1 THE EFFECT OF DIMENSION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
BEHAVIORAL INTEGRITY, TRUST, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 14, 2019 Jordi Zwiep Student number: S3529428 Tuinbouwstraat 41A 9717 JB Groningen Tel.: +31 (0) 630435511 e-mail: j.zwiep@student.rug.nl
Supervisor University of Groningen Dr. S. Täuber
2 Abstract
Behavioral integrity (BI) is the alignment of words and deeds and is very important for managers and organizations: BI leads to increased employee trust and thereby positively affects several beneficial employee attitudes. However, the definition of BI does not take into account whether BI refers to good/positive or bad/negative managerial conduct. Because acting with integrity seems to create trust through the impression formation of morality, we proposed that the effect of BI on employee trust is more pronounced when BI refers to the moral dimension compared to the competence dimension. Hence, this study examined
whether the effect of BI on trust is moderated by dimension, and whether the interactive effect of BI and dimension on employee attitudes is mediated by trust. 200 participants were
randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2 (Behavioral Integrity: yes vs. no) x 2 (Dimension: moral vs. competence) between-subjects design and filled in a questionnaire about a scenario on BI in the context of gender diversity in organizations. Results of an ANOVA showed a successful manipulation regarding BI, but not regarding dimension. To test whether dimension affects the effect of BI on trust despite the failed manipulation, we used participants’ perception of gender equality as a moral issue, as moderator. Results of a moderated mediation analysis revealed that increased BI of managers leads to the greatest increases in employee trust when BI refers to a moral topic. This increase in trust, in turn, evokes positive employee attitudes such as commitment, well-being, and propensity to stay.
3 INTRODUCTION
Warren Buffett, number three on the world’s billionaires list of Forbes (2019), states that he seeks for three things in a person: intelligence, energy, and integrity. He adds “And if they don’t have the last one, don’t even bother with the first two. I tell them, ‘Everyone here has the intelligence and energy—you wouldn’t be here otherwise. But the integrity is up to you. You weren’t born with it, you can’t learn it in school.” (Farnam Street, 2019). That Buffett sees integrity as such an important trait seems justified. When, for example, a manager promises to improve the working conditions in a factory and actually realizes this, he is acting with integrity. But a manager who keeps telling her employees that she will get better wages for them but never even argues for it with her supervisor, is not acting with integrity. Acting with integrity appears to be very important for organizations since it is strongly related with employee attitudes (Davis & Rothstein, 2006; Prottas, 2008). According to the meta-analysis of Davis and Rothstein (2006), behavioral integrity (BI) of managers will lead to more committed employees, higher job and organizational leadership satisfaction, and more
affection towards the organization. Simons, Friedman, Liu, and McLean Parks (2007) confirm the positive relation between acting with integrity and commitment and job satisfaction. Prottas (2008) also found a positive relation between BI and job satisfaction. Lacking BI is negatively related with stress and poor health (Prottas, 2008), absenteeism (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Prottas, 2008), emotional exhaustion (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003), turnover intentions (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), and harmful employee deviant behaviors (Dineen, Lewicki, & Tomlinson, 2006).
To come to a better understanding of the construct BI, Simons (2002) proposed a conceptual model in which the relationship between BI and employee attitudes is mediated by trust. Trust emerges because people feel their manager is reliable, honest, credible, and
4 attributes seem to point to a specific dimension of impression formation, namely morality. Antecedents of the moral impression formation – perceived intention, sincerity (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007), honesty (Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner, 2010), and behaving in line with moral codes (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008) – seem to be very similar to the antecedents that lead to trust when a manager is acting with integrity. Empirical research showed that managerial BI is indeed a predictor of trust (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2015; Palanski, Kahai, & Yammarino, 2011; Palanski & Yammarino, 2011; Simons et al., 2007) and that trust mediates between BI and several employee attitudes such as propensity to stay at the organization, organizational commitment, and satisfaction (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2015; Kannan-Narasimhan &
Lawrence, 2012; Simons et al., 2007). The above shows that BI and trust are very important for organizations since they lead to positive employee outcomes. However, there is something missing in the traditional definition of behavioral integrity: the dimension in which employees perceive BI. When people perceive others, they judge them along dimensions (Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005). The two fundamental dimensions of impression formation of people are morality and competence for interpersonal perception (Fiske et al., 2007; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Judd et al., 2005) and for companies and brands (Aaker et al., 2010). Since acting with integrity seems to create trust through the impression formation of morality, it is assumable that the moral dimension of impression formation is more relevant for the relationship of BI, trust, and employee attitudes than the competence dimension.
5 entails morality, but Simons leaves it out of the definition of BI for an unclear reason. Hence, according to the model of Simons (2002), a person acting in line with harmful intentions and words should be seen as equally integer as a person acting in line with benevolent intentions and words. In essence, this means that leaders acting according to harmful intentions can lead to employee trust and positive employee attitudes. This is, of course, arguable and can be illustrated by the example of two important historical leaders who aligned their words and actions for different purposes. Mahatma Gandhi strived for nonviolent resistance to get India independent and united while Pol Pot strived for a communistic farming society in Cambodia. Both aligned their actions and ideologies, however, Gandhi achieved goodness with it while Pot caused great suffering to a great part of the Cambodian population. Hence, it seems more reasonable to assume that the dimension BI refers to plays a crucial role for the association between BI and trust. Investigating this proposition, we are examining the impact of dimension on the association between BI and trust. Reflecting the two fundamental
dimensions of impression formation (Aaker et al., 2010; Fiske et al., 2002, 2007; Judd et al., 2005), this moderator refers to moral framing or competent framing and serves to investigate whether the dimension that managers’ words-deeds-alignment refers to, affects the association between BI and trust.
Taken together, the current study examines the role of dimension (moral versus competence) on the relationship of BI, trust, and employee attitudes. Specifically, replicating prior research (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2015; Kannan-Narasimhan & Lawrence, 2012; Simons et al., 2007) we aim to show that trust mediates the effect of BI on employee attitudes.
6 moderated by dimension. The research question of this study is as follows: Which role does dimension play for the effects of behavioral integrity on employee attitudes through trust?
Addressing this question, the present paper will present an experimental study to examine the proposed relationship between BI, dimension, trust, and employee attitudes. According to the theory about BI, organizations will suffer from the negative effects of lacking integrity and trust and benefit from acting with integrity and gaining trust. However, if our propositions are true, we have empirical evidence that dimension matters for the relationship of BI, trust, and employee attitudes. With this knowledge, scholars would be better able to understand and investigate the factors that contribute to the outcomes of BI and to explain why leaders as Gandhi and Pot – who both acted with integrity according to the definition of Simons (2002) – have differences in subordinate trust and attitudes. If dimension matters, organizations have to pay extra attention to topics which are perceived as moral by stakeholders, since many topics can be framed as either moral or competent (van Bavel, Packer, Haas, & Cunningham, 2012). In such a case, organizations need to make sure that especially in the morally framed topics, their managers show meticulous word-deed
alignment. If organizations and managers fail in doing this, it could have extremely negative effects for them. On the other hand, managers’ BI might matter less when competence-related topics are concerned. As explained above, our work into these relations is important for both advancing scholarly understanding and for deriving sensible recommendations for
practitioners.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
7 based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the
trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995: 712). Additionally, the willingness of a party to be vulnerable can be seen as a psychological state which is based upon positive expectations (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). A manager who acts with integrity will create feelings of reliability, honesty, credibility, and value congruence in their employees (Simons, 2002). These positive feelings lead to a psychological state of willingness to be vulnerable in which employees are trusting their manager (Deery, Walsh, & Iverson, 2006; Simons, 2002). This relationship between BI and trust has been demonstrated by several empirical works (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2015; Palanski et al., 2011; Palanski & Yammarino, 2011; Simons et al., 2007). Therefore, the first hypothesis concerns a replication of the effect proposed by Simons (2002):
Hypothesis 1: Perceived behavioral integrity has a positive effect on employee trust. However, it is not clear in which ways this relationship is affected by other factors and which factors these are (Simons, Tomlinson, & Leroy, 2012). As described at the
introduction, when taken literally, Simons (2002) proposes that a manager with aligned harmful words and deeds will also be perceived as integer, gain trust, and thus achieve positive employee attitudes. Simons (2002) also states that perceived value congruence of managers and employees will lead to higher levels of trust of employees. In line with this statement, Edwards and Cable (2009) showed that value congruence of employees and their organization is a predictor of trust. Moreover, Tomlinson, Lewicki, and Ash (2014) show that value congruence has a positive influence on the outcomes of BI, such as organizational citizenship behavior. Further, when managers act with integrity, employees are more likely to identify with the managers’ values (Leroy et al., 2012). Since values commonly refer to morality (Graham et al., 2011) and not to competence, values might be an important
8 are associated with morality, the relation between BI and trust might be stronger compared to when managers act with integrity regarding topics that are less strongly associated with morality, such as the competence dimension. Hence, we expect that the association of BI with trust is stronger when BI relates to morality as opposed to competence. Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 2: The effect of behavioral integrity on employee trust is more pronounced when behavioral integrity refers to morality compared to competence.
As proposed by Simons (2002), managers acting with integrity should lead to positive employee attitudes through trust. We investigate the impact of BI through trust on employees themselves by well-being and on employees’ relation with their organizations captured by propensity to stay with the organization and organizational commitment. Employee well-being is positively related to job performance (Cropanzano & Wright, 2001; Wright & Cropanzano, 2004) and to BI (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Prottas, 2008), but it has not been investigated in one model with BI and trust, to our knowledge. Empirical research showed that trust in managers increases employee well-being (Baptiste, 2008) and that trust mediates between ethical leadership and employee well-being (Chughtai, Byrne, & Flood, 2015). Since ethical leadership is mostly based on perceptions of a managers’ moral behavior (Trevino, Hartman, & Brown, 2000) and acting with integrity also seems to relate to a moral dimension of impression formation, we predict that trust will mediate the effect of BI on employee well-being.
9 organizational performance (Kacmar, Andrews, Van Rooy, Steilberg, & Cerrone, 2013). Next, organizational commitment is an outcome of BI and trust (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2015; Kannan-Narasimhan & Lawrence, 2012) and is positively related to important consequences such as job performance (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &
Topolnytsky, 2002) and organizational citizenship behaviors (Meyer et al., 2002). Since the three constructs all are related to important employee attitudes and
outcomes, it is extremely important for organizations to know and scholars to understand how employee well-being, the propensity to stay, and organizational commitment is affected by BI and trust. The three constructs will be subsumed under the label ‘employee attitudes’. This leads to the next two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: Perceived behavioral integrity is positively related to employee attitudes.
Hypothesis 4: Employee trust in the manager mediates the effect of behavioral integrity on employee attitudes.
When taking hypotheses 1-4 together, the complete model tested is comprised in: Hypothesis 5: Employee trust mediates between the interactive effect of behavioral integrity and dimension on employee attitudes.
10 FIGURE 1
Conceptual Model
Research context
11 In general, no gender differences are observed in perceptions of integrity (Prottas, 2008). However, because the topic of gender equality might affect female respondents more strongly than male respondents, we explore the possibility that a gender-effect will be present in this study. This is interesting to investigate since, to our knowledge, there is no other literature about it. Hence, we raise the next question in an explorative way: Does employee gender affect the role that dimension plays for the effects of behavioral integrity on employee attitudes?
METHOD Participants and procedures
In order to test the hypotheses introduced above, we have carried out an experiment which we preregistered at the Center for Open Science (link). The hypotheses, planned sample, measures, scenarios, and analyses were all pre-registered. A priori power analysis using G*power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) suggested that a sample size of 179 participants is needed to detect a difference between conditions of the experiment (2x2 between-subjects) with a medium effect size. To have a sufficient and a round number of participants, 200 participants were recruited through Prolific. This online subjects pool provides access to participants from the United Kingdom who complete surveys for a, by the researchers, set amount of money. Researchers can indicate how many participants are needed and inclusion criteria can be applied. Inclusion criteria were that participants should have a part- or fulltime job and were working at a large or public company, this to increase the chances of participants having employers who pay attention to gender equality. At the end of the survey participants were asked if we, in all honesty, should use their results. Four
12 Of those 200 participants, 87 were men and 113 were women (Mage = 33.72 years, SD
= 8.96). To be able to make statements about the – variation with regard to – employers’ commitment to gender equality, the corresponding word-deed align and the opinion of participants concerning gender equality, participants indicated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) their employers commitment to gender equality (M = 3.12, SD = 1.31), their employers alignment of actions and commitment (M = 3.05, SD = 1.28), their opinion that gender equality is a moral value (M = 3.78, SD = 1.13), and their opinion that gender equality is a pragmatic value to strive for (M = 3.58, SD = 1.21).
Participants did not know the real purpose of the study, they read “The purpose of this study is to get more insights in the organizations’ engagement with gender equality policies.” Respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions of the 2 (Behavioral Integrity: yes vs. no) x 2 (Dimension: moral vs. competent) experiment and were asked to fill in a questionnaire about a scenario they had to read. Tying in with the example of gender equality, the scenarios presented a managers’ words and deeds concerning gender equality. In two of the conditions, the manager acted with integrity and in two conditions, the manager did not. Dimension was manipulated in the conditions by framing gender equality as referring to the manager’s moral versus pragmatic values. In two conditions the participant was presented with a description of gender equality in moral terms and in two conditions pragmatic, or competence-related terms (see Appendix A for scenarios).
Measures
Unless indicated otherwise, all items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The complete scales can be found in Appendix B.
13 transformed into one BI scale by computing the mean of the eight items (α = .98). Higher values of the scale indicated higher perceived BI.
Trust was assessed with the eight-item scale developed by Mayer and Gavin (2005) and slightly altered for this study. Two examples of the items are “I would be willing to let the manager have complete control over my future in the company” and “I would tell the manager about mistakes I’ve made on the job, even if they could damage my reputation”. In order to get a reliable scale, a negatively framed item was recoded and items three and seven were excluded from the final scale because they significantly affected reliability (α = .40). By transforming the remaining six items into one mean, the scale of trust was created (α = 79). Higher values of the scale indicated higher employee trust.
Employee attitudes is an index comprising employees’ organizational commitment, well-being, and propensity to stay at the organization. Organizational commitment was assessed with an eight-item scale that is derived and altered from the work of Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). Sample items are “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful” and “I would talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for”. The eight items were transformed into one organizational commitment scale by computing the mean of the eight items (α = .94). Higher values of the scale indicated higher organizational commitment.
14 Propensity to stay was measured with a four-item scale that is developed by Chatman (1991). One example is “How long would you like to stay at this organization?”, which could be indicated by (1 = 0-1 year to 5 = more than 10 years). Another example question is “To what extent would you think about staying at this organization?”, which could be indicated by (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). These four items were transformed by
computing their mean, resulting in one propensity to stay scale (α = .91). Higher values of the scale indicated higher propensity to stay at the organization.
Control variables. Age and gender (0 = female and 1 = male) were assessed as control variables. Age and gender did not correlate with any other variables of the study and were therefore not included in the main moderated mediation analysis. As aforementioned in the theory section, we also did not expect gender to have an effect but it needed to be checked to be certain.
Data analysis
To be able to test the hypothesis, the program SPSS, version 25, was used.
Specifically, model 7 of the SPSS extension ‘Process’ by Andrew Hayes was used to analyze the data and to investigate if there was a moderated mediation effect as depicted by Figure 1. ANOVA was used to compare the groups of the experiment to each other. There were no missing values in the data. The boxplot procedure was used to identify outliers for each condition in the design. Twelve cases were identified as outliers since they were two standard deviations from the mean of the group. We have conducted the ANOVA and Process
15 RESULTS
Preliminary analysis
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all study constructs. Results show that behavioral integrity was positively correlated with trust, commitment, well-being, and propensity to stay. Further, results reveal that trust was positively correlated with commitment, well-being, and propensity to stay.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Age 33.7 8.96 - 2. Gender .44 .50 .01 - 3. BI yes / no 4. Dimension .49 .50 .50 .50 .00 -.12 -.01 .14* - .01 - 5. Trust 2.97 .79 .05 .03 .55** .02 (0.79) 6. Commitment 7. Well-being 8. Propensity to stay 3.22 2.65 3.20 .94 .99 .91 .01 .06 .05 .08 .01 .06 .40** .27** .44** .01 .03 -.03 .71** .44** .65** (0.94) .39** .69** (0.94) .55** (0.91)
Notes: N = 200. Gender, 0 = female, 1 = male. *p < .05, **p < .01. Cronbach alpha reliabilities are in parenthesis.
16 FIGURE 2
Percentages of Employers Commitment to Gender Equality
Employers’ perceived alignment with their commitment to gender equality is shown in Figure 3. 31.5% of the participants indicated no or little word-deed alignment regarding gender equality (N = 63), 28% indicated moderate word-deed alignment (N = 56), and 40.5% indicated a lot of word-deed alignment (N = 81). Figures 2 and 3 show that our sample demonstrates sufficient variation with regard to employers’ commitment to gender equality, as well as with regard to the corresponding word-deed alignment.
FIGURE 3
Percentages of Employers’ Alignment with their Commitment to Gender Equality
Results of a paired sample t-test revealed that participants saw gender equality more as a moral value (M = 3.78 , SD = 1.13) than a pragmatic value (M = 3.59, SD = 1.21) to strive for, a statistically significant mean difference t(199) = 2.812, p = .005, 95% CI [.06, .33]. A second paired sample t-test revealed a significant difference regarding participants’ opinions about the managers’ approach of the situation, showing that he was seen as acting from a
15,0% 16,5% 27,5% 23,0% 18,0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Not at all A little A moderate amount
A lot Very much
E m pl o y er s co m m it m e n t to ge n de r equa li ty 17,5% 14,0% 28,0% 27,5% 13,0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Not at all A little A moderate amount
A lot Very much
17 moral perspective (M = 3.43, SD = 1.17) more than from a pragmatic perspective (M = 3.19, SD = 1.35), t(199) = 2.565, p = .011, 95% CI [.06, .43].
Main analysis
An ANOVA with Behavioral Integrity and Dimension as between-subject factors showed a significant effect of Behavioral Integrity on perceived managerial BI, F(1, 196) = 144.23, p < .001, η2 = .42. Participants reported the perceived managerial BI to a significantly greater extent in the condition where the manager acted with integrity (M = 3.93, SD = 1.09) than in the condition where the manager lacked integrity (M = 2.11, SD = 1.05). Second, a significant effect of Behavioral Integrity on the manager achieving his goal was present F(1, 196) = 304.96, p < .001, η2 = .61. Participants reported the extent to which the manager achieved his goal to a significantly greater extent in the condition where the manager acted with integrity (M = 4.40, SD = .80) than in the condition where the manager lacked integrity (M = 1.87, SD = 1.21). No significant effects of Dimension on perceived managerial BI F(1, 196) = .44, p = .509, η2 < .01 and the manager achieving his goal F(1, 196) = 3.27, p = .072,
η2 = .02, were present. Behavioral Integrity and Dimension showed no significant interaction
effects for perceived managerial BI F(1, 196) = .67, p = .414, η2 < .01 and the manager achieving his goal F(1, 196) = .07, p = .797, η2 < .01.
Further, a significant effect of Behavioral Integrity on perceiving the topic as moral, was present, F(1, 196) = 72.55, p < .001, η2 = .27. Participants reported the perceived
18 manager lacked integrity (M = 3.00, SD = 1.20). Dimension showed no significant effects on perceiving the topic as moral F(1, 196) = 2.10, p = .149, η2 = .01 and perceiving the topic as pragmatic F(1, 196) = 2.62, p = .107, η2 = .01. Behavioral Integrity and Dimension showed no significant interactions for perceiving the topic as moral F(1, 196) = .90, p = .344, η2 < .01
and perceiving the topic as pragmatic F(1, 196) = 3.52, p = .062, η2 = .02. In conclusion, the results indicate that the manipulation was successful regarding BI, but not regarding
Dimension.
In order to test our hypotheses nonetheless, we used participants’ perception of gender equality as a moral issue as the potential moderator in the moderated mediation analysis. As demonstrated in the preliminary analysis, participants perceived the managers’ approach to gender equality significantly more driven by a moral value than by a pragmatic value. We, therefore, use this continuous variable of topic morality as a substitute for the initially aspired manipulated factor topic morality. This allows us to test whether dimension affects the effect of BI on trust despite the failed manipulation. Therefore, we conducted the moderated mediation regression analysis in Process with model 7 (Hayes, 2019) with morality as a moderator instead of dimension. The analysis was conducted with 200 participants. Table 2 shows the results of the moderated mediation regression analysis, with the mediator model and the dependent variable models including commitment, well-being, and propensity to stay.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that BI would have a positive effect on employee trust, but no support was found for such a relationship. The results of the mediation analysis revealed that there was no significant main effect of BI for employee trust (B = .005, SE = .27, p = .986, CI95% [-.53, .54]). Hypothesis 2 proposed that the effect of BI on trust would be stronger when
BI referred to a moral topic. Indeed, morality had a significant positive effect on trust in the manager (B = .154, SE = .05, p = .002, CI95% [.06, .25] ) and interacted significantly with BI
19 dimension is a relevant element when considering BI: The effect of BI on trust in our data is strongest among employees who perceive the manager as approaching gender equality as a moral value. Hypothesis 3 suggested that BI was positively related to employee attitudes, however, no direct effect was found of BI on commitment (B = .026, SE = .11, p = .814, CI95%
[-.19, .25]) and well-being (B = .084, SE = .15, p = .581, CI95% [-.38, .21]). A marginally
significant effect of BI on propensity to stay was found (B = .228, SE = .12, p = .053, CI95%
[-.003, .46]).
TABLE 2
Moderated Mediation Regression Analyses
Mediator variable model: Dependent variable models:
Trust Commitment Well-being Propensity to stay
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Intercept 2.16 (.14**) .730 (.19**) 4.26 (.26**) 1.11 (.20**) Behavioral integrity .005 (.27) .026 (.11) .084 (.15) .228 (.12+) Morality .154 (.05**) Interaction .165 (.08*) Trust .833 (.07**) .529 (.10**) .667 (.07**) R2 .42 .51 .20 .43
Conditional Indirect Effects Commitment
-1 SD (Morality) .256 (.11†) CI95% [.050, .505]
+1 SD (Morality) .629 (.15†) CI95% [.364, .931]
Conditional Indirect Effects Well-being
-1 SD (Morality) .163 (.07†) CI95% [.021, .315]
+1 SD (Morality) .399 (.11†) CI95% [.192, .646]
Conditional Indirect Effects Propensity to Stay
-1 SD (Morality) .205 (.09†) CI95% [.021, .387]
+1 SD (Morality) .503 (.11†) CI95% [.309, .771]
Notes. N = 200. Standard Errors between parentheses. + p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01. † when 0 not in CI95%.
20 = .529, SE = .10, p < .001, CI95% [.34, .72]), and propensity to stay (B = .667, SE = .07, p <
.001, CI95% [.52, .81]).
All confidence intervals for the three moderated mediation analysis with different employee attitudes did not include zero, which indicates that significant indirect effects has been found at low levels of morality for commitment (B = .256, SE = .11, CI95% [.05, .51]), at
moderate levels of morality for commitment (B = .443, SE = .09, CI95% [.29, .63]), and at high
levels of morality for commitment (B = .629, SE = .15, CI95% [.36, .93]). Indirect effects were
also significant for well-being at low levels of morality (B = .163, SE = .07, CI95% [.02, .32]),
moderate levels of morality (B = .281, SE = .07, CI95% [.14, .44]), and at high levels of
morality (B = -.399, SE = .11, CI95% [.19, .65]). For the third employee attitude, propensity to
stay, indirect effects were also significant at low levels of morality (B = .205, SE = .09, CI95%
[.02, .39]), moderate levels of morality (B = .353, SE = .07, CI95% [.22, .50]), and at high
levels of morality (B = .503, SE = .11, CI95% [.31, .77]). Thus, together, hypothesis 5 is
supported by the data: that the interactive effect of BI and dimension on employee attitudes is mediated by employee trust.
DISCUSSION
21 Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2015; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Palanski et al., 2011; Palanski & Yammarino, 2011; Prottas, 2008; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Simons et al., 2007), we have not found direct relationships of BI and trust and of BI and the employee attitudes organizational commitment and employee well-being. Further, only a small direct effect of BI on propensity to stay was revealed. Extending prior research (Simons, 2002), we aimed to show that trust mediated the interactive effect of BI and dimension on employee attitudes. Despite the failed manipulation of dimension, we were able to test whether dimension affects the effect of BI on trust. The results revealed that such a relationship exists, namely, employee trust mediates between the interactive effect of BI and morality and employee attitudes. In other words, increased BI of managers leads to the greatest increases in employee trust when BI refers to a moral topic. This increase in trust in turn evokes positive employee attitudes such as commitment, well-being, and propensity to stay at the organization.
Theoretical implications
One of our goals was to show that acting with integrity positively affects employee trust, a hypothesis that was replicated from Simons (2002) to be able to test our overall
research question. However, the findings of our study strengthen our argument that dimension is missing in the traditional definition of BI of Simons (2002). Acting with integrity does not necessarily and always lead to trust. Rather, acting with integrity has only a positive effect on trust when that BI relates to a moral dimension. The higher the perceived level of morality in that dimension, the higher the trust of employees will be. An interesting implication from these findings is that one of the factors that affect the relationship between BI and trust, is the moral dimension. An implication derived from this is that morality is strongly related to trust, this knowledge contributes to the scholarly understanding of mechanisms underlying trust.
22 to stay at the organization, was not confirmed. Only a very small positive effect of managers’ BI on propensity to stay was found. This contradicts prior research (Davis & Rothstein, 2006; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2015; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Palanski et al., 2011; Palanski & Yammarino, 2011; Prottas, 2008; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Simons et al., 2007) and suggests that only acting with integrity is not enough for managers to gain positive employee attitudes such as organizational commitment, employee well-being, and propensity to stay. This strengthened our point that for the definition of BI, dimension is missing. Namely, acting with integrity (harmful or good intentions) alone will not lead to positive employee attitudes. These contradicting results with prior research create a new discussion and new opportunities for researchers in the field of BI and its outcomes.
Practical implications
Results of the current study can be of importance for organizations that are struggling with low committed employees, high levels of absence, and or high turnover rates. Since trust is positively associated with commitment, well-being, and propensity to stay, it is important to gain employee trust. However, only acting with integrity will not lead to trust but as shown by our results, managers can gain the trust of their employees by acting with integrity when an issue is perceived as moral. In order to create more trust, managers could give situations moral content, if the manager then acts with integrity, it will in all probability increase employee trust. Further, organizations should inform their managers about the importance of their alignment of actions and deeds, especially when it concerns moral issues. For instance by courses or by means of an organizations’ internal online communication system.
23 repeatedly tells her employees that she will give them new tools because the current tools are worn out, which keeps their employees from doing their job well. Such a situation could be interpreted by her employees as a competence-related topic: they just want their tools to be able to do their work right. It is assumable that, regarding a competence-related topic as above, this manager will also negatively affect the trust of her employees. Therefore, since our results only explain a small part of the mechanisms underlying trust, we recommend managers and organizations to align their words and deeds, regardless of the dimension of the topic. Further research should provide more practical insights into this topic.
Regarding the topic of gender equality, about a third of the participants indicated that their organizations are not committed to that cause. A lot of people nowadays think that organizations pay attention to gender equality but our results showed something different. A participants statement endorses this: “I work as an engineer in a big company and I am the only female manager among 6 men. My manager does not seem concerned about gender equality”. Gender equality in the workplace should be strived for since, morality aside, it has some beneficial effects for work outcomes. Where one participant noted that “I think that gender equality is important since it promotes a better work environment between
24 about it and adhere to it. Especially when these organizations are large and or public and therefore have a lot of influence.
Further, a third of the organizations do not seem to align their actions with their commitment to gender equality. This could mean that organizations that do not claim
anything about gender equality actually perform actions concerning the topic. However, it is assumable that actions of organizations that advocate for gender equality, do not align with their statements as was the case in the earlier mentioned McKinsey & Company and Lean In report about woman in the workplace (2018). This could be very harmful to organizations if employees perceive gender equality as a moral topic since, we showed that, for creating trust the moral dimension seems to be very important. Therefore we recommend organizations and managers to align their actions and statements concerning gender equality.
Limitations and future research
When studies are conducted, there are always limitations. The first limitation of our study is that we made use of scenarios instead of real situations. This controlled method of testing is at the expense of the ecological validity. Since these scenarios did not apply to real-life situations at the participants’ work, it may be that reality has not been sufficiently
25 the moral and pragmatic dimension works completely would seem more reasonable to
propose.
The second limitation that we want to discuss, is the fact that participants were recruited through an online population platform, namely Prolific. Although this method of recruiting has advantages such as easy access to participants, setting selection criteria, and a relatively short waiting time, it has also a very important disadvantage that could have influenced the results of our study. Participants get paid for their response, so the faster they complete their studies, the higher is their payment/time ratio. Logically, a part of the
participants could be motivated by money instead of by contributing to valuable research. This is expressed in hastily completed studies that could not be representative and therefore badly influence the reliability of the results (Rice, Winter, Doherty, & Milner, 2017). This having said, we propose that researchers that are interested in this study should redo it with working, voluntary participants. Results could be compared to check if the results from the paid online participants differ from voluntary participants.
The third limitation present is that 166 participants indicated their native language as English and the languages of the other 34 participants consisted of 9 different languages. These differences indicate that participants came from different countries. This composition of the research population could have been of influence on the results for a topic as integrity concerning gender equality. Namely, three dimensions of the Hofstede model could have been of influence. First, countries have different power distances, which represents the degree of accepted inequality in a culture. Second, a feministic culture has a more equal role
differentiation compared to a masculine culture where a great role differentiation is present. Third, countries that are more characterized by an individualistic culture are more focused on people as individuals while on the other hand in a collectivistic culture people have a
26 equality. Thus, the power distances, having a feministic or masculine culture, and being an individualistic or collectivistic culture could have been of great influence on the opinions about the topic of the study (Hofstede, 2011). Therefore we recommend future researchers to use a research population that is from the same country – and preferably born there – to minimize the effects that a population consisting of different cultures, has on the results. It would be even more interesting if future research would examine the effects of this study in different cultures and compare the outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our findings suggest that managers’ BI only has a positive effect on the trust of their employees when BI relates to a moral topic. When the perceived level of
morality of the situation increases, trust also increases. This trust leads to several positive employee attitudes. Further, acting with integrity on its own does not lead to positive
employee attitudes according to our results. We hope that organizations can beneficially make use of the contribution we made to the knowledge of the topic. Further, we hope that our research will inspire scholars to perform future studies that will contribute to the
27 REFERENCES
Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1086/651566
Baptiste, N. R. (2008). Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance: A new dimension for HRM. Management Decision, 46(2), 284–309. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1108/00251740810854168
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Chughtai, A., Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being: The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2126-7
Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2001). When a “happy” worker is really a “productive” worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(3), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1037//106W087.53.3.182
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the bias map. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
28 Deery, S. J., Walsh, J. T., & Iverson, R. D. (2006). Toward a better understanding of
psychological contract breach: A study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.166
Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.622
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891
Farnam Street. (2019). Warren Buffett: The three things I look for in a person. Retrieved from https://fs.blog/2013/05/warren-buffett-the-three-things-i-look-for-in-a-person/
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878
Forbes. (2019). Billionaires. Retrieved from
29 Galinsky, A. D., Todd, A. R., Homan, A. C., Phillips, K. W., Apfelbaum, E. P., Sasaki, S. J.,
… Maddux, W. W. (2015). Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 742–748.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598513
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
Hayes, A. F. (2019). The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved from https://www.processmacro.org/index.html
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2015). Leader reinforcement, behavioral integrity, and subordinate outcomes: A social exchange approach. Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 991– 1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.006
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Johnson, J. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. O. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.207
Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899
30 Sure everyone can be replaced... But at what cost? Turnover as a predictor of unit-level performance, 49(1), 133–144.
Kannan-Narasimhan, R., & Lawrence, B. S. (2012). Behavioral integrity: How leader referents and trust matter to workplace outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s
Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1036-1
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2(2), 99–113.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy Ol Management Review, 20(3), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874–888.
McKinsey&Company, & Lean In. (2018). Women in the workplace 2018. Retrieved from https://womenintheworkplace.com/
31 antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20– 52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads : Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
Palanski, M. E., Kahai, S. S., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Team virtues and performance: An examination of transparency, behavioral integrity, and trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0650-7
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Impact of behavioral integrity on follower job performance: A three-study examination. Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 765–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.014
Prottas, D. J. (2008). Perceived behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee attitudes, well-being, and absenteeism. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 313–322.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9496-z
Rice, S., Winter, S. R., Doherty, S., & Milner, M. (2017). Advantages and disadvantages of using internet-based survey methods in aviation-related research. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 7(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1160
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm, 15(3), 245–259.
32 cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543
Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & McLean Parks, J. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and “trickle down” among black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 650–665. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTUS.2017.8286030
Simons, T., Tomlinson, E. C., & Leroy, H. (2012). Research on behavioral integrity: A promising construct for positive organizational scholarship. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, 325–338.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0025
Stein, J. (1975). Random House College Dictionary (Revised Ed). New York: Random House.
Tomlinson, E. C., Lewicki, R. J., & Ash, S. R. (2014). Disentangling the moral Integrity construct: Values congruence as a moderator of the behavioral integrity–citizenship relationship. Group and Organization Management, 39(6), 720–743.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114551023
Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4), 128–142. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/41166057
33 moral construal: Moral versus non-moral construal elicits faster, more extreme, universal evaluations of the same actions. PLOS ONE, 7(11).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048693
Waldman, D. J., Kelly, F., Arora, S., & Smith, H. L. (2004). The shocking cost of turnover in health care. Health Care Management Review, 29(1), 1–7.
34 APPENDIX A
Scenarios used in the survey Behavioral integrity in the moral dimension
Please read the description below. Try to imagine yourself in the described situation as much as possible.
Addressing the growth of the company you work for, your manager aimed to hire new personnel for your department. Your manager announced that he wanted to get a more equal distribution of men and women because he thinks that equal opportunity is a moral value, thus the right thing to do, and should be strived for. At that time women were
underrepresented in your department.
It is now almost a year later and five new hires have been made, one man and four women, resulting in an equal gender distribution at the department. There was a broad pool of qualified male and female applicants.
No behavioral integrity in the moral dimension
Please read the description below. Try to imagine yourself in the described situation as much as possible.
Addressing the growth of the company you work for, your manager aimed to hire new personnel for your department. Your manager announced that he wanted to get a more equal distribution of men and women because he thinks that equal opportunity is a moral value, thus the right thing to do, and should be strived for. At that time women were
underrepresented in your department.
It is now almost a year later and five new hires have been made, four men and one woman, resulting in the same gender distribution as before the hires. There was a broad pool of qualified male and female applicants.
Behavioral integrity in the pragmatic dimension
Please read the description below. Try to imagine yourself in the described situation as much as possible.
Addressing the growth of the company you work for, your manager aimed to hire new personnel for your department. Your manager announced that he wanted to get a more equal distribution of men and women because he thinks that equal opportunity is a pragmatic value, thus the efficient thing to do, and should be strived for. At that time women were underrepresented in your department.
It is now almost a year later and five new hires have been made, one man and four women, resulting in an equal gender distribution at the department. There was a broad pool of qualified male and female applicants.
No behavioral integrity in the pragmatic dimension
Please read the description below. Try to imagine yourself in the described situation as much as possible.
35 Addressing the growth of the company you work for, your manager aimed to hire new
personnel for your department. Your manager announced that he wanted to get a more equal distribution of men and women because he thinks that equal opportunity is a pragmatic value, thus the efficient thing to do, and should be strived for. At that time women were underrepresented in your department.
36 APPENDIX B
Items in scales Behavioral integrity
There is a match between the manager’s words and actions. The manager delivers on promises.
The manager practices what he preaches. The manager does what he says he will do.
The manager conducts himself by the same values he talks about. The manager shows the same priorities that he describes.
When the manager promises something, I can be certain that it will happen. If the manager says he is going to do something, he will.
Trust
If I had my way, I wouldn’t let the manager have any influence over issues that are important to me.
I would be willing to let the manager have complete control over my future in the company.
I really wish I could keep an eye on the manager.
I would be comfortable giving the manager a task or problem which was critical to me, even if I could not monitor the manager’s actions.
I would tell the manager about mistakes I’ve made on the job, even if he could damage my reputation.
I would share my opinion about sensitive issues with the manager, even if my opinion were unpopular.
I would be afraid of what the manager might do to me at work.
If the manager asked why a problem happened, I would speak freely even if I were partly to blame.
Organizational commitment
I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.
I would talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. I would feel loyal to this organization.
I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization.
I would be proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
This organization would really inspire the very best in me in the way of job performance. I would really care about the fate of this organization.
This would be the best of all possible organizations for which to work. Well-being
I would feel emotionally drained from my work I would be feeling frustrated from my job
Working in this organization would put too much stress on me
I would feel fatigued when I would wake up in the morning before going to work I would feel myself used at the end of the workday
37 Propensity to stay
How long would you like to stay at this organization?
To what extent would you think about staying at this organization?
