Table 1
Descriptive Results for Study Variables (N = 270).
| Variable | Items | (range) | M | (SD) | α | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CLAR | 4 | (1–6) | 4.22 | (1.15) | .90 | |||||||||||||||
| 2. COSU | 4 | (1–6) | 4.52 | (1.17) | .94 | .46*** | ||||||||||||||
| 3. COSM | 4 | (1–6) | 3.65 | (1.13) | .92 | .44*** | .57*** | |||||||||||||
| 4. FEAS | 4 | (1–6) | 4.28 | (.98) | .75 | .53*** | .38*** | .40*** | ||||||||||||
| 5. SUPP | 4 | (1–6) | 4.10 | (.94) | .84 | .54*** | .49*** | .51*** | .42*** | |||||||||||
| 6. TRAN | 4 | (1–6) | 3.76 | (.94) | .85 | .50*** | .39*** | .53*** | .45*** | .50*** | ||||||||||
| 7. DISC | 4 | (1–6) | 4.14 | (1.00) | .90 | .54*** | .53*** | .63*** | .48*** | .70*** | .61*** | |||||||||
| 8. SANC | 4 | (1–6) | 3.62 | (3.62) | .75 | .52*** | .46*** | .62*** | .48*** | .56*** | .58*** | .72*** | ||||||||
| 9. CEV | 32 | (1–6) | 4.03 | (.77) | .95 | .75*** | .73*** | .78*** | .68*** | .77*** | .74*** | .85*** | .80*** | |||||||
| 10. Value fit | 3 | (1–7) | 4.67 | (1.19) | .95 | .50*** | .50*** | .53*** | .55*** | .56*** | .37*** | .57*** | .61*** | .69*** | ||||||
| 11. Work engagement | 9 | (1–7) | 5.44 | (1.01) | .91 | .19** | .25*** | .12 | .31*** | .17** | .03 | .12 | .12 | .22** | .36*** | |||||
| 12. Affective commitment | 5 | (1–5) | 3.18 | (0.86) | .83 | .45*** | .35*** | .28*** | .37*** | .42*** | .21** | .32*** | .31*** | .45*** | .54*** | .57*** | ||||
| 13. Turnover intentions | 1 | (1–7) | 3.92 | (1.83) | – | –.32*** | –.24*** | –.20** | –.34*** | –.19** | –.21** | –.21** | –.15* | –.31*** | –.51*** | –.32*** | –.60*** | |||
| 14. Age | 1 | (25–64) | 38.62 | (9.92) | – | .16** | .06 | .06 | .18** | .04 | .05 | –.03 | –.06 | .09 | .06 | .19** | .24*** | –.38*** | ||
| 15. Employment contract | 1 | 1–2 | – | – | – | –.14* | .01 | –.03 | –.07 | –.09 | –.07 | .02 | .06 | –.05 | –.14* | –.07 | –.20** | .33*** | –.27*** | |
| 16. Full-time work | 1 | 0–1 | – | – | – | .06 | .03 | .03 | .10 | –.00 | .14* | .01 | .09 | .07 | .08 | .05 | –.02 | –.06 | .06 | .05 |
[i] Note. CLAR = Clarity; COSU = Congruency of supervisor; COSM = Congruency of senior management; FEAS = Feasibility; SUPP = Supportability; TRAN = Transparency; DISC = Discussability; SANC = Sanctionability; CEV = Corporate ethical virtues (total ethical culture); employment contract (1 = permanent, 2 = fixed term); full-time work (0= no, 1 = yes).
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001, two-tailed.
Table 2
Fit Indices for Measurement and SEM Models.
| Tested models | χ2 (df) | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR | Model comparisonsa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Δχ² (df) | ||||||
| M1: Measurement model | 287.06 (146) | .95 | .94 | .061 | .060 | – |
| M2: Null modelb | 755.82 (171) | .78 | .76 | .116 | .276 | M2 vs. M1: 478.28 (25)*** |
| M3: Full mediation model | 407.46 (166) | .91 | .90 | .075 | .108 | M2 vs. M3: 381.66 (5)*** |
| M4c: Partial mediation model 1 | 367.53 (164) | .93 | .91 | .070 | .064 | M3 vs. M4: 33.66 (2)*** |
| M5d: Partial mediation model 2 | 362.25 (162) | .93 | .91 | .069 | .061 | M4 vs. M5: 5.27 (2) ns |
[i] Note. aSatorra-Bentler difference test; *** p < .001.
bModels M2–M5 represent SEM structural models (relations among latent variables, which have first been validated using CFA; measurement model M1).
cAll hypothesised direct paths are estimated in the model.
dOnly the direct paths from value fit to affective commitment and turnover intentions are estimated in the model.
Figure 1
Partial mediation model with total ethical culture.
Figure 2
Individual partial mediation models for each virtue.
1The range of values is shown for estimates that remain similar across all eight models. Significantly differing estimates are shown separately. aClarity; bCongruency of supervisors; cCongruency of senior management; dFeasibility; eSupportability; fTtransparency; gDiscussability; hSanctionability.