Introduction
Ethical Culture as a Part of the Organisational Context
Outcomes of Ethical Culture
Ethical Culture and Well-Being: Conservation of Resources Theory
Longitudinal Effects: Spirals of Resource Loss and Gain
Context of the Study: Leaders’ Perceptions of Ethical Culture
Method
Participants
Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | Time 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sample size n | 567 | 463 | 403 | 237 |
Labour union n (%) | ||||
Finnish business school graduates | 262 (46.2) | |||
Academic engineers and architects | 305 (53.8) | |||
Work contract n (%) | ||||
Permanent | 557 (98.2) | |||
Temporary | 10 (1.8) | |||
Contract type n (%) | ||||
Full time | 487 (97.4) | |||
Part time | 3 (0.6) | |||
Family leave | 7 (1.4) | |||
Temporary layoff | 3 (0.6) | |||
Employment sector n (%) | ||||
Private | 451 (79.8) | |||
Municipality | 45 (8.0) | |||
Government | 40 (7.1) | |||
Own company | 18 (3.2) | |||
Association | 11 (1.9) | |||
Employment field n (%) | ||||
Industry | 224 (39.5) | |||
Telecommunications/data processing | 81 (14.3) | |||
Business services/renting | 66 (11.6) | |||
Public administration | 50 (8.8) | |||
Finance and insurance | 44 (7.8) | |||
Commerce and trade | 39 (6.9) | |||
Education | 16 (2.8) | |||
Other (e.g., health care, traffic) | 47 (8.3) | |||
Leadership level n (%) | ||||
Upper management | 72 (12.7) | |||
Management | 189 (33.3) | |||
Upper middle management | 210 (37.0) | |||
Lower middle management | 96 (16.9) | |||
Direct subordinates n (%) | ||||
Yes | 455 (80.4) | |||
No | 111 (19.6) | |||
Gender n (%) | ||||
Male | 386 (68.1) | |||
Female | 181 (31.9) | |||
M (SD) | ||||
Age | 46 (9.0) | |||
Organisational tenure | 39 (10.5) | |||
Work experience in current task | 26 (4.3) | |||
Corporate ethical virtues | 4.33 (0.75) | 4.43 (0.73) | 4.45 (0.76) | 4.65 (0.77) |
Ethical dilemmas | 2.24 (0.88) | 2.21 (0.84) | 2.14 (0.88) | 2.10 (0.90) |
Ethical stress | 2.18 (0.60) | 2.21 (0.67) | 2.15 (0.65) | 2.07 (0.65) |
Burnout | 2.94 (0.79) | 2.94 (0.83) | 2.84 (0.82) | 2.83 (0.81) |
Work engagement | 5.83 (0.98) | 5.81 (1.00) | 5.80 (0.97) | 5.79 (1.03) |
Measures
Ethical Culture
Ethical Dilemmas and Stress
Burnout
Work Engagement
Analyses
Dropout
Estimate | df | p | |
---|---|---|---|
Demographic variables | χ2 | ||
Labour union | 0.64 | 1 | 0.425 |
Work contract | 2.82 | 2 | 0.244 |
Employer sector | 4.38 | 4 | 0.357 |
Employment field | 5.23 | 7 | 0.632 |
Leadership level | 1.34 | 3 | 0.720 |
Direct subordinates | 0.35 | 1 | 0.553 |
Contract type | 6.12 | 3 | 0.106 |
Gender | 1.98 | 1 | 0.159 |
t | |||
Age | − 2.38 | 660 | 0.018 |
Organisational tenure | − 2.05 | 618 | 0.041 |
Work experience in current task | − 2.27 | 557 | 0.024 |
Other study variables | χ2 | ||
Ethical dilemmas | 12.52 | 4 | 0.014 |
Ethical stress | 2.11 | 3 | 0.551 |
t | |||
Corporate ethical virtues | 0.40 | 895 | 0.686 |
Burnout | − 1.38 | 896 | 0.167 |
Work engagement | 2.44 | 626 | 0.015 |
Measurement Invariance of the Ethical Culture Scale
df | χ2 | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | ∆df1 | ∆ χ2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clarity | |||||||
Configural invariance | 98 | 321.96 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.051 | – | – |
Metric invariance | 107 | 332.52 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.049 | 9 | 8.93 ns |
Congruency of supervisors | |||||||
Configural invariance | 98 | 393.36 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.058 | ||
Metric invariance | 107 | 403.97 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.056 | 9 | 9.11 ns |
Congruency of senior management | |||||||
Configural invariance | 98 | 327.01 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.051 | ||
Metric invariance | 107 | 342.34 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.050 | 9 | 17.24 ns |
Feasibilitya | |||||||
Configural invariance | 93 | 277.68 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.047 | ||
Metric invariance | 102 | 291.35 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.046 | 9 | 14.23 ns |
Supportability | |||||||
Configural invariance | 98 | 272.25 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.045 | ||
Metric invariance | 107 | 295.07 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.044 | 9 | 22.71** |
Transparencya,b | |||||||
Configural invariance | 92 | 264.53 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.046 | ||
Metric invariance | 101 | 272.36 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.044 | 9 | 7.24 ns |
Discussability | |||||||
Configural invariance | 98 | 207.77 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.035 | ||
Metric invariance | 107 | 224.00 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.035 | 9 | 16.35 ns |
Sanctionabilitya | |||||||
Configural invariance | 95 | 294.17 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.048 | ||
Metric invariance | 104 | 302.91 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.046 | 9 | 6.26 ns |
Latent Profile Analysis of Ethical Culture Patterns Over Time
Well-Being in Different Ethical Culture Patterns
Results
Ethical Culture Patterns
No. of groups | Log likelihood | Entropy | aBIC | VLMR | LMR | BLRT | Group proportions (n) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | − 1886.349 | – | 3788.699 | – | – | – | 567 |
(− 1222.445) | (2467.397) | (398) | |||||
2 | − 1633.675 | 0.72 | 3321.168 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 285, 282 |
(− 1030.826) | (0.74) | (2109.480) | (0.006) | (0.007) | (0.000) | (253, 145) | |
3 | − 1535.069 | 0.70 | 3152.450 | 0.062 | 0.064 | 0.000 | 234, 170, 163 |
(− 926.594) | (0.78) | (1923.335) | (0.013) | (0.013) | (0.000) | (207, 110, 81) | |
4 | − 1494.563 | 0.69 | 3099.929 | 0.484 | 0.488 | 0.000 | 228, 163, 102, 74 |
(− 884.763) | (0.76) | (1867.994) | (0.123) | (0.127) | (0.000) | (149, 109, 75, 65) | |
5 | − 1468.199 | 0.75 | 3075.694 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 223, 152, 105, 68, 19 |
(− 858.031) | (0.76) | (1839.852) | (0.547) | (0.550) | (0.000) | (126, 103, 93, 65, 11) | |
6 | − 1444.759 | 0.68 | 3057.307 | 0.030 | 0.032 | 0.000 | 55, 59, 115, 152, 69, 117 |
(− 837.009) | (0.79) | (1823.129) | (0.185) | (0.189) | (0.022) | (121, 106, 95, 61, 11, 4) | |
7 | − 1432.413 | 0.73 | 3061.108 | – | – | – | 178, 149, 101, 68, 40, 27, 4 |
(− 825.396) | (0.74) | (1825.224) | – | – | – | (108, 98, 66, 65, 31, 19, 11) |
1. Strong CEV | 2. Above average CEV | 3. Average CEV | 4. Below average CEV | 5. Weak CEV | Estimate | df | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | χ2 | |||||||
Labour union | ||||||||
The finnish business school graduates | 39 | 68 | 45 | 100 | 10 | 4.49 | 4 | 0.344 |
Academic engineers and architects | 29 | 84 | 60 | 123 | 9 | |||
Employer sector | ||||||||
Private | 58 | 129 | 80 | 170 | 14 | 19.65 | 16 | 0.237 |
Government | 3 | 5 | 9 | 22 | 1 | |||
Municipality | 3 | 9 | 9 | 22 | 2 | |||
Own company | 3 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 0 | |||
Association | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | |||
Employment field | 29.85 | 28 | 0.371 | |||||
Industry | 19 | 65 | 38 | 94 | 8 | |||
Telecommunications or data processing | 10 | 19 | 14 | 35 | 3 | |||
Business services or renting | 13 | 16 | 11 | 24 | 2 | |||
Public administration | 2 | 9 | 14 | 23 | 2 | |||
Finance and insurance | 11 | 13 | 8 | 12 | 0 | |||
Commerce and trade | 6 | 13 | 9 | 10 | 1 | |||
Education | 3 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 1 | |||
Other | 4 | 13 | 9 | 19 | 2 | |||
Leadership level | 31.20 | 23 | 0.002 | |||||
Upper management | 18T | 22 | 14 | 18AT | 0 | |||
Management | 22 | 58 | 30 | 72 | 7 | |||
Upper middle management | 21 | 55 | 36 | 92 | 6 | |||
Lower middle management | 7 | 17 AT | 25T | 41 | 6 | |||
Direct subordinates | 6.35 | 4 | 0.175 | |||||
Yes | 61 | 125 | 84 | 172 | 13 | |||
No | 7 | 27 | 21 | 51 | 5 | |||
Gender | 15.03 | 4 | 0.005 | |||||
Male | 55T | 112 | 72 | 138AT | 9AT | |||
Female | 13AT | 40 | 33 | 85T | 10T | |||
M | F | |||||||
Age | 46.03 | 45.65 | 45.36 | 46.01 | 46.68 | 0.16 | 4, 562 | 0.959 |
Organisational tenure | 9.88 | 11.33 | 11.60 | 9.86 | 7.47 | 1.72 | 4, 562 | 0.143 |
Work experience in current task | 4.54 | 4.01 | 5.31 | 4.00 | 4.04 | 1.80 | 4, 560 | 0.128 |
Differences Between Well-Being in the Ethical Culture Patterns
Group Effects
Well-being | 1. Strong CEV | 2. Above average CEV | 3. Average CEV | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | |
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | |
Ethical dilemmas | 2.12 | 1.92 | 1.77 | 1.57 | 2.24 | 2.01 | 1.95 | 1.97 | 2.14 | 2.25 | 2.14 | 2.03 |
0.12 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.10 | |
Ethical stress | 2.11 | 1.79 | 1.85 | 1.60 | 2.07 | 2.09 | 2.05 | 1.92 | 2.24 | 2.24 | 2.16 | 2.20 |
0.09 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.09 | |
Burnout | 2.52 | 2.46 | 2.25 | 2.32 | 2.73 | 2.72 | 2.62 | 2.63 | 2.97 | 2.86 | 2.87 | 2.85 |
0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | |
Work | 6.37 | 6.32 | 6.39 | 6.26 | 6.12 | 6.10 | 6.16 | 6.06 | 5.81 | 5.83 | 5.76 | 5.71 |
engagement | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.11 |
Well-being | 4. Below average CEV | 5. Weak CEV | Time × groupa | Time effecta F | Group effecta, b F | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | M S.E | ||||
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | ||||
Ethical dilemmas | 2.33 | 2.38 | 2.26 | 2.19 | 2.58 | 2.58 | 2.97 | 3.26 | 25.57**b | Group 3b: 17.64*** | T1: 10.16* |
0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.3 | 0.32 | T2: 27.09*** | |||
T3: 29.15*** T4: 29.76*** | |||||||||||
Ethical stress | 2.21 | 2.27 | 2.14 | 2.10 | 2.5 | 2.64 | 2.75 | 2.97 | 42.31***b | Group 2b: 19.91*** | T1: 13.08* |
0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.17 | Group 5b: 9.55* | T2: 36.76*** | ||
T3: 20.14*** T4: 45.26*** | |||||||||||
Burnout | 3.16 | 3.17 | 3.00 | 2.97 | 3.38 | 3.86 | 3.93 | 4.45 | 29.954** b | Group 1b: 20.82*** | T1: 58.50*** |
0.05 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.21 | Group 2b: 10.69* | T2: 76.76*** | ||
Group 5b: 10.81* | T3: 101.28*** T4: 86.74*** | ||||||||||
Work | 5.52 | 5.52 | 5.53 | 5.63 | 5.54 | 4.91 | 4.9 | 4.33 | 20.63 ns | 0.42 ns | T1: 87.73*** |
engagement | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.48 | T2: 79.59*** | ||
T3: 88.45*** T4: 39.76*** |