Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. From Work Ethics to Employees’ Job Performance
1.2. Hypotheses Development
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design of Experiment
2.2. Demographic Data
2.3. Empirical Settings
2.4. Reliability Test and Descriptive Statistics
2.5. Cut Points
3. Results
3.1. Regression Analysis
3.2. Hawthorne Effect
4. Discussion
5. Theoretical and Practical Contributions
6. Conclusions
7. Limitations and Future Research Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Blaug, M.; Spiegel, H.W. The Growth of Economic Thought. Economica 1972, 39, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chun, J.S.; Shin, Y.; Choi, J.N.; Kim, M.S. How Does Corporate Ethics Contribute to Firm Financial Performance?: The Mediating Role of Collective Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 853–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diehl, H. Staging Reform, Reforming the Stage; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashbrook, R. Mansions of the Heart: Exploring the Seven Stages of Spiritual Growth; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Tawney, R. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism; Transaction Publishers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Afsar, B.; Al-Ghazali, B.; Umrani, W. Retracted: Corporate social responsibility, work meaningfulness, and employee engagement: The joint moderating effects of incremental moral belief and moral identity centrality. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1264–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, M.; The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Scribner. 1930. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Weber%2C+M.+%281930%29.+The+Protestant+ethic+and+the+spirit+of+capitalism.+Scribner%2FSimon+%26+Schuster.&btnG= (accessed on 29 August 2021).
- Zhang, S.; Chen, L.; Yan, J. How protestant work ethic impacts employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of gender and party affiliation. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 2020, 28, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, M.J.; Woehr, D.; Hudspethc, N. The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. J. Vocat. Behav. 2002, 60, 451–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woehr, D.J.; Arciniega, L.; Lim, D.H. Examining Work Ethic Across Populations. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2007, 67, 154–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christians, C.G.; Fackler, M.; Richardson, K.B.; Kreshel, P.J.; Woods, R.H. Media Ethis: Cases and Moral Reasoning; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.J.; Kim, B.J. Analysis of the importance of job insecurity, psychological safety and job satisfaction in the CSR-performance link. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, C.; Sinha, L.; Yaapar, S. Work ethics from the Islamic and Hindu traditions: In quest of common ground. J. Manag. Spirit. Relig. 2014, 11, 65–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, J. Social Work Practice: Assessment, Planning, Intervention and Review; Sage: Newcastle, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, A.G.; Jones, M.N.; Wuensch, K.L.; Aziz, S.; Cope, J.G. Sanctifying work: Effects on satisfaction, commitment, and intent to leave. Int. J. Psychol. Relig. 2008, 18, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, M.E.L.; Oates, K.L.M.; Anderson, T.L.; Willingham, M.M. Calling and conflict: The sanctification of work in working mothers. Psychol. Relig. Spirit. 2012, 4, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loe, T.W.; Ferrell, L.; Mansfield, P. A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 25, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohlberg, L. Essays on Moral Development/2 The Psychology of Moral Development. 1984. Available online: https://ixtheo.de/Record/1082043133 (accessed on 29 August 2021).
- Rest, J. Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. 1986. Available online: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/811393 (accessed on 29 August 2021).
- Rogerson, M.D.; Gottlieb, M.C.; Handelsman, M.M.; Knapp, S.; Younggren, J. Nonrational processes in ethical decision making. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 614–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sonenshein, S. The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 1022–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, A.; Treviño, L.K.; Humphrey, S.E. Ethical Champions, Emotions, Framing, and Team Ethical Decision Making. J. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 105, 245–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, M.S. Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 139, 755–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, D.W.; Lean, E. The impact of perceived leader integrity on subordinates in a work team environment. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 81, 765–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, J.E.; Park, N.; Wang, H.; Fulk, J.; McLaughlin, M. Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 1674–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, C.E.; Donthu, N. Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 999–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruton, G.D.; Ahlstrom, D.; Li, H. Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2010, 34, 421–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittier, N.C.; Williams, S.; Dewett, T.C. Evaluating ethical decision-making models: A review and application. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2006, 1, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Singh, S.K.; Chen, J.; Del Giudice, M.; El-Kassar, A.-N. Environmental ethics, environmental performance, and competitive advantage: Role of environmental training. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, W.; Choi, S.; Kang, S.-W. How leaders’ positive feedback influences employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of voice behavior and job autonomy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Ahmad, W.; Arshad, M.; Yin, H.; Ahmed, B.; Ali, Z. Impact of coordination, psychological safety, and job security on employees’ performance: The moderating role of coercive pressure. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zacher, H.; Frese, M. Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: The interplay between age, job complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation strategies. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 291–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Erdogan, B.; Bauer, T.N.; Truxillo, D.M.; Mansfield, L.R. Whistle While You Work: A Review of the Life Satisfaction Literature. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 1038–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niazi, A.; Hassan, H. Perception of Justice and Trust in Software Industry of Pakistan. J. Manag. Res. 2017, 4, 39–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographics | Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 78 | 80 |
Female | 19 | 20 | |
Age | 18–30 years | 18 | 19 |
31–50 years | 78 | 80 | |
50 years and above | 1 | 1 | |
Length of service | 0 up to 10 years | 63 | 65 |
More than 10 years | 34 | 35 | |
Monthly income | Rs. 0 to Rs. 14,999 | 10 | 10 |
Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 | 61 | 63 | |
Rs. 20,001 and above | 26 | 27 |
Experiment Group | Control Group | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean |
AGE | 1440 | 22 | 59 | 38.87 | 1470 | 19 | 58 | 38.96 |
QUANT | 1440 | 1 | 8 | 5.43 | 1470 | 2 | 10 | 6.54 |
Time | 1440 | 1 | 9 | 5.02 | 1470 | 2 | 10 | 5.98 |
SATIS | 1440 | 1 | 8 | 4.50 | 1470 | 2 | 10 | 6.08 |
Appea | 1440 | 1 | 9 | 4.65 | 1470 | 2 | 10 | 5.13 |
Punct | 1440 | 1 | 9 | 4.97 | 1470 | 2 | 10 | 5.94 |
Qual | 1440 | 1 | 9 | 5.27 | 1470 | 2 | 10 | 6.32 |
Honest | 1440 | 1 | 9 | 5.26 | 1470 | 2 | 10 | 6.53 |
Teamsp | 1440 | 1 | 10 | 5.89 | 1470 | 2 | 10 | 7.59 |
MA | 1440 | 4 | 6 | 5.083 | 1470 | 3.0 | 9.91 | 7.167 |
Valid N (2910) | 1440 | 1470 |
Cut Points | p > IZ I | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QUANT | Time | Satisfac | Appea | Punct | Qual | Honest | Teamsp | |
/ cut 1 / cut 2 / cut 3 / cut 4 / cut 5 / cut 6 / cut 7 / cut 8 / cut 9 | 0.636 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 | 0.439 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 | 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 | 0.000 0.001 0.068 0.401 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 | 0.388 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 | 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 | 0.088 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 | 0.000 0.002 0.641 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 |
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | Odds Ratio | Z | p > IZ I |
QUANT | AGE MA GROUP EDU GEND | 1.001806 2.480024 2.571099 0.9736488 0.7968281 | 0.28 8.33 6.02 −0.47 −1.53 | 0.778 0.000 0.000 0.636 0.126 |
Time | AGE MA GROUP EDU GEND | 1.001021 2.204187 1.982501 1.017743 0.7234098 | 0.16 8.54 4.91 0.45 −2.39 | 0.869 0.000 0.000 0.656 0.017 |
Satisfac | AGE MA GROUP EDU GEND | 0.998586 2.419179 1.21362 1.305012 1.03302 | −0.22 8.84 1.84 1.59 0.74 | 0.823 0.000 0.066 0.113 0.460 |
Appea | AGE MA GROUP EDU GEND | 1.005818 1.074139 0.7882322 0.9821397 0.9536755 | 1.52 2.54 −2.22 −0.62 −0.58 | 0.128 0.011 0.027 0.536 0.564 |
Punct | AGE MA GROUP EDU GEND | 1.005099 1.754599 1.515761 0.9602871 0.8629974 | 1.20 6.25 3.01 −1.35 −1.41 | 0.230 0.000 0.003 0.176 0.158 |
QUAL | AGE MA GROUP EDU GEND | 0.9998332 1.219773 2.125371 0.9753081 0.8898157 | −0.03 7.37 4.92 −0.57 −0.84 | 0.978 0.000 0.000 0.571 0.399 |
Honest | AGE MA GROUP EDU GEND | 1.006974 1.499688 1.83598 0.9939107 0.9038689 | 1.04 8.03 3.97 −0.11 −0.65 | 0.299 0.000 0.000 0.916 0.516 |
Teamsp | AGE MA GROUP EDU GEND | 1.004645 1.72022 0.5346275 0.9870845 0.8748207 | 0.93 7.83 −3.97 −0.27 −1.31 | 0.353 0.000 0.000 0.784 0.192 |
N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Score First Day Phase1 | 900 | 4.8975 | 1.48433 | 0.04948 |
Score Last Day Phase5 | 900 | 5.07525 | 0.72757 | 0.02425 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hussain, M.; Hassan, H.; Iqbal, Z.; Niazi, A.; Hoshino, Y. Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313077
Hussain M, Hassan H, Iqbal Z, Niazi A, Hoshino Y. Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance. Sustainability. 2021; 13(23):13077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313077
Chicago/Turabian StyleHussain, Mujahid, Hamid Hassan, Zafar Iqbal, Amna Niazi, and Yasuo Hoshino. 2021. "Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance" Sustainability 13, no. 23: 13077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313077
APA StyleHussain, M., Hassan, H., Iqbal, Z., Niazi, A., & Hoshino, Y. (2021). Moral Awareness: A Source of Improved Sustainable Performance. Sustainability, 13(23), 13077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313077