Ethical Climate Paper Prelim Findings

8/3/2019 Ethical Climate Paper Prelim Findings

1/39

Preliminary Results: A Study of the Relationship of Ethical Work Climate and

Organizational Culture In Public Organizations

By

Rod Erakovich, Visiting Assistant Professor of Management at Texas Wesleyan University and

Ph.D. Candidate, University of Texas at Arlington

Dr. Raymon Bruce, Professor, Troy State University

Dr. Sherman Wyman, Professor and Director, Center for International Research, Education and

Development, University of Texas at Arlington

Paper prepared for presentation at the American Society for Public Administration NationalConference, Phoenix, Arizona - March 23-26, 2002

March 26, 2002


2/39

2

Abstract

Organizational culture is hypothesized as playing a critical role in the development of multipleethical climates. The question examined in this paper is what are the critical organizational

cultural factors found in public organizations that account for differences in ethical climates.

Researchers have developed a typology of ethical climates in organizations. Ethical climateconstructs now give us the possibility to measure and identify specific organizational ethical

climate characteristics. The question now becomes which elements of the organizational cultureproduce certain types of climates and in turn, the associated behavior that reflects the ethical

climates.

This paper will provide preliminary results of public organization surveys that proberelationships between organizational culture and ethical climate. Organizational managers will

be surveyed to collect both quantitative and qualitative perceptions.


3/39

3

Relationship of Ethical Work Climate and Organizational Culture in Public Organizations

Introduction

Public administration ethics has grown dramatically from 1930 to the present.

Citizenship, democracy, virtue ethics, the organizational context, ethics education, philosophical

theory and perspectives and moral development are themes that have risen to view and become

intertwined in the blossoming discussions. Contained within Waldos list (1974) are two themes

present and considered in any ethical dilemma faced by a public servant: the individual and the

organization. The question examined here is what critical organizational cultural factors are

accounting for differences in the multiple organizational ethical climates in an organization.

Organization theory hypothesizes that organizational culture plays a critical role in the

development of multiple organizational ethical climates. (Trevino 1986, Ferrell et al 1989). This

paper discusses structural and normative approaches to ethical controls and reports on the

preliminary results of public organization surveys that probe the relationships between

organizational culture and ethical climate.

Statement of the Problem

In analyzing organizational members behavior, the organizational culture perspective is

gaining importance as organizations become more complex, decentralized and fragmented

(Mausolff 1996, Grosenick and Gibson 2001, Ott 1998). Understanding and analyzing the

influence of key organizational cultural elements, such as leadership, structure, support,

cohesion, innovation and ethical practices, are essential to understanding organizational culture.

Up to this point, the relationship between organizational culture and ethical climate has been


4/39

4

hypothesized but not empirically validated. Cultural influences change the character and identity

of an organization. In this manner the organizational climate, a social force that constrains

individual behavior, can be permanently changed. Perceptions and behavior of organizational

members can be altered. However, unless the underlying shared assumptions and values in

organizational culture are changed, the climate will revert back to the old climate as soon as the

pressure from organizational leaders or citizens, for example, are removed (Ott 1998).

Organizational culture is the basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members

of the organization (Schein 1985). Organizational climates are distinct, however, from the

organizational culture. (Cullen, Victor and Bronson 1993). Orga nizational climates are the

psychological environments in which behavior of individuals occur (Ott 1998). Individual

norms operate in the organizational climate and evolve into institutional systems that are well

known by organizational members. An organizational ethical climate is the collection of shared

perceptions on what ethically correct behavior is and how ethical issues should be handled

(Victor and Cullen 1987). The linkage between the organizational culture and the organizational

ethical climates in public administration organizations is the central focus of this study.

Ultimately, the behavior of individuals produces an organizations ethical climates

(Victor and Cullen 1987). Once in an organization, employees learn through formal and informal

socialization processes what is correct to contribute to this organizational ethical climate (Cooper

1998, Victor and Cullen 1987), and they react to it collectively (Ott 1998). The organizational

culture, characterized by shared assumptions, beliefs and values helps to shape and guide this

behavior (Schein, 1985, Ott, 1989 1998, Victor and Cullen 1987).


5/39

5

No matter how broad the concept of ethics may be, how open organizations are to ethical

influences and how many ethical problems an organization and its leadership experiences, the

key question remains how to manage ethical conduct effectively in public organizations . The

exercise of discretion in performance of duties, conduct and management in public organizations

increases the emphasis on controlling ethical conduct.

The objective of this study is to demonstrate relationships between public organizational

culture and public organizational ethical climates. It has already been determined that in

organizations where there is a higher level of moral development represented in ethical climates,

decisions are more ethical (Fritzsche 2000; Sims and Keon 1999). In addition, there is a lower

level of intentional organizational misbehavior (Vardi 2001), a higher development in the

person-organization fit (Sims and Keon 1999), a stronger communication system exists (Bartels

et al 1998), and a statistically significant difference among organizations on ethical dimensions

(Wimbush et al 1997).

However, two main shortcomings exist in these investigations. First, all are conducted in

for-profit or not-for-profit organizations and not in the public sector. The conduct of public

organizations and the development of the public organizational ethical work climate are based on

the importance of democratic values and public interest, not issues of profit and shareholder

interest found in the private sector. Second, none of the studies reviewed determine which

organizational cultural variables have the greatest effect on the ethical climates. Grosenick and

Gibson (2001) found theorists are just beginning to examine the organizational culture and its

effect on managing public organizations. What is lacking are empirical studies. A review of

business administration literature shows ethical climates and behaviors examined, but not

linkages between organizational ethical climates and the organizational culture.


6/39

6

Comparing Public and Private Organizations

This distinction between public and private organizations is important in this study of

public organizational ethical climates. Bozeman in Rainey (1991) uses two dimensions, political

authority and economic authority to draw a distinction. These dimensions are continuums rather

than dichotomies, and thus move from private organizations with maximum economic authority

and little political authority, to public organizations that have maximum political authority and

little economic authority. Gawthrop in Denhardt (1993) suggests that the purpose of public

organizations and public management is the facilitation of integration and convergence of social

values. Gortner, Mahler and Nicholson (1997) define public organizations as organizations

created to be agents of some unit of government.

Denhardt (1993) suggests that public organizations should be concerned with the pursuit

of publicly defined social values as the most important goal. Organizations that are agents of

some governmental unit operate in a landscape different from their private sector counterparts.

This landscape concerns organizational goals involving public trust, equality and equity, fairness

and due process and operating in the public interest. This provides the value distinction from

private organizations and their pursuit of economic goals. Harmon and Mayer in Denhardt

(1993) argue that the greatest impact on studying organizations is on what clarifies the moral

dimension of the organization and understanding what is valued and what should be valued.

This research clearly defines and relies upon the distinction between private and public

organizations. The law creates public organizations to implement policy and administer the law.

Where managers in private organizations act unless a law or rule prescribes otherwise,

compliance with laws in public organizations is mandatory. Public managers ability to plan,

organize, lead and control is possible only if authority is granted. The political process often


7/39

7

controls changes attempted by public managers. In countless ways, the structure, control and

resources provided to public organizations is fragmented. This fragmentation process and

ultimate priority on abiding by laws and the political process create emphasis on internal

structures and processes. This power and political organizational theory overlaps into the

organizational culture and climates.

The organizational culture is a system of organizational symbols, beliefs, values and

shared assumptions and "is a social force that controls patterns of organizational behavior by

shaping members' cognition and perceptions of meanings and realities" (Ott 1989) and is an

anthropological construct. In public organizations, the focus is to be on a values based ethic that

considers the public interest through the implementation of policy and law. This affect varies

between public organizations based on their mission and structure. It is therefore logical to posit

that differing organizational ethical climates are to some extent a product of different

organizational cultures.

Public Trust as the Foundation of Public Organization Cultures

Public trust is an important part of the social fabric of any nation - one of its most

precious national resources. Uncaring public officials and employees can tear away at this social

fabric by ignoring the public's trust. There is a threshold of public trust, below which, a regime

can no longer be effective. Alternatively, such regimes typically rely on a kind of Taliban

tyranny. At the same time, when the public develops complete and blind trust in the

government's organizations, it can lead to a totalitarian organizational culture such as Nazi

Germany.


8/39

8

In a democracy, any public organization culture is fundamentally grounded in public

trust. The relationship between public trust and a democratic public organization's culture is a

complex and dynamic relationship. This entrustment comes from (1) the public that elects the

political officials; (2) the elected officials and their appointees to public office; and (3) the

government employees who work to accomplish the public organization's mission of service

delivery to the public community. People in government are expected to act in a fair and ethical

manner concerning the public resources and powers that have been given them to administer for

the public good.

Clearly, changes in the public's trust in government affect the public organization's

culture most directly by the people they elect to public office. In turn, ethical climates are

impacted by any ensuing changes in the organization's culture brought by the elected leadership.

Arguably, the resulting changes that elected leaders have on organizational culture can be

expected to have cascading effects on employees' ethical conduct of their duties. How these

elected officials behave sets the tone for the ethical climate within the organization for its

employees. Conversely, unfair and unethical performance of duties on the part of elected or

appointed officials can have a profound effect on the public's trust of their government.

Conceptual Framework

The external and internal environments of public organizations are key elements in

creating ethical climates that foster public trust and is illustrated in the ecological landscape of

public organizations in figure 1. This portion of this research will examine structural and

normative approaches to public administration ethics, the organizational ethical climate and

organizational work culture.


9/39

9

Leadership

ETHICAL CONTROLS

Support

Cohe

sion

I nnovat i on

Structu

re

NORMATIVE

Moral Development Values Decision making

STRUCTURAL

Codes of Ethics/Conduct Legislation Inspector Generals

Publ

icTr

ust

Globaliza

tion

Reinventi

ng

Governm

ent

DecentralizedPublic

Organizations

Privatization

Socioeconomicissues

Ethical Climate

Figure 1. Landscape of Public Administration

Organizational Ethical Environment

Structural and Normative Approaches to Ethics

Public organizations employ structural and normative approaches to build organizational

ethical climates as shown in

figure 1. The structural

approach focuses on formal-

legal arrangements,

primarily regulatory and

legal prescriptions through

which government seeks to

channel and control

behavior. The normative

approach examines how

ethical values are made operational in organizations.

Structural Perspective

The intellectual origins of the structural framework were captured in the Weberian model

of democracies that articulated rational principles. Weber advocated an ideal type of bureaucracy

that organized and institutionalized individuals in organizations (Gortner Mahler Nicholson

1997, Denhardt 1993). Weber recognized the need for instrumental rationality, or getting things

done efficiently, through a hierarchical system of rules.

Other structural sources include the Wilsonian dichotomy of public administration and

politics, and from the Goodnow and Willoughby studies of comparative administration and the


10/39

10

application of rationalism (Pugh 1991). This movement was designed to replace the market

system model of political decision-making.

By creating a systematic process in a bureaucratic structural framework, continuity and

consistency of purpose is believed to be ensured. These bureaucracies provide structures that

produce calculability of results (Denhardt 1993). Early theorists provided a methodology by

which these content values are assessed against established rational goals and objectives using

utilitarian principles as the criteria for action. For example, Simon (1947) explicated a process of

vertical value integration that should take place in the organizational context.

Clear are the values of efficiency and effectiveness in the structural perspective in

movements toward decentralized public administration systems. These values are present in the

recent U.S. approach to Reinventing Government and worldwide application of new public

administration that touts entrepreneurship and privatization in government. Also seen are values

of efficiency and effectiveness in decentralized discretion and systems of personal initiatives,

voluntary cooperation, joint ventures and committee work (Cleveland 2000).

Although much scholarly literature suggests that ethical codes are useful in fostering

ethical behavior, there is no demonstrated relationship between codes, administrative behavior

and public confidence and trust in government (Thompson 1995). The strengths of codes include

setting clear standards of behavior consistent with social needs, accountability, operationalization

of concepts, increased transparency of government and due process.


11/39

11

Normative Perspective

Less precise than the structural perspective, a normative view of public administration

ethics relies on the values of citizenship, public interest and social equity. The methodology of a

normative approach to ethics is deductive reasoning from a deontological perspective. In such an

approach, reasoning from a general to a specific sense about the determination of rightness or

wrongness of an action by existing rules, societal principles, values and personal beliefs. In

essence, a public administrator searches for some principle that guides his or her decision-

making or provides justification for his or her decision (Whittmer 1994). This approach provides

a framework to guide and justify managerial decision-making. It employs values inherent in the

society, political system and governance in which the individual resides. Various individual and

environmental forces influence ethical behavior.

In summary, the basis of a structural ethical control perspective is on external controls

through codes, laws and regulations and the normative perspective is on values of rightness and

wrongness. Concern over the possible inadequacy of relying solely on formal and legal remedies

has sparked an interest in a normative dimension of ethical management in global discussions

(Gilman and Lewis 1996).

Organizational Culture

The essence of an organization's culture lies in the patterns of underlying assumptions,

beliefs and values (Schein 1992), not overt behavior. Schein (1985, 1992) and Ott (1989) define

organizational culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that are learned by organization

members in solving its problems of external adaptation and internalized integration. These


12/39

12

shared assumptions have worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, are taught to

new members as the correct way to think and feel in relation to these problems.

Within an organization, different organizational cultures may be found in different

operating departments (Van Maanen and Barley 1984, Louis 1981 in Schein 1992; Ott, 1989). It

is important to assess the culture in different operating units within organizations. Assumptions

about the organizational culture based on the organization as a whole are inappropriate.

Culture in an organization appears at different levels, or the degree to which the cultural

phenomenon is visible. Ott (1989) and Schein (1985, 1992) have created similar theoretical

typologies of the elements of the organizational culture. Otts (1989) paradigm of organizational

cultural elements includes:

Level 1A. The visible artifacts including ceremonies, physical arrangements,

symbols and traditions.

Level 1B. Patterns of behavior such as patterns of interaction and ritualized

practices.

Level 2. Shared beliefs and values, level of consensus and organizational ethic.

Level 3. Underlying assumptions about identity, mind set, philosophy, spirit and

organizational scripts.

Ott concludes that level 2 elements are central to understanding culture. He states that:

"... ethics, values and morals provide the justification for what people do in

organizations, and it would not be possible to understand the most visible levels

... without knowing the beliefs and values that drive them."


13/39

13

Organizational Culture and Organizational Ethical Climate

As has been suggested earlier, concepts of organizational culture and climates determine

ethical behavior. The ethical climates in an organization provide members with shared

behavioral perceptions of ethically correct actions and provide insights into the shared values.

The primary focus of ethical climates is on the manner in which organizational members behave

and decide in respond to ethical dilemmas in the workplace (Victor and Cullen 1987; Berman

1999; Key 1999). Thus the ethical work climates, psychological constructs, are a manifestation

of the organizational culture.

An organizational ethical climate is a normative construct of the shared behavioral

perceptions of policies, procedures, systems and behaviors in an organization that direct

organizational members ethical actions and decisions (Agarwal and Malloy 1999, Wyld and

Jones, 1997, Key 1999). These cumulative collections of shared practices and behavioral

perceptions are observable and influence organizational members in the ethical decision making

processes. When an organizational member is faced with an ethical issue and considers what the

organization expectation is, his or her ethical climate provides the basis for the perception of

acceptable and ethical behavior.

Victor and Cullen (1987) developed a typology of organizational ethical climates and

theorize that these climates can be placed in "maps" which distinguish what is really happening

in organizations. Victor and Cullen found that organizational ethical climates evolve along

dimensions or level of criteria similar to Kohlberg's ethical standards and ethical theories.

Kohlberg (1981) found that individuals develop morally on how things should be resolved and


14/39

14

follows a multi-stage sequence. They progress from an egoistic view to a principled concern for

universal rights and even humanity as a whole.

Types of organizational ethical climates, then, may influence types of ethical conflicts

and the process by which they are resolved. In addition to the level of criteria, the level of ethical

analysis can range from the individual to the broadest of social systems. Kohlberg found that as

moral development increases the shift in ethical concern moves from individual to the social

system and support for the criteria is found in theories of organizational roles. Merton (1957)

makes a distinction between a local and cosmopolitan role and from internal to external sources

of role definition.

Organizational Ethical Climate Dimensions

Ethical climate is defined as the "the shared perceptions of what is ethically correct

behavior and how ethical issues should be handled" (Victor and Cullen 1987). They propose an

ethical climate typology with two major dimensions and each climate with three positions as

shown in table 1.

Table 1. Organizational Ethical Climates

Levels of Ethical Analysis

Individual Local Cosmopolitan

Egoism Self-interestOrganizational

interestEfficiency

Benevolence Friendship Team interestStakeholder

orientation

Levels

of

Ethical

CriteriaPrinciple

Personal

morality

Organizational rules

and procedures

Laws and

professional codesVictor and Cullen (1987)

The dimension ethical criterion refers to three major classes of ethical theory that are

included in Kohlbergs theory of moral development and consist of egoism, benevolence and


15/39

15

principle. The dimension level of ethical analysis identifies sources of moral reasoning used for

applying ethical criteria to organizational decisions. The individual level of analysis identifies

the sources of ethical reasoning within the individual. The local level of analysis identifies

sources of ethical reasoning at the level of the organization. The cosmopolitan level locates the

reference for ethical reasoning outside the organization. Together, the ethical criterion dimension

and the level of analysis dimension define nine ethical climate types. Victor and Cullen

developed an Ethical Climate Questionnaire in which each climate type was described by a

number of question items (e.g. in this company, people are expected to follow their own personal

and moral beliefs to measure personal morality climate) that was scored on a six-point scale.

The nine types developed in the typology of Victor and Cullen is adapted to the public

sector and to the purposes of this research. Further research has shown Victor and Cullen's

typology is a valid and reliable indicator of organizational ethical climates (Cullen, Victor and

Bronson 1993; Wyld and Jones 1997; Wimbish, Shepard and Markham 1997; Sims and Keon

1997, 1999; Bartels, Harrick, Martel and Strickland 1998). However, this ethical climate

typology has not been empirically applied to public organizational culture.

Additional work by Key (1999), Wimbush, Shepard and Markham (1997) and Wyld and

Jones (1997) eventually led to five climate dimensions that show distinction among groups. Five

organizational ethical climate dimensions were also developed in research done by Agarwal and

Malloy (1999). Based on these studies, the organizational ethical climate dimensions chosen for

this research are (1) individual interest climate, (2) organizational interest climate, (3) principled

interest climate, (4) principled organizational climate and (5) principled cosmopolitan climate.

These are shown in Table 2. Each climate dimension is coded (e.g., EI for Individual Interest, EC

for Organizational Interest, etc.) for ease of reference.


16/39

16

Table 2. Organizational Ethical Climates Used in this Research

Levels of Ethical Analysis

Individual Local Cosmopolitan

EgoismIndividual Interest

(EI)Organizational Interest (EC)

Levels of

EthicalCriteria

PrincipledPrincipled Interest

(PI)

Principled

Organizational (PL)

Principled

Cosmopolitan(PC)

These dimensions can be arranged hierarchically from a self-interest standard to a

concern for universal rights and humanity using a deontological approach. When considering

types of criteria and levels of analysis in organizations, an ordering of these dimensions would be

from an egoistic/individual criterion (individual interest climate) to a principled/cosmopolitan

criterion (principled cosmopolitan climate). Thus, this research hypothesizes:

H1: In public organizations, there are statistically significant differences among these

five ethical climates.

These dimensions now give us the possibility to measure and identify specific

organizational ethical climate characteristics. The question now becomes which variables of

organizational culture are associated with these dimensions.

Organizational Culture Variables

A literature review revealed 125 recognized elements of an organizational culture. Not all

parts of an organizations culture are relevant to any given issue (Schein 1992). Attempting to

study an entire culture would be impractical for this research. The independent variables used to

show relationships with the ethical climates are leadership, cohesion, support, innovation and

structure. They are variables that have been previously researched and measured. A description

of reliability and validity of variable data for the organizational culture and ethical work climate


17/39

17

used in this research is included in appendix A. The description of each culture variable

employed follows. Included with each description is the hypothesized relationship with ethical

climates.

Leadership. An important element in creating an ethical environment in any organization

is leadership (Gortner, 1991, Hitt 1990 and Cooper 1998). The leadership guidance system of the

organization establishes the organizational ethical climate for employees criteria to think and

act, especially in times of crisis (Gortner 1991, 1995).

Leadership research has focused on the isolation of two dimensions of leadership

behavior: consideration or supportive and initiating or structural. A work atmosphere of mutual

trust, respect for subordinates ideas and consideration of subordinates feelings characterize

leaders who score high on the consideration dimension. This research argues that supportive

leaders will create ethical climates that are more cosmopolitan.

H2: In public organizations, greater levels of a supportive style of leadership are

positively associated with higher levels of ethical criteria in the organizational ethical

climate.

Structure. The organizational cultural variable structure is defined as the organizations

procedures, specific chain of command, flow of work and orientation toward responsibility and

attempt to acquire power (Aiken, Michael and Jerald Hage 1966; Odom, Boxx Dunn 1990).

Aiken, Michael and Hage's research (1966) found that the greater degree of formalization in an

organization, the greater the likelihood of alienation toward the organization. Such alienation

manifests itself as dissatisfaction with work and disturbed social relations. This type of alienation

then results in issues of disbursement of responsibility. This research hypothesizes that

organizations that are less formal will create more cosmopolitan ethical climates.


18/39

18

H3: In public organizations, greater levels of informal organizational structure are

positively associated with higher levels of ethical criteria in the organizational ethical

climate.

Support. Organizational support is defined as a workplace that helps an employee when

needed without questioning a persons ability. It includes the degree to which employees are

encouraged to be creative and innovative, employee perceptions of participation in the decision

making process, clear organizational goals and performance expectations and the degree to

which rewards are based on employee performance in contrast to seniority, favoritism or other

non-performance criteria (House and Gary Dessler 1974; Van der Post, de Coning, et al 1997).

Thus, it is hypothesized that organizations with higher levels of support will create higher

principled and cosmopolitan organizational ethical climates.

H4: In public organizations, greater levels of organizational support are positively

associated with higher levels of ethical criteria in the organizational ethical climate.

Cohesion. Cohesion is defined in this research as the closeness or commonness of

attitude, behavior and performance within the organization (Odom, Boxx and Dunn 1990).

Included in this variable are work trust and collaboration. Trust is defined as maintaining

confidentiality of information shared by others and not misusing it, a sense of assurance that

others will help when needed and will honor mutual obligations and commitments. Collaboration

is defined as giving help to and asking for help from others; team spirit; working together

(individuals and groups) to solve problems (Pareek 1994). Organizations that create greater

levels of cohesion and trust will move toward higher levels of ethical climatic reasoning.


19/39

19

H5: In public organizations, greater levels of organizational cohesion are positively


Innovation. Innovation is defined as ..an organizational work culture that is creative,

results oriented and challenging (Odom, Boxx and Dunn 1990). Included are principles based

on the eight attributes of excellence and innovation found in Peters and Waterman (1990).

Higher levels of innovation in an organization create an organizational ethical climate at a more

principled and cosmopolitan level of reasoning.

H6: In public organizations, greater levels of organizational innovation are positively


Organizational Ethical Climate Variables

Used in this survey is a modified ethical dimension instrument developed by Victor and

Cullen (1987, 1988) that emphasizes the description of climates rather than the feeling about the

workplace. Their research explored (1) the level of analysis (individual, local or cosmopolitan)

and (2) the level of criteria (principle, utilitarian or egoistic). Moreover, further work by Agarwal

and Malloy (1999) proposed five dimensions of ethical climates.

Victor, Cullen (1987, 1988) and Agarwal, and Malloy (1999) suggest a higher level of

organizational ethical analysis involves more than self- interest, more than organizational interest,

more than principles, but a reasoning that involves principles from a mixed global point of

reference. This mixed global reference is called cosmopolitan. For purposes of this research,

these climates have been labeled individual interest, principled interest, organizational interest,

principled organizational and principled cosmopolitan. As with Kohlberg, conceptually these

dimensions can be arranged hierarchically from a self-interest standard to a concern for universal


20/39

20

rights and humanity. When considering types of criteria and levels of analysis in organizations,

an ordering of these dimensions would be from an egoistic/individual criterion (individual

interest climate) to a principled/cosmopolitan criterion (principled cosmopolitan climate). (See

Figure 2.)

Figure 2. Ordering of Ethical Climates

Lower Order Ethical Reasoning Individual Interest Climate (EI)

Organizational Interest Climate(EC)

Principled Organizational Climate

(PL)Higher Order Ethical Reasoning

Principled Cosmopolitan Climate(PC)

Research Design

This research is designed to support generalizability of the findings and support

relationships between organizational cultural variables and five ethical climates. The discussion

involves the unit of analysis, sampling frame and instrument created to support this research.

Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis for this study is public organizations. For the purpose of this study,

an organization is defined as, a section, agency, department, or separate institution where

employees work and are supervised by individuals in manageria l positions. Victor and Cullen

(1988) suggest that with tenure, the climate becomes internalized and managers become

integrated into their organizational climates and cultures. Public organizational managers and

supervisors who been in their position of leadership for more than one year and with the

organization for more than two years will be sampled using a survey instrument.


21/39

21

Using leaders to assess the organizational ethical climate and organizational culture

constructs has precedence in other studies. Ruppel and Harrington (2000) studied information

technology managers' in 1100 companies, examining the relationship between communication,

trust and organizational ethical climate, commitment and innovation. Upchurch and Ruhland

(1996), in their study of organizational ethical climates, surveyed top managers and focused on

measures of the organizational bases of an organization's work climate. Cohen (1995) suggests

that managerial perceptions are interpretations of the organization's ethical climate. It seems

reasonable that managers would be in the best position to describe organizational practices and

values that are reflected in the organizational ethical climate and organizational culture and can

act as objective observers. For this reason, it is necessary for the questionnaire to query the

observers description of what is happening and not evaluate their perception of organizational

expectations.

A controversy associated with organizational research is the individualistic fallacy

(Nachmais 2000), or inferring about an organization from data gathered from individuals. This

study attempts to prevent blind aggregation of individual results to measure organizational level

constructs and the use of data gathered from organizational members. Using organizational

members would provide data that is collected with bias because the members may lack the

unique knowledge or experience to assess the constructs on an organizational basis. This

research supports the theory that shared properties of the organizational climate and

organizational culture emerges from the organizational members and characterizes the

organizational as a whole (Klein and Kozlowski 2000). These organizational characteristics are a

property of the organization as a whole as defined in this research and dictated by the

organizations structure and function. As suggested by Klein and Kozlowski (2000), this research


22/39

22

Table 3. Reliability Using Cronbach Alpha

Construct Alpha F Probability

Leadership

Instrumentality .7893 1.9293 .1358

Supportive .7314 2.9126 .0116**Structure .7039 28.310 .0000*

Support .8682 3.4323 .0007*

Cohesion .7980 3.7622 .0005*

Innovation .8920 6.7389 .0000*Ethics Climate

Individual Interest .5180 15.039 .0000*

Organizational Interest .5361 14.373 .0000*Principled Interest .4344 4.2437 .0550

Principled Organization .5056 12.654 .0024*Principled Cosmopolitan .7405 4.9556 .0041*

* Significance at the .00 level ** Significance at the .01 level

defines the level of measurement by the unit-level construct, and the measurements as a global

measure to characterize the organization.

Sampling Frame

This research will require a large sample of managers to characterize the variability

between organizations. This means a sample drawn from organizations and units within

organizations. An appropriate sampling design will ensure sufficient organizations to test this

research model. However, the sampling frame of public organizations reduces the number of

qualified organizations. To ensure an adequate availability of organizations, a convenience and

opportunistic sampling plan is being used. As of this writing, surveys have been sent to over

2,600 Senior Executive Service managers in the federal government, 75 managers in a fire

department, 77 managers and supervisors for a mid-sized city, and 86 managers and supervisors

in the Dallas Region of a large Texas state agency.

Instrument

An instrument was

developed to measure

quantitatively the

organizational ethical

climates and

organizational

cultural variables.

Independent experts


23/39

23

in organizational culture and ethical climate reviewed the instrument for construct validity.

A reliability and multicollinearity test of the instrument was conducted and the results are

shown in table 3. The Organizational Culture and Ethical Climate Survey of Public Managers

was administered via the World Wide Web through a University of Virginia service known as

SurveySuite. The test survey was sent to 75 public managers meeting tenure requirements for

this research. Using the data provided by the respondents and SPSS statistical software, the

reliability estimates using Cronbach Alpha scores ranged from .4344 to .8920. Scaling of

questions was necessary to arrive at a suitable Cronbach alpha score consistent with an F score

and significant probability that maintains unequal means within each construct. Those constructs

that have probability at a low significant level are at the highest possible based on the available

data.

The multicollinearity of the items within each section of the instrument was reviewed

using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). A cutoff VIF score of 5.000 is used to reduce

multicollinearity issues. The elimination of items to reduce multicollinearity did not affect the

validity of the construct or the reliability of the items.

The instrument was sent to respondents using the internet and electronic mail that offers

opportunities to conduct research that have previously not been available (Solomon 2001,

Selwyn and Robson 1998, Coomber 1997). Advantages to using electronic surveys are easy

access to world wide samples, access to hard to reach populations, low administrative costs, and

concepts of race, gender, age and sexuality do not apply thereby eliminating some bias.

Moreover, respondents can reply when they feel comfortable, it is non-coercive and the survey is

easier to accomplish and send. Shortcomings include population and sampling bias, low response

rates and anonymity of the respondents.


24/39

24

The main disadvantage of electronic surveys found by Solomon (2001), Selwyn and

Robson (1998) and Coomber (1997) is a potential bias due to the sampled individuals not having

or choosing not to access the internet. Studies have indicated widespread disparities in Internet

access and usage among ethnic and socioeconomic groups (Selwyn and Robson 1998). This

survey is for managers in public organizations. This group must use the internet and email daily

to accomplish their responsibilities. It is therefore argued that the bias cautioned against by

Selwyn and Robson (1998) is not a threat to sampling validity in this instance due to the nature

of the sampling population.

Findings

The online survey instrument was sent to public managers in the federal government, a

mid-sized city, a fire department and a Texas state department in a non-probability convenience

and opportunistic sampling plan. In an effort to alleviate the confidentiality fears with the

managers concerning the ethics questions, a cover email was sent explaining confidentiality of

the responses. The city manager and a Texas state department executive were briefed on the

conduct of the survey and potential results. Approval to survey managers in the mid-sized cities

and state department was granted. As of this writing, 141 responses have been received for an

overall response rate of 4.7 percent. Respondents have expressed concerns of a high degree of

sensitivity to a study examining the organizations ethics.

The 16 ethical work climate items describing the five ethical work climates in the survey

instrument were factor analyzed using Principal Component Analysis and a Varimax rotation

method, the identical method used to support the findings of Victor and Cullen (1987, 1988,

Ruppel and Harrington 2000, and Agarwal and Mallow (1999). The factor analysis of the ethical


25/39

25

climate descriptors yielded five components. Table 4 shows the factor loading for the five

emergent climates and the items describing the climates in the survey questionnaire. Each

questionnaire item is identified by the ethical work climate construct identification previously

discussed. Items that loaded on a component with a score higher than .50 and not loading at .50

on another component were selected for that construct. An exception occurs with one item in

component five being selected for that component with a load factor of .358 and not a higher

positive load factor on any other component.

Table 4. Factor Analysis Rotated Component Matrix

1 2 3 4 5

Employees interpretthe law (PC) .685

Laws and ethical codesare key (PC) .767

Employees followsstandards exactly (PC) .727 .

Employees do what is right

for public (PC) .767

First consideration isthe law (PI) .623

Follow rules at all times (PI) .695

Success is going by rules (PI) .805Employees protect their

Interests but not above all (PI) .680

Consider what is best

for employees (EC) .559

Employees look out for eachother (EC) .588

Most important is what isbest for employees (EC) .681

Room for personal ethicsIn this organization (EC) .711

Cost control is majorconcern (PL) .816

Most efficient not always

right method (PL) .687

Do what benefits yourself (EI) .358

Further organization interests (EI) .845Principled component analysis with Varimax rotation.


26/39

26

Table 5. Correlation Matrix

EI PI EC PL PC

IndividualInterest (EI) 1.0000

PrincipledInterest (PI) .1921 1.0000

OrganizationalInterest (EC) .2049 .0456 1.0000

PrincipledOrganization(PL) .0670 .0392 .3510 1.0000

Principled

Cosmopolitan (PC)-.0274 -.0515 .4602 .6022 1.0000

In some instances, the items loaded differently than those originally planned. For

example, the question Employees interpret the law and then comply with it originally was

coded for the Individual Interest climate dimension and loaded on a Principled Cosmopolitan

dimension in this factor analysis. A review of the questionnaire used in this research with

comparisons to Victor and Cullen (1987, 1988) questionnaire provide the basis for labeling each

ethical climate construct from the factor-loading component. A concern of multicollinearity of

constructs arises with the changed items from the original scheme. Table 5 illustrates a moderate

correlation of the ethical climates and gives preliminary indication that each construct remains a

separate item.

This research hypothesized that

distinct ethical climates do exist in

public organizations. A preliminary

review of the data using frequency

distribution and the 75th

percentile of

the mean of each climate factor

resulted in 86 percent of the

respondents selecting one ethical climate for their organizations. If no climate was

selected using the 75th percentile, they were coded with the mean closest to that

percentile. If the respondent indicated multiple ethical climates based on this percentile,

the highest mean was used. The results shown in figure 3 are preliminary results and

illustrated differences between the five climates. One sample t-tests of each climate

showed a high degree of significance that each ethical climate mean differs from the

population mean. These finding provides partial support for hypothesis H1: In public


27/39

27

Principled Cosmopoli

Principled Organizat

Organizational Inter

Principled Interest

Individual Interest

40

30

20

10

30

14

24

37

26

Figure 3. Number of Organizations

Selecting a Specific Ethical Climate

organizations, there are statistically significant differences among these five ethical

climates.

This study design is to test the

proposition of a positive relationship

between culture variables and higher

levels of cosmopolitan ethical

climates. Table 6 shows the results of

backward multiple regression analyses

performed with each climate as the

Table 6. Results of Backward Regression Models

Hypothesis

Supported

Variable

Entered

B

Coefficients Significance F-value

Significance

F-value

Adjusted

R-

Squared

Individual Interest Ethical Climate (EI)

H2Supportive

Leadership-.330 .034 2.674 .073 .025

H4 Cohesion .455 .030

Principled Interest Ethical Climate (PI)H2

Structure

Leadership2.57 .122 2.128 .123 .017

H3 Support -.282 .041

Organizational Interest Ethical Climate(EC)

H4 Cohesion .305 .006 43.723 .000 .491

H5 Innovation .397 .000

H6 Structure 1.02 .180

Principled Organizational Ethical Climate (PL)

H2Structure

Leadership.297 .008 13.943 .000 .163

H6 Structure .319 .004

Principled Cosmopolitan Ethical Climate (PC)

H2 StructureLeadership

.263 .011 28.475 .000 .384

H5 Innovation .284 .001

H6 Structure .299 .008


28/39

28

dependent variable and culture dimensions as independent variables. Culture variables that

significantly support each climate are shown in table 6.

The use of backward regression analysis enters all independent variables into the

equation and then sequentially removes them based on partial correlation with the dependent

variable. In addition, a variable is dropped if it would cause the tolerance of another variable in

the model to drop below a partial correlation criteria of .0001. This model shows preliminary

results of relationships between the culture variable and each ethical climate. The hypothesis

supported is also listed.

These preliminary results show mixed support for the hypotheses that culture variables

will show increasing positive support for higher levels of ethical climates. Structural or task

oriented leadership shows greater support for principled levels of ethical climates than supportive

or relational leadership. Supportive leadership is related to the individual interest ethical climate.

These results support the leadership variable hypothesis that relationship type leadership tasks

support more cosmopolitan ethical analysis. The independent cultural variable cohesion supports

egoistic level of ethical criteria and individual analysis. However, it is not significant in

supporting principled ethical climates. Innovation is shown to support ethical climates at the

organizational and cosmopolitan levels of ethical analysis. Innovation does not significantly

support an individual level of ethical analysis. Finally, the cultural variable structure supports

higher levels of ethical analysis and levels of criteria as hypothesized.

In summary, these preliminary findings support individual ethical climates within public

organizations. The correlation of ethical climates shows modest support for individuality of each

climate. This is further supported by 86 percent of these climates recognized by each respondent


29/39

29

when considered at the 75th percentile ranking of the mean of the climate. Finally, regression

models show support for the positive relationships between cultural variables and higher levels

of ethical criteria in each of the remaining hypotheses 2-6.

Conclusion

This research establishes that ethical climates exist in public organizations as shown in

Table 2. Furthermore, these climates are distinctive and separate constructs. There is further

preliminary evidence to support that culture variables examined have a positive relationship with

these climates. As the climates move toward a more principled level of ethical criteria, the

relationship from culture variables is stronger.

The positive support for levels of ethical criteria versus levels of ethical analysis is

possibly implied from the distinction between private and public organizations. These

preliminary findings support normative ethical controls in collaboration with structural controls

to create a more principled ethical analysis. These principled ethical climates guide and provide

justification for ethical decisions and action. The control of these climates rests in the

organizational culture.

For example, the ability to create innovation and a supportive structure within the

workforce can have positive and strong emphasis on organizational and cosmopolitan ethical

climates. This in turn provides values for shared assumptions of positive ethical behavior in a

normative approach.

However, where public managers attempt to display artifacts, behaviors and voice beliefs

that support trust and collaboration within the workforce, external control such as that imposed


30/39

30

by elected officials and professional associations may focus on more structural matters, such as

codes and rules. This incongruence between structural and normative ethical approaches reverts

to the underlying cultural assumptions and organizational scripts and challenges a cohesive

cultural value shift. Even more controlled is innovation within public organizations. Defined as a

culture that is creative, innovation must operate against various structural controls built on

punitive measures that reduce risk taking. Creativity in a structural approach is only allowed

within the constraints created by laws and policies.

This lack of control of instituting normative approaches by public managers presents

limitations to public management. Argawal and Malloy (1999) argues that organizations may

need to focus on establishing and maintaining an internal formal culture in order to foster

congruency within the organization. The focus should entail establishing a normative approach

to ethical control that is congruent with structural approaches in existence. This inward focus

needs to be balanced with an outward view toward responsibilities in the organizations external

environment.

This study is limited by a number of factors. First, it presents only preliminary results

from limited data. Additional quantitative data is needed to employ a complete statistical analysis

of five ethical climates. Second, quantitative findings should be analyzed against qualitative

research. Organizational culture is a historical and anthropological construct and its analysis is

supported by qualitative research means. Third, moderating variables were not employed.

Further research to determine their influence on the relationship of ethical climates and

organizational culture constructs is needed.


31/39

31

Note: The questionnaire used in this research is an online instrument. Attaching it is

prohibitive because of its length. The authors are willing to share the questionnaire. Please email

Rod Erakovich [email protected] if you desire to review it.


32/39

32

Appendix A

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF VARIABLE DATA INSTRUMENTS

Organizational Culture

Leadership

The leadership guidance system of the organizations top levels establishes the ethical climate

for level employees criteria to think and act, especially in times of crisis (Gortner 1991). Whenleaders are adept at maintaining close adherence to goals and values in their decision-making

processes, it is easier for employees to recognize and deal with ethical issues (Barnard 1938).

This cultural survey uses the Perceived Leadership Behavioral Scales developed by House andDessler (1974). This instrument focuses on the subordinate's perception of their leaders. Two

aspects of leadership in the House and Dessler instrument are used: instrumental leadership and

supportive leadership. Grounded in the path-goal theory of leadership (House and Dessler 1974),instrumental leadership refers to a leader's behavior directed at clarifying expectations, assigningtasks and specifying procedures to be followed. Supportive leadership is characterized asconsiderate of the needs of the subordinate. It is also referred to as leadership consideration

(House and Dessler 1974).

The development of these survey items is described in the section on Support. Used in this

culture survey is a slightly modified wording formatting to better fit the instrument to publicorganizations and the use of a seven-point Likert scale. House and Dessler used a five-pointformat: always, often, occasionally, seldom and never.

The sixteen items used from the instrument created by House and Dessler measure thesubordinate's perception of a leaders orientation toward instrumentality and subordinate support.

Structure

In this study, the organizational cultural variable structure is defined as an organizationsprocedures, specific chain of command, flow of work and orientation toward responsibility and

attempt to acquire power (Aiken, Michael and Jerald Hage 1966; Odom, Boxx Dunn 1990). Theculture survey uses the Haigen and Aiken Formalization Inventory (1966) and the variables of

(1) job codification, (2) rule observation, (3) rule manual, (4) job descriptions and (5) specificityof job descriptions. These variables are consistent with the report and findings of Odom, Boxxand Dunn (1990) where they identified structural variables as procedural, orderly, established,

cautious and power-oriented.

Aiken, Michael and Hage's research (1966) found that the greater degree of formalization in anorganization, the greater the likelihood of alienation toward the organization. Such alienationmanifests itself as dissatisfaction with work and social relations being disturbed. This type ofalienation then results in issues of power and disbursement of responsibility.

All fifteen items of the Hage and Aiken Formalization Inventory (1966) were used. Questionswere edited to reflect a written survey format. Responses were expanded from four choices

(definitely true, more true than false, more false than true and definitely false) to the sevenchoices listed in this culture survey.


33/39

33

Support

Another grouping of organizational characteristics is titled support, and defined as a workplace

that helps an employee when needed without questioning a persons ability. It includes suchvariables as the degree to which employees are encouraged to be creative and innovative,

employee perceptions of participation in the decision making process, clear organizational goals

and performance expectations and the degree to which rewards are based on employeeperformance in contrast to seniority, favoritism or other non-performance criteria (House and

Gary Dessler 1974; Van der Post, de Coning, et al 1997). These variables were extracted fromthe Perceived Leadership Behavior Scales (House and Dessler 1974) and the work done by van

der Post, de Coning et al (1997).

In this culture survey, nineteen items are included that measure organizational support. The firstfourteen items were taken from van der Post, de Coning et al (1997), where their research

contained reviews of the literature to identify 114 dimensions of organizational culture, acreation of 225 items that were evaluated by a panel of human resource managers and a resultant

questionnaire that contained 169 statements reflecting the dimensions previously identified. Over400 managers and employees in eight different organizations completed this survey. The itemswere scaled to 97 items with an overall reliability coefficient between .788 and .932 (van der

Post, de Coning et al 1997).

The data relating to the 97 items were factor analyzed, which yielded fifteen factors with Eigen

values greater than 1.0. The factors derived from the factor analysis are constructs in which thetheoretical construct is operationalized. The factors used in this survey include dispositiontoward change, employee participation, goal clarity and reward orientation. Coefficient alphas

for these constructs ranged from .855 to .932.

To add to the cultural survey variable of support, items were taken from the Perceived

Leadership Scales developed by House and Dessler (1974). Five items were included thatmeasure participative leadership. Working with a pool of 35 items generated from an extensive

literature review, principal factor analysis revealed three factors of instrumental leadership,supportive leadership and participative leadership. Participative leadership showed internalconsistency of .68.

Further studies of the Perceived leadership Scales done by Teas and Kohli and reported byHouse and Dessler (1974) reported coefficient alpha estimates of between .64 and .84 for all thedimensions of leadership, with participative leadership dimension reporting a coefficient alpha

estimate of .82.

All of the items used in the culture survey were edited to reflect public and non-profit

organizational uses and to use the seven point Likert scale.

Cohesion

Cohesion is defined in the survey as the closeness or commonness of attitude, behavior and

performance within the work group (Odom, Boxx and Dunn 1990). Included in the survey arework trust and collaboration. Trust is defined as "maintaining confidentiality of information

shared by others and not misusing it; a sense of assurance that others will help when needed andwill honor mutual obligations and commitments. Collaboration is defined as giving help to andasking for help from others; team spirit; working together (individuals and groups) to solve

problems (Pareek 1994).


34/39

34

These survey items for these values are taken from an ethos survey titled OCTAPACE Profile(Pareek 1994). The organizational culture survey contained ten items that have been edited to fit

the organizations to be surveys. Pareek's survey contained fragments that were developed intostatements to which the respondents could apply the seven-point scale. One question, "trust

begets trust," was changed to read, "In this organization, trust creates trust."

Split-half reliability of the OCTAPACE on a sample of 135 college and university teachers wasfound to be .81 (Mathur 1991). Validity was indirectly tested by "comparing the scores from

three departments ranked by two judges for their effectiveness and these showed no significantdifferences between the first and second department rankings and the second and third

department ranking" (Pareek 1992). The significant different between the first and thirddepartment rankings reflected only on collaboration (.04 significance level).

Innovation

Innovation, in this research, is defined as ..an organizational work climate that is creative,results oriented and challenging (Odom, Boxx and Dunn 1990). Variables included

measurements in the Scale to Measure Excellence in Business (EXCEL) (Sharma, Netemeyer

and Mahajan 1990 in Beardon, Richard G. Netemeyer and Mary F. Mobley 1993) fromprinciples based on the eight attributes of excellence and innovation found in Peters and

Waterman (1990). These variables are (1) bias for action, (2) close to the customer, (3) autonomyand entrepreneurship, (4) productive through people, (5) active shared values among various

organizational levels, (6) simple and lean management, (7) loose-tight properties and (8)focusing on what is known or done best (sticking to the knitting).

Of the sixteen items in the EXCEL, two were eliminated from this survey that referenced

"product line" and "concentrate in product areas," items that cannot be altered to reflect public ornon-profit organizational values. These items measured focusing on what is known or done best

(sticking to the knitting). Although an important variable in organizational culture, it is notrelevant to this study.

The remaining fourteen items are included with some editing modification to reflect private,

public and non-profit organizations structure and procedures.

The EXCEL was developed using recommended scaling procedures. Over 200 items were

developed. Expert panels and two samples were used to "purify and finalize" the scales (Sharma,Netemeyer and Mahajan 1990 in Beardon, Richard G. Netemeyer and Mary F. Mobley 1993).Coefficient alphas for the sixteen-item survey ranged from .89 to .90. This procedure indicates a

level of agreement that the statements measure their attributes.

Ethical Climate

A work climate in an organization focuses on the values and beliefs that are known and

perceived by groups and individual members. Thus an ethical climate is the shared perceptionsof what are ethically correct behavior and the proper process for handling ethical issues (Victor

and Cullen 1987). Used in this survey is an Ethical Dimension item developed by Victor andCullen (1987) that emphasized the description of climates rather than the feeling about the

workplace. Their research explored (1) the dimensionality of the level of analysis (individual,local or cosmopolitan) and (2) the type of criteria (principle, utilitarian or egoistic). These twodimensions describe a 3 X 3 matrix of nine theoretical possible climates: (1) self-interest, (2)

company interest, (3) efficiency, (4) friendship, (5) team play, (6) social responsibility, (7)


35/39

35

personal morality, (8) rules and procedures and (9) the law or professional code. Factor analysisidentified six emergent types of ethical climates that include (professionalism, (2) caring, (3)

rules, (4) instrumental, (5) efficiency and (6) independence. Various groups were sampled todetermine reliability and validity of the factored dimensions. Reliability alphas ranged from .65

to .81. Discriminant function coefficients ranged from -.01 to .92 Victor and Cullen 1992). It

appears this instrument can sufficiently identify difference among groups as to their ethicalclimate.

This instrument uses 18 items as descriptors of ethical climates on a seven-point Likert scale(completely false, mostly false, somewhat false, somewhat true, mostly true, completely true).

Several items were eliminated that appeared redundant and did not focus on an ethical climate asneeded in this research.

To aid in fitting this organizational survey and the seven-point Likert scale, editing of several

statements did occur without changing the theoretical construct within each dimension.

Control Variables

The following questions are asked to aid in data analysis:

1. years employed in organization2. years in position as a leader3. Size of the organization.


36/39

36

References

Agarwal, James and David Cruise Malloy. 1999. "Ethical Work Climate Dimensions in a Not-

For-Profit Organization: An Empirical Study,"Journal of Business Ethics, 20: pp. 1-14.

Aiken, Michael and Jerald Hage, 1966. "Organizational Alienation," American SociologicalReview, 31, August: 497-507in Miller, Delbert C. 1983.Handbook of Research Designand Social Measurement. 4th Ed. NY: Longman: pp. 360-361.

Barnard, Chester I. 1938. The Economy of Incentives. In Classics of Organization Theory, ed.

Shafritz, Jay M. and J. Steven Ott, 101-112. New York: Wadsworth Publishing.

Bartels, Lynn K., Edward Harrick, Kathryn Martell and Donald Strickland. 1998. "The

Relationship Between Ethical Climate and Ethical Problems within Human ResourceManagement,Journal of Business Ethics, 17: pp. 799-804.

Berman, Evan M. 1999. "Professionalism Among Public and Nonprofit Managers: A

Comparison.American Review of Public Administration, June, 29 (2): pp. 149-166.

Cooper, Terry L. 1998. The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the

Administrative Role, 4th Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, Deborah Vidaver. 1995. "Creating Ethical Work Climates: A socioeconomic Perspective,Journal of Socio-Economics, 24 (2): pp. 317-344.

Cullen, John B., Bart Victor and James W. Bronson. 1993. "The Ethical Climate Questionnaire:An Assessment of Its Development and Validity," Psychological Reports, 73: pp. 667-

674.

Denhardt, Robert B. 1993. Theories of Public Administration. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Fritzsche, David J. 2000. "Ethical Climates and the Ethical Dimension of Decision Making,

Journal of Business Ethics, 24: 125-140.

Gilman, Stuart C. and Carol W. Lewis. 1996. Public Service Ethics: A Global Dialogue. Public

Administration Review, November/December Vol. 56, No. 6: 517-524.

Gortner, Harold F. 1991.Ethics for Public Managers. New York: Praeger.

______, Harold F. 1995. Ethics and Public Personnel Administration. Public Personnel

Administration: Problems and Prospects, 3d Edition, ed. Hays, Steven W. and Richard C.Kearney, 273-288. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Gortner, Harold F., Julianne Mahler and Jeanne Nicholson. 1997. Organizational Theory: APublic Perspective. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Grosenick, Leigh and Pamela Gibson, 2001. "Government Ethics and Organizational Culture in

Cooper, Terry L., eds. 2001.Handbook of Administrative Ethics. NY: Dekker.


37/39

37

Hitt, William D. 1990.Ethics and Leadership: Putting Theory into Action. Columbus: BattellePress.

House, Robert J. and Gary Dressler, 1974. "Perceived Leadership Behavior Scales, in WilliamO. Beardon, Richard G. Netemeyer and Mary F. Mobley, eds. 1993. Handbook of

Marketing Scales, Newbury Park: Sage: 305-306.

Key, Susan. 1999. "Organizational Ethical Culture: Real or Imagined?Journal of BusinessEthics, 20: pp. 217-225.

Klein, Katherine and Steven W., J. Kozlowski. 2000.Multilevel theory, Research, and Methodsin Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Kohlberg, L. 1981. The Philosophy of Moral Development. NY: Harper and Row.

Louis, M. R. 1985. "Organizations as Culture Bearing Milieux in Organizations," in Schein, E.1992, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2d Edition. San Fran: Jossey-Bass.

Malhotra, Naresh K. 1996.Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Merton, R. K. Social theory and Social Structure. NY: Free Press.

Mausolff, Christopher 1996. A Model of Organizational Culture and Learning, a paperprepared for the 57th ASPA National Convention.

Mowday, R. T., Lyman W. Porter and Richard M. Steers. 1979. Organizational CommitmentQuestionnaire (OCQ) in "The Measurement Of Organizational Commitment," Journal Of

Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-227 found in William O. Beardon, Richard G. Netemeyerand Mary F. Mobley, eds. 1993.Handbook of Marketing Scales, Newbury Park: Sage:310-312.

Odom, Randall Y., W. Randy Boxx and Mark G. Dunn. 1990. Organizational Cultures,Commitment, Satisfaction and Cohesion. Public Productivity and Management Review,

Vol. XIV, No. 2: 157-169.

Ott, J. S. 1989. The organizational culture perspective. Dorsey Press: Chicago.

Ott, J. S. 1998. Understanding Organizational Climate and Culture. In eds. Condrey, Stephen,

1998.Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Pareek, U. 1994, "Studying organizational Ethos: The OCTASPACE Profile, in Pfeiffer, J. W.ed., The 1994 Annual: Developing Human Resources, pp. 153-165. San Diego: Pfeifferand Company.

Peters, Thomas J. and Robert H. Waterman. 1990.In Search Of Excellence: Lessons fromAmerica's Best Run Companies. NY: Harper and Row.


38/39

38

Pugh, D. L. 1991. "Origins of Ethical Frameworks in Public Administration," in Bowman, JamesS. ed.Ethical Frontiers in Public Management. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Rainey, Hal G. 1991. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco:Josses-Bass.

Rice, Mitchell F. "An Assessment and Commentary on Denhardts "The Future of PublicAdministration: Challenges to Democracy, Citizenship and Ethic" Volume Number 4,Issue Number 2, Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal

[http://www.pamij.com/]

Ruppel, Cynthia and Susan J. Harrington. 2000. "The Relationship of Communication, Ethical

Work Climate, and Trust to Commitment and Innovation,Journal of Business Ethics, 25:pp. 313-328.

Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Defining organizational culture. In Classics Of Organization Theory, ed.

Shafritz, Jay M. and J. Steven Ott, 430-441. New York: Wadsworth Publishing.

Schein, Edgar H. 1992. Organizational Culture And Leadership, Second Edition. Jossey-Bass:

San Francisco.

Sims, Randi and Thomas L. Keon. 1999. "Determinants of Ethical Decision Making: TheRelationship of the Perceived Organizational Environment," Journal of Business Ethics,

19: pp. 392-401.

Trevino, L. K. and S. Youngblood. 1990. Bad Apples In Bad Barrels: A Causal Analysis Of

Ethical Decision Making Behavior.Journal of applied psychology, 75.

Upchurch, Randall S. and Sheila K. Ruhland. 1996. "The Organizational Bases of Ethical WorkClimates in Lodging Operations as Perceived by General Managers, Journal of Business

Ethics, 15: pp. 1083-1093.

Van der Post, de Coning, et al, 1997. "An Instrument to Measure Organizational Culture," South

African Journal of Business Management, Dec, Vol. 28 (4): 147-169.

Van Maanen J. and S. R. Barley. 1984, "Occupational Communities: Culture and Control inOrganizations," in Schein, E. 1992, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2d Edition.

San Fran: Jossey-Bass.

Victor, Bart and John B. Cullen. 1987. "A theory and measure of ethical climate in

organizations," Research in corporate social performance and policy, Vol. 9: 51-71.

Vardi, Yoav. 2001. "The Effects of Organizational and Ethical Climates on Misconduct at Work,Journal of Business Ethics, 29: pp. 325-337.

Waldo. 1974. Reflections on Public Morality, Administration and Society, 6:267-282.


39/39

Wimbush, James C., Jon M. Shepard and Steven E. Markham. 1997. "An Empirical Examinationof the Multi-dimensionality of Ethical Climate in Organizations," Journal of Business

Ethics, 16: pp. 67-77.

Wyld, David C. and Coy A. Jones. 1997. "The Importance of Context: The Ethical Work

Climate Construct and Models of Ethical Decision Making - An Agenda for Research,"Journal of Business Ethics, 16: pp. 465-472.

Ethical Climate Paper Prelim Findings

Documents

Transcript of Ethical Climate Paper Prelim Findings