Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Organizations Don’t Walk Their Talk: A Cross-Level Examination of How Decoupling Formal Ethics Programs Affects Organizational Members

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research illustrates dangers inherent in the gap created when organizations decouple ethics program adoption from implementation. Using a sample of 182 professionals in the pharmaceutical and financial services industries, we examine the relationship between structural decoupling of formal ethics programs and individual-level perceptions and behavior. Findings strongly support the hypothesized relationships between decoupling and organizational members’ legitimacy perceptions of the ethics program, psychological contract breach, organizational cynicism, and unethical behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. http://www.goldmansachs.com/investor-relations/corporate-governance/corporate-governance-documents/revise-code-of-conduct.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2012.

  2. http://www.goldmansachs.com/investor-relations/corporate-governance/corporate-governance-documents/revise-code-of-conduct.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2012.

  3. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed May 31, 2012.

  4. The number of questions to which our respondents answered in the affirmative is as follows: 0–40 respondents; 1–26 respondents; 2–33 respondents; 3–36 respondents; 4–29 respondents; 5–124 respondents. The results of this paper incorporate the responses of those participants who answer yes to more than half of the questions (3 or higher). As a sensitivity test, we ran the analysis using those subjects answering affirmatively to four (the median) of the five questions. The results are quantitatively and qualitatively consistent with our current analysis.

  5. Specifically, we use principal components with Varimax rotation as our extraction method. This method assumes that all variance is common, so that there are no assumed relationships among factors.

  6. Soper (2012), http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3.

References

  • Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(3), 269–293.

  • Adams, J. E., Highouse, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Understanding general distrust of corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(1), 38–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49(11), 1395–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1998). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(5), 449–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling, personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bashir, S., Nasir, M., Saeed, S., & Ahmed, M. (2011). Breach of psychological contract, perception of politics and organizational cynicism: Evidence from Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(3), 884–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “Ivory”, it isn’t “White:” Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(1), 9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnam, M., & MacLean, T. (2011). Where is the accountability in international accountability standards? A decoupling perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1984). Multiple indicators: Internal consistency or no necessary relationship? Quality & Quantity, 18(4), 377–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion, and decoupling. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 78–98). Oxford: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, P., & Powell, W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Certo, T. S. (2003). Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 432–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications in marketing and related fields (pp. 655–690). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrobot-Mason, D. L. (2003). Keeping the promise: Psychological contract violations for minority employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Roeck, K., & Delobbe, N. (2012). Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy in the oil industry? Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identification theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 397–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. W., Jr., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 341–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A. (1999). Export performance measurement: Reflective versus formative indicators. International Marketing Review, 16(6), 444–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddleston, K. A., Kidder, D. L., & Litzky, B. E. (2002). Who’s the boss? Contending with competing expectations from customers and management. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(4), 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. AJS, 97(6), 1531–1576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1994). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. M., Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2006). Who’s in the ethics driver’s seat? Factors influencing ethics in the MBA curriculum. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 278–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

  • Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity image and adaptive instability. Academy Management Review, 25, 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods, and applications (pp. 611–691). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, P. H., & Meister, D. B. (2004). Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Management Science, 50(6), 821–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Posdakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalev, K., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy Management Journal, 43(4), 98–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, C., Ang, S., & Straub, D. W. (2004). IT outsourcing success: A psychological contract perspective. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 356–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61, 812–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, T., & Maxwell, J. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Academy of Management, 53(6), 1499–1520.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, T. (2003). How structural decoupling facilitates organizational misconduct. Seattle, WA: Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, T. L., & Behnam, M. (2010). The dangers of decoupling: The relationship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1499–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Impact of behavioral integrity on follower job performance: A three-study examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 765–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pate, J., Martin, G., & McGoldrick, J. (2003). The impact of psychological contract violation on employee attitudes and behaviour. Employee Relations, 25(6), 557–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, K. L., & Bligh, M. C. (2006). Rebounding from corruption: Perceptions of ethics program effectiveness in a public sector organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, K. L., & Bligh, M. C. (2008). The aftermath of organizational corruption: Employee attributions and emotional reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 823–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Oxford: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., DeMarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. (1994). Reframing the organization: Why implementing total quality is easier said than done. Academy Management Journal, 19(3), 565–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, S. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Hamburg: http://www.smartpls.de.

  • Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 1–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 877–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soper, D. S. (2012) Sobel test calculator for the significance of mediation (Online Software), http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3.

  • Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Piovoso, M. J. (2009). Silver bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organizational research. Group and Organization Management, 34(1), 5–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilcsik, A. (2010). From ritual to reality: Demography, ideology, and decoupling in a post-communist government agency. Academy Management Journal, 53(6), 1474–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K., & McCabe, D. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational justice and ethics program ‘follow-through’: Influences on employees’ harmful and helpful behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4), 651–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbany, J. E. (2005). Inspiration and cynicism in values statements. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(2), 169–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research and management. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Haggerty, N. (2011). Individual virtual competence and its influence on work outcomes. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(4), 299–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change. Group and Organization Management, 25(2), 132–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. (1999). Compliance and values oriented ethics programs: Influences on employees’ attitudes and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 315–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. (1999a). Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999b). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1997). Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 366–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1998). The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 202–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (2004). The social construction of market value: Institutionalization and learning perspectives on stock market reactions. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 433–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following: the anonymous reviewers and editor at JBE for their insightful reviews; Cynthia Clark and the Harold S. Geneen Institute of Corporate Governance at Bentley University for their support; the Consortium for Sustainable Business Development at Penn State Great Valley for their support; Scott R. Boss at Bentley University for his valuable research assistance; and the members of Fulton 214 (Rich DeJordy, Erica Foldy, Danna Greenberg, Jenny Rudolph, Steven Taylor, Pacey Foster, and Peter Rivard) for their feedback on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University, Boston, MA, 02108, USA

    Tammy MacLean

  2. Great Valley School of Graduate and Professional Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, 30 E. Swedesford Road, Malvern, PA, 19355, USA

    Barrie E. Litzky

  3. College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, PO Box 6025, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA

    D. Kip Holderness Jr.

Authors
  1. Tammy MacLean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barrie E. Litzky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Kip Holderness Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barrie E. Litzky.

Appendix

Appendix

Ethics Program Decoupling, Formative Second Order

Three dimensions: ethics training activities, ethics program monitoring, and ethics program compliance. Each is a latent, first order construct.

Ethics Training Activities

Item adapted from Weaver et al. (1999a). Item was developed based on possible frequency of ethics training (Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Semi-Annually, Annually, Only one time for each new hire, Never).

Training:

Please select the category that most accurately describes the frequency that ethics training occurs in your company

Ethics Program Monitoring

Items adapted from Weaver et al. (1999a). Itemswere measured on a five-point scale (1 = “Strongly Agree,” 5 = “Strongly Disagree”).

Monitor1:

Assessment of a person’s ethics is a formal part of performance appraisals.

Monitor2:

People are formally evaluated on the ethics of their behavior.

Monitor3:

Managers/supervisors are asked to formally assess the ethical performance of their subordinates.

Ethics Program Compliance

Items adapted from Weaver et al. (1999a) and Treviño and Weaver (2001). Itemswere measured on a five-point scale (1 = “Strongly Agree,” 5 = “Strongly Disagree”).

Compliance1:

Employees violating ethics expectations are disciplined.

Compliance2:

Employees failing to abide by policies will be disciplined.

Compliance3:

People not conforming to ethical standards are disciplined.

Compliance4:

Even minor violations of ethical expectations get an employee disciplined.

Internal Ethics Program Legitimacy, Latent

Items adapted from Foreman and Whetten (2002) and MacLean and Behnam (2010). Items were measured on a five-point scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 5 = “Strongly Agree”).

Legitimacy1:

My company’s ethics policies and practices guide me in my decision-making at work.

Legitimacy2:

My company’s ethics policies and practices help me do my job more effectively.

Legitimacy3:

Our ethics program is a valuable organizational resource.

Legitimacy4:

Our ethics program adds to the effectiveness of our organization.

Legitimacy5:

Our ethics program is appropriate to our industry.

Legitimacy6:

Our customers, regulators, investors, and other outsiders deem our ethics program acceptable.

Legitimacy7:

My company’s ethics policies and practices support the employees in their day-to-day work.

Observed Unethical Behavior, Latent

Items adapted from Treviño and Weaver (2001). Items reflected the frequency that participants observed the following types of behavior (Never, Rarely, Occasionally, Frequently, Very Frequently)

Behavior1:

Taking longer than necessary to do a job

Behavior2:

Misuse of on-the-job time

Behavior3:

Concealing errors

Behavior4:

Falsifying time/quality/quantity reports

Behavior5:

Calling in sick just to take a day off

Behavior6:

Lying to supervisors

Behavior7:

Stealing from the company

Behavior8:

Dragging out work to get overtime

Psychological Contract Breach, Formative Second Order

Items adapted from Chrobot-Mason (2003) and Robinson (1996). Three dimensions: the extent to which participants’ employers made the following promises in exchange for their contributions to the organization, the importance of each promise, and whether each promise was fulfilled. Each dimension is formative first order. Items were measured on a five-point scale for each dimension (1 = “To a great extent”/“Very important to me”/“Very well fulfilled,” 5 = “To little or no extent”/“Not at all important to me”/“Not at all fulfilled”).

Made1/Importance1/Fufilled1:

High pay based on performance

Made2/Importance2/Fufilled2:

Long-term job security

Made3/Importance3/Fufilled3:

Career development

Made4/Importance4/Fufilled4:

Sufficient power/responsibility

Made5/Importance5/Fufilled5:

Support with personal problems

Cynicism, Latent

Items adapted from Bedeian (2007). Items were measured on a five-point scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 5 = “Strongly Agree”).

Cynicism1:

I wonder about the real purpose behind company decisions

Cynicism2:

I have misgivings whether my company is forthright regarding its actions

Cynicism3:

I suspect my company is deliberately evasive in things it says

Cynicism4:

I marvel at the disparity between reality and my company’s claims

Cynicism5:

I’ve questioned whether company officials are really interested in addressing the problems facing the company

Cynicism6:

I’ve suspected that the company’s public statements reflect more spin than reality

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacLean, T., Litzky, B.E. & Holderness, D.K. When Organizations Don’t Walk Their Talk: A Cross-Level Examination of How Decoupling Formal Ethics Programs Affects Organizational Members. J Bus Ethics 128, 351–368 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2103-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2103-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation