The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm

Management
Organizational ethical climate: Decision
influence on employee meaning
and well-being
Jayesh Pandey and Manish Kumar
Department of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management,
Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Ranchi, India, and Received 13 October 2023
Revised 21 January 2024
Shailendra Singh 21 February 2024
27 February 2024
Department of Human Resource Management, Accepted 3 April 2024
Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, Lucknow, India

Abstract
Purpose – The organizational environment can influence how employees experience meaningfulness. This
study examines the mediating role of meaningful work between organizational ethical climates and the
affective well-being of employees. We also test for the moderating role of self-regulatory traits in this
relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – Partial least squares – structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was
employed to test the hypothesized model using responses from 430 working professionals. Recommended
robustness checks were conducted before model assessment and hypotheses testing.
Findings – The findings suggest that a caring ethical climate is positively related to affective well-being.
Meaningful work dimensions, i.e. unity with others, inspiration and balancing tensions partially mediate the
relationship between the caring climate and affective well-being. Integrity with self and balancing tensions
fully mediate the negative effect of an instrumental climate on affective well-being. Positive mediation of unity
with others and negative mediation of reality were observed between a law and code climate and affective well-
being. Moderating effects of self- and other-orientation and self-monitoring were also observed.
Research limitations/implications – The study presents significant insights, however, a few limitations
must be discussed. The study has relied on cross-sectional data which may be addressed in future studies.
Practical implications – In times when organizations are spending in large amounts in ensuring meaningful
work and employee well-being, this study suggests internal mechanisms that can bring positive impact in
employees’ work life. Leaders should assess how employees perceive the ethical climate of the organization in
order to provide better meaningful work opportunities to the workforce.
Social implications – Having meaningful work and experiencing affective well-being are significant for a
collective betterment of society. Meaningful work encourages individuals in identifying how their work if
affecting the society. A affectively happy workforce is essential in building a mentally healthy society.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the investigation of organizational factors that help employees
find meaning in their work. Based on ethical climate theory, this study highlights how organizations can
redesign and modify their ethical climates to provide opportunities for employees to experience meaningful
work and improve their affective well-being.
Keywords Ethical climate, Meaningful work, Affective well-being, Self-orientation, Other orientation,
Self-control, Self-monitoring
Paper type Original article

1. Introduction
Organizations occasionally face unforeseen challenges that have adverse impacts on
employees, affecting individuals’ health as well as their performance. Post-COVID-19
constraints and large-scale industrial unrest have severely impacted not only employee well-
being and the meaningfulness they find in their jobs but also the productivity of employees
(George et al., 2022). Constant changes in workplace settings (i.e. work-from-home, work- Management Decision
from-office or hybrid modes of working) add fuel to the fire as working professionals find © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
themselves struggling to adapt to ever-changing conditions. Moreover, rampant layoffs are DOI 10.1108/MD-10-2023-1823
MD causing job insecurity, which may be even more harmful than actually losing one’s job (Kriz
et al., 2021) and impair employee well-being (Lam et al., 2023). When individuals fail to find
meaning in their jobs, the health of both the individual and the organization is negatively
impacted (Korkmaz and G€ ulo
glu, 2021). Organizational practices affecting perceptions of
meaningful work and affective well-being warrant increased scholarly attention.
The collective perception of an organization’s practices and decision-making is known as
its ethical climate (Martin and Cullen, 2006). The ethical climate is made up of the prevalent
norms, systems and values promoted by the organization and its members. In a meta-
analysis, Martin and Cullen (2006) identify and define five types of ethical climates most
commonly found in organizational settings: caring, instrumental, rules, law and code, and
independence. This study has examined caring, instrumental, and law and code as
organizational antecedents to meaningful work and affective well-being. A caring climate is
characterized by a climate where there is an overarching concern for the well-being of others.
Whereas instrumental climate persists where employees engage in selfish pursuits of their
goals or organizational goals even to the extent of the possible detriment of others. In a law
and code climate, the highest priority of the organization is to follow professional codes,
external guidelines or legal compliances (See Martin and Cullen, 2006). Based on an
organization’s ethical climate, individuals form their perceptions of trust, fairness and justice,
which in turn influence the attitudes and behaviours of employees related to performance, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Decoster et al., 2021). A recent study identified
the positive effect of a caring and independence climate on meaningful work (Rai et al., 2023).
The findings of this study have contributed to the discussion of ethical climate and
meaningful work. Another study highlights the need to study the integration of different
ethical climates and meaningful work more comprehensively (Bankins and Formosa, 2023).
However, the literature on the examination of how distinct ethical climates impact meaningful
work and the affective well-being of individuals remains scant.
As evidenced by a growing body of research, meaningful work has been examined from a
variety of theoretical and philosophical lenses (Lysova et al., 2023). However, there are notable
differences among the scholars regarding defining and measuring meaningful work (Both-
Nwabuwe et al., 2017). This study has employed a comprehensive and multidimensional
outlook of meaningful work proposed by Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012). In this outlook,
meaningful work can be understood as a multifaceted phenomenon which includes the effect
of work on oneself as well as others. Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012) have identified seven
dimensions of meaningful work. Meaningfulness in work can be experienced by: unity with
others (working together with others), service to others (making a contribution to others),
integrity with self (becoming one’s higher self), expressing full potential (sense of
achievement), inspiration (being hopeful for future), reality (proximity to facticity of work)
and balancing tensions (managing needs of self and others). Meaningful work has been found
to lead to multiple desirable work outcomes such as job satisfaction, work engagement,
commitment, life satisfaction, citizenship behaviour and job performance (Allan et al., 2019).
Considering these positive outcomes, it is necessary to study how organizations can foster an
environment that promotes the experience of meaningful work.
Our research adds to the business ethics and meaningful work literature in several ways.
First, we respond to the call by Lysova et al. (2023) to examine meaningful work from a
diverse point of view and determine how meaningfulness can be embedded into future work,
by identifying the ethical climate of the organization as a predictor of employees experiencing
meaningfulness. We also answer the call of Heath et al. (2022) asking for an examination of the
conditions under which meaningful work impacts employee well-being. Second, Blustein et al.
(2023) have suggested that conditions for decent work potentially interact with employees’
experience of meaningful work which needs to be studied. Following the same, this study
identifies ethical climate as a work condition that enhances meaningful work. Third, this
study aims to contribute to ethical climate theory by understanding the mediation of Management
meaningful work by ethical climate and employee affective well-being. To the best of our Decision
knowledge, this study is the first to examine this relationship. Finally, we contribute to the
ongoing debate surrounding the nature of meaning in work. To operationalize this construct,
we employ a more comprehensive framework of meaningful work which helps us offer
insights into the factors that provide meaning in work (Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012).
The paper is structured as follows: The following section presents the literature review
and hypotheses development. Next, the method and data analyses conducted to test the
hypotheses are described. The subsequent section provides a discussion and conclusion of
the findings of the study, including implications of the study findings, limitations of the study
and potential future research directions.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1 Caring climate, meaningful work and affective well-being
Affective well-being can be understood as the prevalence of positive affective states over
negative affective states which are based on the dynamics of personal and interpersonal
experiences at work (Kam et al., 2022). A caring ethical climate has the potential to influence an
employee’s affective well-being since employees actively engage in caring for each other and
strive for the well-being of a maximum number of organizational members (Parboteeah et al.,
2024). The authors present an argument that the influence of a caring climate on affective well-
being can be explained by the experience of meaningful work. Experience of meaningful work
involves an inclination to positively contribute to others. Having an impact on others’ lives is
an intrinsic aspect of meaningful work which elevates positive affective states among the
individuals (Martela, 2023). Previous studies have identified how meaningful work mediates
the relationships between organizational attributes and well-being outcomes. Lips-Wiersma
et al. (2023) identified that meaningful work mediates the positive effect of job security and
autonomy on the affective well-being of employees. When individuals ascribe meaning to their
work, they are more likely to experience positive emotions and a healthy mental state at work.
Pradhan and Pradhan (2016) suggest that meaningful work plays a mediating role between
transformational leadership and the affective commitment of individuals. Similarly, Fremeaux
and Pavageau (2022) suggest that leaders have the potential to enhance the meaningful work
of individuals and subsequently inculcate a positive sense about themselves and others.
Leadership has often been identified as the source of climate within a firm (Yang et al., 2023).
As manifestations of a caring climate, i.e. leadership and job security and their effect on
meaningful work have been studied. Hence, we examine the effect of a caring climate on
meaningful work and affective well-being in this study.
The positive effect of a caring ethical climate on the psychological well-being of
individuals may be explained by employees’ experience of meaningful work. A caring ethical
climate encourages employees to prioritize the well-being of others in all organizational
activities and provides them with an opportunity to take righteous actions that benefit others
(Peng and Wei, 2020). This type of climate fosters a sense of unity and service to others. An
organizational focus on the well-being of all employees may help individuals feel that they are
working in the right job at the right place (Lepisto and Pratt, 2017). Employees in these
climates have a sense of integrity and are motivated to express their full potential. A caring
climate may also be perceived as ‘fair”, which strengthens employees’ understanding of the
realities of the workplace (Lips-Wiersma et al., 2020). Similarly, the opportunity to make a
positive contribution to organizational goals and the well-being of others may inspire
employees to strive for a better future. Meaningful work fuels employees with positive
emotions such as happiness, satisfaction and calmness which are crucial for employee well-
being. Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize the following:
MD H1. All dimensions of meaningful work mediate the positive relationship between a
caring ethical climate and affective well-being.

2.2 Instrumental climate, meaningful work and affective well-being

Selfish behaviours in an instrumental climate negatively impact individual well-being since
individuals often maximise their gain over the cost of others (Parboteeah et al., 2024).
Instrumentality can eliminate avenues through which individuals experience meaningful
work, thus reducing meaningfulness and well-being. An instrumental climate is
characterized by the constant and selfish pursuit of individual goals. Employees in an
instrumental climate may believe that their colleagues use them to further their own goals or
those of the organization. When employees feel that they are being used merely as resources
or tools, it reduces their sense of belongingness and may cause them to feel dehumanized
(V€ayrynen and Laari-Salmela, 2018). This dehumanization leads employees to become
disconnected from themselves. They fail to experience integrity with self and balance
tensions between themselves and others. When selfish behaviours are rampant in the
workplace, employees experience a disengagement from morality and a forced need to exhibit
unethical behaviour (Antunez et al., 2023). The resulting constant relational conflicts among
employees can have further negative impacts on affective well-being (Choi et al., 2023).
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H2. The meaningful work dimensions of (a) integrity with self and (b) balancing tensions
mediate the negative relationship between the instrumental ethical climate and
affective well-being.

2.3 Law and code climate, meaningful work and affective well-being
The positive effect of the law and code climate on employee well-being may also be explained
through the experience of meaningful work. A law and code climate shows major concern for
legal compliance and professional ethics, directing employees to follow a professional code of
ethics or an external set of guidelines that lead to desirable work outcomes (Parboteeah et al.,
2024). When employees are encouraged to follow a code of ethics, they derive a sense of
satisfaction from their work (Oh et al., 2022). This climate promotes a sense of clarity in
functioning and navigating through organizational challenges. The clarity regarding expected
behaviours allows employees to manage the realities of their work, while the commonality of
the code fosters a sense of unity and service to others (Ozkan € et al., 2023). When a
predetermined code of ethics is provided to employees, they are less likely to engage in deviant
behaviours and more likely to create a collaborative environment (Haldorai et al., 2020). Lower
tendencies for deviant behaviours within the team may motivate employees to commit to their
roles and meet expected levels of performance (Aryati et al., 2018). When laws are strictly
followed, employees may feel that they are serving a higher purpose through their jobs. The
law and code climate also provides them with the opportunities to perform by investing in their
full potential. These experiences of meaningful work enhance employee well-being through
positive connections with the organization and co-workers. Hence, we hypothesize:
H3. The meaningful work dimensions of (a) integrity with self; (b) expressing full
potential; (c) reality; (d) service to others; and (e) unity with others mediate the positive
relationship between the law and code ethical climate and affective well-being.

2.4 Moderating role of self-orientation between ethical climate and meaningful work
Self-orientation and other-orientation are individual attributes that highlight the importance
an individual holds to their own needs and those of others. Although these orientations may
seem to be in opposition to each other, they are independent, orthogonally related dimensions. Management
An individual may have high or low levels of both self- and other-orientation simultaneously; Decision
a highly self-oriented individual may not necessarily have a low level of other-orientation
(Gobel and Miyamoto, 2024). While self-orientation may have previously been seen as a
disregard for the consequences for others (Volz-Peacock, 2006), recent studies on
meaningfulness highlight that self-oriented behaviour may help individuals experience
certain aspects of meaningful work (Bryant et al., 2023). For instance, self-oriented individuals
may be able to express their full potential and integrate with themselves; and thus, experience
meaningfulness (Laaser and Bolton, 2022). Individuals with high self-orientation may
experience a stronger connection with their true selves with higher honesty and integrity
(Laaser and Karlsson, 2022).
In addition to these subjective aspects, studies also argue that self-orientation helps
individuals gain meaningfulness by contributing to society since such individuals are driven
by their need to do purposeful work (Michaelson, 2021; Tyssedal, 2023). Michaelson and
Tosti-Kharas (2019) suggest that when individuals are guided by self-oriented callings, they
exhibit ethical behaviours that contribute to society. We hypothesize that high self-
orientation will enhance the positive effect of the instrumental climate on meaningful work
dimensions such as reality; and mitigate the negative effects of the same on dimensions such
as service to others. Similarly, high self-orientation will enhance the positive effect of the
caring and law and code climates on meaningful work. In other words:
H4. Self-orientation will moderate the effect of the ethical climate on meaningful work
such that the effect will be (a) strengthened between an instrumental climate and
reality; (b) weakened between an instrumental climate and service to others; and (c)
strengthened for caring and law and code ethical climates and meaningful work
when self-orientation is high.

2.5 Moderating role of other-orientation between ethical climate and meaningful work
Other-orientation can be termed as the degree to which an employee assigns importance to
the needs and interests of their colleagues (Gobel and Miyamoto, 2024). Other-oriented
individuals attempt to think about the consequences for their collective group. Miller et al.
(2019) suggest that orientations directed towards others help shape the purpose of work for
individuals. Such individuals tend to concern themselves with how their work impacts others
and seek feedback about the same (Ma et al., 2023). The literature on career callings often
attributes such aspects of meaningful work to other-orientation (Shimizu et al., 2019).
Moreover, other-orientation is related to contribution aspects of meaningful work such as
service to others and unity with others (Lips-Wiersma et al., 2023). However, high other-
orientation may create barriers to following the professional codes. Thus, we propose the
following hypothesis:
H5. Other-orientation will moderate the effect of the ethical climate on meaningful work
such that the effect will be (a) strengthened for a caring ethical climate and (b)
weakened for law and code climate when other-orientation is high.

2.6 Moderating role of self-control between meaningful work and affective well-being
Self-control is defined as the ability of an individual to change or control the dominant
responses, beliefs, emotions, thoughts or behaviours (Gerpott et al., 2023). While self-control
may appear to be the opposite of impulsiveness, they are independent of each other. Self-
control is generally referred to as an individual’s ability to self-regulate, exhibiting desirable
responses and inhibiting undesirable responses (Imran et al., 2023). Multiple studies within
the literature have identified the moderating role of self-control between meaning-related
MD constructs and individual outcomes. Bernecker et al. (2023) have noted that high self-control
helps individuals to let go of short-term loss to achieve long-term and more important goals.
When individuals fail to experience meaningfulness at work or experience boredom, self-
control reduces the negative impact of such boredom on distractive behaviours and enhances
the positive impact on job crafting (van Hooff and van Hooft, 2023). Drawing from these
findings, we argue that individuals with high self-control will be empowered to derive
affective well-being from meaningful work.
H6. Self-control will moderate the relationship between meaningful work and affective
well-being such that high self-control will strengthen the relationship and low self-
control will weaken the relationship.

2.7 Moderating role of self-monitoring between meaningful work and affective well-being
Self-monitoring is defined as the ability of individuals to read social cues and alter their
behaviours based on how they are perceived by others (Kalra et al., 2023). Individuals who are
high self-monitors are proficient at reading social cues and signals and can alter their
behaviours to be the most favourable to others. These individuals are likely to experience
affective well-being since a high self-monitoring tendency helps them act with emotional
intelligence (Demerouti, 2023). Self-monitoring is thought to interact with meaningfulness
strategies and impact outcomes such as existential acting, satisfaction, exhaustion and
intentions to stay (Bailey et al., 2017). Work meaningfulness, enhanced by the self-concepts
(such as self-monitoring) of the followers, leads to goal achievement and reduced turnover
intentions (Kipfelsberger et al., 2022). Hence, we propose our final hypothesis:
H7. Self-monitoring will moderate the relationship between meaningful work and
affective well-being such that high self-monitoring will strengthen the relationship
and low self-monitoring will weaken the relationship.
Figure 1 presents the hypothesized model of the study.

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
3. Method Management
3.1 Sample and data collection Decision
To test the hypothesized model via partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-
SEM), we collected responses from 430 working professionals from different organizations in
India, belonging to industries including information and technology, consulting,
infrastructure, government/public sector, e-commerce, banking and finance, fast-moving
consumer goods (FMCG) and chemical industries. Table 1 presents the details of the
respondents.

3.2 Measures
Ethical climate was measured using 16 items from the ethical climate questionnaire (ECQ)
developed by Cullen et al. (1993). We assessed meaningful work using 22 items from the
comprehensive meaningful work scale (CMWS) given by Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012).
Ten items adapted from a scale given by Warr (1990) were used to evaluate affective well-
being. Self-orientation and other-orientation were measured with a 6-item scale (three items
each) developed by De Dreu and Nauta (2009). Self-control and self-monitoring were
measured using a 13-item scale by Tangney et al. (2018) and a revised 7-item scale given by
Lennox and Wolfe (1984), respectively.

4. Data analysis
4.1 Assessment of non-response bias, homogeneity and common method bias
Following Benitez et al. (2020), we carried out tests to determine whether our data are biased
in any way, which is necessary to present the conclusions of the partial least squares
approach. We compared responses sent before and after a cut-off date using independent t-
tests to determine whether our data suffered from a non-response bias (Armstrong and
Overton, 1977). The results for each construct were not significant (p-value>0.05), indicating
that there was no bias in the responses. We also ran Levene’s test to investigate the
homogeneity of the data. Again, the results for each construct were not significant, indicating
that the responses were generally uniform. We can therefore be certain that the data is free of
non-response bias.

Characteristics Details of respondents

Number of respondents N 5 430

Age Mean 5 32.33 years
SD 5 7.55 years
Gender Male 5 67.4%
Female 5 32.6%
Total work experience Mean 5 67.21 months
SD 5 74.65 months
Educational qualification HSC 5 1.4%
Diploma 5 3.7%
Graduation 5 69%
Post-graduation and above 5 25.9%
Job level Individual contributor 5 2.5%
Team member 5 20.7%
Lower management 5 20.2%
Mid management 5 50.3% Table 1.
Senior management 5 6.3% Details of respondents
Source(s): Table by authors of the study
MD To determine if our data were impacted by common method bias, we adhered to the
recommendations made by Kock and Lynn (2012), using SmartPLS 4.0 software to perform a
complete collinearity test. All VIF values were observed to be ideal, i.e. less than 3.3, as
proposed by Kock and Lynn – which excludes the possibility of common method bias. The
descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix of the study’s constructs are shown in Table 2.
Further robustness checks and results of the measurement model and structural model
assessments in SmartPLS are presented in subsequent sections.

4.2 Assessment of unobserved heterogeneity, nonlinearity and endogeneity

We performed tests to confirm that our data were free of unobserved heterogeneity and
endogeneity in accordance with the recommendations of Hair et al. (2019). We performed
finite mixture (FIMIX) segmentation in SmartPLS for unobserved heterogeneity. Table 3
presents the results of the FIMIX-PLS analysis. To determine the ideal number of segments,
we used a step-by-step process given by Matthews et al. (2016). Based on recommendations
from Sarstedt et al. (2017) and research with a similar analysis (Gutu et al., 2023), we can
conclude that unobserved heterogeneity is not present in our data.
Using RStudio, we conducted the regression equation specification error test (RESET)
(Ramsey, 1969) for each mediating and dependent variable – meaningful work dimensions
and affective well-being – to check for nonlinear effects. Table 4 displays the results of the
RESET test. The p-values for all tests were greater than 0.05, which indicates that no partial
regressions were exposed to nonlinear effects.
When using PLS-SEM methodologies, robustness checks for endogeneity effects are of
utmost importance (Hult et al., 2018). We used two tests recommended by experts on PLS-
SEM and SmartPLS to check for endogeneity. The impact of the control variables was
examined in the first endogeneity test (Hair et al., 2021). Gender and age were accounted for as
control variables in this study and had a very small impact on the constructs of meaningful
work characteristics and affective well-being since their effect sizes were substantially lower
than 0.02. We used a more sophisticated and precise technique – i.e. the Gaussian copula
approach described by Park and Gupta (2012) – using RStudio to find signs of endogeneity.
By establishing correlations between error terms and endogenous factors, this strategy
identifies and subsequently controls for endogeneity. Our data did not have traces of
endogeneity as the p-values were greater than 0.05.

4.3 Measurement model assessment

Recent research on co-variance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM) suggests
evaluation of fit indices customized to particular research models (Mai et al., 2021). However,
because this study employs PLS-SEM, a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)
below 0.08 is considered acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1998, 1999). The SRMR value for the
model was 0.063, which is below the cut-off value, suggesting that the measurement model
fits the data well.
This study employs SmartPLS 4.0 software for data analysis. According to Hair et al.
(2019), the software is incredibly effective at testing path models with numerous constructs.
The outside loadings for each build were tested in accordance with the recommendations
made by Hair et al. (2021). Following Afthanorhan (2013) and Chin (1998), items with an outer
loading of less than 0.5 were excluded. Table 5 shows the outer loadings of all construct items
in the study. We tested the composite reliability and validity using the PLS algorithm, along
with the validity of the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) criterion. All
reliability and validity values were within acceptable ranges, which further support the
robustness of the measurement model. Tables 6 and 7 provide the composite reliability and
HTMT validity values from the analysis.
 LAWCO
Mean SD OO SO AWB UNO SVO EFP INTS REAL INSP BLT SCON INSTRUMENTAL CARING DES SELFM

OO 5.459 1.2049 1
SO 5.867 1.2388 0.346** 1
AWB 5.08 0.8461 0.224** 0.103* 1
UNO 5.766 1.1017 0.389** 0.322** 0.495** 1
SVO 5.944 1.0849 0.335** 0.309** 0.446** 0.667** 1
EFP 5.738 1.0683 0.327** 0.301** 0.465** 0.656** 0.721** 1
INTS 4.814 1.5684 0.133** 0.081 0.468** 0.333** 0.338** 0.310** 1
REAL 5.099 1.1357 0.198** 0.269** 0.121* 0.304** 0.299** 0.325**
0.018 1
INSP 5.281 1.3209 0.244** 0.111* 0.546** 0.521** 0.606** 0.616** 0.285** 0.352** 1
BLT 5.277 1.3384 0.228** 0.169** 0.574** 0.438** 0.449** 0.470** 0.354** 0.242** 0.573** 1
SCON 4.873 1.0145 0.180** 0.085 0.342** 0.348** 0.384** 0.403** 0.409** 0.113* 0.316** 0.277** 1
INSTRUMENTAL 3.777 1.2019
0.094 0.008
0.325**
0.187**
0.184**
0.188**
0.474** 0.007
0.164**
0.235**
0.283** 1
CARING 5.069 1.2022 0.304** 0.095* 0.484** 0.473** 0.449** 0.487** 0.280** 0.220** 0.583** 0.474** 0.277**
0.330** 1
LAWCODES 5.706 1.1615 0.267** 0.243** 0.272** 0.506** 0.464** 0.465** 0.320** 0.311** 0.347** 0.256** 0.367**
0.162** 0.407** 1
SELFM 4.675 0.8188 0.134** 0.153** 0.126** 0.281** 0.299** 0.256** 0.006 0.231** 0.342** 0.278** 0.078 0.099* 0.306** 0.291** 1
Note(s): ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Abbreviations: UNO, Unity with others; SVO, Service to others; EFP, Expressing full potential; INTS, Integrity with self; REAL, Reality; INSP, Inspiration; BLT, Balancing tensions; AWB, Affective well-being; SO, Self-
orientation; OO, Other orientation; SCON, Self-control; SELFM, Self-monitoring; INSTRUMENTAL, Instrumental ethical climate; CARING, Caring ethical climate; LAW&CODES, Law and code ethical climate
Source(s): Table by authors
Decision
Management

Table 2.
Descriptive statistics
and correlations
MD Number of segments
Criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

AIC 7498.753 7115.333 6989.508 6839.766 6795.68 6725.669 6616.643

AIC3 7564.753 7248.333 7189.508 7106.766 7129.68 7126.669 7084.643
AIC4 7630.753 7381.333 7389.508 7373.766 7463.68 7527.669 7552.643
BIC 7766.963 7655.816 7802.265 7924.797 8152.984 8355.247 8518.494
CAIC 7832.963 7788.816 8002.265 8191.797 8486.984 8756.247 8986.494
MDL5 9367.803 10881.75 12653.293 14400.919 16254.201 18081.559 19869.9
Note(s): Abbreviations: AIC: Akaike’s information criterion; AIC3: Modified AIC with factor 3; AIC4: Modified
AIC with factor 4; BIC: Bayesian information criteria; CAIC: Consistent AIC; MDL5: Minimum description
Table 3. length with factor 5. The italicized value represents the number of segments in the responses for each criterion.
FIMIX-PLS analysis E.g., for AIC, the responses may have 7 segments; however, for AIC4, the responses may have 4 segments.
result for optimum Nonetheless, the complete analysis suggests that the responses do not suffer from unobserved heterogeneity
number of segments Source(s): Table by authors

Dependent construct F-value p-value

AWB F(20, 399) 5 1.0249 0.4310

INTS F(6, 420) 5 2.0103 0.0631
EFP F(6, 420) 5 0.7419 0.6161
REAL F(6, 420) 5 1.6076 0.1434
SVO F(6, 420) 5 1.7117 0.1167
UNO F(6, 420) 5 1.9011 0.0793
INSP F(6, 420) 5 1.2741 0.2679
Table 4. BLT F(6, 420) 5 0.9433 0.4636
Nonlinearity Note(s): Abbreviations: UNO, Unity with others; SVO, Service to others; EFP, Expressing full potential; INTS,
assessment via Integrity with self; REAL, Reality; INSP, Inspiration; BLT, Balancing tensions; AWB, Affective well-being
RESET test Source(s): Table by authors

4.4 Structural model assessment

After evaluating the measurement model, we evaluated the models structurally by extracting
model fit metrics including Q-square, R-square, F-square, and variance inflation factor (VIF)
values. The predictive power is represented by the Q-square value, while the determinant
coefficient is shown by the R-square value. The effect magnitude is shown by the F-square
value and the VIF values indicate the collinearity between the constructs. For affective well-
being, an R-square value of 0.537 was observed, which can be considered a high level of
variance explanation. R-square values for meaningful work dimensions are in the range of
0.203–0.445, or a moderate explanation of variance. Overall, the R-square values for the
constructs can be regarded as substantial (Hair et al., 2019). The F-square values point to the
existence of a small effect size. All mediators and dependent variables have Q-square values
greater than 0, which suggests that our model has a strong predictive value. According to
Kock and Lynn (2012), all inner VIF values fall within acceptable bounds. The R-square,
Q-square, f-square, and VIF values are displayed in Table 8.

4.5 Hypotheses testing and empirical findings

After evaluating the validity and reliability of the structural model, we moved on to
bootstrapping in SmartPLS to test our hypotheses. The confidence interval was kept at the
accepted 95% level for all analyses. Table 9 lists the corresponding p-values and conclusions
for each hypothesis. The mediation results were extracted from specific indirect effects in the
bootstrapping output in SmartPLS. The results suggest that meaningful work dimensions of
 Management
Construct Item Outer loading Decision
Affective well-being (AWB) AWB1 0.781
AWB10 0.677
AWB4 0.625
AWB5 0.795
AWB6 0.687
Caring ethical climate (CARING) BI 0.913
BL 0.938
Balancing tensions (BLT) BLT1 0.878
BLT2 0.872
BLT3 0.86
Expressing full potential (EFP) EFP1 0.746
EFP2 0.882
EFP3 0.83
Instrumental ethical climate (INSTRUMENTAL) EI 0.944
EL 0.77
Inspiration (INSP) INSP1 0.866
INSP2 0.902
INSP3 0.756
Integrity with self (INTS) INTS1 0.659
INTS2 0.896
INTS3 0.873
Other orientation (OO) OO1 0.87
OO2 0.895
OO3 0.855
Law and code ethical climate (LAW&CODES) PC1 0.799
PC2 0.878
PC3 0.882
PC4 0.873
Reality (REAL) REAL1 0.837
REAL2 0.767
Self-control (SCON) SCON10 0.714
SCON11 0.691
SCON3 0.796
SCON4 0.66
SCON8 0.765
Self-monitoring (SELFM) SELFM1 0.713
SELFM2 0.695
SELFM3 0.694
SELFM5 0.829
SELFM7 0.748
Self-orientation (SO) SO1 0.867
SO2 0.88
SO3 0.841
Service to others (SVO) SVO1 0.825
SVO2 0.864
SVO3 0.839
SVO4 0.823
Unity with others (UNO) UNO1 0.86 Table 5.
UNO2 0.825 Outer loading of items
UNO3 0.867 of constructs from
Source(s): Table by authors SmartPLS
MD Cronbach’s Composite Composite Average variance
alpha reliability (rho_a) reliability (rho_c) extracted (AVE)

AWB 0.759 0.772 0.839 0.512

BLT 0.84 0.845 0.903 0.757
CARING 0.833 0.849 0.923 0.856
EFP 0.76 0.789 0.861 0.675
INSP 0.795 0.809 0.881 0.712
INSTRUMENTAL 0.681 0.892 0.851 0.742
INTS 0.746 0.792 0.855 0.667
LAW&CODES 0.88 0.881 0.918 0.737
OO 0.845 0.85 0.906 0.763
REAL 0.451 0.458 0.783 0.644
SCON 0.784 0.829 0.848 0.528
SELFM 0.807 0.865 0.856 0.544
SO 0.829 0.832 0.897 0.745
SVO 0.858 0.858 0.904 0.702
UNO 0.81 0.819 0.887 0.724
Note(s): Abbreviations: UNO, Unity with others; SVO, Service to others; EFP, Expressing full potential; INTS,
Integrity with self; REAL, Reality; INSP, Inspiration; BLT, Balancing tensions; AWB, Affective well-being; SO,
Table 6. Self-orientation; OO, Other orientation; SCON, Self-control; SELFM, Self-monitoring; INSTRUMENTAL,
Composite reliability of Instrumental ethical climate; CARING, Caring ethical climate; LAW&CODES, Law and code ethical climate
the constructs Source(s): Table by authors

unity with others (β 5 0.045, p-value<0.05), inspiration (β 5 0.164, p-value<0.05) and

balancing tensions (β 5 0.085, p-value<0.05) partially mediate the positive relationship
between a caring ethical climate and affective well-being. No other mediation paths were
observed to be significant, meaning H1 is partially supported. The results indicate that
integrity with self (β 5
0.046, p-value<0.05) and balancing tensions (β 5
0.024,
p-value<0.05) mediate the negative impact of an instrumental ethical climate on affective
well-being, supporting H2. The meaningful work dimension of unity with others fully
mediates the relationship between a law and code ethical climate and affective well-being
(β 5 0.045, p-value<0.05), while the dimension of reality fully and negatively mediates
the relationship between law and code climate and affective well-being (β 5
0.024,
p-value<0.05). Hence, H3 is partially supported.

4.6 Moderation results and slope analysis

From the bootstrapping results, we can observe that self-orientation moderates the positive
effect of an instrumental climate on reality (β 5 0.092, p-value<0.05), such that the effect is
stronger when self-orientation is higher. Self-orientation moderates the negative effect of an
instrumental climate on service to others (β 5 0.104, p-value<0.05), such that the effect is
stronger when self-orientation is lower. Self-orientation also moderates the positive effect of a
law and code climate on unity with others (β 5
0.133, p-value<0.05), such that the effect is
stronger when self-orientation is higher. Hence, H4 is partially supported.
Higher levels of other-orientation reduce the positive effect of a law and code climate on
integrity with self (β 5
0.093, p-value<0.05), partially supporting H5. Self-monitoring
reduced the positive effect of balancing tensions on affective well-being (β 5
0.106,
p-value<0.05), but self-control was not observed to have a moderating effect. As a result, H6 is
not supported but H7 is partially supported. The slopes of the significant moderation paths
are presented in Figures 2–6.
 AWB BLT CARING EFP INSP INSTRUMENTAL INTS LAW&CODES OO REAL SCON SELFM SO SVO UNO

AWB
BLT 0.71
CARING 0.67 0.58
EFP 0.68 0.59 0.624
INSP 0.78 0.7 0.723 0.8
INSTRUMENTAL 0.38 0.36 0.491 0.31 0.3
INTS 0.5 0.45 0.371 0.41 0.39 0.697
LAW&CODES 0.35 0.3 0.495 0.57 0.42 0.25 0.4
OO 0.28 0.27 0.36 0.41 0.3 0.182 0.17 0.311
REAL 0.4 0.53 0.487 0.68 0.69 0.123 0.11 0.586 0.39
SCON 0.35 0.32 0.304 0.47 0.35 0.489 0.57 0.427 0.26 0.36
SELFM 0.3 0.43 0.403 0.42 0.48 0.121 0.22 0.384 0.16 0.41 0.265
SO 0.14 0.2 0.124 0.38 0.14 0.073 0.11 0.289 0.42 0.36 0.166 0.195
SVO 0.6 0.52 0.546 0.89 0.73 0.281 0.42 0.539 0.4 0.6 0.489 0.438 0.37
UNO 0.64 0.53 0.592 0.84 0.66 0.298 0.43 0.601 0.47 0.6 0.402 0.443 0.39 0.8
Note(s): Abbreviations: UNO, Unity with others; SVO, Service to others; EFP, Expressing full potential; INTS, Integrity with self; REAL, Reality; INSP, Inspiration; BLT,
Balancing tensions; AWB, Affective well-being; SO, Self-orientation; OO, Other orientation; SCON, Self-control; SELFM, Self-monitoring; INSTRUMENTAL, Instrumental
ethical climate; CARING, Caring ethical climate; LAW&CODES, Law and code ethical climate
Source(s): Table by authors
Decision
Management

HTMT validity of the

Table 7.

constructs
MD Construct R2 Adjusted R2 f2 Q2 VIF

AWB 0.537 0.517 – 0.269 –

BLT 0.271 0.255 0.05 0.227 1.864
EFP 0.356 0.348 0.011 0.334 2.732
INSP 0.367 0.354 0.082 0.326 2.537
INTS 0.319 0.308 0.012 0.29 1.714
REAL 0.203 0.188 0.015 0.169 1.429
SVO 0.375 0.364 0 0.335 2.884
UNO 0.445 0.433 0.023 0.4 2.626
CARING – – 0.03 – 2.043
INSTRUMENTAL – – 0 – 1.647
LAW&CODES – – 0.003 – 1.682
Note(s): Abbreviations: UNO, Unity with others; SVO, Service to others; EFP, Expressing full potential; INTS,
Integrity with self; REAL, Reality; INSP, Inspiration; BLT, Balancing tensions; AWB, Affective well-being; SO,
Table 8. Self-orientation; OO, Other orientation; SCON, Self-control; SELFM, Self-monitoring; INSTRUMENTAL,
Structural model Instrumental ethical climate; CARING, Caring ethical climate; LAW&CODES, Law and code ethical climate
assessment Source(s): Table by authors

Standard
Original Sample deviation T statistics
Hypothesis sample (O) mean (M) (STDEV) (jO/STDEVj) p-values Conclusion

CARING → UNO → 0.045 0.045 0.018 2.474 0.013 H1 is

AWB partially
CARING → INSP → 0.164 0.165 0.037 4.431 0 supported
AWB
CARING → BLT → 0.085 0.084 0.024 3.532 0
AWB
INSTRUMENTAL →
0.024
0.024 0.012 2.047 0.041 H2 is
BLT → AWB supported
INSTRUMENTAL →
0.046
0.047 0.022 2.132 0.033
INTS → AWB
LAW&CODES → 0.045 0.045 0.016 2.722 0.007 H3 is
UNO → AWB partially
LAW&CODES →
0.024
0.025 0.012 2.066 0.039 supported
REAL → AWB
SO 3 0.092 0.09 0.041 2.236 0.025 H4 is
INSTRUMENTAL → partially
REAL supported
SO 3 0.104 0.108 0.052 1.99 0.047
INSTRUMENTAL →
SVO
SO 3 LAW&CODES
0.133
0.132 0.048 2.793 0.005
→ UNO
OO 3 LAW&CODES
0.093
0.093 0.043 2.168 0.03 H5 is
→ INTS partially
supported
SELFM 3 BLT →
0.106
0.109 0.046 2.292 0.022 H7 is
AWB partially
supported
Note(s): Abbreviations: UNO, Unity with others; SVO, Service to others; EFP, Expressing full potential; INTS,
Integrity with self; REAL, Reality; INSP, Inspiration; BLT, Balancing tensions; AWB, Affective well-being; SO,
Table 9. Self-orientation; OO, Other orientation; SCON, Self-control; SELFM, Self-monitoring; INSTRUMENTAL,
Bootstrapping result Instrumental ethical climate; CARING, Caring ethical climate; LAW&CODES, Law and code ethical climate
from SmartPLS 4.0 Source(s): Table by authors
 Management
Decision

Figure 2.
Moderation of SO on
path
INSTRUMENTAL→
REAL

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study attempts to examine the crucial link between an organization’s ethical climate and
an individual’s meaningful work and affective well-being. The study uses a two-stage
approach employing PLS-SEM, first analysing the measurement model, followed by the
structural model.
The findings of the study identify different ethical climates as antecedents of meaningful
work and employee affective well-being as an outcome of meaningful work. This result fulfils
previous calls for research on specific linkages among antecedents and the consequences of
meaningful work (Lips-Wiersma et al., 2020). Additionally, we strengthen and extend the
understanding of the multidimensional theorization of meaningful work (Lips-Wiersma and
Wright, 2012). The comprehensive framework of meaningful work implies that
meaningfulness can be experienced from multiple sources. Our findings suggest that
caring, instrumental and law and code ethical climates each have specific effects on
meaningful work dimensions. This result aligns with a recent study that suggests that
evaluation of meaningful work does not take place in isolation, but rather that the social and
cultural aspects of the work have a significant impact on meaningfulness (Mejia, 2023).
The previous studies on organizational ethical environment and meaningful work have
been conducted with limitations such as negligence of the multidimensional nature of ethical
climate and meaningful work, along with failure to identify the distinct nature of desirability
and effect of different ethical climates for employees’ meaning and well-being experiences
(See George et al., 2022; Heath et al., 2022; Lips-Wiersma et al., 2022; Rai et al., 2023). By
MD

Figure 3.
Moderation of
SO on path
INSTRUMENTAL→
SVO

undertaking an integrative approach towards the operationalization of ethical climate and

meaningful work, this study addresses the shortcomings of the literature on these constructs.
The study employs the premises of ethical climate theory and current literature, to test and
identify which ethical climate may posit a positive or negative influence on specific
meaningful dimensions and employee well-being. The contrasting nature of the findings
presents novel insights for theory and practice alike. Moreover, the findings of the study
highlight the dynamics of self-regulatory traits, i.e. self-orientation, other-orientation and self-
monitoring in employees’ experience of meaningful work and affective well-being. Future
studies can further verify the findings of the study under different research settings to
enhance the generalizability of the results.
One of this study’s major findings is that not all types of ethical climates have a direct
effect on the affective well-being of the employees. A caring ethical climate has a direct
positive effect on affective well-being, in line with ethical climate theory (Martin and Cullen,
2006) and empirical studies that have reported a direct and positive effect of a caring climate
on desirable employee outcomes (Hsieh and Wang, 2016; Schwepker et al., 2021; Zoghbi-
Manrique-de-Lara and Guerra-Baez, 2016). Our findings highlight the strength of a caring
ethical climate in influencing employee attitudes and behaviours. In a caring climate,
employees act with an overarching concern for the well-being of their colleagues. The mutual
concern for each other’s well-being not only allows employees to find meaningfulness in their
work but also to experience a range of positive emotions. This result is in line with a recent
study that suggests that highly decent work condition positively correlates with experience
of meaningful work (Blustein et al., 2023).
 Management
Decision

Figure 4.
Moderation of SO on
path
LAW&CODES→UNO

When employees proactively help each other grow, they can connect with their jobs,
co-workers and organizations. When each organizational member prioritises the betterment
of their colleagues and the whole organization, a sense of unity is created. A caring climate
allows individuals to hope for a better future where all members are guided by the spirit of
altruism. While a caring climate may not force individuals to let go of their self-interests, it
encourages individuals to find a balance between their own needs and those of their
co-workers. This meaningfulness in the form of unity with others, inspiration and balancing
tensions enhances individuals’ affective well-being. In a time when most human resource
management frameworks strive for higher performance at the expense of employee well-
being (Guest, 2017), establishing a caring climate may be a better approach to promoting
meaningful work and well-being.
Unlike the caring ethical climate, the instrumental and law and code ethical climates do not
have a direct effect on employee affective well-being. This finding contradicts ethical climate
theory, which states these climates have a negative effect on employee well-being (Martin and
Cullen, 2006). Based on our findings, we argue that this negative effect is fully mediated by
meaningful work. When an employee observes their colleagues as solely invested in
maximizing their own interests, their evaluation of meaningful work is hampered. Selfish
actions by colleagues deprive employees of healthy relationships at work and a supportive,
collaborative culture, both of which are crucial for meaningful work (Lysova et al., 2019). An
instrumental climate forces employees to neglect the well-being of their colleagues and may
prevent employees from connecting to their true selves and becoming better versions of
MD

Figure 5.
Moderation of OO on
path
LAW&CODES→INTS

themselves. A lack of trust in and fear of exploitation from colleagues may impair employees’
ability to maintain a balance between the needs of the self and others. Hence, we argue that an
instrumental climate first creates a distance between an employee and their true self, which,
in turn, negatively impacts their affective well-being. Reduced integrity with self has a strong
negative effect on well-being and a strong positive effect on job stress (Lips-Wiersma
et al., 2023).
The mediating role of meaningful work between a law and code climate and affective well-
being presents an interesting relationship. Our findings suggest that the effect of law and
code ethical climate on affective well-being is positively mediated by unity with others and
negatively mediated by reality. Following a common set of external guidelines may provide
individuals with a sense of unity and enhanced well-being. On the other hand, strict
adherence to laws and codes may enhance an individual’s understanding of the ground
reality of their work, which may lead to experiencing negative emotions. The realities of jobs
are not often a source of positive emotions. Another explanation of this effect could be
employees’ acceptance of laws and codes. If external laws are not internalized by employees,
they may not have the desired effect on employee outcomes (Tsai and Huang, 2008).
The findings of this study also reveal the moderating role of self- and other-orientation,
and self-monitoring. In an instrumental climate, individuals with low self-orientation may not
be able to be of service to others since their lower levels of self-orientation may deprive them
of passion or a willingness to find meaning in their work. Having an impact on others’ lives
may be elementary to one’s idea of their work (Martela, 2023) and the absence of such self-
 Management
Decision

Figure 6.
Moderation of SELFM
on path BLT→AWB

orientation may lead to reduced levels of meaningful work. Self-orientation also enhances an
individual’s evaluation of ground reality in an instrumental climate. Highly self-oriented
individuals are more capable of observing and adjusting to the reality of their work and are
more able to find meaning when they are aware of the extent of their control over the
situation. In an organization guided by a law and code climate, highly self-oriented
individuals exhibit actions which strengthen their unity with others. Having clarity
regarding one’s professional “dos and don’ts”, along with a strong internal drive to follow
those guidelines, helps individuals feel united with those around them since everyone is “on
the same boat”.
At the same time, in a law and code climate, individuals with low other-orientation
experience enhanced integrity with self. This could be because other-oriented individuals
may face conflicts between helping others and following professional codes. Those who
have low other-orientation may continue along a path of being “a good organizational
citizen” by strictly following the rules and not cutting corners for their co-workers. The
study results also suggest a moderating role of self-monitoring between balancing tensions
and affective well-being. Balancing tensions is the art of giving others what they need while
not losing out on one’s own needs. High levels of self-monitoring may push individuals to be
so concerned about the opinions of others that their affective well-being is negatively
impacted. Overall, the findings of our study reveal interesting insights into how ethical
climate, meaningful work and self-regulatory traits interact and help predict affective
well-being.
MD Employees’ affective well-being is becoming increasingly important for employers and
leaders. This study examines the impact of different ethical climates—i.e. caring,
instrumental and law and code—on the individual’s experience of meaningful work and
affective well-being. The findings show that a caring ethical climate is the most desirable for
the facilitation of meaningful work and employee well-being. In a caring climate, the well-
being of others is highly prioritised in all organizational endeavours. An instrumental climate
promotes the pursuit of self-interest maximization, creating distance between an employee
and their true self, thus hampering meaningful work and affective well-being. A law and code
climate creates a sense of unity and an understanding of the ground reality, which enhances
and reduces employee well-being, respectively. In conclusion, this study highlights the
importance of an organization’s ethical climate in influencing employees’ experience of
meaningful work and affective well-being.

5.1 Theoretical implications

This study makes two major contributions to theory and research. First, it contributes to
ethical climate theory by examining the individual and organizational consequences of
different ethical climates. The results of this study present meaningful work as a mediating
mechanism between an organization’s ethical climate and the affective well-being of
individuals. We suggest that meaningful work becomes more salient for individuals’ affective
well-being in instrumental and law and code ethical climates. Second, this study contributes
to the theory of meaningful work (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003), responding to the call for
research on the dynamic and multi-disciplinary nature of meaningful work, its antecedents
and outcomes (Lips-Wiersma et al., 2020; Lysova et al., 2023). By considering meaningful
work as a comprehensive and multidimensional construct (Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012),
we argue that meaningfulness may be experienced by individuals in more than one form in
distinct ethical climates. A future, more comprehensive examination of meaningful work and
its outcomes may bring significant insights into the theory of meaningful work.

5.2 Practical implications

This study also presents important implications for leaders and practitioners, identifying
how ethical climates play a major role in shaping meaningfulness and the affective well-being
of employees. These findings can help leaders design an internal mechanism that fosters
employee well-being. While the pandemic-born danger to physical health may be fading,
promoting the psychological and mental well-being of employees has become a top priority
and a fierce challenge (George et al., 2022; Korkmaz and G€ ulo
glu, 2021). The cost of mental
and psychological health awareness programmes in the workplace may be too high and is
likely to increase in future (McKinsey and Company, 2020). In such an environment, this
study proposes less expensive measures through which employee experience of meaningful
work and affective well-being can be promoted. A caring climate can be established by
creating a culture in which all organizational activities include employee well-being as an
important and desirable outcome. By establishing a caring climate, employers can benefit
from a mentally healthy and productive workforce.

5.3 Limitations and future research directions

Despite offering significant insights for both practice and theory, this study suffers from a
few limitations that should be addressed in future studies. First, we have not included the
rules or independence climates in our model. Future research should examine the effect these
climates have on meaningful work. Second, this study has relied on self-reported, cross-
sectional responses. Future studies may prefer to employ more robust methods of data
collection and analysis. Self-reported responses may be appropriate for constructs such as Management
meaningful work and affective well-being, however, for performance-related outcomes, Decision
future studies should consider obtaining responses from multiple sources, such as employee
and manager pairs. Third, in line with recent studies on ethical fit (See Rai et al., 2023; Shin
et al., 2022), future studies should examine the effect of person–organization ethical climate fit
on meaningful work and other employee outcomes. Identification of the best fit between the
ethical climate of the organization and an employee’s personal code of ethics for meaningful
work may help unveil significant insights. The effect of an individual’s ethical position
(Forsyth, 1980) on the ethical climate–meaningful work relationship also warrants further
scholarly attention. Finally, future research may examine the effect of the ethical climate on
meaningful work and employee outcomes such as affective well-being in different and
unconventional work contexts such as work-from-home (Kramer and Kramer, 2020) and the
gig economy (Weber and Opoku-Dakwa, 2022).

References
Afthanorhan, W. (2013), “A comparison of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for confirmatory factor
analysis”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, Vol. 2 No. 5,
pp. 198-205.
Allan, B.A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H.M. and Tay, L. (2019), “Outcomes of meaningful work: a meta-
analysis”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 500-528, doi: 10.1111/joms.12406.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402, doi: 10.1177/002224377701400320.
Aryati, A.S., Sudiro, A., Hadiwidjaja, D. and Noermijati, N. (2018), “The influence of ethical leadership
to deviant workplace behavior mediated by ethical climate and organizational commitment”,
International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 233-249, doi: 10.1108/IJLMA-
03-2017-0053.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (2017), “The mismanaged soul: existential
labor and the erosion of meaningful work”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 416-430, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.11.001.
Bankins, S. and Formosa, P. (2023), “The ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for meaningful
work”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 185 No. 4, pp. 725-740, doi: 10.1007/s10551-023-05339-7.
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A. and Schuberth, F. (2020), “How to perform and report an impactful
analysis using partial least squares: guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research”,
Information and Management, Vol. 57 No. 2, 103168, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003.
Bernecker, K., Becker, D. and Guobyte, A. (2023), “If the party is good, you can stay longer—effects of
trait hedonic capacity on hedonic quantity and performance”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 47
No. 5, pp. 711-725, doi: 10.1007/s11031-023-10021-6.
Blustein, D.L., Lysova, E.I. and Duffy, R.D. (2023), “Understanding decent work and meaningful
work”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 289-314, doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031921-024847.
Both-Nwabuwe, J.M.C., Dijkstra, M.T.M. and Beersma, B. (2017), “Sweeping the floor or putting a man
on the moon: how to define and measure meaningful work”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8,
p. 1658, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01658.
Bryant, R., Lysova, E.I. and Khapova, S.N. (2023), “Calling for a meaningful contribution? Bridging
contributing to society with motivation theory”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 14, 1186547,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1186547.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, Modern
Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295 No. 2, pp. 295-336.
MD Choi, Y., Yoon, D.J., Lee, J.D. and Lee, J.Y.E. (2023), “Relationship conflict and counterproductive work
behavior: the roles of affective well-being and emotional intelligence”, Review of Managerial
Science, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1007/s11846-023-00642-z.
Cullen, J.B., Victor, B. and Bronson, J.W. (1993), “The ethical climate questionnaire: an assessment of
its development and validity”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 667-674, doi: 10.2466/pr0.
1993.73.2.667.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Nauta, A. (2009), “Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior:
implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 913-926, doi: 10.1037/a0014494.
Decoster, S., Stouten, J. and Tripp, T.M. (2021), “When employees retaliate against self-serving leaders:
the influence of the ethical climate”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 168 No. 1, pp. 195-213, doi:
10.1007/s10551-019-04218-4.
Demerouti, E. (2023), “Effective employee strategies for remote working: an online self-training
intervention”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 142, 103857, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103857.
Forsyth, D.R. (1980), “A taxonomy of ethical ideologies”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 175-184, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.175.
Fremeaux, S. and Pavageau, B. (2022), “Meaningful leadership: how can leaders contribute to
meaningful work?”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 54-66, doi: 10.1177/
1056492619897126.
George, T.J., Atwater, L.E., Maneethai, D. and Madera, J.M. (2022), “Supporting the productivity and
wellbeing of remote workers: lessons from COVID-19”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 51 No. 2,
100869, doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100869.
Gerpott, F.H., Rivkin, W. and Diestel, S. (2023), “Keep it steady? Not only average self-control demands
matter for employees’ work engagement, but also variability”, Work and Stress, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 509-530, doi: 10.1080/02678373.2023.2180784.
Gobel, M.S. and Miyamoto, Y. (2024), “Self- and other-orientation in high rank: a cultural psychological
approach to social hierarchy”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 54-80,
doi: 10.1177/10888683231172252.
Guest, D.E. (2017), “Human resource management and employee well-being: towards a new analytic
framework”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 22-38, doi: 10.1111/1748-
8583.12139.
Gutu, I., Agheorghiesei, D.T. and Tugui, A. (2023), “Assessment of a workforce sustainability tool
through leadership and digitalization”, International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, Vol. 20 No. 2, p. 1360, doi: 10.3390/ijerph20021360.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24, doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2021), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Haldorai, K., Kim, W.G., Chang, H.S. and Li, J.J. (2020), “Workplace spirituality as a mediator between
ethical climate and workplace deviant behavior”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 86, 102372, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102372.
Heath, M.L., Williams, E.N. and Luse, W. (2022), “Breaches and buffers: can meaningful work impact
turnover during COVID-19 pandemic?”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Hsieh, H.-H. and Wang, Y.-D. (2016), “Linking perceived ethical climate to organizational deviance: the
cognitive, affective, and attitudinal mechanisms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9,
pp. 3600-3608, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.001.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453,
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Management
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Decision
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hult, G.T.M., Hair Jr, J.F., Proksch, D., Sarstedt, M., Pinkwart, A. and Ringle, C.M. (2018), “Addressing
endogeneity in international marketing applications of partial least squares structural equation
modeling”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1509/jim.17.0151.
Imran, M.K., Fatima, T., Sarwar, A. and Iqbal, S.M.J. (2023), “Will I speak up or remain silent?
Workplace ostracism and employee performance based on self-control perspective”, The
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 163 No. 1, pp. 107-125, doi: 10.1080/00224545.2021.1967843.
Kalra, A., Itani, O.S. and Sun, S. (2023), “Turning role conflict into performance’: assessing the
moderating role of self-monitoring, manager trust and manager identification”, Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 436-461, doi: 10.1108/JSTP-08-2022-0163.
Kam, J.W.Y., Javed, J., Hart, C.M., Andrews-Hanna, J.R., Tomfohr-Madsen, L.M. and Mills, C. (2022),
“Daily mindfulness training reduces negative impact of COVID-19 news exposure on affective
well-being”, Psychological Research, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 1203-1214, doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-
01550-1.
Kipfelsberger, P., Raes, A., Herhausen, D., Kark, R. and Bruch, H. (2022), “Start with why: the transfer
of work meaningfulness from leaders to followers and the role of dyadic tenure”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 1287-1309, doi: 10.1002/job.2649.
Kock, N. and Lynn, G. (2012), “Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an
illustration and recommendations”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 7, pp. 546-580, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00302, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract52152644
Korkmaz, H. and G€ uloglu, B. (2021), “The role of uncertainty tolerance and meaning in life on
depression and anxiety throughout Covid-19 pandemic”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 179, 110952, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110952.
Kramer, A. and Kramer, K.Z. (2020), “The potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on occupational
status, work from home, and occupational mobility”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 119,
103442, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103442.
Kriz, T.D., Jolly, P.M. and Shoss, M.K. (2021), “Coping with organizational layoffs: managers’ increased
active listening reduces job insecurity via perceived situational control”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 448-458, doi: 10.1037/ocp0000295.
Laaser, K. and Bolton, S. (2022), “Absolute autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity:
towards a typology of meaningful work”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 373-393, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12282.
Laaser, K. and Karlsson, J.C. (2022), “Towards a sociology of meaningful work”, Work, Employment
and Society, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 798-815, doi: 10.1177/09500170211055998.
Lam, W., Chen, Z., Wu, W. and Lee, C. (2023), “Transmitting affective job insecurity (AJI) within
teams: layoff effects of AJI convergence on intrateam power struggles and team outcomes”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 1078-1093, doi: 10.1002/job.2726.
Lennox, R.D. and Wolfe, R.N. (1984), “Revision of the self-monitoring scale”, American Psychological
Association, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1349-1364, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1349.
Lepisto, D.A. and Pratt, M.G. (2017), “Meaningful work as realization and justification: toward a dual
conceptualization”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 99-121, doi: 10.1177/
2041386616630039.
Lips-Wiersma, M. and Wright, S. (2012), “Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: development
and validation of the comprehensive meaningful work scale (CMWS)”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 655-685, doi: 10.1177/1059601112461578.
Lips-Wiersma, M., Haar, J. and Wright, S. (2020), “The effect of fairness, responsible leadership and
worthy work on multiple dimensions of meaningful work”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 161
No. 1, pp. 35-52, doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3967-2.
MD Lips-Wiersma, M., Bailey, C., Madden, A. and Morris, L. (2022), “Why we don’t talk about meaning at
work”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 33-38.
Lips-Wiersma, M., Haar, J. and Cooper–Thomas, H.D. (2023), “Is meaningful work always a resource
toward wellbeing? The effect of autonomy, security and multiple dimensions of subjective
meaningful work on wellbeing”, Personnel Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 321-341, doi: 10.1108/PR-10-
2020-0754.
Lysova, E.I., Allan, B.A., Dik, B.J., Duffy, R.D. and Steger, M.F. (2019), “Fostering meaningful work in
organizations: a multi-level review and integration”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 110,
pp. 374-389, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.004.
Lysova, E.I., Tosti-Kharas, J., Michaelson, C., Fletcher, L., Bailey, C. and McGhee, P. (2023), “Ethics and
the future of meaningful work: introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 185 No. 4, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1007/s10551-023-05345-9.
Ma, B., Zhu, S. and Jain, K. (2023), “The ‘sense’ behind proactive behaviors: feedback seeking,
meaningfulness, and personal initiative”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 144, 103896, doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103896.
Mai, R., Niemand, T. and Kraus, S. (2021), “A tailored-fit model evaluation strategy for better decisions
about structural equation models”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 173,
121142, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121142.
Martela, F. (2023), “The normative value of making a positive contribution–benefiting others as a core
dimension of meaningful work”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 185 No. 4, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1007/
s10551-023-05341-z.
Martin, K.D. and Cullen, J.B. (2006), “Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: a meta-
analytic review”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 175-194, doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-
9084-7.
Matthews, L.M., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F. and Ringle, C.M. (2016), “Identifying and treating unobserved
heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part II–A case study”, European Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 208-224, doi: 10.1108/EBR-09-2015-0095.
McKinsey & Company (2020), “Mental health in the workplace: the coming revolution”, available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare/our-insights/mental-health-in-the-workplace-
the-coming-revolution
Mejia, S. (2023), “The normative and cultural dimension of work: technological unemployment as a
cultural threat to a meaningful life”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 185 No. 4, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.
1007/s10551-023-05340-0.
Michaelson, C. (2021), “A normative meaning of meaningful work”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 170
No. 3, pp. 413-428, doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04389-0.
Michaelson, C. and Tosti-Kharas, J. (2019), “Serving self or serving others? Close relations’
perspectives on ethics and calling”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 114, pp. 19-30, doi: 10.
1016/j.jvb.2019.02.005.
Miller, D.W., Ewest, T. and Neubert, M.J. (2019), “Development of the integration profile (TIP) faith
and work integration scale”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 159 No. 2, pp. 455-471, doi: 10.1007/
s10551-017-3773-2.
Oh, J.-H., Johnston, W.J. and Curasi, C.F. (2022), “Too much of a good thing?: the impact of ethical
controls and perceived controllability on salesforce job performance”, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1241-1254, doi: 10.1108/JBIM-01-2021-0021.
€
Ozkan, € um, B. (2023), “Fostering employee promotive voice in
O.S., Huertas-Valdivia, I. and Uz€
hospitality: the impact of responsible leadership”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 49,
101186, doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2023.101186.
Parboteeah, K.P., Weiss, M. and Hoegl, M. (2024), “Ethical climates across national contexts: a meta-
analytical investigation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 189 No. 3, pp. 573-590, doi: 10.1007/
s10551-023-05387-z.
Park, S. and Gupta, S. (2012), “Handling endogenous regressors by joint estimation using copulas”, Management
Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 567-586, doi: 10.1287/mksc.1120.0718. Decision
Peng, H. and Wei, F. (2020), “How and when does leader behavioral integrity influence employee
voice? The roles of team independence climate and corporate ethical values”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 166 No. 3, pp. 505-521, doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04114-x.
Pradhan, S. and Pradhan, R.K. (2016), “Transformational leadership and job outcomes: the mediating
role of meaningful work”, Global Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 3_suppl, pp. 173S-185S, doi: 10.
1177/0972150916631211.
Pratt, M.G. and Ashforth, B.E. (2003), “Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work”, Positive
Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, Vol. 309, p. 327.
Rai, A., Kim, M. and Singh, S.K. (2023), “Meaningful work from ethics perspective: examination of
ethical antecedents and outcomes of meaningful work”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 169,
114287, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114287.
Ramsey, J.B. (1969), “Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression
analysis”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 350-371, doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1969.tb00796.x.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2017), “Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS-SEM: a
multi-method approach”, in Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Basic Concepts,
Methodological Issues and Applications, Springer, pp. 197-217, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-64069-3_9.
Schwepker, C.H., Valentine, S.R., Giacalone, R.A. and Promislo, M. (2021), “Good barrels yield healthy
apples: organizational ethics as a mechanism for mitigating work-related stress and promoting
employee well-being”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 174 No. 1, pp. 143-159, doi: 10.1007/
s10551-020-04562-w.
Shimizu, A.B., Dik, B.J. and Conner, B.T. (2019), “Conceptualizing calling: cluster and taxometric
analyses”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 114, pp. 7-18, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.006.
Shin, N.J., Ziegert, J.C. and Muethel, M. (2022), “The detrimental effects of ethical incongruence in
teams: an interactionist perspective of ethical fit on relationship conflict and information
sharing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 179, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04684-1.
Tangney, J.P., Boone, A.L. and Baumeister, R.F. (2018), “High self-control predicts good adjustment,
less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success”, in Self-Regulation and Self-Control,
pp. 173-212, doi: 10.4324/9781315175775-5.
Tsai, M.-T. and Huang, C.-C. (2008), “The relationship among ethical climate types, facets of job
satisfaction, and the three components of organizational commitment: a study of nurses in
Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 565-581, doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9455-8.
Tyssedal, J.J. (2023), “Work is meaningful if there are good reasons to do it: a revisionary conceptual
analysis of ‘meaningful work’”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 185 No. 3, pp. 533-544, doi: 10.
1007/s10551-022-05205-y.
van Hooff, M.L.M. and van Hooft, E.A.J. (2023), “Dealing with daily boredom at work: does self-control
explain who engages in distractive behavior or job crafting as a coping mechanism?”, Work and
Stress, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 248-268, doi: 10.1080/02678373.2022.2129515.
V€ayrynen, T. and Laari-Salmela, S. (2018), “Men, mammals, or machines? Dehumanization embedded
in organizational practices”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 147 No. 1, pp. 95-113, doi: 10.1007/
s10551-015-2947-z.
Volz-Peacock, M. (2006), Values and Cohesiveness: A Case Study of a Federal Team, The George
Washington University, Washington, DC.
Warr, P. (1990), “The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 193-210, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x.
Weber, J. and Opoku-Dakwa, A. (2022), “Ethical work climate 2.0: a normative reformulation of Victor
and Cullen’s 1988 framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 178 No. 3, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1007/
s10551-021-04778-4.
MD Yang, M., Luu, T.T. and Hoang, G. (2023), “Can ethical climate and ethical self-efficacy channel ethical
leadership into service performance? A multilevel investigation”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 114, 103548, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103548.
Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P. and Guerra-Baez, R. (2016), “Exploring the influence of ethical climate on
employee compassion in the hospitality industry”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 133 No. 3,
pp. 605-617, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2415-1.

About the authors

Jayesh Pandey is a doctoral student in Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management at
the Indian Institute of Management Ranchi. He has completed Post Graduate Diploma in Management
from Goa Institute of Management. His recent research has been published in IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Journal of Global Information Management, Global Knowledge Memory and
Communication and The Case Centre. His research interests are business ethics, meaningful work,
knowledge management, leadership, organizational restructuring, organizational politics, and
motivation. Jayesh Pandey is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jayeshpandey57@
gmail.com
Dr Manish Kumar is working as Associate Professor at Indian Institute of Management Ranchi in
Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management area. He has pursued Fellowship
in Management from Indian Institute of Management Lucknow. Dr Kumar has published his research in
reputed journals such as Journal of Business Research, Personnel Review, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management to name a few. His research interest areas are Leadership, Organizational
Identification, Motivation and Engagement, Organizational Justice, Brand Building Behaviour,
Organizational Structure, Individual Performance and other outcomes, Organizational Diversity and
Inclusion, Negotiation and Conflict Management.
Dr Shailendra Singh is working as Professor at Indian Institute of Management Lucknow in Human
Resource Management area. He has completed PhD from Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. Dr
Singh has published his research in reputed journals such as Journal of Asia Business Studies, Personnel
Review, International Journal of Innovation Management, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management and Human Capital and Innovation to name a few. Dr Singh is also currently appointed
as the Research Dean at Indian Institute of Management Lucknow. His research interest areas are
Managerial Stress and its Management, Social and Experiential Disadvantage and Coping Strategies,
Determinants of Productivity, Emotional Intelligence and Competence Building Power Dynamics.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]