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

suggest that the dubious reputation approach may indeed be a better way to evaluate the integrity
of managers than competency ratings. A measure representative of the dubious reputation method,
the PLIS scale, identified a sizable number of managers at the unethical end of the continuum,
whereas virtually no manager received a low score on the integrity competency. And the results
from the correlation and regression analyses using the PLIS were consistent with prior research
suggesting that trust and leader integrity is the primary determinant of employee attitudes and
leadership perceptions. The PLIS was by far the strongest of three predictors of subordinate job
satisfaction and the perceived effectiveness of their managers. In contrast, ratings on the integrity
competency were unrelated to managerial performance, raising serious questions about the validity
of this method for measuring integrity.

Limitations

Our studies have limitations that make it difficult to directly compare the dubious reputation method
with the competency method of measuring integrity. First, the samples were very different; the
competency sample included ratings from over 3,300 subordinates of 672 senior managers from one
corporation. The dubious reputation sample included only one subordinate for each of 80 managers
from a variety of organizations. It may be that some factor unique to the one corporation may
account for the low incidence of low scores on the competency scale (e.g., strong norms against
criticizing superiors).

Also, the competency analysis used subordinate ratings of integrity to predict superior evalu-

ations of overall performance, whereas the dubious reputation analysis used subordinate ratings of
integrity to predict their own ratings of job satisfaction and perceived effectiveness. Using predictor
and outcome measures based on the same rating source likely inflated the relationships in the second
study. However, our primary concern was with the predictive validity of the measure of integrity in
each study relative to the other measures of leadership in the same study. The dubious reputation

Table 8
Summary of Regression Analyses Using Leadership Scales to Predict
Effectiveness Indicators

Job Satisfaction

Perceived Effectiveness

Initiating Structure

.12

.33

ءءء

Consideration

.17

.17

Perceived Integrity

.44

ءءء

.46

ءءء

Model R

.63

ءءء

.79

ءءء

ءءء

p

Ͻ .001.

Table 7
Correlations Among Leadership Scales and Effectiveness Indicators

Initiating
Structure

Consideration

Perceived

Integrity

Job

Satisfaction

Perceived

Effectiveness

Initiating Structure

(.91)

Consideration

.43

(.91)

Perceived Integrity

.36

.54

(.93)

Job Satisfaction

.42

.47

.59

(.87)

Perceived Effectiveness

.63

.59

.70

.71

(.90)

Note.

N

ϭ 80. Coefficients along the diagonal are coefficient alpha estimates of internal consistency reliability.

All correlations significant, p

Ͻ .001.

229

SPECIAL ISSUE: HOW TO ASSESS INTEGRITY

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: