How To (and How Not To) Assess the Integrity of Managers (19 pages)

Document rating:
  3.0 out of 5
Vote this doc:
background image

reverse scored the PLIS scale so that higher scores were more desirable. The means, standard
deviations, and distributions for the three leadership scales are presented in Table 6. Similar to our
earlier findings, the mean rating for Perceived Integrity was higher than the mean rating for the other
two scales. The smallest difference was between Initiating Structure (M

ϭ 2.37, SD ϭ .83) and

Perceived Integrity (M

ϭ 2.66, SD ϭ .97); the Perceived Integrity score was .32 standard deviations

higher, paired t(79)

ϭ 3.48, p Ͻ .001. However, this measure was approximately three times less

elevated compared to the competency ratings reported above (.32 SDs vs. .90 SDs, respectively).

Table 6 also shows the proportion of the total sample scoring between each value on the

five-point response scale. The proportion of the sample rated lower than the middle point on the
scale, “2,” was 30.0% for Initiating Structure, 16.3% for Consideration, and 28.8% for Perceived
Integrity. This indicates that a significant number of managers were seen as having potential
integrity issues. Thus, the PLIS yielded more variability and a much higher incidence of low scores
than the integrity competency scale in the first study.

Table 7 presents the correlations among the three leadership scales and the two indicators of

leadership effectiveness. Perceived Integrity was more highly correlated with Consideration than
Initiating Structure, which again is consistent with the notion that integrity is primarily concerned
with attending to the needs and rights of other people. Next, we examined the relationship between
the leadership scales and the effectiveness variables. The results for Initiating Structure and
Consideration were consistent with prior research: Job Satisfaction was more correlated with
Consideration while Perceived Effectiveness was more correlated with Initiating Structure (Judge et
al., 2004). However, both Job Satisfaction and Perceived Effectiveness were more highly correlated
with Perceived Integrity than with either Initiating Structure or Consideration.

Finally, we entered the three leadership scales as independent variables in separate regression

analyses to predict Job Satisfaction and Perceived Effectiveness. These results are presented in
Table 8. The full regression model significantly predicted Job Satisfaction, F(3, 76)

ϭ 16.64, p Ͻ

.001, R

ϭ .63. However, only Perceived Integrity made a significant contribution. The full

regression model also significantly predicted Perceived Effectiveness, F(3, 76)

ϭ 42.03, p Ͻ .001,

R

ϭ .79. Both Perceived Integrity and Initiating Structure made significant contributions to the

prediction of Perceived Effectiveness. Consideration added nothing beyond Perceived Integrity to
the prediction of either outcome. And in both analyses, Perceived Integrity was the strongest of the
three predictors.

Overall Discussion

We have argued that competency ratings of observed integrity behaviors are not a good way to
evaluate the integrity of managers because this method does a poor job of identifying managers with
potential integrity issues. Instead, we have proposed the “dubious reputation” method based on
subordinates’ expectations that their manager would behave unethically. The results of two studies

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics and Distributions of Leadership Scale Scores

Scale

M

SD

Min.

Max.

Proportion of Sample Scoring Between Scale Points

Not at all–

Barely

0–1

Barely–

Somewhat

1–2

Somewhat–

Well

2–3

Well–

Perfectly

3–4

Initiating Structure

2.37

(.83)

.30

3.90

2.5%

33.8%

41.2%

22.5%

Consideration

2.34

(.58)

.30

3.60

1.3%

15.0%

68.7%

15.0%

Perceived Integrity

2.66

(.97)

.25

4.00

7.5%

21.3%

31.2%

40.0%

Note.

Min.

ϭ minimum; Max. ϭ maximum. Scale points: 0 ϭ Not at all; 1 ϭ Barely; 2 ϭ Somewhat; 3 ϭ

Well; 4

ϭ Perfectly.

228

KAISER AND HOGAN

This

document

is

copyrighted

by

the

American

Psychological

Association

or

one

of

its

allied

publishers.

This

article

is

intended

solely

for

the

personal

use

of

the

individual

user

and

is

not

to

be

disseminated

broadly.

Document rating:
  3.0 out of 5
Vote this doc: