«Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour ...»
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 25-07-2010 PhD Dissertation Publication 15-03-2009 to 25-07-2010
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Expanding the Boundaries of Behavioral Integrity in 5b. GRANT NUMBER Organizations 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Kevin J. Basik 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
Fall Semester, 2010 The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Kevin J. Basik defended on 25 June, 2010.
Caryn Beck-Dudley, Dean, College of Business The Graduate School has verified and approved the above named committee members.
This journey’s success was only possible through the support and contribution of a number of key people in my life. First, my dissertation chair, Dr. Jerry Ferris, has served as a mentor and role model for academic professionalism and self-discipline from the moment we first met. Any time I felt like I deserved a break or had the right to complain about workload, all I needed to do was walk down the hall and watch someone hold himself to a professional standard that few could even fathom. Any success I’ve had in this program was merely a reflection of trying to keep up with the lead dog. Thank you for showing me what is possible.
Next, my dissertation committee has been a collective panel of advisors, supporters, educators, and, at times, cheerleaders. Dr. Pam Perrewe´, you are the heart of this department, and your caring energy inspired my cohort and me at times when we needed it most. It’s been a pleasure to learn from you and have your input on this dissertation. No whiteboard could quite capture your impact on my development. Dr. Wayne Hochwarter, your intellectual curiosity and comfortable approach to “asking the questions I want to ask” helped clear the fog and make this project my own. If this dissertation was my Everest, you were a hell of a Sherpa. Dr. Mike Brady, you are the go-to guy for so many students because of your ability to connect the learners with concepts. Your expertise, patience, humor, and guidance were always welcomed and appreciated. If I were to ever “go native,” I’d want to be like you.
In my cohort, I’ve found a new band of brothers and sisters. Steve, Laci, Jen, Paul, Chris, Stephanie, Stacey, and (even) Gleim, as well as all the subsequent-year doc students – you’ve added color to my life story that I will cherish forever, and I sincerely hope our paths cross in personal and professional circles in the future. I would also like to acknowledge the outstanding faculty who supported my progress: Mark Martinko, Bruce Lamont, Chad Van Iddekinge, Annette Ranft, Jim Combs, and Jack Fiorito. You have each challenged me to become more than I thought possible, and I thank you for your effort and interest in making the FSU program world-class. In addition, Dr. Tony Simons has been a remarkably open and giving counselor who has pioneered the concept of behavioral integrity, and has ignited an intellectual fire in my iv belly. I look forward to a partnership of inquiry that will truly help organizations and individuals in the future.
A note of appreciation also goes to my supporters at the Air Force Academy (Gen. Dana Born, Colonel Joe Sanders, Colonel Thomas Berry, Gail Rosado, and Kathy O’Donnell), the Air Force Institute of Technology (Major Penni Winston and Angela Varner), and in FSU’s Air Force ROTC detachment. I hope I can return the favor of your efforts on my behalf.
I’ve been fortunate in the mentors I’ve had along the way who have each shaped my interest in leadership and character: General Steve Lorenz (for reminding me that ABD is a four-letter word), Jeff Nelson (for more lessons on leadership than I can count), Colonel Spraggins (for showing me what humility should look like in a leader), and Colonel Francis (for keeping the bar of excellence high in all areas). And then there’s Don Tierney.
My mother, father, brothers and sisters deserve special recognition. Through you, I have been taught the value of family, marriage, perseverance, and hard work. I love you as much as you have loved me, and am reminded of how strong we are when we lean on each other. Finally, my wife, Jennifer, continues to be my source of strength and motivation. This accomplishment was only possible because of your love, support, patience, flexibility, understanding, and strength as a partner and friend. Happy wife, happy life. Thanks for being a source of happiness for me and our two wonderful kids.
A. FLORIDA STATE IRB APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
B. AIR FORCE ACADEMY IRB APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
C. AIR FORCE SURVEY APPROVAL MEMORANDUMD. FSU PILOT TEST – SURVEY 1 E. FSU PILOT TEST – SURVEY 2
F. MAIN STUDY SURVEY 1
G. MAIN STUDY SURVEY 2
1. Pilot test results: Means, standard deviations, and Pearson product correlations
2. Comparison of study participant and student population racial representations
3. Initial and revised scale analysis
4. Final scale items for main study constructs
5. Convergent and discriminant validity tests
6. Constrained phi test results for behavioral integrity – trust discrimination
7. Behavioral integrity and trust exploratory factor loadings (PROMAX rotation)
8. Measurement model fit statistics with and across surveys 1 and 2
9. Descriptive statistics for main study variables
10. T-test comparisons of behavioral integrity ratings for primary group (Caucasians) and other racial groups
11. Tests for the mediating role of organizational cynicism with attitudinal versus behavioral outcomes
12. Tests of the mediating role of trust with all other variables in the model
13. Descriptive statistics and correlations for exploratory variables
14. Regression analysis of managers’ political skill dimensions as predictors of ratings of managers’ behavioral integrity and trust
15. Hierarchical regression analysis of managers’ behavioral integrity and political skill on trust and LMX
16. Tests of the mediating role of behavioral integrity in the political skill – trust relationship
17. Regression analysis of behavioral integrity and trust on effort
18. Mediation test for behavioral integrity – LMX relationship
Leaders’ actions often speak louder than words, and when a pattern of incongruity between leaders’ espoused values and their actions is perceived by subordinates, the individual and organizational consequences can be significant. Behavioral integrity (BI), defined as a perceived pattern of alignment (or misalignment) between a target’s words and deeds (Simons, 2002: 19), has recently emerged as an interesting organizational construct, predicting a number of important outcomes. BI represents a potentially critical antecedent to trust formation, and may be an important cognitive mechanism in other related areas of interest (i.e., cynicism, deviant behavior, accountability, and political skill). This dissertation conceptually discusses potential antecedents to BI perceptions (i.e., managers’ political skill and felt accountability intensity), and empirically examines the causal paths relating subordinates’ BI perceptions to their trust in their managers, cynicism toward the organization, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, task performance, and deviant behavior. In addition, it proposed that organizational cynicism mediated the relationship between trust and attitudinal, but not behavioral, outcomes. The structural equation model confirmed BI’s role as a significant antecedent of trust, which, in turn, was related to cynicism, commitment, and deviant behavior.
In addition, cynicism demonstrated the hypothesized distinction between attitudinal and behavioral outcomes by mediating only the role between trust and both job satisfaction and commitment, but not between trust and deviant behavior or performance.
This study answered a number of calls from different research streams, empirically tested BI relationships heretofore only conceptually proposed, and expanded the boundaries of BI literature to include cynicism and objectively-measured deviant behavior. Additionally, it provided further evidence for the unique role of organizational cynicism in trust-based outcomes.
Finally, this study examined a number of exploratory constructs (i.e., effort, tension, political skill, and LMX) in an effort to initiate future BI-related research.
Overview In this time of high-profile political and corporate scandals, organizational scholars have a unique opportunity to explore the causes and consequences of key organizational perceptions, and make a very real contribution to knowledge and practice. Specifically, polls suggest that 20% of American workers feel that their senior managers do not live the values they espouse (Bates, 2002), and over 50% of survey respondents described themselves as cynical at work (Hochwarter, James, Johnson, & Ferris, 2004). No doubt, certain individual and systemic factors are contributing to the perceived inconsistency between what managers say and do, and these perceptions likely will manifest themselves in attitudinal and behavioral outcomes important for individuals, organizations, and society.
Behavioral Integrity (BI), defined as “the perceived pattern of alignment (or misalignment) between a target’s words and deeds” (Simons, 2002: 19) has shown significant direct and moderating relationships with outcomes, such as employee and customer attitudes (Davis & Rothstein, 2006; Simons & McLean-Parks, 2007), behaviors (Dineen, Lewicki, & Tomlinson, 2006; Prottas, 2008; Simons, Friedman, Liu, & McLean-Parks, 2007), well-being (Prottas, 2008), and firm performance (Simons, 2008; Simons & McLean-Parks, 2007). BI reflects the perception-based dimensions of promise keeping, as well as the degree of fit between espoused and enacted values, regardless of whether the observer agrees with those values.
Whether these values are espoused via written, verbal, non-verbal, or implied channels, they establish in perceivers expectations that targets will behave in a certain manner, establishing a basis for trust.
Therefore, a perception of BI serves as a necessary, albeit not sufficient, antecedent of trust (Simons, 2002), which itself underscores most critical relationships within and outside the organizational context (Ferris, Liden, Munyon, Basik, Summers & Buckley, 2009; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). As such, dynamics contributing to, and resulting from, subordinates’ perceptions of their managers’ BI represent important conceptual relationships, with far-reaching consequences.
Despite its critical role in explaining relationship-based outcomes at multiple levels of analysis, and multiple calls for its development (i.e., Parry & Proctor-Thompson, 2002; Simons, 1999, 2002, 2008; Prottas, 2008), BI is a relatively new construct that is now beginning to gain momentum in the research community. Initial conceptualizations of the BI construct (Simons,
2002) proposed a number of relationships that now demand empirical testing. In a recent metaanalysis, Davis and Rothstein (2006) reported a significantly large effect size (r =.48) between BI perceptions and employee outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, satisfaction with leader, and affect with the organization, although only 12 studies were available for the analysis. These authors echoed the call by other scholars (Prottas, 2008; Simons & McLean-Parks, 2007) for additional BI research, to include multi-level, longitudinal studies that include non-attitudinal measures.
Although some recent work has answered that call, this dissertation offers additional conceptual insights. By leveraging and extending the original literature, BI is offered as a useful construct to connect research relating to contextual factors (i.e., accountability environment), individual differences (i.e., political skill of the manager), and both proximal (i.e., trust, cynicism) and distal (i.e., satisfaction, commitment, deviance, performance) outcomes at multiple levels of analysis (i.e., individual, dyad, unit).
Figure 1: Expanded and tested (in dashed box) model
Figure 1 represents the relationships of interest in this dissertation. The model within the dashed box indicates the relations that were empirically tested in the study, whereas the role of managers’ accountability and political skill are examined conceptually. Although accountability and political skill are not formally tested in this research, their relationship as potential antecedents to BI are examined in order to (1) more clearly inform the discussion regarding BI perception formation, and (2) lay the groundwork for future research linking these domains of interest.