Content uploaded by Michael R Hyman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael R Hyman on Nov 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 | P a g e
MEASURING SYSTEMS OF VIRTUE DEVELOPMENT
Grant C. Aguirre-Y-Luker, J.D., Ph.D., University of Central Oklahoma
Dr. Michael R. Hyman, New Mexico State University
Kevin J. Shanahan, Ph.D., Mississippi State University
(Citation: Aguirre-Y-Luker, Grant, Michael R. Hyman, and Kevin J. Shanahan (2017), “Measuring
Systems of Virtue Development,” in Handbook of Virtue Ethics in Business and Management (Sison, ed.).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.)
Abstract
We focus on virtue ethics measures for business
academicians and practitioners. Despite virtue
ethics’ long history, virtue ethics scale develop-
ment is a somewhat new field. Here, we introduce
conceptualizations of virtue ethics and the
attributes that define it, including three challenges
to developing virtue ethics scales: subjectivity
(virtues are person specific), cultural relativism (a
globally recognized set of virtues may not exist),
and psychological ego (people’s programming
dictates responses to stimuli). Next, we discuss
the psychology literature on which many virtue
ethics scales are based and attempts to measure
personal and group virtue ethics. Finally, we
delineate challenges to virtue ethics scale
development and best practices for avoiding
social desirability and acquiescence bias.
Keywords: Scale development, virtue, positive
psychology, ethics
Introduction
Virtues are positive qualities deemed morally
good (i.e., qualities characterized by moral
excellence and righteousness); vices are the
opposite. Parents tacitly know their children’s
eventual life success depends on internalizing
these positive qualities and acting accordingly.
Despite peoples’ inherent sense about virtues,
this sense—analogous to Justice Potter’s sense
about pornography—is insufficient for scholarly
study, which requires more formal definition.
Wang (2011) identified 22 different definitions
variously speaking of virtues as characteristics,
traits, dispositions, qualities, psychological
processes, behavioral patterns, and norms of
conduct. Although scholars even disagree on the
domain of a definition, virtues relate to internal
mental states and behaviors, both assessable
with survey-based methods (i.e., assessment of
attitudes and interpretations of behaviors).
In his Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics,
Aristotle posits the first fully developed philo-
sophical foundations for virtue ethics (Broadie
1991). For Aristotle, virtues developed or were
cultivated over time through habituation, which
led to stable characteristics or traits. By practicing
his Golden Mean, Aristotle believed people could
achieve a flourishing life. Modern experimental
psychology corroborates Aristotle’s stable
character traits (Arjoon 2008), which is critical
because a major philosophical criticism of virtues
ethics is the assumption people can (1) decide
what constitutes a good life (Sandage and Hill
2001), and (2) then determine which virtues
promote that life. It is unclear such virtues can be
taught or developed (Rachels 2011); as Hartman
(2006) suggests, we cannot mold someone’s
character.
Survey-based research methods are well
developed in the social sciences. Although
mathematical analysis of survey results often is
straightforward, creating valid and reliable scales
remains challenging. To ensure the construct
validity of a multidimensional scale, researchers
must first define the domain of the underlying
theoretical construct. To this end, virtue ethics’
philosophical foundations should be delineated
before attempting to create a virtue ethics scale.
Philosophy attempts to answer three great
questions relevant to all societies throughout
history.
2 | P a g e
1. Knowledge: What can we know and how
can we know it?
2. Conduct: What constitutes the good life
and how should we engage others and
the world around us?
3. Governance: How should we organize
ourselves and what constitutes a ‘just’
government?
Although virtue ethics principally attempts to
answer the conduct question, all three questions
are relevant for scale developers. To address the
conduct question, we must continue to debate
and then resolve the traits or characteristics
leading to a good and flourishing life.
Creating virtue typologies and related scale items
introduces the knowledge question: How do we
ensure valid and reliable measures of the virtues?
From his review of the ethics literature, Wang
(2011) identified 108 professional leadership
virtues. Other researchers compiled lengthy lists
of business-related virtues (e.g., Chun 2005,
Shanahan and Hyman 2003). Thus, identifying an
exhaustive list of business virtues to reduce via
exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis of
survey data is problematic.
The governance question is important because
legal constraints and considerations cannot be
ignored when creating an ethical system. For
example, Thiel, Harkrider and Mumford (2012)
identify situational and environment constraints
requiring additional complex cognitive processes
that must precede ethical decision making. For
cyberspace, Pagallo (2015) contends ethical
development complements legal and political
influences in fostering online governance. That is,
online ethical systems cannot be created apart
from legal constraints. As Post (2009) notes,
cyberspace’s ethical evolution was akin to the
‘wild U.S. west’, with legal and political
constraints spurring its currently more temperate
ethical norms.
-----Insert Figure 1 here-----
Our exposition proceeds as follows. First, the
philosophical development and challenges to
virtue ethics--including the subjective nature of
virtue ethics, cultural relativism, and psycho-
logical egoism—are discussed. Next, we discuss
the psychology literature on which many virtue
ethics scales are based and attempts to measure
personal and group virtue ethics. Finally, we
delineate challenges to virtue ethics scale
development and best practices for avoiding
social desirability and acquiescence bias.
Virtue Ethics Theories
Valid ethical theories have three attributes:
1. They are based on logical analysis rather
than emotion or intuition.
2. They prohibit exceptionalism, under
which a person, society, or institution is
in some way extraordinary and hence
above the rules.
3. They provide a framework for developing
universal principles, rules, and concepts.
Virtue ethics theories may have all three
attributes.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates addresses the
notion of virtue ethics; however, a more fully
developed virtue system is found in Aristotle’s two
ethics works, Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian
Ethics. To identify the virtues, Aristotle begins by
questioning the purpose of human life, i.e., what
constitutes a life worth living? His answer
generally has been translated as ‘happiness’
(Aristotle 2012). Having determined this purpose,
he addressed how it should be achieved. Aristotle
concluded a happy life is a flourishing life lived in
balance or harmony, i.e., following the Golden
Mean (see Figure 2). For example, an extreme
defect of character is cowardice. The opposite of
cowardice is recklessness. Thus, the middle
ground is bravery (Crossan et al. 2013).
-----Insert Figure 2 here-----
People should develop good habits or virtuous
3 | P a g e
traits, as character develops through habituation.
Benjamin Franklin identified 13 virtues and the
first system for assessing them. These virtues
and definitions (with the original spellings) appear
in Figure 3. To assess his virtue development
progress, he wrote these virtues on a piece of
ivory and created a grid. If a recent personal
failure related to an ignored virtue, he marked a
spot on the grid adjacent to that virtue. An
excessive number of spots associated with a
virtue indicated more work to be done on its
cultivation (Franklin 2011). Hence, Franklin
created the first diagnostic tool for virtue training.
-----Insert Figure 3 here-----
Challenges
Although understanding ethical challenges is
requisite to creating useful virtue ethics
typologies and scales, these challenges—
subjectivism, cultural relativism, and
psychological egoism—can inform virtue ethics
system and/or scale creation insofar as they
represent the antithesis of virtues themselves.
(Although a comprehensive review of ethical
challenges is beyond the scope of this chapter,
interested readers may consult Rachels (2011).)
Challenges in the development of scales offers
opportunity for new scale development. For
example, opportunities for new subscales or
culture-specific scales exist where cultural
relativism or subjective ethical constructs exist.
Building upon specific-cultural-based ethical
scales allows for ethical comparison and ethical
contrasting of different cultures.
Challenge #1: Subjectivism
Subjectivism is the belief ethics rests entirely
within each person, i.e., no commonalities are
possible because ethical judgments are
idiosyncratic. Cohen (1994) describes virtues as
embodied traits of one’s character. Supporting
the subjectivity of virtue ethics, Doherty (1995)
contends that virtues are not simply principles.
Virtue ethics represents character derived from
personal life experiences (McCullough and
Snyder 2000). Thus, virtues are person-specific
and entirely within each person’s purview.
Challenge #2: Cultural Relativism
Although Eastern and Western ethical notions
share a virtue basis—specifically, Western
Aristotle-based virtue ethics strongly resembles
Eastern Confucian virtues, as both entail a set of
ethics principles (Koehn 2013)—cultural relativ-
ism assumes people’s beliefs and activities
should be interpreted relative to their culture.
Hence, previously identified business virtues—
such as autonomy, charisma, competitiveness,
entrepreneurship, and independence (Shanahan
and Hyman 2003)—are not accepted globally.
Furthermore, Aristotle’s Golden Mean differs
among cultural subgroups. Consider Hofstede’s
individualism-collectivism continuum; if it repre-
sents a virtue continuum (Hofstede 2001), then
the Golden Mean would gravitate toward
individualism for Westerners and collectivism for
Easterners (i.e., no universal Golden Mean exists
on that continuum). Hence, creating a universal
virtue ethics scale is problematic.
The challenge to identifying universal virtues lies
in different cultures developing different virtue
systems representing moral exemplars (Sandage
and Hill 2001). After all, virtue systems based on
Aristotle will differ from systems based on Thera-
vada Buddhism or Aquinas (MacIntyre 1984).
Hence, scale developers must either reconcile
intergroup differences or create customized
scales.
Challenge #3: Psychological Egoism
Psychological egoism relates closely to
subjectivism. The difference: their treatment of
free will. Although both are person-level theories,
psychological egoism, but not subjectivism a
priori, precludes ‘free will’. By nature, nurture, or
a combination of both, psychological egoism
assumes people’s ‘programming’ dictates their
responses to stimuli, i.e., everything is pre-
determined in that personal control over one’s
actions is illusory. If this challenge is true, then
people are not morally accountable for their
actions.
4 | P a g e
Testing this challenge provides an interesting
intersection between the hard versus social
sciences. Lindstrom (2010) claims brain-
scanning technologies reveal people cannot
control their reactions to marketing stimuli. Yet,
his claim is overstated because (1) current brain-
scanning technology shows brain activity rather
than thoughts, (2) categorical claims are suspect
because responses to circumstances vary,
especially by people conflicted over a decision,
and (3) self-interest does not dictate people’s
actions, as they often act altruistically. Counter-
arguing that altruism is motivated by selfishness
conflates motive and emotion, which are
dependent categories.
Psychology Literature
The psychology literature contains many scales
designed to assess mental weaknesses and
illnesses. The opposite of some mental
weaknesses and illnesses could be considered
virtues. Hence, researchers could mine this
literature for ‘reverse scored’ virtue ethics scale
items. In addition, they could consider positive
psychology, which examines “the strengths and
virtues that enable individuals and communities
to thrive” (www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu). As a new
field, positive psychology‘s literature is
insufficient to serve as the sole source for extant
psychological scales; hence, the initial
suggestion to consider traditional scales meant to
assess a virtue opposite.
Traditional Psychology Literature
As many psychological scales assess a virtue
opposite, a scale assessing the opposite of that
opposite would assess a virtue. Hence, scale
developers could consider various virtues and
their opposites. Because opposites may be
associated with reliable and valid scale items,
much development time would be saved by
borrowing these scales and using a ‘reverse
scoring’ scheme or ‘reversing the original items’.
Any item set meant to assess a single virtue must
be unidimensional, so scale developers should
seek unidimensional opposite scales.
“People with a ‘narcissistic personality’ have a set
of attitudes…including self-love, self-admiration,
and self-aggrandizement” (Raskin and Terry
1988, p.890). To the extent people have these
attitudes, they may have other attitudes
antithetical to virtues, such as humility,
compassion, and generosity (Duruz 1981, Fine
1986). Psychologists have developed several
tests for narcissistic personality disorder. The
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)—a 40-
item scale soliciting responses to statements
such as ‘I am more capable than other people’, ‘I
like to be the center of attention’, and ‘I can make
anybody believe anything I want them to’ (Raskin
and Terry 1988)—has high construct validity. As
the NPI relates inversely to the virtues, it provides
a good measure of factors antithetical to
becoming a virtuous person.
To link virtue structure to psychological concepts
such as personality and moral development,
Cawley et al. (2000) developed a virtues scale. A
factor analysis of data from their 140-item self-
report measure revealed four factors: empathy,
order, resourcefulness, and serenity. Correla-
tions between these factors and the revised NEO
Personality Index scales, along with the low
correlation between these factors and Rest’s
Defining Issues Test, suggests virtue is a function
of personality rather than moral reasoning
(Cawley et al. 2000).
-----Insert Figure 4 here-----
Positive Psychology Literature
Philosophers may be unaware of this literature
due to its publication venue (i.e., psychology
journals and books) and its frequent reference to
‘virtuousness’ rather than ‘virtues’ (e.g., Bright et
al. 2013, Cameron 2011, Caza et al. 2004). In
psychology, virtuousness “refers to the pursuit of
the highest aspirations in the human
condition….[and] is characterized by human
impact, moral goodness, and unconditional
societal betterment” (Bright et al. 2006, p.249).
Positive psychology, which is “the scientific study
of positive human functioning and flourishing on
multiple levels that include the biological,
5 | P a g e
personal, relational, institutional, cultural, and
global dimensions of life” (Wikipedia 2014b),
focuses on the virtuousness of externally
observable behaviors situated in a Golden Mean
between two extremes. Peterson and Seligman
(2004)—the latter a founder of positive
psychology (Wikipedia 2014b)—collapsed 24
character strengths they identified into six
ubiquitous virtuousness categories: wisdom-
knowledge, courage, love-humanity, justice,
temperance, and spirituality-transcendence.
Positive psychology “is founded on the belief that
people want to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives,
to cultivate what is best within themselves, and to
enhance their experiences of love, work, and play
(http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu).
The virtue approach to ethics empha-
sizes people’s character. It stresses how
the good habits or virtues inherent in a
person’s character give them the
propensity to act in ways that promote
human flourishing (Dawson and
Bartholomew 2003).
-----Insert Figure 5 here-----
Peterson and Seligman relied on socio-historic,
cultural, and philosophical traditions to define
core virtues. As a result, there may be conceptual
contrasts in how virtues are identified and
epistemological contrasts in knowledge needed
to understand virtues. The Aristotelian
conception of virtue unity (i.e., a virtue cannot be
attributed to an agent without attributing it to other
agents) differs markedly from tested
interrelationships among virtues. Aristotelian
virtue ethicists might reject assessing an
organization’s virtuousness by content analyzing
its stated aspirational ethical values. As ‘talk is
cheap’, they might prefer to examine corporate
behavior, climate, and culture rather than ethical
codes and mission statements.
Peterson and Seligman’s Values in Action
Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; available online in
roughly 20 different languages at https://www.
viacharacter.org/surveys.aspx) is a psychological
assessment tool designed to profile people's
character strengths. Composed of 240
statements with five-point Likert-type scales
ranging from 1=very much unlike me to 5=very
much like me, it assesses 24 character strengths.
Some representative statements: 'I find the world
a very interesting place' (to assess curiosity) and
'I always let bygone be bygones (to assess
forgiveness). With ten items per strength, scores
on each range from 10 to 50 points, with higher
scores reflecting stronger identification with that
strength. Strengths associated with the highest
five scores are considered 'signature strengths'.
Respondents typically complete the VIA-IS in 30
to 40 minutes.
Most of the 24 strengths can be assessed reliably
and validly with self-report questionnaires, peer
reports, observation, and clinical interviews.
However, three strengths—bravery, humility, and
modesty—have yet to be assessed reliably.
Peterson and Seligman (2004) admit some
strengths are more difficult to assess, and provide
limited data on the VIA-IS’s reliability and validity.
Further challenging Peterson and Seligman’s six-
factor solution is a report by Macdonald, Bore and
Munro (2007) indicating one- and four-factor
solutions to the VIA-IS are equally justifiable.
Seligman (1998) spearheaded the movement
towards virtue as a tool in positive psychology.
His call for a virtue-based taxonomy to promote
personal responsibility (Seligman 1999) encour-
ages the creation of positive communities. Virtue
ethics could be a central construct in positive
psychology (Sandage and Hill 2001).
Virtue/Virtuousness Scales
Previously identified virtues pertaining to
business include ability, acceptance, ambition,
amiability, articulateness, attentiveness, auto-
nomy, caring, caution, charisma, confidentiality,
conflict avoidance, compassion, competitive-
ness, consideration, consistency, contentment,
coolheadedness, cooperativeness, courage,
creativity, dependability, determination, duty,
empathy, entrepreneurialism, equity, fairness,
faith, fidelity, friendliness, generosity, good
6 | P a g e
temper, graciousness, gratitude, heroism,
honesty, honor, humility, humor, independence,
integrity, justice, kindness, legality, liberality,
loyalty, magnificence, passion, pride, prudence,
reliability, respect, responsibility, saintliness,
(capable of) shame, sensitivity, shame, spirit,
style, temperance, tolerance, toughness, (willing-
ness to) trust, trustworthiness, truthfulness,
wisdom, wittiness, and zeal (Brewer 1997,
Brinsfield 1998, Card 1996, Dean 1992, Dobson
1997, Gier 2001, Limbs and Fort 2000,
McCracken et al. 1998, Murphy 1999, Seeger
and Ulmer 2001, Shanahan and Hyman 2003,
Solomon 1992, 1999, Tessman 2000). Previously
suggested groupings of these virtues include
military virtues (courage, integrity, loyalty, and
respect) (Brinsfield 1998), leadership virtues
(courage, temperance, justice, prudence, human-
ity, and truthfulness) (Hackett and Wang 2012),
general business virtues (courage, self-control,
liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, sociability,
and justice) (Bragues 2005), business team
virtues (transparency, behavioral integrity, trust)
(Palanski et al. 2011), Confucian virtues (bene-
volence, harmony, humility, learning, loyalty,
righteousness) (Cheung and Chan 2005),
accounting virtues (caution, fairness, fidelity,
legality, and respect) (Dean 1992), international
marketing virtues (empathy, fairness, integrity,
respect, and trust) (Hartman and Beck-Dudley
1995, Murphy 1999), and marketing virtues
(incorruptibility, piety, Protestant work ethic,
reliability, and respect) (Shanahan and Hyman
2003). Positive business practices or organi-
zational virtues include caring, compassion,
conscientiousness, empathy, forgiveness,
gratitude, inspiration, integrity, making work
meaningful, optimism, respect, trust, warmth, and
zeal (Cameron et al. 2004, 2011, Payne et al.
2011). These groupings parallel Aristotle’s
cardinal virtues (i.e. practical wisdom/prudence,
justice, courage/fortitude, and temperance/self-
control) (Dyck and Kleysen 2001, Morales-
Sanchez and Cabello-Medina 2013).
Although Murphy (1999) claims his five core
marketing virtues are universal, no catalog of
virtues will be exhaustive and some listed virtues
represent families of virtues rather than a single
virtue (e.g., justice would also represent equity
and impartiality). Nonetheless, the impossibly
large sample required to purify an exhaustive list
of virtues culled from the ethics and business
literatures would preclude accepted scale
development procedures (i.e., to refine a candi-
date pool of business virtues generated by people
like the ultimate respondents) (Churchill 1979,
DeVellis 1991, Hyman 1996). Thus, only the face-
validity of a comprehensive list of virtues may be
determined.
Previously Developed Scales
Although researchers have studied individual
virtues (e.g., gratitude—McCullough et al. (2002);
incorruptibility—Valentine and Johnson (2005);
integrity—Audi and Murphy (2004); moral
courage—Sekerka et al. (2009); responsibility—
Cameron (2011)), the following scales attempt to
cover the domain of virtue ethics (i.e., are
multidimensional).
Virtue Ethics Scale (Shanahan and Hyman 2003)
Drawing on Murphy (1999) for a framework and
Solomon (1999) for a preliminary set of business
virtues, Shanahan and Hyman (2003) develop a
six-subscale virtue ethics measure comprised of
empathy, Protestant work ethic, piety, reliability,
respect, and incorruptibility. Shanahan and
Hyman recommend this scale to identify
incongruent dimensions across different cultures,
to assist in ethically congruent hiring, and to
identify reasons for employee turnover. Although
Chun (2005) contends this factor structure is
problematic due to negatively skewed responses,
she is incorrect because Shanahan and Hyman
(2003) subjected their raw data to the log
transform method suggested by Tabachnick and
Fidell (1996) prior to factor analysis.
-----Insert Figures 6 here-----
Managerial Virtue Factors (Racelis 2013)
Given the challenges of cultural relativism and
building upon Shanahan and Hyman (2003),
Racelis (2013) developed a virtue ethics scale for
7 | P a g e
Philippian managers based on data collected
from postgraduate business and finance
students. He contends the four virtue dimensions
emerging from his factor analysis—care and
concern, competence, ambition, and superiority
—are analogous to virtues mentioned in the
extant literature. Because Racelis (2013)
assumes virtues are personal-character-based
rather than organization-based (à la Chun 2005),
he relied on the virtue ethics inventory identified
by Shanahan and Hyman (2003). He reports
similarities and differences between Western and
Philippine virtues, corroborating the premise no
universal set of virtues exists.
-----Insert Figures 7 here-----
Virtue Ethical Character Scale for Organizations
(Chun 2005)
To show links between organizational virtue and
performance, Chun (2005) examined business
virtues at the organizational rather than personal
level. Using a mixed method approach involving
content analysis of Fortune Global 500 ethical
values and a survey of 2500 customers and
employees, Chun (2005) identified six dimen-
sions of organizational virtues: integrity, warmth,
courage, conscientiousness, empathy, and zeal.
She confirms virtue ethics, like deontological or
utilitarian ethics, may suffer from non-
generalizability due to cultural relativism.
Although she notes some Asian virtues (e.g.,
humility, quietness) are not valued globally, such
virtues typically represent personal rather than
organizational virtues and multiple researchers
have identified humility as a virtue (Shanahan
and Hyman 2003, Racelis 2013); hence, some
Western and Eastern virtues may be universal.
-----Insert Figure 8 here---
Organizational Virtuousness (Cameron et al.
2004)
Similar to Chun (2005), Cameron et al. (2004)
found significant relationships in the performance
and virtuousness of 18 organizations. Five factors
emerged from Cameron et al.’s aggregated
employee data: forgiveness, trust, integrity,
optimism and compassion. Their study of virtu-
ousness within an organization and virtuousness
enabled by organizations revealed a meaningful
link between virtuousness and firm performance.
Specifically, organizational virtuousness creates
positive self-reinforcement and buffers that help
protect organizations from the negative effects of
downsizing.
-----Insert Figure 9 here-----
Leadership Virtues Questionnaire (Riggio et al.
2010)
As important stakeholders whose actions toward
other stakeholders (e.g., customers, vendors) are
highly influenced by corporate culture,
employees’ perceptions of their leaders’ ethical
positions are critical. Because they have the most
contact, employees are uniquely qualified to
evaluate their upper managers.
-----Insert Figure 10 here-----
The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire (LVQ),
which Riggio et al. (2010) created to assess
employee’s attitudes about their leaders, focuses
on four cardinal virtues: prudence, fortitude,
temperance, and justice. Prudence is knowledge
and especially practical wisdom. Fortitude is
courage and largely defined using Aristotle’s
definition. Temperance is control of emotion.
Justice is conceived as fairness. This scale
consists of nineteen items, five to measure
prudence, five to measure fortitude, three to
measure temperance, and six to measure justice.
One advantage of this scale is the parsimoniously
described virtues.
Virtuous Leadership Scale (Sarros and Barker
2003)
Using 17 virtues, this scale incorporates seven
attributes from two sources: the five identified by
Barker and Coy (2003) (i.e., humility, courage,
humor, passion, and wisdom) and two attributes
(i.e., integrity and compassion) derived from the
Character Assessment Rating Scale (Barlow et
8 | P a g e
al. 2003). Scale development data was drawn
from Australian managers, again fulfilling a need
to develop culture-specific virtue ethics scales.
-----Insert Figure 11 here-----
Corporate Ethics Virtues Scale (Kaptein 2008)
Most managers are concerned about their
organization’s ethical climate. In publically traded
companies, such concern is legally mandated by
legislation (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley). An adequate
measure of organizational commitment to ethics
is important for management to gauge and
respond to the demands of corporate social
responsibility. To this end, a corporate model has
been proposed by Kaptein (2008).
The Corporate Ethical Virtues Model (CEV)
measures the virtues of clarity, congruency,
feasibility, supportability, transparency, discuss-
ability, and sanctionability. Clarity is employees’
ability to understand expected behavior. Congru-
ency focuses on management’s ability to provide
leadership matching expectations with consistent
signals. Feasibility is employees’ ability to meet
ethical obligations. Supportability is the degree an
organization’s culture supports ‘meeting
expectations’. Transparency is employees’
knowledge of expectations, and discussability is
their ability to participate in decision making.
Sanctionability is the belief unethical behavior will
not be tolerated.
-----Insert Figure 12 here-----
Tonic and Phasic Virtuousness Scales (Bright et
al. 2006)
Assuming virtuousness exceeds a minimal ‘do no
harm’ standard, Bright et al. (2006) examined
buffering and the amplifying effects of
virtuousness in organizations. They defined
virtue both personally and collectively at the
organization level, where virtue can be ‘in and
through’ organizations. Similar to Cameron et al.
(2004), buffering reduced downsizing effects and
the amplifying effects increased virtuous action
likelihood.
Bright et al. (2006) analyzed their data at both the
individual and aggregate level. Factor analysis
identified a two-factor solution; phasic and tonic
virtues. Tonic virtuousness is the normative
assumption about ‘what should be done’, such as
humility, justice, and integrity. In contrast, phasic
virtuousness only occurs when certain situations
arise, such as a shock. Bright et al. (2006) found
the relationship between virtuousness and
emotion extends to both positive and negative
emotions.
-----Insert Figure 13 here-----
Auditors’ Virtue Scale (Libby and Thorne 2007)
Libby and Thorne (2007) contend extant virtue
ethics scales do not fully pertain to the roles and
ideals of the auditing community because
auditing is akin to its own culture within a
business environment. They queried Canadian
chartered accountants about 55 virtues
organized according to Pincoff’s (1986) typology.
Factor analysis identified three factors: non-
mandatory moral (benevolent, even-handed),
mandatory moral (integrity, principled), and
meliorating auditors virtues (cheerful, polite).
Within these factors, Libby and Thorne (2007)
identify six instrumental auditor’s virtues: alert,
careful, diligent, cooperative, courageous, and
resourceful—all virtues associated with auditors.
-----Insert Figure 14 here-----
Character Qualities for Excellent Grocery Store
Manager (Whetstone 2003)
Managers reported their fluency in virtue ethics
and its terminology to Whetstone (2003). Virtue
language is important when trying to understand
managerial excellence and virtues defining
excellent managers are contextual. Although
Whetstone (2003) did not develop a virtue theory,
he identified a process for defining managerial
excellence along with 20 related virtues. He
grouped these virtues into six categories roughly
representing honesty, dedication and trustworthi-
ness, responsibility, loyalty and faithfulness,
persistence and innovation, and toughness.
9 | P a g e
-----Insert Figure 15 here-----
Psychometric Issues
Vignette methods (Shanahan and Hyman 2003)
help to avoid social desirability and acquiescence
bias in ethics scale development. Franke (2000)
reports that single vignette studies are unreliable,
as a response to a single vignette on a single
occasion reveals little about how people would
respond to that or a similar vignette on another
occasion; hence, he suggests survey participants
respond to multiple vignettes.
Shanahan and Hyman (2003) solicited responses
to three vignettes about employee traits the
respondent might seek were they the employer.
Clearly, no one would prefer a dishonest
employee; hence, items were couched as state-
ments about traits rather than virtues. Questions
about traits rather than virtues should facilitate
reliability and validity. Inquiring about preferred
employee traits reduces social desirability and
acquiescence bias. To ensure respondents
understood the vignettes and questions about
them, using verbal protocols (i.e., oral reports
concurrent with task performance) during pre-
testing is suggested (Bickart and Felcher 1996).
Factor analyses operate on correlation matrices.
Observed correlations decrease as data depart
from normality (Hair et al. 1998). In survey-based
ethics research, responses tend to be skewed to
meaningful yet varying degrees (Hyman 1996).
Given the nature of the items, a tendency toward
extreme responses is unsurprising (Hyman
1996). Because highly skewed data should be
transformed prior to factor analysis (Cureton and
D’Agostino 1983; Hyman 1996), the log transform
method suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell
(1996) should be used for positively skewed data.
Hence, negatively skewed data first should be
reverse coded (i.e., 1=6, 2=5, 3=4, 4=3, 5=2,
6=1).
Conclusion and Implications for
Future Development
This chapter presents an overview of virtue ethics
measures in a business context. Although virtue
ethics, unlike deontological or teleological ethics,
provides a unique alternative in that it is holistic,
theoretical limitations still exist. One of the oldest
criticisms of virtue ethics is the lack of a universal
framework or set of virtues. Each scale reviewed
here relies on different conceptions of the virtues.
To this end, more work is needed to clarify the
virtues and to form a consensus about how to
measure them.
Koehn (2013) offers a useful guide to additional
work in virtue ethics. Several yet unanswered
questions he suggests:
(1) How do people acquire virtues?
(2) If virtues are part of a person’s character
or personality, from where are they
acquired and can they be learned?
(3) Which virtues are distinctly Western or
distinctly Eastern, and which virtues are
shared by both cultures? If cultural
relativism plays a role in virtue ethics
scale development, is there a need for
culturally based scale development?
(4) Virtue ethics in business can be studies
at the organizational and/or personal
level. Does suitability of organizational-
versus personal-level analysis depend
on context?
References
Aristotle (1992) Eudemian ethics. Woods, M
(trans.) Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Aristotle (2012) Nicomachean ethics. Bartlett, R,
Collins, S (trans.) University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL
Audi, R, Murphy, P (2006) The many faces of
integrity. Bus Ethics Quarterly 16: 3–21
Bickart, B, Felcher, E (1996) Expanding and
enhancing the use of verbal protocols in survey
research. In N. Schwarz and S Sudman, editors
10 | P a g e
Answering questions: methodology for deter-
mining cognitive and communicative processes
in survey research. Jossey-Bass publishing, San
Francisco, CA
Bragues, G (2006) Seek the good life, not money:
The Aristotelian approach to business ethics. J
Bus Ethics 67: 341-357
Brewer, K (1997) Management as a practice: A
response to Alasdair MacIntyre. J Bus Ethics 16:
825–833
Bright, D, Cameron, K, Caza, A (2006) The
amplifying and buffering effects of virtuousness in
downsized organizations. J Bus Ethics 64: 249-
269
Bright, D, Winn, Bradley, Kanov, J (2013)
Reconsidering virtue: Difference of perspective in
virtue ethics and the positive social sciences. J
Bus Ethics (online, DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-
1832-x)
Brinsfield, J (1998) Army values and ethics: A
search for consistency and relevance.
Parameters 28: 69–84
Broadie, S (1991) Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK
Cameron, K (2011) Responsible leadership as
virtuous leadership. J Bus Ethics 98: 25-35
Cameron, K, Bright D, Caza, A (2004) Exploring
the relationships between OV and performance.
Amer Behav Sci 47: 766–790
Cameron, K, Mora, C, Leutscher, T, Calarco, M
(2011) Effects of positive practices on
organizational effectiveness. J Applied Beh Sci
47: 266-308
Card, C (1996) The unnatural lottery: Character
and moral luck. Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, PA
Cawley, M, J, Johnson (2000) A virtues approach
to personality. Personality Individual Diff 28: 997-
1013
Cheung, C, Chan, A (2005) Philosophical
foundations of eminent Hong Kong Chinese
CEOs' leadership. J Bus Ethics 60: 47-62
Chun, R (2005) Ethical character and virtue of
organizations: An empirical assessment and
strategic implications. J Bus Ethics 57: 269-284
Churchill, G (1979) A paradigm for developing
better measures of marketing constructs. J Mktg
Res 16: 64–73
Crossan, M, Mazutis, D, Seijts, G (2013) In
search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and
character strengths in ethical decision making. J
Bus Ethics 113: 567-581
Cureton, E, D’Agostino, R (1987) Factor analysis:
An applied approach. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ
Dawson, D, Bartholomew, C (2003) Virtues,
managers and business people: Finding a place
for MacIntyre in a business context. J Bus Ethics
48: 127-138
Dean, P (1992) Making codes of ethics real. J
Bus Ethics 11: 285–291
DeVellis, R (1991) Scale development: Theory
and application. Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, NJ
Dobson, J (1997) Ethics in Finance II. Fin Anal J
53: 15–26
Duruz, N (1981) The psychoanalytic concept of
narcissism. Psychoanalysis Contemp Thought, 4:
3-68
Dyck, B, Kleysen, R (2001) Aristotle's virtues and
management thought: An empirical exploration of
an integrative pedagogy. Bus Ethics Quarterly 11:
561-574
Fine, R (1986) Narcissism, the self and society.
Columbia University Press, New York, NY
11 | P a g e
Franke, G (2000) The Generalizability of Ethical
Perception. Winter Educators’ Conference,
American Marketing Association. William
Perreault Jr. and John Workman editors.
Chicago, IL
Franklin, B (2011) The autobiography of
Benjamin Franklin including Poor Richards
Almanac and familiar letters. Cosimo Publishers,
New York, NY
Dobson, J (1997) Ethics in Finance II. Fin Anal J
53: 15–26
Gier, N (2001) The dancing Ru: A Confucian
aesthetics of virtue. Phil East and West 51: 280–
305
Hackett, R, Wang, G (2012) Virtues and
leadership: An integrating conceptual framework
founded in Aristotelian and Confucian per-
spectives on virtues. Mgmt Decision 50: 868-899
Hair, J, Anderson, R, Tatham, R, Black, W (1998)
Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
Hartman, K (2006) Can we teach character? An
Aristotelian Answer. A. Mgmt. Learning & Edu
5(1): 68-81
Hartman, C, Beck-Dudley, C (1995) Marketing
ethics and the search for virtue. In: Evans, K et al.
(ed) Proceedings: 1995 research conference on
ethics and social responsibility in marketing.
Hofstra University School of Business Press,
Hempstead, NY, 1–14
Hofstede, G (2001) Culture's consequences:
Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
Hyman, M (1996) A critique and revision of the
multidimensional ethics scale. J Emp Gen Mktg
Sci 1: 1-35
Kant, I (2009) Groundwork on the metaphysics of
morals. Paton H (trans.) HarperCollins, New
York, NY
Koehn, D (2013) East meets West: Toward a
universal ethic of virtue for global business. J.
Bus Ethics 116: 703-715
Limbs, E, Fort, T (2000) Nigerian business
practices and their interface with virtue ethics. J
Bus Ethics 26: 169–179
Lindstrom, M (2010) Buy*ology truth and lies
about why we buy. Broadway Books, New York,
NY
Libby, T, Thorne, L (2007) The development of a
measure of auditors' virtue. J Bus Ethics 71: 89-
99
Macdonald, C, Bore, M, Munro, D (2007) Values
in action scale and the big 5: An empirical
indication of structure. J of Res in Personality
42(4): 787-799
McCracken, J, Martin, W., Shaw, B (1998) Virtue
ethics and the parable of the Sadhu. J Bus Ethics
17: 25–39
McCullough, M, Emmons, R, Tsang, J (2002) The
grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical
topography. J Person Soc Psych 82: 112–127
Morales-Sanchez, R, Cabello-Medina, C (2013)
The role of four universal moral competencies in
ethical decision-making. J Bus Ethics 116: 717-
734
Murphy, P (1999) Character and virtue ethics in
international marketing: An agenda for
managers, researchers and educators. J Bus
Ethics 18: 107-124
Pagallo, U (2015) Good onlife governance: On
law, spontaneous orders and design. The Onlife
Manifesto, L. Floridi, editor. University of Torino:
161-177.
Palanski, M, Kahai, S, Yammarino, F (2011)
Team virtues and performance: An examination
of transparency, behavioral integrity and trust. J
12 | P a g e
Bus Ethics 99: 201-216
Payne, G, Brigham, K, Broberg, J, Moss T, Short
J (2011) Organizational virtue orientation and
family firms. Bus Ethics Quarterly 21: 257-285
Peterson, C, Seligman, M (2004) Character
strengths and virtues: A handbook and classifi-
cation. American Psychological Association and
Oxford University Press, Washington, D.C.
Pincoffs, E (1986) Quandaries and virtues.
University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Post, D. (2009) In search of Jefferson’s moose;
Notes on the state of cyberspace. Oxford
University Press, New York, NY
Rachels, J (2011) The elements of moral
philosophy, 7th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
Racelis, A (2013) Developing a virtue ethics
scale: Exploratory survey of Philippine managers.
Asian J Bus Acct 6: 15-37
Raskin R, Terry H (1988) A principle-components
analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory
and further evidence of its construct validity. J
Personality Soc Psych 54: 890-902
Riggio, R, Zhu, W, Reina, C, Maroosis, J (2010)
Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership:
The leadership virtues questionnaire. Consult
Psych J: Pract Res 62: 235-250
Sandage, S, Hill, P (2001) The virtues of positive
psychology: The rapprochement and challenges
of an affirmative postmodern perspective. J
Theory Soc Beh 31(3): 241-260
Sarros, J, Barker, C (2003) Virtuous leadership
scale. Australian management character survey,
Australian Institute of Management/Monash
University study.
Sarros, J, Cooper, B, Hartican, A (2006)
Leadership and character. Leadership Org Dev J
27: 682-699
Seeger, M, Ulmer, R (2001) Virtuous responses
to organizational crisis: Aaron Feuerstein and Milt
Cole. J Bus Ethics 31: 369–376
Sekerka, L, Bagozzi, R, Charnigo, R (2009)
Facing ethical challenges in the workplace:
Conceptualizing and measuring professional
moral courage. J Bus Ethics 89: 565-579
Seligman, M (1998) Building human strength:
Psychology’s forgotten mission. APA Monitor
January: 2
Seligman, M (1999) The president’s address.
American Psychologist 54: 559-562
Seligman, M, Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000)
Positive psychology: An introduction. Amer
Psychologist 55: 5-14
Shanahan, K, Hyman, M (2003) The
development of a virtue ethics scale. J Bus Ethics
42: 197-208
Solomon, R (1992) Ethics and excellence:
Cooperation and integrity in business. Oxford
University Press, New York, NY
Solomon, R (1999) A better way to think about
business. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Tabachnick, B, Fidell, L (1996) Using multivariate
statistics, 3rd ed. Harper Collins, New York, NY
Tessman, L (2000) Moral luck in the politics of
personal transformation. Soc Theory Pract 26:
375–395
Thiel, C, Harkrider, L, Mumford, M (2012) Leader
ethical decision-making in organizations:
Strategies for sensemaking. J Bus Ethics 107:
49-64
Valentine, S, Johnson, A (2005) Codes of ethics,
orientation programs, and the perceived
importance of employee incorruptibility. J Bus
Ethics 61: 45-53
Wang, Q (2011) A conceptual and empirical
13 | P a g e
investigation of leader virtues and virtuous
leadership. Open Access Dissertations and
Theses. Paper 6116, McMaster University
Whetstone, J (2003) The language of managerial
excellence: Virtues as understood and applied. J
Bus Ethics 44: 343-357
Wikipedia (2014b) Positive psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology
14 | P a g e
Figure 1
One Hundred and Eight Professional Virtues (from Wang 2011)
Ability Diligence Obedience
Acceptance Discipline Openness
Agreeableness Dissemination of Economic Passion
Information
Ambition Eloquence Patience
Amiability Empathy Perseverance/Persistence
Articulateness Enthusiasm Practical Judgment
Attentiveness Entrepreneurship Practical Wisdom
Autonomy Equity Pride
Benevolence Faith/Faithfulness Professional Will
Caring Fidelity Prudence
Caution Friendliness Reasonableness
Charisma Generosity Reliability
Charitableness Gracefulness Resourcefulness
Cheerfulness Graciousness Respect
Civility Gratitude Responsibility/Duty/Accountability
Cleanliness Greatness of Mind Reverence
Commitment to Justice Helpfulness Saintliness
Compassion Heroism Self-Control
Competence Honesty Self-Effacement
Competitiveness Honor/Pride Self-Sacrifice
Concern for Others Hopefulness Service to the Common Good
Confidentiality Hospitality Shame
Conflict Avoidance Humility Sociability
Consciousness Humor Spirit/Spirituality
Consideration Independence Style
Consistency Integrity Tactfulness
Contentment Justice/Fairness Temperance
Cool-Headedness Kindness Tolerance
Cooperativeness Legality Toughness
Courage Liberality Trustworthiness/Trust
Creativity Liveliness Truthfulness
Decency Love Value Sensitivity
Decisiveness Loyalty Warmth
Dedication Magnanimity Wisdom
Dependability Magnificence Wittiness
Determination Modesty Zeal
15 | P a g e
Figure 2
Cardinal Business Virtues—Mean versus Outside the Mean
Virtue
Deficiency
Mean
Excess
Wisdom
Unoriginality
Closed to experience
Closed minded
Apathy
Creativity
Curiosity
Open Mindedness
Love of Learning
Impracticality
Unfocused interest
Lack of judgment
Obsessive
Courage
Cowardice
Laziness
Inauthenticity
Bravery
Persistence
Integrity
Recklessness
Zealot
Righteousness
Humanity
Harsh/Cruel
Unfeeling
Stinginess
Socially awkward
Kindness
Compassion
Generosity
Social Intelligence
Obsequious
Indulgent
Profligacy
Manipulative
Justice
Treachery
Unjust
Lack of confidence
Citizenship
Fairness
Leadership
Blind obedience
Undiscerning
Dictatorship
Temperance
Unmerciful
Boastfulness
Rash
Sloth
Forgiveness
Humility
Prudence
Self-regulation
Pushover
Self-deprecation
Overly cautious
Inflexible
Transcendence
Ungrateful
Hopeless
Spiritlessness
Gratitude
Hope
Spirituality
Suppliant Behavior
Foolishness
Fundamentalism
Note: From Crossan et al. (2013)
Figure 3
Franklin’s Thirteen Virtues
Virtue
Definition
Temperance
Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
Silence
Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversations.
Order
Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
Resolution
Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fall what you resolve.
Frugality
Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; waste nothing.
Industry
Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary
actions.
Sincerity
Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and if you speak, speak
accordingly.
Justice
Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
Moderation
Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
Cleanliness
Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation
Tranquility
Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
Chastity
Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the
injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
Humility
Imitate Jesus and Socrates
16 | P a g e
Figure 4
Virtues Scale (from Cawley et al. 2000)
Factor
Virtues
Empathy
Empathy Concern Understanding
Considerate Friendly Sympathetic
Affable Sensitive Charity
Compassion Liberal Gracious
Courtesy
Order
Order Discipline Serious
Decent Deliberate Scrupulous
Earnest Self-control Self-denial
Abstinence Obedient Conservative
Cautious Careful Tidy
Austere Clean
Resourceful
Resourceful Purposeful Perseverance
Persistent Confidence Sagacity
Self-esteem Fortitude Intelligence
Zealous Independent
Serenity
Serene Meek Forbearance
Forgiveness Peaceful Patient
Merciful
Note: Responses on seven-point Likert-type scale anchored by ‘1=Least like you really are’ to ‘7=Most
like you really are. Respondents urged to answer as they really are rather than the way they
ideally should be.
Responses based on sets of three statements. For example,
I am wisely cautious in practical affairs.
I am able to make correct decisions based on my good judgment, and common sense.
The people who know me best would describe me as prudent, discreet, and sensible.
17 | P a g e
Figure 5
Values in Action Inventory of Character Strengths (from
http://www.viacharacter.org/www/Portals/0/VIA%20Classification%202014.pdf)
Wisdom and Knowledge – Cognitive strengths that entail acquisition and use of knowledge
Creativity [originality,
ingenuity]
Thinking of novel and productive ways to conceptualize and do things;
includes but not limited to artistic achievement
Curiosity [novelty-
seeking, openness to
experience]
Taking interest in ongoing experience for its own sake; finding subjects and
topics fascinating; exploring and discovering
Judgment [critical
thinking]
Thinking things through and examining them from all sides; not jumping to
conclusions; being able to change one’s mind in light of evidence; weighing
all evidence fairly
Love of Learning
Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge, whether on one’s
own or formally; related to curiosity but goes beyond it to describe tendency
to add systematically to what one knows
Perspective [wisdom]
Ability to provide wise counsel to others; having ways of looking at the
world that make sense to oneself and other people
Courage – Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face
of opposition, external or internal
Bravery [valor]
Not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain; speaking up for what
is right even if opposed; acting on convictions even if unpopular; includes
but not limited to physical bravery
Perseverance
[persistence,
industriousness]
Finishing what one starts; persisting in course of action despite obstacles;
taking pleasure in completing tasks
Honesty [authenticity,
integrity]
Speaking truthfully but more broadly presenting oneself genuinely and
acting sincerely; being without pretense; taking responsibility for one’s
feelings and actions
Zest [vitality, vigor,
enthusiasm, energy]
Approaching life with excitement and energy; not doing things half-way or
halfheartedly; living life as an adventure
Humanity - Interpersonal strengths that involve tending and befriending others
Love
Valuing close relations with others, especially those in which sharing and
caring are reciprocated; being close to people
Kindness [generosity,
nurturance, niceness,
agape, compassion]
Doing favors and good deeds for others; helping and caring for them
Social Intelligence
[emotional and personal
intelligence]
Awareness of own and other people’s motives and feelings; knowing how to
fit into different social situations; knowing what makes other people tick
Justice - Civic strengths that underlie healthy community life
Teamwork [social
responsibility, loyalty]
Working well as member of group or team; loyalty to the group; doing one’s
share
Fairness
Treating all people similarly according to notions of fairness and justice; not
letting personal feelings bias decisions about others; giving everyone a fair
chance
Leadership
Encouraging one’s group to get things done yet maintain good intragroup
relations; organizing and achieving group activities
18 | P a g e
Temperance – Strengths that protect against excess
Forgiveness
Forgiving wrongdoers; accepting others’ shortcomings; giving people a
second chance; not being vengeful
Humility
Letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves; not regarding oneself
as special
Prudence
Being careful about one’s choices; not taking undue risks; not saying or
doing things that might later be regretted
Self-Regulation [self-
control]
Regulating one’s feelings and actions; being disciplined; controlling one’s
appetites and emotions
Transcendence - Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning
Appreciating Beauty and
Excellence [awe,
wonder, elevation]
Noticing and appreciating beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in
various domains of life
Gratitude
Awareness of and thankfulness for good things that occur; taking time to
express thanks
Hope [optimism, future-
mindedness, future
orientation]
Expecting the best and working to achieve it; believing a good future can be
achieved
Humor [playfulness]
Liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other people; seeing the light
side; making (not necessarily telling) jokes
Spirituality [faith,
purpose]
Having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of the
universe; knowing where one fits within the larger scheme
19 | P a g e
Figure 6
Virtue Ethics Scale (from Shanahan and Hyman 2003; derived from Solomon 1999)
Empathy
Compassion
Relieving others’ suffering; sympathetic
Caring
Worrying about other’s well-being when one is in a position of control
Graciousness
Establishing a congenial environment
Attentiveness
Listening; understanding
Amiability
Putting others at ease; fostering agreeable social contexts
Generosity
Sharing, enhancing the well-being of others; surpassing expectations
Humility
Giving proper credit where it is due; not thinking too highly of oneself
(Willingness to) Trust
Being able to depend on others
Contentment
Being happy, having peace of mind; lacking excessive competitiveness
Protestant Work Ethic
Creativity
Conceiving something better or different; being innovative
Passion
Engaging the world with enthusiasm; being infectious and inspiring
Competitiveness
Winning; doing comparatively well
Entrepreneurship
Going where no one has gone before; having new ideas and products
Charisma
Inspiring others
Ambition
Getting ahead; being tenacious
Autonomy
Having a personal identity; having personal integrity
Courage
Doing the right thing despite the cost
Independence
Getting things done despite bureaucracy
Determination
Seeing it through
Piety
Saintliness
Approaching the ideal; behaving extraordinarily
Spirit
Appreciating the larger picture; cosmically edified
(Capable of) Shame
Regaining acceptance after having done wrong
Reliability
Responsibility
Doing what one can to make things right; getting things done
Trustworthiness
Fulfilling one’s responsibilities; responsible
Ability
Getting things done and done well; being dependable and competent
Articulateness
Making one’s case, expressing oneself; being understood clearly
Prudence
Minimizing personal and company losses
Respect
Coolheadedness
Retaining control and reasonableness in heated situations
Tolerance
Getting along; reciprocity
Cooperativeness
Getting things done; sharing responsibility
Humor
Bringing relief, making world a lighter place
Incorruptibility
Honor
Holding one’s head high; being admired by others
Honesty
Telling the truth; not lying
Integrity
Being one’s true good self; being a model of trustworthiness
20 | P a g e
Figure 7
Managerial Virtue Factors (from Racelis 2013)
Factor
Items
Care and concern
Sympathetic, sincere, respectful, pleasant, reassuring, reliable, socially-
responsible, generous, supportive, concern, secure, friendly, spirited, open,
honesty, exciting
Competence
Innovative, leading, mature, competent, intelligent, reliable, confident
Ambition
Ambitious, aggressive, controlling
Superiority
Superior, proud, straightforward
Note: Each item evaluated on a five-point Likert-type scale, where responses ranged from 1=strongly
disagree to 5=strongly agree.
Figure 8
Virtue Ethical Character Scale for Organizations (from Chun 2005)
Dimension
Items
Integrity
Honest, Sincere, Socially-Responsible, Trustworthy
Empathy
Concerned, Reassuring, Supportive, Sympathetic
Courage
Ambitious, Achievement-oriented, Leading, Competent
Warm
Friendly, Open, Pleasant, Straightforward
Zeal
Exciting, Innovative, Imaginative, Spirited
Conscientiousness
Reliable, Hardworking, Proud, Secure
Note: In the questionnaire, respondents first imagine the organization ‘has come to life as a human
being’ and then assess the organization’s character using a five-point Likert scale from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
21 | P a g e
Figure 9
Organizational Virtuousness (from Cameron et al. 2004)
Organizational
Virtue
Items
Optimism
A sense of profound purpose is associated with what we do here
In this organization we are dedicated to doing good in addition to doing well
We are optimistic that we will succeed, even when faced with major challenges
Trust
Employees trust one another in this organization
People are treated with courtesy, consideration, and respect in this organization
People trust the leadership of this organization
Compassion
Acts of compassion are common here
This organization is characterized by many acts of concern and caring for other
people
Many stories of compassion and concern circulate among organization members
Integrity
Honesty and trustworthiness are hallmarks of this organization
This organization demonstrates the highest levels of integrity
This organization would be described as virtuous and honorable
Forgiveness
We try to learn from our mistakes here, consequently missteps are quickly
forgiven
This is a forgiving, compassionate organization in which to work
We have very high standards of performance, yet we forgive mistakes when they
are acknowledged and corrected
22 | P a g e
Figure 10
Leadership Virtues Questionnaire (from Riggio et al. 2010)
Leadership
Virtue
Items
Prudence
Does as he/she ought to do in a given situation.
Does not carefully consider all the information available before making an important
decision that impacts others.(R)
Boldly jumps into a situation without considering the consequences of his/her
actions.(R)
Does not seek out information from a variety of sources so the best decision can be
made.(R)
Considers a problem from all angles and reaches the best decision for all parties
involved.
Fortitude
Would rather risk his/her job than do something that was unjust.
May have difficulty standing up for his/her beliefs among friends who do not share
the same views.(R)
Fails to make the morally best decision in a given situation.(R)
May hesitate to enforce ethical standards when dealing with a close friend.(R)
Ignores his/her “inner voice” when deciding how to proceed.(R)
Temperance
Seems to be overly concerned with his/her personal power.(R)
Is not overly concerned with his/her own accomplishments.
Wishes to know everything that is going on in the organization to the extent that
he/she micromanages.(R)
Justice
Gives credit to others when credit is due.
Demonstrates respect for all people.
May take credit for the accomplishments of others.(R)
Respects the rights and integrity of others.
Would make promotion decisions based on a candidate’s merit.
Does not treat others as he/she would like to be treated.(R)
Note: (R) = reversed item.
Response scale: 1=Not at all; 2=Once in a while; 3=Sometimes; 4=Fairly often;
5=Frequently if not always
23 | P a g e
Figure 11
Virtuous Leadership Scale (from Sarros and Barker 2003)
Virtue
Definition
Integrity
Consistently adhering to a moral or ethical code or standard. A person with
integrity consistently chooses to do the right thing when faced with alternate
choices.
Humor
The ability to invoke laughter or see the funny side of a painful predicament
Passion
Having a source of energy or enthusiasm from one’s soul that enables that
person to produce extraordinary results.
Courage
Setting a direction for the long term and taking people along without being
hampered by fear.
Compassion
Concern for the suffering or welfare of others and provides aid or shows
mercy for others.
Wisdom
Possessing the experience and knowledge together with the power of
applying them critically or practically.
Humility
The quality of being humble or a modest sense of one’s own significance.
Note: Single-item measures rated on a nine-point scale from 1=exceptionally low to 9=exceptionally
high in terms of the representativeness of each attribute
24 | P a g e
Figure 12
Corporate Ethical Virtue Constructs (from Kaptein 2008)
Clarity
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should conduct myself appropriately toward
others within the organization
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should obtain proper authorizations
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should use company equipment responsibly
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should use my working hours responsibly
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should handle money and other financial
assets responsibly
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should deal with conflicts of interests and
sideline activities responsibly
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should deal with confidential information
responsibly
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should deal with external persons and
organizations responsibly
The organization makes it sufficiently clear to me how I should deal with environmental issues in a
responsible way
In my immediate working environment, it is sufficiently clear how we are expected to conduct
ourselves in a responsible way
Congruency of Supervisors
My supervisor sets a good example in terms of ethical behavior
My supervisor communicates the importance of ethics and integrity clearly and convincingly
My supervisor would never authorize unethical or illegal conduct to meet business goals
My supervisor does as he says
My supervisor fulfills his responsibilities
My supervisor is honest and reliable
Congruency of Management
The conduct of the Board and (senior) management reflects a shared set of norms and values
The Board and (senior) management sets a good example in terms of ethical behavior
The Board and (senior) management communicates the importance of ethics and integrity clearly
and convincingly
The Board and (senior) management would never authorize unethical or illegal conduct to meet
business goals
Feasibility
In my immediate working environment, I am sometimes asked to do things that conflict with my
conscience (R)
In order to be successful in my organization, I sometimes have to sacrifice my personal norms and
values (R)
I have insufficient time at my disposal to carry out my tasks responsibly (R)
I have insufficient information at my disposal to carry out my tasks responsibly (R)
I have inadequate resources at my disposal to carry out my tasks responsibly (R)
In my job, I am sometimes put under pressure to break the rules (R)
Supportability
In my immediate working environment, everyone is totally committed to the (stipulated) norms and
values of the organization
25 | P a g e
In my immediate working environment, an atmosphere of mutual trust prevails
In my immediate working environment, everyone has the best interests of the organization at heart
In my immediate working environment, a mutual relationship of trust prevails between employees
and management
In my immediate working environment, everyone takes the existing norms and standards seriously
In my immediate working environment, everyone treats one another with respect
Transparency
If a colleague does something which is not permitted, my manager will find out about it
If a colleague does something which is not permitted, I or another colleague will find out about it
If my manager does something which is not permitted, someone in the organization will find out
about it
If I criticize other people’s behavior, I will receive feedback on any action taken as a result of my
criticism
In my immediate working environment, there is adequate awareness of potential violations and
incidents in the organization
In my immediate working environment, adequate checks are carried out to detect violations and
unethical conduct
Management is aware of the type of incidents and unethical conduct that occur in my immediate
working environment
Discussability
In my immediate working environment, reports of unethical conduct are handled with caution
In my immediate working environment, I have the opportunity to express my opinion
In my immediate working environment, there is adequate scope to discuss unethical conduct
In my immediate working environment, reports of unethical conduct are taken seriously
In my immediate working environment, there is adequate scope to discuss personal moral dilemmas
In my immediate working environment, there is adequate scope to report unethical conduct
In my immediate working environment, there is ample opportunity for discussing moral dilemmas
If someone is called to account for his/her conduct, it is done in a respectful manner
In my immediate working environment, there is adequate scope to correct unethical conduct
If reported unethical conduct in my immediate working environment does not receive adequate
attention, there is sufficient opportunity to raise the matter elsewhere in the organization
Sanctionability
In my immediate working environment, people are accountable for their actions
In my immediate working environment, ethical conduct is valued highly
In my immediate working environment, only people with integrity are considered for promotion
If necessary, my manager will be disciplined if s/he behaves unethically
The people that are successful in my immediate working environment stick to the norms and
standards of the organization
In my immediate working environment, ethical conduct is rewarded
In my immediate working environment, employees will be disciplined if they behave unethically
If I reported unethical conduct to management, I believe those involved would be disciplined fairly
regardless of their position
In my immediate working environment, employees who conduct themselves with integrity stand a
greater chance to receive a positive performance appraisal than employees who conduct themselves
without integrity
Note: (R) = reversed item.
Response scale: Six-point Likert-type scale from 1=Strongly Disagree to 6=Strongly Agree
26 | P a g e
Figure 13
Tonic and Phasic Virtuousness Scales (from Bright et al. 2006)
Tonic
Virtuousness
Acts of compassion are common here (Kindness)
A positive, enthusiastic environment is typical of this organization (Hope)
People here demonstrate humility, or openness to improvement (Humility)
Honesty and trustworthiness are hallmarks of this organization (Integrity)
This organization possesses a virtuous culture (Purpose)
Phasic
Virtuousness
Despite downsizing or job eliminations in the past, current employees have no
lingering grudges or ill feelings toward this organization (Forgive)
Any trust that was damaged as a result of downsizing has been restored
(Forgive)
Personal relationships that were wounded have been re-established after the
downsizing (Forgive)
Cynicism lingers as a result of the downsizing (Forgive) (R)
Note: All items employed a six-point scale, where 6 represented strong agreement and 1 represented
strong disagreement.
(R) = reverse coded
27 | P a g e
Figure 14
Auditors’ Virtue Scale (from Libby and Thorne 2007)
For each characteristic, please circle the number that corresponds to the degree to which you believe it is
important for auditors to possess that characteristic.
Non-instrumental Auditors’ Virtue Scale
Characteristic
Not at all Very
Important Important
Non-mandatory moral
Altruistic
Benevolent
Concerned with the public
interest
Enlightened
Even-handed
Farsighted
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Mandatory moral
Has integrity
Healthy skepticism
Independent
Principled
Objective
Truthful
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Meliorating
Cheerful
Polite
Sensitive
Tactful
Thoughtful
Warm
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Instrumental Auditors’ Virtue Scale
Characteristic
Not at all Very
Important Important
Alert
Careful
Diligent
Cooperative
Courageous
Resourceful
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
28 | P a g e
Figure 15
Character Qualities for Excellent Grocery Store Manager (from Whetstone 2003)
Grouping Rank by
Importance
Items
1
Honest
2
Trustworthy
Dedicated
3
Takes Responsibility
Fair
Demonstrates Integrity
4
Loyal
Faithful to God
Self-controlled
Polite, Respects Others
Flexible, Adaptable
Shows Perspective, Judgment
Hard Worker
Loves Family
5
Persistent
Genuine
Compassionate, Caring
Innovative
Good Citizen
6
Tough
Note: Item clusters ranked based on unspecified Likert-type scaling for
individual items.
