WORK ETHIC PROFILE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

INSTRUCTORS AT XYZ LANGUAGE ACADEMY

JUAN DELA CRUZ

MARIA CLARA SANTOS

SAN FRANCISCO HIGH SCHOOL

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
MISAMIS ST., BAGO BANTAY, QUEZON CITY

2017
WORK ETHIC PROFILE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE INSTRUCTORS
AT XYZ LANGUAGE ACADEMY

A Research

Presented to

The Senior High School Department

San Francisco High School

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Course

Practical Research 2

by

Juan Dela Cruz

Maria Clara Santos

December 2017

I
 Abstract

This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the work ethic profile of English language

instructors at XYZ Language Academy using the Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile of

Miller, Woehr, and Hudspeth (2001). Data show that the respondents, who were mostly

females in their young adulthood, rated in six of the seven dimensions of work ethics with

self-reliance having the highest score and leisure having the lowest score. When grouped

according to gender, female teachers rated higher in terms of the morality dimension but

rated lower compared to males in terms of delayed gratification. Lastly, findings suggest that

it is age, not gender, that appears to spell differences in the level of the respondents’ work

ethics.

II
 Table of Contents

TITLE PAGE .......................................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ...................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1: The Problem and Its Background

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Scope and Delimitations ..................................................................................................2

1.5 Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

2.1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Related Studies ................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 The Importance of Work Ethics ................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Gender and Work Ethics .............................................................................................. 5

2.2.3 Age and Work Ethics ................................................................................................... 6

2.3.4 Work Ethics and Job Performance ............................................................................... 7

2.3.5 Work Ethics and Job Satisfaction ................................................................................. 8

Chapter 3: Methods

3.1 Research Design .............................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Context and Participants .................................................................................................. 10

3.3 Research Instrument ........................................................................................................ 10

3.4 Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................................... 11

III
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

4.1 Demographic Profile of the Respondents

4.1.1 Distribution of Respondents According to Gender ................................................... 12

4.1.2 Distribution of Respondents According to Age Group ............................................. 12

4.2 Work Ethic Profile of the Respondents ........................................................................ 13

4.3 Work Ethic Profile When Grouped According to Demographic Variables

4.3.1 Work Ethic Profile When Grouped Gender ............................................................... 14

4.3.2 Work Ethic Profile When Grouped According to Age Group ................................... 15

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations

5.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 17

5.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 18

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 22

BIO NOTES

IV
 List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents According to Gender .................................................. 12

Table 2 Distribution of Respondents According to Age ........................................................ 12

Table 3 Mean and Verbal Interpretation in Each Dimension of the MWEP ......................... 13

Table 4. Mean and Verbal Interpretation on Each Dimension of the MWEP

When Grouped According to Gender ........................................................................ 14

Table 5. Mean and Verbal Interpretation on Each Dimension of the MWEP

When Grouped According to Age Group .................................................................. 15

Figure 1. A Schematic Diagram of the Study ......................................................................... 4

V
 Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

In a more general term, ethics refers to a set of guidelines that stipulates appropriate

demeanor in society. These guidelines become bases for evaluating whether a certain

behavior is justifiable or not. Society’s ethics is mostly associated with the concepts of

equity, fairness, honesty, and truth.

Organizations and industries ought to establish standards of appropriate behavior in

order for operations to run smoothly and for members to function well. Ethical standards

minimize conflicts brought on by individual differences among members.

In the education setting, teachers are viewed to be role models to their students. They are

expected to display exemplary conduct both in and out of the workplace, which is the school.

Therefore, they are expected to possess strong work ethics in order for them to perform their

duties properly if not at their finest level. Being an organization, the school's faculty should

set standards of suitable work attitude for the organization to run operations smoothly and

avoid conflicts that hamper functioning.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The present study assessed the work ethic profile of EFL teachers at the XYZ Language

Center. More specifically, it aimed to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 Gender?

1.2 Age group?

2. What is the work ethic profile of the respondents in terms of

2.1 Self-reliance?

2.2 Morality?

1
 2.3 Leisure?

2.4 Hard work?

2.5 Centrality of work?

2.6 Wasted Time?

2.7 Delay of Gratification?

3. What is the work ethic profile of the respondents when grouped according to

demographic variables?

1.3 Significance of the Study

The study would be beneficial to the school administration as it would provide dat

regarding the work ethics of English language instructors employed at XYZ Language

Center, a small English language academy in Quezon City. The results and findings could

serve as a basis for professional development training programs or other organizational

development activities.

1.4 Scope and Delimitation

The study focused on the demographic profile and work ethic profile of the English

language instructors of XYZ Language Academy, a small language academy in Quezon City.

The demographic profile of the respondents was limited only to age and sex. On the other

hand, the work ethic profile of the respondents was assessed using the MWEP (2001). The

instrument measures seven facets of work ethics, namely: centrality of work, delay of

gratification, hard work, leisure, morality/ethics, self‐reliance, and wasted time.

The study limited itself to a descriptive-quantitative study. The data for the study were

collected from 41 English language instructors employed in the last quarter of the school year

2017-2018. The data gathering took place from November to December 2017.

2
1.5 Definition of Terms

The following are the definitions of terms as they are used in the study.

Centrality of Work. This is defined as the belief in work for work’s sake and the

importance of work.

Delay of Gratification. This refers to the orientation toward the future or the

postponement of rewards.

Hard Work. This refers to the belief in the virtues of diligence.

Leisure. This refers to pro-leisure attitudes and beliefs in the importance of non-work

activities.

Morality/Ethics. These terms both refer to the belief in a just and righteous existence.

Self-reliance. This is defined as striving for independence in one’s daily work.

Wasted Time. This refers to the attitudes and beliefs of reflecting active and

productive use of time.

Work Ethics. is a set of standards of behavior and beliefs regarding what is and isn't

acceptable to do at work.

3
 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the different literature and studies about the importance of work

ethics, its association with other concepts and variables such as sex and age, as well as job

performance and satisfaction. These are studies published in the last ten years and are

organized thematically in this chapter.

2.1 Conceptual Framework

In the model where the present research instrument was based, work ethic comprises

seven dimensions, namely: self-reliance, morality, leisure, hard work, centrality of work,

wasted time, and delay of gratification.

The instrument used in the present study had been developed through a series of

empirical studies conducted by Miller et al. (2001) among student and non-student samples.

Although there are other existing instruments measuring work ethics such as Occupational

Work Ethic Profile (Petty, 1995), and Work Ethic and Dependability (Llobet, 2016), the one

developed by Miller, et al. (2001) seems to be the most convenient and accessible at the time

the study was undertaken.

Figure 1. A Schematic Diagram of the Study.

4
2.2 Review of the Studies

2.2.1 The Importance of Work Ethics

Having a strong work ethic is as important as having sufficient knowledge and skills for

a job. It ensures professionalism and harmonious relationship among the members of the

organization. In a study by Perkumienė and Kleinienė (2012), they surveyed the importance

of ethics among public office employees. They conducted among the 76 employees, all full-

time, of the municipal office of Alytus region. The study reveals that most of the employees

(83%) agree that public servants are expected to have an optimal level of ethical standards

than ordinary citizens. However, when asked concerning the question of which principle of

public service is the most difficult to implement, the results showed wider spread with taking

personal responsibility getting 48%, obeying the laws getting 28%, and serving public

interests getting 23%.

The study was done among employees of the public sector. Also, it simply surveyed the

respondents’ perception of the importance of work ethics. The present study however aimed

to assess the present status of work ethics of the employees in a private sector, more

specifically, a private educational institution where employees are teachers, individuals who

are expected to display exemplary behavior.

2.2.2 Gender and Work Ethics

Although there are some studies that argue that there is a difference between genders in

terms of ethical reasoning, the study of McCabe et al. (2006) tells otherwise. In their study,

they administered a questionnaire to 224 undergraduate business students. One of the

instruments used was the Business Ethics Scale (Ruch & Newstrom, 1975), where results

reveal that sex differences do not predict differences in overall ethical perceptions. But then,

when individual ethical factors are explored, it seems that men find bribery more ethically

acceptable compared to women.

5
 The findings of the study mentioned above are consistent with that of another research

conducted by Meriac et al. (2009). Their study examined gender differences between male

and female respondents in their scores on the MWEP, the same instrument used in the present

study. Results show that there is no significant difference between genders in both overall

scores and individual dimension levels.

The two studies mentioned above suggest that there seems to be no difference between

genders when it comes to ethical perspectives. However, there is one study that seems to

suggest something different. In the study of Keith et al. (2009), they found that males and

females differ when it comes to their perceptions regarding the need for a match between

personal and professional ethics. Their findings suggest that females think that there is a

need for one's personal ethics to match professional ethics, and, compared to males, females

think that ethical behavior is important in determining business success. In addition, females

think that workplace misconduct deserves more severe punishment.

2.2.3 Age and Work Ethics

A number of articles discuss the differences in work ethics across generations. These

generations are classified as a traditionalist, baby boomers, generations X, and generation Y.

Born between 1922 and 1945, during a time of economic and political uncertainty, and

experiencing World War II, the traditionalists are reported to be hard-working, financially

conservative, and cautious. For people belonging to this cohort, loyalty towards the company

is deemed important. Also, they prefer formal letters and face-to-face meeting

communication. Next to the traditionalist are the baby boomers who were born between 1946

and 1964. They were brought up during a time of social and political changes and economic

prosperity. They define work as defining stage of life. They keep up with the 8 am to 5 pm

work schedule and at times find it hard to maintain a balance between work and home. They

are committed more to their jobs rather than to a specific organization and they constantly

6
seek personal growth, gratification, and recognition. They prefer the telephone as a

communication channel These two generations are reported to be less accepting of unethical

behavior compared to the generations that came after them. They also tend to be more

submissive to authority when it comes to the power of ethical matters. Also, they are the

most responsive to ethics programs with a more formal structure and are more likely to be

aware of corporate standards, systems, and processes. After the boomers are the GenXers,

born between 1965 and 1982, who grew up in a time of significant change. The institution of

the family changed as divorce became widespread, while the economic and political situation

became more unstable. In turn, they developed a sense of independence, resilience, and

adaptability. With such traits, they have also become a little cynical and distrustful of

authority figures. Lastly are the millennials. These individuals were born between 1983 and

2004. Having grown up in an electronics-filled and increasingly online and socially-

networked world, they value a more flexible time schedule. Also, they were brought up with

an ‘empowered’ parenting style, which has led to being opinionated and self-confident. Also,

they expect companies to deliver more social and environmental changes and work more

collaboratively to address global issues.

2.2.4 Work Ethics and Job Performance

According to Cullen and Sacket (2004, as cited in Osibanjo et al., 2015), work ethics

comprises integrity, sense of responsibility, emphasis on quality, self-discipline, and sense of

teamwork. Having strong work ethics results in excellent employee performance whereas

having weak work ethics results in poor employee performance. Such a model manifested in

the study of Saladuhin et al. (2006).

In a study conducted by Salahudin et al, (2006), they studied the relationship between

work ethics and job performance. They conducted the study among 157 employees randomly

drawn from small and medium-sized enterprises involved in retail textile service in Selangor,

7
Kuala Lumpur, and Johor. To measure work ethics, they administered the Multidimensional

Work Ethic Profile Scale (Miller et al., 2001). On the other hand, they measured job

performance using the instrument by Neyman et al. (2004). Both instruments used a six-point

Likert scale. The results indicated that there is a significant relationship between work ethics

and job.

Similar to the present study, the research also made use of MWEP. However, the

previous study administered the instrument to workers in a manufacturing company, whereas

the present study would be administering the instrument to employees in the education

industry.

2.2.5 Work Ethics and Job Satisfaction

Apart from job satisfaction, a correlation study was done by Elkins (2007), to determine

if work ethics influences job satisfaction. For the study, the researcher administered two

robust test instruments, namely: the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985) and the

Occupational Work Ethic Inventory (Petty, 1995). He conducted the study among 328

workers of a Japanese manufacturing company in the US. The worker-respondents were

either exempt (salary) or non-exempt (hourly) employees. The results of the study revealed

that there is a low but positive correlation between work ethics and job satisfaction. In

addition, non-exempt workers, those who are paid on an hourly basis, were reported

significantly higher levels of work ethics than exempt workers.

In another correlational study conducted by Soleimani and Niazari (2011) among the 216

staff members of a vocational technical education organization in Tehran, they found that

there is a significantly positive correlation between job satisfaction and work ethics. In the

study, the researchers used a sample size of 216, all staff members of a vocational technical

education organization in Tehran. They used three instruments for data collection. Work ethic

was measured using a researcher-developed instrument that assesses work ethics through the

8
following dimensions: dependable, ambitious, considerate, and cooperation; job satisfaction

was measured using the Job Satisfaction Inventory (Robbins & Judy, 1991). The researchers

found that there is a significant positive association between total work ethics and job

satisfaction. In addition, they also studied the relationship between work ethics and job stress

and they found that those two variables are negatively correlated. Also, the researchers found

out through multiple regression analysis that the four dimensions of work ethics are good

predictors of job satisfaction, while two of them (i.e. dependable and ambitious) are good

predictors of job stress.

It seems that previous research had been linking work ethics to other important facets of

working such as job satisfaction and previous literature reveals that having a strong work

ethic is correlated with being satisfied with one's career.

9
 Chapter 3

METHODS

This chapter presents the research design, context and participants, research instrument,

data gathering procedures as well as analysis.

3.1 Research Design

The present study used a descriptive-quantitative design. More specifically it used a

cross-sectional survey design because it collected data from the population of interest at one

point in time. However, since the target population of the study is too small, the researcher

aimed to include every member of the target population as possible.

3.2 Context and Participants

The study was conducted at the XYZ Language Academy. Established in 2009, the

Academy was envisioned in response to the growing demand for English language learning.

The center aims to improve the English communication skills of foreign students, particularly

that of Koreans, through intensive four-, eight-, and fifteen-week English programs. In

addition to personalized English classes for speaking, listening, reading, and writing, the

center offers a credit-course English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Program.

A total number of 41 English language instructors agreed to participate in the study.

They were all graduates of at least a four‐year college program and were all working full‐

time at XYZ Language Academy at the time of the study.

3.3 Research Instrument

The Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile (MWEP) was used to measure the work ethics

of the respondents. It was developed by Miller, Woehr, and Hudspeth (2001). It is a 65-item

inventory measure using a five‐point Likert scale. The instrument measures seven distinct

facets of work ethics, namely: centrality of work, delay of gratification, hard work, leisure,

morality/ethics, self-reliance, and wasted time.

10
3.4 Data Gathering Procedure and Analysis

The researchers wrote a letter of permission to conduct the study addressed to the Head

Teacher of the XYZ Language Academy. When the request was approved, the researchers

personally administered the WESP Scale to the English language instructors of XYZ

Language Center. Lastly, the researcher collected the completed questionnaires. Data then

were tallied and tabulated for analysis.

As for data analysis, the data were tallied and tabulated. Then relative frequency and

percentage were used to compare segments of the population to the whole. Likewise, the

weighted mean was used to compute other important measures. Lastly, the following scale

was developed on the basis of the range for interpretation of their mean score in the MWEP:

Weight Range Verbal Interpretation

4.51 – 5.0 High

3.51 – 4.5 Above Average

2.51 – 3.5 Average

1.51 – 2.5 Below Average

1.5 and below Low

11
 Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the data in tabulated form with their corresponding

interpretation and analysis.

Research Question 1. What is the profile of the respondents?

1.1 In terms of gender

Table 1. Distribution of the Respondents According to Gender

Sex f %
Male 15 37.5
Female 25 62.5
N 40 100

Table 1 shows that of the 41 respondents, 15 (37.5%), are male and 25 (62.5%) are

female. It suggests that the teaching profession still attracts more females than males.

1.2 In terms of age group

Table 2. Distribution of the Respondents According to Age Group

Age f %
Early Adulthood (20-36) 33 80.49
Middle Adulthood (35-55) 7 17.07
Late Adulthood (56-65) 1 2.44
N 41 99.99

Table 2 shows that of the 41 respondents, 33 (80.49%) are in their early adulthood, 7

(17.07%) are in their middle adulthood, and at least one respondent is in his/her late

adulthood.

12
Research Question 2. What is the work ethic profile of the respondents?

Table 3. Respondents’ Mean and Verbal Interpretation for Each Dimension of MWEP

Age Mean Verbal Interpretation

Self-reliance 3.72 Above Average
Morality 4.40 Above Average
Leisure 2.87 Average
Hard Work 4.33 Above Average
Centrality of Work 4.01 Above Average
Wasted Time 4.20 Above Average
Delayed Gratification 3.74 Above Average
Overall Mean 3.90 Above Average

Table 3 shows the mean of each dimension of the MWEP. The respondents rated

above average on ethical dimensions concerning self-reliance, morality/ethics, hard work, the

centrality of work, wasted time, and delayed gratification getting weighted mean scores of

3.72, 4.40, 4.44, 4.01, 4.12, and 3.74 respectively. On the other hand, the respondents rated

average in the leisure dimension with a mean score of 2.87. Overall, the respondents got an

overall mean of 3.89 which means that the respondents have an above-average level of work

ethics.

13
Research Questions 3. What is the respondents’ work ethic profile when grouped according

to gender?

Table 4. Mean and Verbal Interpretation of the Respondents’ Scores for Each Dimension of

MWEP When Grouped According to Gender

Work Ethic Dimension Gender Mean Verbal Interpretation

Self‐reliance Males 3.975 Above Average
  Females 3.58 Above Average
Morality/Ethics Males 4.27 Above Average
  Females 4.62 Strong
Leisure Males 2.67 Average
  Females 2.91 Average
Hard Work Males 4.41 Above Average
  Females 4.48 Above Average
Centrality of Work Males 4.07 Above Average
  Females 4.25 Above Average
Wasted Time Males 4.285 Above Average
  Females 4.33 Above Average
Delayed Gratification Males 3.85 Above Average
  Females 3.44 Average

Table 4 shows the scores of the respondents in each dimension of the MWEP when

grouped according to sex. In terms of self‐reliance, both sex groups are on the above average

with males having a weighted mean of 3.95 and females having a weighted mean of 3.58; in

terms of morality/ethics, males are on the above average ethics, whereas females have strong

ethics, with weighted means of 4.27 and 4.62 respectively; in terms of hard work, both males

and females are on the above average level with weighted means of 4.41 and 4.48

respectively; in terms of the centrality of work, males and females have above average level

of ethics with weighted means of 4.07 and 4.25 respectively; in terms of wasted time, males

and females also have an above average level of ethics with weighted means of 4.29 and

4.32 respectively, lastly, in terms of delayed gratification, males have a weighted mean of

3.85 while females are on the average level in this dimension with a weighted mean of 3.44.

14
Table 5. Mean and Verbal Interpretation of the Respondents’ Scores for Each Dimension of

MWEP When Arranged According to Age Group

Work Ethic Dimension Age Group Mean Verbal Interpretation

Self‐reliance Early Adults 3.59 Above Average
  Middle Adults 4.2 Above Average
  Late Adults 4.1 Above Average
Morality/Ethics Early Adults 4.37 Above Average
  Middle Adults 4.32 Above Average
  Late Adults 5 Strong
Leisure Early Adults 2.81 Average
  Middle Adults 2.66 Average
  Late Adults 3.1 Average
Hard Work Early Adults 4.33 Above Average
  Middle Adults 4.30 Above Average
  Late Adults 5 Strong
Centrality of Work Early Adults 3.97 Above Average
  Middle Adults 4.12 Above Average
  Late Adults 4.6 Strong
Wasted Time Early Adults 4.08 Above Average
  Middle Adults 4.26 Above Average
  Late Adults 4.88 Strong
Delayed Gratification Early Adults 3.78 Above Average
  Middle Adults 3.76 Above Average
  Late Adults 3 Average

Table 5 shows the scores of the respondents in each dimension of the MWEP when

arranged according to age group. In terms of self‐reliance all age groups, early, middle, and

late adults have an above-average level of ethics with weighted means of 3.59, 4.2,

4.1respectively; in terms of morality/ethics, early adults and middle adults are on the above

average level with weighted means of 3.37 and 4.32 respectively, but the late adults rated

strong in this dimension with a weighted mean of 5; in terms of leisure, all age groups rated

average with early adults, middle adults, and late adults having weighted means of 2.81,

2.66, and 3.1 respectively. in terms of hard work early adults and middle adults rated above

average with weighted means of 4.33 and 4.30, but the late adult rated strong with a weighted

mean of 5; in terms of the centrality of work, early adults and middle adults rated above

15
average with weighted means of 3.97 and 4.12 respectively, but the late adult rated strong

with a weighted mean of 4.6; in terms of wasted time, early and middle adults rated above

average with weighted means of 4.08 and 4.26 respectively, but the late adult rated strong

with a weighted mean of 4.88; lastly, in terms of delayed gratification, both early adult and

middle adult rated above average with weighted means of 3.78 and 3.76 respectively, while

the late adult rated average with a weighted mean of 3.

16
 Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings as well as the foregoing

conclusions and recommendations of the present study.

5.1 Summary 

Based on the foregoing results, the following findings are made:

1. The majority of the English language instructors at LLC are females.

2. The majority of English language instructors are in their early adulthood.

3. That the respondents rated above average in six of the seven dimensions of MWEP.

4. The only dimension in which they rated average is leisure which is negatively

correlated with other dimensions.

5. The respondents rated above average on the MWEP scale.    

6. There seems to be no difference in the respondents’ work ethics when grouped

according to gender. However, it is worth pointing out that females rated a bit higher

in terms of the morality/ethics dimension, but rated lower compared to males in terms

of the delayed gratification dimension.     

7. There seem to be differences between the scores of early adults and middle adults in

each work ethic dimension, but there is a difference between the scores of those

groups and late adults. 

5.2 Conclusions

Based on the foregoing findings, the following conclusions are made:

1. In terms of demographics, the teaching profession still attracts females in their

early adulthood. 

17
 2. In terms of work ethics, English language instructors place greater importance on

striving to become independent in doing their daily work while considering things

that are unrelated to work as less important. 

3. Also, in totality, the English language instructors value time spent at work and see

leisure as unnecessary and may impede productivity. 

4. Lastly, it can be concluded that it is age, not sex or gender that somehow brings

differences in work ethics.  

5.3 Recommendations  

Based on the foregoing conclusions, the following recommendations are made:

1. That, if possible, work ethics be assessed using other instruments so as to

strengthen the study’s reliability.

2. Work ethics must be all the more strengthened among the employees of the

company.

3. That studies must be conducted between work ethics and other salient concepts

important in an organization such as job performance, job satisfaction, job

productivity, leadership style, and conflict management style. 

18
 REFERENCES

Guendalina D. (14 November, 2015). Ethics across generations. Management Issues.

Retrieved November 9, 2017 from

http://www.management-issues.com/news/7081/ethics-across-the-generations/

Elkins, S. L. (2007). Job satisfaction and work ethic among workers in a Japanese

manufacturing company located in the United States. [Doctoral Dissertation, University

of Tennessee]. Tennessee Research and Create Exchange

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=utk_graddiss

Heller, F. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, A. (1990). The work ethics. Center for Advanced Human

Resource Studies Working Paper Series. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37150535_The_Work_Ethic

Keith, N. K., Perreault, H. R., Chin, M., and Keith, M. (2009). The effect of gender on the

importance of business ethics and managerial decisions: A study perspective. The Delta

Phi Epsilon Journal, 51(3), 125-136.

Llobet, J.M. (2016). Work ethic and dependability. ComplyRight, Inc.

McCabe, A.C., Ingram, R., and Dato-on, M.C. (2006). The business of ethics and gender.

Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 101–116. DOI:10.1007/s10551-005-3327-x

19
Meriac, J.P., Poling, T.L., and Woehr, (2009). Are there gender differences in work ethic? An

examination of the measurement equivalence of the multidimensional work ethic profile.

Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 209-213. doi/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.001

Miller, M.J., Woehr, D.J., & Hudspeth, N. (2001). The meaning and measurement of work

ethic: construction ad initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 60(3), 1–39.https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1838

Osibanjo, A.O., Akinbode, J.O., &, Oludayo, A.O. (2015). Work ethics and employee’s job

performance. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 12 (1), 107-17.

Perkumienė, D., & Kleinienė, D. (2012). Importance of ethics and working culture of the

employees in the changing business environment. Proceedings of the Conference of the

School of Business Administration Turība. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from

http://aurora.turiba.lv/bti/Editor/Manuscript/Proceeding/EN_Perkumiene_Kleiniene.htm

Salahudin, S.N., Alwia, M.N.R., Baharubdin, S.S., and Halimat, S.S. (2016). The relationship

between work ethics and job performance. 3rd International Conference on Business and

Economics, 21-23 September 2016. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from

http://www.futureacademy.org.uk/files/images/upload/42_Beci2016.pdf

20
Soleimani, N. and NiazAzari. B. (2011). A study on the relationship between job ethics with

job satisfaction and job stress among the staff of vocational education organization in

Tehran. 2011 International Conference on Social Science and Humanity IPEDR vol. 5.

IACSIT Press, Singapore. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from

http://www.ipedr.com/vol5/no1/107-H10050.pdf

Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational difference in the workplace. University of Minnesota.

Research and Training Center on Community Living. Retrieved November 14, 2017,

from https://rtc.umn.edu/docs/2_18_Gen_diff_workplace.pdf

21
 Appendix A

Permission to Use the Instrument

October 20, 2017

Michael J. Miller, Ph.D.

Professor
Western International University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Dear Dr. Miller

I am a student-researcher working on a paper about the work ethics of English language

instructors in a private language academy. While reviewing related literature for my study, I
came across an instrument you developed with Professors David J.Woehr and Natasha
Hudspeth published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior via this webpage
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000187910191838X. I think the items
that you developed are suitable for the study I am doing.

In line with this, I am humbly asking for your permission for me to use and adapt the items
for my study. Rest assured that you and your work will be properly cited and acknowledged
in my research. Should you have other questions regarding my study, please feel free to
contact me through this email.

Thank you and I am looking forward to your favorable response.

Yours sincerely,

Maria Clara Santos

22
 Appendix B

Research Instrument

23
 Appendix B

Research Instrument

24
 Appendix B

Research Instrument

25