Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance
(USC Thesis Other)
The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS ON JOB ATTITUDES AND
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
by
So Hee Jeon
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT)
August 2013
Copyright 2013 So Hee Jeon
ii
DEDICATION
To my parents, whose love and support have made everything in my life possible.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW ON ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS RESEARCH ....................... 7
“The Emergence of Administrative Ethics as a Field of Study” ................................. 9
Knowledge Accumulation in the Field of Administrative Ethics .............................. 12
Principle Level .................................................................................................... 15
Operational Level 1: Individual Level ............................................................... 17
Operational Level 2: Organizational Level ........................................................ 23
What Still Remains to Be Done? ............................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3: THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS BUILDING ........................................... 29
Organizational Ethics, Job Attitudes, and Organizational Performance ................... 30
Individual-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention ................... 37
Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention ................................................... 37
Organizational Commitment as a Mediator ....................................................... 41
Control Variables: Facets of Employee Satisfaction .......................................... 45
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance ....... 47
Organizational Ethics, Turnover Intention, and Actual Turnover ...................... 48
Employee Turnover and Federal Agency Performance ..................................... 49
Organizational Ethics and Organizational Commitment .................................... 51
Organizational Commitment and Federal Agency Performance ........................ 52
Mediating Effects of Commitment, Turnover Intention, and Actual Turnover . 54
Pay Satisfaction as a Control Variable ............................................................... 55
iv
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................... 57
Data Sources .............................................................................................................. 57
Individual-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention ............ 57
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance 58
Variable Measurement ............................................................................................... 60
Individual-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention ............ 60
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance 65
Split-Group Design as an Analytic Strategy for the Agency-Level Study ................ 70
Model Estimation ....................................................................................................... 71
Individual-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention ............ 71
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance 74
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS .................................................................................................. 77
Individual-level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention .................... 78
Test for Common Method Bias .......................................................................... 78
Findings .............................................................................................................. 81
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance ....... 88
The Measurement Model .................................................................................... 89
The Structural Model .......................................................................................... 91
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION ................................................................. 99
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 99
Contributions to the Field ........................................................................................ 102
Implications for Practitioners .................................................................................. 105
Limitations and Directions for Future Research ...................................................... 108
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 113
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 5-1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Individual-Level Study) ............... 82
TABLE 5-2. Results of Regression of Turnover Intention on Organizational Ethics and
Organizational Commitment ............................................................................................. 84
TABLE 5-3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Agency-Level Study) ................... 89
TABLE 5-4. Comparison with Alternative Structural Models ......................................... 94
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1. Established Knowledge in Administrative Ethics Study ........................... 14
FIGURE 3-1. Theoretical Ethical Climate Types ............................................................. 32
FIGURE 3-2. Theoretical Model of Federal Agency Performance .................................. 56
FIGURE 4-1. Path Diagrams and Equations for the Mediation Model ............................ 72
FIGURE 5-1. Final Structural Model ............................................................................... 95
vii
ABSTRACT
Existing studies in the public sector have emphasized the importance of
organizational ethics for ensuring employees’ ethical conduct and thereby maintaining
democratic government. However, this study argues that the influence of organizational
ethics is not limited to public administrators’ ethical behaviors but extended to
employees’ job attitudes and behaviors, and to organizational performance: that is,
organizational ethics matters not only for maintaining democratic government but also
for promoting effective government.
For this purpose, this study employed a multi-level approach and examined the
influence of organizational ethics at two different levels: individual-level and agency-
level. At the individual level, this study tested the relationship between organizational
ethics and public employees’ turnover intentions. Organizational commitment was used
as a mediator. At the agency level, this study explored how organizational ethics
influences employee job attitudes and behaviors – specifically, organizational
commitment, turnover intention, and actual turnover – and how these job attitudes and
behaviors in turn influence federal agency performance. Various data sources – i.e., three
waves of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (formerly the Federal Human Capital
Survey), each agency’s Performance and Accountability Report, and the Federal Human
Resource Database – were used in order to examine the research questions.
The major findings of this study are threefold. First, the findings support the
notion that organizational ethics are an important determinant of employee job attitudes
and behaviors. The results at the individual level suggest that organizational ethics is
viii
negatively associated with public employees’ turnover intentions. In addition, the impact
of organizational ethics is partially mediated by organizational commitment: when public
employees have more positive perceptions of the ethical practices of their organization,
the employees are more likely than others to have higher organizational commitment.
Organizational commitment in turn decreases the likelihood of public employees
intending to leave their organization. In addition, as agency-level analyses suggest,
turnover intention rate is positively associated with actual turnover rate: thus, agencies
with lower turnover intention rates are more likely than others to have a lower rate of
actual employee turnover. In sum, the results suggest that organizational ethics is an
important element of a desirable workplace where employees want to stay.
Next, the findings also support the idea that organizational ethics matter for
organizational performance. The results suggest that organizational ethics influence
federal agency performance through employee attitudes/behaviors. Specifically, a federal
agency with a higher level of organizational ethics is more likely than other agencies to
have employees with higher organizational commitment, and the higher level of
commitment in the agency in turn positively influences the agency’s performance.
Finally, another important finding of this research is the role of organizational
commitment in linking ethics to turnover intentions and federal agency performance: in
this study, organizational commitment mediates a great portion of the impact of
organizational ethics on turnover intention. In addition, organizational commitment fully
mediates the relationship between organizational ethics and federal agency performance.
These findings indicate that having committed employees can benefit an organization in
ix
various ways, and an organization can promote employee commitment by creating an
ethically supportive organizational context.
All in all, by examining the relationship between organizational ethics and
employee job attitudes and behaviors, this study suggests that organizational ethics is an
important determinant of a desirable workplace. In addition, this study brings ethics to
the discussion of organizational performance and provides empirical support that ethics
matter for government performance.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Sadly enough, ethical scandals in government are not uncommon nor surprising.
From an individual employee’s ethical misconduct to the ethical meltdown of a whole
organization, ethical scandals in government have frequently appeared in mass media
coverage and resulted in the public losing trust in government. A striking example would
be the famous Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration in the early 1970s.
A more recent example of the cozy relationship between energy companies and
federal employees at the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in Lakewood also well
illustrates ethical problems in government. Federal workers at the MMS, whose main task
is to supervise energy companies’ offshore oil and gas drilling activities, kept
inappropriate relationships with the energy companies, including having sex and using
drugs with their employees. They also received money and gifts from the energy
companies. In return, they helped the energy companies in various ways: for instance,
they provided the companies bidding information and helped them “revise their bids
downward after they won contracts” (New York Times, published September 10, 2008).
Over a four-year period between 2002 and 2006, the number of employees at MMS
involved in such relationships with the energy companies was nearly one-third of the
agency’s employees. The MMS scandal included a significant cost to the federal
government; e.g., an estimated 4.4 million dollars as a result of revising the bids
2
downward after the contracts were signed, and an additional 5.3 million dollars for the
investigation of the case.
1
With nearly one-third of the agency involved, the MMS case serves as a clear
example of an unethical government organization. As this scenario well exhibits, a
pervasive unethical culture can bring costs to bear on a public organization and thus
hamper organizational effectiveness. Moreover, unethical behavior in public
organizations generates criticism of and decreases public trust in the government, thus
threatening its legitimacy (Mitchell and Scott, 1987). In other words, unethical public
organizations can challenge the foundations of a democratic government.
Confronting ethical challenges in government, practitioners and administrative
ethics scholars alike have paid great attention to maintaining democratic government.
Facing highly visible ethical scandals and subsequent criticism from the citizens, the
government takes action to recover public trust and its legitimacy. Frequently used
strategies include expressing regret, apologizing for the wrongdoings of its employees,
announcing ethics laws and policies, and formalizing ethics training programs. In the
MMS case, development of strict codes of conduct and ethics programs was suggested by
Interior Inspector General Earl E. Devaney as a way to improve the future ethical conduct
of the public administrators staffing the MMS.
In addition, administrative ethics scholars have regarded ethics as “central to the
identity and legitimacy” of a democratic government (Catron and Denhardt, 1994, p. 56;
1
Information on this case was acquired from the New York Times article
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) and
from the CNN web page (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/oiil.scandal/).
3
Hart, 1984; Stivers, 1994) and have focused on finding ways to ensure ethical public
administration. Based on the premise that public employees are “professional fiduciary
citizen[s]” who work on the behalf of citizens (Cooper, 2006, p. 214; Chandler, 1984),
their primary concern has been the responsible conduct of public administrators. At the
principle level, for instance, administrative ethics scholars have investigated the ethical
grounds for public administration. Founding thought and regime values (Richardson and
Nigro, 1987, 1991; Rohr, 1989), and citizenship and democratic theory (Cooper, 1984,
1991, 2006; Hart, 1984; Thompson; 1992), have been suggested as ethical grounds for
public administration. More operationally, at the individual level, virtue cultivation (Lilla,
1981; MacIntyre, 1981), moral development (Kohlberg, 1976, 1980) and ethical decision-
making (Cooper, 2006) have been suggested as ways to ensure public administrators’
ethical conduct. At the organizational level, supportive organizational settings have been
emphasized as important factors that influence public administrators’ ethical practices
(Cooper, 1987, 2006; Lewis and Gilman, 2005).
As the MMS case suggests, organizational ethics can also be a critical
determinant of organizational effectiveness. Nearly one-third of the employees at MMS
were involved in unethical interactions with the energy companies and their misconduct
resulted in a considerable cost to the federal government. However, although ethics has
been paid great attention and considered as a critical factor for maintaining a democratic
government, relatively little scholarly attention has been paid to understanding the
importance of ethics in relation to government effectiveness. A few studies examining the
relationship between ethics and organizational effectiveness have focused on the impact
4
of individual employees’ ethical conduct (Lynch, Lynch, and Cruise, 2002; Rose-
Ackerman, 1999; Bruce, 1994; Brumback, 1991). For instance, Brumback (1991)
suggested that unethical public employees hamper organizational effectiveness by
avoiding responsibilities that they do not like, spending much time on gossiping and
rumoring, and being negligent at work. In addition, Lynch et al. (2002) suggested that
corrupt or unethical public employees lower organizational efficiency by causing red tape
in their organizations.
However, not only individual employees’ (un)ethical behaviors but also the
ethicality of the organization can influence its effectiveness. In the MMS case, the
widespread involvement of employees in the unethical conduct resulted in an unethical
culture in the organization as a whole. Thus, instead of saying that the unethical
individual employees’ misconduct hampered organizational effectiveness, we might say
that a pervasive unethical culture was resulting in organizational ineffectiveness.
Furthermore, while one-third of the employees were involved, two-thirds of them did not
engage in such misconduct yet were working with those who did over a four-year period.
What then would the latter think about their organization in terms of its ethical practices?
How would their perceptions of the ethics of their organization influence their job
attitudes and behaviors, and how might this ultimately affect the organization’s
performance?
Organizations are at different levels of ethicality, and public administrators as
individuals nested in government organizations have different perceptions of how ethical
their organizations are. These perceptions can influence public administrators’ job
5
attitudes and behaviors, which may in turn relate to organizational performance. Despite
its importance, however, the question of how employees’ perceptions of ethics in their
organization may influence their job attitudes and behaviors and ultimately organizational
performance has been underexamined.
This study aims to fill this research gap by exploring how organizational ethics
perceived by public employees influence their job attitudes and behaviors and how this in
turn relates to federal agency performance. Specifically, this study addresses two research
questions. First, what is the impact of organizational ethics on public employees’
turnover intentions? Second, how do organizational ethics influence federal agency
performance as mediated by organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and actual
turnover? This research is grounded in literature on administrative ethics, social
psychology, and organizational behavior. In addition, various data sources – three waves
of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (formerly the Federal Human Capital
Survey), each agency’s Performance and Accountability Report, and the Federal Human
Resource Database – were used in order to examine the research questions.
This study is organized in the following manner. Chapter 2 provides an extensive
review of the field of administrative ethics: how it developed into a field of study and
what knowledge has been established in this field. Based on this review, chapter 2
identifies the questions that remain in need of investigation, and indicates how the current
study contributes to the body of knowledge on this topic and more generally to the field
of public management. Next, chapter 3 reviews literatures from the fields of
administrative ethics, social psychology, and organizational behavior pertinent to the
6
research questions. Based on this review, the hypotheses explored in this study are
developed. Chapter 4 describes the data sources, variable measurement, and model
estimation in the analysis. Chapter 5 reports the results of this analysis, and chapter 6
discusses the findings of this study and suggests directions for future research.
7
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW ON ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS RESEARCH
As Cooper (2001) suggests, the existence of sustained scholarly interest and
effort, along with subsequent publications, are presumably the main criteria used for the
consideration of a subject as a field of study. Judging from these criteria, it is fair to say
that “administrative ethics as a field of study” emerged only in the mid-1970s (Cooper,
2001, 2004).
When the historical context – for instance, founding thought, early studies of
public administration such as Wilson (1887), and the Progressive reform movement – is
considered, however, this rather short history of about 40 years of administrative ethics as
a field of study is not very surprising. Strong emphasis has been given to the three “e” s
of efficiency, economy and effectiveness in modern public administration, and thus, it is
quite natural that there was not much room to pay attention to a fourth “e” of ethics
(Menzel, 2005).
Specifically, the Founding Fathers believed that people are not “angels,” but
“ambitious and self-interested” beings (Richardson and Nigro, 1987, p. 368-369). Thus,
the Founding Fathers believed that “the cultivation of public or civic virtue” is not a
foundation that the regime can count on (Richardson and Nigro, 1987, p. 369). To the
contrary, the Founding Fathers aimed to make “a durable regime whose perpetuation
require[d] nothing like the wisdom and virtue necessary for its creation” (Diamond, 1983,
p. 87), which resulted in a reliance on structural mechanisms through which the public
can check self-interested governors’ discretion in order to ensure good government
(Richardson and Nigro, 1991).
8
Also, by declaring the separation of administration from politics, and by urging
businesslike public administration, Wilson (1887 [1941]) argued that the goal of public
administration should be “the maximization of effectiveness, efficiency, and economy”
(Rosenbloom, 1983, p. 220). In addition, the Progressive Era (1896-1916) was the period
in which “technical rationality” – i.e., “the convergence of the scientific-analytical
mindset and technological progress”– dominated the social and political world (Adams,
2001, p. 296). In the Progressive Era, efficiency was emphasized as the core value that
public administration should pursue, and it was believed that efficiency can be achieved
through rationalization of public administration. Accordingly, organizations were
bureaucratized so that they are well-regulated; procedures were standardized; and the
division of labor produced professional public employees with “specialized, expert
knowledge” (Adams, 2001, p. 297; Simon, 2001). Thus, in the Progressive Era, “to be
professional [was] to be ethical” (Adams, 2001, p. 294).
Understanding the historical context in public administration, it is not surprising
that the emergence of administrative ethics as a field of study is a relatively recent event.
However, a more important task than understanding why administrative ethics received
inadequate attention for a long time is to understand (a) how administrative ethics has
emerged as a field of study: that is, what were the factors involved in the emergence of
this field; (b) what significant knowledge has been established in this field over the last
40 years; and (c) what are the major research questions that still need to be examined.
Exploration of these questions yields a rigorous understanding of the field, which in turn
9
lays a foundation for extending the knowledge in the field. Thus, the remainder of this
chapter focuses on an examination of the questions suggested above.
“The Emergence of Administrative Ethics as a Field of Study ”
2
It was not until the mid-1970s that administrative ethics began to receive “a
systematic and developmental treatment,” and has emerged as a field of study (Cooper,
2001, p. 1). Then, what are the factors that instigated its emergence? As Cooper (2001,
2004) suggests, the main factors involved in the rise of this field of study were
“developments in [scholarly] thought about public administration” and “the work of the
New Public Administration” (Cooper, 2004, p. 395).
Regarding the first factor, there was scholarly recognition of the discretion that
public administrators exercise, and this recognition led to a discussion about how to
ensure responsible conduct of public administrators. This recognition and related
discussion began back in the 1930s. For instance, paying attention to the increasing
administrative discretion, Dimock (1936) argued for the necessity of an administrative
philosophy which includes such virtues as loyalty and honesty. The famous Friedrich vs.
Finer debate from the late 1930s to the early 1940s also reflects scholarly concern for
administrative discretion and responsible conduct of public administrators. Specifically,
while Finer (1936) emphasized the importance of external controls (e.g., laws, rules, and
control by superiors) for responsible administrative conduct, Friedrich (1935) argued for
2
The expression of “the emergence of administrative ethics as a field of study” was
borrowed from the title of Cooper (2001). The Emergence of Administrative Ethics as a Field of
Study in the United States, In Cooper, Terry L. (Ed.), Handbook of Administrative Ethics (2
nd
eds.,) New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 1-36.
10
internal controls (e.g., professional standards, norms, and ethics) as means to ensure
responsible public administration. In addition, criticizing the old Wilsonian assumption
about the role of public administration, Appleby (1947) asserted that public
administration is, in some aspects, “political in nature” (p. 93). Therefore, according to
Appleby (1947), public administration should understand democratic values and be
responsive to the people in order to better serve.
While these arguments implied that ethics is a potential focus of scholarly
attention, Leys (1943) explicitly suggested that an attention to ethics is required for the
wise exercise of administrative discretion. Focusing on philosophical ethics as a useful
source for public administrators, he proposed that public administrators might consider
both deontological and teleological concerns in their decision making as a way to
maintain responsible conduct. Developing this idea further, Leys (1952) described how
various philosophical perspectives can actually be applied to resolve ethical problems.
Similar to earlier studies, Davis (1969a; 1969b) also paid attention to
administrative discretion and emphasized its responsible use. He argued that “[i]n the
entire legal and governmental system, the strongest need and the greatest promise for
improving the quality of justice to individual parties are in the areas where decisions
necessarily depend largely on discretion” (Davis, 1969b, p. 714). Accordingly, he
asserted that public administrators’ discretionary power should be exercised with
accountability, and that public administrators should make efforts themselves to ensure
responsible use of administrative discretion – that is, “administrative self-confinement”
of discretionary power (Davis, 1969a, p. 69). Davis argued for the formulation of rules as
11
a way to prevent abusive use of discretion. Specifically, he suggested that "agencies
through rule-making can often move from vague or absent statutory standards to
reasonably definite standards, and then, as experience and understanding develop, to
guiding principles, and finally, when the subject matter permits, to precise and detailed
rules” (Davis, 1969a, p. 219). In addition, by paying attention to the principles of checks
and balances, and openness, Davis suggested two additional ways that help ensure
responsible exercise of administrative discretion: i.e., review of administrative decisions
by various others (e.g., supervisors, legislators, and the judiciary) and the opening of all
sources and outcomes of administrative decision-making to public inspection.
Overall, “developments in [scholarly] thought about public administration”
explored thus far functioned as the cornerstone for administrative ethics as a field of
study, suggesting the possibility of ethics receiving developmental treatment by public
administration scholars. In addition, criticism against the dominant public policy stream
in the 1960s also facilitated scholarly attention on ethics. The U.S. government in the
1960s emphasized the application of “scientific management and analytic tools to the
problems of public policy” (Lilla, 1981, p. 7). However, this movement was criticized
that it pursues only the virtue of efficiency while having no democratic ethos: public
administrators conducting policy analysis exercised administrative discretion with no
moral guidance for the use of such discretionary power (Lilla, 1981). Facing such
criticism, scholars became convinced that they should find ways to ensure public
administrators’ responsible conduct.
12
Finally, the New Public Administration movement, which derived from the 1968
Minnowbrook Conference, significantly contributed to the emergence of administrative
ethics as a field of study (Cooper, 2001). Adopting Rawl’s theory of justice as “a
foundation for a theory of social equity,” proponents of the New Public Administration
movement asserted that social equity should be the main value that public administration
pursues (Hart, 1974, p. 5). Specifically, Frederickson (1971) argued that “a Public
Administration which fails to work for changes which try to redress the deprivation of
minorities will likely be eventually used to repress those minorities” (p. 311).
The New Public Administration movement was the first merged effort by scholars
to develop “a commonly shared ethical concept” (Cooper, 2001, p. 12). Moreover, this
movement went beyond the existing somewhat abstract arguments regarding the public
interest, suggesting social equity as an operational value for public administration. In
other words, it provided evidence that administrative ethics has “practical significance”
(Cooper, 2001, p. 12). All in all, the New Public Administration movement worked as an
important factor instigating the emergence of administrative ethics as a field of study.
Knowledge Accumulation in the Field of Administrative Ethics
Based on “the developments in [scholarly] thought about public administration,”
and by the instigation of the New Public Administration movement, administrative ethics
emerged as a field of study. Then, from its emergence to the present, what has been
established as significant knowledge in this field?
13
This study responds to this question by approaching it from two different levels:
one is the principle level that studies the ethical grounds of public administration, and the
other is the operational level that explores how to ensure ethical public administration.
Operational level studies are divided into two categories: the individual level and the
organizational level. This distinction was utilized based on the premise that it is necessary
to understand various factors from different levels of analysis in order to truly maintain
ethical public administrators. While individual employees’ ethicality matters, the
individuals are embedded in an organization and influenced by the organization: thus, it
is essential to examine both individual and organizational level factors in order to ensure
public administrators’ ethical conduct. This approach is in line with previous reviews that
have dealt with knowledge accumulation at both individual and organizational levels
(e.g., Cooper, 2001; Menzel, 2005; Menzel and Carson, 1999). By categorizing existing
studies into different levels, this approach can help figure out what needs to be further
investigated at each level.
At the principle level, scholars have investigated the ethical grounds for public
administration. Two subfields of founding thought and regime values (Richardson and
Nigro, 1987, 1991; Rohr, 1989) and citizenship and democratic theory (Cooper, 1984,
1991, 2006; Hart, 1984; Thompson, 1992) have been explored. As individual level
studies at the operational level, two subfields of moral development and ethical decision
making (Cooper, 2006; Jurkiewicz, 2002; Jurkiewicz and Massey, 1998; Kohlberg, 1983;
Kohlberg and Candee, 1984; Spence, 1980) and virtue ethics (Lilla, 1981; Pincoffs, 1986)
have been examined. As organizational level studies at the operation level, the influence
14
of organizational context (e.g., organizational culture and structure) on public
administrators’ ethical conduct has been addressed. Principle level research focuses on
ethical grounds of public administration and thus theoretical studies has been explored. In
contrast, operational level research includes both theoretical discussion and empirical
examination: thus, both theoretical and empirical studies have been investigated at this
level. Figure 2-1 concisely pictures the categorization of accumulated knowledge in the
field of administrative ethics.
FIGURE 2-1. Established Knowledge in Administrative Ethics Study
Administrative
Ethics Study
Principle Level
Founding thought
and regime values
Citizenship and
democratic theory
Operational Level
Individual level
Moral development
and ethical
decision making
Organizational
level
Virtue ethics
Organizational
structure and
culture
15
Principle Level
Founding Thought and Regime Values
As it became obvious that Wilson’s (1887) argument for separation of public
administration from politics could no longer be supported and that public administrators
exercise discretionary power, one of the approaches used to clarify the ethical grounds of
public administration was to examine the founding thought and regime values.
While the prevalent notion about founding thought was that the Founding Fathers’
main concern was to make structural mechanisms which can check and control self-
interested public administrators’ discretion exertion, Richardson and Nigro (1987)
suggest that founding thought is an important source which can contribute to the ongoing
efforts “to define and establish a public administration that is ethically excellent” (p.
367). Specifically, Richardson and Nigro (1987) argue that the Founding Fathers did care
about “the development of desirable public virtues,” and heavily relied on “the
interaction of constitutional correctives, honor, and education to produce virtuous public
officials who would serve the regime” (pp. 373-374; italics in original). Their argument is
moderated in the later work: although Founding Fathers surely “sought to establish
conditions under which disinterested or morally elevated administration could emerge,” it
was “not at the expense of republican government, democratic values, or the ‘realistic’
definition of human nature that underpins the constitution” (Richardson and Nigro, 1991,
P. 284; emphasis added).
Rohr (1986) suggests that the role of public administration is to uphold the
Constitution, which means that “administrators should use their discretionary power in
16
order to maintain the constitutional balance of power in support of individual rights” (p.
181). Thus, the fundamental concern in public administrative ethics is to ensure the
responsible exercise of discretionary power. Regarding this concern, Rohr (1989, p. ix)
suggests “regime values” as “the normative foundation of ethical standards” for
bureaucrats. According to Rohr (1989), the regime values are reflected in the U.S.
Constitution, and thus, studying Supreme Court opinions which interpret the regime
values is “the best educational means” (p. 5) for bureaucrats to think about the American
values in “a disciplined and systematic manner” (p. 77). Focusing on freedom, equality,
and property as the three critical examples of regime values, Rohr (1989) introduces
Supreme Court cases where these regime values were discussed and debated, and walks
the readers through the Supreme Court opinions. In so doing, he provides thoughtful
comments and poses questions on those opinions and thereby encourages readers,
particularly bureaucrats, to think about the regime values. He also emphasizes that the
Supreme Court interpretation of the regime values can change over time and thus it is
important for the bureaucrats to follow the changing interpretation of these core regime
values. In sum, Rohr (1989) argues that educating bureaucrats about Supreme Court
opinions can encourage them to “reflect on how [the regime values] might best influence
their decision making as persons who govern” (p. 5), thereby helping bureaucrats fulfill
the ethical obligation to uphold the Constitution and the values of the people that they
serve.
17
Citizenship and Democratic Theory
The question of the ethical ground for public administration was also investigated
from citizenship ethics and democratic theory perspectives. Cooper (1984) argues that
public administrators are “fiduciaries who are employed by the citizenry to work on their
behalf” (p. 143), and thus, citizenship should be the normative foundation for public
administrators to make decisions. Cooper (1984)’s view of a public administrator as “a
professional fiduciary citizen” is consistently found in his other works (Cooper, 1987,
1991, 2006, p. 214). Especially, Cooper (1991) persuasively suggests the role of a public
administrator as “the citizen-administrator” based on the analysis of the legal and ethical
definition of citizenship in the American tradition.
In addition, pointing out that the low esteem of public administration is “directly
attributable to the neglect of its raison d’ e ˆ tre, its ‘publicness’” (p. 111), Hart (1984) also
asserts that public administrators should perform their roles as professional administrators
based on their duty as “virtuous citizens” (p. 116).
Finally, linking the discussion about democratic obligation of public
administrators to the practical level job of ethics officials, Thompson (1992) argues that
government ethics officials should accept educating other officials about the democratic
responsibilities (i.e., accountability to the public) as their main responsibility.
Operational Level 1: Individual Level
Moral Development and Ethical Decision Making
Theoretical studies. Intellectually stimulated by such scholars as Piaget,
18
Baldwin and Dewey, Kohlberg (1976, 1980) suggests a theory of moral development.
Based on the idea that it is not society but the individual that determines what is morally
right. People develop their moral reasoning by interacting with the environment and their
reasoning varies depending on the individuals’ stage of moral development. Kohlberg
suggests six stages of moral development at three different levels. The lowest level is the
pre-conventional level and is divided into two stages. At the first stage, the moral criteria
that people consider when they make decisions are the physical consequences of their
behaviors (e.g., punishment and reward). Thus, for people at stage 1, “being ‘good’ is
being obedient to the demands of superior others” (Rest, 2009, p. 5). At the second stage,
the moral criterion is if the behavior satisfies one’s own needs, with human relations
understood in terms of exchange: e.g., “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”
(Kohlberg and Hersh, 1977, p. 55).
The intermediate level is called the conventional level. People at this level focus
on meeting the expectations of other people or of the nation. The conventional level is
categorized into two stages: at the third stage, “good behavior is that which pleases or
helps others and is approved by them” (Kohlberg and Hersh, 1977, p. 55). At the fourth
stage, good behavior is to respect the law and maintain social order. Finally, the highest
level of moral development is the post-conventional or principled level, which is also
comprised of two stages. At the fifth stage, good behavior is that which respects
individual rights that are agreed upon by social contract. Finally, at the sixth stage, good
behavior is decided by an individual’s own ethical principles. People at this stage develop
19
internal ethical principles, which at heart are universal principles such as justice and
equality (Kohlberg and Hersh, 1977).
Kohlberg (1976, 1980) argues that people progress only from lower to higher
stages of moral development and that this irreversible progress is applicable to all people
across different cultures. Rest (1979, 1986, 1990) extended Kohlberg’s moral
development theory and developed the Defining Issues Test (DIT) that is widely used to
measure an individual’s ethical reasoning ability.
As a useful means to ensure ethical decision making of public administrators,
Cooper (2006) suggests an ethical decision-making model. Cooper (2006) argues that it is
important for public administrators to approach ethical issues in a systematic manner in
the sense that this conscious and systematic process will help public administrators not
only “act in ways that are consistent with their inner convictions” but also “account for
their conduct to relevant others” (p. 6). The process for ethical decision making suggested
by Cooper (2006) is as follows: a public administrator who perceives an ethical problem
defines what the ethical issues are. And then, the public administrator identifies
alternative actions that he/she can take and thinks about probable consequences of each
alternative. Finally, the public administrator selects an alternative and resolves the ethical
problem.
Empirical Studies. Empirical studies in this subfield in general have understood
administrative ethics using Kohlberg’s moral development theory. For instance, a series
of studies conducted by Stewart, Sprinthall and their colleagues (Stewart and Sprinthall,
1993; Stewart, Sprinthall, and Siemienska, 1997; Stewart, Siemienska, and Sprinthall,
20
1999; Stewart, Sprinthall, and Kem, 2002) examine ethical reasoning of public
administrators, using the Stewart-Sprinthall Management Survey which is developed
based on Kohlberg’s moral development theory. The studies together suggest that ethical
reasoning score was generally similar among respondents regardless of their nationality
(i.e., America, Poland, and Russia). However, there was a significant difference between
female and male respondents in the sense that “women are more likely to select
principled reasoning than are men” (Stewart, Sprinthall and Kem, 2002, p. 287).
White (1999) also supports gender difference in moral development. Adopting
Kohlberg’s moral development theory as a theoretical framework, White (1999)
examines the relationship between gender and moral development. To examine the
impact of gender on moral development, White (1999) employs survey method, and asks
members of the U.S. Coast Guard to answer Rest’s Defining Issue Test (DIT). The results
suggest that women’s DIT score was significantly higher than men’s score, which
indicates that women are in the higher stage of moral development than men.
Virtue Ethics
Theoretical Studies. Criticizing that an analytical approach to ethical problems
does not make a public administrator “learn moral habits,” but “learn to be shrewd,” Lilla
(1981) emphasizes virtue cultivation as a way to ensure public administrators’ ethical
conduct (p. 14). Specifically, arguing that “a morality is something we live, ……,
[something] more than abstract reasoning,” Lilla (1981) suggests that moral education
21
“through examples and even a bit of ‘indoctrination’ in the virtues of democracy” is the
way to make truly moral public administrators (p. 17).
Pincoffs (1986) also argues that “[the] primary business of ethics ought to be with
the qualities of character, with the virtues and the vices” (p. 15). He criticizes as reductive
“quandary ethics” that seek a universal approach to every ethical problem: it simplifies
ethical dilemmas and approaches as if there is a correct way to resolve problems.
However, “using quandaries does not capture the virtue ethics notion that all decisions
have contexts, and, a particular context may well have significant bearing on the
evaluation of what is considered virtuous” (Hartman and Beck-Dudley, 1999, p. 250).
Thus, Pincoffs (1986) contends that ethics should be concerned more about nurturing a
moral person rather than seeking “some stable means of arriving at decisions” (p. 18). He
emphasizes the importance of moral education for the development of virtuous
individuals.
According to MacIntrye (1981), virtues are “inclinations or dispositions to act,
not just to think or feel in a certain way” (Cooper, 1987, p. 323; emphasis added). By
understanding virtues as “traits of character” (Cooper, 1987, p. 323), MacIntrye (1981)
finds the importance of virtue in the context of practice. Specifically, MacIntyre (1981)
asserts that the possession and exercise of virtue is important to achieve internal goods,
which are the ultimate values that the practices of public administration should pursue. In
addition, Cooper (1987) makes the discussion by MacIntyre (1981) more fruitful by
applying it to an actual case of the explosion of NASA space shuttle in 1986 and by
suggesting internal goods and virtues for public administration practices.
22
Empirical Studies. Empirical studies support the importance of virtue ethics:
that is, virtue cultivation is critical to the creation of ethical public administration. For
instance, based on the survey of 161 whistleblowers, Jos, Tompkins, and Hays (1989)
explore the common attributes of whistleblowers. Their study suggests that
whistleblowers are virtuous public administrators in the sense that they not only have a
strong belief in certain moral values but also were able to actually take actions in order to
uphold their commitment to those values. More recent research on the whistleblower
personality also supports the notion that whistleblowers are virtuous employees with a
strong moral conviction, a high level of social responsibility, and/or a high level of
commitment to organizational goals: thus, when they witness unethical practices in their
organization, they take actions to expose the wrongdoings (DeMaria, 1996, 2008; Miceli
and Near, 1992).
Based on the premise that public administrators, who have sworn an oath “to
support and defend the Constitution,” have an obligation to be “men and women of good
character, prepared at all times to sacrifice personal gain for the public interest” (Hart,
1992, p. 25-26; emphasis added), Cooper and Wright (1992) vividly show how moral
exemplars – i.e., “exemplar[s] of virtue” (Cooper, 1992, p. 325) – actualize the internal
goods of public administration through practices. They analyze moral exemplars’
practices by employing storytelling technique: storytelling is a particularly useful
technique in the sense that it makes people “stop talking about the moral life and point to
it instead” (Vitz, 1990, p. 718), and that the intertwining of formal ethics with actual lives
of moral exemplars gives “substance to moral aspiration” (Hart, 1992, p. 13). Rugeley
23
and Van Wart (2006) also illustrate the case of a street-level moral exemplar suggesting
that a moral exemplar actualizes his good characters through every day practices.
Finally, Macaulay and Lawton (2006) examine whether or not the emergence of
New Public Management has replaced virtues with technical competence. Their research
results, obtained by interviews and survey of British monitoring officers, support Cooper
(1987)’s approach to public administration practice with its relevant virtues. Specifically,
virtues were not replaced by technical competence, but were at the heart of “competence
as an excellence of management” (Macaulay and Lawton, 2006, p. 709; emphasis in
original). In other words, excellence in public administration practices can be
accomplished only when the practices are conducted by public administrators who have
virtues as well as technical competence.
Operational Level 2: Organizational Level
Theoretical Studies
The famous experiments such as the Milgram experiment (Milgram, 1974) and
the Stanford prison experiment (Zimbardo, 1992) have a great implication for
administrative ethics studies and more generally for public management studies in the
sense that they explicitly show the influence of authority or organization on human
behaviors. In addition to these experiments, many other behavioral experiments such as
the Asch conformity experiments (Asch, 1951) and Jane Elliott’s brown eyes versus blue
eyes exercise in the late 1960s have also well showed “the power of the situation” in
Zimbardo’s term (Zimbardo, Ebbesen, and Maslach, 1977, p. 3).
24
Echoing the implications of these studies, Cooper (1987, 1992, 2006) has
consistently dealt with the organizational context of administrative ethics. Cooper (1987)
suggests that since public administration practices are performed depending on
organizations, the practices can be hampered by organizations whose main concern is
obtaining external goods. Thus, Cooper (1992) argues that external goods of
organizations should not be the primary goals of organizational life, but should be
“instrumental to the internal goods of practices” (p. 327; emphasis in original). In
addition, Cooper (2006) emphasizes organizational structure and culture as important
factors that influence public administrators’ ethical decision making and responsible
conduct.
In addition, aiming to promote ethical practices of public administrators, Lewis
and Gilman (2005) also emphasize the influence of organizational factors on ethical
conduct of public administrators. They argue that ethics codes, ethics trainings, and
routine agency settings determine an organization’s “ethical tone” and thereby influence
individual public administrators’ behaviors (Lewis and Gilman, 2005, p. 235).
In sum, theoretical studies at the organizational level assert that “ethics is as much
about organizational design as it is about [individual public administrators’] analytical
and decision-making skills” (Cooper, 2004, p. 402).
Empirical Studies
Albeit a few, scholars have also performed empirical research at the
organizational level. West and Berman (2004) describe and evaluate the state of ethics
25
training in the U.S. cities. Results from national survey of the cities suggest that
approximately two thirds of the U.S. cities provide ethics training, while the specific
topics of ethics training vary. The results also suggest that ethics training is positively
related to the revitalization of organizational culture.
In a case study of “the Pinellas county insider land deal scandal,” Menzel (2009)
investigates the conditions that lead to “an ethics meltdown” of public administrators (p.
380). Menzel (2009) suggests the following two factors as the main causes of an ethics
meltdown: elected officials were holding the office without term limits, and there existed
too tight trust between county administrators and elected officials lacking “healthy
skepticism and questioning” (p. 381).
What Still Remains to Be Done?
As reviewed thus far, scholarly efforts during the past decades for ethical public
administration have accumulated significant amount of knowledge in the field of
administrative ethics. However, there still remains research questions that future research
needs to address.
First, much work seems to have been done at the principle level, at which scholars
have tried to find the ethical ground of public administration. As the normative
foundation for public administration ethics, some scholars suggest founding thought and
regime values (Richardson and Nigro, 1987; Rohr, 1989), while others suggest
citizenship (Cooper, 1991; Hart, 1984). In addition, as Cooper (2004) describes, virtue
26
(Lilla, 1981), social equity (Frederickson, 1971; Hart, 1974), and public interest have
been also advocated as normative foundations for administrative ethics.
However, as Cooper (2004) points out, while suggested alternatives do not seem
mutually exclusive, scholars do not reach clear consensus about what should be the
normative foundations for public administration ethics. In other words, there are not yet
clear, agreed-upon normative standards for public administration, and this work remains
to be done (Cooper, 2004).
Next, individual level studies such as moral development and ethical decision
making, and virtue ethics appear to have established significant amount of knowledge
both theoretically and empirically. As theoretical studies, there have been scholarly
efforts such as Kohlberg (1976, 1980)’s moral development theory, Cooper (2006)’s
ethical decision-making model, Lilla (1981)’s virtue ethics, and MacIntrye (1981)’s
understanding of virtues in the context of practice. Also, empirical studies have been
performed largely based on these theories (e.g., a series of studies by Stewart and
Sprinthall; White, 1999). In sum, as Menzel (2005, p. 151) suggests, “there is a viable
link between ethics theory and empirical testing” at this level.
Third, at the organizational level, there has been scholarly emphasis on the
importance of organizational factors for ethical conduct of public administrators (Cooper,
1987, 2006; Lewis and Gilman, 2005). However, empirical studies at this level seem not
to develop enough. Specifically, present empirical studies are largely descriptive in the
sense that they focus on exploring the state of organizational level efforts: that is, how
much these efforts are made and spread, and how these efforts are perceived by public
27
administrators. More developed research needs to be done: for instance, what are the
impact of organizational contexts such as organizational structure and culture on public
administrators’ ethical behaviors? In examining the relationship, the use of relevant
theories would be beneficial, which is lacking in the extant literature (Menzel, 2005).
Finally, relatively few efforts have been made to understand how government
ethics relate to employee job attitudes and behaviors, and ultimately to organizational
performance. Whether it is individual level or organizational level research, studies in the
field of administrative ethics have primarily focused on promoting ethically excellent
public administration. Less attention has been directed to understanding the importance
of government ethics in relation to effectiveness in government. There are some studies,
albeit not many, that have explored this relationship and suggested that unethical
behaviors of individual employees are negatively associated with organizational
effectiveness (Brumback, 1991; Lynch et al., 2002). However, the question of how
employee perceptions of organizational ethics influence their job attitudes/behaviors and
ultimately organizational performance has received relatively little attention.
Yet, as government ethics influences external general public’s impression on and
attitudes toward government, it may also influence internal employees’ job attitudes and
behaviors. Thus, legitimacy acquisition from internal employees is as important as
legitimacy acquisition from the external public, considering that organizations have goals
to pursue and these goals are accomplished by the efforts of its members. In other words,
as losing legitimacy from the external public is a threat to maintaining democratic
28
government, losing legitimacy from internal employees can be a threat to promoting
effective government. Thus, much research remains to be done from this perspective.
29
CHAPTER 3: THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS BUILDING
The previous chapter suggests that one of the remaining tasks in the field of
administrative ethics is to explore how organizational ethics influences public
administrators’ job attitudes and behaviors and how they in turn relate to organizational
performance. Understanding how employees think about the ethicality of their
organization matters in the sense that employee perceptions of their organizations can
influence their job attitudes and behaviors.
In this vein, management research has long sought to understand what employees
desire from their work. This has been a key question for management scholars and
employers alike, since knowing employees’ desires from their work can help attract and
retain them in an organization (McDaniel, 2004). For instance, employees’ job
satisfaction and pay satisfaction have been consistently found to be significant predictors
of employee turnover in both the public and private sectors (Arnold and Feldman, 1982;
Bertelli, 2007; DeConinck and Stilwell, 2004; Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner, 2000;
Leonard, 1987; Lewis, 1991; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino, 1979; Porter and
Steers, 1973; Tett and Meyer, 1993; Williams and Hazer, 1986; Wittmer, 1991).
However, as McDaniel (2004, p. 81) points out, “regardless of a long-standing
analysis of work, ethics is rarely the central concept of concern for assessing or
determining desirable workplaces.” Thus, by examining how organizational ethics
influences public employees’ turnover intentions, this study suggests that ethics is an
important element of a desirable workplace where employees want to stay.
30
In addition, this study also explores how organizational ethics is associated with
organizational performance. Employee perceptions of the ethicality of their organization
are not likely to directly relate to organizational performance. Rather, it is likely that such
perceptions influence employee attitudes and/or behaviors toward the organization; and
then their attitudes toward their organization affect their work outcomes, which are
closely linked to overall organizational performance (Westerman and Simmons, 2007).
Thus, it is reasonable to expect that organizational ethics have indirect effects on
organizational performance by influencing employees’ attitudes and/or behaviors. In
particular, this study explores how organizational ethics influence federal agency
performance through organizational commitment and employee turnover.
In sum, this study seeks to address two research questions. First, what is the
impact of organizational ethics on public employees’ turnover intentions? Second, how
do organizational ethics influence federal agency performance through organizational
commitment, turnover intention, and turnover?
Organizational Ethics, Job Attitudes, and Organizational Performance
Organizational ethics refers to “the set of values that identifies an organization
either as it is perceived by those working in the organization or by those who have
dealings with the organization” (Lozano, 2013, p. 103). Thus, organizational ethics
relates to the perceptions of internal employees or external stakeholders of how an
organization deals with ethical issues. In the private sector, corporate ethics is defined as
“employees’ perceptions of their firm’s ethical practices” (Chun, Shin, Choi, and Kim,
31
2013, p. 855; italics in original). In this study, the focus is given to the perception of
internal public employees: thus, for the current purpose, organizational ethics is defined
as public employees’ perceptions of how ethical issues are addressed in their
organization.
What studies of organizational ethics have been performed thus far? Ethical
climate “as a research area of organizational ethics” has been given much attention in the
private sector (Wittmer and Coursey, 1996, p. 571; for a thorough literature review, see
Simha and Cullen, 2012). Victor and Cullen (1987, 1988) developed in their seminal
works a typology of ethical climate types. Employing three moral criteria (i.e., egoistic,
benevolence, and principle) and three loci of analysis (i.e., individual, local, and
cosmopolitan), Victor and Cullen (1988) suggested a theoretical framework with nine
possible types of ethical climate. Figure 3-1 below depicts the nine theoretical climate
types. In order to confirm the existence of the nine types, Victor and Cullen (1988)
developed an Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ) and conducted an empirical test. The
empirical examination reduced the number of types of ethical climate into five: law and
code, caring, instrumentalism, independence, and rules.
Other scholars in the private sector have used Victor and Cullen’s (1988)
classification of ethical climate types and empirically explored how ethical climate
influences employees’ ethical decision-making or (un)ethical behaviors (for example, see
Barnett and Vaicys, 2000; Deshpande, 1996; Peterson, 2002; Wimbush, Shepard, and
Markham, 1997; Wyld and Jones, 1997). Victor and Cullen’s (1988) typology has also
been employed in public sector studies; however, it has been used primarily for the
32
purposes of comparing ethical climate between public organizations and those in the
private and nonprofit sectors (Wittmer and Coursey, 1996; Rasmussen, Malloy, and
Agarwal, 2003). There has been little empirical research in the public sector that
examines the relationship between ethical climate types and ethical conduct of public
administrators.
FIGURE 3-1. Theoretical Ethical Climate Types
In addition to the impact of organizational ethics on employees’ ethical behaviors,
research in the private sector has also explored how organizational ethics relate to
employee job attitudes and behaviors (Cullen, Parboteeah, and Victor, 2003; Elci and
Self-interest Company Profit
Efficiency
Friendship Team Interest
Social
Responsibility
Personal Morality
Company Rules
and Procedures
Laws and
Professional Codes
Locus of Analysis
Ethical Criterion
Individual Local Cosmopolitan
Egoism
Benevolence Principle
Source: Victor & Cullen (1988). p.104
33
Alpkan, 2009; Hunt, Wood, and Chonko, 1989; Koh and Boo, 2004; Valentine, Godkin,
and Lucero, 2002). For instance, using the three moral criteria (i.e., egoistic, benevolence,
and principle) identified by Victor and Cullen (1988), Cullen et al. (2003) examined the
relationship between ethical climate types and organizational commitment. Their analysis
of survey data obtained from private employees suggests that while benevolent climate is
positively associated with organizational commitment, egoistic climate is negatively
related with organizational commitment. In addition, principled climate has a positive
association with the organizational commitment only of professional employees, but not
with that of non-professional employees.
Employing Victor and Cullen’s (1988) nine theoretical climate types, Elci and
Alpkan (2009) explored whether the nine types also exist in organizations in non-western
cultures (i.e., Turkey) and also examined how different ethical climate types influence
employees’ work satisfaction. They concluded that the nine climate types are also
observed in Turkish firms and that different types of ethical climate have different
impacts on employee satisfaction; for instance, while a self-interest climate has a
negative association with employee work satisfaction, a social responsibility climate is
positively related to employee work satisfaction.
Of course, not all organizational ethics studies in the private sector have utilized
Victor and Cullen’s (1988) ethical climate types to explore the influence of
organizational ethical context on employee job attitudes and behaviors. Instead of being
interested in different types of ethical climate, some studies have paid attention to the
strength of organizational ethics— that is, “the degree to which organizations take an
34
interest in ethical issues and act in an ethical manner” (Hunt et al.,1989, p. 82) – and how
the strength of organizational ethics influences employee job attitudes and behaviors. For
example, Hunt et al. (1989) reported that the degree of perceived organizational ethicality
is positively associated with organizational commitment. Similarly, by analyzing survey
data acquired from working students, Valentine et al. (2002) found a positive relationship
between organizational ethical context and employees’ organizational commitment, and
between ethical context and person-organization fit.
Some studies in the private sector have examined the link between firm ethics and
performance. For example, Verschoor (1998) explored how public corporations’
emphasis on ethics is associated with their performance. The analysis of the 500 largest
public corporations in the U.S. suggested that public corporations that emphasize, in their
annual report to stakeholders, ethical conduct toward the stakeholders exhibit better
financial performance than others. Berrone, Surroca, and Tribo (2007) also suggested that
organizational ethics is positively associated with firm performance by increasing
stakeholder satisfaction. In addition, a recent study by Donker, Poff, and Zahir (2008)
tested the relationship between “the appearance of ethical value terms” in Canadian
firms’ codes of ethics and firm performance (p. 535). According to them, corporate ethics
contribute to improve firm reputation among stakeholders and therefore are expected to
be positively associated with firm performance. Their results provided support for the
hypothesized positive relationship between corporate ethical values and firm
performance. In sum, these studies suggest that corporate ethics is a positive predictor of
35
firm performance by influencing stakeholders’ perceptions of and attitudes toward the
firm.
Despite the increased research in recent years, however, business ethics scholars
lament that “how an ethical context influences employees’ job and company attitudes
remains an open area for inquiry” (Valentine, Greller, and Richtermeyer, 2006: 583).
Despite some research on the relationship between corporate ethics and firm
performance, as Chun et al. (2013) point out, most of the studies have explored the
relationship from a perspective focusing on “a firm’s external relations, legitimacy, and
reputation” (p. 854). Accordingly, the question of how organizational ethics influence
firm performance through internal employees’ job and company attitudes remains
understudied (for an exception, see Chun et al., 2013).
These laments apply to the public sector as well. In the public sector, the question
of how ethical context influences employee attitudes and behaviors requires more
empirical research. Administrative ethics scholars have emphasized the importance of
organizational context in ensuring the ethical excellence of public administrators
(Cooper, 2006; Lewis and Gilman, 2005; Menzel, 2007). However, as was discussed in
the previous chapter, despite scholarly emphasis on the importance of organizational
context, there has not been enough empirical research on the relationship between
organizational ethics and ethical conduct of public administrators. The few empirical
studies that explore this relationship are largely descriptive and qualitative (e.g., Menzel,
2009). Moreover, empirical studies that examine how ethical context influences
employee attitudes and behaviors toward their organization are even scarcer. As
36
McDaniel (2004, p. 81) points out, “regardless of a long-standing analysis of work, ethics
rarely [has been] the central concept of concern for assessing or determining desirable
workplaces.”
The question of how organizational ethics influences organizational performance
through employee attitudes and behaviors toward their organization also remains
understudied in the public sector. Since Woodrow Wilson declared that “the field of
Administration is the field of business,” (Wilson, 1941, p. 493), the three ‘e’s of
efficiency, economy, and effectiveness have been the primary concern of public
administration (Menzel, 2005). However, as administrative ethics have emerged as a
subject of consistent scholarly interest, there have been some efforts, albeit not many, that
seek to understand government performance in relation to administrative ethics (Bruce,
1994; Brumback, 1991; Lynch et al., 2002; Rose-Ackerman, 1999). For instance,
Brumback (1991) suggested that unethical public employees hamper organizational
effectiveness by avoiding responsibilities that they do not like, spending much time on
gossiping and rumoring, and being negligent at work. In addition, corrupt or unethical
public employees lower organizational efficiency by causing red tape in their
organizations (Lynch et al., 2002); when ethical problems occur, a typical response of
organizations is to increase administrative procedures such as adding rules and enacting
sanctions. This organizational red tape in turn decreases organizational efficiency. In
sum, existing studies suggest that the ethical conduct of public administrators can help
prevent government ineffectiveness.
37
However, not only the ethicality of individual employees but also that of an
organization might be associated with organizational performance by influencing
employee job attitudes and behaviors. Thus, in order to fill the research gap in the study
of organizational ethics, this study explores at the individual level how organizational
ethics is associated with public employees’ intentions to leave their current job; at the
organizational level, this study examines how organizational ethics influence federal
agency performance through public employees’ job attitudes and behaviors, specifically
organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover.
Individual-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention
Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention
In order to explore the relationship between organizational ethics and employee
turnover intention, this study employs as a theoretical framework Festinger’s (1957)
cognitive dissonance theory from social psychology. The central premise of cognitive
dissonance theory is that “the individual strives toward consistency within himself”
(Festinger, 1957, p. 1). According to Festinger (1957), individuals experience
psychological discomfort when there is dissonance between their knowledge/beliefs and
their behaviors, or between their beliefs/behaviors and their external environments. Being
psychologically uncomfortable, individuals are motivated to reduce dissonance. For
instance, a smoker who knows that smoking is bad for her health experiences dissonance
or mutually non-fitting cognitions within herself: the smoker recognizes that smoking is
bad for herself and yet she is still smoking. Such cognitive dissonance makes an
38
individual feel uncomfortable and thus the individual tries to recover consonance by
either quit smoking or by rationalizing her smoking behavior. In short, cognitive
dissonance theory suggests that “the existence of dissonance, being psychologically
uncomfortable, [motivates] the person try to reduce dissonance and achieve consonance”
(Festinger, 1957, p. 3).
Studies in various fields have supported cognitive dissonance theory by showing
that individuals seek to achieve consonance when experiencing mutually non-fitting
cognitions (Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, and Fried, 1994; Turnley and Feldman,
1999). For instance, Turnley and Feldman (1999) examine how psychological contract
violation influences employee exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Psychological contract
violation occurs when employees perceive dissonance in the levels between what they
believe their organization is supposed to provide them and what their organization
actually provide them (e.g., regular pay raise). Their findings suggest that psychological
contract violation increases employee turnover, work negligence, and complaint report,
while decreasing employee commitment to the organization. In addition, a study by Stone
et al. (1994) on AIDS prevention efforts reports that young adults are more likely to buy
condoms and thereby have a safer sex when they are exposed to a cognitive dissonance
situation where they publicly advocate the importance of safe sex but they have failed to
use condoms.
When it comes to individual ethics, a general assumption is that “most individuals
strive to be ethical” (Viswesvaran, Deshpande, and Joseph, 1998, p. 367; Koh and Boo,
2004). In addition, considering that a strong motivation for the people who enter and
39
work in the public sector is “to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a
nation, or humankind” (Rainey and Steinbauer, 1999, p. 23; Huston, 2000; Perry, 2000;
Perry and Wise, 1990) – i.e., public service motivation – it is fair to assume that public
employees in general strive to be ethical. When public employees positively perceive
ethical practices of their organization, there is no cognitive dissonance. In contrast,
however, when public employees perceive the ethical context of their organization as not
supportive for or detrimental to their ethical conduct, public employees experience
cognitive dissonance between their personal belief/behaviors and the external
environment.
It is important to note, however, that not all employees experience cognitive
dissonance when their organization is not ethically supportive. In order for an employee
to experience cognitive dissonance, the employee must first perceive an ethical problem
in her organization. However, some employees accept orders without conscious
questioning of authority; and thus, they do not experience cognitive dissonance.
In contrast, others who perceive ethical problems in their workplace may
experience cognitive dissonance, and they seek to recover cognitive consonance in
different ways. Specifically, employees who experience cognitive dissonance seek to
recover cognitive consonance by either conforming their belief/behaviors to the external
environment or avoiding the external situation that causes dissonance (Bacharach,
Bamberger and Sonnenstuhl, 1996; Festinger, 1957). One way that employees can
achieve consonance is to change their own belief/behaviors and conform to their
organization. For example, DeZoort and Lord (1994) suggest that when accounting
40
managers do not value ethical conduct but inappropriately give pressure to their
subordinates, the subordinates are more likely to violate accounting protocol than
employees with no such pressure. Confronting a situation that their ethical conduct is
neither supported nor valued by their organization, employees often pursue cognitive
consistency by adapting themselves to external environments and rationalize changes in
their beliefs and behaviors with such reasons as “if leaders do not follow or uphold
standards, the standards must not be meaningful” (Berry, 2004, p. 5).
Another way that individuals can achieve cognitive consonance is to avoid the
situation that causes dissonance. An employee who strives to be ethical yet whose
organization does not support or even discourage her ethical behaviors might decide to
leave the organization rather than staying in the organization and changing her own
beliefs and behaviors. Studies in the private sector, albeit not many, have also suggested
that ethical value congruence between a person and an organization is an important
consideration for individuals when deciding to stay in an organization (Schwepker,
1999). Schwepker’s (1999) study on salespeople suggests that ethical conflict between
individuals and their organizations significantly increases employees’ turnover intention.
People tend to “believe that the world ‘out there,’ the larger context that exists beyond
our immediate contact, is a positive place” (Reynolds, 2003, p. 255; Taylor, 1989). Thus,
when employees think their organization as less ethical, they would decide to move
toward a more positive organization, which exists “out there”.
Therefore, drawing on cognitive dissonance theory and relevant empirical studies,
this study hypothesizes that public employees are more likely to stay in their current
41
organization when they have a more positive perception on ethical practices of their
organization. Thus, the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1: Organizational ethics is negatively associated with public
employees’ intention to leave their current job.
Organizational Commitment as a Mediator
Organizational commitment may work as a mediating factor in the influence of
organizational ethics on public employees’ turnover intention. When organizational
commitment has a significant mediating impact, organizational ethics influences public
employees’ turnover intention through organizational commitment; and, their direct
effects on turnover intention not through organizational commitment diminish or do not
exist when the impact of organizational commitment is taken into account (Baron and
Kenny, 1986).
Organizational commitment is defined as the strength of a person’s attachment to
an organization (Arnold, Cooper, and Robertson, 1998; Mowday, Steers, and Porter,
1979; Valentine et al., 2002). By definition, organizational commitment has been
believed as a critical determinant of individual and organizational outcomes (Simon,
1998). Consequently, scholars have examined antecedents of organizational commitment
(Steers, 1977; Bateman and Strasser, 1984): for instance, individual demographic
characteristics, managers’ leadership, and workplace environment have been discussed as
predictors of employee commitment to an organization.
42
According to Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990), one important factor that is positively
related to employee commitment is organizational legitimacy: that is, how much
employees perceive their organization legitimate. Legitimacy refers to “a generalized
perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate
within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”
(Suchman, 1995, p. 574). As legitimacy acquisition from external environment is critical
for organizational survival, legitimacy acquisition has been usually discussed in an
organization’s relation to external environment. According to Suchman (1995),
organizations can obtain legitimacy by conforming organizational goals to social morals
or by making procedures of goal pursuit appropriate and socially desirable.
Consequently, institutionalized ethical policies have served to legitimate organizational
activities to external environment (Long and Driscoll, 2008; Meyer and Rowan, 1977).
However, acquiring legitimacy from internal employees is as important as
legitimacy obtainment from external parties, since looking legitimate to employees’ eyes
influences employee attitudes toward the organization. An organization loses legitimacy
from its employees when organizational practices or policies are not understandable,
acceptable, and justifiable to employees. Employees are not likely to feel strong
attachment to an organization that they do not perceive legitimate. In other words,
legitimacy acquisition from employees matter for employee commitment to an
organization (Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990).
Organizational ethics or ethical dimension of an organization plays a critical role
in building organizational legitimacy among its employees and thus in creating employee
43
commitment to the organization (Fritz, Arnett, and Conkel, 1999; Hunt et al., 1989;
Trevino, Butterfield, and McCabe, 1998; Valentine et al., 2002). Hunt et al. (1989)
suggest that employees who believe that their firms care about ethical issues and act in an
ethical manner are more committed to their organizations. Similarly, Fritz et al. (1999)
and Valentine et al. (2002) also report that employees are more committed to their
organizations when they think that their organization strives to uphold its ethical
standards. In sum, employees feel strong attachment to their organization when they think
that their organization values ethics.
Next, this study posits that organizational commitment influences individual
outcomes, particularly turnover intention. As Balfour and Wechsler (1994) point out,
some literatures appear to understand behavioral intentions as part of organizational
commitment by defining organizational commitment as “an individual’s identification
with and involvement in a particular organization, manifested by a strong belief and
acceptance of the goals of the organization, a willingness to exert considerable effort on
behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the
organization” (Balfour and Wechsler, 1994, p. 286; Mowday et al., 1979; Simon, 1976).
However, this definition has been criticized since it “stretches the concept of commitment
so broadly” (Balfour and Wechsler, 1994, p. 286). The latter two parts of the definition or
behavioral intentions – viz., willingness to exert effort for the organization and desire to
maintain membership – should be understood as plausible outcomes or results of
organizational commitment rather than part of commitment (Balfour and Wechsler, 1994;
O’Reilly and Caldwell, 1981; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Osigweh, 1989). Thus, in
44
line with this criticism, this study separates behavioral intentions from organizational
commitment and approaches turnover intention as a plausible outcome of organizational
commitment.
Employee turnover or turnover intention is arguably the most frequently studied
subject in relation to organizational commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Scholars have
long hypothesized a negative relationship between organizational commitment and
employee turnover, and empirical studies have supported the premise (Arnold and
Feldman, 1982; DeConinck and Bachmann, 2011; DeCotiis and Summers, 1987; Ingram
and Lee, 1990; Porter and Crampon, 1976; Somers, 1995; for meta-analysis see Cotton
and Tuttle, 1986). For instance, Porter and Crampon’s (1976) longitudinal study on the
impact of organizational commitment on managerial trainees’ turnover suggested that
declined organizational commitment is a significant predictor of actual employee
turnover in the near future. Similarly, in their study on the antecedents and consequences
of organizational commitment, DeConinck and Bachmann (2011) reported that
organizational commitment leads to lower level of turnover intention. Meta-analytic
research such as Cotton and Tuttle (1986) confirms the negative association between
organizational commitment and employee turnover.
In sum, the discussion in this section suggests that organizational commitment can
work as a mediating factor in the influence of organizational ethics on employee turnover
intention. Therefore, the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2. Organizational commitment mediates the impact of organizational
ethics on public employees’ intention to leave their current jobs.
45
Control Variables: Facets of Employee Satisfaction
In order to more robustly estimate the impact of organizational ethics on public
employees’ turnover intention, the effects of other variables that have been suggested as
significant predictors of employee turnover were also taken into account. This study
considered three facets of employee satisfaction with their work situations – viz., work
satisfaction, pay satisfaction, and satisfaction with work-life balance practices in their
organization.
First, work satisfaction refers to an employee’s overall emotional response to
his/her work and work experience (Locke, 1976). Work satisfaction has long been both
theorized and empirically suggested as a strong, negative predictor of employee turnover
(Hom and Griffeth, 1995). That is, as employees are more satisfied with their work, the
employees are less likely to leave their jobs. Thus, this study expects a negative
relationship between work satisfaction and employee turnover intention.
Second, along with work satisfaction, turnover research has also suggested pay
satisfaction as a critical determinant of employee turnover (Dailey and Kirk, 1992;
DeConinck and Stilwell, 2004; Lewis, 1991; Porter and Steers, 1973). Pay is an
important consideration to not only private employees but also public employees
(Bertelli, 2007; Lewis, 1991). When public employees are satisfied with their pay, they
are likely to stay in their current jobs rather than leaving. Thus, this study expects that
pay satisfaction is negatively associated with turnover intention.
Finally, this study also included as a control variable employee satisfaction with
work-life balance practices in their organization. Employees have a life outside the
46
workplace and they want to be able to balance their work requirements with the other
demands and desires in their life. Studies have suggested that failure to maintain a
balance between work and life activities can cause serious consequences not only for
individual employees but also for organizations (Frone, Russel, and Cooper, 1993;
Thomas and Ganster, 1995). In their personal lives, employees that fail to balance work
and life activities experience a higher level of stress, a higher rate of divorce, and a higher
rate of substance abuse; in addition, employees unable to balance work and life
experience decreased job satisfaction and exhibit a higher turnover rate, which in turn
leads to organizational ineffectiveness (Hobson, Delunas, and Kesic, 2001). Thus, when
employees are more satisfied with work-life balance practices in their organization, they
are less likely to consider leaving the organization. Therefore, a negative relationship is
expected between satisfaction with work-life balance practices and turnover intention.
In addition to the direct effects on turnover intention, these three facets of
employee satisfaction – i.e., work satisfaction, pay satisfaction, and satisfaction with
work-life balance practices – are also expected to have an indirect impact on turnover
intention through organizational commitment. Studies on the antecedents of
organizational commitment have suggested that “commitment is a response to
organizational and job characteristics” (Balfour and Wechsler, 1994, p. 297). Thus,
employees’ work experiences are important antecedents of organizational commitment
(Balfour and Wechsler, 1994). Empirical studies have also supported this argument by
suggesting that organizations that offer employees with positive job-related experiences
are more likely to lead high organizational commitment: specifically, such factors as
47
employee satisfaction with work, salary, and work-life balance practices are positively
associated with organizational commitment (Bragger, Rodriguez-Srednicki, Kutcher,
Indovino, and Rosner, 2005; Fu, Deshpande, and Zhao, 2011; Mottaz, 1988). In addition,
as was previously discussed, organizational commitment has been suggested as negative
associated with employee turnover or such intention. Thus, besides direct impact on
turnover intention, this study expects that the three facets of employee satisfaction exert
indirect impact on turnover intention through the mediator of organizational commitment.
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance
At the agency-level, this study investigates how organizational ethics influences
federal agency performance. By its nature, organizational ethics is not likely to directly
relate to organizational performance. Rather, organizational ethics is likely to have
indirect effects on organizational performance: organizational ethics influences
employees’ attitudes toward the organization and these responses of employees to their
organization affect their work outcome, which is closely linked to overall organizational
performance (Westerman and Simmons, 2007). Human resource scholars have also
posited that “the benefits of any [organization-level] practice can materialize only
through employee behaviors” (Chun et al., 2013, p. 855; Becker, Huselid, Pickus, and
Spratt, 1997). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that organizational ethics influences
organizational performance through mediating factors. As the mediators, organizational
commitment, turnover intention, and actual turnover are employed.
48
In the remainder of this section, this study discusses how organizational ethics
might influence federal agency performance via the mediators. Hypotheses are developed
from the discussion.
Organizational Ethics, Turnover Intention, and Actual Turnover
Earlier in this chapter, this study employed cognitive dissonance theory and
hypothesized at the individual level that organizational ethics is negatively associated
with public employees’ turnover intention. The discussion at the individual level can be
applied to the agency-level: from cognitive dissonance perspective, employees who has
negative perception on the ethicality of their organization are more likely than others to
experience cognitive dissonance between their personal beliefs/behaviors and the external
environment; thus, as a way to recover cognitive consonance the employees may consider
leaving the organization. Saying it in a different way, a federal agency with a higher level
of organizational ethics is likely than others to have a lower ratio of employees with
intention to leave. Thus, the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 3. A federal agency’s level of organizational ethics is negatively
associated with turnover intention rate in the agency.
This study distinguishes actual turnover from turnover intention and hypothesizes
that public employees’ intention to leave their current job is positively related to actual
turnover behavior. Although employee turnover has been a topic studied frequently in the
private sector, it has been only a recent interest in the field of public management.
Among turnover studies in the public sector, many studies have explored turnover
49
intention, not actual turnover (Bertelli, 2007; Choi, 2009; Lee and Whitford, 2008;
Moynihan and Pandey, 2008). Examination of turnover intention may provide useful
insights in understanding the determinants and consequences of employee turnover in the
sense that turnover intention is a good predictor of actual turnover (Ajzen, 1991; Hendrix,
Robbins, Miller, and Summers, 1998; Mobley, 1977). Some scholars have even
suggested that turnover intention is “the single best predictor of turnover” (Egan, Yang,
and Bartlett, 2004, p. 286; Lee and Mowday, 1987; Michaels and Spector, 1982).
However, as the word ‘predictor’ implies, behavioral intention is a distinct concept from
actual behavior: employees who consider leaving their current job may actualize such
intention, but not all of them do. Thus, rather than employing turnover intention as a
proxy of employee turnover, this study uses turnover intention as a predictor of actual
turnover by including both of them in the analysis. Specifically, this study hypothesizes a
positive relationship between turnover intention and actual turnover. At the organization
level, this means that organizations with lower turnover intention rate are likely than
others to have lower turnover rate. Thus, the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 4. A federal agency’s turnover intention rate is positively associated
with actual turnover rate in the agency.
Employee Turnover and Federal Agency Performance
Employee turnover is often believed as detrimental to organizational effectiveness
(Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990). Employee turnover negatively influences
organizational effectiveness (performance) in many ways. First, employee turnover is
50
negatively associated with organizational effectiveness by adding extra costs to
organizations for recruitment, hiring, and training of new employees (Abbasi and
Hollman, 2000). As employee turnover increases, the extra costs that an organization
should spend increase and consequently organizational effectiveness decreases.
Next, from an organization’s perspective, voluntary turnover leads to loss of
human capital. According to human capital theory – “[t]he predominant theoretical
approach to examining organizational-level consequences of voluntary turnover” (Dess
and Shaw, 2001, p. 447) – human capital especially those with organization-specific
knowledge and skills are a critical determinant of organizational effectiveness (Dess and
Shaw, 2001; Strober, 1990). From this perspective, voluntary turnover negatively
influences organizational productivity because voluntary turnover causes an organization
loss of human capital (Dess and Shaw, 2001).
Finally, voluntary turnover to an organization not only means loss of human
capital but also means loss of social capital. In other words, voluntary turnover is
detrimental to organizational effectiveness not only because of loss of human resource
itself but also because it causes loss of social capital. A recent study by Esparza and Jeon
(2013) examines the relationship between nonprofit board interlocks and organizational
resource acquisition: their study suggests that when a nonprofit organization share a
board member with a grantee organization of a major grant-making organization, the
nonprofit organization is more likely to win future grant since the networks with a
grantee organization enables access to information and legitimacy. As such, employees
can contribute to organizational performance by bringing necessary information and
51
resources to their organization (Dess and Shaw, 2001). In this vein, voluntary turnover
causes decrease in organizational effectiveness by taking the benefit of social capital
from an organization.
In sum, employee turnover negatively influences organizational performance by
adding extra costs to organizations and by causing loss of human and social capital. Thus,
the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 5. Turnover rate of a federal agency is negatively associated with the
agency’s performance.
Organizational Ethics and Organizational Commitment
In the previous section that explores the impact of organizational ethics at the
individual level, this study hypothesized a positive relationship between organizational
ethics and organizational commitment. That is, when a public employee has a positive
perception on ethical practices of her organization, the employee is more likely to have
strong organizational commitment. This positive relationship can be also applied at the
organizational level. An ethically healthy organization is viewed by its employees as
more desirable or more legitimate, and thus creates among its employees high
commitment to the organization (Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990; Hunt et al., 1989;
Valentine et al., 2002). Thus, the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 6. A federal agency’s level of organizational ethics is positively
associated with average level of employee commitment in the agency.
52
Organizational Commitment and Federal Agency Performance
Due to its definitional characteristics that committed employees accept
organizational goals and make efforts for their organizations (Mowday et al., 1979), one
might reasonably expect that organizational commitment influences organizational
performance. Scholars have also proposed “a direct link between organizational
commitment and organizational performance” (Kunze, Boehm, and Bruch, 2011, p. 270).
Empirical studies have suggested that employees who are emotionally attached to
and involved in their organizations – that is, employees with affective commitment – tend
to perform better than employees with less of such commitment (Larson and Fukami,
1984; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, and Jackson, 1989). However, this conclusion
has been driven primarily at the individual level. As Kunze et al. (2011) points out, extant
empirical research has primarily focused on the relationship between organizational
commitment and individual job performance: thus, the impact of organizational
commitment on overall organizational performance remains largely understudied.
However, empirical studies at organizational level, although a few, have
suggested that employees’ affective commitment is positively related to organizational
performance (e.g., Kim, 2005; Kunze et al., 2011; Ostroff, 1992). For instance, Ostroff
(1992) suggests that schools with employees of higher level of affective commitment
perform better than schools with less committed employees. Similarly, in the study of
Korean central government agencies, Kim (2005) reports that public employees’ affective
commitment positively influences overall organizational performance. Considering that
public employees’ commitment to public organizations is primarily based on affective
53
commitment (Kim, 2005), public employees’ commitment to their organization is
expected to positively influence organizational performance. Thus, the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 7. A federal agency’s average level of organizational commitment is
positively associated with the agency’s performance.
In addition to its direct impact on organizational performance, organizational
commitment may also exert an indirect effect on agency performance via its impact on
employee turnover. As previously reviewed at the individual level, studies have paid
great attention to organizational commitment as a critical determinant of turnover or
turnover intention (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Mowday, Porter, and Steers, 1982). Empirical
studies have also suggested a negative association between organizational commitment
and employee turnover (Arnold and Feldman, 1982; Cotton and Tuttle, 1986; DeConinck
and Bachmann, 2011; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that
strongly committed employees are less likely to consider leaving their organizations.
Therefore, the hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 8. A federal agency’s average level of organizational commitment is
negatively associated with turnover intention rate of the agency.
As was posited in hypotheses 4 and 5, turnover intention is expected to be
negatively associated with employee turnover, which in turn negatively influences federal
agency performance.
54
Mediating Effects of Commitment, Turnover Intention, and Actual Turnover
Thus far, this study has hypothesized direct relationships among organizational
ethics, organizational commitment, turnover intention rate, actual turnover rate, and
federal agency performance. Based on these relationships, this study posits an indirect
relationship between organizational ethics and agency performance as mediated by
organizational commitment, turnover intention rate, and actual turnover rate. Specifically,
as depicted in Figure 3-2 below, organizational ethics is predicted to have an indirect
influence on federal agency performance through its impact on organizational
commitment and also through its impact on turnover intention rate and actual turnover
rate. The relationship between organizational ethics and federal agency performance is
also expected to be mediated through the route of organizational commitment, turnover
intention rate and actual turnover rate. Thus, this study hypothesizes that:
Hypothesis 9. Organizational ethics has indirect effects on federal agency
performance through organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 10. Organizational ethics has indirect effects on federal agency
performance through turnover intention rate and actual turnover rate.
Hypothesis 11. Organizational ethics has indirect effects on federal agency
performance through the route of organizational commitment, turnover intention rate,
and actual turnover rate.
55
Pay Satisfaction as a Control Variable
For a more robust estimation of the impact of organizational ethics on federal
agency performance, this study included pay satisfaction as a control variable. Pay
satisfaction was taken into account in the model based on predominant rational
assumptions about human nature. According to a rational choice perspective, human
beings are rational actors that pursue their own interests. To the employees whose
primary concern is their own interests, pay plays an important role in determining their
attitudes toward their jobs (Heneman and Judge, 2000; Leonard 1987; Lewis 1991).
Thus, considering pay satisfaction in the model can help identify whether organizational
ethics has a significant impact, beyond the influence of employees’ self interest, on
employee attitudes toward their jobs and in turn federal agency performance
3
.
Empirical studies provide support for the idea that pay is an important
consideration for employees. Pay dissatisfaction increases employee turnover. Lewis
(1991) reported that “the opportunity for a higher paying job had been an important
consideration in their quitting” for 66 percent of the Senior Executive Service members
who resigned from their jobs (p. 147). While pay satisfaction is negatively associated
with employee turnover, pay satisfaction has a positive impact on organizational
commitment (Balfour and Wechsler, 1990). That is, employees who are more satisfied
with their salaries tend to have higher organizational commitment. In sum, pay
3
There could be other factors relevant to self interest, but this study took into account
only pay satisfaction. This study limited the number of variables since the sample size is only
moderate and the sample size to parameter ratio should be considered in performing structural
equation modeling. For more details on this issue, refer to the model estimation section in the
next chapter.
56
satisfaction “can have important impacts on numerous employee outcomes” (Heneman
and Judge, 2000, p. 85). Furthermore, a recent study by Currall, Towler, Judge, and Kohn
(2005) suggests that pay satisfaction is associated not only with employee outcomes but
with organizational outcomes as well. Their study on the relationship between pay
satisfaction and organizational performance reported that teachers’ pay satisfaction is
positively associated with the academic performance of a school district.
Based on the discussion above, this study expects that pay satisfaction has a direct
positive relationship with federal agency performance. In addition, pay satisfaction is also
expected to be indirectly associated with federal agency performance through
organizational commitment and employee turnover. Figure 3-2 suggests the theoretical
model of federal agency performance.
FIGURE 3-2. Theoretical Model of Federal Agency Performance
Organizational
Ethics
Organizational
Commitment
Turnover
Intention
Rate
Agency
Performance
(-)
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
Note: Signs in parentheses indicate anticipated positive or negative relationships.
Actual
Turnover
Rate
(+)
(-)
Pay
Satisfaction
(+)
(+)
57
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH DESIGN
Data Sources
Individual-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention
In order to test the hypothesized relationships at the individual level, this study
utilized data from the 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)
4
. The FEVS,
formerly the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS), is conducted by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) for the purpose of measuring federal employees’
perceptions of their workplace and human resource management practices. The FHCS
was conducted every other year between 2002 and 2008, but now the FEVS is done
annually starting with the 2010 survey. The survey is administered to “full-time,
permanent employees of the major agencies represented on the President's Management
Council (PMC) and the small/independent agencies that accepted an invitation to
participate in the survey.” The survey is conducted online; a paper survey is also
distributed for federal employees that do not have electronic access.
Once the survey is completed, OPM produces reports that provide such
information as government-wide results, results by agency, and results by demographics.
The OPM also provides a comparison of survey results over the years. The 2010 FEVS
was sent to 504,609 randomly-selected, full-time permanent federal employees. A total of
263, 475 employees responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of about 52%.
4
Information described in this paragraph is based on the explanation of the FEVS
(formerly FHCS) provided by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
(www.fedview.opm.gov)
58
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance
Data for the agency-level study were collected from several sources: each
agency’s annual Performance and Accountability Report, three waves of the Federal
Human Capital Survey/ Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, and the Federal Human
Resource Database. First, data for the dependent variable, federal agency performance,
was collected from each agency’s Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for
fiscal years 2007, 2009, and 2011. PAR is part of federal agency planning and reporting
processes under the execution of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act. “GPRA, later laws, executive branch
guidance drive the planning and reporting process in [the following] fashion: the 5-year
Strategic Plan is used to craft the Annual Performance Plan, and progress on the Annual
Performance Plan is reported in the PAR” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2011 PAR, p.
6). Specifically, the 1993 GPRA requires federal agencies to “develop annual
performance plans that contain quantifiable measures of what they intend to accomplish,
and performance reports describing their success in meeting those standards and
measures” (Small Business Administration 2009 Summary of Performance and Financial
Information, Foreword). In order to meet the legal requirements, a federal agency every
year reports in the PAR its annual goals and progress in meeting the goals; the PAR is
provided to the Congress, the President, and the general public so that they can assess the
annual performance of the agency.
For the fiscal year 2007, the Office of Management and Budget initiated “the Pilot
Program for Alternative Approaches to Performance and Accountability Reporting which
59
allowed agencies to prepare a more concise report in lieu of the traditional required
Performance and Accountability Report (PAR)” (U.S. Department of the State 2007, p.
ii). The alternative program requires a participating federal agency to provide three
alternative reports: annual performance report, annual financial report, and summary of
performance and financial information. Performance data were collected from the
alternative reports for federal agencies that participated in the pilot program. From PARs
for fiscal years 2007, 2009, and 2011, performance data for a total of 117 federal
agencies were acquired.
Next, data for organizational ethics, organizational commitment, and turnover
intention were collected from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for the years of
2006, 2008, and 2010. The timing of the survey used in this study precedes the timing of
PARs in order to make sure that the variables related to employee perceptions and
attitudes (i.e., the explanatory and mediating variables) precede in time the dependent
variable of agency performance. The number of respondents was 221,479 for the 2006
survey, 212,223 for the 2008 survey, and 263,475 for the 2010 survey.
Finally, data for agency turnover rates and control variables were collected from
the Federal Human Resource Database (Fedscope).
5
Fedscope was launched in the fall of
2000 by OPM for the purpose of providing “statistical information about the federal
civilian workforce” to “federal agencies, researchers, the media, and the general public.”
All data except the generated data elements are “submitted by the agencies from their
5
Information and quotes in this paragraph came from OPM description of the federal
human resource database (http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/intro/start.asp;
http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/datadefn/aehri_sdm.asp#cpdf4).
60
own separate personnel systems.” Generated data elements, for example metropolitan
statistical area, are created using the submitted data elements.
6
Variable Measurement
Individual-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention
Turnover Intention
The dependent variable is public employees’ turnover intention – i.e., whether or
not employees have the intention to leave their current job. The question, “are you
considering leaving your organization within the next year, and if so, why?,” was used to
capture public employees’ turnover intention. Response options for the question are as
follows: (1) no, (2) yes, to retire, (3) yes, to take another job within the federal
government, (4) yes, to take another job outside the federal government, and (5) yes,
other.
This study focused on voluntary turnover, and thus only the responses that relate
to voluntary exit were considered in the analysis. Voluntary turnover is particularly worth
attention in the sense that “[it] means the loss of talented employees by their own choice”
(Lee and Hong, 2011, p. 875). Therefore, only respondents who answered either ‘no,’
‘yes, to take another job within the federal government,’ and ‘yes, to take another job
outside the federal government’ were included in the analysis. The response of ‘yes,
6
For example, metropolitan statistical area is composed of “the geographic area of an
employee's official duty station, where the geographic area consists of a city and the surrounding
counties (or portions of counties) that are economically and socially linked to that city, as defined
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)”
(http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/datadefn/index.asp#msa).
61
other’ was excluded from analysis since it was not certain what it means. In addition, the
response of ‘yes, to retire’ was excluded since retirement may not be voluntary but could
also be involuntary; for example, retirement due to ill health (Beehr, 1986). Furthermore,
even though it is often voluntary, retirement should be differentiated from other types of
voluntary turnover. This is because a strong driving force for employee retirement is “a
desire to try something else before it [is] too late,” and thus the determinants of
retirement are likely to be different than those of other types of voluntary turnover
(Hibbing, 1982, p. 71). For such reasons, this study excluded the response of ‘yes, to
retire’ from analysis. The response of ‘no’ was coded as 0 (i.e., having no turnover
intention); the responses of ‘yes, to take another job within the federal government,’ and
‘yes, to take another job outside the federal government’ were coded as 1 (i.e., having
turnover intention). Total 178,583 respondents answered that they do not consider
leaving their organization and was thus coded as 0. The number of respondents who was
considering leaving for another job within the federal government or outside the federal
government was 42,317 and 5,231, respectively: thus, total 47,548 responses were coded
as 1. In the sample, the percents of respondents with no intention to leave their
organization versus with voluntary turnover intention were 79 percent versus 21 percent.
Organizational Ethics
In order to measure the primary explanatory variable, organizational ethics, three
survey questions were used. The questions were measured by a five-point Likert-type
scale with 1 as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly agree. These questions are as follows:
62
“arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political purposes are not
tolerated,” “prohibited personnel practices (for example, illegally discriminating for or
against any employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s right to compete for employment,
knowingly violating veterans’ preference requirements) are not tolerated,” and “I can
disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.”
Organizational ethics was measured by computing the mean value of responses to these
questions. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.84.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment was measured using two questions: “I recommend
my organization as a good place to work,” and “in my organization, leaders generate high
levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce.” The questions are based on a
five-point Likert-type scale with 1 as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly agree.
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.78. This study recognizes that measurement of
organizational commitment using these two survey questions is somewhat limited. Yet,
this is not unusual when using secondary data such as FEVS that were specifically
designed for certain purposes other than academic research (Lee and Whitford, 2008).
Future research should utilize a well-developed scale to measure organizational
commitment – for example, the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by
Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974).
63
Employee Satisfaction
Three facets of employee satisfaction with their job experiences – i.e., work
satisfaction, pay satisfaction, and satisfaction with work-life balance practices – were
included as control variables in the model. First, work satisfaction was constructed from
the following five survey questions: “my work gives me a feeling of personal
accomplishment,” “I like the kind of work I do,” “my workload is reasonable,” “my
talents are used well in the workplace,” and “the work I do is important.” All questions
are based on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 as strongly disagree to 5 as
strongly agree. Since all questions were measured based on a five-point scale and show
internal consistency ( = 0.76), this study used the mean value for these questions as a
measure of work satisfaction. Next, pay satisfaction was measured with a single item,
“considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?” The question was
measured with a five-point Likert-type scale with 1 as very dissatisfied and 5 as very
satisfied.
Finally, satisfaction with work-life balance practices was measured by the mean
value of responses to the following questions: “my supervisor supports my need to
balance work and other life issues,” “senior leaders demonstrate support for work/life
programs,” “how satisfied are you with the following work/life programs in your
agency… Telework?; Alternative Work Schedules (AWS)?; Health and Wellness
Programs (for example, exercise, medical screening, quit smoking programs)?; and
64
Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
7
?” The first two questions were measured by a
five-point Likert-type scale with 1 as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly agree. The
questions on satisfaction with work/life programs are based on a five-point Likert-type
scale with 1 as very dissatisfied and 5 as very satisfied. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale
was 0.78.
Demographic Characteristics
Individual demographic characteristics – i.e., supervisory status, gender, race, and
age – were also included as control variables. Supervisory status was categorized into
three groups as classified in the survey: non-supervisor/ team leader, supervisor,
manager/ executive. According to the 2010 FEVS codebook, a non-supervisor does not
supervise other employees; a team leader also does not have supervisory responsibilities
but provides employees with day-to-day guidance in work projects; a supervisor
supervises other employees but not other supervisors; a manager has supervisory
responsibilities for one or more supervisors; an executive is a member of Senior
7
In addition the survey items described here, there were two other survey items asked
about employee satisfaction with child care programs (for example, daycare, parenting classes,
and parenting support groups) and elder care programs (for example, support groups and
speakers). However, this study did not include the two survey questions because the two
questions had more missing responses and/or less informative responses. For example, while the
number of respondents to the question asking about satisfaction with alternative work schedules
was 180,501 out of 226,131 (approximately 80 percent), the number of respondents to the
question about elder care programs was 82,463 out of 226,131 (about 36 percent). In addition, the
majority of respondents who responded to the two questions (i.e., about child care programs and
elder care programs) provided a less informative response: that is, more than 60 percent of
respondents to these questions answered that they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the
programs. In sum, the analysis results indicate that the two questions on these two work/life
programs apply to only some of the respondents. Therefore, this study did not take into account
the two questions when constructing the variable of satisfaction with work-life balance practices.
65
Executive Service or equivalent. Based on the definition in the codebook, this study
coded supervisory status into a dichotomous variable: viz., non-supervisory status versus
supervisory status. Respondents who answered non-supervisor/ team leader were coded
as 0, while respondents who answered supervisor or manager/ executive were coded as 1.
Gender was coded as 0 for male and 1 for female. Regarding race, the 2010 FEVS
classifies respondents into two groups: minority and non-minority. Race was coded as 0
for non-minority and as 1 for minority. Finally, age was categorized into five groups as
defined in a survey question, “what is your age group?”: respondents who answered ‘29
and under’ was coded as 1, ’30-39’ as 2, ’40-49’ as 3, ’50-59’ as 4, and ’60 or older’ as 5.
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance
Federal Agency Performance
The dependent variable for the second research question is federal agency
performance. Assessing organizational performance is important for every organization,
regardless of the sector: performance monitoring provides managers with information on
how the organization is doing and what needs to be done in order to perform better and
ultimately to better achieve organizational goals (Halachmi and Bouckaert, 1996).
Furthermore, in the public sector, “with the growing demand for government to be more
responsive, accountable, and frugal with resources, performance measurement is in the
limelight” (Halachmi and Bouckaert, 1996, p. 1). However, despite great attention from
public management scholars and public managers alike, there is not yet a clear and
66
agreed-upon set of criteria to measure organizational performance (Halachmi and
Bouckaert, 1996; Rainey, 2003).
Following recent studies in public management (e.g., Lee and Hong, 2011; Lee
and Whitford, 2012), this study used each agency’s Performance and Accountability
Report (PAR) and measured federal agency performance in terms of the level of goal
achievement. PARs for fiscal years 2007, 2009, and 2011 were used to collect data for
federal agency performance. As previously mentioned, each federal agency in the PAR
describes its annual goals as well as its annual performance indicators. PAR also reports
progress in meeting the annual goals by suggesting if its actual performance results
exceeded, met, or failed to meet the performance indicators. Using such information in
each federal agency’s PAR, this study measured organizational performance by the ratio
of exceeded or met organizational performance indicators to total annual performance
indicators. In some PARs, there were performance indicators that were not assessed, and
these were not included in the number of total annual performance indicators counted.
Although the number of performance indicators varied depending on agencies, the
average number of indicators in sample agencies was around forty. Performance data
were available for 42 agencies, 40 agencies, and 35 agencies for the fiscal years 2007,
2009, and 2011, respectively. Thus, a total 117 of federal agencies’ performance data
were acquired
8
.
8
Note that this study pooled three years of data to obtain a large enough sample of
agencies. As there were overlaps in the agencies included in the data for the three separate years,
the 117 federal agencies in the sample are not all distinct agencies: 23 agencies provided data in
all three years, 17 agencies appeared in two of the three years, and 14 agencies were observed just
one time in the three years. Despite this overlap, since the agencies were assessed in different
67
Organizational Ethics
FHCS/FEVS for years 2006, 2008, and 2010 were used to measure organizational
ethics. The survey questions used to measure organizational ethics at the individual level
were also used at the agency-level: “arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for
partisan political purposes are not tolerated,” “prohibited personnel practices (for
example, illegally discriminating for or against any employee/applicant, obstructing a
person’s right to compete for employment, knowingly violating veterans’ preference
requirements) are not tolerated,” and “I can disclose a suspected violation of any law,
rule, or regulation without fear of reprisal.” Agency-level Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment was measured using two survey items: “I recommend
my organization as a good place to work,” and “in my organization, leaders generate high
levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce.” Agency-level Cronbach’s alpha
was 0.91.
years, the separate assessments were treated as different observations. One major concern when
using pooled data like this is serial correlation: that is, “errors tend to be nonindependent from
one time period to the next. This is because observations and the traits that characterize them tend
to be interdependent across time” (Hicks, 1994, p. 172). Serial correlation generates biased
standard errors and thereby may lead to inaccurate hypothesis testing. Thus, in order to minimize
the influence of the previous year, data were collected from alternating rather than consecutive
years. In addition, a formal test for serial correlation was performed using the Durbin-Watson
(DW) statistic. This statistic ranges from 0 to 4, with a score close to 2 indicating no serial
correlation; a DW statistic much less than 2 indicates positive serial correlation and much greater
than 2 indicates negative serial correlation (Studenmund, 2006). The DW statistic for this study
was 1.96, indicating that serial correlation is not a serious concern in this study. Other studies that
have employed pooled data with overlap among the agencies include Lee and Hong (2011) and
Stazyk, Davis, and Liang (2012).
68
Turnover Intention Rate
Turnover intention rate in a federal agency was measured by using responses to the
following survey item: “are you considering leaving your organization next year, and if
so, why?” Response options given in the question are as follows: (1) no, (2) yes, to retire,
(3) yes, to take another job within the federal government, (4) yes, to take another job
outside the federal government, and (5) yes, other.
Only respondents who answered either ‘yes, to take another job within the federal
government’ or ‘yes, to take another job outside the federal government’ were considered
as having voluntary turnover intention. The responses of ‘yes, to retire’ and ‘yes, other’
were not categorized as having an intention for voluntary turnover because of the reasons
explained previously in the individual level study. Thus, turnover intention rate of an
agency was measured by dividing the number of respondents with voluntary turnover
intention (i.e., leaving to take another job within or outside the federal government) by
the number of total respondents in the agency.
Turnover Rate
As mentioned previously in the data sources section, agency turnover rate was
calculated using data from the Federal Human Resource Database (Fedscope). Among
various types of employee separation from an agency
9
, this study focused on quits and
individual transfers because these are the options that public employees can take for
9
The Federal Human Resource Database website describes various types of employee
separation from an agency: for example, retirement, quits, individual transfer, mass transfer (i.e.,
“transfer-out of a group whose function was moved to another agency”), reductions-in-force,
removal, and death (http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/datadefn/index.asp#separations).
69
voluntary turnover. Retirement could be an option for voluntary exit, but as was
discussed previously in the individual level study, retirement should be differentiated
from other types of voluntary turnover. Thus, agency turnover rate was computed by
dividing the number of employees that quitted or individually transferred by the average
total number of employees in a certain fiscal year. Agency turnover rate data were
collected for fiscal years 2007, 2009, and 2011.
Control Variables
This study included pay satisfaction as a control variable. Pay satisfaction was
measured with a single survey item, “considering everything, how satisfied are you with
your pay?” The question was measured with a five-point Likert-type scale with 1 as very
dissatisfied and 5 as very satisfied.
In addition to pay satisfaction, this study also included two structural properties of
organizations as control variables: i.e., organizational size and organizational tenure.
Organizational size was included as a control variable “to consider the tendency of larger
[organizations] to achieve better performance” (Chun et al., p. 865). Organizational size
was calculated by taking the log of the total number of employees in each agency. Dewar
and Hage (1978) explain the advantage of using the log rather than actual size as follows:
“the log of size [the total number of employees] almost always had a stronger relationship
with other variables. In order therefore to present the strongest possible case for size as
well as to correct for skewness we have used the log” (p. 135). For similar reasons,
agency size was computed for this study by taking the log of the total number of
70
employees in agencies. In addition, organizational tenure was measured as the average
number of years employees have worked in the agency.
Split-Group Design as an Analytic Strategy for the Agency-Level Study
While the level of analysis is the agency, some of the study variables – i.e.,
organizational ethics, organizational commitment, and turnover intention rate – were
constructed using individual-level survey data. In other words, this study utilized
aggregated individual-level responses for agency-level analysis. As Ostroff, Kinicki, and
Clark (2002) point out, when data are aggregated to a higher level of analysis, the
following issues should be addressed. First, there should be more than eight respondents
in an agency. The cutoff of eight respondents was chosen because “previous research has
demonstrated that the biases in using aggregate scores diminish with groups of eight or
more employees” (Ostroff et al., 2002, p. 360; Bliese and Halverson, 1998). In this study,
all 117 agencies in the sample had more than eight respondents. Thus, there was no
reduction in sample size based on this criterion.
In addition, in order to reduce potential response bias effects in aggregated data,
this study employed the split-group design suggested by Ostroff et al. (2002). According
to them, “splitting the sample in two and using half of the sample to provide measures of
one construct and the other half of the sample to provide measures of the second
construct is a viable alternative for minimizing response bias effects” (p. 363). Thus,
adopting the split-group design, this study randomly assigned employees in a federal
agency into one of the two sub-groups – i.e., subgroup A and subgroup B. Responses
71
from subgroup A were used to measure organizational ethics and pay satisfaction, and
responses from subgroup B were utilized to acquire data for organizational commitment
and turnover intention rate. This separation of data sources for explanatory and mediating
variables helps not only reduce common method bias but also minimize the threat of
multicollinearity (Du and Choi, 2010), and thus make the findings more robust. Previous
studies that adopt split-group design include Choi (2009) and Chun et al. (2013).
Model Estimation
Individual-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention
Since the dependent variable of public employee’s turnover intention is
dichotomous, this study utilized binary logistic regression to analyze the hypothesized
relationships. Binary logistic regression is a very robust method for analyzing
dichotomous dependent variables (Agresti, 2007).
In addition, since there is a mediator in the model, this study conducted a
mediation analysis by employing steps proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), which is
“[t]he most widely used method to assess mediation” (MacKinnon, 2008, p. 68). The
three equations in Figure 4-1 are used to investigate mediation, where Y* is the
dependent variable, X is the independent variable, M is the mediator, and i
i
and e
i
are
intercept and residual of each equation, respectively (MacKinnon, 2008, p. 303). The
upper path diagram is “a total effect model [that] represents the total relation between X
and Y without consideration of other variables,” while the lower diagram is a mediation
model “where there is an underlying mediation relation of X to M to Y” (MacKinnon,
72
2008, p. 48). In the lower diagram, “a relation of X to Y that is not though M” is the
direct effect of X on Y, and a relation of X to Y through M is the mediated effect
(MacKinnon, 2008, p. 48).
FIGURE 4-1. Path Diagrams and Equations for the Mediation Model
Baron and Kenny (1986) suggest that the following conditions should be met in
order for a mediating effect to exist: (1) “the independent variable (X) must affect the
dependent variable (Y), as indicated by coefficient c ˆ in equation [1]”; (2) “the
Independent
Variable
X
Dependent
Variable
Y*
c
Y*=i
1
+ cX+ e
1
…………(1)
Independent
Variable
X
Mediator
M
Dependent
Variable
Y*
C’
a b
Y*=i
2
+ c’X+ bM+ e
2
…...(2)
M=i 3 + aX+ e 3 ………………(3)
Source: MacKinnon (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis, p.303
73
independent variable (X) must affect the mediator (M), evaluated by coefficient a ˆ in
equation [3]”; (3) “the mediator (M) must affect the dependent variable (Y) when the
independent variable (X) is controlled, coefficient b
ˆ
in equation [2]”; and (4) the effect of
the independent variable (X) on the dependent variable (Y) must diminish when the
mediator is included in the model (i.e., c ˆ > c ˆ ) (MacKinnon, 2008, pp. 68-69). Non-
satisfaction of any of the four conditions indicates that mediating effects do not exist. If
all the conditions are met and the effect of the independent variable with the mediator
taken into account (i.e., c ˆ in equation 2) is statistically significant, then the effect of the
independent variable is only partially mediated by the mediator. In contrast, if all the
conditions are met and c ˆ is statistically not significant, then the effect of the independent
variable is completely mediated by the mediator (Baron and Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon,
2008).
Two methods can be used in order to quantify the mediated effect in logistic
regression: one is “the difference in the independent variable coefficients, c ˆ - c ˆ ,” and the
other is based on “the product of coefficients, a ˆ b
ˆ
” (MacKinnon, 2008, p. 304). However,
it is important to note that in logistic regression where the residual variance is fixed, “the
scaling of the c ˆ and c ˆ coefficients differs across equations” (MacKinnon, 2008, p. 314).
Therefore, the first method ( c ˆ - c ˆ ) is incorrect “unless model parameters are
standardized” (MacKinnon, 2008, p. 321). In contrast, the a ˆ b
ˆ
method is “not susceptible
to the scaling problem as only the b
ˆ
coefficient is from a logistic regression analysis”
(MacKinnon, 2008, p. 321). Simulation studies such as MacKinnon and Dwyer (1993)
74
also suggested that a ˆ b
ˆ
is a better estimate than c ˆ - c ˆ in calculating mediation effects in
logistic regression. When the logistic regression coefficients are standardized, the c ˆ - c ˆ
estimate is comparable to the a ˆ b
ˆ
estimate (MacKinnon, 2008).
The proportion of the total effect that is mediated can be measured through one of
the three methods: 1- ( c ˆ / c ˆ ), a ˆ b
ˆ
/ c ˆ , and a ˆ b
ˆ
/( c ˆ + a ˆ b
ˆ
). However, as is the case with the
estimate of the mediated effects, because of the scaling problem in the logistic regression,
the first two measures are incorrect unless the coefficients are standardized. In contrast,
a ˆ b
ˆ
/( c ˆ + a ˆ b
ˆ
) measure yields the same results whether or not the logistic regression
coefficients are standardized, “because the coefficients in the numerator, b
ˆ
, are
standardized by the same values as the coefficients in the denominator, b
ˆ
and c ˆ ”
(MacKinnon, 2008, p. 315). Therefore, this study uses the a ˆ b
ˆ
method to assess the
mediated effect and the a ˆ b
ˆ
/( c ˆ + a ˆ b
ˆ
) method to estimate the proportion mediated.
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance
In order to investigate the effect of organizational ethics on federal agency
performance, this study used structural equation modeling (SEM) with full information
maximum likelihood estimation (FIML). SEM is an appropriate technique for this study
since “it allows [a simultaneous] estimation of multiple associations, incorporates
observed and latent constructs in these associations, and accounts for the biasing effects
of random measurement error in the latent construct” (Al-Yahya, 2009, pp. 398- 400).
75
While SEM requires complete data with no missing values, that is typically not
the case in social science research and this study was no exception. Thus, FIML was
utilized in order to deal with the incomplete data. FIML estimates “multiple maximum
likelihood equations simultaneously and includes information from the conditional
covariance among all model variables into the model parameter estimates” (Morgeson,
2012, p. 9). By doing so, FIML “generates asymptotically unbiased parameter estimates,
and the estimates are efficient” (Zhong and Yuan, 2011, p. 230). Simulation studies have
also suggested that FIML outperforms traditional missing data techniques such as listwise
deletion or pairwise deletion (Arbuckle, 1996; Enders and Bandalos, 2001; Peters and
Enders, 2002). FIML is the most popular method for handling missing data in structural
equation modeling studies (Zhong and Yuan, 2011).
One might be concerned about the modest sample size used in this study (n=117).
SEM is a technique that requires a large sample size “to maintain power and obtain stable
parameter estimates and standard errors” (Schumacker and Lomax, 2010, p. 41). A
relatively small sample size might result in underestimation of model fit (Hu and Bentler,
1995). Although there is no single answer regarding what is a big enough sample size, “a
‘typical’ sample size in studies where SEM is used is about 200 cases” (Kline, 2011, p.
12). Thus, the modest sample size (n= 117) might cause a concern about the
appropriateness of using SEM in this study. However, as Ding, Velicer, and Harlow
(1995) described in their research, numerous studies are in agreement that 100 to 150
subjects are acceptable as a minimum sample size when conducting SEM analysis: thus,
76
the sample size in this study satisfies the recommended minimum sample size in terms of
absolute number.
A recent simulation study by Nevitt and Hancock (2004) also provides support for
using SEM with a small or moderate sample size. Their study demonstrated that SEM
yields robust test statistics when maximum likelihood is used as the estimation method
and “[the] sample size [is] large enough such that n: q [the sample size to parameter ratio]
≥ 2:1” (p. 469). In this study, even if all variables including control variables are included
in the model, the sample size to parameter ratio is about 2.9:1, exceeding the ratio of 2:1
suggested by Nevitt and Hancock (2004). Therefore, based on the discussion here, it is
reasonable to say that the sample size of this study should not be of great concern.
SEM is performed by following two typical steps (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
First, the measurement model is tested by running confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
This step examines “the relationships between latent (unobserved) variables and their
underlying observed variables” (Thomson, Perry, and Miller, 2009, p. 33). CFA enables a
test, for instance, of whether the factor of organizational ethics is well constructed by the
specified subset of variables (i.e., the three survey item variables). Thus, CFA helps
confirm that “the tested models include highly coherent constructs that are clearly defined
and measured” (Vigoda, 2002, p. 256; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993). The second step tests
a structural model: that is, “causal relationships between and among the unobserved
(latent) variables” (Thomson et al., 2009, p. 34). This second step provides information
on the hypothesized relationships among variables.
77
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings of the individual and agency level analyses. As
for the individual level study, results of a test for common method bias are first
presented. For a study that utilizes a single source for data collection, a test for common
method bias is recommended since the existence of this bias may influence the
correlations between variables and thus lead to false results. Harman’s single factor test
was used in order to detect common method bias. Then, the descriptive statistics and
correlations among the variables are presented. Although correlations between variables
were below the threshold value of 0.7, correlations between some variables were quite
high, causing a concern about multicollinearity. Thus, a formal test for multicollinearity
detection was conducted using variance inflation factors, and the results are also reported.
Finally, the regression estimates of the turnover intention model are presented and
hypotheses are tested.
For the agency level study, descriptive statistics and correlations between
variables are first presented. Then, the results of structural equation modeling are
reported: in the test of the measurement model, the model fit was examined using fit
indices and the convergent and discriminant validity of the model were also tested. As for
the structural model, the model fit was assessed by the same set of fit indices used in the
measurement model. Next, three alternative models were compared to the hypothesized
structural model in order to check whether the data can be better explained by another
theoretically plausible model. Using a chi-square difference test, the best-fitting model
was selected and the hypotheses were tested based on the final structural model.
78
Individual-level Study: Organizational Ethics and Turnover Intention
Test for Common Method Bias
Before proceeding to the analysis of employee turnover intention, a first step was
to conduct a test for common method bias. Common method bias (CMB) is defined as
“systematic error variance shared among variables measured with and introduced as a
function of the same method and/or source” (Richardson, Simmering, and Sturman, 2009,
p. 763). Since all the variables used in the individual level analysis were taken from a
single survey (i.e., the 2010 FHCS), CMB might influence the results of this study.
However, as Richardson et al. (2009) point out, perspectives on the likelihood of
CMB vary across scholars.
10
Some scholars argue that CMB does not exist and thus does
not influence relationships among variables obtained from mono source data. For
example, Spector (2006) asserts that CMB is “an urban legend, and the time has come to
retire the idea and the term” (p. 228). Spector (2006) does not deny that methods can
influence measurement but doubts the assumption of counterpart scholars that “method
alone is sufficient to produce bias” (Richardson et al., 2009, p. 765). A meta-analysis by
Crampton and Wagner (1994) provides support for Spector’s (2006) argument: their
meta-analysis of 581 studies reported that, in most cases, correlations between variables
are not inflated by CMB. Their findings suggest that, in contrast to the concerns about the
pervasiveness of inflation, CMB inflation “may be more the exception than the rule in
microresearch on organizations” (Crampton and Wagner, 1994, p. 72).
10
The discussion of different perspectives on CMB in this and the following paragraph is
based on Richardson et al. (2009).
79
Other scholars argue that CMB exists in mono source data and influences
relationships among variables acquired from such data. According to this perspective,
CMB is problematic because it influences correlations between variables and results in
false correlations; thus, studies with CMB have the possibility of reporting incorrect
results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff, 2003). For instance, according to
Podsakoff et al. (2003), studies that examine the influence of CMB on relationships
between variables have found that “[although] the magnitude of the bias produced by the
method factors varies across research contexts, … on average, the amount of variance
accounted for when common method variance was present was approximately 35%
versus approximately 11% when it was not present” (p. 880). A recent study by Meier
and O’Toole (2012) in the public sector also suggests that CMB can yield spurious
results.
Whether CMB is a rare or pervasive phenomenon in mono source data, the fact
remains that we do not know whether or not CMB exists in our data. Thus, as
researchers, we should make efforts in the research design process to avoid concerns
about CMB; in addition, researchers should be able to provide readers post hoc evidence
that CMB is not a serious concern in their study (Richardson et al., 2009). As a priori
procedural remedies to control for CMB, Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggest several
approaches. First, the key to control for CMB at the procedural stage is to create a
research design that can remove or at least minimize the connection between the
measures for independent and dependent variables. In this vein, they suggest that using
separate sources to acquire data for independent and dependent variables helps control for
80
CMB. If obtaining data from separate sources is not possible, researchers may acquire
data from a single source but with a time lag between measurements for the independent
and dependent variables.
Another way to control for CMB, according to Podsakoff et al. (2003), is to
ensure respondents that all responses will remain anonymous, that there are no right or
wrong answers, and that their honest answers are important: this procedure helps “reduce
people’s evaluation apprehension and make them less likely to edit their responses to be
more socially desirable, lenient, acquiescent, and consistent with how they think the
researcher wants them to respond” (p. 888). Besides these procedures, researchers may
also reduce the risk of CMB by improving scale items. For instance, a possible method
bias from commonality in scale endpoints can be eliminated by using different scale
endpoints for measurement of independent and dependent variables. In addition, knowing
that bipolar numerical scales (e.g., -3 to +3) tend to cause acquiescence bias, researchers
can reduce such bias by not using bipolar numerical scales.
Since the FEVS used in this study was not conducted by the researcher of this
study but was administered by the OPM, the researcher did not have control over the
design of the survey in order to ensure the a priori procedural remedies. However, the
FEVS did incorporate some of the suggested remedies. For instance, the FEVS keeps the
responses anonymous, avoids using bipolar numerical scales, and the measurement scale
for our dependent variable was different from the measurement scale for the independent
variables. Specifically, the measurement for the dependent variable (i.e., turnover
intention) used a categorical scale with different options (e.g., not leaving, retiring,
81
leaving for another job in the federal government, leaving for another job outside the
federal government) while the measurement for the independent variables used an
interval scale ranging from 1 (e.g., very unlikely) to 5 (e.g., very likely). These
procedures presumably contribute to the reduction of CMB.
In addition to efforts to control for CMB at the research design stage, researchers
should also examine the possible influence of CMB. As a test for CMB detection,
Harman’s single factor test is one of the most commonly used post hoc statistical tests
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Harman’s single factor test conducts a factor analysis for
all variables used in the model and examines if there is only one factor extracted or if a
single general factor explains most of the variance between measures: if one of these two
results is observed, then it is assumed that there is a substantial CMB in the data
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). For this study, an un-rotated principal components factor
analysis was performed: three factors (with eigenvalues greater than 1) were extracted as
a result of the factor analysis, and the first un-rotated factor explained only about 40
percent of the variance, which is “below the maximum threshold of 50 percent” (Taylor,
2013, p. 458). Thus, CMB was not a serious concern in this study.
Findings
Table 5-1 provides descriptive statistics for and correlations among the variables used in
this study. The correlation analysis suggests that public employees’ turnover intention is
negatively related to the primary explanatory variable, organizational ethics. Turnover
82
TABLE 5-1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Individual-Level Study)
Mean S.D. Min. Max. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Turnover Intention .210 .407 0 1
2. Organizational Ethics 3.654 .999 1 5 -.295
3. Organizational Commitment 3.576 .990 1 5 -.379 .700
4. Work Satisfaction 3.901 .705 1 5 -.352 .547 .664
5. Pay Satisfaction 3.774 1.063 1 5 -.228 .343 .358 .347
6. Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance Practices 3.649 .716 1 5 -.281 .560 .617 .520 .395
7. Supervisory Status .280 .449 0 1 -.039 .189 .121 .095 .096 .061
8. Gender .480 .499 0 1 .008 -.084 -.024 -.019 -.016 .032 -.128
9. Minority .334 .472 0 1 .061 -.111 -.020 .010 -.081 .001 -.076 .154
10. Age Group 3.331 1.021 1 5 -.112 -.016 -.007 .042 .015 -.001 .148 -.055 -.058
Note: correlations are significant at the 0.01 level except those marked by "a".
a
a
83
intention also has negative relationships with the mediating variable of organizational
commitment and with the three facets of employee satisfaction (i.e., work satisfaction,
pay satisfaction, and satisfaction with work-life balance practices).
Although correlations between the examined variables do not exceed the
threshold value of 0.7, correlation coefficients for some variables are quite high and
cause concern for multicollinearity (Studenmund, 2006). Therefore, by using variance
inflation factors (VIFs), this study conducted a more formal test for multicollinearity
detection. Although there is no agreed-upon cutoff, VIF greater than 5 is in general
considered as a “cause for concern” and VIF greater than 10 “almost certainly indicates a
serious collinearity problem” (Menard, 2002, p. 76). The results suggested that the VIFs
of all predictor variables are well below 3. Therefore, multicollinearity is not a serious
concern in this study.
Table 5-2 reports the regression estimates for equations (1), (2), and (3). Model 1
assessed the impact of the independent variable (i.e., organizational ethics) on the
dependent variable, turnover intention. Next, model 2 examined the effects of both the
independent variable (i.e., organizational ethics) and mediating variable (i.e.,
organizational commitment) on the dependent variable. Since the dependent variable of
turnover intention in model 1 and model 2 is dichotomous, binary logistic regression was
used to test the two models. Finally, model 3 tested the effects of independent variables
on the mediator, organizational commitment. This model was tested by linear regression
analysis.
84
TABLE 5-2. Results of Regression of Turnover Intention on Organizational Ethics and Organizational Commitment
Organizational Commitment
Robust Odds Robust Odds
S.E. Ratio S.E. Ratio S.E.
Explanatory Variables
Organizational Ethics -.293 .022 .746 *** -.064 .019 .938 *** .385 *** .006
Control Variables I: Facets of Employee Satisfaction
Work Satisfaction -.784 .035 .456 *** -.517 .032 .596 *** .456 *** .008
Pay Satisfaction -.233 .012 .793 *** -.222 .012 .801 *** .033 *** .003
Satisfaction with Work-Life Balance Practices -.320 .045 .726 *** -.141 .047 .869 ** .286 *** .010
Control Variables II: Demographics
Supervisory Status .249 .033 1.283 *** .246 .033 1.279 *** -.010 .009
Gender -.027 .038 .974 -.034 .038 .967 .000 .008
Minority .251 .028 1.286 *** .281 .029 1.324 *** .030 *** .007
Age -.334 .026 .716 *** -.351 .027 .704 *** -.014 *** .003
Mediating Variable
Organizational Commitment -.596 .020 .551 ***
F-value 11589.300 ***
Log likelihood -33889.674 -32945.932
Wald Chi-Square 12940.418 *** 12149.231 ***
N 82940 82400 82400
Note: model 1 and 2 were tested by binary logistic regression; model 3 was tested by linear regression;
*p<.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; agency-specific effects included
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Dependent Variables
Model 1 (Equation 1) Model 2 (Equation 2) Model 3 (Equation 3)
Turnover Intention Turnover Intention
Robust
2
R
85
The results from logistic regression can be easily interpreted by the odds ratios.
Odds ratios (OR) are calculated as the exponential of logistic regression coefficients (
e )
and can be interpreted as the change in the likelihood of a dependent variable when an
independent variable changes by one standard deviation. An odds ratio greater than 1
indicates that an increase in an independent variable leads to an increase in the likelihood
of the dependent variable, while an odds ratio less than 1 indicates a decrease in the
likelihood of the dependent variable. If the odds ratio is 1, then changes in the
independent variable do not influence the likelihood of the dependent variable.
Hypothesis 1 – that is, organizational ethics is negatively associated with public
employees’ turnover intention – was supported by the results. As anticipated, a public
employee who has positive perception on ethical practices of her organization was less
likely than others to intend to leave her current job. Specifically, a one standard deviation
increase in the level of organizational ethics decreased the odds of a public employee
intending to leave by 25.4 % (OR=0.746).
Hypothesis 2 predicted the mediating effect of organizational commitment in the
process of organizational ethics influencing the dependent variable, namely public
employees’ turnover intentions. The mediating effect of organizational commitment was
assessed by applying the previously discussed steps suggested by Baron and Kenny
(1986) to the three models in Table 5-2. The results suggest that hypothesis 2 is
supported. First, organizational ethics was significantly associated with the dependent
variable of turnover intention in model 1. Next, model 3 reported that organizational
ethics is significantly related to the mediating variable of organizational commitment.
86
Third, in model 2, organizational commitment was significantly related to turnover
intention. Finally, comparing model 1 and model 2, the impact of organizational ethics on
turnover intention diminished when organizational commitment was included in the
model. Thus, the relationship between organizational ethics and turnover intention was
partially mediated by organizational commitment.
Of the total impact of organizational ethics on turnover intention, what is the
proportion mediated by organizational commitment? This proportion was assessed using
the previously discussed a ˆ b
ˆ
/( c ˆ + a ˆ b
ˆ
) method, which yields an identical result whether
or not the logistic regression coefficients are standardized. For organizational ethics, the
proportion mediated by organizational commitment was approximately 78.2 percent (
0.385*(-0.596)/[-0.064+(0.385*-0.596)]). That is, over three-fourth of the effect of
organizational ethics on turnover intention was mediated by organizational commitment.
The analysis results also provided support for the negative effects on employee
turnover intention of the three facets of employee satisfaction – i.e., work satisfaction,
pay satisfaction, and satisfaction with work-life balance practices. A one standard
deviation increase in work satisfaction, pay satisfaction, and satisfaction with work-life
balance practices decreased public employees’ turnover intentions by 54.4 percent, 21.7
percent, and 27.4 percent, respectively.
In addition, the expectation that the impact of the three facets of employee
satisfaction on turnover intention is mediated by organizational commitment was also
supported. In model 1, the three facets of employee satisfaction were all significantly
related to turnover intention. Next, in model 3, the three facets of employee satisfaction
87
were significantly associated with organizational commitment. Then, in model 2,
organizational commitment had a significant relationship with turnover intention. Finally,
comparing model 1 and model 2, all facets of employee satisfaction reported diminished
effects on turnover intention when organizational commitment was controlled. Thus, the
relationship between the three facets of employee satisfaction and turnover intention was
partially mediated by organizational commitment. Specifically, about 34.5 percent of the
impact of work satisfaction on turnover intention was mediated by organizational
commitment; likewise, organizational commitment mediated the effects of pay
satisfaction and satisfaction with work-life balance practices by about 8.1 percent and
54.7 percent, respectively.
All demographic control variables except gender had statistically significant
relationships with public employees’ turnover intentions. Public employees in
supervisory status are more likely than those in non-supervisory status to consider leaving
their current jobs. In addition, employees from minority groups were more likely than
non-minority employees to have turnover intentions. Finally, older employees were less
likely than younger employees to have intentions to leave their current job. The effects of
minority status and age were mediated by organizational commitment, while commitment
did not mediate the influence of supervisory status on turnover intention.
In sum, the findings suggest that organizational ethics decrease the likelihood of
public employees considering leaving their current jobs. In addition, the relationship
between organizational ethics and turnover intention is partially mediated by
88
organizational commitment. That is, organizational commitment accounts for some
portion of the effect of organizational ethics on public employees’ turnover intentions.
Agency-Level Study: Organizational Ethics and Federal Agency Performance
Table 5-3 below provides descriptive statistics for and correlations among the
variables used in the agency-level analysis. The correlation matrix suggests that the
independent variable of organizational ethics is positively correlated with agency
performance. Organizational ethics was also correlated with two of three mediators:
organizational ethics was positively correlated with organizational commitment and had a
negative correlation with turnover intention rate. However, organizational ethics was not
correlated with the mediator of turnover rate.
Among the three mediators, only organizational commitment had a significant
correlation with agency performance. Turnover intention rate and actual turnover rate
were not correlated with agency performance. In addition, organizational commitment
was negatively correlated with turnover intention rate; turnover intention rate was
positively correlated with actual turnover rate.
As for control variables, pay satisfaction was positively correlated with the
primary explanatory variable of organizational ethics and the dependent variable of
federal agency performance. Pay satisfaction also had a positive correlation with
organizational commitment and negative correlations with turnover intention rate and
actual turnover rate. Next, agency size was positively correlated with organizational
ethics and with pay satisfaction, and negatively correlated with actual turnover rate.
89
Finally, organizational tenure had negative correlations with turnover intention rate and
actual turnover rate.
TABLE 5-3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Agency-Level Study)
The Measurement Model
As a first step of SEM, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. CFA
assesses whether specified subsets of variables (i.e., particular survey items
11
) well define
the pre-specified factors of organizational ethics and organizational commitment. A two-
correlated-factor model was tested with five survey items. In order to assess the model fit,
this study tested several fit indices: the Chi-square statistic, comparative fit index (CFI),
incremental fit index (IFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA). First, the Chi-square statistic (“technically a measure of
badness of fit”; Schumacker and Lomax, 2010, p. 172) was not significant— i.e.,
2
(df=
11
The survey items used to measure organizational ethics and organizational commitment
were described previously in the variable measurement section (p.67).
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Agency Performance .723 .156
2. Organizational Ethics 3.521 .222 .254 *
3. Organizational Commitment 3.391 .353 .389 * .706 *
4. Turnover Intention Rate .186 .048 -.147 -.335 * -.349 *
5. Actual Turnover Rate .064 .037 -.048 .035 -.007 .412 *
6. Pay Satisfaction 3.612 .218 .344 * .413 * .424 * -.358 * -.323 *
7. Agency Size 7.955 2.469 .096 .227 * .155 -.099 -.322 * .359 *
8. Organizational Tenure 15.472 3.169 .113 -.116 -.069 -.519 * -.433 * .172 -.148
Note: p <.01
Variable
90
4) = 3.755, p= 0.440; thus, the Chi-square statistic indicated that the fit of the specified
confirmatory model is good.
Next, CFI, IFI and NFI at or above 0.9 is considered as indicating acceptable
model fit; and when the values for these indices are above 0.95, the model fit is
considered as good. In this study, these three model fit indices had values greater than
0.95 (CFI= 1.00, IFI= 1.00, NFI= 0.992), suggesting that the model has a good fit.
Finally, RMSEA below 0.01, 0.05, and 0.08 indicates that the model fit is excellent,
good, and acceptable, respectively (MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara, 1996). In this
study, RMSEA was equal to zero, which indicates an excellent model fit. Thus, all model
fit indices indicated that the confirmatory factor model has a good model fit. In other
words, the specified confirmatory factor model is supported by the sample data in this
study.
Examination of factor loadings (i.e., the path estimates linking the theoretical
construct to the observed indicator variables) also indicated that the specified model does
not have a measurement problem. When factor loadings are not statistically significant or
loading estimates are less than 0.5, the CFA model is considered as having a potential
measurement problem (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham, 2006). In this study,
every factor loading was significant at the 0.05 significance level with the t-statistic
greater than 1.96. In addition, standardized factor loadings were all much above the
minimum criterion value of 0.5, ranging from 0.860 to 0.967. Thus, the indicators were
“reasonable measures of their latent constructs” (Brown, 2006, p. 130) and the specified
model had convergent validity. In addition, the model also had discriminant validity since
91
the correlation estimate between the two factors is equal to 0.761. “[T]he criterion to
define poor discriminant validity” is a factor correlation greater than 0.8 or 0.85 (Brown,
2006, p. 131).
Finally, comparison of the specified two-factor model with an alternative one-
factor model (i.e., integrating organizational ethics and organizational commitment as a
single factor) also indicated that the specified two-factor model provided a significantly
better fit than the alternative one-factor model.
12
Therefore, this study adopted the
specified confirmatory factor model with no modification.
The Structural Model
In order to test the hypothesized relationships (Hypotheses 3-8), this study
estimated the structural model. Among the three control variables – i.e., pay satisfaction,
organizational size, and organizational tenure – organizational size and organizational
tenure did not have statistically significant effects on federal agency performance. In
addition, the statistical significance and directions of the hypothesized relationships did
not change depending on if the two control variables are included in or excluded from the
model. Recent studies have suggested that “the inclusion of nonsignificant (or
meaningless) control variables might be unnecessary and even undesirable because it can
reduce statistical power or distort the relationships among the main study variables”
(Chun et al., 2013, p. 867; Spector and Brannick, 2011). Thus, the subsequent analyses
12
Model fit indices for the alternative model were as follows: Chi-square (df=5) =
73.419, p= 0.000; CFI= 0.860; IFI=0.862; NFI= 0.853; and RMSEA= 0.343.
92
did not include organizational size and organizational tenure, and the results reported
below are from structural models without them.
Model fit test
The Chi-square statistic was statistically significant (
2
(df= 22) = 58.386,
p=0.000) and thus did not provide support for confirming that the hypothesized structural
model has a good model fit. However, assessing the model fit solely based on the Chi-
square or the relative Chi-square (i.e.,
2
/df ratio) is “considered inappropriate by most
researchers and other model fit indices are regarded as more important” (Yang, 2009, p.
92). Thus, instead of concluding that the measurement model yields an unacceptable fit,
this study also tested other model fit indices: CFI= 0.939; IFI= 0.941; NFI= 0.909; and
RMSEA= 0.119. The first three model fit indices had values greater than 0.9, suggesting
that the model has an acceptable fit. In contrast, RMSEA was greater than 0.08 and thus
did not provide support for a good model fit. However, when degree of freedom and
sample size is small, which is the case in this study, RMSEA can be misleading (Hair et
al., 2006). The overall indices except RMSEA suggested that the hypothesized structural
model has an acceptable fit to the data.
Comparison with Alternative Models
Prior to the adoption of the hypothesized model as the final model, this study
examined three alternative models. Comparison of alternative models against the
hypothesized structural model enables a check of whether the data can be better
explained by another theoretically plausible model: the comparison is reported in Table
93
5-4. The first two alternative models examined the direct relationships between
organizational ethics and agency performance, and between turnover intention rate and
agency performance, respectively. Although the examined direct relationships were not
statistically significant, the two alternative models had modest model fits. In contrast to
the first two alternative models that added a path, the third alternative model removed a
path from the hypothesized structural model: specifically, the direct path between
organizational ethics and turnover intention rate was deleted. The third alternative model
also yielded an acceptable model fit.
In order to assess which model is the best-fitting model, a Chi-square difference
test was performed. This test suggested that there is no statistically significant difference
between the hypothesized model and the first two alternative models. This result means
that despite the reduced parsimony due to the added link, the model fit did not improve in
the alternative models. Parsimony ratios of these alternative models were also lower than
the parsimony ratio of the hypothesized structural model. Thus, the hypothesized
structural model fits better to the data based on parsimony grounds. In contrast to the first
two alternative models, the third alternative model which removed the direct effects of
organizational ethics on turnover intention rate generated higher parsimony ratio than the
hypothesized model. The Chi-square difference test also suggested no significant
difference between the two models. Thus, based on parsimony grounds, this study
adopted alternative model 3 as the final best-fitting model. The results of this model are
suggested in Figure 5-1.
94
TABLE 5-4. Comparison with Alternative Structural Models
Structural Models
df
CFI IFI NFI RMSEA AIC PRATIO
Alternative Model 1:
adding a direct path between organizational ethics and agency performance
Alternative Model 2:
adding a direct path between turnover intention rate and agency performance
Alternative Model 3:
removing a direct path between organizational ethics and turnover intention rate .942
.467
58.811 23 .940 .909 .116 120.811 .511
58.290 21 .938 .909 .124 124.290
122.386 .489
57.334 21 .939 .911 .122 123.334 .467
.941 .119
.942
.940
The Hypothesized Structural Model 58.386 22 .939 .909
2
95
FIGURE 5-1. Final Structural Model
Hypothesis Test
Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 predicted the relationships among organizational ethics,
turnover intention rate, actual turnover rate, and federal agency performance.
Specifically, hypothesis 3 posited a negative association between organizational ethics
and turnover intention rate; hypothesis 4 suggested a positive association between
turnover intention rate and actual turnover rate; and hypothesis 5 predicted a negative
relationship between turnover rate and federal agency performance. However, as depicted
in Figure 5-1, organizational ethics was not a significant predictor of turnover intention
rate and thus hypothesis 3 was not supported. Although turnover intention rate was
Turnover
Intention
Rate
Agency
Performance
.03
.67***
-.37**
.34***
Note: ***p < 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05; all path coefficients are standardized.
Actual Turnover
Rate
.46***
-.26***
Pay
Satisfaction
.19**
.20*
Organizational
Ethics
Organizational
Commitment
2
R
2
R
2
R
2
R
= .59
= .29 = .21
= .21
.41***
96
positively related to actual turnover rate supporting hypothesis 4, turnover rate did not
influence federal agency performance. Thus, hypothesis 5 was not supported.
Hypotheses 6 and 7 postulated the relationships among organizational ethics,
organizational commitment, and federal agency performance: organizational ethics is
positively associated with organizational commitment (hypothesis 6) and organizational
commitment in turn has positive effects on federal agency performance (hypothesis 7).
The results suggested that when the level of organizational ethics increases by one
standard deviation, the average level of organizational commitment in the agency
increases by 0.67 standard deviation. Likewise, one standard deviation increase in the
average level of organizational commitment in an agency increases the agency’s
performance by 0.34 standard deviation. Thus, hypotheses 6 and 7 were supported.
Hypothesis 8 predicted that organizational commitment has a negative association with
turnover intention rate. The results suggested that organizational commitment is
negatively associated with turnover intention rate, supporting hypothesis 8.
Hypotheses 9, 10, and 11 predicted an indirect effect of organizational ethics on
agency performance. Hypothesis 9 posited that organizational ethics is indirectly
associated with federal agency performance through organizational commitment;
Hypothesis 10 postulated that organizational ethics has indirect effects on federal agency
performance through turnover intention rate and actual turnover rate; and Hypothesis 11
posited that the impact of organizational ethics on federal agency performance is
mediated through the route of organizational commitment, turnover intention rate, and
actual turnover rate. As depicted in Figure 5-1, the results suggested that organizational
97
ethics do not have a statistically significant relationship with turnover intention rate. In
addition, actual turnover rate was not associated with federal agency performance. Thus,
Hypotheses 10 and 11 were not supported.
In contrast, the results suggested that there are statistically significant
relationships between organizational ethics and organizational commitment, and between
organizational commitment and federal agency performance. These results indicate the
possibility that organizational ethics exert an indirect effect on federal agency
performance through organizational commitment. In order to test the existence of indirect
effect, a significance test for indirect effects was performed using statistical software
AMOS 21. Since AMOS requires that there are no missing data for the significance test
of indirect effects, the expectation maximization (EM) method was used to deal with
missing values. As mentioned previously, AMOS provides FIML as a technique to
handle missing data and it was used in this study for structural model estimation
13
.
However, FIML is “a direct model estimation method, does not impute the missing data
and, therefore, does not provide an imputed dataset” (Olinsky, Chen, and Harlow, 2003,
p. 59). For this reason, using the FIML method did not enable the researcher to conduct a
significance test for indirect effects. Thus, EM was used to acquire an imputed dataset
and to perform the significance test. This test suggested that the indirect effect of
organizational ethics on federal agency performance is statistically significant (p < .05).
13
The researcher estimated parameter estimates by both FIML and EM and compared the
results. As Olinsky et al. (2003) suggested, the results obtained by the use of FIML were basically
identical to those from the EM. The only difference observed was in the relationship between pay
satisfaction and turnover intention rate. Pay satisfaction was negatively associated with turnover
intention rate when using FIML. However, although the direction was still negative, pay
satisfaction was not a significant determinant of turnover intention rate when using EM.
98
Thus, hypothesis 9 – i.e., organizational ethics has indirect effects on federal agency
performance through organizational commitment – was supported.
Finally, the results also indicated that the control variable of pay satisfaction had
the anticipated direct and indirect associations with federal agency performance. Pay
satisfaction had a positive direct impact on federal agency performance: when the
average level of pay satisfaction in an agency increases by one standard deviation, the
performance of the agency increases by 0.20 standard deviation. Pay satisfaction also
exerted a significant indirect effect on federal agency performance as mediated by
organizational commitment. Specifically, pay satisfaction was positively associated with
organizational commitment; organizational commitment was positively associated with
federal agency performance; and the significance test for indirect effect was significant (p
< .05).
In sum, the findings of the agency-level analysis suggested that organizational
ethics has a significant impact on federal agency performance even when the influence of
a key self-interest factor – i.e., pay satisfaction – was taken into account. Organizational
ethics did not have a direct relationship with federal agency performance but indirectly
influenced performance as mediated by organizational commitment. In contrast to
organizational commitment, however, employee turnover was not a significant mediator
between organizational ethics and agency performance.
99
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of organizational ethics –
i.e., how public employees perceive ethical practices of their organization – on public
employees’ job attitudes/behaviors and organizational performance. Existing studies in
the public sector have emphasized the importance of organizational ethics for ensuring
employees’ ethical behaviors and thereby maintaining democratic government. However,
this study argues that the influence of organizational ethics is not limited to public
administrators’ ethical behaviors but extended to employees’ job attitudes and behaviors,
and to organizational performance: that is, organizational ethics matters not only for
maintaining democratic government but also for promoting effective government.
For this purpose, this study employed a multi-level approach and examined the
influence of organizational ethics at two different levels: individual-level and agency-
level. At the individual level, this study tested the relationship between organizational
ethics and public employees’ turnover intentions. Organizational commitment was used
as a mediator. At the agency level, this study explored how organizational ethics
influences employee job attitudes and behaviors – specifically, organizational
commitment, turnover intention, and actual turnover – and how these job attitudes and
behaviors in turn influence federal agency performance.
First, the findings of this study support the notion that organizational ethics are an
important determinant of employee job attitudes and behaviors. The results at the
individual level suggest that organizational ethics is negatively associated with public
100
employees’ turnover intentions. In addition, the impact of organizational ethics is
partially mediated by organizational commitment: when public employees have more
positive perceptions of the ethical practices of their organization, the employees are more
likely than others to have higher organizational commitment. Organizational commitment
in turn decreases the likelihood of public employees intending to leave their organization.
In addition, as agency-level analyses suggest, turnover intention rate is positively
associated with actual turnover rate: thus, agencies with lower turnover intention rates are
more likely than others to have a lower rate of actual employee turnover. In sum, the
results suggest that organizational ethics is an important element of a desirable workplace
where employees want to stay.
Next, the findings also support the idea that organizational ethics matter for
organizational performance. The results suggest that organizational ethics influence
federal agency performance through employee attitudes/behaviors. Specifically, a federal
agency with a higher level of organizational ethics is more likely than other agencies to
have employees with higher organizational commitment, and the higher level of
commitment in the agency in turn positively influences the agency’s performance. The
results are in line with the argument of human resource scholars that “the benefits of any
[organization]-level practice can materialize only through employee behaviors” (Chun et
al., 2013, p. 855; Becker et al., 1997).
Third, another important finding of this research is the role of organizational
commitment in linking ethics to turnover intentions and federal agency performance: in
this study, organizational commitment mediates a great portion of the impact of
101
organizational ethics on turnover intention. In addition, organizational commitment fully
mediates the relationship between organizational ethics and federal agency performance.
These findings indicate that having committed employees can benefit an organization in
various ways, and an organization can promote employee commitment by creating an
ethically supportive organizational context.
Finally, in contrast to the expectation of this study, employee turnover is not a
significant predictor of organizational performance. It is also contrary to the
“conventional assumption of turnover research” that “low rates of turnover are preferred
to high rates” (Huselid, 1995, p. 65). One possible explanation for the results is that
public employees that left the federal agencies are in general poor performers. A meta-
analysis by McEvoy and Cascio (1987) suggested that “turnover is lower among good
performers” (p. 744). If the majority of employees who left an organization are poor
performers, their turnover is not very likely to have a great impact on overall
organizational performance unless the percentage of employees that left is very high. The
average turnover rate of federal agencies in the sample is 6.4 percent, presumably not so
high as to influence organizational performance.
Put in a different way, what the results might imply is that, from an organizational
perspective, employee turnover is not always harmful. In order to determine if employee
turnover is really harmful for organizational performance, the question of who leaves
should be taken into account. Turnover of employees with less competence is likely to
have a different impact on organizational performance than turnover of more competent
102
employees. As Mobley (1982) suggests, “the organizational consequences of turnover are
dependent on who leaves and who stays” (p. 42).
In sum, the findings suggest that organizational ethics are a critical determinant of
employee job attitudes/behaviors and that organizational ethics matter for organizational
performance since they exert indirect effects on organizational performance as mediated
by employee attitudes and behaviors. This study also suggests that organizational
commitment is an important mediating factor that links ethics to organizational
performance.
Contributions to the Field
This study contributes to the field of administrative ethics and more generally to
the field of public management in several ways. First, this study approaches the
importance of government ethics from a new perspective different than the traditional
approach. The traditional approach focuses on the role of public administrators as
fiduciary citizens. Consequently, traditional studies have primarily focused on finding
ways to ensure ethical conduct of public administrators. In contrast, this study pays less
attention to the role of public administrators as fiduciary citizens but more attention to a
more generic attribute of employees – that is, as individuals embedded in organizations.
Public administrators are fiduciary citizens and thus their ethical conduct is critical for
maintaining democratic government. However, at the same time, public administrators
are individuals that are nested in an organization and thus whose job attitudes and
behaviors are determined by their perceptions of and experiences in the organization. By
103
examining the relationship between organizational ethics and employee job attitudes and
behaviors, this study suggests that organizational ethics is an important determinant of a
desirable workplace.
Second, this study provides empirical evidence that organizational ethics matter
for organizational performance or organizational effectiveness. Studies in the field of
administrative ethics have suggested the existence of an association between ethics and
organizational effectiveness (Brumback, 1991; Lynch et al., 2002). However, relatively
little research in the field has empirically tested the relationship and/or how or through
what mechanisms organizational ethics influences government performance. More
generally in the field of public management, scholars have long sought to answer how
organizational ability to produce positive outcomes can be maximized. A number of
factors such as goal clarity and managerial leadership have been emphasized as critical
for organizational effectiveness. However, ethics has not received much attention from
public management scholars as a determinant of organizational effectiveness. Using a
sample of federal agencies, this study examined organizational ethics as a central factor
influencing organizational performance. By doing so, this study brings ethics to the
discussion of organizational effectiveness and provides empirical support that ethics
matter to promoting effective government.
A third contribution is that, by integrating different fields of study including
administrative ethics, organizational behavior, and organizational performance, the study
provides insightful understanding of the importance of organizational ethics in
maintaining effective government. As fields of study that seek to understand employee
104
behaviors and organizational practices, these fields might benefit one other and produce
more fruitful knowledge when considered together rather than separately. However, as
far as the researcher knows, these fields have seldom been integrated in the public sector
in developing or answering research questions. In particular, as McDaniel (2004) points
out, “ethics [has been] rarely the central concept of concern for assessing or determining
desirable workplaces,” and nor has it been of great interest in the study of organizational
performance (p. 81). Thus, this study integrated different fields of study to examine how
organizational ethics influences employee job attitudes and behaviors and how this in
turn relates to federal agency performance. By doing so, this study serves to expand
knowledge on how and through what mechanisms organizational ethics relates to
government effectiveness.
Finally, this study contributes to the field by utilizing a multi-level approach. This
study examined the impact of organizational ethics at both the individual level and the
organizational level. While a number of studies in the field of public management have
been conducted at the individual level, relatively little research has been done at the
organizational level. By exploring how organizational ethics influences both individual
level and organizational level outcomes, this study provides a more rigorous and
integrated understanding of the effects of organizational ethics across different levels in
public organizations.
105
Implications for Practitioners
By linking ethics to the issues of employee job attitudes/behaviors and
organizational effectiveness, this study also suggests practical implications for public
managers. The findings of this study indicate that public employees who believe their
organization is ethical are more highly committed to their organization; highly committed
public employees are less likely to intend to leave their organization; and finally,
organizational ethics are positively associated with organizational performance through
organizational commitment.
The first implication of these findings for public managers is that if they want to
reinforce employee commitment to their organization, they should pay attention to
organizational ethics. Employee commitment has long been of great interest to
practitioners and management scholars alike since it benefits an organization in various
ways such as decreasing employee turnover, increasing citizenship behaviors, and
ultimately enhancing organizational performance (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Organ and
Ryan, 1995; Porter et al., 1974). Accordingly, the question of how to enhance employee
commitment has been an important concern for practitioners and management scholars
alike. Research on antecedents of organizational commitment has been conducted from
two major theoretical perspectives – that is, the organizational behavior (OB) and the
rational choice (RC) perspectives (Robertson, Lo, and Tang, 2007). The OB perspective
argues that employees have a higher level of organizational commitment when they
experience value congruence between themselves and their organization (Balfour and
Wechsler, 1994), while the RC perspective contends that an organization can reinforce
106
employee commitment by providing rewards for their performance. Both perspectives
have been supported by empirical evidence (Robertson et al., 2007) and this study also
provides support for both perspectives: as supporting evidence for the RC perspective,
this study suggests that pay satisfaction is positively associated with organizational
commitment in both the individual and organizational level analyses. In addition,
supporting the OB perspective, this study suggests that when employees have positive
perceptions of the ethical practices of their organization (i.e., ethical value congruence
between employees and their organization), they exhibit a higher level of organizational
commitment.
An interesting finding worth noting in this study is that organizational ethics is a
stronger determinant of organizational commitment than is pay satisfaction. This finding
is in line with a recent study by Robertson et al. (2007) which suggests that extrinsic
rewards are not the most critical factor in reinforcing organizational commitment. The
finding that organizational ethics play a critical role in enhancing employee commitment,
arguably exerting a stronger impact than extrinsic rewards, suggests that public managers
who wish to enhance employee commitment should make efforts to build an ethically
supportive organizational context.
The second implication of this study for public managers is that organizational
ethics is a significant positive determinant of organizational performance. Despite its
importance as a potential explanatory factor, ethics have rarely been a central concept of
concern in performance studies. However, as this study suggests, organizational ethics
can exert a significant impact on organizational performance by influencing employee
107
job attitudes/behaviors. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the impact of organizational
ethics on federal agency performance was still significant even when the influence of a
self-interest factor – i.e., pay satisfaction – was taken into account. Such results imply
that maintaining an ethically supportive organization is not any less important than other
practices intended to enhance employee performance. In sum, this study suggests that
being ethical is beneficial to an organization: organizational ethics help promote positive
job attitudes among employees (e.g., organizational commitment) and ultimately increase
organizational performance. Simply put, being ethical is being effective. Thus, public
managers should pay attention to the importance of ethics management and make efforts
to create an ethical organizational context.
In building an ethical organizational context, public managers’ ethical leadership
plays a critical role. Butcher (1997) argues that ethical leadership requires “not only
investing in the small trees and experimental hybrids that won’t yield a thing in this
quarter or the next, but also caring for the soil that allows us to produce such a harvest in
the first place” (p. 6). In other words, public managers as ethical leaders of their
organizations should create organizational conditions that lead public administrators to
behave ethically (Zhu, May, and Avolio, 2004).
Public managers can exert ethical leadership by behaving ethically. When leaders
of an organization behave ethically or employees believe leaders of their organization are
ethical, employees in the organization are less likely to have any intention to engage in
unethical behaviors (White and Lean, 2008). In addition, Zhu et al. (2004) propose that
leaders’ ethical behaviors are positively associated with employee organizational
108
commitment. By behaving ethically, public managers can help create an ethical
organization and thereby promote positive job attitudes among public employees.
In addition to behaving ethically themselves, public managers can also develop an
ethical organizational context by implementing ethics policies and practices. For
example, public managers may develop codes of ethics and other ethics guidelines; they
may establish an incentive system to encourage and reward public employees for their
ethical behavior. Public managers may also develop regular ethics training programs.
These ethics policies and practices positively influence the ethical tone of an organization
and work as good indicators of an ethically supportive organization (Lewis and Gilman,
2005; McDaniel, 2004).
In sum, by exerting ethical leadership in various ways, public managers should
establish an ethical organizational context for employees. Building a supportive context
in terms of ethics is a tough task that requires much time and effort. However, it is worth
making those efforts because being ethical is being effective. Thus, by creating an
ethically supportive organizational context for employees, public managers can
contribute not only to maintaining democratic government but also to promoting effective
government.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
This study closes by discussing its limitations and suggesting directions for future
research. First, different dimensions of organizational ethics were not considered in this
study. In examining the impact of organizational ethics on employee job attitudes and
109
organizational performance, this study measured organizational ethics by the degree of
ethicality (i.e., the level of ethical practices in an organization perceived by public
employees in the organization) and did not take into account dimensions of
organizational ethics. In part this is because there are no clearly defined, agreed-upon
dimensions of organizational ethics in the existing literature (Chun et al., 2013). In
addition, the use of secondary data sources also limited the researcher’s capacity to
develop and examine multiple dimensions of organizational ethics.
However, it is reasonable to expect that organizational ethics is a multi-
dimensional concept rather than uni-dimensional. For example, organizational ethics
might be comprised of public employees’ perceptions of a) how well their organization
supports the ethical conduct of public employees and b) how ethical their coworkers are
when performing daily tasks. Taking into account the multi-dimensionality of
organizational ethics would help reveal which aspects are the most important
determinants of employee attitudes/behaviors and/or organizational performance.
Therefore, future exploration of the impact of organizational ethics should help to
identify key dimensions of organizational ethics and to develop appropriate measures of
these dimensions. Operationalization and empirical investigation of a multi-dimensional
measure of organizational ethics would constitute a useful focus of research in the future.
Next, the measure of organizational commitment used in this study is limited.
Organizational commitment was measured using two survey items, which is a coarse
measure. Although this kind of limitation is not unusual when using secondary data such
as FEVS that were specifically designed for certain purposes other than academic
110
research (Lee and Whitford, 2008), it is also true that using a more comprehensive
measure would enable a more accurate examination of its impact. Organizational
commitment is a widely examined concept and scholars have developed measures (for
example see O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Porter et al., 1974). Thus, the use of well-
developed scales to measure organizational commitment is recommended for future
research.
Third, at the individual level analysis, this study used a single source for data
collection and thus common method bias might exist in the data. A post hoc Harman’s
single factor test was conducted to detect common method bias, and the results indicated
that such bias is not a serious concern in this study. Although the test suggests that it is
unlikely that common method bias is driving the analysis results, it does not eliminate
any of this bias. Thus, future research would benefit from utilizing multiple data sources.
Fourth, this study suggested that organizational ethics contributes to federal
agency performance through organizational commitment. Organizational commitment
was directly associated with organizational performance and possible intermediate
variables between the two factors were not considered. In other words, the processes
through which organizational commitment influences organizational performance were
not investigated in this study. One possible way that organizational commitment may be
related to organizational performance is through organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB). OCB is employees’ discretionary and voluntary behavior that goes beyond the
call of duty and that helps improve overall organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988,
1990). Employees that are highly committed to their organization are expected to perform
111
OCB more frequently, which in turn contributes to organizational effectiveness. A recent
empirical study in the private sector also provided support for this proposition (Chun et
al., 2013). Future research could fruitfully explore the mechanisms through which
organizational commitment is associated with organizational performance.
Finally, focusing on public employees’ perceptions of ethical practices of their
organization, this study provided useful insights in understanding how such perceptions
are associated with employees’ job attitudes/behaviors and ultimately with organizational
performance. However, this study does not include in the analysis the perceptions of the
external public. Ethics studies in the private sector suggest that corporate ethics positively
influence external stakeholders’ impression of the organization and improve the
reputation and legitimacy of the organization, and thus ultimately serve to enhance
organizational performance. For example, corporate ethics is positively associated with
firm performance by increasing stakeholders’ trust in the firm (Hosmer, 1994) and by
increasing stakeholder satisfaction with the firm (Berrone et al., 2007).
The discussion in the private sector might not be directly applicable to the public
sector due to the sectoral difference; i.e., the public sector is not run by market
mechanisms. However, the discussion implies that perceptions of organizational ethics
not only by internal employees but also by external constituents matter for organizational
performance. Thus, future research that examines the relationship between ethics and
organizational performance should consider both internal and external perceptions of
organizational ethics. The intermediate processes between the external public’s
perception of organizational ethics and government performance should be
112
conceptualized and examined empirically. In addition, consideration of other mechanisms
through which internal employees’ perceptions of organizational ethics relate to
government performance is recommended. By including both external and internal
perceptions of organizational ethics and by considering various processes through which
these perceptions are related to organizational performance, we can more rigorously
understand the impact of organizational ethics on the performance of government.
113
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbasi, Sami M. and Kenneth W. Hollman. 2000. “Turnover: The Real Bottom Line,”
Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 333-342.
Adams, Guy B. 2001. “Administrative Ethics and the Chimera of Professionalism,” in:
Terry L. Cooper (eds.), Handbook of Administrative Ethics (2
nd
eds.,) New York,
NY: Marcel Dekker, pp. 291-308.
Agresti, Alan. 2007. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Al-Yahya, Khalid O. 2009. “Power-Influence in Decision Making, Competence
Utilization, and Organizational Culture in Public Organizations: The Arab World
in Comparative Perspective,” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 19, 385-407.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in
Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach,” Psychological
Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Appleby, Paul H. 1947. “Toward Better Public Administration,” Public Administration
Review, 7(2), 93-99.
Arbuckle, James L. 1996. “Full Information Estimation in the Presence of Incomplete
Data,” in: George A. Marcoulides and Randall E. Schumacker (eds.), Advanced
Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp. 243–277.
Arnold, Hugh J. and Daniel C. Feldman. 1982. “A Multivariate Analysis of the
Determinants of Job Turnover,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 350-360.
Arnold, John., Cary L. Cooper, and Ivan T. Robertson. 1998. Work Psychology:
Understanding Human Behavior in the Workplace (3
rd
eds.,) London, U.K.:
Financial Times.
Asch, Solomon E. 1951. “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and
Distortion of Judgment,” in: Harold Guetzkow (eds.), Groups, Leadership and
Men: Research in Human Relations. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
114
Bacharach, Samuel B., Peter Bamberger, and William J. Sonnenstuhl. 1996. “The
Organizational Transformation Process: The Micropolitics of Dissonance
Reduction and the Alignment of Logics of Action,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41(3), 477-506.
Balfour, Danny L. and Barton Wechsler. 1990. “Organizational Commitment: A
Reconceptualization and Empirical Test of Public-Private Differences,” Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 10(3), 23-40.
_______. 1994. “A Theory of Public Sector Commitment: Towards A Reciprocal Model
of Person and Organization,” in: James Perry (eds.,) Research in Public
Administration, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 281-314.
Barnett, Tim. and Cheryl Vaicys. 2000. “The Moderating Effect of Individuals’
Perceptions of Ethical Work Climate on Ethical Judgments and Behavioral
Intentions,” Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 351-362.
Baron, Reuben N. and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and
Statistical Consideration,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6),
1173-1182.
Bateman, Thomas S. and Stephen Strasser. 1984. “A Longitudinal Analysis of the
Antecedents of Organizational Commitment,” Academy of Management Journal,
27(1), 95-112.
Becker, Brian E., Mark A. Huselid, Peter S. Pickus, and Michael F. Spratt. 1997. “HR as
a Source of Shareholder Value: Research and Recommendations,” Human
Resource Management Journal, 31, 39-47.
Beehr, Terry A. 1986. “The Process of Retirement: A Review and Recommendations for
Future Investigation,” Personnel Psychology, 39(1), 31-55.
Berrone, Pascual., Jordi Surroca, and Josep A. Tribo. 2007. “Corporate Ethical Identity as
a Determinant of Firm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder
Satisfaction,” Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 35-53.
Berry, Benisa. 2004. “Organizational Culture: A Framework and Strategies for
Facilitating Employee Whistleblowing,” Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 16(1), 1-11.
Bertelli, Anthony M. 2007. “Determinants of Bureaucratic Turnover Intention: Evidence
from the Department of the Treasury,” Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 17, 235–258.
115
Bliese, Paul D. and Ronald R. Halverson. 1998. “Group Size and Measures of Group-
Level Properties: An Examination of Eta-Squared and ICC Values,” Journal of
Management, 24, 157-172.
Bragger, Jennifer D., Ofelia Rodriguez-Srednicki, Eugene J. Kutcher, Lisa Indovino, and
Erin Rosner. 2005. “Work-Family Conflict, Work-Family Culture, and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Teachers,” Journal of Business and
Psychology, 20(2), 303-324.
Brown, Timothy. A. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Bruce, Willa. 1994. “Ethical People Are Productive People,” Public Productivity &
Management Review, 17(3), 241-252.
Brumback, Gary B. 1991. “Institutionalizing Ethics in Government,” Public Personnel
Management, 20(3), 353-363.
Butcher, Willard C. 1997. “Ethical leadership: We can't shrink from our duty to set a
moral example for others,” Executive Excellence, 14(6), 5-6.
Catron, Bayard L. and Kathryn G. Denhardt. 1994. “Ethics Education in Public
Administration,” in: Terry L. Cooper (eds.), Handbook of Administrative Ethics,
NY: Marcel Dekker, pp. 49-61.
Chandler, Ralph C. 1984. “The Public Administrator as Representative Citizen: A New
Role for the New Century,” Public Administration Review, 44 (Special Issue),
196-206.
Choi, Jin N. 2009. “Collective Dynamics of Citizenship Behaviour: What Group
Characteristics Promote Group-Level Helping?,” Journal of Management Studies,
46(8), 1396-1420.
Chun, Jinseok S., Yuhyung Shin, Jin N Choi, and Min S. Kim. 2013. “How Does
Corporate Ethics Contribute to Firm Financial Performance? The Mediating Role
of Collective Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior,” Journal of Management, 39(4), 853-877.
Cooper, Terry L. 1984. “Citizenship and Professionalism in Public Administration,”
Public Administration Review 44(Special Issue), 143-149.
_______. 1987. “Hierarchy, Virtue, and the Practice of Public Administration: A
Perspective for Normative Ethics,” Public Administration Review, 47(4), 320-328.
116
_______. 1991. An Ethic of Citizenship for Public Administration, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
_______. 1992. “Reflecting on Exemplars of Virtue,” in: Terry L Cooper and N Dale
Wright (eds.), Exemplary Public Administrators: Character and Leadership in
Government, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 324-340.
_______. 2001. “The Emergence of Administrative Ethics as a Field of Study in the
United States,” in: Terry L. Cooper (eds.), Handbook of Administrative Ethics
(2
nd
eds.,) New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, pp. 1-36.
_______. 2004. “Big Questions in Administrative Ethics: A Need for Focused,
Collaborative Effort,” Public Administration Review, 64(4), 395-407.
_______. 2006. The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the
Administrative Role (5
th
eds.,) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, Terry L. and N. Dale Wright. 1992. Exemplary Public Administrators:
Character and Leadership in Government, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cotton, John L. and Jeffrey M. Tuttle. 1986. “Employee Turnover: A Meta-Analysis and
Review with Implications for Research,” Academy of Management Review, 11(1),
55-70.
Crampton, Suzanne M. and John. A. III. Wagner. 1994. “Percept-Percept Inflation in
Microorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.
Cullen, John B., K. Praveen Parboteeah, and Bart Victor. 2003. “The Effects of Ethical
Climates on Organizational Commitment: A Two-Study Analysis,” Journal of
Business Ethics, 46, 127-141.
Currall, Steven C., Annette J. Towler, Timothy A. Judge, and Laura Kohn. 2005. “Pay
Satisfaction and Organizational Outcomes,” Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 613-
640.
Dailey, Robert C. and Delaney J. Kirk. 1992. “Distributive and Procedural Justice as
Antecedents of Job Dissatisfaction and Intent to Turnover,” Human
Relations, 45(3), 305-317.
Davis, Kenneth C. 1969a. Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge,
LA: Louisiana State University Press.
117
_______. 1969b. “A New Approach to Delegation,” The University of Chicago Law
Review, 36(4), 713-733.
DeConinck, James B. and Duane P. Bachmann. 2011. “Organizational Commitment and
Turnover Intentions of Marketing Managers,” Journal of Applied Business
Research, 10(3), 87-95.
DeConinck, James B. and C. Dean Stilwell. 2004. “Incorporating Organizational Justice,
Role States, Pay Satisfaction and Supervisor Satisfaction in a Model of Turnover
Intentions,” Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 225-231.
DeCotiis, Thomas A. and Timothy P. Summers. 1987. “A Path Analysis of a Model of
the Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment,” Human
Relations, 40(7), 445-470.
De Maria, William. 1996. “The Welfare Whistleblower: In Praise of Troublesome
People,” Australian Social Work, 49, 15-24.
_______. 2008. “Whistleblowers and Organizational Protesters: Crossing Imaginary
Borders,” Current Sociology, 56, 865-883.
Deshpande, Satish. P. 1996. “Ethical Climate and the Link between Success and Ethical
Behavior: An Empirical Investigation of a Non-profit Organization,” Journal of
Business Ethics, 15(3), 315-320.
Dess, Gregory G. and Jason D. Shaw. 2001. “Voluntary Turnover, Social Capital, and
Organizational Performance,” Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446-456.
Dewar, Robert and Jerald Hage. 1978. “Size, Technology, Complexity, and Structural
Differentiation: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 20-40.
DeZoort, F Todd and Alan T. Lord. 1994. “An Investigation of Obedience Pressure
Effects on Auditors’ Judgments,” Behavioral Research in Accounting, 6, 1–30.
Diamond, Martin. 1983. “The Federalist,” in: Morton J. Frisch and Richard G. Stevens
(eds.), American Political Thought: The Philosophic Dimension of American
Statesmanship (2
nd
eds.,) Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Dimock, Marshall E. 1936. “The Criteria and Objectives of Public Administration,” in:
John M. Gaus, Leonard D. White, and Marshall E. Dimock (eds.), The Frontiers
of Public Administration, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 116-133.
118
Ding, Lin., Wayne F. Velicer, and Lisa L. Harlow. 1995. “Effects of Estimation Methods,
Number of Indicators per Factor, and Improper Solutions on Structural Equation
Modeling Fit Indices,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 2(2), 119-143.
Donker, Han, Deborah Poff, and Saif Zahir. 2008. “Corporate Values, Codes of Ethics,
and Firm Performance: A Look at the Canadian Context,” Journal of Business
Ethics, 82, 527-537.
Du, Jing and Jin. N. Choi. 2010. “Pay for Performance in Emerging Markets: Insights
from China,” Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 671-689.
Egan, Toby M., Baiyin Yang, and Kenneth. R. Bartlett. 2004. “The Effects of
Organizational Learning Culture and Job Satisfaction on Motivation to Transfer
Learning and Turnover Intention,” Human Resource Development Quarterly,
15(3), 279-301.
Elci, Meral. and Lutfihak Alpkan. 2009. “The Impact of Perceived Organizational Ethical
Climate on Work Satisfaction,” Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 297–311.
Enders, Craig K. and Deborah L. Bandalos. 2001. “The Relative Performance of Full
Information Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Missing Data in Structural
Equation Models,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
8(3), 430-457.
Esparza, Nicole and So H. Jeon. 2013. “Interlocking Boards of Trustees and Grant
Acquisition Among Homeless Service Organizations,” Public Performance &
Management Review, 36(4), 637-664.
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Finer, Herman. 1936. “Better Government Personnel,” Political Science Quarterly, 51,
569-99.
Finkelstein, Sydney and Donald C. Hambrick. 1990. “Top Management-Team Tenure
and Organizational Outcomes,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 484-503.
Frederickson, H. George. 1971. “Toward a New Public Administration,” in: Frank Marini
(eds.), Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective, New
York, NY: Chandler, pp. 309-331.
Friedrich, Carl J. 1935. “Responsible Government Service under the American
Constitution,” In Carl. J Friedrich, William C. Beyer, Sterling D. Spero, John F.
119
Miller, and George A. Graham. (eds.), Problems of the American Public Service.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fritz, Janie M., Ronald C. Arnett, and Michele Conkel. 1999. “Organizational Ethical
Standards and Organizational Commitment,” Journal of Business Ethics, 20(4),
289-299.
Frone, Michael R., Marcia Russel, and M. Lynne Cooper. 1993. “Relationship of Work-
Family Conflict, Gender and Alcohol Expectancies to Alcohol Use/Abuse,”
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 545-558.
Fu, Weihui., Satish P. Deshpande, and Xiao Zhao. 2011. “The Impact of Ethical Behavior
and Facets of Job Satisfaction on Organizational Commitment of Chinese
Employees,” Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 537-543.
Griffeth, Rodger W., Peter W. Hom, and Stefan Gaertner. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of
Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and
Research Implications for the Next Millennium,” Journal of Management, 26(3),
463-488.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and Ronald L.
Tatham. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis (6
th
ed.,). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halachmi, Arie and Geert Bouckaert. 1996. “Performance Appraisal and Rubik’s Cube,”
in: Arie Halachmi and Geert Bouckaert (eds.), Organizational Performance and
Measurement in the Public Sector: Toward Service, Effort and Accomplishing
Report. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, pp 1-10.
Hart, David K. 1974. “Social Equity, Justice, and the Equitable Administrator,” Public
Administration Review, 34(1), 3-11.
_______. 1984. “The Virtuous Citizen, the Honorable Bureaucrat, and ‘Public’
Administration,” Public Administration Review, 44(Special Issue), 111-120.
_______. 1992. “The Moral Exemplar in an Organizational Society,” in: Terry L. Cooper
and Wright, N. Dale (eds.), Exemplary Public Administrators: Character and
Leadership in Government, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 9-29.
Hartman, Cathy L. and Caryn L Beck-Dudley. 1999. “Marketing Strategies and the
Search for Virtue: A Case Analysis of The Body Shop, International,” Journal of
Business Ethics, 20, 249-263.
120
Hendrix, William H., Tina Robbins, Janis Miller, and Timothy P. Summers. 1998. Effects
of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Factors Predictive of Turnover. Journal
of Social Behavior & Personality 13(4): 611-632.
Heneman, Herbert G. and Timothy A. Judge. 2000. “Compensation Attitudes,” in: Sara
L. Rynes and Barry Gerhart (eds.), Compensation in organizations: Current
research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 61–103.
Hibbing, John R. 1982. “Voluntary Retirement from the U. S. House: The Costs of
Congressional Service,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7(1), 57-74.
Hicks, Alexander. 1994. “Introduction to Pooling,” In Thomas Janoski and Alexander M.
Hicks (eds.), The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State, New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press. pp. 169-188.
Hobson, Charles J., Linda Delunas, and Dawn Kesic. 2001. “Compelling Evidence of the
Need for Corporate Work/Life Balance Initiatives: Results from a National
Survey of Stressful Life-Events,” Journal of Employment Counseling, 38(1), 38-
44.
Hom, Peter and Rodger Griffeth. 1995. Employee Turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-
Western.
Hosmer, Larue T. 1994. “Strategic Planning as if Ethics Mattered,” Strategic
Management Journal, 15(2), 17-34.
Houston, David J. 2000. “Public-Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test,” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 713-727.
Hu, Li-tze and Peter M. Bentler. 1995. “Evaluating Model Fit,” in: Rick H. Hoyle (eds.),
Structural EquationModeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 76-99.
Hunt, Shelby D., Van R. Wood, and Lawrence B. Chonko. 1989. “Corporate Ethical
Values and Organizational Commitment in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing,
53(3), 79-90.
Huselid, Mark A. 1995. “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on
Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance,” Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 635-672.
Ingram, Thomas N. and Keun S. Lee. 1990. “Sales Force Turnover and Commitment,”
Industrial Marketing Management, 19(2), 149-154.
121
Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom. 1993. Structural Equation Modeling with the
SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Jos, Philip H., Mark E. Tompkins, and Steven W. Hays. 1989. “In Praise of Difficult
People: A Portrait of the Committed Whistleblower,” Public Administration
Review, 49(6), 552-561.
Jurkiewicz, Carole L. 2002. “The Influence of Pedagogical Style on Students’ Level of
Ethical Reasoning,” Journal of Public Affairs Education, 8(3), 263–274.
Jurkiewicz, Carole L. and Tom K Massey Jr. 1998. “The Influence of Ethical Reasoning
on Leader Effectiveness: An Empirical Study of Nonprofit Executives,” Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 9(2), 173-186.
Kim, Sangmook. 2005. “Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in
Government Organizations,” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 15(2), 245-261.
Kline, Rex B. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3
rd
ed.,)
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Koh, Hian C. and El’fred. H. Y. Boo. 2004. “Organisational Ethics and Employee
Satisfaction and Commitment,” Management Decision, 42(5), 677-693.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1976. “Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-
Developmental Approach,” in: Lickona, Tom. (eds.), Moral Development and
Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
_______. 1980. The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Development. Worcester. MA:
Clark University Press.
_______. 1983. Essays in Moral Development. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, Lawrence and Dan Candee. 1984. “The Relationship of Moral Development to
Moral Action,” in: William M. Kurtines and Jacob L. Gewirtz. (eds.), Morality,
Moral Behavior, and Moral Development, New York: NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kohlberg, Lawrence and Richard H. Hersh. 1977. “Moral Development: A Review of the
Theory,” Theory into Practice, 16(2), 53-59.
Kunze, Florian, Stephan A. Boehm, and Heike Bruch. 2011. “Age Diversity, Age
Discrimination Climate and Performance Consequences: A Cross Organizational
Study,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 264-290.
122
Larson, Erik W. and Cynthia V. Fukami. 1984. “Relationships between Worker Behavior
and Commitment to the Organization and Union,” Academy of Management
Proceedings, 34, 222-226.
Lee, Soo-Young and Jeong H. Hong. 2011. “Does Family-Friendly Policy Matter?
Testing Its Impact on Turnover and Performance,” Public Administration Review,
71(6), 870-879.
Lee, Soo-Young and Andrew B. Whitford. 2008. “Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Pay:
Evidence from the Public Workforce,” Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 18, 647-671.
_______. 2012. “Assessing the Effects of Organizational Resources on Public Agency
Performance: Evidence from the US Federal Government,” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Advance Access published November 19,
2012.
Lee, Thomas W. and Richard T. Mowday. 1987. “Voluntarily Leaving an Organization:
An Empirical Investigation of Steers and Mowday’s Model of Turnover,”
Academy of Management Journal, 30, 721-743.
Leonard, Jonathan S. 1987. “Carrots and Sticks: Pay, Supervision, and Turnover,”
Journal of Labor Economics, 5(4), 136-152.
Lewis, Carol W. and Stuart C. Gilman. 2005. The Ethics Challenge in Public Service: A
Problem-Solving Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1991. “Turnover and the Quiet Crisis in the Federal Civil Service,”
Public Administration Review, 51(2), 145-155.
Leys, Wayne. A. R. 1943. “Ethics and Administrative Discretion,” Public Administration
Review, 3, 10-23.
_______. 1952. Ethics for Policy Decisions: The Art of Asking Deliberative Questions.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lilla, Mark T. 1981. “Ethos, ‘Ethics,’ and Public Service,” Public Interest, 63, 3-17.
Lincoln, James R. and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1990. Culture, Control and Commitment: A
Study of Work Organization and Work Attitudes in the United States and Japan.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
123
Locke, Edwin A. 1976. “The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction,” in: Marvin
Dunnette (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp.1297-1350.
Long, Brad S. and Cathy Driscoll. 2008. “Codes of Ethics and the Pursuit of
Organizational Legitimacy: Theoretical and Empirical Contributions,” Journal of
Business Ethics, 77(2), 173-189.
Lozano, Josep. 2013. Organizational Ethics in: Laszlo Zsolnai. (eds.), Handbook of
Business Ethics: Ethics in the New Economy. Oxford: Peter Lang Academic
Publishers (forthcoming).
Lynch, Thomas D., Cynthia E. Lynch, and Peter L. Cruise. 2002. “Productivity and the
Moral Manager,” Administration & Society, 34(4), 347-369.
Macaulay, Michael and Alan Lawton. 2006. “From Virtue to Competence: Changing the
Principles of Public Service,” Public Administration Review, 66(5), 702-710.
MacCallum, Robert C., Michael W. Browne, and Hazuki M. Sugawara. 1996. “Power
Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling,”
Psychological Methods, 1, 130–49.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press.
MacKinnon, David P. 2008. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York,
NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacKinnon, David P. and James H. Dwyer. 1993. “Estimating Mediated Effects in
Prevention Studies,” Evaluation Review, 17(2), 144-158.
Mathieu, John E. and Dennis M. Zajac. 1990. “A Review and Meta-Analysis of the
Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment,”
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
McDaniel, Charlotte. 2004. Organizational Ethics: Research and Ethical Environments.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
McEvoy, Glenn M. and Wayne F. Cascio. 1987. “Do good or poor performers leave? A
meta-analysis of the relationship between performance and turnover,” Academy of
Management Journal, 30(4), 744-762.
124
Meier, Kenneth J. and Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr. 2012. “Subjective Organizational
Performance and Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious
Relationships,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Advance
Access published December 8, 2012.
Menard, Scott. 2002. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis (2
nd
eds.,) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Menzel, Donald C. 2005. “Research on Ethics and Integrity in Governance: A Review
and Assessment,” Public Integrity, 7(2), 147-168.
_______. 2007. Ethics Management for Public Administrators: Building Organizations
of Integrity. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
_______. 2009. “‘I Didn't Do Anything Unethical, Illegal, or Immoral’: A Case Study of
Ethical Illiteracy in Local Governance,” Public Integrity, 11(4), 371-384.
Menzel, Donald C. and Kathleen J. Carson. 1999. “A Review and Assessment of
Empirical Research on Public Administration Ethics: Implications for Scholars
and Managers.” Public Integrity, 1(3), 239–264.
Meyer, John P. and Natalie J. Allen. 1991. “A Three-Component Conceptualization
of Organizational Commitment,” Human Resource Management Review, 1(1),
61-89.
_______. 1997. Commitment in the Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meyer, John. P., Sampo V. Paunonen, Ian R. Gellatly, Richard D. Goffin, and Douglas N.
Jackson. 1989. “Organizational Commitment and Job Performance: It's the Nature
of the Commitment That Counts,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152-
156.
Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal
Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Miceli, Marcia P. and Janet P. Near. 1992. Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and
Legal Implications for Companies and Employees. New York, NY: Lexington
Books.
Michaels, Charles E. and Paul E. Spector. 1982. “Causes of Employee Turnover: A Test
of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino Model,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67(1), 53–59.
125
Milgram. Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Mitchell, Terence R. and William G. Scott. 1987. “Leadership Failures, the Distrusting
Public, and Prospects of the Administrative State,” Public Administration Review,
47(6), 445-452.
Mobley, William H. 1977. “Intermediate Linkages in the Relationship between Job
Satisfaction and Employee Turnover,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237-
240.
_______. 1982. Employee Turnover: Causes, Consequences, and Control. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Mobley, William H., Rodger W. Griffeth, Herbert H. Hand, and Bruce M. Meglino.
1979. “Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process,”
Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 493-522.
Morgeson, Forrest V. 2012. “Expectations, Disconfirmation, and Citizen Satisfaction
with the US Federal Government: Testing and Expanding the Model,” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, Advance Access published April 19,
2012.
Mottaz, Clifford J. 1988. “Determinants of Organizational Commitment,” Human
Relations, 41(6), 467-482.
Mowday, Richard T., Lyman W. Porter, and Richard M. Steers. 1982. Employee-
Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and
Turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Mowday, Richard T., Richard M. Steers, and Lyman W. Porter. 1979. “The Measurement
of Organizational Commitment,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Moynihan, Donald P. and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2008. “The Ties that Bind: Social
Networks, Person-Organization Value Fit, and Turnover Intention,” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 205-227.
Nevitt, Jonathan and Gregory R. Hancock. 2004. “Evaluating Small Sample Approaches
for Model Test Statistics in Structural Equation Modeling,” Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39(3), 439-478.
O’Reilly, Charles A. and David F. Caldwell. 1981. “The Commitment and Job Tenure of
New Employees: Some Evidence of Postdecisional Justification,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26(4), 597-616.
126
O’Reilly, Charles A. and Jennifer Chatman. 1986. “Organizational Commitment and
Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and
Internalization on Prosocial Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-
499.
Olinsky, Alan, Shaw Chen, and Lisa Harlow. 2003. “The Comparative Efficacy of
Imputation Methods for Missing Data in Structural Equation Modeling,”
European Journal of Operational Research, 151, 53–79.
Organ, Dennis W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier
Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
_______. 1990. “The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” in:
Barry M. Staw and Larry L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior (vol. 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp 43-72.
Organ, Dennis W. and Katherine Ryan. 1995. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal
and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” Personnel
Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.
Osigweh, Chimezie A. B. 1989. “Concept Fallibility in Organizational Science,”
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 579-594.
Ostroff, Cheri. 1992. “The Relationship between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and
Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology,
77(6), 963-974.
Ostroff, Cheri, Angelo J. Kinicki, and Mark A. Clark. 2002. “Substantive and
Operational Issues of Response Bias across Levels of Analysis: An Example of
Climate–Satisfaction Relationships,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 355-
368.
Perry, James L. 2000. “Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service
Motivation,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 471-
488.
Perry, James L. and Lois R. Wise. 1990. “The Motivational Bases of Public Service,”
Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367-373.
Peters, Cara L. O. and Craig Enders. 2002. “A Primer for the Estimation of Structural
Equation Models in the Presence of Missing Data: Maximum Likelihood
Algorithms,” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11,
81-95.
127
Peterson, Dane K. 2002. “The Relationship between Unethical Behavior and the
Dimensions of the Ethical Climate Questionnaire,” Journal of Business Ethics,
41, 313-326.
Pincoffs, Edmund L. 1986. Quandaries and Virtues: Against Reductivism in Ethics.
Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas.
Podsakoff, Philip M. and Dennis W. Organ. 1986. “Self-Reports in Organizational
Research: Problems and Prospects,” Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff.
2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the
Literature and Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5),
879-903.
Porter, Lyman W. and William J. Crampon. 1976. “Organizational Commitment and
Managerial Turnover: A Longitudinal Study,” Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 15(1), 87-98.
Porter, Lyman W. and Richard M Steers. 1973. “Organizational, Work, and Personal
Factors in Employee Turnover and Absenteeism,” Psychological Bulletin, 80(2),
151-176.
Porter, Lyman W., Richard M. Steers, Richard T. Mowday, and Paul V. Boulian. 1974.
“Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric
Technicians,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.
Rainey, Hal G. 2003. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations (3
rd
eds.,) San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rainey, Hal G. and Paula Steinbauer. 1999. “Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements
of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations,” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1-32.
Rasmussen, Ken, David Malloy, and James Agarwal. 2003. “The Ethical Climate of
Government and Non-profit Organizations: Implications for Public-Private
Partnerships,” Public Management Review, 5(1), 83-97.
Rest, James R. 1979. Development in Judging Moral Issue. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minneapolis Press.
_______. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in Theory and Research. New York, NY:
Praeger.
128
_______. 1990. DIT Manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
_______. 2009. “Background: Theory and Research,” in: James R. Rest and Darcia
Narvaez (eds.,) Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied
Ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reynolds, Scott J. 2003. “Perceptions of Organizational Ethicality: Do Inflated
Perceptions of Self Lead to Inflated Perceptions of the Organization?,” Journal of
Business Ethics, 42(3), 253-266.
Richardson, Hettie. A., Marcia J. Simmering, and Michael C. Sturman. 2009. “A Tale of
Three Perspectives: Examining Post Hoc Statistical Techniques for Detection and
Correction of Common Method Variance,” Organizational Research
Methods,12(4), 762-800.
Richardson, William D. and Lloyd G. Nigro. 1987. “Administrative Ethics and Founding
Thought: Constitutional Correctives, Honor, and Education,” Public
Administration Review, 47(5), 367-376.
_______. 1991. “The Constitution and Administrative Ethics in America,”
Administration & Society, 23(3): 275-287.
Robertson, Peter. J., Carlos, W. Lo, and Shui-Yan Tang. 2007. “Money, Mission, or
Match: Antecedents of Commitment among Public Employees in China,”
Administration & Society, 39(1), 3-24.
Rohr, John A. 1986. To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State.
Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
_______. 1989. Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values (2
nd
ed.,) New
York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and
Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenbloom, David H. 1983. “Public Administrative Theory and the Separation of
Powers,” Public Administration Review, 43, 219-227.
Rugeley, Cindy and Montgomery Van Wart. 2006. “Everyday Moral Exemplars: The
Case of Judge Sam Medina,” Public Integrity, 8(4), 381-394.
Schumacker, Randall E. and Richard C. Lomax. 2010. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural
Equation Modeling (3
rd
eds.), New York, NY: Routledge.
129
Schwepker, Charles H. Jr. 1999. “The Relationship between Ethical Conflict,
Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intentions in the Sales Force,” Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(1), 43–49.
Simha, Adiya., and John B. Cullen. 2012. “Ethical Climates and Their Effects on
Organizational Outcomes: Implications from the Past and Prophecies for the
Future,” Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 20-34.
Simon, Christopher A. 2001. To Run a School: Administrative Organization and
Learning. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Simon, Herbert A. 1976. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making
Processes in Administrative Organization. New York, NY: The Free Press.
_______. 1998. “Why Public Administration?,” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 8(1), 1-12.
Somers, Mark J. 1995. “Organizational Commitment, Turnover and Absenteeism: An
Examination of Direct and Interaction Effects,” Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(1), 49-58.
Spector Paul E. 2006. “Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban
Legend?,” Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232.
Spector, Paul E. and Brannick, Michael T. 2011. “Methodological Urban Legends: The
Misuse of Statistical Control Variables,” Organizational Research Methods,
14(2), 287-305.
Spence, Larry D. 1980. “Moral Judgment and Bureaucracy,” in: Richard W. Wilson and
Gordon J. Schochet (eds.), Moral Development and Politics, New York, NY:
Praeger, pp. 137-171.
Stazyk, Edmund C., Randall S. Davis, Jr., and Jiaqi Liang. 2012. “Examining the Links
between Workforce Diversity, Organizational Goal Clarity, and Job Satisfaction,”
Available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com.libproxy.usc.edu/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107330&d
ownload=yes
Steers, Richard M. 1977. “Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 46-56.
130
Stewart, Debra W. and Norman A. Sprinthall. 1993. “The Impact of Demographic,
Professional, and Organizational Variables and Domain on the Moral Reasoning
of Public Administration,” in: H. George Frederickson (eds.), Ethics and Public
Administration, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 205-219.
Stewart, Debra W., Norman A. Sprinthall, Renata Siemienska. 1997. “Ethical Reasoning
in a Time of Revolution: A Study of Local Officials in Poland,” Public
Administration Review, 57(5), 445-453.
Stewart, Debra W., Renata Siemienska, and Norman A. Sprinthall. 1999. “Women and
Men in the Project of Reform: A Study of Gender Differences among Local
Officials in Two Provinces in Poland,” American Review of Public
Administration, 29(3), 225-239.
Stewart, Debra W., Norman A. Sprinthall, and Jackie D. Kem. 2002. “Moral Reasoning
in the Context of Reform: A Study of Russian Officials,” Public Administration
Review, 62(3), 282-297.
Stivers, Camilla. 1994. “The Listening Bureaucrat: Responsiveness in Public
Administration,” Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364-369.
Stone, Jeff, Elliot Aronson, A. Lauren Crain, Matthew P. Winslow, and Carrie B. Fried.
1994. “Inducing Hypocrisy as a Means of Encouraging Young Adults to Use
Condoms,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 116-128.
Strober, Myra H. 1990. “Human capital theory: Implications for HR managers,”
Industrial Relations, 29, 214-239.
Studenmund, A. H. 2006. Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide. San Francisco, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Suchman, Mark C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional
Approaches,” Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Taylor, Jeannette. 2013. “Goal Setting in the Australian Public Service: Effects on
Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” Public
Administration Review, 73(3), 453-464.
Taylor, Shelley E. (1989). Positive Illusions: Creative Self-Deception and the Healthy
Mind, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Tett, Robert P. and John P. Meyer. 1993. “Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment,
Turnover Intention, and Turnover: Path Analyses Based on Meta-Analytic
Findings,” Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259–293.
131
Thomas, Linda T. and Daniel C. Ganster. 1995. “Impact of Family-Supportive Work
Variables on Work-Family Conflict and Strain: A Control Perspective,” Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6-15.
Thompson, Dennis F. 1992. “Paradoxes of Government Ethics,” Public Administration
Review, 52(3), 254-259.
Thomson, Ann M., James L. Perry, and Theodore K. Miller. 2009. “Conceptualizing and
Measuring Collaboration,” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 19(1), 23-56.
Trevino, Linda K., Kenneth D. Butterfield, and Donald L. McCabe. 1998. “The Ethical
Contexts in Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors,”
Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447-476.
Turnley, William H. and Daniel C. Feldman. 1999. “The Impact of Psychological
Contract Violation on Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect,” Human Relations,
52(7), 895-922.
Valentine, Sean, Lynn Godkin, and Margaret Lucero. 2002. “Ethical Context,
Organizational Commitment, and Person-Organization Fit,” Journal of Business
Ethics, 41(4), 349-360.
Valentine, Sean, Martin M. Greller, and Sandra B. Richtermeyer. 2006. “Employee Job
Response as a Function of Ethical Context and Perceived Organization Support,”
Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 582-588.
Verschoor, Curtis C. 1998. “A Study of The Link between a Corporation’s Financial
Performance and Its Commitment to Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 17,
1509-1516.
Victor, Bart and John B. Cullen. 1987. “A Theory and Measure of Ethical Climates in
Organizations,” Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 9, 51-71.
_______. 1988. “The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, 33, 101-125.
Vigoda, Eran. 2002. “Administrative Agents of Democracy? A Structural Equation
Modeling of the Relationship between Public-Sector Performance and Citizenship
Involvement,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2),
241-272.
132
Viswesvaran, Chockalingam, Satish P. Deshpande, and Jacob Joseph. 1998. “Job
Satisfaction as a Function of Top Management Support for Ethical Behavior: A
Study of Indian Managers,” Journal of Business Ethics 17: 365-371.
Vitz, Paul C. 1990. “The Use of Stories in Moral Development: New Psychological
Reasons for an Old Education Method,” American Psychologist, 45(6), 709-720.
West, Jonathan P. and Evan M. Berman. 2004. “Ethics Training in U.S. Cities: Content,
Pedagogy, and Impact,” Public Integrity, 6(3), 189-206.
Westerman, James W. and Bret L. Simmons. 2007. “The Effects of Work Environment
on the Personality-Performance Relationship: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of
Managerial Issues, 19(2), 288-305.
White, Darin W. and Emily Lean. 2008. “The Impact of Perceived Leader Integrity on
Subordinates in a Work Team Environment,” Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 765-
778.
White, Richard D. 1999. “Are Women More Ethical? Recent Finding on the Effects of
Gender upon Moral Development,” Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 9(3), 459-471.
Williams, Larry J. and John T. Hazer. 1986. “Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction and Commitment in Turnover Models: A Reanalysis Using Latent
Variable Structural Equation Models,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 219
–231.
Wilson, Woodrow. 1941. “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly,
56(4), 481-506.
Wimbush, James C., Jon M. Shepard, and Steven E. Markham. 1997. “An Empirical
Examination of the Relationship between Ethical Climate and Ethical Behavior
from Multiple Levels of Analysis,” Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1705–1716.
Wittmer, Dennis. 1991. “Serving the People or Serving for Pay: Reward Preferences
among Government, Hybrid Sector, and Business Managers,” Public Productivity
& Management Review, 14(4), 369-383.
Wittmer, Dennis and David Coursey. 1996. “Ethical Work Climates: Comparing Top
Managers in Public and Private Organizations,” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 6(4), 559-572.
133
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(4), 465–472.
Yang, Kaifeng. 2009. “Examining Perceived Honest Performance Reporting by Public
Organizations: Bureaucratic Politics and Organizational Practice,” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 81-105.
Zhong, Xiaoling and Ke-Hai Yuan. 2011. “Bias and Efficiency in Structural Equation
Modeling: Maximum Likelihood versus Robust Methods,” Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 46(2), 229-265.
Zhu, Weichun, Douglas R. May, and Bruce J. Avolio. 2004. “The Impact of Ethical
Leadership Behavior on Employee Outcomes: The Roles of Psychological
Empowerment and Authenticity,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 11(1), 16-26.
Zimbardo, Philip G. 1992. Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment, New York:
Harper-Collins, Video.
Zimbardo, Philip G., Ebbe B. Ebbesen, and Christina Maslach. 1977. Influencing
Attitudes and Changing Behavior: An Introduction to Method, Theory, and
Applications of Social Control and Personal Power (2
nd
ed.), Reading, MA:
AddisonWesley.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Existing studies in the public sector have emphasized the importance of organizational ethics for ensuring employees' ethical conduct and thereby maintaining democratic government. However, this study argues that the influence of organizational ethics is not limited to public administrators' ethical behaviors but extended to employees' job attitudes and behaviors, and to organizational performance: that is, organizational ethics matters not only for maintaining democratic government but also for promoting effective government. ❧ For this purpose, this study employed a multi-level approach and examined the influence of organizational ethics at two different levels: individual-level and agency-level. At the individual level, this study tested the relationship between organizational ethics and public employees' turnover intentions. Organizational commitment was used as a mediator. At the agency level, this study explored how organizational ethics influences employee job attitudes and behaviors - specifically, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and actual turnover - and how these job attitudes and behaviors in turn influence federal agency performance. Various data sources - i.e., three waves of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (formerly the Federal Human Capital Survey), each agency's Performance and Accountability Report, and the Federal Human Resource Database - were used in order to examine the research questions. ❧ The major findings of this study are threefold. First, the findings support the notion that organizational ethics are an important determinant of employee job attitudes and behaviors. The results at the individual level suggest that organizational ethics is negatively associated with public employees' turnover intentions. In addition, the impact of organizational ethics is partially mediated by organizational commitment: when public employees have more positive perceptions of the ethical practices of their organization, the employees are more likely than others to have higher organizational commitment. Organizational commitment in turn decreases the likelihood of public employees intending to leave their organization. In addition, as agency-level analyses suggest, turnover intention rate is positively associated with actual turnover rate: thus, agencies with lower turnover intention rates are more likely than others to have a lower rate of actual employee turnover. In sum, the results suggest that organizational ethics is an important element of a desirable workplace where employees want to stay. ❧ Next, the findings also support the idea that organizational ethics matter for organizational performance. The results suggest that organizational ethics influence federal agency performance through employee attitudes/behaviors. Specifically, a federal agency with a higher level of organizational ethics is more likely than other agencies to have employees with higher organizational commitment, and the higher level of commitment in the agency in turn positively influences the agency's performance. ❧ Finally, another important finding of this research is the role of organizational commitment in linking ethics to turnover intentions and federal agency performance: in this study, organizational commitment mediates a great portion of the impact of organizational ethics on turnover intention. In addition, organizational commitment fully mediates the relationship between organizational ethics and federal agency performance. These findings indicate that having committed employees can benefit an organization in various ways, and an organization can promote employee commitment by creating an ethically supportive organizational context. ❧ All in all, by examining the relationship between organizational ethics and employee job attitudes and behaviors, this study suggests that organizational ethics is an important determinant of a desirable workplace. In addition, this study brings ethics to the discussion of organizational performance and provides empirical support that ethics matter for government performance.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study
PDF
Municipal employee reactions to city council incivility: an exploratory data analysis
PDF
Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM)
PDF
Stop the revolving door: the influence of emotionally intelligent leadership practices on employee retention in non‐profit human service organizations
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
A longitudinal study of job resources, burnout, and turnover among social workers: implications for evidence-based organizational practices
PDF
The effects of interlocal collaboration on local economic performance: investigation of Korean cases
PDF
Organizational dimensions of energy justice: affordable energy program implementation in California's San Joaquin Valley
PDF
Homegrown violent extremism: designing a community-based model to reduce the risk of recruitment and radicalization
PDF
Collaboration: is it worth it? The Magnolia Community Initiative from the perspective of initiative partner participants
PDF
Impact of performance appraisals on double-hatting employees
PDF
Three essays on the causes and consequences of China’s governance reforms
PDF
Performance management in government: the importance of goal clarity
PDF
Transcendental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating effect of spirituality in the workplace
PDF
Education based incarceration: educate to change the organizational culture of corrections in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
PDF
Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty
PDF
The Wenchuan earthquake recovery: civil society, institutions, and planning
PDF
Employee churn in afterschool care: an evaluation study of manager influences on employee retention and turnover
PDF
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in aligning learning to business performance results: a study of a promising practice
PDF
A study of Chinese environmental NGOs: policy advocacy, managerial networking, and leadership succession
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jeon, So Hee
(author)
Core Title
The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
07/17/2014
Defense Date
06/06/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
employee commitment,job attitudes and behaviors,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational ethics,organizational performance,turnover
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Robertson, Peter John (
committee chair
), Cooper, Terry L. (
committee member
), Miller, Donald Earl (
committee member
)
Creator Email
soheejeo@usc.edu,soheejeon00@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-291776
Unique identifier
UC11288132
Identifier
etd-JeonSoHee-1788.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-291776 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-JeonSoHee-1788.pdf
Dmrecord
291776
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Jeon, So Hee
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
employee commitment
job attitudes and behaviors
organizational ethics
organizational performance
turnover