500987

research-article2013
JABXXX10.1177/0021886313500987The Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceDeBode et al.

Article
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
XX(X) 1­–25
Assessing Ethical © 2013 NTL Institute
Reprints and permissions:
Organizational Culture: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021886313500987
Refinement of a Scale jab.sagepub.com

Jason D. DeBode1, Achilles A. Armenakis1, Hubert S.

Feild1, and Alan G. Walker1

Abstract
An important element in discussions of organizational ethicality is the diagnosis of
organizational culture. Kaptein developed the Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale
(CEVMS) to facilitate this task. We build on this work by developing a short form of
Kaptein’s scale, the CEVMS–Short Form (CEVMS-SF). In a series of studies, using three
independent samples, we (a) developed the CEVMS-SF (Study 1, n = 274), (b) tested
the psychometric properties of the short form (Study 2, n = 417), and (c) found validity
evidence (Study 3, n = 204) for the measure. The primary implication of this research
is that the CEVMS-SF can be combined with existing scales allowing diagnosticians to
conduct more comprehensive diagnoses by including ethical culture. We also explain
how the CEVMS-SF is applicable in the action research process when conducting a
diagnosis or evaluating change interventions during the transformation of an unethical
organizational culture to an ethical one.

Keywords
ethics, culture, assessment

Organizational change usually proceeds by initiating four steps: (a) conducting an

organizational diagnosis to identify problem symptoms and causes, (b) planning inter-
ventions to eliminate problem causes (i.e., action planning), (c) implementing change
interventions, and (d) evaluating effects of the interventions to determine if change
objectives have been accomplished (Lewin, 1946). Diagnostic data are collected

1Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Jason D. DeBode, Auburn University, 401 Lowder Business Building, 415 W. Magnolia Avenue, Auburn,
AL 36948, USA.
Email: jdd0012@auburn.edu

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

2 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

through means such as observing and interviewing organizational members, adminis-

tering survey questionnaires, and analyzing archival records. The collected data can
then be presented back to employees to solicit input and facilitate employee ownership
in the change process.
Organizational culture is often the focus of organizational change efforts because
culture is responsible for an organization’s effectiveness (Schein, 2004; Treviño,
1990)—it reflects the collective mindset of the organization’s leaders and followers.
Transforming an organization’s culture can include changing (a) organizational strat-
egy; (b) operational practices followed in executing the strategy; (c) employee expec-
tations and knowledge, skills, and abilities; (d) day-to-day interactions among
employees; (e) physical facilities; and so on. Thus, organizational culture is created by
the interactions among organizational members, leaders, behaviors and norms, and
consequently, influences individuals’ behavior in an organization. The cliché, “culture
influences the way we do things around here,” is often used to sum up the role of cul-
ture in determining an organization’s effectiveness.
If organizational decision makers behave unethically, structures, routines, rules,
and norms will reflect this and influence the behavior of others throughout the organi-
zation, creating an unethical culture. In a recent meta-analysis Kish-Gephart, Harrison,
and Treviño (2010) found a negative relationship between stronger ethical cultures and
unethical intentions (r = −.15) and unethical behaviors (r = −.44). Because ethical
cultures play an important role in higher levels of organizational effectiveness (cf.
Burns & Stalker, 1961; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Kotter & Heskett, 1992), we can
infer that unethical cultures negatively influence organizational effectiveness. Indeed,
examples like Enron (e.g., McLean & Elkind, 2003) suggest that unethical cultures
may result in unethical behavior that is ultimately bad for employees, organizations,
and society as a whole.
The costs associated with unethical organizational actions are colossal. For exam-
ple, Karpoff, Lee, and Martin (2008) noted that, on average, firms found guilty of
financial misrepresentation (a form of unethical organizational behavior) between
1978 and 2002 were fined $23.5 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
However, these same organizations lost substantially more because of lower sales and
higher financial costs stemming from market-based reactions. Thus, organizations,
and those who lead them, are incentivized to prevent such actions from occurring. We
as ethics researchers are charged with understanding these events and offering practi-
cal suggestions regarding how to prevent them. One means for doing so is to measure
an organization’s ethical culture using a valid, but relatively brief survey.
Ideally, to continuously improve the organization, leaders will periodically initiate
organizational diagnoses. By systematically monitoring an organization’s culture, deci-
sion makers can capitalize on a company’s strengths and identify weaknesses before
they become critical. These strengths and weaknesses serve as targets for focusing posi-
tive organizational change (i.e., eliminating organizational weaknesses and diffusing
strengths throughout the organization). Organizational diagnosis is a crucial step in the
organizational change process (Levinson, Molinari, & Spohn, 1972). Most often, self-
report surveys, which offer diagnosticians several advantages over alternative data

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 3

collection methods (see Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, & Falkus, 2000), serve as the means for
collecting much of the diagnostic data.
Numerous cultural questionnaires having adequate psychometric properties are
available for measuring various aspects of organizational culture (see, e.g., Ashkanasy
et al., 2000; Scott, Mannion, Davies, & Marshall, 2003; Xenikou & Furnham, 1996).
However, few, if any scales, specifically assess dimensions related to ethical culture.
Thus, if an organizational leader is interested in conducting an organizational diagno-
sis that includes ethical cultural dimensions, a separate questionnaire must be com-
bined with an organizational culture questionnaire. This strategy can lead to surveys
having 100 or more items, requiring significant respondent time and effort which
affect not only the willingness of respondents to complete and return the survey but
also the quality of data collected from those choosing to respond (Yammarino,
Skinner, & Childers, 1991). In practice, surveys must allow diagnosticians to achieve
an accurate diagnosis within reasonable requirements (i.e., time and effort) for data
collection.
Our purpose in conducting the current research was to identify a standardized and
valid means for diagnosing an organization’s ethical culture. Importantly, we draw on
previous research with an aim to produce a scale that is short enough to incorporate
with other measures in an overall organizational diagnosis effort.

Research on Ethical Culture

As noted by Kish-Gephart et al. (2010), for more than 30 years, researchers have
sought to understand why employees behave unethically at work. Though many expla-
nations have been considered (see Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O’Fallon & Butterfield,
2005, for reviews), further contributions to this literature are needed (Kish-Gephart
et al., 2010). We submit that organizational culture—those aspects that stimulate ethi-
cal/unethical conduct at work (Treviño & Weaver, 2003)—is poised to contribute to
this important literature. In responding to the need for assessing ethical organizational
culture, Kaptein (2008) developed the Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale.

The Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale

Based largely on his prior work (Kaptein, 1998, 1999) and on the values-based theory
of business ethics (Solomon, 1993, 1999, 2004), Kaptein’s (2008) Corporate Ethical
Virtues Model Scale (CEVMS) is composed of 58 items that assess eight dimensions of
organizational ethical cultures. The first dimension of the scale, Clarity (10 items)
refers to the extent to which an organization’s expectations are clear to its employees
that they behave in an ethical manner. Congruency of Supervisors (6 items) reflects the
extent to which employees’ immediate supervisor models appropriate ethical behav-
iors. Similarly, Congruency of Management (4 items) examines the extent to which the
Board of Directors and senior management model ethical workplace behaviors.
Feasibility (6 items) refers to whether an organization creates working conditions that
facilitate violation of ethical norms for behavior. Supportability (6 items) denotes the

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

4 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

extent to which employees are motivated to behave in accordance with their organiza-
tion’s ethical standards. Transparency (7 items) focuses on whether employees know
the consequences of unethical behavior and rewards for ethical behavior. Discussability
(10 items) concerns opportunities for employees to raise, discuss, and correct ethical
issues and moral dilemmas at work. Finally, Sanctionability (9 items) concerns punish-
ments handed down by the organization in response to unethical employee behavior.
Kaptein (2008) reported validity and reliability evidence for the CEVMS.
Additional work has successfully linked the CEVMS dimensions to meaningful orga-
nizational constructs, finding that established organizational ethics programs are
related to different CEVMS dimensions (Kaptein, 2009). Others have found that
CEVMS dimensions are negatively related to unethical behaviors at work (Kaptein,
2011b), ethical strain, and emotional exhaustion but positively related to work
engagement (Huhtala, Feldt, Lämsä, Mauno, & Kinnunen, 2011). Still others have
reported that CEVMS dimensions influence employee engagement in responding to
perceived wrongdoing (e.g., inaction, whistle-blowing, reporting to management,
calling an ethics hotline; Kaptein, 2011a). These findings underscore the CEVMS’
viability for future ethics researchers.
Kaptein (2008) noted two important limitations of his research using the CEVMS:
(a) reliance on one national culture (i.e., Dutch) in three of his studies, thereby indicat-
ing a need for validation in different cultures; and (b) limited convergent and discrimi-
nant validity evidence. Our study contributes to the organizational culture, change,
and ethics literatures by developing a shortened version of the CEVMS for use in
ethics-related studies. Specifically, we examine the shortened scale’s validity (e.g.,
convergent, discriminant) and generalizability across multiple organizations in a dif-
ferent culture (i.e., United States).
The primary concern with scales developed in one culture is explained by
Sutherland’s (1973) theory of differential association. Sutherland theorized that differ-
ent groups having different cultures compose many societies. People experience
expectations for behavior through repeated interactions with others from various cul-
tures. When determining which course of action individuals are likely to pursue, norms
displaying increased frequency (i.e., how often the expectation is realized), duration
(i.e., how long the expectation persists), priority (i.e., how early in life the expectation
is realized), and intensity (i.e., prestige of the source of the expectation) are more
likely to guide actual behaviors (Matsueda, 1982).
Applied to the study of ethical organizational culture, the theory of differential
association suggests that employees are exposed to different cues regarding ethical
behavior. To the extent one such cue stems from key organizational members (e.g.,
supervisors, peers, executives), it is likely such expectations occur with a high fre-
quency, duration, priority, and intensity. As a result, the ethical behavioral norms stem-
ming from these key individuals are of increased significance when determining actual
behaviors. However, not all key organizational members have the same expectations
for ethical behavior nor do they agree with what constitutes ethical behavior; each
culture is unique. When a scale to assess ethical organizational cultures is developed
within only one organization, a question arises as to whether a universal framework

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 5

(i.e., a set of facets) for ethical organizational culture is achieved. Thus, there is a need
to understand what facets of ethical organizational culture are generalizable across
organizations.
One means to accomplish such a task is to administer the same ethical culture
scale to multiple organizations. The CEVMS was developed within four organiza-
tions, though the majority were located in one nation—the Netherlands (see Kaptein,
2008). As a result, we are limited in our ability to generalize its findings to organiza-
tions in other countries. Thus, one goal of the present study is to administer the
CEVMS to employees from multiple organizations to understand which facets of
ethical behavior are common across organizations. Our goal is not to gauge the ethi-
cal culture of these organizations per se, but rather to assess the consistency of
employees’ perceptions (across numerous organizations) using a shortened version of
the CEVMS.
Our research proceeds as follows. First, we provide additional construct validity
evidence for the full version of the CEVMS and describe the development of the
CEVMS–Short-Form (CEVMS-SF; Study 1). Next, we present empirical evidence
regarding the dimensionality and discriminant validity of the CEVMS-SF (Study 2).
Finally, we discuss empirical evidence concerning convergent validity (Study 3). We
then discuss limitations regarding our research along with implications for scholars
and professional practice.

Study 1: Construct Validity of the CEVMS and

Development of the CEVMS-SF
Purpose and Method
We conducted Study 1 to provide additional validity evidence for the CEVMS and to
create a shortened version of the scale. Accordingly, Study 1 proceeded in two steps.
First, we sought additional construct validity evidence via administration of the
58-item CEVMS in its original form and then subsequently conducted a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) on the items (Furr & Bacharach, 2008). Second, based on rec-
ommendations provided by Hinkin (1995, 1998) and Smith, McCarthy, and Anderson
(2000), we constructed a shortened version of the CEVMS (i.e., the CEVMS-SF).

Participants
Participants for Study 1 consisted of 275 individuals recruited from the StudyResponse
project (see Stanton & Weiss, 2002), a nonprofit academic service, which supplies
willing participants to researchers and has been used previously in the management
literature (e.g., Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Using such a resource allowed for a custom-
ized sample of respondents. In the present study, all respondents were at least 19 years
of age and currently employed in the United States for at least 1 year. All participants
received a $5.00 Amazon coupon for participating in each of two waves of data collec-
tion, which took place through a secure website.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

6 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

In all, StudyResponse solicited 330 participants, 275 (83.3%) of whom completed

our instrument. We removed one respondent due to excessive missing data, reducing
the final sample size to 274. We assessed nonresponse bias (i.e., comparing responders
to nonresponders) using demographic data. Results indicated that responders did not
differ in terms of ethnicity or age but were more likely to be male (χ21 = 4.91, p < .05)
and have a higher level of education (χ26 = 21.59, p < .01) than nonresponders.

Measure
We administered Kaptein’s (2008) original (i.e., 58-item) version of the CEVMS to all
participants in Study 1. Participants used a six-cell response format (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree). Coefficient alphas ranged from .86 to .94 (see Table 1).

Results
Table 1 shows descriptive information (i.e., means, standard deviations, dimension
intercorrelations, and coefficient alphas) for all CEVMS dimensions in Study 1.
Initially, we tested for evidence of construct validity by conducting a CFA on the
original version of the CEVMS. Following recommendations from the literature
(e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004; Sharma, Mukherjee, Kumar,
& Dillon, 2005), we examined a combination of absolute and incremental fit indices
in conjunction with several model fit criteria to uncover the best-fitting model for
our data. Results of our CFA indicated that an eight-factor solution had an accept-
able fit (χ21567 = 3,465.71, p < .01; comparative fit index [CFI] = .85; root mean
square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .07; standardized root mean square resid-
ual [SRMR] = .06) and provided a superior fit to that of any alternative model.
Specifically, we tested three alternative models via CFA. In his original article,
Kaptein (2008) initially proposed a single Congruency dimension; it was not until
later in his studies that he divided this dimension. Thus, one alternative model col-
lapsed the Congruency of Supervisors and Congruency of Management dimensions.
Because of the high correlation between the Discussability and Sanctionability
dimensions (see Table 1), we tested an additional alternative model, which collapsed
these dimensions. Finally, we tested a one-factor model where we forced all items to
load on a single CEVMS factor. Our results further substantiated the eight-dimen-
sional structure advocated by Kaptein (2008), thereby offering support for the con-
struct validity of the CEVMS.
Following Smith et al. (2000), our second step involved the development of a short-
ened version of the CEVMS. To begin, Kaptein (2008, 2009) provided initial validity
evidence for the original CEVMS. In addition, our CFA of Study 1 participants’
responses confirmed the full scale’s dimensionality. In specifying short-form content,
we required that each latent construct be assessed by four or more items (Harvey,
Billings, & Nilan, 1985). Next, as recommended by Smith et al. (2000), we examined
a variety of indicators (e.g., item-total correlations, examination of factor content) in
choosing items for our short form.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

 Table 1.  Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale Dimension Descriptive Statistics for Study 1.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale

  1. Clarity 4.77 .93 (.92)  
   2.  Congruency of Supervisors 4.74 1.06 .60** (.92)  
   3.  Congruency of Management 4.60 1.07 .57** .69** (.89)  
  4. Feasibility 3.48 1.39 .01 .12 −.01 (.90)  
  5. Supportability 4.53 1.03 .51** .68** .72** −.07 (.92)  
  6. Transparency 4.42 .93 .57** .55** .52** −.15* .59** (.86)  
  7. Discussability 4.62 .95 .62** .75** .72** −.00 .78** .68** (.93)  
  8. Sanctionability 4.58 1.03 .55** .81** .77** −.01 .79** .64** .88** (.94)  
Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale –Short Form
  9. Clarity 4.87 .96 .95** .57** .53** .04 .50** .54** .58** .51** (.86)  
  10.  Congruency of Supervisors 4.71 1.08 .57** .98** .68** .08 .67** .54** .72** .79** .55** (.90)  
  11.  Congruency of Management 4.60 1.07 .57** .69** 1.00** −.01 .72** .52** .72** .77** .53** .68** (.89)  
  12. Feasibility 3.56 1.46 .03 .15* .01 .96** −.05 −.16** .03 .02 .06 .11 .01 (.88)  
  13. Supportability 4.54 1.08 .48** .68** .71** −.02 .97** .57** .79** .79** .47** .66** .71** −.01 (.91)  
  14. Transparency 4.42 1.00 .58** .57** .57** −.11 .61** .95** .70** .66** .54** .55** .57** .12* .59** (.81)  
  15. Discussability 4.60 1.03 .59** .73** .70** .03 .75** .64** .97** .85** .55** .71** .70** .06 .76** .65** (.88)  

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

  16. Sanctionability 4.54 1.09 .52** .78** .73** −.03 .75** .62** .84** .97** .47** .76** .73** −.01 .75** .65** .82** (.88)

Note. N = 275. Coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses along the main diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

7
8 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

We began by examining factor loadings for all items from our CFA. We retained the
four highest loading items for all eight dimensions. Next, we examined each dimen-
sion and the associated items to ensure adequate construct representation as operation-
alized by Kaptein (2008). When concerns regarding construct representation emerged,
we reviewed additional items selected from the item pool for the dimension in ques-
tion. Discussions among the authors were held until 100% agreement was reached that
each CEVMS dimension was adequately represented. This process resulted in a deci-
sion to retain 32 items.
Following item selection, coefficient alphas were calculated, intercorrelations com-
puted among dimensions on the original and short-form versions of the CEVMS, and
another series of CFAs computed. As shown in Table 1, coefficient alphas for all scales
on the short-form ranged from .81 to .91. Correlations between corresponding dimen-
sions on the CEVMS original and short-form versions ranged from .95 to 1.001 (p <
.01), indicating a substantial degree of overlap between corresponding dimensions on
the CEVMS and CEVMS-SF. Finally, as with the full scale, an eight-factor solution
provided superior fit to the data (χ2436 = 906.35, p < .01; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .06;
SRMR = .05) for the CEVMS-SF relative to our alternative models.

Discussion
We conducted Study 1 based on our assertion that development of a shorter form was
possible and would further enhance the usability of Kaptein’s (2008) CEVMS. In all,
we retained four items for each of Kaptein’s (2008) eight dimensions (32 items over-
all). Additionally, preliminary results suggested that all dimensions retained accept-
able degrees of reliability using conventional standards (Hinkin, 1995; Smith et al.,
2000), the dimensionality of the CEVMS was preserved, and substantial overlap
between the CEVMS and CEVMS-SF dimensions existed.
Although our initial results are encouraging, both Hinkin (1995, 1998) and Smith
et al. (2000) place emphasis on replication in independent samples to support the
dimensionality, generalizability, and validity of a measure. Additionally, Hinkin (1995)
warns against the use of negatively worded items when generating scale items, which
is especially problematic for the Feasibility dimension of the CEVMS that is com-
prised entirely of negatively worded items.
In the present study, the influence of the negatively worded Feasibility items is
evident in the pattern of correlations between the CEVMS dimensions (see Table 1).
Specifically, with the exception of Feasibility, all CEVMS dimensions displayed a
pattern of positive correlations in both the original (rs ranged from .51 to .88, p <
.01) and shortened (rs ranged from .47 to .82, p < .05) versions. However, the
Feasibility dimension had mostly nonsignificant correlations with the remaining
dimensions in both the original (rs ranged from −.15 to .12) and short (rs ranged
from −.01 to .12) versions. These results indicate the Feasibility dimension is not
related to the remaining CEVMS dimensions, which is contrary to Kaptein’s (2008)
original conceptualization.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 9

Study 2: CEVMS-SF Scale Dimensionality and

Discriminant Validity
Purpose and Method
Replication is an important step in the scale development process, as doing so can
provide additional evidence of scale dimensionality and validity (Hinkin, 1995, 1998;
Smith et al., 2000). Therefore, the primary goals of Study 2 were to (a) reword the four
retained items in the Feasibility dimension of the CEVMS-SF to reflect a positive
context, (b) replicate Study 1 results, and (c) determine if the CEVMS-SF is distin-
guishable from similar measures (i.e., discriminant validity).
As originally conceptualized, Kaptein’s (2008) Feasibility items focus on organiza-
tionally induced barriers to complying with normative expectations for ethical behav-
ior. Presumably, a lack of such barriers equates to a situation that allows employees to
behave ethically. Thus, lower scores on the Feasibility dimension would actually entail
a more ethically feasible working environment. However, inclusion of negatively
worded items introduces methodological complications to subsequent analyses using
the CEVMS. Therefore, we reworded the four items in the Feasibility dimension of the
CEVMS-SF and tested the short-form of the scale on a new participant sample.
As reported in Study 1, we identified four items to represent the Feasibility dimen-
sion. To preserve the original conceptualization of the Feasibility dimension, we made
as few changes as possible to the items but modified them to reflect a positive theme.
Table 2 shows all CEVMS-SF items, including the modified Feasibility items.

Participants
Participants in Study 2 were 417 individuals recruited from the StudyResponse pool of
participants. We used the same participation incentive and criteria in drawing our sam-
ple for Study 2 that we used in Study 1. No one in Study 2 participated previously in
Study 1. All solicited participants completed our survey, resulting in a participation
rate of 100%.

Measures
Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale–Short-Form. Each participant completed the
32-item CEVMS-SF assessing eight dimensions. Respondents used a six-cell response
format (1 = Strongly Disagree; 6 = Strongly Agree; see Table 2) to respond to the
items.

Individual Beliefs About Organizational Ethics.  To test for discriminant validity, we assessed
participants’ beliefs about organizational ethics using the Individual Beliefs about
Organizational Ethics scale (Froelich & Kottke, 1991) composed of 10 items rated on a
seven-cell response format (1 = Strongly Disagree; 7 = Strongly Agree). An example
scale item is, “It is sometimes necessary for the company to engage in shady practices

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

10 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

Table 2.  Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale Short-Form Items.

Dimension Item
Clarity The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should
conduct myself appropriately toward others within the organization.
  The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should deal
with confidential information responsibly.
  The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should deal
with external persons and organizations responsibly.
  In my immediate working environment, it is sufficiently clear how we
are expected to conduct ourselves in a responsible way.
Congruency of My supervisor sets a good example in terms of ethical behavior.
Supervisors My supervisor communicates the importance of ethics and integrity
  clearly and convincingly.
  My supervisor does as he/she says.
  My supervisor is honest and reliable.
Congruency of The conduct of the Board and (senior) management reflects a shared
Management set of norms and values.
  The Board and (senior) management set a good example in terms of
ethical behavior.
  The Board and (senior) management communicate the importance of
ethics and integrity clearly and convincingly.
  The Board and (senior) management would never authorize unethical
or illegal conduct to meet business goals.
Feasibility I am not asked to do things that conflict with my conscience in my
immediate working environment.
  I do not have to sacrifice my personal norms and values in order to be
successful in my organization.
  I have adequate resources at my disposal to carry out my tasks
responsibly.
  I am not put under pressure to break the rules in my job.
Supportability In my immediate working environment, everyone has the best
interests of the organization at heart.
  In my immediate working environment, a mutual relationship of trust
prevails between employees and management.
  In my immediate working environment, everyone takes the existing
norms and standards seriously.
  In my immediate working environment, everyone treats one another
with respect.
Transparency If a colleague does something which is not permitted, my manager will
find out about it.
  If my manager does something which is not permitted, someone in the
organization will find out about it.
  In my immediate working environment, adequate checks are carried
out to detect violations and unethical conduct.
  Management is aware of the type of incidents and unethical conduct
that occur in my immediate working environment.
(continued)

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 11

Table 2.  (continued)

Dimension Item
Discussability In my immediate working environment, there is adequate opportunity
to discuss unethical conduct.
  In my immediate working environment, reports of unethical conduct
are taken seriously.
  In my immediate working environment, there is ample opportunity for
discussing moral dilemmas.
  In my immediate working environment, there is adequate opportunity
to correct unethical conduct.
Sanctionability In my immediate working environment, ethical conduct is valued
highly.
  In my immediate working environment, ethical conduct is rewarded.
  In my immediate working environment, employees will be disciplined if
they behave unethically.
  If I reported unethical conduct to management, I believe those
involved would be disciplined fairly regardless of their position.

Note. All items are scored on a six-cell response format: 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Moderately Disagree), 3
(Slightly Disagree), 4 (Slightly Agree), 5 (Moderately Agree), and 6 (Strongly Agree).

because the competition is doing so.” Due to item wording, lower scores equate to a
stronger disagreement with engaging in ethically questionable practices, thereby indi-
cating a higher degree of individual ethics. Coefficient alpha was .96 (see Table 3).

Patriotism.  Because we collected all Study 2 data at one time and from the same source,
we conducted additional analyses to ensure that common method variance (CMV) did
not explain the relationships between our substantive variables. Kosterman and Fesh-
bach’s (1989) Patriotism scale assessed participants’ patriotism and was used as a
marker variable (see Lindell & Whitney, 2001) in the study. The patriotism scale con-
sists of five items rated on a seven-cell response format (1 = Strongly Disagree; 7 =
Strongly Agree). An example item is, “I am proud to be an American.” Coefficient
alpha was .85 (see Table 3).

Results
Table 3 summarizes descriptive information (i.e., means, standard deviations, coeffi-
cient alphas, and intercorrelations) for the eight CEVMS-SF dimensions. Of particular
note is the pattern of correlations among the CEVMS-SF dimensions. In Study 1, the
Feasibility dimension correlated only with one other dimension, Transparency (see
Table 1; r = −.15, p < .05), a trend that did not change with the creation of the
CEVMS-SF in Study 1 (see lower portion of Table 1). However, after rewording its
negative items, the Feasibility dimension showed positive relationships with all
CEVMS-SF dimensions, with correlations ranging from .50 to .59 (p < .01).

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

 12
Table 3.  Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale Dimension Descriptive Statistics for Study 2.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 1. Clarity 4.77 .78 (.79)  
  2. Congruency of Supervisors 4.72 .84 .53** (.84)  
  3. Congruency of Management 4.67 .84 .60** .70** (.83)  
 4. Feasibility 4.57 .83 .55** .58** .59** (.67)  
 5. Supportability 4.65 .80 .57** .69** .70** .58** (.80)  
 6. Transparency 4.59 .73 .50** .59** .57** .50** .61** (.71)  
 7. Discussability 4.59 .78 .56** .65** .62** .51** .69** .64** (.76)  
 8. Sanctionability 4.58 .82 .55** .65** .67** .53** .70** .66** .71* (.79)  
  9. Individual Beliefs about Organizational Ethics 3.60 1.85 .14** .07 .10* .03 .12* .23** .15** .21** (.98)  
10. Patriotism 5.79 .84 .32** .25** .28** .31** .29** .33** .27** .35** .03 (.85)

Note. N = 417. Coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses along the main diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 13

Additionally, an eight-dimensional CFA model provided superior fit to our data

(χ2436 = 1224.86, p < .01; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .05) compared with the
other alternative models. These results provide support for the generalizability of the
eight-dimensional structure of the CEVMS-SF.

Discriminant Validity. Discriminant validity is established when empirical evidence

indicates that a focal scale is not highly related to similar, though conceptually distinct,
constructs (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Hinkin, 1998). One way to test for discriminant
validity, and the method adopted in this study, is to test for weak relationships between
a focal scale (i.e., the CEVMS-SF) and similar constructs. The CEVMS-SF gauges
employees’ perceptions of their employer’s ethicality. A conceptually similar though
distinct perception is employees’ perception of organizational ethics in general. Froe-
lich and Kottke (1991) created the Individual Beliefs about Organizational Ethics
scale (IBOES), which assesses general perceptions about organizational ethicality.
Thus, these two constructs conceptually relate insofar as both gauge employees’ ethi-
cal perceptions of organizations; however, they are conceptually distinct given the
focus of each scale.
The eight-factor CFA solution found in both Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence of
the CEVMS-SF’s discriminant validity (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). In addition, we
used CFA to empirically distinguish the CEVMS-SF from an existing scale (Chen,
Gully, & Eden, 2001), which assesses a similar construct (i.e., the IBOES). First, we
assessed a nine-factor model, which distinguishes among all eight dimensions of the
CEVMS-SF and the IBOES. Results indicated this model fit acceptably (χ2783 =
2332.34, p < .01; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .06). Subsequently, we tested
nine alternative models, eight of which collapsed the IBOES and a single CEVMS-SF
dimension (e.g., IBOES and Clarity were collapsed in Model 2), and a final one-
factor solution that collapsed all CEVMS-SF dimensions and the IBOES. None of
our alternative models fit the data as well as the nine-factor model. Taken together,
the CFA results from Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence of discriminant validity for
the CEVMS-SF.

Common Method Variance Analyses.  Because we collected all variables at the same time
and from the same source (i.e., individual, self-report data), we analyzed all correla-
tions to rule out the possibility of CMV explaining our results (Lindell & Whitney,
2001). Applied to our study, Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) guidelines indicate an
appropriate marker variable would be theoretically unrelated to ethical beliefs/values
and be vulnerable to the potentially negative effects of same-source cross-sectional
data. Because we know of no prior work that theoretically or empirically links employ-
ees’ patriotism with their ethics, Kosterman and Feshbach’s (1989) patriotism con-
struct meets the first of Lindell and Whitney’s criteria. Furthermore, because
participants concurrently gauged it with other data in this study, the patriotism variable
is susceptible to the same CMV concerns as our other variables, thereby meeting Lin-
dell and Whitney’s second stipulation.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

14 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

The smallest positive correlation between our marker variable (i.e., Patriotism) and
our substantive variables was the correlation between Patriotism and the CEVMS-SF
dimension of Congruency of Supervisors (r = .25, p < .01). This correlation was then
partialled out of all correlations between the CEVMS-SF dimensions and all other
substantive variables. Lindell and Whitney (2001) note that any relationships retaining
statistical significance are likely not due to CMV. Interestingly, although virtually all
correlations remained statistically significant, correlations between the CEVMS-SF
dimensions of Transparency and Sanctionability and the IBOES were no longer sig-
nificant following our correction. Although the presence of CMV in the Transparency
and Sanctionability dimensions is of concern, we retained both dimensions to further
examine the validity of the CEVMS-SF.

Discussion
The results of Study 2 are promising; they provide additional support for the eight-
dimensional structure of the CEVMS-SF. However, both Hinkin (1995, 1998) and
Smith et al. (2000) emphasize the need to ensure a measure is both reliable and valid.
As indicated in Studies 1 and 2, we observed adequate reliability estimates for the
CEVMS-SF. However, while validity evidence for the original version of the CEVMS
exists (Kaptein, 2008), similar evidence is lacking for the CEVMS-SF.

Study 3: Empirical CEVMS-SF Scale Validation

Purpose and Method
The previous two studies offer evidence that supports both the generalizability of the
eight-dimensional structure of the CEVMS-SF and the internal consistency of all eight
dimensions. These results support the construct validity of the CEVMS-SF (Hinkin,
1998). However, as recommended by Hinkin (1995, 1998) and Smith et al. (2000),
additional validity evidence is necessary. We designed Study 3 to test for evidence of
construct validity by correlating CEVMS-SF with theoretically related measures (i.e.,
convergent validity).

Participants and Method

Data for Study 3 were collected as part of a larger data collection effort from 204 par-
ticipants recruited from Qualtrics, an online survey development and administration
company that has been used previously in the management literature (e.g., Long,
Bendersky, & Morrill, 2011). The Qualtrics database consists of individuals from
throughout the United States who are willing to participate in research projects in
exchange for “credits” that are exchanged for monetary compensation. All participants
were at least 19 years of age, employed full-time, and employed for no more than 1
year at the time of survey administration. All solicited, qualified individuals responded
to our survey, providing a response rate of 100%.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 15

Measures
Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale–Short-Form. Each participant completed the
CEVMS-SF created in Study 1 and refined in Study 2. Reliability coefficients for the
eight dimensions ranged from .87 to .94 in the present study (see Table 4).

Supervisor Commitment. We measured participants’ commitment to their immediate

supervisor using Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert’s (1996) nine-item scale. Their
scale consists of two dimensions: Supervisor-related Identification (five items; e.g.,
“When someone criticizes my supervisor, it feels like a personal insult”) and Supervi-
sor-related Internalization (four items; e.g., “If the values of my supervisor were dif-
ferent, I would not be as attached to my supervisor”). Previous research (Becker et al.,
1996) has indicated these dimensions have acceptable reliability (coefficient αs = .85
and .84 for identification and internalization, respectively). In the current study, coef-
ficient alphas were .90 (Supervisor-related Identification) and .89 (Supervisor-related
Internalization).

Organizational Commitment.  We measured participants’ commitment to their current

organization using Becker et al.’s (1996) nine-item scale. Their questionnaire con-
sists of two dimensions: Organization-related Identification (five items; e.g., “When
someone criticizes this organization, it feels like a personal insult”) and Organiza-
tion-related Internalization (four items; e.g., “If the values of this organization were
different, I would not be as attached to this organization). Previous research (Becker
et al., 1996) indicated acceptable reliability (coefficient αs = .89 and .88 for identi-
fication and internalization, respectively). In the current study, coefficient alphas
were .95 for Organization-related Identification and .93 for Organization-related
Internalization.

Patriotism.  We collected Study 3 data at one time and from the same source. To rule out
the influence of CMV, we conducted additional analyses using Kosterman and Fesh-
bach’s (1989) Patriotism scale as a marker variable (see Lindell & Whitney, 2001).
Coefficient alpha was .93 (see Table 4).

Results
Table 4 presents descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, coefficient
alphas, and intercorrelations) for all measures in Study 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis.  Consistent with CFA results in Studies 1 and 2, our CFA in
Study 3 indicated the previously supported eight-factor solution was the best fitting
model to our data (χ2436 = 1166.16, p < .01; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .09; SRMR = .04). We
tested the same three alternative models via CFA as in Study 1; all chi-square difference
tests were significant indicating that as we collapsed dimensions, model fit became
significantly worse. Thus, these results further support our eight-factor solution.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

 16
Table 4.  Corporate Ethical Virtues Model Scale Dimension Descriptive Statistics for Study 3.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Clarity 4.76 .97 (.90)  

2.  Congruency of Supervisors 4.65 1.18 .56** (.94)  
3.  Congruency of Management 4.53 1.06 .61** .72** (.95)  
4. Feasibility 4.81 .99 .59** .74** .68** (.87)  
5. Supportability 4.54 1.10 .53** .72** .79** .73** (.93)  
6. Transparency 4.37 1.07 .49** .66** .69** .67** .74** (.89)  
7. Discussability 4.48 1.12 .53** .71** .78** .69** .80** .84** (.93)  
8. Sanctionability 4.53 1.07 .53** .73** .76** .72** .79** .81** .88** (.89)  
9. Patriotism 5.80 1.22 .39** .30** .32** .31** .32** .29** .32** .30** (.93)  
10.  Supervisor Commitment—Identification 4.06 1.42 .30** .52** .48** .43** .55** .51** .57** .58** .35** (.90)  
11.  Supervisor Commitment—Internalization 4.35 1.44 .31** .60** .47** .45** .53** .43** .50** .54** .31** .75** (.89)  
12.  Organizational Commitment—Identification 4.59 1.52 .35** .47** .54** .48** .60** .52** .63** .63** .40** .74** .65** (.95)  
13.  Organizational commitment—Internalization 4.57 1.44 .32** .51** .54** .50** .63** .58** .60** .66** .32** .62** .72** .80** (.93)

Note. N = 204. Coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses along the main diagonal.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

*p < .05. **p < .01.
DeBode et al. 17

Convergent Validity.  Prior research has indicated that a common method for assessing
convergent validity is to examine factor loadings from factor analyses and compare
them to loadings expected from theory (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). As discussed in Stud-
ies 1 and 2, there was strong evidence to suggest an eight-factor solution for the
CEVMS-SF. The superiority of the eight-factor solution found in the current study
provides evidence of convergent validity (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). We sought addi-
tional evidence of convergent validity by examining the correlations between the
CEVMS-SF dimensions and other constructs to which, based on theory or previous
empirical findings, these dimensions should be related (Campbell & Fiske, 1959;
Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
Previous research has linked corporate ethics and individual employees’ organiza-
tional commitment. For example, declaring ethical values as a component of an orga-
nization’s culture, Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989) found corporate ethical values
positively correlated with organizational commitment of marketing employees. In a
related study, Fritz, Arnett, and Conkel (1999) concluded that employee adoption of
organizational ethical standards is more likely when organizations (a) make such stan-
dards readily available, (b) enforce ethical standards, and (c) allow employees to talk
to their peers about these standards. To the extent organizations adopt these three
guidelines, employees should perceive the organization as “living up to its stated com-
mitments” (Fritz et al., 1999, p. 295), thereby increasing employees’ commitment
toward the organization.
Valentine and Barnett (2003) provide additional support regarding our expectation.
They observed that when employees were aware of codes of ethics in their organiza-
tions, commitment to their organizations resulted. Finally, Valentine, Godkin, and
Lucero (2002) found that corporate ethical values were positively associated with
employees’ organizational commitment. Taking the above into consideration, we
hypothesized a positive correlation between all CEVMS-SF dimensions and both
dimensions of organizational commitment. Additionally, because the Congruency of
Supervisors dimension focuses on employees’ immediate supervisor, we expected a
positive correlation between this dimension and both dimensions of supervisor
commitment.
As can be seen from the correlations reported in Table 4, all dimensions of the
CEVMS-SF positively correlated with both dimensions of organizational commit-
ment. The correlations ranged from .35 to .63 (p < .01) for the identification dimension
and .32 to .66 (p < .01) for the internalization dimension. Additionally, we found posi-
tive correlations between the Congruency of Supervisors dimension of the CEVMS-SF
and both the identification (r = .52, p < .01) and internalization (r = .60, p < .01)
dimensions of supervisor commitment. In sum, the pattern of results confirmed our
expectations. Therefore, these results provide additional support for convergent valid-
ity of the CEVMS-SF.

Common Method Variance Analyses.  As with Study 2, we collected all Study 3 variables
at the same time and from the same source (i.e., individual, self-report data). As before,
Kosterman and Feshbach’s (1989) Patriotism construct was included as a marker

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

18 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

variable in our study. The smallest positive correlation between our marker variable
(i.e., Patriotism) and our substantive variables was the correlation between Patriotism
and the CEVMS-SF dimension of Congruency of Supervisors (r = .29, p < .01). This
correlation was then partialled out of all correlations between the CEVMS-SF dimen-
sions and all other substantive variables. Though most relationships remained signifi-
cant, correlations between the CEVMS-SF dimension of Clarity and our outcome
variables were no longer significant. We return to this issue in our directions for future
research.

Discussion
The results of Study 3 are encouraging as they provide additional support for the
CEVMS-SF. Specifically, we found evidence further substantiating the eight-dimen-
sional factor structure of the scale and the internal consistency of each dimension.
Additionally, we found evidence of convergent validity, further supporting the con-
struct validity of the CEVMS-SF.

General Discussion
We designed this three-study research project to integrate the organizational culture,
change, and ethics literatures. Despite impressive advances made in the organizational
culture literature, we believe the discussion of organizational culture is incomplete
without considering the ethical aspects of organizational cultures and without specific
attention focused on the psychometric properties of measures used to assess ethical
cultures. We sought to systematically develop a short form of Kaptein’s (2008)
CEVMS that allowed us to assess facet generalizability as well as construct validity.
Our findings suggest a shorter measure is now available for future diagnoses of ethical
organizational cultures. We make no pretense of assessing the culture of the numerous
organizations that employed our hundreds of respondents. Our objective was to deter-
mine if the CEVMS facets were generalizable across organizations; our findings led us
to conclude these facets are, indeed, generalizable.
With respect to the psychometric qualities of the CEVMS-SF, the results are
encouraging. Regarding reliability, coefficient alphas for all eight dimensions in each
of the studies exceeded .70 with one exception (i.e., Feasibility in Study 2, α = .67).
Regarding validity, we also view our results as encouraging. Results of all CFAs sup-
port the contention that the CEVMS-SF dimensions, though related, tap different theo-
retical constructs. Moreover, having carefully followed recommendations from the
literature (Hinkin, 1995, 1998; Smith et al., 2000), we believe we have preliminary
evidence regarding the construct validity of the CEVMS-SF. Finally, given the sub-
stantial correlations between the CEVMS and CEVMS-SF in Study 1 (see Table 1),
we have evidence that suggests the CEVMS-SF is assessing the same constructs but is
doing so more efficiently.
Earlier, we mentioned the problem of survey length curtailing participation rates in
organizational diagnoses involving empirical diagnostic measures. Our research

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 19

demonstrated that an acceptable ethical organizational culture questionnaire comprised

of 58 items could be shortened to 32 items. The shorter scale will allow diagnosticians
to combine it with other questionnaires to facilitate a more comprehensive diagnosis
(i.e., including ethical culture). Thus, the shorter length will likely make the instrument
more attractive to practitioners and researchers who might shy away from longer diag-
nostic scales requiring more of their resources.

Application of the CEVMS-SF to Organizational Change

Schein (2004) found that organizational culture consists of three common elements:
artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and underlying assumptions. Thus, the unique-
ness of an organization’s culture is manifested in the specific ways each facet is opera-
tionalized. Artifacts are the obvious elements of an organization and include mission
statements, formal policies, and adherence to formal procedures for reporting organi-
zational performance. From an ethics perspective, an artifact could be a code of ethics
or a fraudulent report of the organization’s performance. Espoused beliefs and values
(which affect artifacts) are the ways managers and subordinates make and implement
decisions throughout the organization. An example from an ethics perspective is the
belief/value that managers should set good examples of ethical behavior. Underlying
assumptions are usually unconscious, unspoken, and taken for granted mindsets of
organizational members and provide the foundation that influences the other two cul-
tural elements. An example from an ethics perspective is that the company must oper-
ate ethically in the industry or should not continue in operation. Alternatively, an
underlying assumption could be we will meet/exceed Wall Street expectations, even if
we must fraudulently report our performance. To change culture, the underlying
assumptions must be made conscious and changed.
The actual process of changing an unethical culture to an ethical one begins with
the organizational diagnostic step in the action research process (Lewin, 1946). A sur-
vey feedback strategy (Nadler, 1977) consists of collecting data that reflect the arti-
facts and espoused beliefs and values. Examples of artifacts can come from observing
the organization’s physical facilities and interviewing select organizational informants.
Espoused beliefs and values are assessable by administering the CEVMS-SF to orga-
nizational members. A review of the items in Table 2 provides the questions that cap-
ture the beliefs of organizational members regarding the eight CEVMS dimensions.
In practice, diagnosticians should analyze the subscales’ content, determine the
ones appropriate for a particular diagnosis, and incorporate the most relevant sub-
scales. For example, the Congruency of Management subscale addresses issues related
to the Board of Directors and senior management. This subscale might not be appro-
priate for a diagnosis conducted at lower levels of an organization.
By adding descriptive items to the CEVMS-SF, a diagnostician can determine the
extent to which all departments within an organization share the same ethical standards
and practices. That is, the downfall of some organizations is attributable to the ethical
transgressions of a single department and not the entire organization per se. In the
HealthSouth case (Beam, 2009), for example, the finance and accounting departments

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

20 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

were involved in a multi-billion dollar fraud. Sixteen high-level managers (including

five former Chief Financial Officers) either pled guilty or were found guilty of fraud. At
the same time, the actual medical services representing the majority of the organiza-
tion’s overall output were judged to be of very high quality and of possessing very high
ethical standards. Thus, from a practical perspective, managers may use the CEVMS-SF
as a diagnostic tool in determining if any departments and work units have unethical
cultures.
Responses to the CEVMS-SF can be fed back to groups of employees with the goal
of identifying the underlying assumptions and then engaging in the next action research
step, action planning. During this step, organizational members participate in generat-
ing interventions to correct underlying assumptions. Examples include revising the
mission statement and business strategy, restructuring to add a Chief Compliance
Officer, and providing professional development on ethical management practices and
operational procedures. The third step in action research, implementation, involves
carrying out the interventions generated during the previous step. This step can be
accomplished through forming action groups (Moates, Armenakis, Gregory, Albritton,
& Feild, 2005) given the responsibility for managing the implementation process.
The final step, evaluation, consists of administering the CEVMS-SF again to deter-
mine the effectiveness of the change process; that is, have the beliefs/values improved?
Ideally, this action research process should become a standard procedure periodically
executed to monitor and continually improve organizational performance.

Study Limitations
Given the aforementioned strengths of our studies, we believe that the CEVMS-SF is
useful to future diagnosticians. That said, we highlight three limitations below.
First, while we found similar results in all three studies, all participants in Study 3
were employees who had been with their current organization for no more than 1 year
at the time they participated in our study. It remains unknown whether such short-
tenure employees have a firm grasp of their organization’s ethics. However, because
Study 3 produced results similar to Studies 1 and 2, we are confident in our findings.
We encourage additional work to examine the congruency of perceptions between
short-tenured and seasoned organizational members.
Second, while we believe the CEVMS-SF is a viable ethical culture diagnostic
scale, we question whether it taps all relevant dimensions of an ethical culture.
Although the original CEVMS was developed from studies of unethical case descrip-
tions and scrutinized by business ethics experts, practitioners, and consultants, we
wonder whether a qualitative research study would reveal additional dimensions.
Finally, we acknowledge that all data in Studies 1, 2, and 3 were cross-sectional
(i.e., collected at the same time) and self-report, raising concerns about CMV. We
examined this concern via the use of a marker variable (Lindell & Whitney, 2001) in
Studies 2 and 3. In Study 2, relationships between the Transparency and Sanctionability
dimensions and the IBOES were of concern, while the relationships between the
Clarity dimension and our outcome variables (i.e., supervisor and organizational

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 21

commitments) were suspect in Study 3. To help avoid concerns with CMV, future
researchers should consider including outcome variables such as self-report assess-
ments of organization citizenship behavior and customer-service orientation as well as
archival data such as employee turnover in conjunction with employees’ perceptions.

Future Research
Though preliminary in nature, our results are encouraging and should serve as a
springboard for additional research. First, along with Treviño and Weaver (2003) and
Kaptein (2008), we encourage future researchers to replicate our results, thereby pro-
viding additional support for the dimensionality, generalizability, reliability, and valid-
ity of the short form. Second, we encourage further refinement of the CEVMS-SF.
One such avenue is to determine whether additional dimensions exist (e.g., Kaptein,
2008) or whether the presence of observable artifacts (e.g., codes of ethics) can be
built into the instrument. Finally, in his original article, Kaptein (2008) reported that
organizations differed in the extent to which the eight dimensions were exhibited.
Future researchers may wish to understand what implications the presence (or absence)
of certain CEVMS-SF dimensions has, for example, for organizations’ reputation (see
Highhouse, Broadfoot, Yugo, & Devendorf, 2009) or performance.
In conclusion, for many years scholars have labored to understand the mechanisms
that underlie organizational ethics (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). We hope our results
offer ethics and change researchers a new scale with which to gauge organizational
ethics to continue the tradition of making impressive, meaningful, and interesting con-
tributions to this important literature.

Authors’ Note
An unabridged version of this article can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author or
by visiting the Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures at Auburn University (http://business.
auburn.edu/research-centers/centers/center-for-ethical-organizational-cultures/about-the-
center/).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received the financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article: This study was supported with funding from the Center for Ethical Organizational
Cultures in the Raymond J. Harbert College of Business at Auburn University.

Note
1. Because the original version of the CEVMS only includes four items for the Congruency
of Management dimension, all items were retained for the CEVMS-SF; thus, a correlation
of 1.00 was expected.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

22 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

References
Ashkanasy, N. M., Broadfoot, L. E., & Falkus, S. A. (2000). Questionnaire measures of orga-
nizational culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational culture and climate (pp.131-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beam, A. (2009). HealthSouth: Wagon to disaster. Fairhope, AL: Wagon.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of
employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 464-482. doi:10.2307/256788
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London, England: Tavistock.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-
trait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62-83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effec-
tiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204-223. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204
Fritz, J. M. H., Arnett, R. C., & Conkel, M. (1999). Organizational ethical standards and organiza-
tional commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 289-299. doi:10.1023/A:1005939325707
Froelich, K. S., & Kottke, J. L. (1991). Measuring individuals’ beliefs about organizational ethics.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 377-383. doi:10.1177/0013164491512011
Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Harvey, R. J., Billings, R. S., & Nilan, K. J. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Job
Diagnostic Survey: Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 461-468.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.461
Highhouse, S., Broadfoot, A., Yugo, J. E., & Devendorf, S. A. (2009). Examining corporate
reputation judgments with generalizability theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
782-789. doi:10.1037/a0013934
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.
Journal of Management, 21, 967-988. doi:10.1177/014920639502100509
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey question-
naires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121. doi:10.1177/109442819800100106
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy-
sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Huhtala, M., Feldt, T., Lämsä, A. M., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2011). Does the ethical cul-
ture of organisations promote managers’ occupational well-being? Investigating indirect
links via ethical strain. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 231-247. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-
0719-3
Hunt, S. D., Wood, V. R., & Chonko, L. B. (1989). Corporate ethical values and organizational
commitment in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 79-90.
Kaptein, M. (1998). Ethics management: Auditing and developing the ethical context of organi-
zations. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Kaptein, M. (1999). Integrity management. European Management Journal, 17, 625-634.
doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00053-5
Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations:
The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 923-947.
doi:10.1002/job.520

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 23

Kaptein, M. (2009). Ethics programs and ethical culture: A next step in unraveling their multi-fac-
eted relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 261-281. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9998-3
Kaptein, M. (2011a). From inaction to external whistleblowing: The influence of the ethical cul-
ture of organizations on employee responses to observed wrongdoing. Journal of Business
Ethics, 98, 513-530. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0591-1
Kaptein, M. (2011b). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human
Relations, 64, 843-869. doi:10.1177/0018726710390536
Karpoff, J. M., Lee, D. S., & Martin, G. S. (2008). The cost to firms of cooking the books. Journal
of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43, 581-611. doi:10.1017/S0022109000004221
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad
barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31. doi:10.1037/a0017103
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes.
Political Psychology, 10, 257-274.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Levinson, H., Molinari, J., & Spohn, A. G. (1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An
empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.
doi:10.1177/014920639802400105
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114-121. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.1.114
Long, C. P., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial
controls and fairness judgments in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 54,
1045-1068. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0008
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypoth-
esis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgener-
alizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
Matsueda, R. L. (1982). Testing control theory and differential association: A causal modeling
approach. American Sociological Review, 47, 489-504.
McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and scandal-
ous fall of Enron. New York, NY: Penguin.
Moates, K. N., Armenakis, A. A., Gregory, B. T., Albritton, M. D., & Feild, H. S. (2005). Achieving
content representativeness in organizational diagnosis: Use of action groups for successful
organizational change. Action Research, 3, 403-416. doi:10.1177/1476750305058489
Nadler, D. A. (1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based methods.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making
literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375-413. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-
2929-7
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

24 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Wiley.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement of
organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Services
Research, 38, 923-945. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.00154
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to investi-
gate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal
of Business Research, 58, 935-943. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form develop-
ment. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102-111. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102
Solomon, R. C. (1993). Ethics and excellence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R. C. (1999). A better way to think about business: How personal integrity leads to
corporate success. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R. C. (2004). Aristotle, ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies, 25,
1021-1043. doi:10.1177/0170840604042409
Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2002). Online panels for social science research: An intro-
duction to the StudyResponse project. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of
Information Studies.
Sutherland, E. H. (1973). On analyzing crime (K. Schuellser, Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Treviño, L. K. (1990). A cultural perspective on changing and developing organizational ethics.
In R. Woodman & W. Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and develop-
ment (Vol. 4, pp. 195-230). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2003). Managing ethics in business organizations: Social
scientific perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2003). Ethics code awareness, perceived ethical values, and orga-
nizational commitment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23, 359-368.
Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Lucero, M. (2002). Ethical context, organizational com-
mitment, and person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 349-360.
doi:10.1023/A:1021203017316
Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four
questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49, 349-371.
doi:10.1177/001872679604900305
Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S. J., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response
behavior a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 613-639. doi:10.1086/269284

Author Biographies
Jason D. DeBode is a doctoral candidate in the Management Department in the Raymond J.
Harbert College of Business at Auburn University. His research interests lie primarily in strate-
gic leadership/corporate governance, research methods, and organizational ethics.
Achilles A. Armenakis is the James T. Pursell, Sr., eminent scholar in management ethics and
director of the Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures at Auburn University. His research
efforts have concentrated on organizational change and management ethics. Detailed biographi-
cal information can be obtained at http://business.auburn.edu/nondegreeprograms/ethics/.
Hubert S. Feild is Torchmark Professor of Management in the Harbert College of Business at
Auburn University. His professional interests include human resource management recruitment/
selection and research methods in human resource management.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016

DeBode et al. 25

Alan G. Walker serves as an Associate Professor in the Management Department at Auburn

University where he teaches both undergraduate classes in Human Resource Management as
well as graduate classes in leadership and organizational change. Alan’s main research interests
lie in ethics, multisource feedback systems, and the effects of religiosity on organizational
behavior.

Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on January 22, 2016