. 355-370.

Clark, M.A. and Leonard, S.L. (1998), Can corporate codes of ethics influence behaviour?,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 619-630.

Desplaces, D., Melchar, D., Beauvais, L. and Bosco, S. (2007), The impact of business educationon moral judgment competence: an empirical study, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74No. 1, pp. 73-87.

Donaldson, S.I. and Grant-Vallone, E.J. (2002), Understanding self-report bias in organizationalbehavior research, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 245-260.

ERC (2005), National Business Ethics Survey How Employees View Ethics in TheirOrganizations 1994-2005, Ethics Resource Center, Washington, DC.

ERC (2007), National Business Ethics Survey An Inside View of Private Sector Ethics, EthicsResource Center, Washington, DC.

ERC (2008), National Government Ethics Survey An Inside View of Public Sector Ethics, EthicsResource Center, Washington, DC.

Feldheim, M.A. and Wang, X. (2002), Accountability through ethics enhancement strategies:empirical evidence from American cities, International Review of Public Administration,Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 77-84.

Ferrell, O.C., LeClair, D.T. and Ferrell, L. (1998), The Federal Sentencing Guidelines fororganizations: a framework for ethical compliance, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17No. 4, pp. 353-363.

Fiorelli, P. (2004), Will US Sentencing Commission amendments encourage a new ethical culturewithin organizations?, Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 565-586.

Grundstein-Amado, R. (2001), A strategy for formulation and implementation of codes of ethicsin public service organizations, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 24No. 5, pp. 461-478.

Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2007), Louisianas ethical culture and its effect on the administrative failuresfollowing Katrina, Public Administration Review, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 57-63.

Kaptein, M. (2008), Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: thecorporate ethical virtues model, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 923-947.

Ethicsprogrammes and

ethical culture

531

Kaptein, M. (2009), Ethics programs and ethical culture: a next step in unraveling theirmulti-faceted relationship, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 89, pp. 261-281.

Nwachukwu, S.L.S., Scott, J. and Vitell, S.J. (1997), The influence of corporate culture onmanagerial ethical judgments, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 757-776.

Pelletier, K.L. and Bligh, M.C. (2006), Rebounding from corruption: perceptions of ethicsprogramme effectiveness in a public sector organization, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 359-374.

Petry, E. and Tietz, F. (1992), Can ethics officers improve office ethics?, Business and SocietyReview, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 21-25.

Proenca, E.J. (2004), Ethics orientation as a mediator of organizational integrity in healthservices organization, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 40-50.

Schwartz, M.S. (2004), Effective corporate codes of ethics: perceptions of code users, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 323-343.

Smith, R.W. (2003), Corporate ethics officers and government ethics administrators: comparingapples with oranges or a lesson to be learned?, Administration & Society, Vol. 34 No. 6,pp. 632-652.

Trevino, L.K. and Weaver, G.R. (2003), Managing Ethics in Business Organizations: SocialScientific Perspectives, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

US Office of Government Ethics (2004), Executive Branch Agency Employee Ethics Survey, USOffice of Government Ethics, Washington, DC.

Webley, S. and Werner, A. (2008), Corporate codes of ethics: necessary but not sufficient,Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 405-415.

West, J.P. and Berman, E.M. (2004), Ethics training in US cities, Public Integrity, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 189-206.

Whetstone, T.J. (2005), A framework for organizational virtue: the interrelationship of mission,culture and leadership, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 367-378.

Further reading

Buell, S.W. (2008), The upside of overbreadth, N.Y.U. Law Review, Vol. 83, pp. 1491-1564.

Coughlan, R. and Connolly, T. (2008), Investigating unethical decisions at work: justificationand emotion in dilemma resolution, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 20 No. 3,pp. 348-361.

Lager, J.M. (2009), Reduce corruption and achieve ethics in government, McGeorge Law Review,Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 63-83.

About the authorsHeungsik Park is Professor of Public Administration at Chung-Ang University, Seoul, SouthKorea. He received his MA in Public Administration in 1985 from Seoul National University andhis PhD in Public Administration in 1991 from Florida International University. He currentlyserves as Editor-in-Chief of the Korean Association for Public Administration journal the KoreanPublic Administration Review. He has published articles in international journals such as theJournal of Business Ethics, and the International Review of Administrative Sciences. His researchinterests span ethics, transparency, whistleblowing, government marketing, and informationbehaviour.

Professor John Blenkinsopp is Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Human ResourceManagement at Hull University Business School, and a member of the Centre for OrganisationalFutures. He has gained an international reputation for his research in the field of work and

IJPSM26,7

532

organisational psychology, which has been funded by the European Commission, the BritishAcademy, the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship and the Institute for LocalGovernance. Key projects include an examination of the role of the medical physics expert, aninternational comparison of bullying and emotional labour (the Odette study), a study ofundergraduates perceptions of graduate careers, and ongoing work on whistleblowing andemployee silence. John is currently developing research on low carbon careers, emotion inmanagement education, coping with career disruptions, and issues of language and translationin organisational settings. John Blenkinsopp is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:j.blenkinsopp@hull.ac.uk

Ethicsprogrammes and

ethical culture

533

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.