Influence of the Organizational Ethical Climate on the Integrity with

Guilt Mediator

Idha Rahayuningsih

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Sumatera street No.101, Gn. Malang, Randuagung,

Kebomas, Gresik Regency, East Java, Indonesia

Keywords: The Organizational Ethical Climate, Guilt, The Integrity.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to prove the influence of the ethical climate of the organization on the the integrity

of employees by mediator guilt. The number of samples is 100 people from several work units. The data

collection technique for the three variables was carried out using a survey using an the integrity questionnaire

referring to the the integrity dimension of Du Toit (2015); guilt was measured by Guilt-NBE and Guilt-REP

developed by Cohen, et.al (2011) while the organizational ethical climate was measured by (ECQ) developed

by Cullen, et al (1993). Data analysis uses the SmartPLS 3 student application which includes measurement

model analysis, good fit model testing, and structural model analysis. The results of the analysis prove that

there is a significant positive effect of the the organizational ethical climate on the integrity with the mediator

of guilt. In addition, the results of the analysis also prove that the ethical climate of the organization has a

significant positive effect on guilt; the organizational ethical climate has a significant positive effect on the

integrity and the organizational ethical climate and guilt simultaneously affect the integrity.

1 INTRODUCTION

Literature review shows that the definition of the

integrity varies, each expert emphasizes the elements

that are considered important from the integrity. First,

the integrity as wholeness is the overall consistency

of behavior, thoughts, and emotions across time and

situations, so that a person is seen as a whole, not just

isolated aspects of the person.Bauman (2011) defines

substantive the integrity as referring to someone who

has a morally intact and coherent identity while

formal the integrity refers to someone who only has a

coherent whole and identity. Second, the integrity as

the consistency of words and actions. Palanski (2007)

defines the integrity as consistency between words

and actions based on a framework of ethical virtues.

Third, the integrity as honesty with oneself. Lowe et

al. (2004) noted that this dimension of the integrity is

related to the psychological concept of authenticity

(authentic) in which people have their personal

experiences and act according to those experiences.

Fourth, the integrity as consistency in adversity.

Halfon (1989) explains that people of the integrity

typically maintain a consistent commitment to doing

their best, even in difficult conditions. Fifth, the

integrity as moral or ethical behavior. Engelbrecht

and Du Toid (2015) define ethical the integrity as

actions that are in accordance with universally

accepted ethical principles, values and norms.

This study focuses on the use of the concept of the

integrity developed by Engelbrecht, A.S. cited by Du

Toit (2015). The concept of the integrity is compiled

based on a literature review on the concept and

measurement tools of the integrity that have been

described by previous experts and researchers. First,

consistency of behavior, behavior refers to ethical

behavior; demonstrate the moral courage to behave

consistently in adversity and temptation; apply the

same basic principles over time and to different

situations; practice words/speech despite social and

emotional stress. Second, behave based on moral

principles (Righteousness). Behave ethically and

honorably; practice moral virtues and act on moral

principles. This dimension refers to the literature

review that shows the integrity often uses the terms

"morality" and "ethics" to imply that certain

behaviors are consistent with social norms (Craig &

Gustafson, 1998). Third Frankness. Act with truth,

authenticity and sincerity. People with the integrity

will be honest with themselves and with others about

their values and principles. Fourth, credible

(Credibity), behavior that can be trusted, responsible,

302

Rahayuningsih, I.

Inﬂuence of the Organizational Ethical Climate on the Integrity with Guilt Mediator.

DOI: 10.5220/0010811700003347

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Psychological Studies (ICPsyche 2021), pages 302-311

ISBN: 978-989-758-580-7

reliable and reliable in accordance with ethical rules

and the organizational norms. The credible dimension

refers to Barnard, et al. (2008) which states that

someone who has ethical the integrity is aware of

their responsibilities to others and their

responsibilities to people or institutions. Fifth,

fairness, namely treating people fairly and with

dignity and respect, making impartial and objective

decisions, and doing justice for everyone. The

dimension of justice is closely related to Bauman's

(2013) concept of a morally just person, while Walker

and Hennig (2004) assert that there is a strong

tendency for individuals to associate the integrity

with fair-minded and fair-minded people.

Several studies have proven that there is a

significant negative correlation between the integrity

and counterproductive work behavior (Toit, 2015;

Staden, 2018; Hunter, 2014). Counterproductive

work behavior (CWB) is any employee behavior that

damages the company's business goals and interests.

Counterproductive work behavior takes many forms,

including late work hours, theft, fraud, sexual

harassment, bullying at work, absenteeism, substance

abuse, workplace aggression or sabotage. Based on

some of the results of these studies, it can be

concluded that the integrity is an important quality for

individuals to prevent/fortify themselves from

counterproductive work behavior. Therefore, it is

necessary to identify the determinant factors that

encourage the strengthening of the integrity.

Research by Arnaud & Schminke (2012) on 604

workers from 103 organizations showed a significant

positive correlation between other-focus climate and

ethical behavior that was stronger (ɮ=0.29, p=0.01) if

the collective empathy climate was high. A climate of

collective empathy and a high climate of collective

efficacy strengthens a significant positive correlation

between the Other-Focus Climate and ethical

behavior (ɮ=0.21; p=0.01). This study shows that an

the organizational climate that is oriented towards

others leads to ethical behavior. Meanwhile,

Zarghamifard & Fard's research (2019) on public

officials in Iraq reveals that the ethical climate

becomes an the organizational factor that strengthens

the integrity if the procedures, regulations and ethical

codes governing behavior within the organization are

enforced so that there is a clear disregard for the

organizational members between correct behavior

and false. Based on the description, it can be

concluded that the ethical climate of the organization

affects the ethical behavior/the integrity of members

of the organization.

Guilt is defined by Greenbaum, et al.(2019) as a

negative emotional experience that is triggered by a

person's experience of his own behavior that shows a

moral violation.The research of Basile and Mancini

(2011) provides evidence of the existence of two

feelings of guilt, namely deontological and altruistic

guilt, which are induced through different

experimental paradigms. Deontological guilt evolves

from having a belittled moral authority or norm,

whereas altruistic guilt arises from selfish behavior

and the distress of others.

Research by Cohen, et al. (2011c) shows that 28

students who act as buyers have a high sense of guilt

(NBE) and are considered more honest by the seller

(r = 0.43; p = 0.03). Guilt is positively correlated with

ethical behavior as evidenced by several studies.

Cohen (2011c) showed 28 students who played the

role of buyers had a high guilt (NBE) rated more

honest by the seller (r = 0.43; p =0.03). (2012) found

that research participants who felt guilty displayed

more generous behavior to share resources with

others, but only to those who had been harmed and

only when those people realized that they had been

harmed. Xu, H. , et al. (2014) prove that guilt is

positively correlated with prosocial behavior (r =

0.67; p <5%). Based on the results of this study, it can

be concluded that a high sense of guilt encourages

someone to behave ethically.

Victor & Cullen (1988) define ethical climate as

“the prevailing perception of an organization that is

distinctive in its practices and procedures that have

ethical content. Kaptein (2013) explains that it is

necessary to enforce regulations in an organization to

create an ethical climate. Rule enforcement is related

to the way behavioral norms include rules, codes of

ethics and work procedures that are expected to be

respected and otherwise violations of these

regulations are given sanctions. The existence of

strict sanctions triggers the emergence of guilt for

violators so that they try to identify violation behavior

and correct mistakes in the future (Tangney, et.al.,

2007). Molina (2016) explains that tolerance for

unethical behavior can damage the ethical climate

because it leads to the perception of violators that

their behavior is acceptable. If the offender perceives

that the behavior is acceptable, it reduces or even

inhibits the emergence of guilt. The the

organizational ethical climate experienced by

individuals provides feedback or evaluation of

behaviors that trigger individuals to feel guilty.

Based on this explanation, it is found that the

organizational ethical climate variables and guilt

affect ethical/the integrity behavior. Each variable

was examined partially in relation to ethical

behavior/the integrity. Existing research has not been

able to explain the effect of guilt-mediated the

Inﬂuence of the Organizational Ethical Climate on the Integrity with Guilt Mediator

303

organizational ethical climate on the integrity/ethical

behavior. Therefore, it is important to conduct

research to prove: first, the effect of the the

organizational ethical climate on the integrity;

second, the influence of the ethical climate of the

organization on guilt; third, the effect of guilt on the

integrity; fourth, the influence of the organizational

ethical climate on the integrity behavior with guilt as

a mediator variable; and fifth, the influence of ethical

climate and guilt simultaneously on the integrity.

2 METHOD

2.1 Participant

The research subjects were 100 employees company

of X in Gresik City. The research subjects were

between 20 years old and 39 years old. As many as

79% are between 20-29 years old, the remaining 21%

are between 30-39 years old. Male gender is more that

78% while the remaining 22% female. Education

level varies, 45% have high school or vocational

education; 13% have Diploma (D2 or D3) education;

as many as 37% have a bachelor's degree (S1) and a

number of 5% have a master's degree. Research

subjects came from technical work units as much as

51% and 49% non-technical. 51% working period of

1-5 years; 35% working period of 6-10 years and the

remaining 14% working period of 11 years and over.

2.2 Measurement

There are three research variables, namely the

integrity as the dependent variable; guilt as a mediator

variable and ethical climate as an independent

variable. The integrity is defined by Du Toit, D.

(2015) as actions that are in accordance with

universally accepted ethical principles, values, and

norms. The integrity is a multidimensional construct

consisting of several dimensions including behavioral

consistency, benevolence, candor, credibility and

fairness. The integrity is measured questionnaire

referring to the the integrity dimension of Du Toit

(2015). Each item/statement is given 5 answer

choices, namely strongly agree a score of 5; agree

score 4; neutral score 3; disagree score 2 and strongly

disagree score 1

Table 1: Samples Item of Ethic The integrity Test.

Dimension Item

Behavior

Consistency

I behave consistently in a manner that

conforms to moral norms

Righteousness I use my moral beliefs in making

decision

Frankness I speak the truth even under pressure

from others

Credibility I admit and take responsibility for the

mistakes I made

Fairness I treat others with respect

Guilt is measured by Guilt-NBE (Negative

Behavior Evaluation): the tendency to feel guilty for

bad behavior that has been done consists of 4 items

and 4 Guilt-REP (Repair): the tendency to make

corrective responses to personal violations or failures

consisting of 4 items. Each statement that describes

the situation is given 7 answer choices, namely very

unlikely a score of 1; impossible score 2; slightly

unlikely score 3; about 50% maybe a score of 4; little

score 5; maybe a score of 6; very likely a score of 7.

Table 2: Sample Items of Guilty.

Dimension Item

Guilt–Negative-

Behavior-

Evaluation

(NBE)

You secretly commit a felony.

What is the likelihood that you

would feel remorse about

breaking the law?

Guilt–Repair

You reveal a friend’s secret,

though your friend never finds

out. What is the likelihood that

your failure to keep the secret

would lead you to exert extra

effort to keep secrets in the

future? What is the likelihood that

you would avoid the guests until

they leave?

The ethical climate of the organization is defined

by Victor and Cullen (1987) as a shared perception of

ethically correct behavior and the ways in which

ethical problems are handled within the organization.

Ethical criteria include: egoism (Egoism)-maximizing

self-interest; benevolence-maximizing common

interests; and principles - adherence to applicable

duties, regulations, laws or standards. The locus of

analysis includes individual, local, and cosmopolitan.

Each statement is given 6 answer choices, namely

completely wrong score 1; mostly wrong score 2;

slightly wrong score 3; somewhat correct score 4;

mostly correct score 5; completely correct score 6.

ICPsyche 2021 - International Conference on Psychological Studies

304

Table 3: Sample Items of The organizational Ethical

Climate.

Dimension Item

Team Play People are very concerned about

what is generally best for

employees in the company

Rule and

Procedure

The successful people in this

company strictly adhere to

company policies.

Efficiency Efficient solutions to problem

solving are always sought in the

company

Social

Responsibility

The people in this company have a

strong sense of responsibility to the

community

The Law and

Profesional

Code

People are expected to adhere to

laws and professional standards

above any other considerations.

2.3 Data Collection

The company gave permission to collect data online

due to the covid 19 pandemic, so that the distribution

of questionnaires to respondents was carried out

online using the google.form media. Data collection

is about one month. After collecting data, the next

step is to score the questionnaire responses that have

been filled in by the respondents and tabulate the

scoring results into an excel sheet.

2.4 Data Analysis

Data analysis using SmartPLS, which includes

measurement model analysis, good fit model analysis

and structural model analysis. Data processing with

SmartPLS, which includes measurement model

analysis, good fit model analysis and structural model

analysis.

3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

3.1 Measurement Model Analysis

Convergent validity requires the loading value of

each item of 0.6 or more. The table in the outer

loading column shows that there are 20 items in the

integrity construct having loading values ranging

from 0.637 to 0.899. The guilt construct contains 6

items with a loading value between 0.634-0.814.

There are 14 the organizational ethical climate

constructs that have loading values ranging from

0.614 to 0.748. All indicators of all constructs have

loading values greater than 0.6. This means that a set

of indicators represents one latent variable and

underlies the latent variable.

The mean extracted variance (AVE) was also

examined for each construct, Chin (1998) suggesting

a threshold value of AVE=0.5. The AVE the integrity

value is 0.678 while the AVE guilt value is 0.56. The

AVE ethical climate value is 0.458. This means that

one latent variable is able to explain more than half

the variance of its indicators in the average.

There is cross loading data, namely the magnitude

of the loading value of each indicator compared to the

loading value with other constructs. All indicators

show that the loading value is greater than the loading

value with other constructs.

Discriminant validity means that two

conceptually different concepts must show adequate

differences. Discriminant validity can be determined

by comparing the AVE root value with the correlation

value between constructs.

Table 4: Summary of Validity Test.

Construct Indicator Outer

Average of

variance

extracted

Cross Loading (CL) dengan Construct

Lain

THE

INTEGRITY

(Y)

CB1 0,863 0,678 CL < 0,863

R2 0,741 CL < 0,741

Fr3 0,627 CL < 0,627

C4 0,893 CL < 0,893

Fa5 0,823 CL < 0,823

CB6 0,745 CL < 0,745

Fr8 0,844 CL < 0,844

C9 0,868 CL < 0,868

Fa10 0,885 CL < 0,885

Inﬂuence of the Organizational Ethical Climate on the Integrity with Guilt Mediator

305

Table 4: Summary of Validity Test (cont.).

Construct Indicator Outer

Average

variance

extracted

Cross Loading (CL) dengan

Construct Lain

THE

INTEGRITY

(Y)

CB11 0,854 CL < 0,854

R12 0,814 CL < 0,814

C14 0,863 CL < 0,863

Fa15 0,849 CL < 0,849

CB16 0,810 CL < 0,810

R17 0,782 CL < 0,782

Fr18 0,766 CL < 0,766

Fa19 0,899 CL < 0,899

R20 0,800 CL < 0,800

Fr21 0,875 CL < 0,875

Fa23 0,794 CL < 0,794

GUILTY (Z) G2 0,711 0,56 CL < 0,711

G3 0,761 CL < 0,761

G4 0,634 CL < 0,634

GR5 0,774 CL < 0,774

GR7 0,814 CL < 0,814

GR8 0,782 CL < 0,782

ETHICAL

CLIMATE

(X)

5BL 0,640 0,458 CL < 0,640

6PL 0,615 CL < 0,615

8BC 0,728 CL < 0,728

9PC 0,662 CL < 0,662

14BL 0,725 CL < 0,725

15PL 0,679 CL < 0,679

16EC 0,656 CL < 0,656

17BC 0,746 CL < 0,746

18BC 0,700 CL < 0,700

23BL 0,633 CL < 0,633

24PL 0,670 CL < 0,670

25EC 0,614 CL < 0,614

26BC 0,748 CL < 0,748

27PC 0,636 CL < 0,636

ICPsyche 2021 - International Conference on Psychological Studies

306

Table 5: Comparison of AVE Roots and Correlation

Between Construct.

Akar

Kuadrat

Ave

Integrity Guilty

Ethic

Climate

INTEGRITY 0,823 1 0,616 0,0,518

GUILTY 0,748 0,616 1 0,342

ETHICE

CLIMATE

0,677 0,518 0,342 1

If the AVE root value is greater than the

correlation value between constructs, then the

constructs have adequate differences.

Based on Table 5. it can be seen that the value of

the square root of the AVE the integrity construct,

compared to the correlation value with the guilty and

ethical climate constructs. The value of the square

root of the guilty construct AVE is greater than the

correlation value of the integrity and ethics climate.

The square root value of the AVE ethical climate

construct is greater than the correlation values of

guilty and the integrity. This means that each

construct shows adequate differences.

Table 6: Summary of Reliability Test.

Construct

Cronbach’s

Alpha

Composite

Reliability

Conclusion

Integrity 0,975 0,977

very good

reliability

Guilty 0,845 0,883

very good

reliability

Ethice

Climate

0,908 0,922

very good

reliability

There are two reliability tests, namely Cronbachs

Alpha and Composite Reliability. Alpha Cronbach's

reliability coefficient on the five constructs is more

than 0.8 which means it shows very good reliability.

The composite reliability indicator for all constructs

is also more than 0.87.

3.2 Goodness of Fit Model Test

Goodness of Fit Model testing aims to: a) determine

the predictive power of the model, by looking at the

Q-Square Guilty = 0.05 and Integrity = 0.308. The

second Q-Square construct>0, it means the model has

a relevant predictive value; b) determine the

feasibility of the model and data to test the effect of

the variable, which is indicated by the value of SRMR

= 0.077 < 0.10, meaning that the model has the

feasibility to test the effect of the variable.

Table 7: Q-Square.

Integrity Guilty

Q-Square 0,308 >0 0,05>0

3.3 Structural Model Analysis

Structural model analysis is carried out in 3 ways,

namely calculating the t-statistic value, f value and R

value.

a. The t-statistic value aims to test the significance

of the construct, the t-statistical value with a

significance level of α=5%, t=1.96, the t-

statistical criteria> 1.96 is considered

significant. The path coefficient shows the

nature of the correlation between constructs,

indicating a positive direction.

b. The f-square value

The f-square value aims to determine the partial

effect. Based on the table, it can be seen that

Guilty partially has a high influence on the

integrity. The influence of Ethical Climate on

The integrity is moderate, while the influence of

Ethical Climate on Guilty is weak.

Table 8: Summary Path Coefficient dan Values t-Statistik.

Path

Coefficient

t-values p-values Conclution

Ethical Climate → Integrity

0,348 3,769 0,000 Hypotesis Supported

Ethical Climate → Guilty

0,342 3,613 0,000 Hypotesis Supported

Guilty → Integrity

0,497 6,283 0,000 Hypotesis Supported

Ethical Climate

→ Guilty →

Inte

rit

0,170 2.925 0,004 Hypotesis Supported

Inﬂuence of the Organizational Ethical Climate on the Integrity with Guilt Mediator

307

Table 9: f-square.

Guilty The

integrity

Ethical Climate 0,132* 0,208**

Guilty 0,425***

*** =strong; **=mrdium; *=weak

c. R-square value to determine the magnitude of

the simultaneous effect

The value of R-square aims to determine the

magnitude of the simultaneous effect of several

independent variables. Based on the table it is

known: a) the R

value of the Guilty construct is

0.117, meaning that the Ethical Climate

construct is able to explain the variance of the

Guilty construct of 11.7%; b) the R

value of the

integrity construct is 0.487, meaning that the

Guilty and Ethical Climate are simultaneously

able to explain the integrity variance of 48.7%.

Table 10: R-square.

Guilty The

integrity

R- square

0,117 0,487

4 DISCUSSION

The magnitude of the coefficient of the partial

influence of the organizational ethical climate

variables on the integrity is 0.348; t-statistic

3.769>1.96 and p=0.000<0.05. An increase in one

unit of the organizational ethical climate will increase

the integrity by 34%. The results of the study prove

that partially there is a significant positive effect of

the organizational ethical climate on the integrity.

The value of f

= 0.208 indicates that partially the

influence of the the organizational ethical climate on

the integrity is moderate.

The the organizational ethical climate in this study

includes the dimensions of compliance with the

organizational rules and procedures, compliance with

laws and professional codes of ethics.Several

previous studies examined the impact of the

organizational ethical climate on ethical behavior.

Fritzsche (2000) found legal climate, professional

code of ethics and independent climate were

associated with ethical behavior. Deshpande &

Joseph (2009) found independent ethical climate has

a significant positive relationship with ethical

behavior. Rothwell & Baldwin (2007) prove that a

friendly climate or team ethical climate is positively

related to the willingness to engage in whistle-

blowing.

Influence of the organizational ethical climate on

the integrity, provides a new contribution in exploring

the impact of the ethical climate of the organization.

Figure 1: Structural Model.

ICPsyche 2021 - International Conference on Psychological Studies

308

Wisesa (2016) explains that not all ethical

behavior can be assessed as the integrity. Only ethical

behavior that is carried out on the basis of universal

moral principles and values can be called the

integrity. So the integrity includes two things, namely

ethical behavior that is shown to be based on

universal moral principles held by individuals.

The magnitude of the coefficient of partial

influence of the organizational ethical climate

variables on guilt is 0.342; t-statistic 3.613>1.96 and

p=0.000<0.05. An increase in one unit of the

organizational ethical climate will increase guilt by

34%. This means that partially there is a significant

positive effect of the organizational ethical climate on

guilt. Victor & Cullen (1988) define ethical climate

as “the prevailing perception of an organization that

is distinctive in its practices and procedures that have

ethical content. Kaptein (2013) explains that it is

necessary to enforce rules within an organization to

create an ethical climate. Behavioral norms include

rules, code of ethics and work procedures that are

expected to be respected and otherwise violations of

these regulations are subject to sanctions. The

existence of strict sanctions triggers the emergence of

guilt for violators so that they try to identify violation

behavior and correct mistakes in the future (Tangney

et.al., 2007).

In line with Kaptein (2013) and Tangney et

al.(2007), Bohns and Flynn (2012) propose the need

for the organizational design to cause guilt as an

affective reaction to employee failures/mistakes in

carrying out their duties and responsibilities. Bohns

and Flynn (2012) explain and define "environment"

as a set of external cues that characterize work

settings so that employees take in information that

can be used to interpret each new situation

experienced. The social environment provides cues

that individuals use to construct and interpret events.

Furthermore, Bohns and Flynn (2012) explain that

providing specific feedback on employee mistakes

and failures in carrying out certain tasks is one way to

create an the organizational climate that causes guilt.

Bohns and Flynn (2012) explain that Kluger and

DeNisi (1996) conclude that specific feedback is an

important moderator in determining the effectiveness

of feedback interventions for improving work

behavior.

The influence of the the organizational ethical

climate on guilt is classified as weak, indicated by the

value of f2 = 0.132. The results showed that the

determinant coefficient of guilt was 0.117, meaning

that the ethical climate was only able to explain the

guilt variance of 11.7% and the rest was explained by

other variables. Personality, moral identity, internal

attribution, age and gender affect the emergence of

guilt.Einstein & Larning (1998) showed a significant

positive correlation between agreenbleness and guilt-

empathy (r=0.38, p<0.05). Agreeableness describes

personality characteristics that are easy to forgive,

gentle, flexible and patient.

Moral identity is a concept in moral psychology

that refers to the importance of morality to one's

identity. Aquino and Reed (2002), moral identity

consists of two aspects, namely internalization and

symbolization. Internalization refers to the extent to

which certain moral characteristics are important for

a person's self-concept, while symbolization refers to

the extent to which these moral characteristics appear

in everyday life. Guilt and shame reflect the need for

consistency and self-coherence between

actions/behaviors and their moral identity. Research

by Kavussanu, et. al (2015b) showed a positive

correlation between moral identity and guilt with a

value of r=0.263 and p=0.00. Lefebvr and

Krettenauer (2019) also showed a positive correlation

between moral identity and self-evaluative emotions

(guilt and shame) with the value of r=0.33 and

p=0,000.

Research by Cohen et al. (2011) shows that there

are differences in Guilt-NBE (Negative Behavior

Evaluation) and Guilt-REP (Repair Behavior) guilt

scores on differences in gender, race, and age.

Women's Guilt-NBE and Guilt-REP scores were

higher than men's. At the older age, the Guilt-NBE

and Guilt-REP scores were much higher than the

younger age. The results of research by Tracy &

Robins (2006), one of which found internal, unstable

and controllable attribution factors as the cause of

failure had a positive effect on guilt. Attribution

means understanding the behavior of oneself or others

based on the perception of self; quality, character, or

truth that is considered to be the cause of something.

Attributions are grouped into three dimensions of

causality, namely: locus of control–internal and

external; stability–whether the cause changes over

time or not controllability–the reason a person can

control one's skills and the cause of someone not can

control the actions of others and others.

The magnitude of the coefficient of the partial

effect of the guilt variable on the integrity is 0.497; t-

statistic 6.283>1.96 and p=0.000<0.05. This means

that partially there is a significant positive effect of

guilt on the integrity. Partially, the effect of guilt on

the integrity is quite strong as indicated by the value

of f2 = 0.425.

Cohen, et al. (2012) explained that knowing a

person's level of guilt tendency will help to predict a

person's likelihood of reducing unethical behavior.

Inﬂuence of the Organizational Ethical Climate on the Integrity with Guilt Mediator

309

This can happen because the anticipation of feeling

guilty about bad behavior that has been done shows

that someone has internalized moral values. External

supervision is not necessary to prevent moral

transgression if the individual tends to have a high

sense of guilt, instead, conscience guides the

individual.

The magnitude of the coefficient of the influence

of the the organizational ethical climate variable on

the integrity through guilt is 0.17; t-statistic

2,925>1.96 and p = 0.004<0.05. This means that there

is a positive indirect effect of the the organizational

ethical climate on the integrity through guilt. An

increase in one unit of the organization's ethical

climate will increase the integrity through guilt by

17%. The results of the study prove that there is an

influence of the ethical climate of the organization on

the integrity with the mediator of guilt. Based on the

explanation above, it can be seen that the direct

influence of the ethical climate on the integrity is

greater than the indirect effect of the ethical climate

on the integrity.

The value of the determinant coefficient of the

integrity is 0.487, meaning that guilt and the

organizational ethical climate are simultaneously able

to explain the variance of the integrity of 48.7%.

These results indicate the interaction between guilt

and the organizational ethical climate as a fairly

strong predictor of the integrity. However, there are

still 0,513 % other variables that affect the integrity.

The results of the literature review found several

factors that affect the integrity/ethical behavior,

namely human resource system, the organizational

transparency, complaint system and ethical

leadership are factors in individual perception of the

external environment. Internal factors including

moral reasoning, personal values, personality.Moral

reasoning is one of the internal factors that directs

someone to show ethical/the integrity behavior.

Weber & Green's (1991) research on 73 business

students proved that there was a significant

relationship between moral reasoning and ethical the

integrity (chi-square=15,946, 4 d.f., p = 0.003). Seale

(2018) proves a positive relationship between moral

intelligence and the integrity (r=0.650;p<0.01).Stiadi

(2018) proves the influence of the values of openness

to change (contributing 11.2%), self-transcendence

(10.2%) and conservation (contributing 14.6%) to the

integrity.Personality represents the process of subject

or individual involvement in internal and external

influences which include genetic or biological

factors, social experiences and environmental

changes. Pratama & Supriyadi (2014) found that

personality activity (r=0.160; p<0.01); sociability

(r=0.130; p<0.05) and reflectiveness (r=0.132;

p<0.01) were positively correlated with the integrity.

Seale (2018) shows a positive relationship between

transparency and the integrity (r=0.272; p<0.01).

5 CONCLUSION

Based on the results of data analysis, it can be

concluded that it can be concluded: first, there is a

significant positive effect of the organizational ethical

climate on the integrity; second, there is a significant

positive effect of the organizational ethical climate on

guilt; third, there is a significant positive effect of

guilt on the integrity; fourth, there is a significant

positive effect of the organizational ethical climate on

the integrity with guilt as a mediator variable; and

fifth, there is a significant positive effect of ethical

climate and guilt simultaneously on the integrity.

To encourage employee the integrity, efforts are

needed to foster an the organizational ethical climate.

The ethical climate of the organization that is grown

includes having attention to the work team; having

social responsibility towards the community;

complying with the organizational rules and

procedures; comply with the law and professional

code of ethics and have efficient work behavior. In

addition to an ethical climate, organizations also need

to design organizations that can cause guilt.

REFERENCES

Andres G., Martinez, A. G, Stuewig, J. and June P.,

Tangney, J. P. (2014). Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 2014, 40(12) 1659 –1667.

Abdullah, A., Sulong, Z. & Said, R. M. (2014). An Analysis

on Ethical Climate and Ethical Judgment among Public

Sector Employees in Malaysia. Journal of Applied

Business and Economics 16(2) 2014 International

Review of Public Administration.

Ashton, M.C. & Lee, K.(2008). The HEXACO model of

personality structure and the importance of the H

Factor. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2,

1952–1962. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134x.

Basile,B.dan Mancini,F. (2011).Eliciting Guilty Feelings:

A Preliminary Study Differentiating Deontological and

Altruistic Guilt. Psychology 2011. 2(2),98-102.

DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.22016.

Bauman, D. (2011).The integrity, Identity, And Why Moral

Exemplars Do What Is Right.A Dissertation Presented

To The Graduate School Of Arts And Sciences Of

Washington University In Partial Fulfillment of The

Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of

Philosophy.

ICPsyche 2021 - International Conference on Psychological Studies

310

Bauman (2013).Leadership and Three Faces of The

integrity The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 414 –426.

DOI :10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.005.

Barnar,A.,Schurink,W. & Beer, M.D.(2008).A Conceptual

Framework Of The integrity.SA Journal of Industrial

Psychology Vol. 34 No.2 pp.40–49.

http://www.sajip.co.za.

Badarocco,J.L.& EllsworthR.R.(1992). Leadership, The

integrity and Conflict Management-Decision. 30(6),

29-34. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EUM0000000 001204.

Bews,N.F & Rossouw, G.J.(2002).A Role for Business

Ethics in Facilitating Trustworthiness.Journal of

Business Ethics 39(1), 377–390, 2002.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A1019700704414.

Butler,G.G.L.(2001). Some Personal Reflections on The

integrity. Purdue University Press West Lafayette,

Indiana.

Becker,T.E.(1998). The integrity In Organizations : Beyond

Honesty And Conscientiousness. Academy of

Management Review 1998, 23(1), 154-161.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr. 1998.192969

Carter, S. (1996). The integrity. New York: Basic Books, a

Division of Harper Collins Publishers.

Cohen,T.R., Wolf,S.T., Panter, A.T.,Chester A. dan Insko,

C.A.(2011). Introducing the GASP Scale : A New

Measure of Guilt and Shame Proneness. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 2011,Vol. 100, No.

Psychological Association

Cohen,T.R.(2009).Moral Emotions and Unethical

Bargaining:The Differential Effects of Empathy and

Perspective Taking in Deterring Deceitful Negotiation.

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 94:569–579-Springer

2009. DOI 10.1007/s10551-009- 0338-z.

Cohen, T.R,. Panter, A. T.dan Nazli Turan,N. (2012). Guilt

Proneness and Moral Character. Current Directions in

Psychological Science 21(5),355–359.2012. DOI:

10.1177/0963721412454874

Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader

integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee

perceptions of leader integrity. The Leadership

Quarterly, 9(2), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/

S1048-9843(98)90001-7

Crowe, K.S.danWarren,D.E. (2014). The Emotion-Evoked

Collective Corruption Model: The Role of Emotion in

the Spread of Corruption Within Organizations.

Organization Science 25(4):1154-1171.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0896

Cryder, C. E., Springer, S., & Morewedge, C. K. (2012).

Guilty Feelings, Targeted Actions. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 607–618.

doi:10.1177 /0146167211435796.

Du Toit, D. (2015) The Development Of An Ethical The

integrity Test. Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce

in the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences.

Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za

Fayard, J. V., Roberts, B. W., Robins, R.W.dan

Watson,D.(2012). Uncovering the Affective Core of

Conscientiousness: The Role of Self-Conscious

Emotions. Journal of Personality 80:1, February

2012.DO I:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00720.x

Forte, A. (2004). Business Ethics:A Study of the Moral

Reasoning of Selected Business Managers and the

Influence of The organizational Ethical Climate.

Journal of Business Ethics 51(2):167-173.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033610.35181.ef

Grobler, A. (2011). The integrity in the South African

Police Service:The Role Of Organisational Climate

And Dispositional Variables South African Journal of

Labour Relations: Vol 35 No.2 2011

Gentry, W. A., Cullen, K. L., Sosik, J. J.,Chun, J. U,

Leupold, C. R., Tonidandel, S. (2013). The integrity's

Place Among The Character Strengths Of Middle-

Level Managers And Top-Level Executives.The

Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 395–404.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.009

Gialamas, D. M. (2012) The Business of Leadership:The

integrity as the Foundation to Leadership.Forensic

Science Policy & Management, 3:1–2, 2012.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2012.706690.

Greenbaum, R., Bonner, J., Gray, T., dan Mawritz, M.

(2019). Moral Emotions: A Review And Research

Agenda For Management Scholarship. Journal The

organizational Behavior. 2019;1–20. Wileyonline

library.com/journal/job. DOI: 10.1002/job.2367.

Halfon,M.S(1989). The integrity: A Philosophical Inquiry.

The Philosophical Review, 101(2), (April 1992).

DOI:10.2307/2215947.

Huberts, Kaptein A & Lasthuizen (2007) Study Of The

Impact Of Three Leadership Styles On The integrity

Violations Committed By Police Ofﬁcers Policing : An

International Journal of Police Strategies &

Management,30(4),587–607. doi.org/10.1108/1363951

0710833884

Hunter, WFJR. (2014). Dissertation presented for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Industrial

Psychology) in the Faculty of Economic and

Management Sciences at Stellenbosch University.

Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za

Inﬂuence of the Organizational Ethical Climate on the Integrity with Guilt Mediator

311