The Determinants Of Ethical Decision Making Psychology Essay
Under this study, Personality Traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness to experiences) will be examined. Organizational Climate (Social Norm of a company) and Moral Courage will be studied as the moderator to find out the relationship between Personality Traits’ (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness to experiences) on ethical decision making. This section also reports the research methodology including research design, analytical techniques and operation of constructs.
3.2 RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS
This study aims to focus on the determinants of ethical decision making. Jones (1991) study has provided the evidence of personality traits as antecedents of ethical decision making of employees. This also supported by Pimintel, Kuntz and Elenkov (2010) where there is agreement that employees’ personality traits, works experience, organizational characteristic are the important factors that will influence the ethical decision making especially is business industry.
Ford and Richardson (1994), also support that there are some individual that will affect on the ethical decision making of employees in organization which they mention that nationality, religion, gender and age, level of education, working experience, value, belief and personality will affect ethical behavior and decision making of the employees in the organization. Several studies have proposed that a relationship exists between the ethical climate of an organization and the personality traits of the employees (Deshpande, 1996; Deshpande et al., 2000; Fritzsche, 2000; Wimbush and Shepard, 1994).
In Hegarty and Sims’ (1978 and 1979) paper they included the Neuroticism and Extraversion, Conscientiousness as the factors that will influence the ethical decision making of employees in organization. This paper show a result that by using the Eysenck measure for the neuroticism and extroversion, there is no significant relationship to the ethical decision making of the employees (Hegarty and Sims, 1978 and 1979). Therefore, in this paper, scholar does not include the neuroticism and extroversion into the study as most of the finding does not show any significant result between the relationship of personality traits and ethical decision - making.
Previous ethical decision research implies that employees might be moderated by Cultural Intelligence (Rose, Ramalu and Uli 2010), Cultural dimension of and employee (Pan, Song, Goldschmidt and French 2010), organizational forms (Skinner 1988) and culture (Svensson and Wood 2011); (Horvath 1995), peer influence (Zey – Ferrell et al., 1979), Corporate Governance Mechanism (O’Leary and Stewart 2007), Hofstede Cultural Dimension (Tse at El., 1988 and Vitell et al., 1993) and (Zey – Ferrell and Ferrell, 1982), or job position and managerial value (Alder 1997) during the period that they were making decision for an activity or organization. Therefore, in this study, scholar will include the organizational climate Victor and Cullen (1988) and Moral Courage May et al., (2003) as the moderating effect between personality traits and ethical decision making of the bank employees..
3.3 The Influence of the Personality Traits on ethical decision making
According to Hargis (2006), although each factor included in the Five Factor model of personality has been shown to predict important organizational outcomes, conscientiousness and agreeableness seem most likely to be important predictors of ethical decision-making and behavior within organizations.
As mention by Hargis (2006) both conscientiousness and agreeableness are connected to ethical or unethical behavior in that both traits entail rule following, obedience, compliance, kindness, and altruism. More specifically, Hargis (2006) also mentioned that the dependability dimension of conscientiousness contains the facets of dutifulness (rule following) and deliberation (forethought, prudence), which should be positively related to ethical decision-making.
As reviewed from the Chapter 2 Literature Review, the construct of agreeableness contains facets of altruism (sympathetic Costa and McCrae (1992), generosity and helpfulness) and compliance (obedience). Additionally, agreeable individuals are less likely to behave in an aggressive or selfish manner (Straightforward and selfless) as mention by Costa and McCrae (1992).
3.3.1 The Influence of Personality Trait’s Neuroticism on Ethical Decision – Making
Watson and Clark (1997) mention that neuroticism is defined as energetic, cheerful, and sociable (i.e., predisposed toward positive affect and preferring interpersonal interaction. However, in Zyphur’s (2006) paper McCrae and Costa (1987) characterize neuroticism by worry and insecurity. One of the five factors of personality likely to be of paramount import predicting ethical decision making is neuroticism which mention by Zyphur (2006). This statement also argue by Mogg, Bradley, Miles and Dixon (2004), which the researcher mentioned that neuroticism are the element which tent to related to individual that pay attention or alert to certain situation when making decision.
There are research also shows that like in Forgas (1989), where neuroticism are influencing in the ethical decision making and it also supported by the paper from Ormel and Wohlfarth (1991). People high in Neuroticism often perceive themselves as holding unfavorable positions, positions that fall short of their ideal and they also likely to make self-judgments that are further from their ideal-judgments than people low in Neuroticism as this also mention by Olson and Suls (2000). In Zyphur paper, he is looking for a positive correlation with the neuroticism and ethical decision making. However, the result shows that the relationship of neuroticism and ethical decision making are mediated by anxiety which it negatively related to ethical decision - making and it only has positive relationship with anxiety.
Hypotheses 1: Neuroticism has a significant negative relationship with ethical decision making.
3.3.2 The Influence of Personality Trait’s Extraversion on Ethical Decision – Making
According to Costa and McCrae (1986 and 1991), extraversion can be characterize as sociable, assertiveness and gregarious. Papers was done by Forgas (1989), shows that where negative relationship of neuroticism on influencing in the ethical decision making and it also supported by the paper from Ormel and Wohlfarth (1991).
There are research that done by Hegarty and Sims (1978 and 1979), where they are positive result in showing that extraversion is associated with unethical decision making. However, decision making is mostly related to the right decision that has been made by an individual and people tent to act more ethically compare to unethical where this shows that extraversion is positively correlated with unethical decision making but negatively correlated with ethical decision making.
Hypotheses 2: Extraversion has a significant negative relationship with ethical decision making.
3.3.3 The Influence of Personality Trait’s Conscientiousness on Ethical Decision – Making
In Korzaan and Boswell (2008) paper, Conscientiousness is defined using terms such as rational, ordered, and informed. Conscientious individuals tend to deliberate issues, analyzing and eventually determining a course of action or adopting an opinion. They gather whatever information is needed to make these informed decisions.
Ones et al. (1993) conducted a large-scale comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities. Upon examination of the item content of these tests, these authors suggested that the general construct being measured was conscientiousness, one of the five personality dimensions theorized in the Big Five theory of personality (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Conscientiousness reflects characteristics such as responsibility, carefulness, and dependability.
Those high in conscientiousness exhibit the capacity to function or develop in generally productive ways and they show a preference for meaningful arrangement within the environment Olson and Suls (1998). Additionally, Olson and Suls (1998) also mention that highly conscientious people are motivated by a sense of duty and by a need for achievement and inner growth.
Engagement in the regulation of oneself for the sake of improvement and the thoughtful consideration of possible outcomes before decision or action are also hallmarks of this personality factor (Costa and McCrea, 1992). Ones et al. (1993) observed that, in the integrity testing literature, this construct appears to have been viewed and measured from its negative pole (e.g., irresponsibility, carelessness, and violation of rules).
The Big Five personality traits are the most commonly accepted taxonomy of personality in current personality literature Oswald, Schmitt, Kim, Ramsay and Gillepie (2004). Of these five global traits, conscientiousness has shown the strongest positive relationship to overall work performance like able to make ethical decision (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Ones et al., 1993; Tett et al., 1991) and strongest negative relationship to counterproductive workplace behaviors (Ones et al., 1993) and to disinhibition and psycoticism Watson and Clark (1997).
In Manley et al., (2007) paper, the finding in that paper shows initial support for the hypotheses where conscientiousness has significant variance on the ethical decision making. Conscientiousness was assessed by the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO; Costa and McCrae, 1992), which is a widely-used measure of the Big Five. Item scores were averaged to form scale scores ranging from 1 to 5, with high scores indicating high conscientiousness.
Hypotheses 3: Conscientiousness has a significant positive relationship with ethical decision making.
3.3.4 The Influence of Personality Trait’s Agreeableness on Ethical Decision – Making
Agreeableness is defined by McCrae and Costa (2003) as being trusting, sympathetic, straightforward and selfless. Agreeableness is categorized by a high degree of trust in others and by others. It also can be described as a high degree of altruism, a strong desire to commiserate and aid others Costa and McCrae (1992). Finally, a high degree of compliance, or a willingness to defer to others, is observed with this trait Costa and McCrae (1992).
Agreeableness generally measures how well an individual gets along with others. Agreeableness involves flexibility, cooperation, tolerance, compliance, and altruism (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa and McCrae, 1988; Goldberg, 1990). Individuals who score high on measures of agreeableness tend to be warm and courteous and less aggressive or vindictive (Goldberg). Costa and McCrae suggested that agreeableness contains the facets of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender mindedness. Agreeable individuals tend to be cooperative, friendly, and work well with others (Mount, Barrick, and Stewart, 1998).
Hypotheses 4: Agreeableness has a significant positive relationship with ethical decision making
3.3.5 The Influence of Personality Trait’s Openness on Experience on Ethical Decision – Making
Openness to Experience is mostly known as open-mindedness versus conservatism and traditionalism by few researchers like (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In Olson and Suls (2000) paper which they shows that people with high in Openness are likely to make more liberal responses, people low in Openness are likely to make more conservative and moderate recommendations which mention by Olson and Suls (2000). In the same paper that done by Olson and Suls (2000), there are significant positively correlated result that shows that between openness to experience with the ethical dilemmas judgment and ethical decision making.
Hypotheses 5: Openness to Experience has a significant positive relationship with ethical decision making.
3.4 MODERATING RELATIONSHIP
An implicit assumption of the Jones (1991) model is that applies equally well to all bank employees. With many theories that include factors that moderating the ethical decision making of employees like Cultural Intelligence (Rose, Ramalu and Uli 2010), Cultural dimension of and employee (Pan, Song, Goldschmidt and French 2010), organizational forms (Skinner 1988) and culture (Svensson and Wood 2003); (Horvath 1995), peer influence (Zey – Ferrell et al., 1979) and (Zey – Ferrell and Ferrell, 1982), or job position and managerial value (Alder 1997). However it is likely that some of the factors like organizational climate that will influence the employees decision making as mentioned by Barnett and Vaicys (2000).
3.4.1 Organizational Climate
An organizational climate can be defined as the shared perception of what behaviors of those employees are expected and rewarded inside the organization which this is stated by Zohar and Luria (2005). In Hunt and Vittel (1991 and 1986) papers, they have mention that organizational climate or environment are factor that will also influence on the employees attitudes, belief and behavior for making decision in organization. There also agreement like Trevino (1986) and Ferrell and Gresham (1985) on this moderating factor which will give some moderate effect towards the ethical decision making of employees in organization.
A number of models of ethical decision making suggest that organizational climate play an important role in influencing ethical behavior in marketing decision making among the employees in organization which has mention in the study like (Bartels, 1967; Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986).
Knowledge of the impact of organizational climate on marketing decisions making improves a firm's ability to design effective competitive strategies, negotiate international sales and, particularly in the case of multinationals, coordinate internal activities which is mention in (Tse et al., 1988).
Barnett and Vaicys (2000) has mentioned that organizational climate which include with rules or code of ethics has some expected moderating effect on ethical decision making of an employees and there are also show positive relationship of the organizational climate and the ethical decision making which it albeit a marginally significant result of that test.
Given that Organizational Climate such as the organizational factors are considered to be important determinants of ethical decisions making in business ethics theories as most of the study that has include organizational climate in the study are like (e.g. Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Trevino, 1986; Jones, 1991) is also supported by Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Vitell and George (1999) that organizational climate as one of the important variable that use for investigating in a cross-cultural study as well. To examine the moderating effects of this factors, following hypothesis are proposed to validate concerned:
Hypothesis 6a: Organizational Climate will moderate the relationship between Neuaroticism and ethical decision – making.
Hypothesis 6b: Organizational Climate will moderate the relationship between extraversion and ethical decision – making.
Hypothesis 6C: Organizational Climate will moderate the relationship between conscientiousness and ethical decision making.
Hypothesis 6d: Organizational Climate will moderate the relationship between agreeableness and ethical decision – making.
Hypothesis 6e: Organizational Climate will moderate the relationship between openness to experience and ethical decision – making.
3.4.2 Moral Courage
Moral courage is differentiated from the standard definition of courage due to the inherent moral component. This shows that one individual may have the courage to commit a fraudulent act despite the knowledge of the consequences of his or her behavior whereas, moral courage then takes into consideration the morality of the situation like to determine what is right or wrong according to the evaluation lens that the individual is using to assess the situation despite situational pressures. Thus, moral courage is an individual’s ability to convert moral intentions into actions despite pressures from either inside or outside of the organization as mentioned by May et al., (2003). Furthermore, this statement can be say as the ability of an individual to face mental challenges that could lead to a damaged reputation of individual’s organizations, lowered self-esteem when committing a task, and other personal characteristics which mention by Kidder and Bracy (2001). Current highly competitive business environments individuals need moral courage in organizations to stand up to the pressures that are exerted upon them which this is strongly agreed by Joseph and Esen (2003) and thus to the reason that individual needs moral courage is to refrain from committing unethical behaviors which this statement was supported by De George (1993).
As mentioned by Wortman (2006), it is essential that individuals to have developed moral courage and they were able to stand up to organizational pressures to act in a way that is consistent with their moral evaluations than those with little moral courage. Thus, moral courage is conceptualized here as a moderator of the relation between moral evaluations and intentions. Comparatively, May and colleagues (2003) discuss moral courage as an influence between moral intent and moral behavior. Therefore, this study is interested in exploring the impact between a person’s moral evaluation and intention as it relates to the cognitive process an individual must undergo when evaluating the morality of a situation based upon his or her ethical perception and thinking. There are hypotheses generated to measure the moderating effects of moral courage to ethical decision making and the hypotheses is listed below:
Hypothesis 7a: Moral courage will enhance the relationship between neuroticism and ethical decision making.
Hypothesis 7b: Moral courage will enhance the relationship between extraversion and ethical decision making.
Hypothesis 7c: Moral courage will enhance the relationship between conscientiousness and ethical decision making.
Hypothesis 7d: Moral courage will enhance the relationship between agreeableness and ethical decision making.
Hypothesis 7e: Moral courage will enhance the relationship between openness to experience and ethical decision making.
The research model on the factors personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness to Experience) influence on the ethical decision making of the bank employees in Kota Kianablu, Sabah is shown in Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1: Research Framework on the influence of personality traits on bank employee’s ethical decision – making in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.
OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE
ETHICAL DECISION – MAKING OF BANK EMPLOYEE
3.5 RESEARCH DESIGN
The data relevant to this study were obtained through primary and secondary data. Primary data was collected using the survey method. Secondary data regarding to personality traits’ definition and explanation was obtained from Costa and McCrae (1992) paper. Five personality component was included in this research are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience. This investigation used an experimental research design in a field setting to test the hypotheses of the study. The respondents are randomly picked from the bank industry in Kota Kinabalu area. Those respondents were presented with Vignettes followed by standardized questionnaire that respondents were also asked to examine the scenario that were given that accessed with ethical decision – making, personality traits, ethical climate of the organization and moral courage.
3.5.1 Sampling Frame
Questionnaire was distributed through email and by hand. The participants in the study were the bank employees that is currently work in the area of Kota Kinabalu Sabah. Most of the respondents are come from the bank in Kota Kinabalu area like the Public Bank Berhad, Hong Leong Bank Berhad, CIMB Bank Berhad, Standard Chartered Bank, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corporation (HSBC), United Oversea Bank (UOB), Oversea Chinese Banking Corporation Bank (OCBC), Rashid Hussein Bank (RHB), Bank Rakyat Malaysia, Bank Simpanan Nasional (BSN), and Agrobank Berhad. Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad will not include in this study as this branch just started to operate since 1st of April 2011 and most of their employees is new to their working environment and it may not suitable to use the employees from that Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad as the respondents.
3.5.2 Survey Instrument
Survery questionnaire is the only instrument used in this study which consists of four sections (A, B, C, D and E).
The first section of the questionnaire which is section A, was adopted from was Okleshen and Hoyt (1996). And there are three scenarios that was included in this section. The scenario method was always use to measure the ethical decision making of an individual which it was recommended from Fredrickson (1986), where a customize scenarios was created to use under this study in order to depict a realistic situation that is likely to encounter by the individual in their working place. 5 point scale was use to rate each of the situation which from the range of (1 = Disapprove to 5 = Approve)
The second section of the questionnaire which is section B, was adopted from John and Srivasta (1999) paper and the questionnaire was originally from John, Donahue and Kentle (1991) paper. The 17 items that going to be measured in this section. There are two divided categories which are going to be measured and that is Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness to Exerience. In Neuroticism group, they were ask on their feeling while they were handling a task like are they depressed, always worries, get nervous easily and moody sometimes. In Extraversion group, the item that is going to measure is about the behavior of respondent like talkative, energetic, sociable and enthusiasm. In the group of conscientiousness, the items that are going to measure are the reliability, carelessness, and efficiency. Agreeableness section the things that going to be measure about helpful and unselfishness, trusting, and behavior on treating other people. In Openness to experience group, the item that is going to measure are the capability of respondent which they were ask on their capability like are they deep thinker, inventive, artistic and curious about many things. All of this category going to measured in the scale from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree
In section C, which is regarding to the organizational climate and it was originally adopted from Victor, Cullen and Branson (1993) paper and then was the questionnaire was revised by Buchan (2009) in his research paper. There are 7 items that going to be measured in this section which is regarding to respondents’ own organizational climate. Organizational climate items examined such things like the cooperativeness of the employees in the company, personal moral and ethics of the employees, and the major responsibility of the employees in the organizations. The 7 items scale are evaluated on a 5 – point scale ranging from 1 = (Extremely False) to 5 = (Extremely True). The mean scores for the seven items included in the ethical climate scale ranged from 1.06 (partner group) to 1.84 (higher scores indicate instrumental climate) which illustrate that participants did not perceive an instrumental climate. However, the mean responses range from between “False” and “True” which does indicate that participants did not all share the same view.
In section D, An individual’s moral courage was measured with the following five items that assess how an individual acts in various social situations adapted from Gibbs et al., (1986). Responses were measured using a 1-5 Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The alpha reliability of scale is 0.65.
In the final section of the questionnaire which is section E and It was adopted from Croxford (2010), respondents were asked to provide their personal background information. Besides, the respondents were asked about their age, gender, place of employment, place of birth, year of working experience, and the year’s education.
3.5.3 Survey Implementation
A Pilot test was conducted one week before the questionnaires were sent out. About five employees from CIMB Bank Berhad were selected to participate in the pilot test. The purpose of the pilot test is to ensure the clarity of the questionnaire statements and to detect the possible weaknesses in the questionnaire. Feedbacks received from the pilot study were used to revise the questionnaire. All of these items were closed – end questions that could be answered within approximately 15 minutes. Each individual questionnaire is accompanied by a cover letter. The questionnaire will be in English only.
A total of 200 sets of questionnaire were delivered by hand or sent through email during the survey period which is from 27th April 2011 until 20th May 2011. Respondents were given 3 weeks to complete and return back. Follow – up email or phone calls were made after the final questionnaires were distributed.
3.6 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE
Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software. The data is tested for its normality and linearity. This is done to fulfill the two assumptions of inferential statistic usage and to avoid Type I and Type II error in hypothesis testing. In this case, the Kolmogorov – Smirov test is executed for the normality test as it can detect non – normality distributed data better than any other test for a small sample size. There are few statistical tests were conducted to analyzed the data obtained. Each of the tests will briefly discuss in the following sections.
3.6.1 Descriptive Statistic Analysis
To start analyzing the data, descriptive statistic is performed to provide data analysis on the profiles of the responding participants using frequency analysis. Under this study, the frequency distribution of descriptive statistic analysis for the demographic variables was conducted. Through this analysis, the demographic variables can be explained into more detail in the form of table. Furthermore, mean, variance and standard deviation of the data were found to describe the characteristics of the population in this study.
3.6.2 Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis is used to describe the strength and direction of the linear relationship between 2 variables. A correlation values were neither an absolute value of 0 nor 1. It should range between 0 and 1 where the higher the value, the higher the relationship between the variables.
3.6.3 Factor Analysis
According to Coakes, Steed and Ong (2009), factors analysis is a data reduction technique used to reduce large number of variables to smaller set which summarize the essential information contained in the variables. The analysis is used to reduce the item in Section B into a certain amount of the factors.
3.6.4 Multiple Regressions
Finally, multiple regression analysis is conducted to test the hypothesis. There analyses are used to measure the relationship between determinants that influence ethical decision making of bank employees in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. The positive or negative relationship between these two variables will be examined.
3.6.5 Hierarchical Regressions
In hierarchical regression, the order of the entry of the independent variable is based on the theoretical knowledge. In this study, the moderator – organizational climate is examined between Personality Trait (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness to Experience) towards ethical decision – making.
3.7 OPERATION OF CONSTRUCTS
Below are some of the explanations on what are the item that included or the scale point that going to use to measure the Dependent Variable, Independent Variable and the Moderator. Most of the questionnaire that include in this paper are adopted from the other research paper and the questionnaire that adopted from the original author has been revised to suits the respondent like bank employees.
3.7.1 Measure of Dependent Variable
According to Jones (1991), ethical decision making can be define as the process of ethical deliberation usually utilizing various models considering such elements as the ethical problem, guidelines, choices, and consequences, and continued evaluation of the process. In this section, respondents was ask on how they going to rate for a situation that they going to face if those situation is happen in their organization. The question was adopted from Okleshen and Hoyt (1996) where there are 3 scenarios was included in this section and listed below is the scenarios that use to investigate the respond of an individual. A customized vignette was created for this study in order to depict a realistic situation that is likely to be encountered by bank employees. The scale that use to measure this section are from the rage of (1 = Disapprove to 5 = Approve)
3.7.2 Measure of Independent Variable
The Personality traits can be defined as the represents a broad range of structure of personality traits. Comprised of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience; these domains subsume more distinct and specific characteristics Larson (2001).
(Neuroticism) was one of the first personality traits that were included in this study, it measure on the personality of employees about the feelings when they were given a task to make a decision. There are 8 – item scale that is going to be measured in this questionnaire and the 8 – items scale are listed below:
Is depressed, blue
Is relaxed, handles stress well
Can be tense
Worries a lot
Is emotionally stable, not easily upset
Can be moody
Remain calm in tense situation
Get nervous easily
In the (Extraversion) personality section, there are 8 – items scale that are going to measure on how a person behavior are, most of the question mostly related to their personality and how the behave when they were in the organization. The 8 items that going to be measured are listed below:
Is full of energy
Generate a lot of enthusiasm
Tend to be quiet
Has an assertive personality
Is sometimes shy, inhibited
Is outgoing, sociable
When comes with the section of (Conscientiousness), it measure the bank employees personality on handling a task that is given. There are 9 - items scale that is going to be measured which listed below:
Does A thorough Job
Can be somewhat careless
Is a reliable worker
Tends to be disorganized
Tend to be lazy
Preserves until the task is finish
Does things efficiently
Makes plans and follow through with them.
Is easily Distracted
The questionnaire is adopted from John and Srivasta (1999) which there are 9 items that included in their study and the 9 – items scale that going to be measured in this section (Agreeableness) is:
Tend to find fault with others
Is helpful and unselfish with others
Starts quarrel with others
Has a forgiving nature
Is generally trusting
Can be cold and aloof
Is considerate and kind to almost everyone
Is sometimes rude to others.
Likes to cooperate with others.
(Openness to Experience) is the personality traits that related to the capability of an individual. There are 10 – items scale that are going to be measured in this section. the item that are going to measured are listed below:
Is original, comes up with new ideas
Is curious about many different things
Is ingenious, a deep thinker
Has an active imaginations
Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
Prefer work that is routine
Likes to reflect, play with ideas
Has few artistic interest
Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature.
All of this personality traits element are graded from 5 points which the range is from (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Respondent was ask to rate their own personality based in the item in the questionnaire. They were asking on the question like do they agree or disagree on how they treat other employees in the bank or cooperativeness of the employees. Besides, they were being ask on the question like do they agree or disagree in on how they handling a task and their attitude when handling a task.
3.7.3 Measure of Moderator
According to Zohar and Luria (2005) organizational climate can be defined as the shared perception of what behaviors of those employees are expected and rewarded inside the organization.
The questionnaire is originally adopted from Victor et al., (1993) and then it soon to be revised Buchan (2009). The 7 - items that going to measure in this section is:
In this firm, people protect their own interests above all else.
In this firm, people are mostly out for themselves.
There is no room for one’s own personal morals or ethics in this Firm.
People are expected to do anything to further the Firm’s interests, regardless of the consequences.
People here are concerned with the Firm’s interests-to the exclusion of all else.
Work is considered substandard only when it hurts the Firm’s interests.
The major responsibility of people in the Firm is to control costs.
This entire ethical climate elements are graded 5 points which from the range of (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Respondent was ask to rate their own organization’s climate based on the item that will be measured in the questionnaire. The question that was ask in this section are mostly related how the organization climate in their organization like how the colleague will behave and their working norms in organization.
According to May et al., (2003), moral courage can be define as an individual’s ability to, convert moral intentions into actions despite pressures from either inside or outside of the organization. The questions that use to measure the moral courage were adopted from Gibbs, Clark, Joseph, Green, Goodrick and Makowski (1986). An individual’s moral courage was measured with the 5 items that assess how an individual act in various social situations. The item that going to be measured is listed below:
I am a person who consistently stands by his or her principles.
I would stand up for a just or rightful cause, even if the cause is unpopular and will mean criticizing important others.
I will defend someone who is being taunted or talked about unfairly, even if the victim is only an acquaintance.
I would only consider joining a just or rightful cause if it is popular with his or her friends and supported by important others.
I would prefer to remain in the background even if a friend is being taunted or talked about unfairly.
The entire moral courage element are graded from 5 point scale which from (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Respondents were asking to rate on their own moral courage based on some social situation that they face in the organization.
This chapter presents the research framework and methodology used under this dissertation. Cross sectional study was carried out and questionnaire is the only instrument. The research design, analytical techniques and operation of constructs are outlined in this study.
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: