The dynamics of ethical climate: mediating effects of ethical leadership and workplace pressures on organisational citizenship behaviour

Figures & data

Figure 1. The conceptual research model within a macro-meso-micro framework.

Table 1. Structure of Master Instrument Used

Measurements of:	Instrument	No. of Items
Profile and Demographics	Self-set questions	5
State of Ethics & Compliance Standards & Practices	Self-set questions based on Ethics and Compliance Initiative (2018)	6
Organisational Culture	Organisational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2013)	30
Ethical Organisational Climate	Ethical Climate Questionnaire (Victor & Cullen, 1988)	36
Ethical Leadership & Decision Making	Ethical Leadership at Work Questionnaire (Kalshoven, De Hoogh & Hartog, 2011)	38
Internal & External Workplace Pressures	Adapted from “Factors eliciting Managerial Unethical Decision Making” (Lasakova & Remisova, 2017; Ethics & Compliance Initiative, 2018)	28
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour	Organisational Citizenship Behaviour Scale (Podsakoff et al., 1990)	24
Employee Ethical Behaviour & Conduct	Adapted from Scale of Measurement of Questionable Behaviour (Maesschalck, 2004)	46
Perceived Employee Performance	Adapted from Perceived Organisational Performance (Delaney & Huselid, 1996)	7
Supplementary questions for the scope of this study	Self-set questions based on Ethics & Compliance Initiative (2018) and others	12
	TOTAL	232

Table 2. Target Population & Sampling

Target Population Based on “Large” Establishments across industries in Mauritius	2,534
Sample Size Based on Target Population, Margin of Error of 5% & Confidence Level of 99%	526

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach Alpha Coefficients

Constructs	Mean	Standard Deviation	Kurtosis	Cronbach’s Alpha
Organisational Culture (OC)	3.93	.56	1.48	.77
Ethical Organisational Climate (EOC)	3.71	.72	−0.92	.91
Ethical Leadership & Decision Making (ELDM)	3.61	.51	2.30	.78
Internal & External Workplace Pressure (IEWP)	2.71	.89	−0.46	.87
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)	4.14	.47	1.04	.89
Ethical Employee Behaviour & Conduct (EEBC)	3.61	.43	0.81	.76
Perceived Employee Performance (PEP)	3.71	.49	0.54	.90

Note. n = 523

Table 4. Pearson Correlations of Seven Key Variables

	OC	EOC	ELDM	IEWP	OCB	EEBC	PEP
Organisational Culture	1	.54**	.53**	−.48**	.43**	.36**	.60**
Ethical Organisational Climate	.54**	1	.46**	−.43**	.53**	.47**	.59**
Ethical Leadership & Decision Making	.53**	.46**	1	−.34**	.40**	.39**	.61**
Internal & External Workplace Pressure	−.48**	−.43**	−.34**	1	−.31**	−.06	−.41**
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour	.43**	.53**	.40**	−.31**	1	.44**	.51**
Ethical Employee Behaviour & Conduct	.36**	.47**	.39**	−.06	.44**	1	.53**
Perceived Employee Performance	.60**	.59**	.61**	−.41**	.51**	.53**	1

Note. n = 523

**.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note. OC = Organisational Culture; EOC = Ethical Organisational Climate; ELDM = Ethical Leadership & Decision Making; IEWP = Internal & External Workplace Pressures; OCB = Organisational Citizenship Behaviour; EEBC = Employee Ethical Behaviour & Conduct; PEP = Perceived Employee Performance

Table 5. Model Fit Assessment of each of the instruments

Variables	Emerging Factors	No. of Items & Loadings	CMIN/df	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	Overall Outcome (Model Fit)
Organisational Culture	Three-factor model	10 Items (Loadings between .51 and .79)	2.92	0.061	0.96	0.042	Acceptable to Excellent fit
	• Achieving Business Goals
	• People Consideration
	• Work Ethics
Ethical Organisational Climate	Three-factor model	15 items	3.82	0.073	0.955	0.034	Acceptable fit
	• Principle-oriented	(Loadings between .62 and .87)
	• Benevolence
	• Altruism
Ethical Leadership & Decision Making	Six-factor model	31 items (Loadings between .72 and .95)	2.82	0.059	0.948	0.042	Acceptable to Excellent fit
	• People Consideration
	• Fairness
	• Power Sharing
	• Consideration for Sustainability and Ethical Guidance as second-order factor
	• Role Clarification
	• Integrity
Internal & External Workplace Pressure	Four-factor model	15 items (Loadings between .72 and .88)	4.82	0.086	0.958	0.038	Reasonable to Acceptable fit
	• Prioritisation of Economic Results
	• Situational Stress
	• Personal Situational Stress
	• Violation of Ethical Guidelines
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour	Three-factor model	12 items (Loadings between .61 and .83)	3.47	0.069	0.959	0.042	Acceptable fit
	• Altruism
	• Civic Virtue
	• Sportsmanship
Ethical Employee Behaviour & Conduct	Eight-factor model	35 items (Loadings between .71 and .91)	2.59	0.055	0.942	0.045	Acceptable to Excellent fit
	• Self Interest
	• Organisational Interest
	• Efficiency
	• Friendship
	• Team Interest
	• Stakeholder Orientation
	• Personal Morality
	• Rules and Law

Table 6. Summary of Statistical Significance of Mediating Effects

Model (Sub-Models)	Independent Variables (Macro Layer)	Mediating Variables (Meso Layer)	Dependent Variables (Micro Layer)	Significance of Mediating Effects (Statistical Outcomes)
Model 1.4	OC	ELDM & IEWP	OCB	Statistically Significant
Model 2.4	EOC	ELDM & IEWP	OCB	Statistically Significant
Model 3.4	OC	ELDM & IEWP	EEBC	Statistically Significant
Model 4.4	EOC	ELDM & IEWP	EEBC	Not Statistically Significant
Model 5.4	OC	ELDM & IEWP	PEP	Statistically Significant
Model 6.4	EOC	ELDM & IEWP	PEP	Statistically Significant

Note: OC = Organisational Culture; EOC = Ethical Organisational Climate; ELDM = Ethical Leadership & Decision Making; IEWP = Internal & External Workplace Pressures; OCB = Organisational Citizenship Behaviour; EEBC = Employee Ethical Behaviour & Conduct; PEP = Perceived Employee Performance

Table 7. Summary Assessment of Effect Sizes of Sub Models

		Standardised Beta Coefficients			% Total Effect
Model	Sub-Constructs	DE	IDE	TE	DE	IDE
Model 1.4	OC-ELDM-IEWP-OCB	.26	.17	.43	60%	40%
Model 2.4	EOC-ELDM-IEWP-OCB	.42	.11	.53	79%	21%
Model 3.4	OC-ELDM-IEWP-EEBC	.28	.07	.36	79%	21%
Model 4.4	EOC-ELDM-IEWP-EEBC	.44	.03	.47	95%	5%
Model 5.4	OC-ELDM-IEWP-PEP	.33	.26	.60	56%	44%
Model 6.4	EOC-ELDM-IEWP-PEP	.35	.24	.59	59%	41%

Note: DE = Direct Effect; IDE = Indirect Effect; TE = Total Effect;

Figure 2. The path diagram of the empirically studied model.

Note: OC = Organisational Culture; EOC = Ethical Organisational Climate; ELDM = Ethical Leadership & Decision Making; IEWP = Internal & External Workplace Pressures; OCB = Organisational Citizenship Behaviour; EEBC = Employee Ethical Behaviour & Conduct; PEP = Perceived Employee Performance.

Sashkin, M., & Rosenbach, W. E. (2013). Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire. 1–12. http://cimail15.efop.org/documents/OCAQParticipantManual.pdf

 Google Scholar

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lasakova, A., & Remisova, A. (2017). On Organisational Factors that Elicit Managerial Unethical Decision-Making. Ekonomicky Casopis, 65(4), 334–354.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ethics & Compliance Initiative. (2018). The state of ethics & compliance in the workplace - global business ethics survey. Ethics & Compliance Initiative (ECI).

 Google Scholar

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

 Google Scholar

Maesschalck, J. (2004). Measuring ethics in the public sector: An assessment of the impact of ethical climate on ethical decision making and unethical behaviour. In EGPA Annual Conference (Issue September).

 Google Scholar

Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The Impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.5465/256718

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar