INTRODUCTION A common tenant of ethics in society

A common tenant of ethics in society is an expectation for people to do the right thing,

and this principal of ethics can be traced throughout one’s lifetime. As children, individuals are

taught the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. In all levels of

competitive sports, athletes are challenged to embrace sportsmanship and promote fairness

during competitions. As adults, parents are expected to raise children who make proper decisions

and abide by the morally right things to do. Even at the macro levels of community and

corporations, service projects and initiatives are expected to encourage participants to make a

difference in society. However, some human behavior in society leads one to question if these

efforts to teach and instill ethics are falling short of what are considered to be reasonable

standards.

If ethics is such a strong foundational component of society taught to all members, why

are extraordinary stories of business misconduct continuing to surface? Concerns around the

ethics of businesses have been ongoing, making headlines a half-century ago (Raymond, 1961).

Fast forward several decades and recent history has been replete with staggering headlines of

unethical behavior among recognized names in corporate America (Hadjicharalambous & Shi,

2015). These incidents have occurred despite an inflow of legislation designed to ensure solid,

ethical business practices and a movement by businesses to adopt stronger ethics policies

(Weber, 2015). If these rules appear to be falling short, is it fair to question the effectiveness of

educational efforts in diffusing ethics throughout organizations?

A Recent History of Ethics

The 21st century was ushered in with the Enron scandal—the story of an

underperforming company masquerading as a beacon of innovation and a wealth-creation engine

for investors (Healy & Palepu, 2003). Through a series of inappropriate financial practices and

violations of accounting standards, Enron kept its problems buried, and the company eventually

filed for bankruptcy at the end of 2001 (Olson & Mendoza, 2015). The American public no

sooner digested the news of Enron before it was faced with another corporate ethical debacle

when MCI WorldCom saw its collapse in 2002 with bankruptcy filings and news of accounting

fraud totaling billions of dollars (Maniam & Teetz, 2005). Fast forward a few years and the news

was even grimmer. The United States experienced its most significant economic decline since the

world wars during the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009 (Brooks & Manza, 2013). This

catastrophe inflicted damage across global markets and was dubbed a risk-laden failure among

banks and the government agencies responsible for their oversight (MacKenzie et al., 2012).

It should be noted that the storyline of questionable ethical behaviors is not limited to high-

profile corporate scandals with the potential for big payouts. Ethics applies to actions and

situations that could be deemed minor or unimportant by many. For example, surveys have

pointed to higher levels of perceived stress in the workplace and an increased likelihood of

employees engaging in questionable conduct (Selart & Johansen, 2011). Stress is prevalent

because the corporate landscape is not slowing down with shifting technologies and globalization

adding to its intricacies (Hughes et al., 2019). Inappropriate behavior has entered the mainstream

with workers acknowledging they have called into work sick when they were not ill, lied to

customers, prepared reports that contained skewed or inaccurate information, treated other

workers in a derogatory manner, and purposely produced work that was of an inferior quality

(Boyd, 1997).

Following the Great Recession, the virtues and character that play into ethical

decisionmaking became a significant topic of interest (Crossan et al., 2013). The influences of

ethical conduct standards within an organization were shown to reverberate through its team

members who serve as vehicles of business performance (Chun et al., 2013). However, a review

of the literature shows the interest in utilizing ethical approaches in business practices (Buckley

et al., 2001) and a renewed interest in training to diffuse ethical principles within the workforce

surfaced many years before this time (Wells & Schminke, 2001). Buckley et al. (2001) noted a

focus on ethical standards reflect public relations and political risks in focusing on profits over

people and a business response to employees that are skeptical and not committed to a particular

organization. Maniam and Teetz (2005) stated ethical failures can have a domino effect of slower

economic growth, hitting businesses with an increase in their costs which are eventually passed

to the different players in the market. Wells and Schminke (2001) demonstrated ethics training

was already mainstream prior to the scandals with Enron and MCI WorldCom.

Competing Views of Ethics

Before beginning a debate on the effectiveness of ethics training, the question of how

ethical standards are delineated should begin the conversation. Is it possible that ethics compels

multiple viewpoints in its definition and practice? One shocking statistic reflects a view by eight

in 10 Americans that no outright benchmark of ethics exists (Maniam & Teetz, 2005). Other

research questions the internal moral compass of workers, revealing a need of employees to set

their sights on someone in leadership to influence or direct their ethical decision-making (Brown

et al., 2005).

In attempting to articulate the meaning of ethics, several descriptions rise to the surface.

Some definitions point to the basic concept of a dichotomous nature in explaining situations in

terms of right and wrong or good and bad (merriam-webster.com). Others quantify ethics in

theoretical terms, steering clear of characterizations that are rigid and distinct (Maniam & Teetz,

2005) while still attempting to clarify behavior that is considered normal (Buckley et al., 2001).

Buckley et al. marginally blends the concepts of ethics and morals, using moral judgments as a

means to define ethics. Other classifications take a slightly different approach, clarifying morals

as a way to prevent individual injury and guarantee conduct viewed as appropriate and good

(Lashley, 2016). Another definition of ethics takes a commercial focus, utilizing morality to

define ethical practices in terms of business practices (Hadjicharalambous & Shi, 2015).

If practitioners cannot agree on a definition of ethics, what challenges are they are facing

that is enticing the disagreement? There are several concerns regarding challenges to reaching

consensus on ethics in the workplace. These concerns include diversity and ethics, ethical

sensitivity, and the interactions of workplace stress and ethics.

Diversity and Ethics. The challenges and benefits of diversity and ethics garnered

attention decades ago through the work of Boyer and Webb (1992). One challenge is building

consensus on a set of shared values among groups of people who are diverse and represent

varying perspectives (Buckley et al., 2001). Sex, age, educational background, and religious

beliefs have all been linked to different decision-making outcomes in ethical scenarios.

Diversity can also extend to the realm of psychology with a variety of personality traits

such as a desire for power, extroversion, and locus of control influencing ethical decisionmaking

and identifying solutions for complex situations (Hadjicharalambous & Shi, 2015).

Appropriate knowledge, skills, and understanding of individual differences are needed in today’s

workforce to allow for effectual interactions among stakeholders (Hughes, 2019). Organizations

dedicated to elevating diversity and ethics together in a position of prominence experience the

benefits of the two working together, bringing value to workers, managers, and customers

(Hughes, 2018).

Ethical Sensitivity. A second concern lies within the presence of ethical sensitivity in

individuals (Treviño & Brown, 2004). This argument derives from the notion that an individual

cannot demonstrate ethical judgment if he or she cannot distinguish an issue exists (Geva, 2006).

In this case, the person’s response or lack of a reaction cannot be explained in terms of ethical

judgment because there was no awareness of a problem to trigger an action (Treviño & Brown,

2004). There can also be times when an individual recognizes a decision must be made without

realizing an ethical component is present in the dilemma (Geva, 2006).

Ethical sensitivity also has roots at the organizational level. An organization’s culture and

atmosphere can have significant influence in how individuals behave and the level of ethical

sensitivity they display. This convergence of culture and ethical sensitivity further can define

how companies are governed (Chan & Cheung, 2012).

Workplace Stress and Ethics. A third concern can potentially be found in the link

between workplace stress and ethics. Boyd (1997) asserted a majority of workers feel pressure

because of expectations at work and impacts to their balance between family and job. He found

these burdens were increasing over time as businesses continue to operate in an environment of

rapid change, resulting in half of employees at the time feeling compelled to engage in activities

that are unethical or illicit in an effort to cope with the rising anxieties and demands on-the-job

(Boyd, 1997). Two decades later, COVID-19 has worsened these issues, exacerbating the balance

between family and job. This has been found to be especially true for working women (Couch et

al., 2020). Some impairment in moral awareness to recognize problems has been found to be a

product of workplace stress (Selart & Johansen, 2011).

Although differing views and definitions of ethics present challenges to businesses, there

is consensus that tackling ethical challenges is a requirement for contemporary organizations

(Selart & Johansen, 2011). Alignment among leaders in the business community sheds light on

the need to embrace the debate of ethical decision-making and moral issues. Individuals at the

top of organizations and businesses should recognize ethics as an issue where there can be no

concessions and negotiations. It must become part of the organization’s essence and identity

(Reynolds, 2019).

The Role of Human Resources and Workforce Development in Ethics

One may ask how human resources and workforce development fits in defining ethical

standards and encouraging their diffusion within the organizational context. HRD practitioners

have a strong role to play in tackling the business of ethics, serving in both a capacity to

champion the development of the workforce while keeping leadership grounded in its approach

to please stakeholders (MacKenzie et al., 2012). Ultimately, this is one of the ways human

resource teams can make contributions to the organization’s financial bottom line. Positive

employee citizenship actions and concern for organizational goals and objectives can all be

enhanced and driven through adhering to ethical standards because moral leaders generate focus,

movement, and reinforcement on ethical norms (Mo & Shi, 2017).

Chun et al. (2013) found that adhering to ethical standards produced results associated

with an optimistic social climate for employees, boosting employee job satisfaction and overall

commitment to the organization. Upholding ethical standards increases effective recruiting,

hiring, and retaining talent as it clears the way for fairly and consistently evaluating performance

and rewarding employees through pay and incentive programs. Potential new-hires and current

employees view the adherence to ethical standards as a benefit because it serves as a connector to

the employer crafting a fair workplace where they will be treated appropriately (Buckley et al.,

2001). It also serves as a central point in a company’s culture, defining how employees should

interact and respond as a representative of the organization, and codifying these beliefs via

leadership and organizational development (MacKenzie et al., 2012).

Methods of Governing Ethics

To reinforce ethics education efforts and the dissemination of ethical standards,

organizations utilize different mechanisms to influence employee behaviors. These include code

of ethics programs (Kaptein, 2011) and ethical leadership modeling (Brown & Treviño, 2014).

Legislative bodies also provide a level of reinforcement by formalizing regulations that seek to

force individual and business compliance with ethics (Ridnour et al., 2001).

Code of ethics. A popular way to address ethics within the organizational context is

through the use of a formalized code of ethics (Geva, 2006). This practice arose to prominence in

the early 1990s when most corporations in the United States elected to codify their guidelines

(Weaver & Treviño, 2001). Figures ranged as high as three in four large American firms having a

code of ethics on file (Singh et al., 2018). These codes strive to fabricate moral standards into the

essence of the organization, representing leaderships’ values as a defining part of the company

ethos (Valentine & Fleischman, 2004). They may include exception language that provides

guidance to unique circumstances (Geva, 2006). However, critics of formalized codes of ethics

state they can be ineffective because employees may not demonstrate the desired behaviors

because their beliefs do not align with company standards (Valentine & Fleischman, 2004). They

must also be utilized in conjunction with other ethical mechanisms within the organization to

achieve effectiveness (Singh et al., 2018).

Formalized codes are only the first line of defense in promoting ethical conduct.

Structures such as ethics offices (Weaver & Treviño, 2001) and committees (Singh et al., 2018)

can signify a stronger level of commitment to the governance of ethics and create visible

symbols for these efforts. These structures can support monitoring activities where employees

can report concerning activity without revealing their identities. They can also serve as an outlet

in providing advice and support to the workforce (Weaver & Treviño, 2001).

Ethical leadership modeling. Another tool in the organizational arsenal is the modeling

of ethical behaviors by corporate executives and managers. Codes of conduct, structures, and

training programs will likely be ineffective if members of management do not embrace corporate

espoused values and lead by example (Maniam & Teetz, 2005). Leadership roles typically afford

individuals with a visible position within the business to which others focus their attention

(Brown et al., 2005). This prominence gives executives a means to not only reflect the desired

behaviors but also display outward gratification when they observe others embracing the values

of the organization (Buckley et al., 2001).

Overall, ethical leadership modeling generates positive responses in workers and their

willingness to take ownership in the organization (Wells & Schminke, 2001) while boosting their

inclination to display leadership qualities in their current roles (Mo & Shi, 2015). Supportive

leadership characteristics can generate huge payoffs in building a solid work environment

through increases in job satisfaction and commitment from team members (Jaramillo & Mulki,

2008). Conversely, if leaders fail to consistently lead by example or do not commit to promoting

ethical values as a topic of everyday importance, employees view these actions as ineffective in

challenging team members to uphold the company’s values and standards of excellence (Maniam

& Teetz, 2005).

Legislative methods of governing ethics. Lawmakers and governing bodies have

attempted to force ethical compliance through various pieces of legislation, rules, and policies in

the United States. However, these directives can prove to be decades-long battles as laws come

and go through waves of regulation and deregulation in industries such as banking, finance, and

utilities (Ridnour et al., 2001). Technology often forces these regulatory changes as economic

sectors face constant, brisk changes (Hughes et al., 2019). Another challenge is the notion that

actions deemed as ethical are often assumed to be legal, but ethical and legal standards are not

always one and the same (Maniam & Teetz, 2005). Legal compliance does not guarantee moral

behaviors. Laws often suffer from poor wording and a narrow focus, proving ineffective in

addressing the heart of the problem and providing businesses loopholes to true governance

(Appelbaum et al., 2009).

Despite their shortcomings, rules and laws abound. Following the collapse of Enron

through the beginning of the Great Recession, a focus on governance and codifying policies was

at its highest point across the American and global economies (Adams, 2012). In the United

States, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) are two entities at the forefront of setting accounting benchmarks for

corporations. Their goal is to craft definitive standards to make clear expectations of transparent

financial reporting in firms. The downside of these well-defined directives is an approval

structure that seeks agreement among stakeholders and an overwhelming specificity that can

limit the use of the rules in broad applications (Healy & Palepu, 2003). Other entities that serve

as regulators with heavy influence in the financial sector include the Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(FDIC) (Adams, 2012).

Training as a Primary Control for Ethical Behaviors

Ethics training is one of the most popular organizational methods of diffusing

information about which behaviors are considered acceptable among employees and managers

(Wells & Schminke, 2001). It is considered a typical ingredient in many business ethics

platforms (Weber, 2007), and most organizations have instituted some sort of recognized training

routine (Weber, 2015). There is consensus that to properly integrate strong business ethics

principles and ideals into an organization, an inclusive training platform should be implemented

to empower members to take an ownership interest in educating themselves (Rampersad, 2006).

Information surrounding ethical norms must be diffused within every part of the organization

with all associates grasping and applying these ideals (Sekerka, 2009).

Research has indicated ethics training programs are viewed by workers in a positive light,

creating a sensitivity to ethical actions on-the-job and guiding employees to make morally

appropriate decisions (Appelbaum et al., 2009). They may be guided by formal platforms such as

ethics training committees in some corporations (Singh et al., 2018). However, it is unclear if the

training application or simply its presence impacts the perception of effectiveness (Appelbaum et

al., 2009).

Like formalized codes, training programs have their opponents. Wells and Schminke

(2001) state many individuals question the effectiveness of training as a direct result of continued

negative employee behaviors and the presence of high stress to perform in the workplace. The

structures of these programs often come under fire because they lack in-depth development and

do not demonstrate an understanding for applicable theory (Wells & Schminke, 2001). Ritter

(2006) argues most individuals are incapable of being taught ethics because people develop a

moral compass during adolescence. A connecting argument states the way many individuals

mature to adulthood conditions them to be unable to process moral dilemmas (Ritter, 2006).

Statement of the Problem

Ethical scandals continue to batter corporate America, and historically there appears to be

no diffusion of standards within organizations. Training is a primary mechanism for addressing

ethical issues with employees and leaders, but there is a lack of consensus in current research

regarding the effectiveness of organizational ethics training and its ability to diffuse ethical

standards to employees to influence their behaviors.

Purpose of the Study

This study addresses attributes of ethics training that prevent best practices and moral

behaviors from diffusing within an organization following a training application. Specifically, the

purpose of this study is to investigate how ethics training impacts the diffusion of ethical

standards throughout an organization using Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory by examining

the theory’s five innovation characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,

observability, and complexity. The scope of this research is further refined to focus on a financial

organization and its frontline sales force. This allows the research to recreate the setting of prior

players in corporate ethical scandals while focusing on sales practices that can inflate revenues

and mislead customers when mishandled. Because diversity has been noted in the research as a

potential influencing factor in ethical behavior, the impacts from gender are also examined. The

following general research questions are utilized as guidance:

1. What is the financial organization doing, through its educational efforts, to motivate

customer-facing employees and hold them accountable to be ethical in their sales

practices?

2. Which innovation characteristics (i.e., relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,

observability, and complexity) were influenced by the organization’s capstone sales and

ethics training course?

3. Does gender affect the perceived impacts of the innovation characteristics on the

diffusion of ethical standards to employees?

4. What compelling influences has the organization implemented to encourage compliance

with the ethics principles outlined in the capstone sales and ethics course?

Significance of the Study

With all of the attention ethics garnered following the scandals of the early 2000s,

effective ethics education came into focus (Ritter, 2006). However, the argument was launched

questioning if ethics, morals, and character can be taught (Hartman, 2006). Crossman et al.

(2013) said yes. In their analysis of ethical decision making, they emphasized training as a

conduit to trigger critical thinking and moral reasoning that would allow students to build

integrity (Crossman et al., 2013). Wells and Schminke (2001) advocated for the opposite side of

the argument, pointing to program deficiencies that prevent educators from addressing the depth

of ethical concerns and building applicable problem-solving skills in this arena.

This research is significant to the body of research on two fronts. First, this study does

not follow the path of many researchers in assuming concerns with ethical decisioning reside at

the individual level. Traditional approaches to examining the effectiveness of ethics training

applications and employees’ adoption of ethical standards focuses on a person and his or her

skills in critical thinking and problem-solving as addressed by Crossman et al. (2013) and Wells

and Schminke (2001). The current body of research is silent in considering how ethical standards

diffuse as a result of a training application. By using diffusion of innovations theory and its five

innovation characteristics, this research considers a previously untapped theory and how it can

potentially explain the perception of ethics training and the impacts on diffusion instead of how

the attributes of a person influence the dissemination of ethical standards. Second, ethical

standards are not being appropriately diffused within businesses as evidenced by ongoing ethical

scandals, and it is important for these standards to be diffused and adopted similar to the other

research specialties presented in Rogers’ work and in the current body of research. Therefore,

this inquiry supports the ongoing study of diffusion of innovations theory and provides a new

avenue for its application.

Basic Assumptions of the Study

Two basic assumptions exist for this study. First, all participants are assumed to be

business professionals possessing an awareness of the concept of ethics. Second, participants are

assumed to work for an organization that complies with legal requirements and espouses a

commitment to ethical behaviors.

Study Limitations

This study utilizes survey data subsequent to an ethics training application as the

significant source of information for evaluation. It surmises participants will provide clear and

honest feedback in their survey responses. However, it is possible respondents may overestimate

their own ethical behaviors to avoid any perception of inappropriate or questionable actions or

intentions. Because the research uses a post-treatment survey as the primary data gathering tool,

the choice was made to not examine and include the actions of participants when they return to

the job as part of the study. Instead, it is assumed the intentions of the participants in response to

the training application is an estimate of how they will likely behave going forward.

The capstone course and the environment where it is applied is another study limitation.

The course is a specialized training treatment, delivered in a virtual format, and tailored to one

financial entity. Because the application of the class is distinctive in content and setting, the

results cannot be generalized to other situations or organizations.

The study is also limited on two additional fronts—the lack of a control group and

impacts from COVID-19 on sample size. Because financial entities are bound by government

regulations, all sales employees are required to attend training to fulfill compliance dictates.

Therefore, comparisons could not be generated between the experimental group participating in

the coursework and a control group that would not receive the training treatment. COVID-19

also restricted the research due to hiring impacts across the financial services and retail

industries. Because the pandemic resulted in a severe economic slowdown and magnified risk

and uncertainty, the organization drastically reduced the number of new employees being hired.

This led to a small available sample size of new associates who would be available to take part in

the training.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study is diffusion of innovations theory. This

framework was selected because it allowed the researcher to focus on potential areas of concern

with the attributes of ethics instead of following traditional paths of study that examine issues

with the individuals making ethical decisions. The goal was to forge a new path that did not ask

what is wrong with a person or his or her environment that results in immoral choices. The locus

was centered on the concept of ethics, seeking to determine if there was a quality it possessed

that prevented or impeded its diffusion and adoption within a social group.

Diffusion of innovation theory came to light in 1962 through the work of Everett M.

Rogers, emphasizing the process by which an idea is dispersed and adopted (or disregarded)

among participants in a social system over time. Rogers first became interested in diffusion after

questioning why farmers in his hometown in Iowa were reluctant to adopt new ideas that would

have benefited their farming operations. He was later inspired as a doctoral student by the work

of Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross (1950) and their study of the adoption of hybrid corn plantings

among Iowa farmers. Rogers’ dissertation centered on an agricultural diffusion study in Collins,

Iowa, and his research on this project noted similarities with diffusion research in other

disciplines. This propelled him to engage in new diffusion studies following graduation and write

his book on the diffusion of innovations in 1962. His work continued for several decades, and his

book was amended four times with new content (Rogers, 2003).

In defining the diffusion of innovation theory, Rogers (2003) identified four components

of diffusion. These components are the innovation being examined, the communication channels

used to disperse the message about the innovation, the period of time in which the diffusion

occurs, and the social system’s members who adopt or reject the innovation. It should be noted

the term innovation may conjure an image of a wholly original concept that has never before

been implemented or tested. In reality, the theory considers an innovation as a novel idea when

framed through the perspective of a potential adopter who views it as new. The period of time the

innovation has been in existence bears no relevance (Rogers, 2003).

When defining the system participants, Rogers (2003) labels members by the order in

which they embrace the innovation: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and

laggards. Dearing (2009) adapts this list in more simplified terms with only four generalized

groups: innovators, early adopters, majority, and late adopters. He also points out the variations

in the drivers to innovate among these groups. Some individuals may be drawn to the notion of

being the first to try a new idea, while others may feel the only prudent action is to allow the

innovation to be tested and proven to be the appropriate course. Still others adopt simply because

they view the innovation as the new norm, caught in the mainstream flow of what everyone else

is doing. By considering the personal attributes of the social group’s members and playing to

each group’s preferences, organizations can aid in diffusing an innovation and speeding up its

rate of adoption (Dearing, 2009).

Individual characteristics of members is only one side of the equation when addressing

the time component of the theory (Schleper & Busse, 2013). Rogers (2003) looked at the whole

picture and addressed time from the social system perspective instead of how quickly an

individual adopted an innovation. In general, the traditional view of diffusion can be represented

by an S-curve with a small number of participants embracing a new idea at the beginning and

end of the adoption cycle while the majority of acceptance occurs within a median range of time

(Dearing, 2009).

Characteristics of the innovation can also impact how quickly participants embrace the

new idea and should be considered when designing applications to speed adoption rates (Rogers,

2003). Schleper and Busse (2013) outline the five features of an innovation. Relative advantage

determines if the innovation is perceived to be better than the current process, policy, technology,

etc. Compatibility explains how the innovation fits with current standards and ideals. Trialability

acknowledges the ease by which a participant can investigate the application of the innovation.

Observability assesses the innovation’s ability to convey a seeing is believing type of outcome.

Complexity defines how easy an innovation may be to comprehend or implement (Schleper &

Busse, 2013; Rogers, 2003).

In addition to the four components of diffusion, Rogers (2003) prescribed a five-step

innovation-decision process—knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and

confirmation. Knowledge refers to the initial revelation and comprehension of an innovation.

Persuasion follows when a person’s opinion is formed about the innovation, while decision

moves the individual to act on that opinion through adoption or rejection. Implementation

encompasses the change in behavior when the innovation is utilized in practice either through an

exact adoption or some level of re-invention. Confirmation seeks external validation about the

choice to adopt or reject with a potential for overturning the original decision if the feedback

does not produce alignment and harmony.

Rogers identified nine unique research specialties in which diffusion work has

proliferated: anthropology, early sociology, rural sociology, education, public health and medical

sociology, communications, marketing and management, geography, and general sociology.

Throughout his book, he presented numerous examples of diffusion work in a variety of

disciplines (Rogers, 2003). The results of these interactions may prove germane in applying

diffusion of innovations theory to explain the successes and failures of workforce education in

the distribution and adoption of organizational ethics practices. For example, could education

efforts centered on changing the smoking habits of Americans provide insight? Smoking is now

widely viewed as a harmful practice, yet many Americans still knowingly and willingly engage

in this activity. And what about the adoption of cell phone technology? This innovation’s

attributes received exceptionally high marks, resulting in expedited mainstream education

through social networks and nearly universal usage in many circles (Rogers, 2003).

Definition of Terms

Communication channel – the conduit by which information is shared

Compatibility – compares how the innovation fits with pre-existing norms within the

organization

Complexity – analyzes the extent to which the innovation and its components are east or difficult

to comprehend

Confirmation – a point in time when a system participant makes a decision to continue forward

with an innovation or ultimately reject the innovation; the fifth step in the process of adoption

Decision – the period of time when a system participant adopts (or rejects) an innovation; the

third step of the adoption process

Diffusion – the means by which a new idea is conveyed to members of a social system over a

specified time period

Ease of use – a complementary term with complexity; denotes the level of simplicity in learning

to utilize an innovation

Ethics – a broad term conveying the morality of a decision; often viewed as a simple argument of

right and wrong

Image – the overall impression or representation an innovation portrays to system participants

Implementation – the point in time when an adopter begins utilizing an innovation; the fourth

step in the adoption process

Innovation – an idea viewed as new by an individual or potential group of adopters

Knowledge – the point of initial contact with an innovation; the first step of the adoption process

Observability – examines the ability of an innovation and its impacts to be observed by

participants

Persuasion – a period in which a system participant seeks information and greater understanding

of an innovation; the second step in the adoption process

Relative Advantage – asks participants if the innovation is perceived to be better than the current

process, policy, technology, etc. the innovation is replacing

Results demonstrability – the level of ease with which system participants can explain the

outcome(s) of an innovation

Time – the period covering the first message of the innovation through to its adoption or rejection

by a group of participants

Trialability – assesses the access given to participants to test an innovation

Visibility – how easily system participants can observe the presence of an innovation in both

form and usage

Voluntariness – the level of free will or choice a system participant can exert in adopting or

rejecting an innovation

Chapter II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This study seeks to better understand the dissemination and adoption of ethical standards

within an organization through its ethics education and training curriculum. The framework

undergirding this work is Rogers’ diffusion of innovations. It has maintained time in the spotlight

with ongoing research enhancing its application and understanding (Schleper & Busse, 2013). It

has been part of the narrative in a long list of study areas including sociology, economics,

marketing, political science, and health science (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). Work has spanned

multiple continents, resulting in a vigorous theory in the social sciences (Dearing,

2009).

Pinpointing the successes and failures of diffusion in specific scenarios has triggered new

studies and hypotheses to explain these results. In this way, diffusion of innovations has proven

fundamental in furthering new lines of thinking and triggering theory development (Dearing &

Cox, 2018). It has also found a home in mainstream perspectives such as information technology

to explain the adoption rate of tech and digital innovations (Chang, 2010) while sustaining non-

traditional applications in fields such as entomology and anthropology (Shelomi, 2015).

Given the extended period of time since Rogers first introduced his theory (Rogers, 2003)

and the ongoing attention to the study of unethical corporate behavior in the literature (Weber,

2015), one might assume a quick internet or library search would reveal significant work or

proposed studies connecting the two. However, when evaluating keywords such as “diffusion of

innovations”, “corporate ethics”, “education”, and “training” as a collective, the available

research is minimal. Pages of results are produced by the search engine, but few are relevant in

connecting and understanding the complexities of corporate ethics through the lens of diffusion

of innovations theory. In contrast, when examining each of these topics separately, the scope of

information is considerably robust with hundreds of articles and books available for review. This

points to a potential gap in the current body of literature regarding human resource and

workforce development and ethics education evaluated through the perspective of diffusion of

innovations theory.

To complete this literature review, searches were completed via Proquest, JSTOR, and

Google Scholar. Journal articles from business publications were the overwhelming primary

source of information in addition to Rogers’ fifth edition of Diffusion of Innovations. Articles

were screened and included if the research was conducted in a corporate setting or some type of

business environment. Keywords utilized to refine the article search included the terms “ethics”

or “business ethics” in tandem with the following topics: diffusion of innovations, training,

education, leadership, diversity, and ethics theory.

The four research questions were modified to allow them to be entered as search terms in

the three databases. Table 1 lists the theories and concepts those searches produced, representing

the insights present in the current body of research related to this study’s research questions.

Following the review of the topics in Table 1, a brief overview of diffusion studies across several

industries is included.

Table 1

Research Questions and Associated Topics

______________________________________________________________________________

Research Related Topics

Question

1 Cognitive Moral Development; Diversity; Ethics Training Platform Design;

Training Transfer; Self-efficacy; Virtue Ethics; the Virtuous Corporation

2 Motivational Theory; Appraisal Theory; Work-Place Passion; Cognitive

Dissonance Theory; Self-determination Theory; Motivational Systems Theory of

Group Involvement; Ethical Leadership; Social Learning Theory;

Transformational Leadership; Authentic Leadership; Spiritual Leadership

3 Same as Research Question 2

4 Procedural Justice; Organizational Citizenship Behavior; Deviant Work Behavior;

Accountability Theory; Corporate Incentives; Reinforcement Theory; Expectancy

Theory

Cognitive Moral Development and Ethics

An assumption fundamental to ethical decision-making is the ability of an individual to

distinguish a moral concern is present in a given situation (Geva, 2006). Beyond this initial

recognition, a person can be further challenged when the dilemma offers multiple avenues for

resolution, impacts a large number of stakeholders, and/or results in a trade-off situation versus a

definitive resolution classified as right or appropriate (Chia & Mee, 2000). Understanding how

individual’s make ethical decisions is of great value at the organizational level because the

actions of the employee invariably reflect and become the actions of the business (Maniam &

Teetz, 2005).

Cognitive moral development (CMD) has been a prevalent concept in tackling ethical

decision-making (Wells & Schminke, 2001) and a suggested basis for ethics training platforms

(Waples et al., 2009). The paradigm was introduced by Kohlberg and contains six stages within

three levels of reasoning—preconventional, conventional, and postconventional (Chung & Hsu,

2017). Stages one and two reflect a seemingly selfish approach within the individual, focusing on

his or her own wants as well as actions to circumvent any type of penalty for his or her actions

(Ellis, 2013). Stages three and four see the individual look outwardly by considering the broader

standard of conduct expressed by family, friends, colleagues, and community (Chung & Hsu,

2017). Stages five and six take on a macro approach that is universal in nature and scope,

employing ethical principles with a broad stroke at humanity (Jordan et al., 2013).

Cognitive moral development has been evaluated via Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment

Interview, presenting a set of scenarios to the individual and judging the thought process behind

the chosen moral response (Ellis, 2013). CMD progressed beyond Kohlberg’s six stages through

the work of James Rest and his Defining Issues Test (Chung & Hsu, 2017). Rest emphasizes his

four-component model that spotlights moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and

moral character (Ellis, 2013).

As its name indicates, cognitive moral development focuses on cognition and not the

behaviors of the individual (Jordan et al., 2011). Despite the potential disconnect between

reasoning and behavior, moral decisions typically underscore a person’s reasoning in what is

right and wrong (Geva, 2006). From a training perspective, this concept proves relevant because

highlighting cognition and moral reasoning in ethics training materials has been shown to

increase the overall effectiveness of the curricula (Waples et al., 2009).

Diversity

When ethics is described in an organizational context, it moves beyond the actions and

decisions of the individual to that of a moral system based out of community (Buckley et al.,

2001). However, values and normalized standards of behavior can vary across communities and

social groups (Chia & Mee, 2000). Successful ethics training platforms can assist employees in

understanding industry norms and organizational policies as well as their own personal moral

inclinations (Sekerka, 2009).

Diversity and ethics are often linked within the body of research (Buckley et al., 2001)

with discussions centered around equality and fair treatment in employee relations (Cocchiara et

al., 2010). Boyer and Webb (1992) posited changes in the workplace were being driven by

women, minorities, and different cultures as their integration on the job challenged the status quo

of values, predispositions, actions, and viewpoints. Over time, the literature has continued the

recognition of an ever-changing workplace, noting the increases in diversity in the American

workforce with each passing year (Hite & McDonald, 2006; Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Roh &

Kim, 2016).

Diversity training and ethics. To address the diversity transformation of the American

and global workforces, organizations have relied on diversity training programs to educate

employees and stakeholders on the multi-faceted views that may be present in the workplace

(Hughes & Byrd, 2015; Jones et al., 2013). A variety of perspectives exist in how to integrate a

myriad of views into organizations and society as a whole. Assimilationists and universal

citizenship advocates tend toward a singular view of beliefs and values in which members forfeit

their traditions and consent to the philosophies of a homogenous community. Multicultural

citizenship supporters encourage individuals to retain their language and cultural histories,

embracing and leveraging these differences to add to the richness of the larger collective (Banks,

2008).

The importance of inclusion and diversity training and its effectiveness has recently been

amplified with opposing views playing out in the political landscape following the 2016 United

States election cycle (Cheng et al., 2018). Modern research has indicated diversity training is one

component to a larger platform to ensure diversity and inclusion initiatives are successful.

However, to ensure effectiveness following educational applications, employees and managers

should be given opportunities to constructively interact, learn from each other, and contemplate

divergent views to welcome and support a heterogenous workplace over time (Fujimoto &

Hartel, 2017).

Gender, education level, and age-related factors. Gender and its impacts on ethical

sensitivity have been studies by several authors, but the analysis has not resulted in definitive

links. Some examinations have found women to behave more ethically than men, while other

findings reflect no difference in ethical sensitivity based on gender (Hadjicharalambous & Shi,

2015). Medeiros et al. (2017) noted men experienced a minor increase in positive benefits from

ethics training treatments compared to mixed gender audiences.

Education level may play a role in influencing the willingness to take part in ethical

training programs (Wells & Schminke, 2001), but working professionals seem to garner more

benefits from ethics training than undergraduate or MBA students (Medeiros et al., 2017). Age

may become a factor based on an older worker’s willingness to learn something new or be open

to change compared to younger workers (Wells & Schminke, 2001). Age and ethical decisioning

may also be impacted through human development theory as individuals utilize increasingly

multifaceted views of their interactions and events through time, adding complexity in how they

evaluate codes of integrity (Marsick, 1997).

Gender and age have also been highlighted in other studies related to ethics training.

Waples et al. (2009) noted these two characteristics may not impact an individual’s ability to

make ethical decisions, but they could become factors when educational applications hinge on

moral reasoning. Age was found to be a potential criterion in ethics training efficacy by Weber

(2014) when technology became a consideration. In his example, if employees under the age of

40 preferred online learning platforms instead of instruction-based approaches, this could create

a divergence in training effectiveness between millennials and older workers when online

education is favored (Weber, 2014).

Ethics Training Platform Design

The reality of ethical decisions reflects a complex landscape of different ideologies and

schools of thought (Treviño & Brown, 2004). The power of diversity of thought can reach into

the ethics training platform itself (Sekerka, 2009). To create peak effectiveness, the

recommendation to include training that is comprehensive (Rampersad, 2006) often runs into

significant challenges because of the disparity in how businesses view and design their ethics

education curricula (Medeiros et al., 2017). Some models focus on compliance with legal

requirements, while others seek ethics training as a means to equip organizational members to

counter questionable behavior on-the-job (Weber, 2015).

There is also a disparity of thought among instructors and researchers. According to Ritter

(2006), a surveyed group of educators put forth the idea that ethics should be integrated

throughout various curricula. However, theorists disputed this idea of incorporating ethics at a

macro level and claimed a single class devoted to ethics and decision-making was the most

effective route (Ritter, 2006). Regardless of the disagreement, there are multiple avenues for

businesses and educators to incorporate ethics education into their culture and objectives, and

these continue to play out throughout the corporate landscape (Sekerka, 2009).

The evaluation of the effectiveness of ethics education practices has been tackled by

several authors in the previous three decades. During the 1990s, ethics inquiries pursued a

variety of issues, but most did not address concerns related to human resources unequivocally

(Wells & Schminke, 2001). Scholars’ concentrations were very basic, investigating the presence

of ethics training programs in organizations and how those programs were delivered, irrespective

of their effectiveness (Delaney & Sockell, 1992). During the last two decades, meta-analytic

reviews of ethics training effectiveness have dotted the literature, attempting to take a deeper

view into ethics training regiments (Waples et al., 2007; Medeiros et al., 2017).

Ineffective training treatments. At the height of the Great Recession, Waples et al.

(2007) aggregated data from 25 ethics training programs. Pedagogy-based criteria were a

primary focus of the evaluation, using characteristics of the program and its approaches in

delivering materials to determine training success. The findings reflected negatively on training

effectiveness in influencing the ethical conduct and perception of individuals. It found three

primary problems with training mechanisms—no stated objective for education, disagreement in

whether businesses or traditional educational institutions should be tasked with teaching ethics,

and a lack of direction or recommendation in what should be contained in course work (Waples

et al., 2007).

In spite of the shortcomings found in training applications, Waples et al. (2007) noted

opportunities for improvement. They advocated for an approach outlining codes and rules as

reference points for learners while including the development of training applications that

broadened the reasoning capabilities of individuals who are already part of the workforce. They

favored a case-based teaching platform utilizing a pre-post mechanism to effectively evaluate

progress in the specific areas of interest being taught (Waples et al., 2007).

Effective training treatments. During the following decade, Medeiros et al. (2017)

submitted findings that were in conflict with the work of Waples et al. (2007) While their study

agreed that ethical awareness in individuals can be unaffected by ethical interventions, it asserted

behaviors can be improved to levels considered more principled through education. They found

value in utilizing broad and field-sensitive approaches while cautioning practitioners to not allow

the scope of the materials to grow out of control. There was agreement with the 2007

metaanalytic review for developing activities to expand participants’ cognitive abilities in

addressing ethical dilemmas and encourage employees to vigorously engage in class discussions.

The review mirrored similar criteria in focusing the study on the attributes and components of the

training treatment. These components included the means by which the training was delivered,

the program setting, time length of the training treatment, and superiority of design (Medeiros et

al., 2017).

Case-based ethics training applications. The use of cases in ethics training examines an

individual’s ability to reason through specific scenarios that are often based in the real-world

(Kurland, 1995). Weber (2015) tackled ethics education effectiveness by examining programs

among representative organizations within the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association. His

approach was undertaken because a gap in the literature existed surrounding ethics surveys of

American firms that provide in-depth assessments of corporate ethics education curricula. He

found most survey data was limited in its breadth and depth, affording more of a surface view of

ethics programs. Weber’s evaluation noted a uniform finding from respondents in including

educational courses as part of the organization’s ethics philosophy, seeking to endow managers

with tools and skills to effectively evaluate ethical scenarios and including case studies as a

means of strengthening training efficacy. However, he also noted ethics education platforms

often underperformed due to concerns with the frequency and duration of coursework, a need to

expand participants beyond management level associates, and ineffective means of evaluating the

training treatments’ impacts on employee behaviors (Weber, 2015).

Harkrider et al. (2013) also focused on a case-based approach to ethics education. They

promoted a positive response among training participants who reviewed case studies in ethics

courses, citing a feel for real-world application and ability to link and contrast the content of

different cases. In their study, 115 graduate students were solicited to participate in a two-day

university-sanctioned ethics class designed to evaluate participant fulfillment in gaining a

stronger comprehension of the subject matter through case-based work. The examples were

viewed favorably because they provided a point of reference for participants to utilize when

evaluating real-world ethical dilemmas, lending theoretical support for case-based instruction

(Harkrider et al., 2013).

Training Transfer

Transfer of learning has been of special interest to human resource practitioners (Islam,

2019), and the harnessing of innovation and competitive advantage through the management of

new ideas is a reality of the new millennia (Edvinsson, 2002). Decades ago, scholars noted the

Industrial Revolution was in the rearview mirror, and the age of information was settling in its

place (Bohn, 1994). Today, the global marketplace is a highly competitive and rapidly changing

arena, and transitioning intangibles such as knowledge and learning into usable assets can

provide a sizable edge over rivals (Islam, 2019).

Because contemporary organizations are operating and competing in a fluid marketplace,

expenditures towards associate development have grown in importance (Kim, 2014). In

addition, more attention has been given to organizational learning and how businesses can

leverage the knowledge and skills of associates at a macro view (Sun, 2003). Implementing a

collaborative learning environment on the frontlines can translate to significant learning impacts

at a corporate level (Islam, 2019). Organizational learning is itself a competitive advantage and

can lead to better judgment and an ability to respond quickly to new challenges and issues

(Basten & Haamann, 2018).

There are limits in how training can impact the behaviors of workers (Burke & Hutchins,

2007) as well as the cost impacts of training applications to the financial performance of

businesses (Garavaglia, 1993). The focused educational efforts of organizations on their

employees can render a myriad of results—an enhanced execution of job functions, a regression

in performance and output, or a status quo in which nominal change occurs (Wells & Schminke,

2001). Studies have shown as little as 15% of training is applied on the job with some

applications showing no return on investment (Islam, 2019). Diversity training has been

particularly impacted by a lack of training transfer because workers can view it as lacking results

because they do not see its implementation on the job following the application (Combs &

Luthans, 2007).

Many research reviews and models have been presented to rationalize the results of

training transfer (Blume et al., 2010). Popular points of research have included employee traits,

qualities of the workplace, and the curricula (Blume et al., 2019). In addition to these

characteristics, the impacts of follow-up methods and support on training transfer have been

evaluated (Martin, 2010).

Hg and Ahmad (2018) examined trainee characteristics and their impacts on motivation to

improve work through learning (MTIWL). Their work pointed to significant effects from

employees’ personalities on MTIWL, and that MTIWL could be useful in predicting training

transfer. Their recommendation was to evaluate how to best engage with all levels of employees

in educational platforms to maximize the effectiveness of the treatment and motivate them to

push their new knowledge to the workplace (Ng & Ahmad, 2018).

Islam (2019) examined training transfer in organizations through the lens of workplace

climate and self-efficacy of employees. His study found constructive effects on the transfer of

training when employees perceive their work environment fosters education and the exchange of

ideas. This can give rise to the cultivation of new ideas, proactive learning, and healthy

communication among organizational members. Prior research of the work environment noted

the need to provide appropriate follow up and remove barriers by encouraging trainees to interact

together and providing resources to bolster the curricula (Martin 2010). Self-efficacy injected

positivity into this environment when members demonstrated a strong belief in their ability to

contribute to the discussion (Islam, 2019).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is attributed to the work of Bandura and describes how an individual views

his or her ability to perform a job or assignment (Walumbwa et al., 2011). It is directly associated

with theories of social learning and self-regulated learning (Welch, 2013) as well as social

cognitive theory (Turgut & Sökmen, 2018). Self-efficacy hones the belief in controlling one’s

own destiny and achieving the favored results (Welch, 2013). A person possessing a high level of

self-efficacy may prove to be more ethical (Wells & Schminke, 2001). There is a greater

likelihood of higher levels of problem-solving skills and drive to continue forward in the face of

adversity (MacNab & Worthley, 2008). This ability to engage under challenging circumstances

translates to a decreased need in motivational influences to behave ethically (Turgut & Sökmen,

2018). An employee’s demonstration of his or her own self-efficacy can be enhanced in an

environment of strong ethical leadership and positive individual identification with the

organization (Walumbwa et al., 2010).

A person with high self-efficacy will likely have a stronger capacity and belief that he or

she can apply training on-the-job (Wells & Schminke, 2001). Several studies have found a

positive correlation between high self-efficacy and training transfer and mastery (Burke &

Hutchins, 2007). May et al. (2014) found a strong connection between business ethics training

and moral efficacy. Wells and Schminke (2001) noted the strong correlation between selfefficacy

and positive training impacts. In evaluations of plagiarism, internal whistleblowing, and

academic dishonesty, high self-efficacy was found to have a mediating effect on behaviors,

reducing the incidents of unethical actions of the test subjects or failure to report others for

immoral actions (Welch, 2013). Focusing on building self-efficacy traits in participants was also

found to improve the results of diversity training through the intent to apply diversity and

inclusion directives (Combs & Luthans, 2007).

Virtue Ethics & the Virtuous Corporation

Ethics education is not relegated to principles of morality taught in a classroom. The

study of ethics and morality has proven to be an important component in the field of philosophy

across many centuries and societies (Kulshrestha, 2005). Character traits such as integrity and a

willingness to speak up against immoral actions are assumed to have a positive impact on ethical

decision-making (Wells & Schminke, 2001). Employees are expected to behave in an ethical way

because of the impacts to those around them and any potential stakeholders of the organization

(Maniam & Teetz, 2005). This focus on the effects to others and the larger benefit to a group

elucidates the realm of virtue ethics in education (Sekerka, 2009).

Philosophers such as Aristotle characterized humanity as many individuals gravitating

toward a communal existence, behaving socially, and thinking rationally. He connected ethics to

virtues (Hartman, 2006), normative ideals that replicate what is considered normal among peers

(Kleinsmith et al., 2016). Aristotle’s approach viewed a desire for virtue along a similar vein as a

common-sense desire to possess good health (Hartman, 2006). Wisdom, character, and justice

are considered worthy philosophical pursuits of virtue to shape a positive society (Crossan et al.,

2013).

The virtues of the individual can further be impacted at a communal level through the

moral intensity of an issue. This concept speaks to ethical decisioning as the general agreement

within the community of a choice’s consequences, and the impending scope of the results will

likely trigger a strong ethical response from the decision maker (Selart & Johansen, 2010). This

concept of altruism—the consideration of how an individual’s choices influence others—is

represented in an ethics decisioning template attributed to Sanford Krolich. His matrix identifies

four classifications of decisions based on their outcomes: individualism, altruism, idealism, and

pragmatism (Maniam & Teetz, 2005).

Virtue is not a concept that only has application at the level of the individual. Corporate

character alludes to an institutional level of morals through the idea of virtuous corporations

(Moore, 2005). Ethical ideals are an intricate part of the organization and its goals and policies

and cannot be separated from the institution’s identity (Buckley et al., 2001). Individuals are

social by nature, and organizations can be powerful forces in the socialization of character

standards (Hartman, 2006). This is evident in organizations that do not follow a corporate virtue

standard, instead choosing to institutionalize, validate, and promote dishonesty and fraud as

condoned conduct (Ashforth & Anand, 2003). Associates of virtuous organizations are said to

strive toward a higher level of performance, while businesses demonstrating strong virtues have

been shown to outpace the performance of organizations lagging in this measure (Weber, 2015)

and generate collaboration between the business and its strategic partners (Schaltegger & Burritt,

2018).

Motivational Theory

Motivation and workforce development have been tagged as crucial tasks for

contemporary businesses to remain effective (Lee & Bruvold, 2003). Organizations quantify

their intent to motivate employees in mission statements, corporate vision, and company codes

and policies (Bastons et al., 2017). Motivation and innovation tend to be intertwined in

competitive firms where associates are inspired, compensated, and directed to be creative (Gupta

& Singhal, 1993) with an understanding failure is part of the innovation process (Mazouz &

Zhao, 2019). Associates working in human resources have a hand in how the workforce is

motivated through the evaluation of performance metrics and the application of an arsenal of

compensation tools. Both serve to encourage individuals to align their behaviors with the goals

of the organization (Huselid, 1995), and consistent appraisals of performance can enhance the

transfer of training (Martin, 2010).

Social psychology and organizational theory have been drivers in the research and

development of motivational models dating back 50 years (Bastons et al., 2017). Motivation can

be viewed from the firm perspective (Nielsen & Parker, 2012) and the individual contributor

level (Bastons et al., 2017). A business can be driven by economic ques (ensuring profitability

and increasing the firm’s value), social ques (building stronger relationships and ties with

strategic partners, customers, and stakeholders), and normative ques (accepting legislative

governance) (Nielsen & Parker, 2012). Employees tend to be motivated by external influences

including pay and benefits as well as internal reasons such as their individual growth and

development. They can also be impacted from a social aspect in crafting value for shareholders

and others touched by the organization’s performance (Bastons et al., 2017).

From a research perspective, arguments abound as to whether ethics can be taught

(Wines, 2008). There is also discussion around why individuals take actions that oppose their

belief systems (Lavergne & Pelletier, 2016). In some cases, it has been shown that moral

individuals are driven to implement immoral behaviors if their workplace inadvertently

motivates them through risks to their well-being and income. Conversely, environments where

the open-door policy and free flow of ideas are encouraged seem to motivate employees to

perform well (Wines, 2008).

Appraisal theory and work passion. Zigarmi et al. (2018) developed the Employee

Work Passion Appraisal model (EWPA) using appraisal theory and an examination of an

individual’s passion for work. From an appraisal theory standpoint, an employee assesses his or

her environment and determines what impacts it may have on overall well-being. In their effort

to validate EWPA, Zigarmi et al. found workers’ passion for their jobs and desire to perform are

positively associated with their locus of control and ability to motivate themselves. Their work

characterized motivation as an internal mechanism within the individual (Zigarmi et al., 2018).

Cognitive dissonance theory and self-determination theory. Cognitive dissonance theory

(CDT) has proven useful in evaluating what motivates individuals to balance differences in their

attitudes and behaviors. CDT’s focus is explaining why a person may exhibit behaviors that do

not fit his or her belief system. It attempts to evaluate and predict if the individual will be

motivated to augment the belief system to match the behavior or vice versa to reduce dissonance

(Lavergne & Pelletier, 2016).

Self-determination theory (SDT) has been used as a complement to CDT in defining how

individuals are motivated to augment their behaviors. SDT states humans operate in either

autonomous, controlled, or impersonal motivational domains. The autonomous sphere drives

individuals to act in accordance with their value system, while the controlled arena looks

outwardly to align more closely with the value system of others in an effort to maximize rewards

and good standing. The impersonal sphere does not impact actions because individuals assume

there is no opportunity or ability for control of their conduct (Lavergne & Pelletier, 2016).

Motivational systems theory of group involvement. Not all motivational influences are

restricted at an individual level. The diversity of today’s workforce introduces a myriad of ideas

and perspectives in an increasingly complex and forceful global marketplace. The modern rapid

pace of change can necessitate workgroups possessing a diverse set of talents and views to tackle

these business complexities. These teams are often best equipped to compel the organization

forward but must navigate differences among members (Hinsz et al., 2019).

Hinsz et al. (2019) offered a theoretical basis for how diverse groups respond to

incentives and penalties by building on the earlier motivational systems theory work of Park and

Hinsz (2006). They examined the impacts of individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance,

masculinity-femininity, long versus short-term orientation, and analytic-holistic reasoning and

how these elements affect a multicultural group’s decision-making. In general, penalties elicit an

avoidance response in individuals and groups who actively seek a clearer understanding of risk

in a given situation, but the impacts have limits. Work groups appear more insulated from the

adverse effects of penalties in decision-making because members do not feel isolated and forced

to bear consequences alone. Incentives craft an opposing response, stimulating encouragement in

individuals and groups to consider new avenues for rewards (Hinsz et al., 2019).

Ethical Leadership

The majority of employees look beyond themselves when crafting their views of ethics

(Brown & Treviño, 2006). The ethical climate of an organization can stem from its executive

team as well as the employees who carry out the day-to-day business functions. A firm’s ethical

standards are often perceived as no different than those of the people it employs (Chun et al.,

2013). However, seeking external validation goes beyond the formation of points of view.

Research has shown something as simple as the presence of teammates in a workspace can

positively impact the displayed ethical behaviors of individuals (Pascual-Ezama et al., 2015).

Because of the strong ties between interpersonal relationships and employee motivation, a

strong niche of interest in the past decade has focused on ethical leadership and its impacts on the

mindsets and actions of the workforce (Yidong & Xinxin, 2013). The decisions of an

organization’s leadership team impact the connections with their direct and indirect reports

(Verbos & Miller, 2015), and it has been proven individuals often look to leadership as a source

for ethical guidance (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Ultimately, the ethical standards employees see

portrayed at a corporate level become the ethical standards they apply in their job roles (Chun et

al., 2013).

To better understand the impacts of ethical leadership, many arenas have been pursued for

study. Social learning is one avenue that has gained traction through the review of multiple

leadership models (Brown & Treviño, 2006). A second is organizational culture, serving as a

cornerstone in research to explain how ethical leadership impacts the ethics foundation of an

organization (Ardichvili et al., 2009). A third avenue consider promotional opportunities to

determine how strongly ethical leadership characteristics appear to be valued in the

organizational context (Longenecker & Fink, 2008). Procedural justice (Brebels et al., 2011) and

organizational justice (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2010) are additional areas of study that have

been evaluated as mitigating factors in ethical leadership.

Ethical leadership and social learning. Following the financial scandals at the turn of

the 21st century, Brown et al. (2005) set out to evaluate ethical leadership through the lens of

social learning. With this outlook, the focus was on how ethical leaders impacted the behaviors

of subordinates in leading by example, and how this simulation of morals could be crafted into a

formal construct to describe ethical leadership. Individuals high in ethical leadership were

described by employees as trust-worthy, appealing, charismatic, and fair. These characteristics

triggered higher levels of job satisfaction and willingness to openly communicate ethical

concerns to management (Brown et al., 2005).

Brown and Treviño (2006) continued the examination of ethical leadership and social

learning theory by acknowledging a leader’s behaviors are a blatant means of messaging ethics in

a highly visible way. They point to a transformational leadership approach that builds its strength

from motivating others in looking externally at the greater good instead of internal, personal

desires that satisfy one’s self. This concept of transformational leadership focuses on attributes of

managers and executives such as passion, inspiration, and charismatic influence (Brown &

Treviño, 2006). This ties in with the notion leaders are the epicenter where an organization’s

strategic goals and vision radiate to all invested parties (Leigh, 2013). Transformational leaders

focus their resources on transforming employees via coaching and development while embracing

the transference of power to these individuals to make decisions on their own (Rodriguez, 2012).

Brown and Treviño (2006) touched on two other models of leadership—authentic

leadership and spiritual leadership—as a means for role models to shed an image of self-interest

and demonstrate self-awareness and candidness in their motivation to care for others and their

knowledge of the beliefs and values of their audience. They further project that social learning

theory applies to ethical leaders and their learning styles and not simply leaders and their

workforce. Ethical leaders likely recognize moral ideals in someone else and fashion their

behaviors and opinions after their observations of this archetype. In this respect, ethical leaders

possess the ability to learn and teach (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Ethical leadership and organizational culture. Ethical leadership is a connecting point

to organizational culture because it is cited by many employees as a primary driver in the

establishment of a company’s values and philosophy (Ardichvili et al., 2009). Leaders work

under the dual function of moral persons and moral managers. Their personal lives reflect their

individual integrity, but as moral managers they are crafting the corporate culture with each step

and leaving a legacy of protocols and ideals (Mo & Shi, 2017). Building a solid corporate culture

presents many challenges to leadership and its workforce, requiring unrelenting focus and

resources. The resolution of moral issues is interwoven into the cultural fabric of the organization

and cannot be viewed apart from its fundamental values (Leigh, 2013).

Ardichvili et al. (2009) established leadership at the top of the hierarchy in developing a

moral culture and sought to better understand the qualities of ethical cultures. Using grounded

theory, they interviewed various executives and scholars to determine a list of ethical

organizations and the details surrounding why those companies were viewed as moral.

Respondents gave significant value to the creation of a positive culture through the actions of

managers and executives. There was a linkage between executives demonstrating veracity and a

strong moral compass, triggering the same types of actions in employees and how they treat each

other and the clients of the business. Actions of executives appeared to be viewed as synonymous

with corporate culture (Ardichvili et al., 2009).

Ethical leadership and career promotions. The current body of research is limited in its ability

to quantify the precursors or predictors of ethical leadership in an individual (Jordan et al.,

2013). In the workplace where conditions can transform at a moment’s notice, hiring for critical

management positions can be a daunting task (Longenecker & Fink, 2008). Managers must

espouse morality in their day-to-day dealings and uphold the ideals of corporate social

responsibility to judiciously raise the tide of performance and attitudes in its workforce (Yidong

& Xinxin, 2013).

In a study by Longenecker and Fink (2008), the attitudes of individuals in management

positions were evaluated to determine the general understanding of measures by which they

could be promoted to higher level positions. More than 300 supervisors representing at least 100

entities were surveyed to identify how key management roles might be awarded in the hiring

process. Three of four respondents cited proven results as a deciding factor, and two out of three

believed it was centered on their existing relationships and connections. Ethics and character fell

toward the bottom of participants’ responses with 39% considering it a determining factor—

almost the same number of respondents as being in the right place at the right time (Longenecker

& Fink, 2008).

Ethical leadership and procedural justice. Procedural justice relates to how leaders

incorporate fairness in their decisions, and it is a proven driver in impacting employee outcomes

(Brebels et al., 2011). It differs from a related concept--distributive justice—which focuses on

outcomes instead of how managers arrive at decisions (He et al., 2014). Together, procedural

justice and distributive justice serve as the primary components of the broader concept of

organizational justice (Weaver & Treviño, 2001). Another term—interactional justice—is

sometimes mentioned in the literature as a third component of organizational justice. It focuses

on the direct interactions between individuals and their supervisors, differentiating itself from the

macro viewpoint of procedural justice and its overall decisioning strategies of the company as a

whole (Kurdoglu, 2018).

Procedural justice has been examined in tandem with ethical leadership in many articles

and research studies (Andrews et al., 2015; Loi et al., 2012; Schuh et al., 2019; Shin et al., 2015).

A compelling case can be made that ethical leadership cannot exist without procedural justice.

Ethical leadership focuses on executives and managers demonstrating fair and appropriate

conduct in their individual actions (Shin et al., 2015), while procedural justice acknowledges the

processes and protocols by which these fair decisions are made (Brebels et al., 2011). Ethical

leadership is the conduit by which organizations demonstrate their culture and values (Ardichvili

et al., 2009). When procedural justice is in force, there is a maximization of the values held in

common between the individual and the business, and employees are believed to self-manage

and adhere to company protocols (Leasure, 2016).

Similar to ethical leadership, procedural justice bears application in how workers view

the integrity of their day-to-day job responsibilities and the extent to which they feel valued by

leadership (Shin et al, 2015). It is the mechanism by which employees validate the policies and

procedures of the organization and the power afforded its leaders (Leasure, 2016). It correlates

with ideas such as behavioral integrity (BI) in which employees identify perceived discrepancies

in a manager’s words and behaviors (Andrews et al., 2015). Ultimately, it is a concept that

embodies subjectivity because its basis is the perception and perspective of the view holder

(Nagin & Telep, 2017).

Procedural justice has been identified as a strong predictor in how employees react within

the organizational context. It influences several human resources related metrics centered on how

employees feel about the business including job satisfaction, general dedication, and employee

loyalty (Loi et al., 2011). Additional research has gone beyond the emotional side of the

equation, examining if sentiment drives action through greater engagement and willingness to

devote time and resources to a cause (He et al., 2014). This pushes the variables beyond the

presence of intrinsic motivators to the actual demonstration of results via organization citizenship

behavior (He et al., 2014). Sentiment can drive behaviors in the opposite direction as postulated

by equity theory. Equity theory suggests that employees who discern inequality in the

organization will seek equilibrium by protecting their personal interests over those of the

business (Treviño & Weaver, 2001).

Organizational citizenship behavior and deviant work behavior. Organizational

justice and its effects on employee outcomes have been evaluated in past research through the

assessment of organizational citizenship behavior (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2010). According

to social exchange theory, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a means for employees to

enact the golden rule and repay employers in the vein of integrity and fairness with which they

have been treated (Treviño & Weaver, 2001). In another crossover with ethical leadership, Mo

and Shi (2017) found OCB was enhanced when workers perceive management has crafted a

constructive work environment focused on impartiality and reason.

The antithesis of OCB—deviant workplace behavior—occurs when associates experience

a lack of integrity in the workplace, generating risk for the organization as they willingly defy

rules governing normal performance expectations (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2010). Under the

view of psychological contract theory, workers see unfairness as a breach of contract between the

organization and them. This agreement involves guarantees outwardly expressed by the employer

as well as assurances assumed to be in place by employees (Andrews et al., 2015).

Employees may express their distrust with organizational leadership through retaliation efforts

(He et al., 2014) such as poor attendance (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2010) and failing to report

concerns to management (Treviño & Weaver, 2001). A surge in job tension is also likely as

individuals experience higher work-related stress levels (Andrews et al., 2015).

Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics

Corporate social responsibility reflects the actions of an organization that give

consideration and even preference to the good of society and the surrounding environment

(Lashley, 2016). This is in the same vein as virtue ethics, espousing a focus on the greater good

(Sekerka, 2009). Corporate social responsibility positions the firm as a team player whose

initiatives focus on the betterment of the organization and community (Lashley, 2016). However,

this concept has its challenges in offering a straight-forward and universal definition. An

interesting facet of corporate social responsibility is the way its definition can shift through time.

Issues that were of social concern several decades ago may differ drastically from those of

contemporary society. Also, just as diversity can speak to the different values across groups of

people (Chia & Mee, 2010), corporate social responsibility can see different social groups

eliciting opposing views of an issue and its impacts on environment and community (Campbell,

2007).

From a theoretical perspective, stakeholder theory and utilitarianism frame corporate

responsibility in a constructive position. The impacts to employees and shareholders are

balanced, and businesses focus on ideas that will bring about the most good (Greenwood, 2002).

However, corporate social responsibility can be cast as negative when framed as the antagonist to

business profitability. Critics question why one would identify a requirement for an organization

to behave in a socially responsible way when its primary focus should be to maximize its

financial value and profits (Campbell, 2007). Some financial experts have even gone so far to

state corporate social responsibility is an unnecessary evil because a free market will by nature

bring resolution to issues that may surface (Wines, 2008).

Although being socially responsible can be billed as having a dubious impact on a firm’s

financial status, there are arguments for positive impacts to the financial bottom line (Lashley,

2016). Wartick and Cochran (1985) argued social responsibility maintains two primary facets.

The initial aspect states businesses endure because society wants them to exist. This reason for

existence means businesses must adhere to cultural norms. The secondary aspect groups

businesses with a variety of institutions and states these entities as a collective serve as a

community’s vehicle for morality (Wartick & Cochran, 1985).

Many of the effects from socially responsible behaviors take place within holdings of the

company that can be difficult to define or quantify such as reputation and public relations

(Lashley, 2016). Technology presents an especially interesting frontier because digital firms can

push new and exciting products to market, but consumers demand an expectation for their data to

remain confidential and secure on systems that are dependable. Consumers in general maintain a

belief that as technology grows and advances, it should be used for the good of society (Brusoni

& Vaccaro, 2017).

Corporate social responsibility is also present in conversations centered around

sustainability (Ardichvili, 2012). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability have

transitioned into two strong topics of combined interest for companies over the past 15 years,

examining the business case to implement related initiatives (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2018).

Sustainability can produce an acknowledgement that an organization’s actions today can have a

supportive or detrimental impact on its ability to thrive tomorrow. These influences can

reverberate through environmental and civil societal contexts, directly swaying a community’s

way of life (Lashley, 2016). Human resource development practitioners are being challenged to

cultivate a paradigm shift in organizations that is not fixated on constant growth because

boundaries exist in how far businesses can expand (Ardichvili, 2012). As with technology,

sustainability calls for long-term assessment and planning for the well-being of all parties

involved (Lashley, 2016).

Accountability Theory

Several sectors of the economy suffer from skeptical consumer perceptions of nominal

culpability within their ranks (Mansouri & Rowney, 2013). The criticism surrounding the

corporate failures of Enron and WorldCom centered on a lack of accountability internally within

the two organizations. There was also a lack of accountability externally with Arthur

Anderson—the accounting entity responsible for keeping them in check and ensuring fulfilment

of the law (Frink & Klimoski, 2004)—and the analysts who evaluated corporate industries and

made their information available to the investing public (Healy & Palepu, 2003). This type of

liability centered on blatant compliance issues and is considered a primary aspect of

accountability. A secondary aspect focuses on the infrastructure of the organization in which

policies and procedures are proactively written and implemented to avoid ethical problems

(Geva, 2006). In the case of Enron, appropriate infrastructure was lacking and allowed the firm

to exploit short-term accounting practices mismatched with its long-term business model (Healy

& Palepu, 2003).

Incentives for moral behaviors. The loss of integrity at Enron did not occur because the

corporation was lacking in ethical structures. It occurred because stakeholders elected to ignore

the codes set in place (Treviño & Brown, 2004). Accounting issues have historically been a point

of contention with executives lured by incentives at organization and individual levels. For

example, depressing expenses and legally booking them in later periods can reflect positively on

short-term net income targets for the corporation and increase an executive’s personal incentives

that are based on the firm’s financial performance (Beaudoin et al., 2015). With Enron, the

potential for significant profits and financial windfalls became the driving force in behaviors

(Maniam & Teetz, 2005). From this reality, one can extrapolate financial incentives have the

potential to strongly influence and motivate an individual or group’s actions.

Pendse (2012) brought together several concepts that tie accountability and financial

incentive motivations together. He noted reinforcement theory can help organization’s create

structures that ensure appropriate behaviors are elevated and bolstered but warned unwelcome

conduct can be accidentally rewarded if the structures put in place ignorantly compensate for the

wrong things. He also touched on expectancy theory and how individuals make decisions based

on the projected after-effects of their choices and what value may come from them. Expectancy

theory interprets the likely choice of a person as the one that will bring he or she the most

anticipated benefit (Pendse, 2012). Taken together, this means organizations must be

exceptionally mindful their incentive programs reward proper behaviors, provide appropriate

benefit to the business and the individual, and strive to maintain fluidity in the ability to make

changes as unintended consequences surface.

Diffusion of Innovations Research in Other Disciplines

Rogers (2003) included several examples of diffusion studies throughout his primary

work, Diffusion of Innovations. These examples covered a variety of disciplines and applications

spanning decades of research. They tackled cultural impacts on diffusion and the ups and downs

of involving players such as change agents, opinion leaders, and peers (Rogers, 2003). A few

examples of diffusion research outside the business arena are included in this review. The

successes and lessons learned in these cases point to the viability of utilizing diffusion of

innovations theory in the study of ethics education.

Diffusion of innovations and the health sciences. A well-known media headline from

recent history was the explosion of the AIDs epidemic. At the height of the disease’s spread,

segments of the population were ostracized and stigmatized as a disgrace to society (Herek &

Glunt, 1988). Despite the ongoing stigma and the presence of innovations that could prevent the

disease, AIDs continued a rampant spread across the world for a period of time—stunning many

in the science and political communities. Diffusion of innovations proved to be a viable theory in

addressing the shortcomings of preventative measures and in identifying ways to disseminate

information to the affected populations to change behaviors (Bertrand, 2010). In this instance,

diffusion of innovations served as a jumping off point in explaining a phenomenon in which what

was considered the discernable and correct course of action was not undertaken by individuals.

Similarly, the ethics controversies surrounding large corporations could have been avoided if

individual players had steered clear of obvious ethical missteps and deliberate actions on their

part (Treviño & Brown, 2004). Diffusion of innovations theory may be able to be applied in the

same way to explain the ongoing ethics controversies and breakdowns in the dissemination of

moral principles where an assumed right course of action is not pursued, stunning analysts and

the general public.

The AIDs epidemic is only a single example in which diffusion of innovations theory has

found itself in the spotlight in the field of medicine. Four decades ago, Greer (1977) conducted

an analysis of available studies surrounding diffusion of innovations and its impacts on

organizational diffusion and adoption of medical technologies. She developed a frustration with

the lack of strong theory underpinning the literature of the day. She noted health care facilities

are complex entities, and innovations are not always advantageous. These concepts opposed

conventional views of diffusion during the 1960s and 1970s and showcased a need to expand

diffusion of innovations theory’s scope to explain why diffusion succeeds or fails (Greer, 1977).

Fast forward to present-day, and the problems with innovation adoption have continued, but

diffusion of innovations is said to have a place in explaining the dense intricacies of healthcare

(Dearing & Cox, 2018). According to Parston et al. (2015), a rule of thumb in the health care

industry is a nearly two-decade delay between an innovation’s introduction to its common use

and practice. They identified a need for championing cultural change within the organization and

being deliberate in change management planning and execution (Parston et al., 2015). If the

health sciences community experiences an extended lag in adoption rates of beneficial

innovations, perhaps those lessons can be applied to the general business community’s

assimilation of ethical practices while acknowledging the complexities of today’s organizations.

It may also speak to the need for deliberate change management planning and implementation in

business.

Diffusion of innovations and information technology. Chang (2010) and Kim et al.

(2019) examined the use of diffusion of innovations in explaining the adoption of digital

technologies. In one investigation, the use and adoption of hashtags was examined during a time

when twitter was expanding to become a primary social media platform. Hashtags were gaining

popularity in communicating and organizing information, but some hashtags were universally

adopted while others struggled to gain traction. Diffusion of innovations theory was determined

to be a point of needed future study to explain the patterns of adoption and use (Chang, 2010).

In a study of South Korean seniors, the adoption behaviors of individuals over 50 years of

age were examined to determine why this group used mobile social network sites for travel and

leisure. The researchers discovered diffusion-related characteristics were a driver in seniors’

adoption activities in using these mobile sites including relative advantage, compatibility, and

complexity. Their recommendation was to incorporate this information into site design to

positively impact adoption (Kim et al., 2019). In ethics education, identifying and incorporating

this same type of information into the training platform design may enhance program

effectiveness.

On an opposing note, Lyytinen and Damsgaard (2001) questioned the validity of using

diffusion of innovations theory in some areas of information technology. They noted diffusion of

innovations usage had been widespread in the field for several years prior to their work, but they

pointed to the multifarious aspects of IT that could lessen the effectiveness of diffusion of

innovations in explaining individual behaviors. While Lyytinen and Damsgaard ascertained

diffusion of innovations was ineffective with the complex, this is in direct opposition to Dearing

and Cox (2018) and their work in healthcare. They stated diffusion of innovations was a useful

tool in understanding the complexities of the healthcare industry and the dissemination and

diffusion of information influencing adoption behaviors (Dearing & Cox, 2018). However, in one

fundamental argument, Lyytinen and Damsgaard (2001) stated technology is different because it

is constantly evolving. This progression can modify the innovation and influence the view of

time—two key components in diffusion of innovations theory. They advocated the need for

deeper views and complex models beyond a simple diffusion of innovations approach to improve

the effectiveness of IT diffusion paradigms (Lyytinen & Damsgaard, 2001). This negative view

of diffusion of innovations may not be material in ethics education since the fundamental

underpinnings of ethics have remained intact over long periods of time.

Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to investigate how ethics training impacts the diffusion of

ethical standards throughout an organization using Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory by

examining the theory’s five innovation characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility,

trialability, observability, and complexity. Because the examples cited in this research focused on

scandals within corporate America, a financial entity was selected for study to mirror these

occurrences. Since the scope of the topic of ethics was far-reaching and the organization under

review employed thousands of associates, the research was narrowed to focus on the spread and

implementation of ethical standards among frontline, customer-facing associates following the

application of a capstone sales and ethics training course.

This study utilized Rogers’ five innovation characteristics to examine the dissemination

and adoption of ethical standards in the financial organization’s sales and customer service

practices as outlined in its capstone course. The efficacy of diffusion of innovations theory to

explain the dissemination and adoption of ethical standards through ethics training is

undetermined in the current body of research. This study sought to examine this unexplored

arena to better understand and explain why ethical scandals continue to occur in the corporate

realm despite the presence of ethics training and other structures to ensure compliance.

Table 2 provides an overview of how each research question was addressed in the study.

Because this research is an initial step in connecting diffusion of innovations theory and ethics

training, the evaluation was simple and straightforward. A previously validated survey

instrument in diffusion of innovations theory was utilized, and Rogers’ five innovation

characteristics were measured following the organization’s capstone sales and ethics course. The

data was analyzed to determine the correlations between each of the five characteristics.

Because diversity was cited in the background information and literature review as a potential

influencer, demographic data was collected and cross-referenced with each of the five innovation

characteristics.

Table 2

Research Questions and Data Collection

______________________________________________________________________________

Research Data Collection Data Analysis

Question

1 Utilized the company’s learning management No statistical analysis needed

system to review corporate training catalogue for all course offerings with

ethics content focused on frontline sales team members; reviewed

attendance requirements for identified courses

2 Used validated survey instrument by Moore Calculated mean, standard deviation,

and Benbasat to measure Rogers’ five and response frequencies for the five

innovation characteristics following the innovation characteristics

organization’s capstone ethics and sales

course; conducted one-on-one interviews

with survey respondent volunteers

3 Used demographic data disclosed by Determined differences between

participants at the end of Moore and groups using a ranked T-test

Benbasat’s survey to separate responses

by gender

4 Reviewed performance standards for

frontline sales positions used in annual

performance appraisals; researched the

presence and application of mechanisms to

promote ethics beyond training via the

company’s internet and intranet sites and

available published information (i.e., ethics

officer, ethics hotline, code of ethics policy)

No statistical analysis needed

Research Questions

For study participants, the researcher examined the perceived attributes of ethics and the intent

to adopt the moral principles presented in an ethics course. Four research questions guided the

study.

1. What is the financial organization doing, through its educational efforts, to motivate

customer-facing employees and hold them accountable to be ethical in their sales

practices?

2. Which innovation characteristics (i.e., relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,

observability, and complexity) were influenced by the organization’s capstone sales and

ethics training course?

3. Does gender affect the perceived impacts of the innovation characteristics on the

diffusion of ethical standards to employees?

4. What compelling influences has the organization implemented to encourage compliance

with the ethics principles outlined in the capstone sales and ethics course?

Rogers (2003) provided additional direction for this research through his generalizations

about the five innovation characteristics. He states these attributes account for a minimum of half

of the variance in adoption rates, and in many cases the variance is explained at a rate well over

75%. Relative advantage and compatibility are considered the dominant attributes, maintaining a

direct relationship in predicting if an innovation will be adopted or rejected. Trialability and

observability are also seen as having a direct relationship with adoption rates to a lesser degree,

but complexity displays an inverse relationship in the adoption or rejection of an innovation.

Based on these generalizations from Rogers, five null hypotheses were utilized to test

research question three. Because this research mentioned diversity as a potential influencer for

ethics, the hypotheses focused on the impacts of gender. In light of the ongoing corporate

scandals, research has intensified related to gender and ethical issues (Chen et al., 2016), finding

males are more likely to behave unethically than females (Haroardottir et al., 2019). If females

are more ethical, one might assume they would be more likely to diffuse ethical standards within

the organization. Female participants are then expected to assess higher levels of relative

advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and lower levels of complexity in the

ethics course materials versus male participants if diffusion is occurring (see setting and

participants section for more information in how this variable was selected). In line with the

study’s original statement of the problem, it is assumed diffusion is not taking place within

organizations, and the null hypotheses note there should be no expected difference in the

responses of men and women.

Research Question 3

H01: Female participants will not assess higher levels of relative advantage in the course

materials versus male participants.

H1: Female participants will assess higher levels of relative advantage in the course materials

versus male participants.

H02: Female participants will not assess higher levels of compatibility in the course materials

versus male participants.

H2: Female participants will assess higher levels of compatibility in the course materials

versus male participants.

H03: Female participants will not assess higher levels of trialability in the course materials

versus male participants.

H3: Female participants will assess higher levels of trialability in the course materials versus

male participants.

H04: Female participants will not assess higher levels of observability in the course materials

versus male participants.

H4: Female participants will assess higher levels of observability in the course materials

versus male participants.

H05: Female participants will not assess lower levels of complexity in the course materials

versus male participants.

H5: Female participants will assess lower levels of complexity in the course materials versus

male participants.

IRB Approval

Prior to data collection, approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the

University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Arkansas was received on 03/01/2021 (See Appendix D).

The data collection process for this study commenced on 03/22/2021. Survey respondents were

informed their participation was voluntary, their answers would remain confidential to the extent

possible, and participation could be withdrawn at any time during the process. Consent was

obtained from all participants.

Research Design

This study utilized a mixed methods approach—presenting qualitative findings in

conjunction with quantitative data. One of the most common uses of mixed methods research is

through the utilization of surveys followed by one-on-one interviews with participants (Patton,

2015). Because impacts from COVID-19 limited the sample size available for a survey,

volunteers were sought among survey respondents to participate in individual interviews with the

researcher. This allowed for more in-depth examination of the survey results, providing both

statistics and commentary from the employees’ responses.

The researcher pursued quantitative information through the collection of online survey

data following the two-day capstone sales and ethics training class. Surveys provide a descriptive

solution, allowing participants to self-report the application of training in their work environment

and demonstrate their attitudes with a given subject matter. Online instruments provide

researchers with quick access to information, and participants also maintain ease of access and

convenience in providing their responses at their preferred place and time (Swanson & Holton,

2005). Surveys have been utilized throughout the current body of research in studies addressing

ethical-related concerns (Kurland, 1995; Longenecker & Fink, 2008; Selart & Johansen, 2011;

Forquesato, 2016) and in studies applying diffusion of innovations theory (Kim, et al., 2018).

Despite their ease of use and proliferation, survey instruments have disadvantages that must be

considered. While surveys give participants the benefit of self-reporting, this means of obtaining

information can result in biased, influenced, or inaccurate responses (Kirk, 1995). Many

industries have experienced survey fatigue because of the popularity the platform has garnered in

recent history (Swanson & Holton, 2005), and a lackluster response rate can negatively impact

external validity (Russ-eft & Preskill, 2009). There are also concerns with ensuring data is

privacy-protected in an online arena that experiences ongoing threats to steal information

(Swanson & Holton, 2005). Reliability and/or validity could be questioned if respondents

interpret questions differently or allow another individual to access the online portal and provide

responses in their place (Russ-eft & Preskill, 2009).

The goal of this study was not to interpret the survey results to define an ethics training

protocol as effectual or encourage a particular program design as a preferred method for teaching

ethics to employees. The focus was to determine the level of relative advantage, compatibility,

trialability, observability, and complexity participants perceived in the information presented in

the ethics training. The perceived level of each of these innovation-related characteristics was

compared to participants’ intentions to implement ethical standards in their places of work to

identify possible relationships in the data.

Setting and Participants

To recreate the setting where many of the publicized ethics scandals of the past occurred,

a business entity in the finance and accounting sector was selected. This industry was also chosen

because of its substantial role in the events of the Great Recession and the ongoing attempts by

federal and state governments to regulate and delineate ethical behaviors. The selected business

represented a mid-sized firm with more than 5,000 employees from a twelvestate area within the

United States.

Participants were sales team members who completed the capstone sales and ethics

course, representing the target population of approximately 2,000 employees. Using a free tool

on surveymonkey.com, a sample size of 323 was calculated representing a confidence level of

95% and margin of error of 5%. However, due to restrictions from COVID-19, obtaining this

sample size was not possible within the given time constraints. Although all frontline employees

were required to enroll in the two-day capstone course within their 120-day introductory period,

hiring restrictions as a result of the pandemic limited the organization’s ability to offer classes

and enroll participants. Two or three sessions were available per month in a virtual classroom

setting with a maximum capacity of 30 employees per session. As a result, the target sample size

was reduced to 66 to represent a 90% confidence level and 10% margin of error.

Three steps were utilized to determine study participants:

1. Obtain a copy of the sales and ethics capstone training rosters.

2. Verify the email addresses of participants.

3. Estimate the number of responses needed for an error rate of 5% at a confidence

level of 95% (later reduced to a 10% error rate at a 90% confidence level).

The class rosters were obtained through the learning platform, and 14 sessions were

offered during a six-month period. Names and email addresses of participants were verified

through the organization’s intranet directory with a total of 315 employees enrolling in the

training course. After email addresses were obtained, all enrolled employees received a request to

complete a questionnaire following completion of the training class, resulting in a convenience

sample for the researcher. All employees were included regardless of work status (i.e., full-time,

reduced-time, part-time, seasonal). Employees participating in the study completed the informed

consent form (Appendix C).

Because diversity has been noted as a potential influencer in ethics, the class roster was

also reviewed for demographic measures that could serve as independent variables. Because of

the impacts of the pandemic on hiring, the sample pool was limited from a demographic

perspective. Because most participants were white (non-Hispanic), race and ethnicity were

excluded as potential factors. However, gender provided heterogeneity in the sample group and

was translated into hypotheses used to test research question three.

Many of the published ethics scandals occurred in Fortune 500 organizations. The

number of employees at Fortune 500 companies varies significantly between hundreds and

millions of people (fortune.com/fortune500). Because the business entity in this research has

fewer employees than most Fortune 500 companies and the researcher was targeting at least 66

received responses from a pool of 315 potential participants, three attempts were made to follow

up with employees to ensure the highest response rate possible. At the end of the six-month data

collection period, 115 surveys were started with 47 responses received for a completion rate of

41%.

Survey respondents were asked if they would be willing to sit for a one-on-one interview

with the researcher. The target number of interviewees was set at a minimum of 10 and a

maximum of 20. Nine respondents volunteered for the interview on the survey, and three

responded to the calendar invitations and provided feedback. Three of the volunteers did not

respond to calendar invitations or email requests sent within three days of completing the survey.

Three respondents confirmed interest in the interview process via email but did not follow

through in attending the one-on-one discussions. In a final effort to increase interview

participation, the researcher sent an email invitation at the end of the six-month period to the 44

participants who did not take part in the one-on-one discussions. No one in this group of 44

responded to the final request.

Instrumentation

Rogers (2003) acknowledged the work of Gary C. Moore and Izak Benbasat (1991) in

developing a framework to measure the relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,

observability, and complexity of innovations in information technology. Although his individual

preference was to encourage researchers to develop their own measures specific to their area of

study, Rogers noted the work of Moore and Benbasat could be utilized in subsequent

investigations of diffusion and adapted to a variety of fields (Rogers, 2003). This study chose to

use the constructs created by Moore and Benbasat. The questions in Appendix A were taken

directly from the work of Moore and Benbasat (1991) as published in Information Systems

Research.

Moore and Benbasat (1991) included 44 questions in their original published instrument

examining diffusion of innovations. They also expanded the number of diffusion-related

attributes from Rogers’ original five to eight. The new attributes of result demonstrability,

voluntariness, and image were added in their scale items in an effort to further clarify and

measure Rogers’ five characteristics. These additional attributes were not removed from the

survey due to potential impacts in the reliability and validity of the instrument.

Moore and Benbasat confirmed the validity and reliability of their work through a series

of sorting and pilot tests involving various panels of judges. Moore and Benbasat noted the

instrument could be adapted to a smaller format of 25 questions if a shorter survey was desired

without likely impacts to reliability and validity. They concluded the shortened survey would

likely be reliable and valid because the deletions would have a negligible effect on the ALPHA

scores of each measure. These measures are included in Table 3.

Table 3

ALPHA Coefficients of Short Scales

______________________________________________________________________________

Construct Number of Survey Questions ALPHA

Relative Advantage 5 0.90

Compatibility 3 0.86

Ease of Use 4 0.84

Result Demonstrability 4 0.79

Image 3 0.79

Visibility 2 0.83

Trialability 2 0.71

Voluntariness 2 0.82

Total Survey Questions 25

Because survey fatigue has been noted as a negative factor impacting response rates (Russ-eft &

Preskill, 2009), the shortened format was employed to incent respondents to participate. A copy

of the questionnaire, organized by attribute, is included in Appendix A.

Data Collection

Data collection began a few weeks following IRB approval and ended six months later at

the end of September. Respondents used a seven-point Likert scale to record their answers,

ranging from 1 to indicate a response of strongly disagree to 7 for a response of strongly agree.

The questionnaire was administered to employees using UA Qualtrics software. This software is

free to use for doctoral students at the University of Arkansas.

Two of the qualitative interviews were conducted and recorded via zoom. These

interactions were also audio-recorded utilizing voice notes on the researcher’s mobile phone—

providing a backup of the information in the event of errors with the zoom recording. The

interviews were transcribed the following day. The third qualitative interview was conducted via

phone at the interviewee’s request. This engagement was also audio-recorded utilizing voice

notes on the researcher’s mobile device and transcribed the following day. To address credibility,

the researcher encouraged open communication by reminding interviewees responses would not

be shared with their supervisors. The participants were also prompted to speak freely because no

right answers were being sought in the discussion. A listing of the questions utilized in the

qualitative interviews is included in Appendix B.

Data Analysis

For research questions one and four, no statistical analysis was required. A listing of the

applicable courses and their attendance requirements was crafted for question one. For question

four, a listing of the ethics control structures (outside of training) was compiled as well as

metrics utilized in performance appraisals for frontline sales positions.

For research question two, the mean and standard deviation were tabulated for each of the

five innovation characteristics. The mean was reviewed and included due to the potential for

central tendency bias often present in Likert scale responses. To better understand how the data

from the survey could be utilized, the researcher conducted a Proquest search for articles related

to Moore and Benbasat’s model in practical use. Despite searching for keywords including

“Moore and Benbasat”, “model”, and “survey”, available sources were exceptionally limited.

Because the researcher could not locate an appropriate point of reference, the data was analyzed

against Rogers’ assumptions that higher levels of relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,

and observability as well as lower levels of complexity would be present if diffusion were

occurring. Mean scores above 4 were assumed to signify higher levels of a characteristic because

they translated to some level agreement per the Likert scale. Mean scores below 4 were assumed

to signify lower levels of a characteristic because they translated to some level of disagreement

per the Likert scale. The frequencies of the innovation characteristics were also included.

For research question three, the independent variable was gender, and the dependent

variables were relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity. After

the data was collected, the p-value, Cohen’s d, gender means, and standard deviation were

calculated for two of the gender groups. Consistent with research question two, the mean was

reviewed and included to evaluate for the potential for central tendency bias. In determining the

best statistical test for the study, the following criteria were considered: the study examined

differences between groups of one or more variables, the same participants were only tested

once, and the gender categorization provided two groups for analysis. Based on these

assumptions and the relatively small sample size, a ranked t-test was selected for use.

It is noted two respondents were removed from the evaluation of research question three.

One participant noted their gender as non-binary/third gender. One participant preferred not to

answer the question. Because each of these gender categorizations only contained one response,

there was insufficient data to include in the final analysis and comparison with the other two

groups.

For the qualitative data, the interviews were transcribed with labels and themes added to

the different phrases of the participants’ responses as comments in the margins. These comments

were checked for patterns or close similarities to identify content of potential significance. The

data was then set aside for three days. The researcher came back and completed the process

again, adding labels and themes to the participant’s comments. The two rounds of coding were

compared, labels and themes were combined into a single set of information, and the results were

contrasted against the quantitative data from the surveys.

Chapter IV

RESULTS

This chapter represents the findings of the mixed methods study, investigating how ethics

training impacts the diffusion of ethical standards throughout an organization using Rogers’

diffusion of innovations theory. The research examined the five innovation characteristics of

relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity. This section first

reviews the demographic characteristics of associates participating in the 25-question survey.

Next, results are articulated for each of the four research questions.

Demographic Characteristics

For the quantitative portion of the research, 315 online surveys were distributed to 14

sections of the capstone class facilitated during the spring and summer months. There were 115

surveys started and 47 submitted for a completion rate of 41%. The 68 incomplete surveys did

not progress beyond the participant consent question. This level of response fell short of the

researcher’s revised goal of 66 completed surveys and even farther from the original desired

sample size of 323. Because the sample size did not meet the projected benchmark, it could not

be assumed the data was representative of the population. However, despite the small survey

size, total surveys collected did exceed 30 (n>30), leaving the assumption of a normally

distributed dataset intact.

Respondents were invited to provide demographic data following the completion

of the 25 survey questions. Gender, age, level of education, sales experience, and prior ethics

training were the five items selected for measurement. Responses were voluntary, and

participants were given the option to not disclose. Tables 4 through 8 provide a visual

representation of this data. Among the 47 participants, 30% were male and 66% were female.

Two-thirds of respondents were under the age of 40, while almost 80% had participated in some

level of post-secondary education. Roughly four in five participants had no more than five years

of sales experience with 53% acknowledging prior ethics training. While all questions noted at

least one individual electing to not disclose a category, the question related to exposure to

previous ethics training appeared anomalous. This question saw the highest number of

participants eliciting a preference to not disclose, five times higher than all but one of the other

demographic questions.

Table 4

Gender Representation of Survey Respondents

______________________________________________________________________________

Gender Participant Number Participant Percentage

Male 14 29.79%

Female 31 65.95%

Non-binary/third gender 1 2.13%

Prefer not to disclose 1 2.13%

47 100.00%

Table 5

Age Representation of Survey Respondents

______________________________________________________________________________

Age Participant Number Participant Percentage

18-25 years 18 38.30%

26-39 years 18 38.30%

40-55 years 9 19.14%

56 years or higher 1 2.13%

Prefer not to disclose 1 2.13%

47 100.00%

Table 6

Education Level of Survey Respondents

______________________________________________________________________________

Level of Education Participant Number Participant Percentage

High School 9 19.14%

Some College/Specialized Training 19 40.43%

Bachelor’s Degree 17 36.17%

Master’s Degree or Higher 1 2.13%

Prefer not to disclose 1 2.13%

47 100.00%

Table 7

Sales Experience of Survey Respondents

______________________________________________________________________________

Years of Experience

Participant Number Participant Percentage

Less than one year

17 36.17%

1-5 years

20 42.56%

6-10 years

4 8.51%

More than 10 years

3 6.38%

Prefer not to disclose 3 6.38%

47 100.00%

Table 8

Experience with Prior Ethics Training among Survey Respondents

______________________________________________________________________________

Attended an Ethics Course Participant Number Participant Percentage

Yes 25 53.19%

No 17 36.17%

Prefer not to disclose 5 10.64%

47 100.00%

Research Questions & Results

As a mixed-methods study, the research employed qualitative and quantitative data.

Research questions one and four employed information the researcher gathered through

approved access to the organization’s learning management platform and intranet. Research

questions two and three utilized data gleaned from post-class surveys and one-on-one interviews

with three class participants.

Research Question One

RQ1: What is the financial organization doing, through its educational efforts, to motivate

customer-facing employees and hold them accountable to be ethical in their sales practices?

For all associates within their first year of employment, five training courses were listed as

standard requirements. These classes were facilitated by an instructor in-person or in a virtual

classroom setting. Coursework was automatically assigned by job title via the corporate learning

platform. Managers were responsible for incorporating these classes into associates’ work

schedules.

The initial offering of the five courses was an orientation for new team members covering

the basic expectations for all job roles, concurrent with the first week of employment. Course

content included a review of the company’s mission and vision, general compensation and

benefits package, important contacts to remember, and an iteration of fundamental expectations

from the code of ethics policy and associate handbook. It was typically facilitated by a member

of the human resources team.

The second course focused on customer service and how to process client requests. There

were five versions of this class available, dependent on the specific job role of the associate and

the types of client requests handled by a given job role. Content assisted associates in becoming

familiar with the organization’s technology platforms, accurately handling initial requests,

offering additional help as needed, and stressing the ethical importance of the confidentiality of

client data. The course was facilitated by a member of the corporate training team.

All associates were required to attend a third and fourth course centered on diversity,

equity, and inclusion. Curricula touched on the benefits of diversity in crafting an innovative and

productive workforce, promoting better understanding of individuals’ perspectives,

acknowledging bias, and supporting the needs of communities within the organization’s trade

territory. The content addressed diversity from the stance of associates and clients. The initial

diversity course was required within the employee’s introductory period, while the second class

was required by the one-year anniversary date. This course was taught by the corporate training

team with support from the office of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The fifth course was the capstone sales and ethics course required of associates across all

lines of business. As with the diversity courses, this class brought employees together from

across the organization. Topics included the company’s value statements, mission, and vision. It

emphasized the code of conduct expected of all employees and provided an evaluation of

participants through a standardized personality test. The goal of the personality testing was to

provide associates perspective on their behaviors and thought processes and their potential

impacts on peer, manager, and client interactions and relationships. Facilitation originated from

the corporate training team.

In addition to the instructor-led courses, e-learning was a secondary component of the

organization’s required education platform. Online modules centered on the federal and state

regulations that applied to entities within the finance industry were to be completed by associates

at their workstation. Employees were automatically enrolled in two or three lessons each quarter,

and these courses were part of a rotating annual curriculum, serving as a reminder of the

expected compliance with the laws governing the organization’s operations.

Outside of prescribed coursework, associates had access to elective training classes that

could be completed during downtime. For example, one class focused on the driving principles

for appropriate conduct on-the-job. Two additional classes addressed relationships with peers and

interactions with customers. These offerings outlined avenues to navigate situations that were

difficult, unfamiliar, or rare in occurrence and engaged participants with a variety of reallife

scenarios.

Completion of the instructor-led courses and e-learning modules was tracked via the

company’s learning management system. A team of managers overseeing the training function

provided reporting to human resources managers and local department heads. The information

reported by the training managers filtered into the performance appraisals of division managers

and human resources managers with a minimum expectation of 90% of associates completing

required training by the assigned deadlines.

Research Question Two

RQ2: Which innovation characteristics (e.g., relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,

observability, and complexity) were influenced by the organization’s capstone sales and ethics

training course?

Quantitative Data. Fourteen sections of the course were identified to receive the survey

across a six-month period. The total number of class participants was 315. All 315 participants

received the survey. Qualtrics revealed 115 participants clicked on the survey, but only 47

participants completed the survey. Non-respondents were contacted several times, and additional

sections were added to try and increase the response rate. Table 9 provides a breakdown of the

survey completion rates by session.

Table 9

Survey Completion by Class Section

______________________________________________________________________________

Class Section Surveys Distributed Surveys Started Surveys Completed

Section 1 26 7 2

Section 2 20 8 5

Section 3 26 11 7

Section 4 26 5 2

Section 5 20 6 1

Section 6 18 5 1

Section 7 23 9 3

Section 8 19 5 1

Section 9 25 10 5

Section 10 23 10 4

Section 11 29 12 5

Section 12 20 8 4

Section 13 18 7 2

Section 14 22 12 5

Total 315 115 47

Respondents answered the 25-question survey utilizing a seven-point Likert scale.

Ratings included strongly disagree (1 point), disagree (2 points), somewhat disagree (3 points),

neither agree or disagree (4 points), somewhat agree (5 points), agree (6 points), and strongly

agree (7 points). Tables 10 through 16 present the mean, standard deviation, and frequencies for

the responses to each question. The far-right column of the table identifies the diffusion attribute

associated with each question. Moore and Benbasat (1991) used eight attributes, three more than

the original five attributes of Rogers (2003). Their research also utilized different terms for some

of the attributes, referencing “ease of use” to denote complexity and “visibility” to denote

observability.

______________________________________________________________________________

Diffusion Attribute

Table 10

Survey Score Averages by Question

Question Number Mean S/D

1 5.23 1.37 Relative Advantage

2 5.53 1.40 Relative Advantage

3 5.51 1.37 Relative Advantage

4 5.55 1.27 Relative Advantage

5 5.45 1.30 Relative Advantage

6 5.64 1.51 Compatibility

7 5.77 1.28 Compatibility

8 5.68 1.31 Compatibility

9 5.04 1.61 Image

10 5.06 1.41 Image

11 5.11 1.70 Image

12 5.85 1.09 Ease of Use (Complexity)

13 5.81 1.21 Ease of Use (Complexity)

14 6.15 0.82 Ease of Use (Complexity)

15 5.96 1.11 Ease of Use (Complexity)

16 5.66 1.17 Result Demonstrability

17 5.47 1.15 Result Demonstrability

18 5.70 1.13 Result Demonstrability

19 3.67 1.81 Result Demonstrability

20 5.52 1.21 Visibility (Observability)

21 2.87 1.85 Visibility (Observability)

22 5.26 1.17 Trialability

23 4.77 1.67 Trialability

24 2.57 1.74 Voluntariness

25 3.23 1.87 Voluntariness

Table 11

Survey Score Averages for Relative Advantage and Image

______________________________________________________________________________

Question Number Mean S/D Diffusion Attribute

Table 1

______________________________________________________________________________

Diffusion Attribute

1 5.23 1.37 Relative Advantage

2 5.53 1.40 Relative Advantage

3 5.51 1.37 Relative Advantage

4 5.55 1.27 Relative Advantage

5 5.45 1.30 Relative Advantage

9 5.04 1.61 Image

10 5.06 1.41 Image

11 5.11 1.70 Image

Combined Average: 5.31 1.42

Survey Score Averages for Compatibility

Question Number

Mean S/D

6 5.64 1.51 Compatibility

7 5.77 1.28 Compatibility

5.68 1.31 Compatibility

Combined Average: 5.70 1.37

Table 13

Survey Score Averages for Trialability and Voluntariness

______________________________________________________________________________

Question Number

Mean S/D Diffusion Attribute

22 5.26 1.17 Trialability

23 4.77 1.67 Trialability

3.23 1.87 Voluntariness

Combined Average:

4.42 1.57

24 2.57 1.74 Voluntariness *scale reversed

Table 1

______________________________________________________________________________

Diffusion Attribute

Table 14

Survey Score Averages for Observability and Result Demonstrability

______________________________________________________________________________

Question Number Mean S/D Diffusion Attribute

16 5.66 1.17 Result Demonstrability

17 5.47 1.15 Result Demonstrability

18 5.70 1.13 Result Demonstrability

20 5.52 1.21 Visibility (Observability)

Combined Average: 5.59 1.17

19 3.67 1.81 Result Demonstrability *scale reversed

21 2.87 1.85 Visibility (Observability) *scale reversed

Combined Average: 3.27 1.83

Survey Score Averages for Complexity

Question Number Mean S/D

12 5.85 1.09 Ease of Use (Complexity)

13 5.81 1.21 Ease of Use (Complexity)

14 6.15 0.82 Ease of Use (Complexity)

15 5.96 1.11 Ease of Use (Complexity)

Combined Average: 5.94 1.06

Table 1

______________________________________________________________________________

Diffusion Attribute

Table 1

______________________________________________________________________________

Response Frequencies by Question

Question Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Diffusion

Number Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Attribute

1 1 2 1 8 11 17 7 Relative

Advantage

2 1 2 1 3 12 16 12 Relative

Advantage

3 1 2 0 5 11 17 11 Relative

Advantage

4 1 2 0 2 12 22 8 Relative

Advantage

5 1 2 0 4 13 19 8 Relative

Advantage

6 1 2 2 4 6 16 16 Compatibility

7 1 0 1 6 6 18 15 Compatibility

8 1 1 0 6 7 19 13 Compatibility

9 1 3 4 9 9 10 11 Image

10 0 2 4 13 6 14 8 Image

11 1 5 2 9 4 15 11 Image

12 0 1 1 3 7 22 13 Ease of Use

13 0 2 0 4 8 18 15 Ease of Use

14 0 0 0 2 7 20 18 Ease of Use

15 0 1 1 2 8 18 17 Ease of Use

16 0 2 0 3 14 16 12 Result

Demonstrability

17 0 1 1 8 10 19 8 Result

Demonstrability

18 0 1 2 2 11 20 11 Result

Demonstrability

19 2 15 7 9 4 3 6 Result

Demonstrability

20 0 1 1 9 7 18 10 Visibility

21 13 13 6 7 2 2 4 Visibility

22 0 1 2 8 15 13 7 Trialability

23 3 2 5 8 11 11 7 Trialability

24 17 12 4 9 1 1 3 Voluntariness

25 13 4 11 7 5 4 3 Voluntariness

The mean of each question’s responses was evaluated for perceived general agreement or

disagreement with the diffusion characteristic associated with that question. The underlying

assumption was an average greater than four would demonstrate some level of agreement with a

higher perceived presence of an innovation attribute—excluding questions 19, 21, and 24. With

these three questions, scores less than four would demonstrate agreement with a higher perceived

presence of an innovation attribute. To summarize, mean scores higher than four (excluding

questions 19, 21, and 24) would translate to the presence of diffusion for purposes of this initial

research. The standard deviation and frequencies were included to ascertain the variability in the

dataset.

Results by Innovation Characteristic

An explanation and breakdown of results by innovation characteristic for research question two

follows.

Relative Advantage. Respondents scored relative advantage higher among the five

associated questions (M=5.45, SD=1.34). Respondents scored the related attribute of image

lower among the three associated questions (M=5.07, SD=1.57). When considering the

frequencies, twice as many participants expressed some level of disagreement with image

compared to relative advantage. However, mean scores were higher than four on both measures.

Therefore, participants assessed higher levels of relative advantage in the course materials,

indicating diffusion of ethical standards was likely occurring post-training.

Compatibility. The mean scores for this characteristic were found to be tightly clustered

together. The average mean for the three associated questions was nearing 6 (M=5.70, SD=1.37).

Five participants expressed disagreement with the attribute in one question, but only two

expressed disagreement on the remaining related questions. This translated to 6.25% of

respondents reflecting disagreement with compatibility. With mean values well above five,

participants assessed higher level of compatibility in the course materials, indicating diffusion of

ethical standards was likely occurring post-training.

Trialability. Measurements for trialability were limited to two questions, and metrics for

the distantly-related attribute of voluntariness were limited to two questions. The scoring for both

reflected higher amounts of variability versus what was noted in the other attributes. For the first

question related to trialability, the mean was above 5 (M=5.26, SD=1.17). However, the second

question reflected a lower mean below 5 (M=4.77, SD=1.67). The results for voluntariness were

even more varied. The scale for question 24 was reversed due to the inverse wording of the

question, reflecting a mean below 3 (M=2.57, SD=1.74). The second voluntariness question

produced the lowest mean among the 22 questions where the scale was not reversed and the

highest standard deviation in the dataset (M=3.23, SD=1.87). Question 25 was also the only

question in which respondents expressed an overall disagreement with the attribute. If only the

trialability responses were considered, the means were greater than four, indicating diffusion was

likely occurring post-training. However, because participants assessed lower levels of

voluntariness (attribute added by Moore and Benbasat) in the course materials based on question

25, it could not be assumed diffusion of ethical standards was likely occurring post-training.

Observability. Visibility (observability) and its related attribute of result demonstrability

displayed the largest extremes in responses within the data set. Questions 16, 17, 18, and 20

combined for a mean score well beyond 5 (M=5.59, SD=1.17), and just over 95% of the

responses to these four questions reflected some level of agreement with visibility and result

demonstrability. However, questions 19 and 21 elicited significantly different results. These

questions were inversely worded, reversing the scale and interpretation of results. The two mean

scores were below 4 with some of the highest standard deviations in the dataset (M=2.87,

SD=1.85 and M=3.67, SD=1.81). When reversing the scale, participants demonstrated

approximately five times the level of disagreement in questions 19 and 21 compared to questions

16, 17, 18, and 20. However, because the means for questions 16, 17, 18, and 20 were higher

than four and the means for questions 19 and 21 were lower than four, participants assessed

higher levels of observability and result demonstrability in the course materials. Therefore, the

diffusion of ethical standards was likely occurring post-training.

Complexity. The attribute of complexity was assessed from the standpoint of ease of use

instead of how difficult the materials were to understand. Higher mean figures would dictate

lower levels of complexity perceived by associates. Ease of use was rated highest of all attributes

with the highest recorded mean and lowest standard deviation (M=6.15, SD=0.82). It was also

the only attribute to garner a standard deviation score below one for a survey question. Almost

97% of responses expressed some level of agreement, and 75% of answers reflected a scoring of

agree or strongly agree. These findings pointed to a strong level of agreement among participants

and a high degree of ease of use. Therefore, the diffusion of ethical standards was likely

occurring post-training.

Qualitative Data. While the original target was a minimum of 10 participants for oneon-

one interviews, nine respondents provided permission and their email addresses to be contacted.

When scheduling the interviews, six participants responded to the researcher’s calendar

invitations. Of the six participants who confirmed the one-on-one engagements, only three

followed through with the appointment. Three respondents who initially provided permission for

the one-on-one interviews did not respond to calendar invitations. The researcher made three

separate attempts over the six-month period to contact these final three volunteers, but none of

them responded.

The one-on-one interviewees included two male associates and one female. One of the

participants was an industry veteran with 15 years of experience. The remaining participants

were in their early 20s and just beginning their professional careers. Despite the disparity of

experience and age, the interactions revealed similar responses to the capstone course. The

similarity of responses revealed two key themes in the qualitative data. First, participants agreed

the course was well suited in their introductory suite of training, serving as a means of

establishing fundamental expectations for all employees. Second, the course underscored the

importance of “communicating effectively and treating others well—whether it be peers,

managers, or customers”.

The interviews provided perspective of multiple work groups and management styles

because the respondents either traveled between different facilities and/or engaged with a variety

of teams and their supervisors. All three interviewees noted the class was helpful in

demonstrating effective communication and the building of rapport with the many individuals

they engage with in their day-to-day responsibilities. This stemmed from possessing a clear

understanding of the organization’s expectations in its mission and values including the

importance of adhering to rules and regulations, embracing open communication and the

opendoor policy, and fostering an inclusive work environment.

One respondent noted the ethics class was important in this specific type of workplace

setting. One of the participants had previous work experience with a different type of financial

entity that provided similar services to its clients. The participant joined the current organization

as a frontline sales associate and also serves in a supervisory role. The participant noted the

ethics class clearly delineated the expected behaviors the organization set for its teams and would

assist this individual in supporting and modeling the expected ethics behaviors for colleagues

and followers. The participant also noted an uncertainty around procedures following the ethics

course. The participant mentioned an assumption could be made the participant’s supervisor

would have additional discussions with the participant about the class following its conclusion.

Those discussions had not been mentioned or set up prior to taking the course.

The remaining participants stressed the importance of manager support and the

opportunity to practice the concepts from the capstone course, referring to this aspect of learning

as “crucial”. Throughout the individual interviews, both participants continued to circle back to

their current position in their career journeys and the limited experience they possessed. They

referenced a need for their direct supervisors “to be available” when associates have questions

about the material and a desire to see an environment crafted where “it is acceptable to practice

and learn in small steps”. One respondent went further in this dialogue, noting the reason for

coming to work for the company was to help pay bills at home. Initially, the participant had not

accepted or cared about the corporate culture and how the organizational leaders proposed to do

things. However, as the participant transitioned through the training curriculum, the participant

noted a personal mindset shift that more closely aligned the participant with the company’s

vision and values. At the conclusion of the capstone course, the participant better understood the

organization’s beliefs and wanted “an opportunity to learn and practice” those ideals on-the-job.

One concern that was noted by a participant was in the cadence of the training. The

participant noted the intensity and pace at which associates were expected to learn and how “it

can feel overwhelming at times”. The participant was unsure how to effectively fit the expected

quantity of required training courses into the daily routine. The participant noted the materials

seemed easy to learn and understand and expressed a positive view of the organization overall.

The participant also felt like the choice to join the organization was the right choice because it

was “a good company that maintained a positive culture” for associates.

Research Question Three

RQ3: Does gender affect the perceived impacts of the innovation characteristics on the diffusion

of ethical standards to employees?

Demographic data was gathered at the end of the survey from participants who elected to

disclose. Among the 47 respondents, there were 14 males, 31 females, one non-binary/third

gender, and one preference not to disclose. The small sample size fell below the researcher’s

initial target of 66. It also produced a sample with twice the number of female respondents as

male respondents. However, the statistical power of the study remained intact with n>30 (Hogg

& Tanis, 2001).

The original intent of this study was to employ a t-test for independent samples to assess

the gender-based data. However, to compensate for the limited dataset, the researcher

transitioned to the utilization of a ranked t-test to determine if there was a statistically significant

relationship between each question and responses based on gender. In these scenarios, ranked

ttests are more likely to produce accurate data due to the small sample size (Glass & Hopkins,

1996). Information is outlined in Table 17.

Table 17

Survey Response Analysis Based on Gender Using a Ranked t-test

______________________________________________________________________________

Question Number p-value Effect Size Male Female Statistically Significant

(Cohen’s d) Mean Mean

1 0.262 0.397 4.71 5.55 No

2 0.022 0.773 4.86 5.90 Yes

3 0.074 0.638 4.93 5.84 Yes

4 0.077 0.607 5.07 5.84 Yes

5 0.029 0.822 4.86 5.81 Yes

6 0.287 0.405 5.14 6.03 No

7 0.284 0.417 5.29 6.10 No

8 0.488 0.263 5.43 5.90 No

9 0.818 0.082 4.93 5.19 No

10 0.472 0.244 4.86 5.23 No

11 0.560 0.215 4.79 5.39 No

12 0.118 0.576 5.64 6.10 No

13 0.126 0.535 5.50 6.06 No

14 0.279 0.366 6.07 6.32 No

15 0.657 0.154 5.93 6.10 No

16 0.087 0.577 5.36 5.97 Yes

17 0.175 0.423 5.36 5.65 No

18 0.846 0.068 5.79 5.81 No

19 0.846 0.059 3.57 3.67 No

20 0.309 0.370 5.31 5.68 No

21 0.668 0.144 2.64 2.97 No

22 0.063 0.647 4.84 5.52 Yes

23 0.780 0.090 4.93 4.74 No

24 0.799 0.079 2.36 2.58 No

25 0.890 0.045 3.21 3.19 No

A p-value of 0.1 served as the evaluation benchmark

When comparing responses by gender, there was a statistically significant relationship

found in six of the questions evaluating three attributes—relative advantage, observability, and

trialability. Because of the small sample size, a p-value of 0.1 was utilized as the evaluation

benchmark (Hogg & Tanis, 2001). The p-values for the six questions were all less than 0.1,

pointing to results considered statistically significant for this research. The Cohen d results were

also the highest of the dataset, indicating a medium to large effect size. The larger effect sizes

point to differences between the two groups that are statistically significant and material.

Hypothesis One: H01: Female participants will assess similar levels of relative advantage in

the course materials versus male participants.

H1: Female participants will assess higher levels of relative advantage in the course materials

versus male participants.

The hypothesis was evaluated using a ranked t-test. The two smallest p-values (p=0.022

and p=0.029) and the two largest effect sizes (d=0.822 and d=0.773) in the data set were noted

among the five questions pertaining to relative advantage. Four of the five questions evaluating

this attribute demonstrated a significant relationship in the different responses between female

and male participants. The values for the related attribute of image reflected a different result and

did not assert a statistically significant relationship in the data. The p-values exceeded 0.1

(0.472≤p≤0.818). The effect sizes were small (d= 0.082, 0.244, and 0.215). However, because

the results were significant for the four relative advantage questions and females assessed higher

levels of relative advantage, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Hypothesis Two. H02: Female participants will assess similar levels of compatibility in the

course materials versus male participants.

H2: Female participants will assess higher levels of compatibility in the course materials versus

male participants.

The hypothesis was evaluated using a ranked t-test. The p-values for the three questions

related to compatibility were higher than 0.1 (p≥0.284). The Cohen’s d values were less than 0.5

(0.263≤d≤0.417), marking a small to slightly modest effect size. The findings show support for

the null hypothesis and affirm no significant relationship to be found in the differences in

participant responses based on gender.

Hypothesis Three. H03: Female participants will assess similar levels of trialability in the

course materials versus male participants.

H3: Female participants will assess higher levels of trialability in the course materials versus

male participants.

The hypothesis was evaluated utilizing a ranked t-test. Question 22 reviewing trialability

noted a statistically significant relationship in the data and moderate effect size (p=0.063,

d=0.647). The remaining results were significantly different, reflecting large p-values (p≥0.780)

and small effect sizes (d<0.1). Because females assessed higher levels of trialability in question

22, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Hypothesis Four. H04: Female participants will assess similar levels of observability in

the course materials versus male participants.

H4: Female participants will assess higher levels of observability in the course materials versus

male participants.

The hypothesis was examined using a ranked t-test. Similar to trialability, one of the

questions (16) evaluating result demonstrability pointed to a statistically significant relationship

in the data (p=0.087, d=0.577). The remaining questions evaluating result demonstrability and

visibility offered a disparity of p-values (0.175≤p≤0.846) with effect sizes that were generally

small except for two results (d=0.370 and d=0.423). Because the results for 16 reflected a

statistically significant relationship and one of the larger effect sizes, the null hypothesis was

rejected.

Hypothesis Five. H05: Female participants will assess similar levels of complexity in the

course materials versus male participants.

H5: Female participants will assess lower levels of complexity in the course materials versus

male participants.

The hypothesis was evaluated using a ranked t-test. As a data set, the responses to

complexity (ease of use) reflected a wider range of p-values and effect sizes than some attributes.

A couple of p-values were near 0.1 (p=0.118 and p=0.126) and boasted moderate effect sizes that

were among the higher values in the dataset (d=0.576 and d=0.535). The remaining p-values

demonstrated weaker relationships in the data with larger p-values (p=0.279 and p=0.657) and

smaller effect sizes (d=0.366 and d=0.154). However, because all p-values were greater than 0.1,

the relationship between the responses of male and female participants was not found to be

statistically significant, and the null hypothesis was affirmed.

Research Question Four

RQ4: What compelling influences has the organization implemented to encourage compliance

with the ethics principles outlined in the capstone sales and ethics course?

In a review of the company’s performance management system, the annual evaluation

form referenced four ethics-related metrics. The first metric focused on the sales performance of

the employee, evaluating the overall volume of products sold measured against the product as an

appropriate solution for the client. The second metric evaluated the associate in the level of

operational proficiency, overall error rate, and completion of training coursework covering

federal and state regulations. The third metric reviewed the overall level of judgment displayed

during client and peer interactions. The fourth metric referenced adherence to policy and

compliance with regulatory requirements.

A list of the organization’s job descriptions and management hierarchy was obtained from

the corporate intranet human resources site. There was no job title for an ethics officer, and no

formal ethics office was found in the corporate directory. A search was later conducted to find

job titles that potentially carried out ethics oversight functions for the organization. In this

secondary investigation, three job titles of interest were located: compliance officer, chief risk

officer, and director of audit. The compliance officer and chief risk officer roles were contained

in one reporting structure while the audit function was contained in an independent reporting

structure. Because corporate ethics scandals often center around financial gain for the individuals

involved, a third search was conducted to determine the oversight of pay and compensation. A

division governing how employees were compensated for sales and performance was uncovered,

and this team was contained in a separate structure, reporting to the chief operations officer. In

summary, three independent organizational divisions managed components of the ethics function

—compliance and risk, audit, and general operations.

An additional search on the corporate intranet was undertaken to uncover ethics structures

that were readily available to all employees. Digital copies of the code of ethics policy and

associate handbook were accessible for download via the human resources site. An ethics hotline

was posted on one of the front-facing intranet pages to provide ease of access, high visibility, and

an outlet for associates to anonymously report concerning behavior. A portal was available to

allow general associate feedback, focusing on comments and suggestions for how the

organization could innovate and improve. Videos and articles authored by senior and executive

leaders related to culture, current climate, diversity, social responsibility, and ethical

fundamentals were also published and available for viewing.

A final influence in the organization’s arsenal was one similar in idea to the feedback

portal yet more targeted. Feedback was directly solicited from associates via email regarding the

performance of peers and supervisors. An annual associate survey (given to a select portion of

the associate population each year) provided an opportunity to discuss views of executive

leadership, team leadership, and the overall climate, culture, and trajectory of the organization.

Training surveys addressed the impacts of curricula and the skills needed for on-the-job

performance. Ad hoc surveys throughout the year provided insight into organizational culture

and current workplace concerns.

Chapter V

DISCUSSION

This mixed-methods study investigated how ethics training impacts the diffusion of

ethical standards in a financial organization through the lens of diffusion of innovations theory.

The research was narrowed to focus on frontline sales employees and their perception of the five

innovation characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and

complexity found in the course materials of the organization’s capstone sales and ethics course.

The study also reviewed the three additional diffusion attributes of image, results

demonstrability, and voluntariness used by Moore and Benbasat (1991) in their validated

25question survey instrument.

Diffusion of innovations research was originated by Rogers in 2003 and has served as a

catalyst for many different studies and new theory generation (Dearing & Cox, 2018). The study

of ethics and business is not new. Headline grabbing research regarding business and ethics has

been around for decades (Raymond, 1961). Despite the long histories of diffusion of innovations

theory and ethics research, there was no contemporary work found in the literature that

connected the two areas of research prior to this study.

The problem addressed in this research was inspired by the ongoing scandals that have

continued to pommel corporate America. From a historical perspective, the visibility of ethical

standards within organizations are not apparent despite the presence of ethics training. The only

things that appear to be clear are the ethical failures of organizations. Training serves as a major

conduit for tackling ethical issues at all levels of organizations, but there is no agreement in the

current body of research reflecting the efficacy of organizational ethics training as an avenue to

diffuse ethical standards to members of the organization and influence their behaviors. The study

engaged four research questions to address this problem:

1. What is the financial organization doing, through its educational efforts, to motivate

customer-facing employees and hold them accountable to be ethical in their sales

practices?

2. Which innovation characteristics (e.g., relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,

observability, and complexity) were influenced by the organization’s capstone sales and

ethics training course?

3. Does gender affect the perceived impacts of the innovation characteristics on the

diffusion of ethical standards to employees?

4. What compelling influences has the organization implemented to encourage compliance

with the ethics principles outlined in the capstone sales and ethics course?

Research question three was further refined with the addition of five null hypotheses specifically

noting how ethics training and the diffusion of ethical standards could be impacted by the five

primary innovation characteristics (see null hypotheses throughout this paper).

Research Question 1

RQ1: What is the financial organization doing, through its educational efforts, to motivate

customer-facing employees and hold them accountable to be ethical in their sales practices?

The organization employs a multi-faceted approach to learning by engaging participants with in-

person, virtual, and web-based training applications. It is also multi-faceted from the standpoint

of curricula requisite and frequency as some courses are completed only once during the initial

first year of employment, some courses require completion on an ongoing, annual basis, and

some courses are electives taken at the discretion of associates. This aligns with the work of

Medeiros et al. (2017) in the importance of addressing the training needs of individuals through

an omni-delivery channel system.

Ritter (2006) noted many firms advocate for ethical concepts to be a common thread in a

variety of training applications, while other practitioners urge a single course dedicated to ethics.

Based on a basic evaluation of the curriculum content, it appears the company has adopted the

first approach, weaving ethical concepts and expectations throughout its course offerings. This

could aid in training transfer because Islam (2019) found that most training is not applied on-

thejob or recalled by employees. Because the training team continues to teach a core set of

principles and adherence to policies over time, this repetitiveness could be beneficial in

generating greater recall of course materials by associates as well as application in the

workplace.

Despite the perceived presence of adequate content in the available courses, awareness of

available courses and ease of use of the company’s learning management software are areas

where additional information would have been useful. During the qualitative research, one of the

interview participants noted the software tools available to associates “should be reviewed for

possible updates because it does not appear state-of-the-art as compared to others encountered in

a previous job” and during the participant’s post-secondary education.

The training site is easily accessible for employees, located one click from the intranet’s

welcome page. The site provides links to the different areas of training and development

available to team members. The organization’s efforts align with Rogers’ (1961) diffusion of

innovation theory by using the training platform as a primary communication channel. However,

an interviewee noted when trying to locate and enroll in classes, the search function within the

learning management system was challenging to navigate, not intuitive to use, and “often

produced results that did not matter”. Because this system serves as a primary mechanism to

educate associates on course offerings and availability, it may be a missed opportunity to fully

support and create visibility around the organization’s educational efforts.

Research Question Two

RQ2: Which innovation characteristics (e.g., relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,

observability, and complexity) were influenced by the organization’s capstone sales and ethics

training course?

In the original statement of the problem, it was noted the ongoing corporate scandals in

the United States point to a lack of dissemination of ethical standards within organizations. It

was also noted training is viewed as a critical component of organizational strategy to tackle

ethical concerns, yet consensus is lacking in its effectiveness. If diffusion is not occurring within

organizations, a key indicator could be the absence of one of more of the innovation

characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and the

presence of the characteristic of complexity. By using the survey instrument crafted and

validated by Moore and Benbasat (1991), the research sought to uncover the levels of each

diffusion attribute participants perceived in the training course content.

If diffusion is likely occurring, survey respondents would be expected to assess higher

levels of relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and lower levels of

complexity in their responses. One would also anticipate higher levels of image, result

demonstrability, and voluntariness if diffusion is taking place. The mean scores for all questions

supported this assertion except one. The exception displayed lower levels of perceived

voluntariness in the application of the course principles. When addressed during the one-on-one

interviews, the respondents noted this was a desired outcome because ethics fundamentals and

appropriate behavior among employees “should be [prescribed] by the organization and not

optional”. One specifically noted a preference to conform to the organization’s expectations

because this was an opportunity to gain needed experience in a professional work environment.

For this individual, the organization provided the first opportunity to learn the basics of ethics in

a business setting.

It is noted the study saw increased variation in the results for the characteristics attributed

to Moore and Benbasat (1991) versus those advocated by Rogers (1961). Although the mean

scores were not exceptionally different among the eight characteristics, the higher standard

deviations in the dataset tended to be produced from the questions evaluating Moore and

Benbasat’s attributes of image, result demonstrability, and voluntariness. The question evaluating

voluntariness also produced the study’s only result that questioned the presence of diffusion.

While interesting to note, the impacts of Rogers characteristics versus Moore and

Benbasat’s additional three characteristics in evaluating the effectiveness of ethics training in the

diffusion of ethics fundamentals is beyond the scope of this study.

Even with the small sample size of this study, the researcher did not anticipate

respondents to assess higher levels of relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability,

image, results demonstrability, and voluntariness and lower levels of complexity across all but

one survey question. This pattern does not lend support to the idea that the diffusion of ethical

standards is not occurring within organizations. If this is truly the case, the data points to new

questions. If training applications are an effective means of disseminating ethical standards, what

is limiting their ability to elicit ethical behavior in the workforce? If ethical standards are

diffusing as a result of training applications, what is the root cause of ongoing scandals and

unacceptable behaviors within corporations? If training applications are an effective means of

diffusion, can they be considered a primary channel of communication?

Research Question Three

RQ3: Does gender affect the perceived impacts of the innovation characteristics on the diffusion

of ethical standards to employees?

This study reviewed the potential impacts of gender in the dispersion of ethical standards

because the current body of research is inconclusive in its determination of gender as a driver of

ethical decisioning. Hadjicharalambous & Shi (2015) noted gender’s impacts on ethics has been

given ongoing attention by researchers, but study results have presented cases on both sides of

this argument. Hughes and Byrd (2015) and Jones et al. (2013) discussed the diversity

transformation in the United States and across the globe. With women making up a larger portion

of the modern workforce, their influence on ethical behaviors and attitudes in the workplace will

continue to increase and should garner a greater amount of attention in research circles. The

data for research question three reflected an uneven number of responses among males and

females. Over two-thirds of surveys originated from women. When reviewing the demographic

information from the overall sample of 315 employees, the number of female participants stood

at approximately 60%. This translated to an increased likelihood of more female participants

completing the survey versus male participants.

The hypotheses were structured in line with theoretical outcomes supporting the idea that

females tend to be more ethical than males. Under this assumption, it was expected women

would assess higher levels of relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, image,

result demonstrability, and voluntariness and lower levels of complexity. The study’s dataset

supported a portion of the researcher’s assumptions, noting a statistical difference in responses

by gender for three of the attributes—relative advantage, trialability, and observability. It is also

noted that almost all questions reflected a higher mean score for female respondents versus male

respondents, regardless of statistical significance.

From a gender perspective, these results again point to a divergence in how respondents

rated Rogers’ (1961) five characteristics compared to the three additional characteristics of

Moore and Benbasat (1991). All but one of the questions producing a significant statistical

relationship were connected with one of Rogers’ original attributes. Only one was related to an

attribute identified by Moore and Benbasat. However, evaluating the effectiveness of Rogers’

five characteristics versus the eight advocated by Moore and Benbasat to predict the diffusion of

ethical principles is not addressed by this study.

Research Question Four

RQ4: What compelling influences has the organization implemented to encourage compliance

with the ethics principles outlined in the capstone sales and ethics course?

The organization’s ethical structures and practices were in line with those of research and

industry standards. Weaver and Treviño (2001) discussed the practice of codifying guidelines,

and the organization possessed a formal code of ethics requiring associate acknowledgement.

Bastons et al. (2017) referenced motivational theory via mission statements, vision, and

corporate policies as a means to persuade employees to behave in a prescribed manner. The

organization had developed and implemented each of these items. Huselid (1995) and Martin

(2010) spoke of the role of human resources practitioners, and how performance metrics,

compensation tools, and ongoing evaluation can positively impact motivation and learning

retention. Again, the company was aligned and had set in place a prescribed performance

management system that included job expectations, definitions of performance metrics, and tools

to understand pay, incentives, and benefits.

A potential area of opportunity was found in the corporate governance structure for

ethics. Weaver and Treviño (2001) noted the presence of formal ethics offices in many firms.

However, the organization did not possess a formal office of ethics or have a titled ethics officer

on staff. Instead, the responsibilities were shared across multiple lines of business in a shared

governance structure, marginally in the same vein as the ethics committees mentioned by Singh

et al. (2018). A potential benefit to this structure could be similar to what is seen in the federal

government—a group of “branches” administering ethics together, providing checks and

balances in the work and oversight being performed. However, Singh et al. (2018) postulated a

formal ethics office sends a strong message in ethics governance by forging a visible symbol for

associates and leaders to see. It can serve as a tangible means to communicate and demonstrate

the importance of ethics from executive leadership. Executive leaders through ethical leadership

modeling are responsible for crafting the protocols and ideals of the organization according to

Mo & Shi (2017), and the incorporation of a formal ethics office in conjunction with the

preexisting structure could serve as an avenue to further solidify the organization’s ethical

foundation.

Limitations

The predominant concern limiting this study was the small sample size. The researcher

originally targeted a sample size of 323, representing a confidence level of 95% and margin of

error of 5%. However, implications from COVID-19 meant the organization was operating at

reduced capacity levels of staffing and lacked the ability to bring on huge swaths of talent

because of a pandemic-induced shortage of labor within its trade territories. As a result, the

targeting sample size was reduced to 66, representing a confidence level of 90% and margin of

error of 10%. After six months of survey data collection and ongoing reminders to participants

encouraging completion of the survey, the final tally of responses only reached 47. The response

rate also fell short with the one-on-one interviews. The initial goal was to interview ten

participants, but only three interviews were able to be conducted within the six-month

timeframe. Multiple requests and reminders were forwarded to respondents to increase

engagement, but the researcher was unable to increase interview participation to ten.

A second limitation was the overall setup of the study. The lack of a control group was a

negative impact, eliminating a potential means of evaluating and comparing the effects of the

training treatment. The number of female participants also outnumbered male participants by

more than a factor of two-to-one. In reviewing the organization’s overall demographic data, it

was noted this was in line with the overall trend of female employees representing just over 65%

of the company’s workforce. Assuming this trend would hold with future groups of incoming

new hires, surveying additional class sections would likely not improve the ratio of male to

female responses.

A third potential limiting factor was additional impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic

beyond a shortage of labor. The full effects of COVID-19 were not immediately clear. The

researcher discovered many organizations within his center of influence were unwilling to

participate in research studies during this time, instead focusing their resources on maintaining

operations and navigating an environment of uncertainty. It is unclear if the environment the

pandemic created affected the responses of participants in this study and the willingness of class

attendees to volunteer for the study. As uncovered by research question four, the organization

where the study was conducted operated under a heavy reliance of surveys and feedback

requests. In a conversation with the director of communications, it was noted the pandemic

resulted in an even greater than normal dependence on surveys. This was due to a significant

decrease in in-person interactions because of the high number of associates working remotely for

most of 2020. This continued into 2021 when this study was conducted. A higher volume of

feedback requests could have contributed to survey fatigue and lessened employees’ willingness

to take part in the survey and interviews.

A fourth limitation was the course under evaluation. The capstone sales and ethics course

offered an opportunity to engage with employees within their first year of employment to gain a

fresh and unbiased perspective of the organization. However, as indicated by the course name,

the content was not solely devoted to ethics. It blended ethical concepts with additional topics

such as company culture and sales expectations. While these areas are inter-related, a course

solely dedicated to the study of ethics would have been preferred by the researcher to produce

more refined data. As is, the study results could be attributed to one of the additional topics

instead of ethics. A secondary item of concern with the course was its delivery method. The

capstone sales and ethics course was only delivered in a virtual classroom setting due to

COVID19 restrictions. The impacts of e-learning as the selected training solution was not

evaluated in this study.

Implications for Human Resources and Workforce Development

Swanson and Holton (2009) stressed the importance of theoretical fundamentals and

theory development to advance the cause of human resource development. They advocated for

ongoing advancement of theory to keep the field from stagnating or becoming grounded and

unable to advance as needed. As a new line of research that fills a vacancy in the current body of

work, this study’s focus on diffusion of innovations provides an additional lens for human

resource professionals to view and understand ethics training efficacy. Opponents of training

effectiveness often point to anemic theoretical fundamentals (Wells & Schminke, 2001), and

equipping human resource practitioners with a mainstream theory like diffusion of innovations

would weaken those arguments.

In spite of this study’s limited sample size, participant responses pointed to the presence

of relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and absence of complexity in

the ethics training content. These results, in addition to the existence of an omni-delivery training

platform and ethical structures such as a code of ethics policy, ethics hotline, and ethical

components to the performance management system, increase the likelihood the diffusion of

ethics fundamentals is occurring within the organization. If future studies also confirm diffusion

is taking place, this work will inform the response of human resource and workforce

development experts to focus on several areas with tiebacks to many of the topics and theories

discussed in chapter two.

Ethics Training Platform Design. If diffusion is occurring, human resource

professionals must ask what information is being dispersed within the workforce. An

examination of ethics course content will be critical to consistently convey the organization’s

vision and expectations. However, this has proven to be a challenge as companies do not agree in

how to define ethics and approach curriculum design (Medeiros et al., 2017). The researcher also

advocates the importance of content delivery to meet the needs of an ever evolving, diverse, and

often remote workforce, with a focus on omni-delivery solutions. Sekerka (2009) acknowledged

the variety of widely available options to companies and trainers to infuse ethics education with

their corporate cultures and visions.

Motivational and Accountability Theories. If diffusion is occurring, human resource

professionals must evaluate how to incent employees and leaders to adopt the organization’s

ethical ideals. Companies must be cognizant and intentional in how the message of

accountability aligns with the interests of the employer and employee. The outcomes and

consequences of motivational tools such as incentives must be evaluated in an ongoing manner,

leaving the opportunity to engage in a course correction if avenues meant to motivate and elicit

accountability produce an opposing result (Pendse, 2012). In addition, this focus on

accountability should inform the extent to which ethics should be included in performance

evaluations.

Cognitive dissonance theory (CDT) and self-determination theory (SDT) could help

inform human resource teams in possible outcomes for the adoption of ethical standards. CDT

evaluations the motivation of an individual to modify his or her belief system or behaviors

(Lavergne & Pelletier, 2016). Self-determination theory (SDT) operates in tandem with CDT,

evaluating the impacts of rewards and image in motivating a person to align his or her actions

with the organization’s value system (Lavergne & Pelletier, 2016).

Ethical Leadership Modeling. Similar to motivational and accountability theories,

ethical leadership modeling can be a tool to employ to convince employees to embrace ethical

standards. Human resource and workforce development must have a strong voice and direct

access to organizational leadership. Training programs will not have the desired impacts if those

in positions of authority do not embrace a mindset of ethical leadership modeling (Maniam &

Teetz, 2005). Leadership roles often place individuals in the spotlight (Brown et al., 2005), and

that spotlight informs employees of the organization’s focus on procedural justice through the

leaders’ actions. Procedural justice forges a bond between employer and employee by amplifying

100

commonly held views of the two, improving individual performance and adherence to desired

corporate standards (Leasure, 2016). Human resource and workforce development teams can

serve as the communication point to bridge this gap between leadership accountability and the

resulting impacts to frontline performance (MacKenzie et al., 2012). In this scenario, the

organization, its leaders and employees, and the field of human resources wins.

Recommendations for Future Research

This study was the first of its kind examining ethics training efficacy through the lens of

diffusion of innovations theory and the five innovation characteristics of relative advantage,

compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity. Because the study was limited by a low

response rate, reproducing this study in another corporate entity with a larger population and a

different ethics course could provide more definitive data. The addition of a control group would

also elicit benefits in better understanding the impacts of an ethics training course in the diffusion

of ethical standards in an organizational setting.

To continue forging a path in diffusion research and its influences on ethics training, the

examination of new types of demographic data would be helpful. This would directly align with

recent work in the body of research focused on the impacts of gender (Waples et al., 2009), age

(Weber, 2014), and education level (Medeiros et al., 2017) on ethics training efficacy. Future

examinations evaluating these factors—paired with a control group—would craft a more robust

and meaningful path for diffusion work. The scope should also be broadened beyond an

organization’s frontline sales force. Understanding the impacts of diffusion across all business

lines and levels of associates in the corporate landscape could provide greater understanding and

application in using diffusion of innovations theory to explain the impacts of ethics training. It is

possible training could impact the dispersion of ethical standards differently among

101

customerfacing sales associates, operations team members, frontline managers, and division and

executive leadership.

Future studies should also incorporate a follow-up interaction with survey and interview

participants one year following the completion of the ethics coursework. This interview data

could be further utilized to evaluate new research questions. The current study employed a

simple approach, asking associates to respond to survey questions from a perspective of how

they believed they would behave on-the-job. However, no verification of actual behaviors took

place. In subsequent studies, the participants’ supervisors should be engaged to evaluate changes

in performance or instances of behavior that did not align with the principles advocated in class.

Additional survey tools or qualitative interviews could be utilized to determine how much

participants are able to recall from class. This data could then be compared to the control group

to evaluate any statistically significant differences in performance and general knowledge of

ethics.

Based on one participant’s concerns with the viability of the organization’s learning

management system, technology may serve as a supplementary area for future research. Recent

studies have focused heavily on the drivers of e-learning technology adoption including how

easy and enjoyable a system is to utilize. These factors can influence learners’ levels of

engagement with course materials (Findik-Coskuncay et al., 2018; Nguyen, 2021). Future

research might also focus on questions exploring ways to guarantee the usefulness and quality of

course information in a learning management system and their impact on employee engagement.

Because this was an inaugural research study, replication of the research will be another

avenue to pursue. Future research should first reproduce this study in a population large enough

to support an appropriate sample size. This replication would take place within another financial

102

entity to serve as a point of comparison. Studies in new sectors and industries would come next,

widening the scope of research and increasing the understanding of diffusion attributes’ impacts

on ethics training. Reviewing the legal implications of ethics training in these sectors and

industries could also prove material since state and federal governments often attempt to mandate

ethical behaviors. Ways to measure legal compliance with ethics would serve as another

connecting topic of interest and relate back to general accountability.

Utilizing components of diffusion of innovations theory outside Rogers’ five attributes

could also prove material—including the components of diffusion and the categories of adopters.

Rogers advocated four components of diffusion. These components—the innovation,

communication channels, time period, and social system—could each become the cornerstone of

diffusion work evaluating the efficacy of ethics training. For example, studies could be

constructed around the four categories of adopters within an innovation’s social system

(innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards), evaluating how training

impacted their drive to adopt ethical principles and the extent to which they implemented those

principles. Other studies could evaluate the impacts via communication channels, examining the

adoption of ethical ideals following different delivery methods of training including in-person

classrooms, virtual classrooms, online learning, job shadowing, and mentorships.

A final possibility within the realm of diffusion work outside of the five attributes should

focus on the five stages of adoption (or rejection). Rogers’ (2003) five stages are knowledge,

persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. Different components of ethical theories

and industry best practices could be incorporated into this type of research. Ethics training could

be a means of evaluating the knowledge and persuasion stages while decisioning could be related

to how individuals observe ethical leadership modeling in their organizations. Implementation

103

and confirmation could focus on the impacts of peer behaviors and how employees and managers

are held accountable if ethical principles are ultimately adopted or rejected.

Conclusion

This study utilized diffusion of innovations theory to examine the attributes of ethics

training that block best practices and moral behaviors from being disseminated within an

organization following a training application. It was the first of its kind connecting ethics training

and diffusion of innovations, specifically targeting the impacts of training on the diffusion of

ethical standards using Rogers’ five innovation characteristics of relative advantage,

compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity. The study also considered the work of

Moore and Benbasat and the three additional diffusion attributes they studied—image, result

demonstrability, and voluntariness.

The study was framed by an initial assumption that ethical scandals continue to bombard

corporate America because ethical principles are not diffusing within these organizations. The

results of this study did not support this conclusion and pointed to the likelihood diffusion is

occurring. However, differences were noted in how male and female participants perceived the

levels of three attributes in the course content—relative advantage, trialability, and observability.

This potentially supported the conclusion of previous studies finding women behaving more

ethically than men—assuming women could be more likely to diffuse ethical standards to others

following the class. Another interesting takeaway from the data pointed to overall greater mean

scores originating from female respondent as compared to males with most survey questions—

irrespective of statical significance with those scores.

This research was also significant from the standpoint of viewing ethics as an innovation

to be studied. The current body of research tends to focus on how individuals make ethical

104

decisions through critical thought processes and problem resolution (Wells & Schminke, 2001;

Crossman et al., 2013). In this respect, ethics can be viewed as more of an outcome or result of

an action taken. This study pursued a different approach, placing ethics as the center of study

applied via a training treatment. In this way, ethics could be studied in a way where it possessed

attributes, and those attributes could directly impact its adoption or rejection by system

participants.

Prospective research with diffusion of innovations and ethics will support diffusion work

that has been ongoing for many years by Rogers and other field experts. This will provide

researchers a novel avenue to pursue while giving human resource and workforce development

practitioners a new and expanded theory upon which solutions to current challenges and new

initiatives can be built. It may also provide a pathway to rebuilding trust between the corporate

sector and the general public while lessening the need for governmental legislation and oversight.

The persistent ethical issues that continue to plague corporate America and other entities around

the world require renewed focus and strong solutions. Human resource and workforce

development teams are well-positioned to play a significant role in offering these solutions.

Equipping these teams with information and research grounded in theory will sustain their efforts

while accelerating a diminished impact and expectation of financial scandals as part of

mainstream American culture.

Students also viewed