ETHICAL CLIMATE INDEX: EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY OF THE BRAZILIAN VERSION

ALMEIDA, JULIANA G.; PORTO, JULIANA B.

doi:10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG190030

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Human and Social Management • RAM, Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 20 (3) • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG190030 copy

ETHICAL CLIMATE INDEX: EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY OF THE BRAZILIAN VERSION^* * Funding information: CNPq. Grant number: 403609/2016-0 and 304015/2015-6.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

Ethical issues have been a growing concern in Brazilian organizations. One of the variables that have been studied in this field is the Ethical climate. Victor and Cullen’s (1988)Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101-125. doi:10.23 07/2392857
https://doi.org/10.23 07/2392857... measure is the one most applied to address this phenomenon. This scale has been criticized because its structure has not been empirically supported and the need for update measures has been highlighted. As an answer to this critique, Arnaud (2010)Arnaud, A. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring ethical work climate. Business & Society, 49(2), 345-358. doi:10.1177/0007650310362865
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310362865... proposed the Ethical climate index - the ECI. This measure uses Rest’s (1984)Rest, J. R. (1984). The major components of morality. New York, NY: John Wiley. model of ethical decision-making as a background. The main goal of this work was to develop a Brazilian version of the ECI.

Originality/value:

The ECI does not yet have a Brazilian version.

Design/methodology/approach:

The first study presents the translated measure, an exploratory and confirmatory study of the factorial structure on a sample of 1,306 employees. In Study 2 (sample of 3,087 employees), we performed first and second order confirmatory analyses of the structure found in Study 1 in a different sample.

Findings:

The original model showed better goodness of fit in both studies. Additionally, relationships with ethical leadership and abusive leadership were identified. Overall, findings suggest the scale presents good psychometrical properties, presenting itself as a good measure to evaluate ethical climate.

Keywords:
Ethical climate; Ethical leadership; Abusive leadership; Ethical decision-making; Organizational climate.

Items and factors (considering items' original factor)	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5	Factor 6
Norms of Moral Awareness (NMA)
People in my department recognize a moral dilemma right away. (NMA)	.79
People around here are aware of ethical issues. (NMA)	.78
If a rule or law is broken, people around here are quick to notice. (NMA)	.66
People in my department are very sensitive to ethical problems. (NMA)	.65
People around here do not pay attention to ethical issues. (inverted) (NMA)	.40
It is expected that you will always do what is right for society. (FoO)	.30
Collective Moral Motivation (CMM)
Authority is considered more important than fairness. (inverted) (CMM)		.83
Power is more important than honesty. (inverted) (CMM)		.82
Personal success is more important than helping others. (inverted) (CMM)		.80
Achievement is valued more than commitment and loyalty. (inverted) (CMM)		.53
Focus On Self (FoS)
People in my department are very concerned about what is best for them personally. (inverted) (FoS)			.84
People around here are mostly out for themselves. (inverted) (FoS)			.84
People in my department think of their own welfare first when faced with a difficult decision. (inverted) (FoS)			.83
People's primary concern is their own personal benefit. (inverted) (FoS)			.81
People around here protect their own interest above other considerations. (inverted) (FoS)			.77
Norms of Empathetic Concern (NEC)
When people around here see that someone is treated unfairly, they feel pity for that person. (NEC)				.75
Others' misfortunes do not usually disturb people in my department a great deal. (inverted) (NEC)				.74
When people in my department see someone being treated unfairly, they sometimes don't feel much pity for them. (inverted) (NEC)				.71
People around here feel bad for someone who is being taken advantage of. (NEC)				.67
In my department people feel sorry for someone who is having problems. (NEC)				.66
Sometimes people in my department do not feel very sorry for others who are having problems. (inverted) (NEC)				.60
People in my department sympathize with someone who is having difficulties in their job. (NEC)				.55
Focus On Others (FoO)
The most important concern is the good of all the people in the department. (FoO)					.68
What is best for everyone in the department is the major consideration. (FoO)					.65
People I work with would feel they had to help a peer even if that person was not a very helpful person. (CMC)					.32
Collective Moral Character (CMC)/Collective Moral Motivation (CMM)
In order to control scarce resources, people in my department are willing to compromise their ethical values somewhat. (inverted) (CMM)						.58
People are willing to tell a lie if it means advancing in the company. (inverted) (CMM)						.55
People strive to obtain power and control even if it means compromising ethical values. (inverted) (CMM)						.54
People in my department feel it is better to assume responsibility for a mistake. (CMC)						.49
No matter how much people around here are provoked, they are always responsible for whatever they do. (CMC)						.46
People are willing to break the rules in order to advance in the company. (inverted) (CMM)						.43
When necessary, people in my department take charge and do what is morally right. (CMC)						.37
Generally people in my department feel in control over the outcomes when making decisions that concern ethical issues. (CMC)						.35

Models	χ²	df	p calculated	χ²/DF	NFI	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
6 factor parsimonious model	450.45	120	sig	3.7	.97	.98	.97	.03	.05
6 factor original model	3965.93	579	sig	6.85	.88	.89	.88	.05	.07
6 factor EFA model	2856.87	481	sig	5.94	.90	.92	.91	.08	.06
1 factor model	9292.86	495	sig	18.77	.69	.70	.68	.08	.12

Names of Factors and Items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5	Factor 6
Norms of Moral Awareness (NMA)
People in my department are very sensitive to ethical problems. (NMA)	.84
People in my department recognize a moral dilemma right away. (NMA)	.73
People around here do not pay attention to ethical issues. (inverted) (NMA)	.64
Collective Moral Motivation (CMM)
People strive to obtain power and control even if it means compromising ethical values. (inverted) (CMM)		.91
People are willing to tell a lie if it means advancing in the company. (inverted) (CMM)		.89
In order to control scarce resources, people in my department are willing to compromise their ethical values somewhat. (inverted) (CMM)		.83
Focus On Self (FoS)
People around here protect their own interest above other considerations. (inverted) (FoS)			.92
People's primary concern is their own personal benefit. (inverted) (FoS)			.87
People in my department are very concerned about what is best for them personally. (inverted) (FoS)			.86
Norms of Empathetic Concern (NEC)
Sometimes people in my department do not feel very sorry for others who are having problems. (inverted) (NEC)				.84
People around here feel bad for someone who is being taken advantage of. (NEC)				.73
When people around here see that someone is treated unfairly, they feel pity for that person. (NEC)				.71
Focus On Others (FoO)
Employees had a strong sense of responsibility for society and humanity.					.79
Employees were actively concerned with the interests of colleagues.					.77
The most important concern is the good of all the people in the department. (FoO)					.74
Collective Moral Character (CMC)
When necessary, people in my department take charge and do what is morally right. (CMC)						.80
No matter how much people around here are provoked, they are always responsible for whatever they do. (CMC)						.72
Generally people in my department feel in control over the outcomes when making decisions that concern ethical issues. (CMC)						.69

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Norms of Moral Awareness	3.61	.84	(.77)
2. Norms of Empathetic Concern	3.51	.85	.55	(.81)
3. Focus on Self	2.69	1.04	.55	.55	(.94)
4. Focus on Others	3.07	.86	.60	.64	.65	(.81)
5. Collective Moral Motivation	3.22	1.03	.59	.52	.64	.65	(.91)
6. Collective Moral Character	3.27	.80	.61	.55	.56	.68	.65	(.78)

Models	χ²	df	p calculated	χ²/DF	NFI	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
6 factors model	1,572.88	120	sig	3.7	.95	.96	.95	.05	.06
5 factors model (NMA + NEC)	2,618.21	125	sig	20.95	.92	.93	.91	.05	.08
4 factors model	4,387.98	129	sig	34.01	.87	.88	.85	.07	.10
1 factor model	8,429.54	135	sig	62.44	.76	.76	.73	.07	.14

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Norms of Moral Awareness	3.71	.80	(.78)
2. Norms of Empathetic Concern	3.71	.77	.56	(.75)
3.Focus on Self	3.11	1	.49	.56	(.92)
4. Focus on Others	3.31	.82	.56	.61	.69	(.83)
5. Collective Moral Motivation	3.271	.92	.59	.56	.65	.63	(.88)
6. Collective Moral Character	3.55	.71	.55	.51	.5	.67	.60	(.76)

Editora Mackenzie; Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie Rua da Consolação, 896, Edifício Rev. Modesto Carvalhosa, Térreo - Coordenação da RAM, Consolação - São Paulo - SP - Brasil - cep 01302-907 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista.adm@mackenzie.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juliana G. Almeida, Rie Mastenbroekstraat 19, Amsterdam, Netherlands, CEP: 1095 MJ. E-mail: julianag.almeida@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

ETHICAL CLIMATE INDEX: EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY OF THE BRAZILIAN VERSION* * Funding information: CNPq. Grant number: 403609/2016-0 and 304015/2015-6.

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

Originality/value:

Design/methodology/approach:

Findings:

ETHICAL CLIMATE INDEX: EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY OF THE BRAZILIAN VERSION^* * Funding information: CNPq. Grant number: 403609/2016-0 and 304015/2015-6.