Development and validation of the Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID) scale in the Canadian’s telecommunications retail sector

Development and validation of the Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID) scale in the Canadian’s telecommunications retail sector | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development and validation of the Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID) scale in the Canadian’s telecommunications retail sector Guillaume Desjardins This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6837382/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 18 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Corporate Reputation Review → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose : The increasing contingencies facing firms in the 21st century have led some senior managers to intensify workforce pressure in efforts to maintain competitiveness and expand market share within their industry. However, this approach may inadvertently prompt employees to engage in duplicity to meet organizational objectives. Design/methodology/approach : Drawing from organizational behavior and sociology literature, this study introduces the construct of Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID) to capture how organizational practices and internal policies may be perceived by employees as endorsing dishonesty and duplicity in the workplace. We developed and validated a scale to measure OID through a three-phase process. Findings : Beginning with 63 items generated from a comprehensive literature review and focus groups, we conducted exploratory (n=114) and confirmatory (n=191) factor analyses to establish a 12-item unifactorial scale. To further validate the scale, we assessed its criterion validity, finding that OID positively correlates with employee turnover intentions and negatively with job satisfaction and work engagement. Originality : This study offers a robust tool for measuring OID, contributing to a further understanding of how organizational policies may influence employee behavior. Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Using duplicity in the workplace is widely considered a pervasive behaviour that has garnered significant scholarly attention across disciplines such as psychology (Kelman, 1951 ), ethics (Ross & Robertson, 2000 ), and organizational behavior (Pehlivan et al., 2015 ). The act of lying—defined broadly as the intentional provision of false or misleading information (Desjardins, 2021 )— is the more common explicit form of duplicity. This concept presents a profound malaise within professional settings, as it challenges the foundational principles of trust, transparency, and integrity of organizations (Pilch & Turska, 2015 ). Moreover, this behavior is not always overt or easily recognizable. Scholars distinguish between "active”, and "passive" lies, with the former involving direct falsehoods and the latter involving omissions, half-truths, or subtle misrepresentations (Jenkis & Delbridge, 2020). In many cases, passive forms of duplicity are more common and difficult to detect, as they often involve withholding important information or allowing misperceptions to persist without correction. The study of duplicity in the workplace is multifaceted, exploring not only why individuals lie but also how organizational systems may implicitly encourage such behavior. Indeed, central to this body of research is the recognition that lying in professional contexts is not merely an individual moral failing (Pehlivan et al., 2015 ) but a systemic issue influenced by organizational structures (Ross & Robertson, 2000 ), leadership practices (Williams et al., 2009 ), and market dynamics (Schneider, 2004 ). Early research on lying was primarily psychological, focusing on individual traits such as Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970 ), narcissism (Kashmiri et al., 2017 ), or low levels of integrity (Nistor et al., 2018 ) that predispose some individuals to engage in dishonest behavior. Over time, however, scholars began to explore duplicity as a social and organizational phenomenon, considering how external pressures and contextual factors contribute to dishonest practices (Jones & Paulhus, 2017 ). Contemporary studies emphasize the interaction between individual characteristics and organizational environments, suggesting that employee’s behavior is often shaped or constrained by the demands, expectations, and rewards systems within the organization (Stead et al., 1990 ). A recurring theme in the study of workplace deception is the role of profit maximization as a driver of unethical behaviors, including lying. The pressure to achieve short-term financial gains can create environments where employees feel incentivized—or even compelled—to distort the truth, engage in misrepresentation, or conceal critical information (Jensen, 2003 ). This profit-driven behavior often leads to immediate benefits for the organization, such as improved sales figures (Butski et al., 2022 ), cost reductions (Van Bockstaele et al., 2012 ), or enhanced performance metrics (Johnston & Selsky, 2006 ). The Canadian telecommunications sector, characterized by rapid technological advancements, intense competition, and high customer expectations, is a fertile ground for workplace lying (Desjardins, 2021 ; Gould & Desjardins, 2015a ). Given the sector’s reliance on complex service offerings, intricate pricing models, and aggressive marketing tactics, employees may be incentivized to misrepresent product capabilities or conceal service limitations to meet sales targets or customer satisfaction metrics. For instance, sales personnel might overstate the reliability of network coverage or the speed of data services to secure contracts, particularly in markets where marginal gains in customer acquisition translate directly into competitive advantages (Gould & Desjardins, 2015b ). This pressure to maintain market share, coupled with the sector’s emphasis on customer retention and growth, creates conditions where dishonest practices—such as inflating performance metrics, or misrepresenting contract terms—become more prevalent. For example, in 2022 the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s indicates that, “nearly 40% of consumers reported being victims of aggressive and/or deceptive sales tactics by telecommunications companies in Canada, the majority of which report their most recent experience took place within the past year (60% of those who experienced these tactics or 24% of all Canadians)” (Government of Canada, 2022, p. 4). Those tactics include giving false information to customers, omitting information to customers regarding their purchase, pressuring customers into signing contract without their full consent, offering products/services that were not suitable to customers’ needs, and salesperson’s persistence in overcoming shopper’s objection (Government of Canada, 2022). The Canadian Commission for complaints for telecom-television services (CCTS, 2024 ) have noted an increase up 43% in customers complaint in 2023 compared to the prior year. Similar increases have also been noted in South Africa (Agabu Phiri & Mkhize, 2017 ), Sweden (Roos et al., 2013 ) and India (Mujumdar & Prabhu, 2021 ). Currently, there is no established instrument designed specifically to measure the degree to which employees feel pressured by their employers to engage in duplicity in the workplace. Although numerous studies have explored the ethical climate of organizations (Bellizzi & Hite, 1989 ; Brown & Treviño, 2006a ) and the prevalence of dishonest behavior (Jung & Vranceanu, 2017 ; Williams et al., 2009 ), the absence of a standardized tool to assess the perceived pressure to use duplicity limits the understanding of how organizational dynamics influence employee conduct. Developing such an instrument is crucial, as workplace duplicity has been identified as a behavior that correlates with negative outcomes, including lower job satisfaction (Sims, 2000a ) and work engagement (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012 ), and higher turnover (Grover, 1993 ). Without a reliable means to gauge this pressure, organizations are left with an incomplete understanding of how their policies, performance expectations, and reward systems might inadvertently contribute to an environment that fosters dishonesty. Such an instrument would serve as a valuable diagnostic tool, enabling companies to proactively identify and mitigate the organizational practices that contribute to unethical behaviors and employee dissatisfaction. Considering the foregoing, this study aims to achieve three key objectives. First, it seeks to examine employee dishonest behavior through a novel conceptual framework—Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID)—which refers to the perceived pressure employees experience to engage in duplicity and deception in the execution of their work tasks. The second objective is to develop and validate an instrument specifically designed to measure OID, with a particular focus on the telecommunications retail sector. Finally, the study aims to investigate the relationship between OID and traditional human resource indicators, such as work engagement, job satisfaction, and employee turnover, to understand its impact on organizational outcomes. 2. OID Theoretical and Measurement One of the central frameworks in the study of workplace lying is the concept of moral disengagement, which refers to the cognitive processes through which individuals justify unethical actions, including lying, in ways that preserve their sense of self-worth. This concept, developed by Bandura (Bandura, 2002 ), has been widely applied in organizational research to explain how employees may rationalize dishonest behavior as necessary for organizational survival or personal success (see: Claybourn, 2011 ; Fida et al., 2018 ; Newman et al., 2020 ). For example, employees might justify lying about financial projections to meet shareholder expectations or misrepresenting the progress of a project to secure continued funding. These rationalizations often occur in environments where ethical transgressions are overlooked, tolerated, or even rewarded, leading to the normalization of deceitful behavior (Shulman, 2007a ). A literature review of this corpus highlights 4 factors that may influence the worker’s propension to lie in his job. 2.1 Economic gains and incentive Economic incentives, such as commissions or bonuses tied to performance, have been shown to significantly influence employees' behavior (Gaspar et al., 2019 ; Ross & Robertson, 2000 ), sometimes leading them to act dishonestly to maximize their financial rewards (Mackinger & Jonas, 2012 ). In many sales-driven industries, for example, employees receive commissions based on the number of deals closed, creating a direct link between their economic well-being and their ability to meet sales targets (Desjardins, 2021 ). According to Ariely ( 2013 ), such performance-based pay structures can encourage individuals to rationalize unethical behaviors if they perceive that the potential rewards outweigh the ethical risks. In the same vein, Schweitzer, Ordóñez, and Douma ( 2004 ) found that economic incentives not only motivate employees to work harder but also increase the likelihood of dishonesty. When performance is tied directly to rewards, employees may feel justified in manipulating numbers or misrepresenting facts to secure a financial benefit. This phenomenon is often linked to the broader concept of goal setting in organizational behavior, where ambitious targets combined with high rewards may create an environment ripe for unethical conduct (Ordóñez et al., 2009 ). Moreover, economic incentives may shift employees' focus from long-term ethical considerations to short-term financial gains, leading them to justify dishonest actions as necessary for survival or career advancement (Chang et al., 2021 ). 2.2 Performance standard and review Organizational pressure, particularly when manifested as unrealistic quotas or targets, is another significant factor that can drive employees to lie. High performance expectations, especially when they are unattainable or misaligned with available resources, can create a stressful work environment, pushing individuals to resort to unethical tactics (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997 ). Employees may feel that failure to meet these expectations will result in job loss, demotion, or other negative consequences, thereby justifying dishonest behaviors as a means of survival (Grover & Hui, 2005 ). The classic study by Merton ( 1957 ) on organizational stress and role strain provides a theoretical foundation for understanding how employees react to excessive pressure. In situations where the demands of the job exceed employees' ability to perform honestly, they may engage in "ritualism," a term Merton used to describe when individuals accept the institutional goals but deviate from the legitimate means to achieve them. Further evidence for this phenomenon can be found in the work of Tepper et al. ( 2007 ), who demonstrated that abusive supervision and high-pressure work environments correlate with increased unethical behavior among employees. When employees feel that they are unfairly scrutinized or are being set up to fail, they may resort to dishonest tactics to avoid reprimand or dismissal. Moreover, performance reviews and the associated performance management systems, can also create pressure to lie (Grote, 2011 ). In many organizations, performance reviews are conducted periodically, and employees are evaluated based on key performance indicators (KPIs) that may not accurately reflect the complexities of their roles. These reviews often determine promotions, salary increases, and even job security, leading to an environment where employees may feel compelled to embellish their achievements or hide their failures. Research by Ferris et al. ( 2008 ) highlights how performance appraisals, particularly those that are rigidly structured and focused on quantitative metrics, can lead to ethical dilemmas for employees. In the retail sector, this often manifests as an organizational emphasis on maximizing sales volume, coupled with a more lenient approach to the quality of interactions between employees and customers (Fleming & Asplund, 2007 ). 2.3 Internal policies and their application One of the primary ways internal policies contribute to dishonesty is through an overemphasis on performance metrics, particularly sales targets. In many organizations, performance is heavily tied to quantitative measures such as the number of sales, client acquisitions, or other financial outcomes. While these metrics are important for tracking organizational success, they can inadvertently encourage employees to engage in unethical behavior when achieving these targets becomes the singular focus (Schwepker & Good, 2012 ). When internal policies prioritize outcomes like sales above all else, employees may resort to dishonesty to meet these expectations (Carson, 2001 ). This pressure can be exacerbated when employees perceive that the policies are disconnected from the realities of their work. For example, in the retail sector, organizations that emphasize sales volume may fail to account for factors such as customer preferences, market conditions, or the employee's relationship-building efforts with customers. When these qualitative aspects of work are de-emphasized in favor of rigid numerical targets, employees may feel justified in lying about sales figures or other key performance indicators to avoid negative consequences (Jelinek & Ahearne, 2006 ). Another significant factor that contributes to dishonesty is the inconsistent application of internal policies. When organizational policies are not applied uniformly across employee groups, it creates a sense of unfairness and ambiguity that can lead to ethical lapses (Cadogan et al., 2009 ). Employees may perceive that certain individuals or teams are held to different standards, fostering resentment and encouraging dishonest behavior as a means of leveling the playing field or avoiding sanctions (Tansey et al., 1994 ). Research by Greenberg ( 1990 ) on organizational justice highlights the importance of fairness in the application of policies. If employees believe that their employer’s policies are biased or inconsistently applied, they may rationalize dishonesty as a way to navigate an unfair system. For example, in organizations where policies regarding performance reviews or sales quotas are applied differently across teams, employees may feel that lying is necessary to avoid falling behind their peers who are not held to the same standards. In such environments, dishonesty can become a coping mechanism for dealing with perceived injustice, as employees seek to protect their status or financial security in the face of inconsistent policy enforcement (Bellizzi & Hasty, 2003 ). The relationship between internal policies and dishonesty is also influenced by the broader organizational culture. When the organizational culture tolerates or even rewards unethical behavior, employees are more likely to internalize these norms and engage in dishonest practices (Bellizzi & Bristol, 2005 ). According to Treviño, Weaver, and Reynolds ( 2006 ), organizational culture plays a critical role in shaping employees' ethical decision-making processes. If the culture implicitly condones dishonesty as long as targets are met, employees may feel that lying is not only acceptable but expected as part of their job performance. Furthermore, if leadership turns a blind eye to dishonest behavior or inconsistently applies ethical standards, this can further reinforce the pressure to lie (Anand et al., 2022 ; Piercy et al., 2006 ). Employees may observe that dishonest colleagues are rewarded or not held accountable, leading them to believe that ethical behavior is a disadvantage (Litzky et al., 2006 ). In such cases, internal policies that are designed to promote ethical conduct may be undermined by a culture that prioritizes results over integrity. 2.4 Peer-pressure Peer pressure is a well-documented phenomenon in organizational behavior, often leading employees to adopt unethical practices if such behaviors are normalized within the group. The desire to fit in, be accepted by colleagues, or be seen as part of the team can create an environment where lying or bending the rules becomes an unspoken expectation (Grover, 2005 ). In many cases, employees may not even be fully aware of the ethical implications of their actions, as they are simply conforming to the behaviors they observe around them. The concept of "groupthink," introduced by Janis ( 1972 ), explains how individuals in a cohesive group may suppress dissenting views and conform to the dominant behaviors, even when those behaviors are unethical. Individuals may feel that speaking out against these practices will lead to ostracism or exclusion, thus reinforcing the pressure to lie (Shulman, 2007b ). Furthermore, research by Cialdini and Goldstein ( 2004 ) on social influence and conformity suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in unethical behavior when they perceive that their peers are doing the same. This is particularly true in competitive environments, where employees may feel that they need to lie or cheat to keep up with their colleagues. For example, when employees are aware that their peers are engaging in dishonest practices to achieve economic gains, the pressure to conform may further erode their ethical standards. Over time, this creates a toxic organizational culture where dishonesty is not only tolerated but expected. 3. Consequences of OID Organizational-induced duplicity is likely to have a deleterious effect on job satisfaction. This is due, in part, to the inherent conflict it generates between employees’ perceptions of organizational integrity and their own values and expectations regarding transparency and trust (Indvick & Johson, 2009 ). When organizations engage in duplicity—such as promoting values of openness or ethical conduct while simultaneously fostering or tolerating contradictory practices—employees may experience cognitive dissonance (Brooksbank & Fullerton, 2020 ). This dissonance, arising from the disparity between employees' beliefs about ethical conduct and the observed behaviors within the organization, can create a sense of disillusionment (Williams et al., 2009 ) and mistrust (Rani et al., 2018 ). The result is often a decrease in morale, which should negatively impact job satisfaction. Moreover, organizational duplicity tends to undermine the psychological contract between employees and employers, eroding employee engagement and commitment (Zagenczyk et al., 2014 ). The ambiguity generated by duplicity can also lead to confusion in role expectations and impede effective communication, both of which are known to diminish job satisfaction (Sims, 2000b ). Consequently, it is reasonable to hypothesize a negative correlation between organizational-induced duplicity and job satisfaction. H 1 : The duplicity induced by the organization is linked by a negative relationship to job satisfaction. Organizational-induced duplicity is also likely to have a negative impact on work engagement. Duplicity undermines the alignment between employee and organizational values, which is a crucial foundation for employee motivation and commitment (Indvick & Johson, 2009 ). When employees perceive a misalignment between what the organization advocates and how it operates, they may experience a diminished sense of purpose, which is detrimental to work engagement. Specifically, the erosion of trust resulting from organizational duplicity can lead to a decline in employees’ willingness to invest effort and emotional commitment in their roles, as they may feel that the organization does not genuinely reciprocate their dedication (O’Malley, 2000 ). Furthermore, duplicity often results in unclear and contradictory communication regarding goals and expectations, adding an element of role ambiguity (Rhoads et al., 1994 ) that should impedes employees’ ability to fully engage in their work. This lack of transparency and consistency can cause disengagement, as employees may become skeptical of the organization’s integrity and uncertain about their own role within it. Thus, organizational-induced duplicity is expected to have a negative relationship with work engagement. H 2 : The duplicity induced by the organization is linked by a negative relationship to work engagement. Organizational-induced duplicity is theorized to positively correlate with employee turnover intention. OID challenges the credibility and trustworthiness of the organization, which is known to play a role for retaining employees (Sunder et al., 2017 ). When employees recognize that organizational practices contradict the values promoted by leadership—such as when a company espouses transparency but conceals crucial information or supports unethical practices—they may feel a fundamental breach of the psychological contract (Morrison & Robinson, 1997 ). This perceived inconsistency fosters cognitive dissonance, as employees experience a conflict between their expectations of ethical organizational behavior and the contradictory reality they encounter. As a result, employees may seek alignment between their personal values and work environment elsewhere, increasing turnover intention (Pettijohn et al., 2008 ). Furthermore, duplicity creates an environment of ambiguity and role confusion, where employees become uncertain about organizational goals, priorities, and their own roles within the organization. This ambiguity can lead to frustration and dissatisfaction, as employees struggle to meet unclear or conflicting expectations (Singh, 1993 ). The absence of a coherent organizational identity also diminishes employees' sense of belonging and purpose, key factors in retention (Good et al., 2022 ). Thus, the presence of OID is expected to be positively associated with turnover intention. H 3 : The duplicity induced by the organization is linked by a positive relationship with turnover intention. 4. Phase 1: Item generation and reduction of OID The methodology used to develop the OID scale adheres to DeVellis' (2016) framework for scale development, which is widely recognized in organizational research (Benzidia et al., 2021 ; Eva et al., 2019 ; Farzaneh et al., 2022 ). The literature review conducted for this study informed the generation of an initial pool of 57 items, distributed across four dimensions: financial gain (e.g., "I derive monetary benefits (spiff/bonus) from recommending a product/service that the organization prioritizes for sale"), performance standards and review (e.g., "In my organization, my performance evaluation is primarily based on the number of sales achieved"), internal policies (e.g., "In my organization, closing a sale is prioritized over the sales process"), and peer pressure (e.g., "Within my team, we share sales tips that are not always ethical"). For consistency, participants respond to each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). The use of a 7-point scale is intended to promote response variability and is commonly recommended for the development of new instruments (Leung, 2011 ; Malik et al., 2021 ). The initial item pool was subsequently reviewed by four experts: two telecommunications retail salespersons, one telecommunications retail manager, and one management professor. These experts participated in a focus group designed to achieve three key objectives: (1) to assess the clarity and comprehensibility of each item, (2) to evaluate inter-rater reliability by ensuring uniform understanding of the items, and (3) to determine whether the items reflected the intended constructs (face validity). When an item lacked consensus, the experts collaboratively rephrased it to achieve agreement. At the conclusion of the focus group, the experts were also invited to suggest additional items to enhance the content validity of the OID instrument. As a result, six new items were proposed, bringing the total pool to 63 items. Subsequently, each expert was asked individually (to minimize social desirability bias) to rate how well they believed each item represented the concept of OID. The ratings were based on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all representative, 7 = totally representative). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorff’s alpha (Krippendorff, 2011 ), a robust measure suited for cases involving multiple raters and a range of possible ratings (McHugh, 2012 ). A coefficient of ≥ .8 was established as the threshold for including an item in the preliminary version of the scale. Based on this criterion, 24 items were selected from the initial pool of 63 for further administration. 5. Phase 2: Factor identification and measurement construction 5.1 Methods Participants and procedures. An online survey was conducted using LimeSurvey and targeted employees in the Canadian telecommunications retail sector. The study employed two non-probabilistic recruitment methods. First, a poster detailing the study and providing a URL link to the questionnaire was distributed to professional contacts within the industry, including managers and senior executives. These contacts were encouraged to share the poster with their team members (e.g., sales staff). Second, from March to May 2024, a research assistant conducted in-store visits in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. During these visits, the purpose of the study was explained, and potential participants were provided with a QR code that directed them to the online questionnaire. Prior to participation, respondents were informed that the survey was independent and not affiliated with their employer. No participant was screening out due to low-quality data, short response time, invariant responding or low personal reliability (DeSimone et al., 2015 ). The sample (n = 114) predominantly comprised male employees (79; 69.3%). Additionally, over half of the respondents (70; 61.4%) reported having four years or less of work experience in the telecommunications sector (SD = 1.46). The distribution of participants across organizations was representative of the Canadian telecommunications market, with 24.6% of respondents employed by the largest organization and 14.9% by the second largest. Measures. Participants responded to questions about sociodemographic characteristics and filled out the preliminary 24-items initial OID scale. Participants respond to each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). High scores reflected stronger pressure to use duplicity. Statistical strategies . RStudio version 2024.09, along with EFA.dimensions and psych packages, were used. First, an item analysis was conducted to determine which item had discrimination indices greater than .3 (Hair et al., 2018 ). After dropping items with inadequate discrimination, a series of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the factor structure of OID. Specifically, principal component analysis for exploratory analysis was used and extracted factors according to the principle of factor eigenvalues greater than 1. When the OID was established through a series of EFA procedures, the internal consistency reliability of the retained items was examined in the scale. 5.2 Results EFA. Prior to performing the EFA, an item analysis revealed that 18 out of the initial 24 items demonstrated satisfactory discrimination. Measures of sampling adequacy, including the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (MSA = .94) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ² (78) = 1406.52, p < .001), confirmed the suitability of the remaining items for factor analysis (Hair et al., 2018 ). Parallel analysis indicated that one factor should be retained, as the Eigenvalue (7.674) exceeded those generated from random simulated data (1.493). This one-factor solution was further validated through additional factor retention criteria, including the Minimum Average Partial (MAP) test (Velicer et al., 2000 ), the Empirical Kaiser Criterion (Braeken & van Assen, 2017 ), and the scree test (Cattell, 1966 ). Notably, only one Eigenvalue from the observed data exceeded 1, and the scree plot displayed an apparent drop after the first Eigenvalue, with subsequent values showing minimal variation. Consequently, a single-factor solution was retained. Subsequently, a principal component analysis with the default delta value was conducted on the extracted factor to assess its communalities (Hair et al., 2018 ). Items with communalities above 0.50 were retained to ensure that at least half of the variance in each item was accounted for, resulting in the retention of 12 items. These items demonstrated standardized loadings on the factor ranging from 0.71 to 0.94 (see Table 1 ). Table 1 Factor loadings for the exploratory factor analysis Item Factor OID Communality 1. I sometimes have to withhold information from customers in order to meet the objectives set by my organization (e.g. my sales quotas). 0.85 0.70 2. My organization suggests that I cross-sell (cross-selling means selling one or more products that may or may not be related to the customer's arrival at the store). 0.93 0.87 3. In my organization, closing a sale is more important than the sales process. 0.89 0.81 4. I feel pressure from my organization to close a sale at any cost. 0.71 0.51 5. I sometimes have to withhold relevant information from the customer in order to earn an acceptable income. 0.86 0.79 6. In my organization, my performance appraisal is based mainly on the number of sales achieved. 0.80 0.68 7. When bad information is passed on to a customer, my organization intervenes only when a complaint is lodged. 0.79 0.66 8. In my organization, the end result (the sale) comes first. 0.92 0.89 9. In my work team, we give each other sales tricks that aren't always ethical. 0.91 0.83 10. In my work team, competition is so fierce that the best salespeople are those who are most adept at manipulating the information transmitted to the customer. 0.94 0.91 11. To do my job properly, I sometimes have to lie to the customer. 0.82 0.67 12. White lies (i.e. lies that have no negative repercussions for the customer) are tolerated in my organization. 0.87 0.76 Eigenvalue 9,12 % of variance explained 74% ------------------------ Insert Table 1 about here ------------------------ The factor "OID" represents the degree to which an employee perceives pressure to engage in duplicity behavior at work. This factor captures employees' perceptions of their work environment, including peer pressure and organizational practices, and accounts for 74% of the total item variance, exceeding the typical threshold of 60% (Hinkin, 1998 ). Additionally, the single-factor model demonstrated a strong fit to the data, with fit indices indicating good model alignment (CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.955, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.056, RMSR = 0.029) (Hair et al., 2018 ). Based on these outcomes, the single-factor solution was considered appropriate. Reliability Analysis . Internal consistency reliability of the OID scale items was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Results indicated that (a) Cronbach's α for the overall scale was 0.97, and (b) item-total correlations ranged from 0.74 to 0.97. All Cronbach's α values exceeded the widely accepted threshold of 0.70 (Hinkin, 1998 ), confirming that the remaining 12 items exhibited strong internal consistency. 6. Phase 3: Construct validity 6.1 Methods Participants and procedures. The same strategy as for Phase 2 was used to obtain an independent sample. In-store visit went from July to September 2024 with the same research assistant. A total of 194 participants were recruited. 3 responses were eliminated because of short response time and invariant responding (DeSimone et al., 2015 ). Thus, the final sample included 191 participants. Amongst these participants, (138; 72.3%) were male, and (129; 67.5%) reported having four years or less of work experience in the telecommunications sector (SD = 1.77). The distribution of participants across organizations was still representative of the Canadian telecommunications market, with 19,4% of respondents employed by the largest organization and 18,3% by the second largest. Measures . In addition to the demographic characteristics, participants were administered the four measures below. They were rated using a seven-point Likert scale range from 1 ( Strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). OID was measured with the 12 items retained through the EFA procedure in phase 2 (see Table 1 ). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.97. (e.g., "I feel pressure from my organization to close a sale at any cost.") Work engagement was measured using the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), developed by Schaufeli et al. ( 2006 ), with a reported reliability of α = .92 (e.g., "I am enthusiastic about my work"). Job satisfaction was assessed through a single item—"Overall, I am satisfied with my work"—drawn from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (MOAQ-JSS) (Cammann et al., 1983 ). Single-item measures of job satisfaction have been extensively used in research (Allen et al., 2022 ; Macey & Fink, 2020 ) and demonstrate correlations comparable to those of longer scales (Nagy, 2002 ; Wanous et al., 1997 ). Intention to quit was measured by a single item—"I am seriously considering leaving my current employer for another"—from the Turnover Intentions Scale (Boroff & Lewin, 1997 ), which has also been widely used in similar studies and has shown comparable validity to the full scale (Alfes et al., 2013 ; Guillon & Cezanne, 2014 ; Soane et al., 2012 ). Statistical strategies . The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was done using the Maximum Likelihood estimation, using RStudio version 2024.09 with lavaan packages (Rosseel, 2012 ). The following criteria for the fit indices were used to evaluate the CFA model: χ² /df < 5, both CFI and TLI ≥ 0.9, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, and SRMR ≤ 0.06 (Hair et al., 2018 ). As a second step, the composite reliability (CR) was computed and the average variance value extracted (AVE) to evaluate the construct validity. The threshold values for CR and AVE used were 0.5 and 0.6, respectively (Hair et al., 2018 ). Next, the internal consistency reliability of each measure, as well as the descriptives statistics and Pearson correlation analysis was done using the R packages “ psych ” (Revelle, 2024 ). To test the hypothesis, a series of hierarchical linear regression using the R packages “stats” was conducted. 6.2 Results CFA. Taking the four-factors model as the baseline, three CFAs were conducted to examine the factor structure of OID. Fit indices for these models are presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Fit indices for both proposed and alternative models Model χ² (d/f) Δ χ² (d/f) CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR Four-factor model (24 items) 354.81 (252) 0.964 0.961 0.046(0.034, 0.057) 0.045 Two-factor model (18 items) 131.13 (90) 223.68 (162) 0.985 0.982 0.049(0.029, 0.066) 0.028 One-factor model (12 items) 97.56 (54) 257.25 (198) *** 0.983 0.980 0.065(0.044,0.085) 0.023 Notes: n = 191. *** p < .001. ------------------------ Insert Table 2 about here ------------------------ As demonstrated in Table 2 , the baseline model had a good fit to the data (χ² (252) = 354.81, CFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.961, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.046, RMSR = 0.045) as do the two-factor model (χ² (90) = 131.13, CFI = 0.985, TLI = 0.982, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.049, RMSR = 0.028). However, the one factor model offers better fit to the data, especially when considering the root mean square error of approximation and the root mean square residuals (χ² (54) = 97.56, CFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.980, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.065, RMSR = 0.023). Moreover, according to the CFA for the one-factor model using the market method (see Fig. 1 ), each item loaded significantly at the 0.001 level, ranging from 0.74 to 0.94. ------------------------ Insert Fig. 1 about here ------------------------ Although the independent and the criterion variables were separated overtime, the common-method variance (CMV) cannot be rules out because all measures were collected from one source. Thus, CMV was tested by adding an unmeasured method factor (Podsakoff et al., 2012 ) on which all items were modeled to load. The average variance of all items extracted by the unmeasured method factor was 0.12, falling far below the commonly suggested 0.5 cutoff for the presence of a substantial common factor (Hair et al., 2018 ; Podsakoff et al., 2012 ). Therefore, CMV was considered not to be a problem. Descriptives statistics . Means, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in Table 3 . Results show that OID has a negative correlation with work engagement ( r = -,217, p < .001) and job satisfaction ( r = -,519, p < .001), while maintaining a positive correlation with turnover intention ( r = ,458, p < .001). These correlations provide preliminary support for the criterion validity of OID. Moreover, the correlations (and direction) obtained in this study for work engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention are similar to other studies (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012 ; George & Jones, 1996 ; Knight et al., 2006 ; Nagy, 2002 ). Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Gender 1.28 .45 1 2. Experience 3.74 1.77 − .074 1 3. OID 5.12 1.26 − .053 .131 1 4. Work engagement 3.39 0.5 .008 − .217** − .506*** 1 5. Job satisfaction 3.48 1.21 .027 − .077 − .519*** .514*** 1 6. Turnover intention 5.66 1.28 − .009 .042 .458*** − .297*** − .395*** 1 Notes: n = 191. *** p ≤ .001 (two-tailed), ** p ≤ = 0.01 (two-tailed). ------------------------ Insert Table 3 about here ------------------------ Hypotheses testing . Taking the three criterion variables (work engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention) as outcomes, a series of two-steps regression analyses were conducted to examine the criterion validity of OID. ------------------------ Insert Table 4 about here Table 4 Regression analyses of OID on employee’s work engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention Work engagement Job satisfaction Turnover intention Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Gender − .008 − .029 .021 − .001 − .006 .014 Work experience − .218 ** − .156 * − .075 − .009 .041 − .017 OID − .487 *** − .518 *** .461 *** F 4.657 * 24.27 *** .60 22.95 *** .168 16.581 *** R 2 .047 .28 .006 .257 .002 .210 Δ R 2 .233 *** .251 *** .208 *** Notes: n = 191. *** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ = 0.01, * p ≤ = 0.05. ------------------------ As can be seen in Table 4 , OID had a negative association with employee work engagement (β= − .487, p < .001) and job satisfaction (β= − .518, p < .001) while having a positive association with employee’s turnover intention (β = .461, p < .001). Taking in to account the control variables, OID accounted for a significant increase in explained variance in work engagement ( Δ R 2 = .233, p < .001), job satisfaction ( Δ R 2 = .251, p < .001), and turnover intention ( Δ R 2 = .208, p < .001). These findings offer empirical support for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, indicating that the construct validity of OID in predicting these employee outcomes is robust. Consequently, these results affirm that OID possesses adequate criterion validity within this model. 7. Discussion Following DeVellis’ ( 2016 ) scale development procedure, this study developed a twelve-item scale to measure organizational-induced duplicity. The findings indicate that OID is a unidimensional construct encompassing several characteristics identified in prior literature: namely, the perception of economic incentives for employees engaging in duplicity, the perception of performance evaluation processes prioritizing sales outcomes over ethical processes, perceived inconsistencies in the organization’s application of internal policies, and perceived peer pressure within the workplace. OID demonstrated a significant positive association with turnover intention and significant negative associations with both work engagement and job satisfaction, while controlling for gender and work experience. 7.1 Theoretical implications The development of OID as a construct introduces a novel and insightful lens through which scholars can examine and understand complex dynamics within the modern work environment. By conceptualizing OID, this study offers an innovative framework to address and analyze contemporary workplace issues, particularly those associated with ethical ambiguity (Dashtipour et al., 2024 ), value misalignment (Abbasi et al., 2022 ), and role conflict (Schmidt et al., 2014 ). In contrast to traditional constructs focusing primarily on isolated factors such as ethical climate (Victor & Cullen, 1988 ) or job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2001 ), OID provides a cohesive perspective on how perceived organizational inconsistencies can permeate employee experience, shaping attitudes and behaviors. The significance of OID lies in its potential to shed light on prevalent issues in the 21st-century workforce, where rapid organizational changes and competitive pressures may inadvertently foster duplicity or double standards (Gould & Desjardins, 2015a ). This new construct allows researchers to investigate how perceived misalignment between stated values and observed practices can impact essential human resource indicators, including turnover intention, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Through the lens of OID, traditional HR outcomes can now be reinterpreted, providing a deeper understanding of why employees may disengage or exhibit higher turnover intention in environments perceived as ethically inconsistent or contradictory (Meyer et al., 1991 ). Furthermore, OID advances theoretical perspectives in organizational behavior by challenging existing frameworks that assume employees’ responses are driven solely by individual or task-related factors. Instead, OID highlights the systemic influence of organizational practices on employee attitudes, supporting calls for more holistic approaches to understanding employee well-being and performance (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ). 7.2 Practical implications The practical implications of OID offer senior managers a valuable diagnostic tool to better understand employee perceptions of organizational consistency and integrity. By assessing OID within their teams, leaders can gain insight into how employees perceive alignment—or misalignment—between stated values and observed practices, thus providing critical feedback on organizational credibility. Such insight allows managers to identify specific areas where the organization may inadvertently foster duplicity, whether through ambiguous policies, conflicting priorities, or ethical inconsistencies, which in turn can inform revisions of internal policies to better align them with communicated organizational values (Rousseau, 1995 ). OID highlights the pivotal role of leadership within work teams, as managers and supervisors directly influence employees' perceptions of authenticity and ethical coherence within their organizational environment (Brown & Treviño, 2006b ). Effective leadership, characterized by clear communication, consistency, and ethical accountability, can mitigate the negative effects of OID by fostering an environment where values and practices are aligned. Recognizing the significance of OID also underscores the potential value of training programs that equip employees to navigate and address ethical ambiguities, particularly in industries where competitive pressures may encourage duplicity. By proactively addressing these challenges, organizations can reduce employee disillusionment, enhance engagement, and improve overall job satisfaction, ultimately contributing to a more transparent and productive organizational culture. 7.3 Limitations and Future Research Directions This study provides valuable insights into OID within a specific cultural and legal context; however, several limitations should be addressed in future research. First, OID can vary significantly across cultures and legal frameworks. The cultural setting in which this study was conducted might influence perceptions of organizational identity and identification processes, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings to other regions. For example, national values (Plijter et al., 2014 ), cultural norms (Yi et al., 2015 ), and regulatory environments (Walters et al., 2011 ) likely shape the way individuals relate to organizations and may impact the salience of OID. Researchers should replicate this study in diverse cultural and legal contexts to explore whether the observed relationships hold and to uncover any cross-cultural differences in OID. Additionally, the study's scope could be expanded by including a broader set of criterion variables, which would enhance our understanding of how OID affects a wider range of organizational and individual outcomes. Criterion variables such as employee well-being (Leavitt & Sluss, 2015 ), as well as organizational citizenship behaviors (Bolino et al., 2013 ), could reveal new dynamics within the OID construct. Moreover, incorporating moderator variables could provide a more nuanced understanding of OID. Variables like job role (Shulman, 2011 ), and organizational size (Jenkins & Delbridge, 2020 ), might moderate the effects of OID, allowing researchers to identify for whom and under what conditions OID is most influential. Finally, the cross-sectional design of this study limits the ability to draw causal inferences. Longitudinal studies would offer a more robust approach to investigating the temporal effects of OID and its influence on various outcomes over time. By tracking changes in OID and associated variables longitudinally, researchers could better capture causality and developmental processes. Future research using longitudinal designs or experimental methods could strengthen the conclusions and extend our understanding of the mechanisms underlying OID. 8. Conclusion This research has introduced a reliable and valid twelve-item scale for assessing employees’ perceptions of OID. The criterion validity analysis reveals that OID positively correlates with employees' turnover intentions and negatively correlates with job satisfaction and work engagement. These findings highlight the importance for researchers and practitioners alike to consider and measure organizational duplicity to better understand its influence on key employee behaviors. By providing a robust tool for assessing OID, this study offers valuable insights into workplace dynamics that can inform strategies to enhance employee retention, satisfaction, and engagement. Declarations Author Contribution G.D. is the sole author of this article and wrote the main manuscript text. References Abbasi, Z., Billsberry, J., & Todres, M. (2022). An integrative conceptual two-factor model of workplace value congruence and incongruence. Management Research Review , 45 (7), 897–912. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2021-0211 Agabu Phiri, M., & Mkhize, S. (2017). Employees’ Perceptions of Customer Service at Telephone Communications (Telkom) Call Centres in South Africa. Journal of Communication , 8 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0976691X.2017.1305682 Alfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Truss, C., & Soane, E. C. (2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 24 (2), 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.679950 Allen, M. S., Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2022). Single Item Measures in Psychological Science. European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 38 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699 Anand, A., Bowen, M., & Rangarajan, D. (2022). To be or not to be: A review of the (un)ethical salespeople literature. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 38 (9), 1837–1851. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2022-0282 Ariely, D. D. (2013). The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves (Illustrated edition). Harper Perennial. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education , 31 (2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322 Bellizzi, J. A., & Bristol, T. (2005). Supervising the Unethical Selling Behavior of Top Sales Performers: Assessing the Impact of Social Desirability Bias. Journal of Business Ethics , 57 (4), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-6589-9 Bellizzi, J. A., & Hasty, R. W. (2003). Supervising Unethical Sales Force Behavior: How Strong is the Tendency to Treat Top Sales Performers Leniently? Journal of Business Ethics , 43 (4), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023045617076 Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1989). Supervising Unethical Salesforce Behavior. Journal of Marketing , 53 (2), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298905300203 Benzidia, S., Makaoui, N., & Bentahar, O. (2021). The impact of big data analytics and artificial intelligence on green supply chain process integration and hospital environmental performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 165 (120), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120557 Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 (4), 542–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1847 Boroff, K. E., & Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, Voice, and Intent to Exit a Union Firm: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis. ILR Review , 51 (1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399705100104 Braeken, J., & van Assen, M. (2017). An Empirical Kaiser Criterion. Psychological Methods , 22 (3), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000074 Brooksbank, R., & Fullerton, S. (2020). Cognitive dissonance revisited: A typology of B2B buyers’ post-decision ‘cognitive states’ and its implications for sales professionals. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 32 (8), 1759–1782. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-01-2019-0068 Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006a). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly , 17 (6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004 Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006b). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly , 17 (6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004 Butski, N., Boostrom Jr., R. E., & Bonds, R. (2022). An honest discussion about lies: how components of a seller’s lies can impact customer relationship commitment . The Marketing Management Journal, 32 (1), 17-31 Cadogan, J. W., Lee, N., Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Sales manager and sales team determinants of salesperson ethical behaviour. European Journal of Marketing , 43 (7/8), 907–937. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560910961452 Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. In Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices (S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, C. Cammann, pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley-Interscience. Carson, T. (2001). Deception and Withholding Information in Sales. Business Ethics Quarterly , 11 (2), 275–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857750 Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 1 (2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 CCTS. (2024). 2023-2024 Mid-Year Report – CCTS Reports . https://pub.ccts-cprst.ca/2023-2024-mid-year-report/ Chang, K., Max, S., & Celse, J. (2021). Employee’s lying behavior and the role of self-awareness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 30 (6), 1538–1553. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2020-2513 Christie, R., & Geis, L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism (Academic Press). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10497-7 Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology , 55 (Volume 55, 2004), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 Claybourn, M. (2011). Relationships Between Moral Disengagement, Work Characteristics and Workplace Harassment. Journal of Business Ethics , 100 (2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0680-1 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management , 31 (6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Dashtipour, P., Gerard, N., & Rolo, D. (2024). Toward an Ethics of Ambiguity in Critical Work and Organizational Psychology: From ‘Blank’ to ‘Troubled’ Subjectivity. Journal of Business Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05760-6 Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work Engagement and Machiavellianism in the Ethical Leadership Process. Journal of Business Ethics , 107 (1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4 DeSimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 36 (2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1962 Desjardins, G. (2021). La duplicité et le mensonge dans les télécoms canadiennes: Portait de l’industrie et questions stratégiques. Revue française de gestion , 301 (8), 11–42. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.2021.00583 DeVellis, R. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (4e édition). Sage Publications. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly , 30 (1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004 Farzaneh, M., Wilden, R., Afshari, L., & Mehralian, G. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation. Journal of Business Research , 148 , 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.030 Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship components. Human Resource Management Review , 18 (3), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.006 Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Paciello, M., Guglielmetti, C., Gilardi, S., Probst, T. M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2018). ‘First, Do No Harm’: The Role of Negative Emotions and Moral Disengagement in Understanding the Relationship Between Workplace Aggression and Misbehavior. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00671 Fleming, J. H., & Asplund, J. (2007). Human Sigma: Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter . Simon and Schuster. Gaspar, J. P., Methasani, R., & Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations. Academy of Management Perspectives , 33 (1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0047 George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 (3), 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.318 Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial Behavior in Organizations . SAGE. Good, V., Hughes, D. E., & Wang, H. (2022). More than money: Establishing the importance of a sense of purpose for salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 50 (2), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00795-x Gould, A. M., & Desjardins, G. (2015a). A spring-clean of Michael Porter’s Attic: The Canadian telecommunications sector as an exemplar of refurbished generic strategy. Competitiveness Review , 25 (3), 310–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-04-2014-0008 Gould, A. M., & Desjardins, G. (2015b). Smart for whom? Cost ambiguity as corporate strategy in the 21st century telco sector. Info , 17 (2), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-08-2014-0035 Government of Canada, C. R. and T. C. (CRTC). (2022, September 7). CRTC Sales Practices Review – 2022 Secret Shopper Project Detailed Findings Report . https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/2018_246b/#a1 Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of Management , 16 (2), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208 Grote, R. C. (2011). How to be Good at Performance Appraisals: Simple, Effective, Done Right . Harvard Business Press. Grover, S. L. (1993). Why Professionals Lie: The Impact of Professional Role Conflict on Reporting Accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 55 (2), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1033 Grover, S. L. (2005). The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The causes and management of workplace lying. Academy of Management Perspectives , 19 (2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.16965277 Grover, S. L., & Hui, C. (2005). HOW JOB PRESSURES AND EXTRINSIC REWARDS AFFECT LYING BEHAVIOR. International Journal of Conflict Management , 16 (3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022933 Guillon, O., & Cezanne, C. (2014). Employee loyalty and organizational performance: A critical survey. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 27 (5), 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2014-0025 Hair, J., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Black, W. (2018). Multivariate Data Analysis (8e edition). Intl Thomson Business Pre. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods , 1 (1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106 Indvick, J., & Johson, P. (2009). Liar! Liar! Your Pants are on Fire: Deceptive Communication in the Workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict , 13 (1), 1–8. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes (pp. viii, 277). Houghton Mifflin. Jelinek, R., & Ahearne, M. (2006). The Enemy Within: Examining Salesperson Deviance and its Determinants. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management , 26 (4), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134260401 Jenkins, S., & Delbridge, R. (2020). Exploring Organizational Deception: Organizational Contexts, Social Relations and Types of Lying. Organization Theory , 1 (2),. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720919436 Jensen, M. C. (2003). Paying People to Lie: The Truth about the Budgeting Process. European Financial Management , 9 (3), 379–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00226 Johnston, S., & Selsky, J. W. (2006). Duality and Paradox: Trust and Duplicity in Japanese Business Practice. Organization Studies , 27 (2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605057666 Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 113 (2), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000139 Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin , 127 (3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 Jung, S., & Vranceanu, R. (2017). Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Lying Behaviour. Revue Economique , 68 (5), 859–873. Kashmiri, S., Nicol, C. D., & Arora, S. (2017). Me, myself, and I: Influence of CEO narcissism on firms’ innovation strategy and the likelihood of product-harm crises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 45 (5), 633–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0535-8 Kelman, H. (1951). Duplicity. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis , 11 (1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01872802 Knight, D. K., Crutsinger, C., & Kim, H. (2006). The Impact of Retail Work Experience, Career Expectation, and Job Satisfaction on Retail Career Intention. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal , 24 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X0602400101 Krippendorff, K. (2011). Agreement and Information in the Reliability of Coding. Communication Methods and Measures , 5 (2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.568376 Leavitt, K., & Sluss, D. M. (2015). Lying for Who We Are: An Identity-Based Model of Workplace Dishonesty. Academy of Management Review , 40 (4), 587–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0167 Leung, S.-O. (2011). A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales. Journal of Social Service Research , 37 (4), 412–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.580697 Litzky, B. E., Eddleston, K. A., & Kidder, D. L. (2006). The Good, the Bad, and the Misguided: How Managers Inadvertently Encourage Deviant Behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives , 20 (1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873411 Macey, W. H., & Fink, A. A. (2020). Employee Surveys and Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities . Oxford University Press. Mackinger, B., & Jonas, E. (2012). How Do Incentives Lead to Deception in Advisor–Client Interactions? Explicit and Implicit Strategies of Self-Interested Deception. Frontiers in Psychology , 3 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00527 Malik, M. A. A., Mustapha, M. F., Sobri, N. M., Razak, N. F. A., Zaidi, M. N. M., Shukri, A. A., & Sham, M. A. L. Z. (2021). Optimal Reliability and Validity of Measurement Model in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Different Likert Point Scale Experiment. Journal of Contemporary Issues and Thought , 11 , 105–112. https://doi.org/10.37134/jcit.vol11.9.2021 McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica , 22 (3), 276–282. Merton, R. K. (1957). The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory. The British Journal of Sociology , 8 (2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/587363 Meyer, J. P., Bobocel, D. R., & Allen, N. J. (1991). Development of Organizational Commitment During the First Year of Employment: A Longitudinal Study of Pre- and Post-Entry Influences. Journal of Management , 17 (4), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700406 Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review , 22 (1), 226–256. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180265 Mujumdar, M. S., & Prabhu, S. G. (2021). Study of Telecom Industry Ombudsman and its Regulatory Relevance for Customer Satisfaction. Indian Journal of Science and Technology , 14 (23), 1929–1943. https://doi.org/10.17485/IJST/v14i23.255 Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 75 (1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902167658 Newman, A., Le, H., North-Samardzic, A., & Cohen, M. (2020). Moral Disengagement at Work: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics , 167 (3), 535–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04173-0 Nistor, C., Yalcin, T., & Pehlivan, E. (2018). Duplicity in Alternative Marketing Communications. Markets, Globalization & Development Review , 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.23860/MGDR-2018-03-02-04 O’Malley, M. (2000). Creating Commitment: How to Attract and Retain Talented Employees by Building Relationships That Last . John Wiley & Sons. Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting. Academy of Management Perspectives , 23 (1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.37007999 Pehlivan, E., Berthon, P., Hughes, M. Ü., & Berthon, J.-P. (2015). Keeping up with The Joneses: Stealth, secrets, and duplicity in marketing relationships. Business Horizons , 58 (6), 591–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.06.002 Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L., & Taylor, A. J. (2008). Salesperson Perceptions of Ethical Behaviors: Their Influence on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics , 78 (4), 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9367-7 Piercy, N. F., Cravens, D. W., Lane, N., & Vorhies, D. W. (2006). Driving Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Salesperson In-Role Behavior Performance: The Role of Management Control and Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 34 (2), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305280532 Pilch, I., & Turska, E. (2015). Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target’s and the Perpetrator’s Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics , 128 (1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2081-3 Plijter, E. B., Voordt, T. J. M. van der, & Rocco, R. (2014). Managing the workplace in a globalized world: The role of national culture in workplace management. Facilities , 32 (13/14), 744–760. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-11-2012-0093 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology , 63 (Volume 63, 2012), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 Rani, H., Arain, G. A., Kumar, A., & Shaikh, I. R. (2018). Interplay between trust and distrust in the workplace: Examining the effect of psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification. Journal of Asia Business Studies , 12 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-02-2015-0022 Revelle, W. (2024). The seductive beauty of latent variable models: Or why I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny. Personality and Individual Differences , 221 , 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112552 Rhoads, G. K., Singh, J., & Goodell, P. W. (1994). The Multiple Dimensions of Role Ambiguity and Their Impact Upon Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes of Industrial Salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management , 14 (3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.1994.10753990 Roos, I., Löfgren, M., & Edvardsson, B. (2013). Customer-Support Service from a Relationship Perspective: Best Practice for Telecom. Management Research and Practice , 5 (2), 4. Ross, W. T., & Robertson, D. C. (2000). Lying: The Impact of Decision Context. Business Ethics Quarterly , 10 (2), 409–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857884 Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software , 48 , 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements . SAGE Publications. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 66 (4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471 Schmidt, S., Roesler, U., Kusserow, T., & Rau, R. (2014). Uncertainty in the workplace: Examining role ambiguity and role conflict, and their link to depression—a meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 23 (1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.711523 Schneider, P. A. (2004). Victory: Applying the Proven Principles of Military Strategy to Achieve Greater Success in Your Business and Personal Life. Journal of Consumer Marketing , 21 (6), 439–440. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760410558726 Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal Setting as a Motivator of Unethical Behavior. Academy of Management Journal , 47 (3), 422–432. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159591 Schwepker, C. H., & Good, D. J. (2012). Sales Quotas: Unintended Consequences on Trust in Organization, Customer-Oriented Selling, and Sales Performance. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 20 (4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200406 Shulman, D. (2007a). From Hire to Liar: The Role of Deception in the Workplace . Cornell University Press. Shulman, D. (2007b). From Hire to Liar: The Role of Deception in the Workplace . Cornell University Press. Shulman, D. (2011). Deception in the Workplace: Recent Research and Promising New Directions. Sociology Compass , 5 (1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00344.x Sims, R. L. (2000a). The Relationship Between Employee Attitudes and Conflicting Expectations for Lying Behavior. The Journal of Psychology , 134 (6), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009598241 Sims, R. L. (2000b). The Relationship Between Employee Attitudes and Conflicting Expectations for Lying Behavior. The Journal of Psychology , 134 (6), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009598241 Singh, J. (1993). Boundary Role Ambiguity: Facets, Determinants, and Impacts. Journal of Marketing , 57 (2), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700202 Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: The ISA Engagement Scale. Human Resource Development International , 15 (5), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.726542 Stead, W. E., Worrell, D. L., & Stead, J. G. (1990). An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics , 9 (3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382649 Sunder, S., Kumar, V., Goreczny, A., & Maurer, T. (2017). Why Do Salespeople Quit? An Empirical Examination of Own and Peer Effects on Salesperson Turnover Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research , 54 (3), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0485 Tansey, R., Brown, G., Hyman, M. R., & Dawson Jr., L. E. (1994). Personal Moral Philosophies and the Moral Judgments of Salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management , 14 (1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.1994.10753976 Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive Supervision, Upward Maintenance Communication, and Subordinates’ Psychological Distress. Academy of Management Journal , 50 (5), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159918 Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review. Journal of Management , 32 (6), 951–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258 Van Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Moens, T., Suchotzki, K., Debey, E., & Spruyt, A. (2012). Learning to Lie: Effects of Practice on the Cognitive Cost of Lying. Frontiers in Psychology , 3 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00526 Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41–71). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3 Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates. Administrative Science Quarterly , 33 (1), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857 Walters, D., Johnstone, R., Frick, K., Quinlan, M., Baril-Gingras, G., & Thébaud-Mony, A. (2011). Regulating Workplace Risks: A Comparative Study of Inspection Regimes in Times of Change . Edward Elgar Publishing. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 (2), 247–252. Williams, K., Hernandez, E., Petrosky, A., & Page, R. (2009). The Busines of lying. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics , 7 (1), 11–29. Yi, X., Ribbens, B., Fu, L., & Cheng, W. (2015). Variation in career and workplace attitudes by generation, gender, and culture differences in career perceptions in the United States and China. Employee Relations , 37 (1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2014-0005 Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2014). Psychological Contracts as a Mediator Between Machiavellianism and Employee Citizenship and Deviant Behaviors. Journal of Management , 40 (4), 1098–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415420 Abbasi, Zahra, Billsberry, Jon, and Mathew Todres (2022), "An integrative conceptual two-factor model of workplace value congruence and incongruence," Management Research Review , 45 (7), 897–912. Agabu Phiri, Mathiew and Sibusisiwe Mkhize (2017), "Employees’ Perceptions of Customer Service at Telephone Communications (Telkom) Call Centres in South Africa," Journal of Communication , 8 (1), 1–15. Alfes, Kerstin, Shantz, Amanda, Truss, Catherine, and Soane, Emma (2013), "The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model," The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 24 (2), 330–351. Allen, Mark, Iliescu, Dragos and Samuel Greiff (2022), "Single Item Measures in Psychological Science," European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 38 (1), 1–5. Anand, Apoorva, Bowen Mary and Deva Rangarajan (2022), "To be or not to be: A review of the (un)ethical salespeople literature," Journal of Business andamp; Industrial Marketing , 38 (9), 1837–1851. Ariely, Dan (2013). The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves (Illustrated edition). Harper Perennial. Bandura, Albert (2002), "Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency," Journal of Moral Education , 31 (2), 101–119. Bellizzi, Joseph and Terry Bristol (2005), "Supervising the Unethical Selling Behavior of Top Sales Performers: Assessing the Impact of Social Desirability Bias," Journal of Business Ethics , 57 (4), 377–388. Bellizzi, Joseph and Ronald Hasty (2003), "Supervising Unethical Sales Force Behavior: How Strong is the Tendency to Treat Top Sales Performers Leniently?," Journal of Business Ethics , 43 (4), 337–351. Bellizzi, Joseph and Robert Hite (1989), "Supervising Unethical Salesforce Behavior," Journal of Marketing , 53 (2), 36–47. Benzidia, Samar, Makaoui, Nabil and Omar Bentahar (2021), "The impact of big data analytics and artificial intelligence on green supply chain process integration and hospital environmental performance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 165 (120), 1-13. Bolino, Mark, Klotz, Anthony, Turnley, William and Jaron Harvey (2013), "Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior," Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 (4), 542–559. Boroff, Karen and David Lewin (1997), "Loyalty, Voice, and Intent to Exit a Union Firm: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis," ILR Review , 51 (1), 50–63. Braeken, Johan., and Marcel van Assen (2017), "An Empirical Kaiser Criterion," Psychological Methods , 22 (3), 450–466. Brooksbank, Roger, and Sam Fullerton (2020), "Cognitive dissonance revisited: A typology of B2B buyers’ post-decision ‘cognitive states’ and its implications for sales professionals," Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , 32 (8), 1759–1782. Brown, Michael and Linda K. Treviño (2006), "Ethical leadership: A review and future directions," The Leadership Quarterly , 17 (6), 595–616. Butski, Nicole, Boostrom Jr, Robert, and Robert Bonds (2022), "An honest discussion about lies: how components of a seller’s lies can impact customer relationship commitment," The Marketing Management Journal, 32 (1), 17-31 Cadogan, John, Lee, Nick, Tarkiainen, Anssi and Sanna Sundqvist (2009), "Sales manager and sales team determinants of salesperson ethical behaviour," European Journal of Marketing , 43 (7/8), 907–937. Cammann, Cortlandt, Fichman, Mark, Jenkins, George, and Jack Klesh (1983), "Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire," In Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices , S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, C. Cammann, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 71-138 Carson, Thomas (2001), "Deception and Withholding Information in Sales," Business Ethics Quarterly , 11 (2), 275–306. Cattell, Raymond Bernard (1966), "The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors," Multivariate Behavioral Research , 1 (2), 245–276. CCTS. (2024)," 2023-2024 Mid-Year Report – CCTS Reports," https://pub.ccts-cprst.ca/2023-2024-mid-year-report/ Chang, Kai, Max, Stéphane and Jérôme Celse (2021), "Employee’s lying behavior and the role of self-awareness," International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 30 (6), 1538–1553. Christie, Richard and Florence, Geis (1970), " Studies in Machiavellianism ", Elsevier. Cialdini, Robert, and Goldstein, Noah (2004), "Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity," Annual Review of Psychology , 55 , 591–621. Claybourn, Marianne (2011), "Relationships Between Moral Disengagement, Work Characteristics and Workplace Harassment," Journal of Business Ethics , 100 (2), 283–301. Cropanzano, Russel and Marie Mitchell (2005), "Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review," Journal of Management , 31 (6), 874–900. Dashtipour, Parisa, Gerard, Nathan and David Rolo (2024), "Toward an Ethics of Ambiguity in Critical Work and Organizational Psychology: From ‘Blank’ to ‘Troubled’ Subjectivity," Journal of Business Ethics , 197, 219-230. Den Hartog, Deanne and Frank Belschak (2012), "Work Engagement and Machiavellianism in the Ethical Leadership Process," Journal of Business Ethics , 107 (1), 35–47. DeSimone, Justin, Harms, Peter and Amanda DeSimone (2015), "Best practice recommendations for data screening," Journal of Organizational Behavior , 36 (2), 171–181. DeVellis, Robert (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (4e édition). Sage Publications. Eva, Nathan, Robin, Martin, Sendjaya, Sen, van Dierendonck, Dirk and Robert Liden (2019), "Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research," The Leadership Quarterly , 30 (1), 111–132. Farzaneh, Mina, Wilden, Ralf, Afshari, Leila and Gholamhossein Mehralian (2022), "Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation," Journal of Business Research , 148 , 47–59. Ferris, Gerald, Munyon, Timothy, Basik, Kevin and Ronald Buckley (2008), "The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship components," Human Resource Management Review , 18 (3), 146–163. Fida, Roberta, Tramontano, Chiara, Paciello, Marina, Guglielmetti, Chiara, Gilardi, Silvia, Probst, Tahira, and Claudio Barbaranelli (2018), "‘First, Do No Harm’: The Role of Negative Emotions and Moral Disengagement in Understanding the Relationship Between Workplace Aggression and Misbehavior," Frontiers in Psychology , 9 . Fleming, James and John Asplund (2007), Human Sigma: Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter . Simon and Schuster. Gaspar, Jonathan, Methasani, Rajshree and Maurice Schweitzer (2019), "Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations," Academy of Management Perspectives , 33 (1), 62–81. George, Jennifer and Gareth Jones (1996), "The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood," Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 (3), 318–325. Giacalone, Robert and Jerald Greenberg (1997). Antisocial Behavior in Organizations . SAGE. Good, Vincent., Hughes, Douglas and Hairong Wang (2022), "More than money: Establishing the importance of a sense of purpose for salespeople," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 50 (2), 272–295. Government of Canada, C. R. and T. C. (CRTC). (2022, September 7). CRTC Sales Practices Review – 2022 Secret Shopper Project Detailed Findings Report . https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/2018_246b/#a1 Greenberg, Jerald (1990), "Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow," Journal of Management , 16 (2), 399–432. Grote, Richard (2011). How to be Good at Performance Appraisals: Simple, Effective, Done Right . Harvard Business Press. Grover, Steven (1993), "Why Professionals Lie: The Impact of Professional Role Conflict on Reporting Accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 55 (2), 251–272. Grover, Steven (2005), "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The causes and management of workplace lying," Academy of Management Perspectives , 19 (2), 148–157. Grover, Steven and Chin Hui (2005), " How job pressures and extrinsic rewards affect lying behavior," International Journal of Conflict Management , 16 (3), 287–300. Guillon, Olivier., and Céline Cezanne (2014), "Employee loyalty and organizational performance: A critical survey," Journal of Organizational Change Management , 27 (5), 839–850. Hair, Joseph, Babin, Barry, Anderson, Rolph, and William Black (2018), Multivariate Data Analysis (8e edition). Intl Thomson Business Press. Hinkin, Timothy (1998), "A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires," Organizational Research Methods , 1 (1), 104–121. Indvick, Julie and Paul Johson (2009),"Liar! Liar! Your Pants are on Fire: Deceptive Communication in the Workplace," Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict , 13 (1), 1–8. Janis, Irving (1972), Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes , Houghton Mifflin. Jelinek, Ron., and Michael Ahearne (2006), "The Enemy Within: Examining Salesperson Deviance and its Determinants," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management , 26 (4), 327–344. Jenkins, Simon., and Rick Delbridge (2020), "Exploring Organizational Deception: Organizational Contexts, Social Relations and Types of Lying," Organization Theory , 1 (2). Jensen, Michael (2003),"Paying People to Lie: The Truth about the Budgeting Process," European Financial Management , 9 (3), 379–406. Johnston, Steven and John W. Selsky (2006)," Duality and Paradox: Trust and Duplicity in Japanese Business Practice," Organization Studies , 27 (2), 183–205. Jones, Delroy and Delroy Paulhus (2017), "Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 113 (2), 329–342. Judge, Timothy, Thoresen, Carl, Bono, Joyce and Gregory Patton (2001), "The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review," Psychological Bulletin , 127 (3), 376–407. Jung, Seung and Radu Vranceanu (2017), "Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Lying Behaviour," Revue Economique , 68 (5), 859–873. Kashmiri, Shazia., Nicol, Christopher and Sandeep Arora (2017), "Me, myself, and I: Influence of CEO narcissism on firms’ innovation strategy and the likelihood of product-harm crises," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 45 (5), 633–656. Kelman, Herbert (1951),"Duplicity," The American Journal of Psychoanalysis , 11 (1), 21–35. Knight, David, Crutsinger, Caryn and Huyn Kim (2006), "The Impact of Retail Work Experience, Career Expectation, and Job Satisfaction on Retail Career Intention," Clothing and Textiles Research Journal , 24 (1), 1–14. Krippendorff, Klaus (2011), "Agreement and Information in the Reliability of Coding," Communication Methods and Measures , 5 (2), 93–112. Leavitt, Kenneth., and David Sluss (2015), "Lying for Who We Are: An Identity-Based Model of Workplace Dishonesty," Academy of Management Review , 40 (4), 587–610. Leung, Shiu-On (2011), "A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales," Journal of Social Service Research , 37 (4), 412–421. Litzky, Barbara, Eddleston, Karen and Denise Kidder (2006), "The Good, the Bad, and the Misguided: How Managers Inadvertently Encourage Deviant Behaviors," Academy of Management Perspectives , 20 (1), 91–103. Macey, William and Andrew A. Fink (2020). Employee Surveys and Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities . Oxford University Press. Mackinger, Benjamin and Eva Jonas (2012), "How Do Incentives Lead to Deception in Advisor–Client Interactions? Explicit and Implicit Strategies of Self-Interested Deception," Frontiers in Psychology , 3 . Malik, Muhammad, Mustapha, Ali Akbar, Sobri, Nor Muhammad, Razak, Nur Fathimah, Zaidi, Ahmad, and Mohd Anuar Sham (2021), "Optimal Reliability and Validity of Measurement Model in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Different Likert Point Scale Experiment," Journal of Contemporary Issues and Thought , 11 , 105–112. McHugh, Michael (2012), "Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic," Biochemia Medica , 22 (3), 276–282. Merton, Robert (1957), "The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory," The British Journal of Sociology , 8 (2), 106–120. Meyer, John, Bobocel, Daniel, and Nathalie Allen (1991), "Development of Organizational Commitment During the First Year of Employment: A Longitudinal Study of Pre- and Post-Entry Influences," Journal of Management , 17 (4), 717–733. Morrison, Elizabeth and Sandra Robinson (1997), "When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops," Academy of Management Review , 22 (1), 226–256. Mujumdar, Mahendra and Suresh Prabhu (2021), "Study of Telecom Industry Ombudsman and its Regulatory Relevance for Customer Satisfaction," Indian Journal of Science and Technology , 14 (23), 1929–1943. Nagy, Michelle (2002), "Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction," Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 75 (1), 77–86. Newman, Aaron, Le, Hong, North-Samardzic, Anita and Marilyn Cohen (2020), "Moral Disengagement at Work: A Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics , 167 (3), 535–570. Nistor, Cosmin, Yalcin, Talat, and Eylem Pehlivan (2018), "Duplicity in Alternative Marketing Communications," Markets, Globalization and Development Review , 3 (2). O’Malley, Michael (2000), Creating Commitment: How to Attract and Retain Talented Employees by Building Relationships That Last . John Wiley and Sons. Ordóñez, Luis, Schweitzer, Maurice, Galinsky, Adam, and Max H. Bazerman (2009), "Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting," Academy of Management Perspectives , 23 (1), 6–16. Pehlivan, Eylem, Berthon, Pierre, Hughes, Michael and Jean-Pierre Berthon (2015), "Keeping up with The Joneses: Stealth, secrets, and duplicity in marketing relationships," Business Horizons , 58 (6), 591–598. Pettijohn, Charles, Pettijohn, Lorna and Adam Taylor (2008), "Salesperson Perceptions of Ethical Behaviors: Their Influence on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions," Journal of Business Ethics , 78 (4), 547–557. Piercy, Nigel, Cravens, David, Lane, Nicholas and David Vorhies (2006), "Driving Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Salesperson In-Role Behavior Performance: The Role of Management Control and Perceived Organizational Support," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 34 (2), 244–262. Pilch, Izabela and Ewa Turska (2015), "Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target’s and the Perpetrator’s Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics , 128 (1), 83–93. Plijter, Erwin, Voordt, Theo and Richard Rocco (2014), "Managing the workplace in a globalized world: The role of national culture in workplace management," Facilities , 32 (13/14), 744–760. Podsakoff, Philip, MacKenzie, Scott and Nathan Podsakoff (2012), "Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It," Annual Review of Psychology , 63 , 539–569. Rani, Harleen., Arain, Ghulam, Kumar, Arvind and Irfan R. Shaikh (2018), "Interplay between trust and distrust in the workplace: Examining the effect of psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification," Journal of Asia Business Studies , 12 (1), 1–16. Revelle, William (2024), "The seductive beauty of latent variable models: Or why I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny," Personality and Individual Differences , 221 , 112552. Rhoads, Gregory, Singh, Jagdip,and Paul Goodell (1994), "The Multiple Dimensions of Role Ambiguity and Their Impact Upon Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes of Industrial Salespeople," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management , 14 (3), 1–24. Roos, Ingrid, Löfgren, Magnus and Bo Edvardsson (2013), "Customer-Support Service from a Relationship Perspective: Best Practice for Telecom," Management Research and Practice , 5 (2), 4. Ross, William and David Robertson (2000), "Lying: The Impact of Decision Context," Business Ethics Quarterly , 10 (2), 409–440. Rosseel, Yves (2012), "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software , 48 , 1–36. Rousseau, Denise (1995), " Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements ," SAGE Publications. Schaufeli, Wilmar, Bakker, Arnold and Marisa Salanova (2006), "The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study," Educational and Psychological Measurement , 66 (4), 701–716. Schmidt, Stefan., Roesler, Uwe, Kusserow, Thomas and Renate Rau (2014), "Uncertainty in the workplace: Examining role ambiguity and role conflict, and their link to depression—a meta-analysis," European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 23 (1), 91–106. Schneider, Patricia (2004), "Victory: Applying the Proven Principles of Military Strategy to Achieve Greater Success in Your Business and Personal Life," Journal of Consumer Marketing , 21 (6), 439–440. Schweitzer, Maurice, Ordóñez, Luis and Ben Douma (2004), "Goal Setting as a Motivator of Unethical Behavior," Academy of Management Journal , 47 (3), 422–432. Schwepker, Charles and David J. Good (2012)," Sales Quotas: Unintended Consequences on Trust in Organization, Customer-Oriented Selling, and Sales Performance," Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 20 (4), 437–452. Shulman, David (2007), From Hire to Liar: The Role of Deception in the Workplace . Cornell University Press. Shulman, David (2011), "Deception in the Workplace: Recent Research and Promising New Directions," Sociology Compass , 5 (1), 52–64. Sims, Ronald (2000), "The Relationship Between Employee Attitudes and Conflicting Expectations for Lying Behavior," The Journal of Psychology , 134 (6), 619–633. Singh, Jagdip (1993), "Boundary Role Ambiguity: Facets, Determinants, and Impacts," Journal of Marketing , 57 (2), 11–31. Soane, Emma, Truss, Catherine, Alfes, Kerstin, Shantz, Adrian, Rees, Chris and Martin Gatenby (2012), "Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: The ISA Engagement Scale," Human Resource Development International , 15 (5), 529–547. Stead, Wayne, Worrell, David and Jean Stead (1990), "An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations," Journal of Business Ethics , 9 (3), 233–242. Sunder, Shruti, Kumar, Vikash, Goreczny, Anna and Thomas Maurer (2017), "Why Do Salespeople Quit? An Empirical Examination of Own and Peer Effects on Salesperson Turnover Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research , 54 (3), 381–397. Tansey, Robert, Brown, Gregory, Hyman, Michael and Louis Jr. Dawson (1994), "Personal Moral Philosophies and the Moral Judgments of Salespeople," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management , 14 (1), 59–75. Tepper, Bennett, Moss, Sherry, Lockhart, Daniel and Jon C. Carr (2007), "Abusive Supervision, Upward Maintenance Communication, and Subordinates’ Psychological Distress, " Academy of Management Journal , 50 (5), 1169–1180. Treviño, Linda, Weaver, Gary and Scott Reynolds (2006), "Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review," Journal of Management , 32 (6), 951–990. Van Bockstaele, Bart, Verschuere, Bram, Moens, Tim, Suchotzki, Katarzyna, Debey, Elise and Adinda Spruyt (2012), "Learning to Lie: Effects of Practice on the Cognitive Cost of Lying," Frontiers in Psychology , 3 . Velicer, Wayne, Eaton, Charles and James Fava (2000),"Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components," In Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41–71). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Victor, Barry and John Cullen (1988),"The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates," Administrative Science Quarterly , 33 (1), 101–125. Walters, David, Johnstone, Robert, Frick, Karen, Quinlan, Michael, Baril-Gingras, Geneviève and Anne Thébaud-Mony (2011), " Regulating Workplace Risks: A Comparative Study of Inspection Regimes in Times of Change," Edward Elgar Publishing. Wanous, John, Reichers, Arne and Michael J. Hudy (1997), "Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?," Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 (2), 247–252. Williams, Kevin, Hernandez, Elizabeth, Petrosky, Andrew and Robert Page (2009),"The Busines of lying," Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics , 7 (1), 11–29. Yi, Xiaohong, Ribbens, Brian, Fu, Lijun and Wenli Cheng (2015),"Variation in career and workplace attitudes by generation, gender, and culture differences in career perceptions in the United States and China," Employee Relations , 37 (1), 66–82. Zagenczyk, Todd, Restubog, Sylvio, Kiewitz, Christopher, Kiazad, Kayvan, and Raymond L. Tang (2014), " Psychological Contracts as a Mediator Between Machiavellianism and Employee Citizenship and Deviant Behaviors," Journal of Management , 40 (4), 1098–1122. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 18 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Corporate Reputation Review → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6837382","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":515108634,"identity":"c796d5fb-1ae2-4ef4-aa48-43b41d8cb13b","order_by":0,"name":"Guillaume Desjardins","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Université du Québec en Outaouais","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Guillaume","middleName":"","lastName":"Desjardins","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-06 13:23:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6837382/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6837382/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-025-00251-4","type":"published","date":"2025-12-18T15:58:40+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91716874,"identity":"3656da59-cc0a-4e6a-8b38-3ea486a4fd81","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 13:32:09","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":354880,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"CRROrganizationalInducedDuplicity.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/5f22e02f3b8491546fb2f86c.docx"},{"id":91716476,"identity":"64eb6068-8573-493d-8154-ccf4934d43f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 13:24:09","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3156,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cb7f8df022ac4e04ba1db18653d0d7bc.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/0e3774ef911b364158bc2fac.json"},{"id":91718059,"identity":"e0e52b73-64f0-4bc0-b152-0b580f4a464b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 13:40:09","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":381794,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cb7f8df022ac4e04ba1db18653d0d7bc1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/b13c0b85f54d8ca854e3d1b1.xml"},{"id":91716474,"identity":"354df584-9571-4414-b463-aba724ef82ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 13:24:09","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":172378,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/3036b860b78d786e850fcbff.png"},{"id":91716873,"identity":"8d91da0f-5769-42df-8acc-aee888c352aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 13:32:09","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":73130,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/2d248955710f200c8d477d0d.png"},{"id":91716480,"identity":"9c654efd-bbfd-4d07-bc35-55edf7ae11d8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 13:24:09","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":365801,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cb7f8df022ac4e04ba1db18653d0d7bc1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/ff400cbd3981231ec0a23493.xml"},{"id":91716478,"identity":"2d382469-ee4e-4006-a6c8-d1dfb18afb36","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 13:24:09","extension":"html","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":404676,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/289286bd98d11704caa2d5ca.html"},{"id":91716473,"identity":"de921a55-45d7-4245-9dc1-62056e4582d9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 13:24:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":453862,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCompletely standardized estimates for the model of IUD\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/ca0d09f8b37eb96b188ed16a.png"},{"id":98814162,"identity":"99b8a1f0-e49d-4af4-8e69-b92307b1ae7c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-22 16:11:44","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1707209,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6837382/v1/954c1ad0-2ed9-40dd-8c4c-2a8c7c34a20d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development and validation of the Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID) scale in the Canadian’s telecommunications retail sector","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eUsing duplicity in the workplace is widely considered a pervasive behaviour that has garnered significant scholarly attention across disciplines such as psychology (Kelman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1951\u003c/span\u003e), ethics (Ross \u0026amp; Robertson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), and organizational behavior (Pehlivan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The act of lying\u0026mdash;defined broadly as the intentional provision of false or misleading information (Desjardins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash; is the more common explicit form of duplicity. This concept presents a profound malaise within professional settings, as it challenges the foundational principles of trust, transparency, and integrity of organizations (Pilch \u0026amp; Turska, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, this behavior is not always overt or easily recognizable. Scholars distinguish between \"active\u0026rdquo;, and \"passive\" lies, with the former involving direct falsehoods and the latter involving omissions, half-truths, or subtle misrepresentations (Jenkis \u0026amp; Delbridge, 2020). In many cases, passive forms of duplicity are more common and difficult to detect, as they often involve withholding important information or allowing misperceptions to persist without correction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study of duplicity in the workplace is multifaceted, exploring not only why individuals lie but also how organizational systems may implicitly encourage such behavior. Indeed, central to this body of research is the recognition that lying in professional contexts is not merely an individual moral failing (Pehlivan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) but a systemic issue influenced by organizational structures (Ross \u0026amp; Robertson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), leadership practices (Williams et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), and market dynamics (Schneider, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Early research on lying was primarily psychological, focusing on individual traits such as Machiavellianism (Christie \u0026amp; Geis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e), narcissism (Kashmiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), or low levels of integrity (Nistor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR196\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) that predispose some individuals to engage in dishonest behavior. Over time, however, scholars began to explore duplicity as a social and organizational phenomenon, considering how external pressures and contextual factors contribute to dishonest practices (Jones \u0026amp; Paulhus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Contemporary studies emphasize the interaction between individual characteristics and organizational environments, suggesting that employee\u0026rsquo;s behavior is often shaped or constrained by the demands, expectations, and rewards systems within the organization (Stead et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). A recurring theme in the study of workplace deception is the role of profit maximization as a driver of unethical behaviors, including lying. The pressure to achieve short-term financial gains can create environments where employees feel incentivized\u0026mdash;or even compelled\u0026mdash;to distort the truth, engage in misrepresentation, or conceal critical information (Jensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This profit-driven behavior often leads to immediate benefits for the organization, such as improved sales figures (Butski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), cost reductions (Van Bockstaele et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), or enhanced performance metrics (Johnston \u0026amp; Selsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Canadian telecommunications sector, characterized by rapid technological advancements, intense competition, and high customer expectations, is a fertile ground for workplace lying (Desjardins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gould \u0026amp; Desjardins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015a\u003c/span\u003e). Given the sector\u0026rsquo;s reliance on complex service offerings, intricate pricing models, and aggressive marketing tactics, employees may be incentivized to misrepresent product capabilities or conceal service limitations to meet sales targets or customer satisfaction metrics. For instance, sales personnel might overstate the reliability of network coverage or the speed of data services to secure contracts, particularly in markets where marginal gains in customer acquisition translate directly into competitive advantages (Gould \u0026amp; Desjardins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015b\u003c/span\u003e). This pressure to maintain market share, coupled with the sector\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on customer retention and growth, creates conditions where dishonest practices\u0026mdash;such as inflating performance metrics, or misrepresenting contract terms\u0026mdash;become more prevalent. For example, in 2022 the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission\u0026rsquo;s indicates that, \u0026ldquo;nearly 40% of consumers reported being victims of aggressive and/or deceptive sales tactics by telecommunications companies in Canada, the majority of which report their most recent experience took place within the past year (60% of those who experienced these tactics or 24% of all Canadians)\u0026rdquo; (Government of Canada, 2022, p. 4). Those tactics include giving false information to customers, omitting information to customers regarding their purchase, pressuring customers into signing contract without their full consent, offering products/services that were not suitable to customers\u0026rsquo; needs, and salesperson\u0026rsquo;s persistence in overcoming shopper\u0026rsquo;s objection (Government of Canada, 2022). The Canadian Commission for complaints for telecom-television services (CCTS, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) have noted an increase up 43% in customers complaint in 2023 compared to the prior year. Similar increases have also been noted in South Africa (Agabu Phiri \u0026amp; Mkhize, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), Sweden (Roos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and India (Mujumdar \u0026amp; Prabhu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurrently, there is no established instrument designed specifically to measure the degree to which employees feel pressured by their employers to engage in duplicity in the workplace. Although numerous studies have explored the ethical climate of organizations (Bellizzi \u0026amp; Hite, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Brown \u0026amp; Trevi\u0026ntilde;o, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006a\u003c/span\u003e) and the prevalence of dishonest behavior (Jung \u0026amp; Vranceanu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Williams et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), the absence of a standardized tool to assess the perceived pressure to use duplicity limits the understanding of how organizational dynamics influence employee conduct. Developing such an instrument is crucial, as workplace duplicity has been identified as a behavior that correlates with negative outcomes, including lower job satisfaction (Sims, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000a\u003c/span\u003e) and work engagement (Den Hartog \u0026amp; Belschak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), and higher turnover (Grover, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Without a reliable means to gauge this pressure, organizations are left with an incomplete understanding of how their policies, performance expectations, and reward systems might inadvertently contribute to an environment that fosters dishonesty. Such an instrument would serve as a valuable diagnostic tool, enabling companies to proactively identify and mitigate the organizational practices that contribute to unethical behaviors and employee dissatisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsidering the foregoing, this study aims to achieve three key objectives. First, it seeks to examine employee dishonest behavior through a novel conceptual framework\u0026mdash;Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID)\u0026mdash;which refers to the perceived pressure employees experience to engage in duplicity and deception in the execution of their work tasks. The second objective is to develop and validate an instrument specifically designed to measure OID, with a particular focus on the telecommunications retail sector. Finally, the study aims to investigate the relationship between OID and traditional human resource indicators, such as work engagement, job satisfaction, and employee turnover, to understand its impact on organizational outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. OID Theoretical and Measurement","content":"\u003cp\u003eOne of the central frameworks in the study of workplace lying is the concept of moral disengagement, which refers to the cognitive processes through which individuals justify unethical actions, including lying, in ways that preserve their sense of self-worth. This concept, developed by Bandura (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), has been widely applied in organizational research to explain how employees may rationalize dishonest behavior as necessary for organizational survival or personal success (see: Claybourn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Fida et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Newman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For example, employees might justify lying about financial projections to meet shareholder expectations or misrepresenting the progress of a project to secure continued funding. These rationalizations often occur in environments where ethical transgressions are overlooked, tolerated, or even rewarded, leading to the normalization of deceitful behavior (Shulman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007a\u003c/span\u003e). A literature review of this corpus highlights 4 factors that may influence the worker\u0026rsquo;s propension to lie in his job.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Economic gains and incentive\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEconomic incentives, such as commissions or bonuses tied to performance, have been shown to significantly influence employees' behavior (Gaspar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR157\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Ross \u0026amp; Robertson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), sometimes leading them to act dishonestly to maximize their financial rewards (Mackinger \u0026amp; Jonas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In many sales-driven industries, for example, employees receive commissions based on the number of deals closed, creating a direct link between their economic well-being and their ability to meet sales targets (Desjardins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). According to Ariely (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), such performance-based pay structures can encourage individuals to rationalize unethical behaviors if they perceive that the potential rewards outweigh the ethical risks. In the same vein, Schweitzer, Ord\u0026oacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, and Douma (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) found that economic incentives not only motivate employees to work harder but also increase the likelihood of dishonesty. When performance is tied directly to rewards, employees may feel justified in manipulating numbers or misrepresenting facts to secure a financial benefit. This phenomenon is often linked to the broader concept of goal setting in organizational behavior, where ambitious targets combined with high rewards may create an environment ripe for unethical conduct (Ord\u0026oacute;\u0026ntilde;ez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, economic incentives may shift employees' focus from long-term ethical considerations to short-term financial gains, leading them to justify dishonest actions as necessary for survival or career advancement (Chang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Performance standard and review\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational pressure, particularly when manifested as unrealistic quotas or targets, is another significant factor that can drive employees to lie. High performance expectations, especially when they are unattainable or misaligned with available resources, can create a stressful work environment, pushing individuals to resort to unethical tactics (Giacalone \u0026amp; Greenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Employees may feel that failure to meet these expectations will result in job loss, demotion, or other negative consequences, thereby justifying dishonest behaviors as a means of survival (Grover \u0026amp; Hui, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The classic study by Merton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1957\u003c/span\u003e) on organizational stress and role strain provides a theoretical foundation for understanding how employees react to excessive pressure. In situations where the demands of the job exceed employees' ability to perform honestly, they may engage in \"ritualism,\" a term Merton used to describe when individuals accept the institutional goals but deviate from the legitimate means to achieve them. Further evidence for this phenomenon can be found in the work of Tepper et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR111\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), who demonstrated that abusive supervision and high-pressure work environments correlate with increased unethical behavior among employees. When employees feel that they are unfairly scrutinized or are being set up to fail, they may resort to dishonest tactics to avoid reprimand or dismissal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, performance reviews and the associated performance management systems, can also create pressure to lie (Grote, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In many organizations, performance reviews are conducted periodically, and employees are evaluated based on key performance indicators (KPIs) that may not accurately reflect the complexities of their roles. These reviews often determine promotions, salary increases, and even job security, leading to an environment where employees may feel compelled to embellish their achievements or hide their failures. Research by Ferris et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) highlights how performance appraisals, particularly those that are rigidly structured and focused on quantitative metrics, can lead to ethical dilemmas for employees. In the retail sector, this often manifests as an organizational emphasis on maximizing sales volume, coupled with a more lenient approach to the quality of interactions between employees and customers (Fleming \u0026amp; Asplund, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Internal policies and their application\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the primary ways internal policies contribute to dishonesty is through an overemphasis on performance metrics, particularly sales targets. In many organizations, performance is heavily tied to quantitative measures such as the number of sales, client acquisitions, or other financial outcomes. While these metrics are important for tracking organizational success, they can inadvertently encourage employees to engage in unethical behavior when achieving these targets becomes the singular focus (Schwepker \u0026amp; Good, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). When internal policies prioritize outcomes like sales above all else, employees may resort to dishonesty to meet these expectations (Carson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). This pressure can be exacerbated when employees perceive that the policies are disconnected from the realities of their work. For example, in the retail sector, organizations that emphasize sales volume may fail to account for factors such as customer preferences, market conditions, or the employee's relationship-building efforts with customers. When these qualitative aspects of work are de-emphasized in favor of rigid numerical targets, employees may feel justified in lying about sales figures or other key performance indicators to avoid negative consequences (Jelinek \u0026amp; Ahearne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother significant factor that contributes to dishonesty is the inconsistent application of internal policies. When organizational policies are not applied uniformly across employee groups, it creates a sense of unfairness and ambiguity that can lead to ethical lapses (Cadogan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Employees may perceive that certain individuals or teams are held to different standards, fostering resentment and encouraging dishonest behavior as a means of leveling the playing field or avoiding sanctions (Tansey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). Research by Greenberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) on organizational justice highlights the importance of fairness in the application of policies. If employees believe that their employer\u0026rsquo;s policies are biased or inconsistently applied, they may rationalize dishonesty as a way to navigate an unfair system. For example, in organizations where policies regarding performance reviews or sales quotas are applied differently across teams, employees may feel that lying is necessary to avoid falling behind their peers who are not held to the same standards. In such environments, dishonesty can become a coping mechanism for dealing with perceived injustice, as employees seek to protect their status or financial security in the face of inconsistent policy enforcement (Bellizzi \u0026amp; Hasty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between internal policies and dishonesty is also influenced by the broader organizational culture. When the organizational culture tolerates or even rewards unethical behavior, employees are more likely to internalize these norms and engage in dishonest practices (Bellizzi \u0026amp; Bristol, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). According to Trevi\u0026ntilde;o, Weaver, and Reynolds (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), organizational culture plays a critical role in shaping employees' ethical decision-making processes. If the culture implicitly condones dishonesty as long as targets are met, employees may feel that lying is not only acceptable but expected as part of their job performance. Furthermore, if leadership turns a blind eye to dishonest behavior or inconsistently applies ethical standards, this can further reinforce the pressure to lie (Anand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Piercy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Employees may observe that dishonest colleagues are rewarded or not held accountable, leading them to believe that ethical behavior is a disadvantage (Litzky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In such cases, internal policies that are designed to promote ethical conduct may be undermined by a culture that prioritizes results over integrity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4 Peer-pressure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer pressure is a well-documented phenomenon in organizational behavior, often leading employees to adopt unethical practices if such behaviors are normalized within the group. The desire to fit in, be accepted by colleagues, or be seen as part of the team can create an environment where lying or bending the rules becomes an unspoken expectation (Grover, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). In many cases, employees may not even be fully aware of the ethical implications of their actions, as they are simply conforming to the behaviors they observe around them. The concept of \"groupthink,\" introduced by Janis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e), explains how individuals in a cohesive group may suppress dissenting views and conform to the dominant behaviors, even when those behaviors are unethical. Individuals may feel that speaking out against these practices will lead to ostracism or exclusion, thus reinforcing the pressure to lie (Shulman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007b\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, research by Cialdini and Goldstein (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) on social influence and conformity suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in unethical behavior when they perceive that their peers are doing the same. This is particularly true in competitive environments, where employees may feel that they need to lie or cheat to keep up with their colleagues. For example, when employees are aware that their peers are engaging in dishonest practices to achieve economic gains, the pressure to conform may further erode their ethical standards. Over time, this creates a toxic organizational culture where dishonesty is not only tolerated but expected.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Consequences of OID","content":"\u003cp\u003eOrganizational-induced duplicity is likely to have a deleterious effect on job satisfaction. This is due, in part, to the inherent conflict it generates between employees\u0026rsquo; perceptions of organizational integrity and their own values and expectations regarding transparency and trust (Indvick \u0026amp; Johson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). When organizations engage in duplicity\u0026mdash;such as promoting values of openness or ethical conduct while simultaneously fostering or tolerating contradictory practices\u0026mdash;employees may experience cognitive dissonance (Brooksbank \u0026amp; Fullerton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This dissonance, arising from the disparity between employees' beliefs about ethical conduct and the observed behaviors within the organization, can create a sense of disillusionment (Williams et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) and mistrust (Rani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The result is often a decrease in morale, which should negatively impact job satisfaction. Moreover, organizational duplicity tends to undermine the psychological contract between employees and employers, eroding employee engagement and commitment (Zagenczyk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR120\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The ambiguity generated by duplicity can also lead to confusion in role expectations and impede effective communication, both of which are known to diminish job satisfaction (Sims, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000b\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, it is reasonable to hypothesize a negative correlation between organizational-induced duplicity and job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: The duplicity induced by the organization is linked by a negative relationship to job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational-induced duplicity is also likely to have a negative impact on work engagement. Duplicity undermines the alignment between employee and organizational values, which is a crucial foundation for employee motivation and commitment (Indvick \u0026amp; Johson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). When employees perceive a misalignment between what the organization advocates and how it operates, they may experience a diminished sense of purpose, which is detrimental to work engagement. Specifically, the erosion of trust resulting from organizational duplicity can lead to a decline in employees\u0026rsquo; willingness to invest effort and emotional commitment in their roles, as they may feel that the organization does not genuinely reciprocate their dedication (O\u0026rsquo;Malley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, duplicity often results in unclear and contradictory communication regarding goals and expectations, adding an element of role ambiguity (Rhoads et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e) that should impedes employees\u0026rsquo; ability to fully engage in their work. This lack of transparency and consistency can cause disengagement, as employees may become skeptical of the organization\u0026rsquo;s integrity and uncertain about their own role within it. Thus, organizational-induced duplicity is expected to have a negative relationship with work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: The duplicity induced by the organization is linked by a negative relationship to work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational-induced duplicity is theorized to positively correlate with employee turnover intention. OID challenges the credibility and trustworthiness of the organization, which is known to play a role for retaining employees (Sunder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). When employees recognize that organizational practices contradict the values promoted by leadership\u0026mdash;such as when a company espouses transparency but conceals crucial information or supports unethical practices\u0026mdash;they may feel a fundamental breach of the psychological contract (Morrison \u0026amp; Robinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). This perceived inconsistency fosters cognitive dissonance, as employees experience a conflict between their expectations of ethical organizational behavior and the contradictory reality they encounter. As a result, employees may seek alignment between their personal values and work environment elsewhere, increasing turnover intention (Pettijohn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, duplicity creates an environment of ambiguity and role confusion, where employees become uncertain about organizational goals, priorities, and their own roles within the organization. This ambiguity can lead to frustration and dissatisfaction, as employees struggle to meet unclear or conflicting expectations (Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). The absence of a coherent organizational identity also diminishes employees' sense of belonging and purpose, key factors in retention (Good et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the presence of OID is expected to be positively associated with turnover intention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: The duplicity induced by the organization is linked by a positive relationship with turnover intention.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Phase 1: Item generation and reduction of OID","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe methodology used to develop the OID scale adheres to DeVellis' (2016) framework for scale development, which is widely recognized in organizational research (Benzidia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Eva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Farzaneh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The literature review conducted for this study informed the generation of an initial pool of 57 items, distributed across four dimensions: financial gain (e.g., \"I derive monetary benefits (spiff/bonus) from recommending a product/service that the organization prioritizes for sale\"), performance standards and review (e.g., \"In my organization, my performance evaluation is primarily based on the number of sales achieved\"), internal policies (e.g., \"In my organization, closing a sale is prioritized over the sales process\"), and peer pressure (e.g., \"Within my team, we share sales tips that are not always ethical\"). For consistency, participants respond to each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly disagree, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly agree). The use of a 7-point scale is intended to promote response variability and is commonly recommended for the development of new instruments (Leung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Malik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe initial item pool was subsequently reviewed by four experts: two telecommunications retail salespersons, one telecommunications retail manager, and one management professor. These experts participated in a focus group designed to achieve three key objectives: (1) to assess the clarity and comprehensibility of each item, (2) to evaluate inter-rater reliability by ensuring uniform understanding of the items, and (3) to determine whether the items reflected the intended constructs (face validity). When an item lacked consensus, the experts collaboratively rephrased it to achieve agreement. At the conclusion of the focus group, the experts were also invited to suggest additional items to enhance the content validity of the OID instrument. As a result, six new items were proposed, bringing the total pool to 63 items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, each expert was asked individually (to minimize social desirability bias) to rate how well they believed each item represented the concept of OID. The ratings were based on a 7-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all representative, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;totally representative). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorff\u0026rsquo;s alpha (Krippendorff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), a robust measure suited for cases involving multiple raters and a range of possible ratings (McHugh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). A coefficient of \u0026ge; .8 was established as the threshold for including an item in the preliminary version of the scale. Based on this criterion, 24 items were selected from the initial pool of 63 for further administration.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Phase 2: Factor identification and measurement construction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eParticipants and procedures.\u003c/span\u003e An online survey was conducted using LimeSurvey and targeted employees in the Canadian telecommunications retail sector. The study employed two non-probabilistic recruitment methods. First, a poster detailing the study and providing a URL link to the questionnaire was distributed to professional contacts within the industry, including managers and senior executives. These contacts were encouraged to share the poster with their team members (e.g., sales staff). Second, from March to May 2024, a research assistant conducted in-store visits in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. During these visits, the purpose of the study was explained, and potential participants were provided with a QR code that directed them to the online questionnaire. Prior to participation, respondents were informed that the survey was independent and not affiliated with their employer. No participant was screening out due to low-quality data, short response time, invariant responding or low personal reliability (DeSimone et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR150\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe sample (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;114) predominantly comprised male employees (79; 69.3%). Additionally, over half of the respondents (70; 61.4%) reported having four years or less of work experience in the telecommunications sector (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.46). The distribution of participants across organizations was representative of the Canadian telecommunications market, with 24.6% of respondents employed by the largest organization and 14.9% by the second largest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eMeasures.\u003c/span\u003e Participants responded to questions about sociodemographic characteristics and filled out the preliminary 24-items initial OID scale. Participants respond to each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly disagree, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly agree). High scores reflected stronger pressure to use duplicity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eStatistical strategies\u003c/span\u003e. RStudio version 2024.09, along with \u003cem\u003eEFA.dimensions\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epsych\u003c/em\u003e packages, were used. First, an item analysis was conducted to determine which item had discrimination indices greater than .3 (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). After dropping items with inadequate discrimination, a series of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the factor structure of OID. Specifically, principal component analysis for exploratory analysis was used and extracted factors according to the principle of factor eigenvalues greater than 1. When the OID was established through a series of EFA procedures, the internal consistency reliability of the retained items was examined in the scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eEFA.\u003c/span\u003e Prior to performing the EFA, an item analysis revealed that 18 out of the initial 24 items demonstrated satisfactory discrimination. Measures of sampling adequacy, including the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (MSA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.94) and Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity (χ\u0026sup2;\u003csub\u003e(78)\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1406.52, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), confirmed the suitability of the remaining items for factor analysis (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Parallel analysis indicated that one factor should be retained, as the Eigenvalue (7.674) exceeded those generated from random simulated data (1.493). This one-factor solution was further validated through additional factor retention criteria, including the Minimum Average Partial (MAP) test (Velicer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR114\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), the Empirical Kaiser Criterion (Braeken \u0026amp; van Assen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and the scree test (Cattell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1966\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, only one Eigenvalue from the observed data exceeded 1, and the scree plot displayed an apparent drop after the first Eigenvalue, with subsequent values showing minimal variation. Consequently, a single-factor solution was retained.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, a principal component analysis with the default delta value was conducted on the extracted factor to assess its communalities (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Items with communalities above 0.50 were retained to ensure that at least half of the variance in each item was accounted for, resulting in the retention of 12 items. These items demonstrated standardized loadings on the factor ranging from 0.71 to 0.94 (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor loadings for the exploratory factor analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor OID\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. I sometimes have to withhold information from customers in order to meet the objectives set by my organization (e.g. my sales quotas).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. My organization suggests that I cross-sell (cross-selling means selling one or more products that may or may not be related to the customer's arrival at the store).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. In my organization, closing a sale is more important than the sales process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. I feel pressure from my organization to close a sale at any cost.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. I sometimes have to withhold relevant information from the customer in order to earn an acceptable income.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. In my organization, my performance appraisal is based mainly on the number of sales achieved.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. When bad information is passed on to a customer, my organization intervenes only when a complaint is lodged.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. In my organization, the end result (the sale) comes first.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. In my work team, we give each other sales tricks that aren't always ethical.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10. In my work team, competition is so fierce that the best salespeople are those who are most adept at manipulating the information transmitted to the customer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. To do my job properly, I sometimes have to lie to the customer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12. White lies (i.e. lies that have no negative repercussions for the customer) are tolerated in my organization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEigenvalue\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9,12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e% of variance explained\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe factor \"OID\" represents the degree to which an employee perceives pressure to engage in duplicity behavior at work. This factor captures employees' perceptions of their work environment, including peer pressure and organizational practices, and accounts for 74% of the total item variance, exceeding the typical threshold of 60% (Hinkin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the single-factor model demonstrated a strong fit to the data, with fit indices indicating good model alignment (CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.963, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.955, RMSEA (90% CI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.056, RMSR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.029) (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Based on these outcomes, the single-factor solution was considered appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eReliability Analysis\u003c/span\u003e. Internal consistency reliability of the OID scale items was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Results indicated that (a) Cronbach's α for the overall scale was 0.97, and (b) item-total correlations ranged from 0.74 to 0.97. All Cronbach's α values exceeded the widely accepted threshold of 0.70 (Hinkin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), confirming that the remaining 12 items exhibited strong internal consistency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Phase 3: Construct validity","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.1 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eParticipants and procedures.\u003c/span\u003e The same strategy as for Phase 2 was used to obtain an independent sample. In-store visit went from July to September 2024 with the same research assistant. A total of 194 participants were recruited. 3 responses were eliminated because of short response time and invariant responding (DeSimone et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR150\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the final sample included 191 participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmongst these participants, (138; 72.3%) were male, and (129; 67.5%) reported having four years or less of work experience in the telecommunications sector (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.77). The distribution of participants across organizations was still representative of the Canadian telecommunications market, with 19,4% of respondents employed by the largest organization and 18,3% by the second largest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eMeasures\u003c/span\u003e. In addition to the demographic characteristics, participants were administered the four measures below. They were rated using a seven-point Likert scale range from 1 (\u003cem\u003eStrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOID\u003c/em\u003e was measured with the 12 items retained through the EFA procedure in phase 2 (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for this scale was 0.97. (e.g., \"I feel pressure from my organization to close a sale at any cost.\")\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWork engagement\u003c/em\u003e was measured using the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), developed by Schaufeli et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), with a reported reliability of α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.92 (e.g., \"I am enthusiastic about my work\").\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJob satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e was assessed through a single item\u0026mdash;\"Overall, I am satisfied with my work\"\u0026mdash;drawn from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (MOAQ-JSS) (Cammann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e). Single-item measures of job satisfaction have been extensively used in research (Allen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Macey \u0026amp; Fink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and demonstrate correlations comparable to those of longer scales (Nagy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Wanous et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntention to quit\u003c/em\u003e was measured by a single item\u0026mdash;\"I am seriously considering leaving my current employer for another\"\u0026mdash;from the Turnover Intentions Scale (Boroff \u0026amp; Lewin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), which has also been widely used in similar studies and has shown comparable validity to the full scale (Alfes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Guillon \u0026amp; Cezanne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Soane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eStatistical strategies\u003c/span\u003e. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was done using the Maximum Likelihood estimation, using RStudio version 2024.09 with \u003cem\u003elavaan\u003c/em\u003e packages (Rosseel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The following criteria for the fit indices were used to evaluate the CFA model: χ\u0026sup2; /df \u0026lt; 5, both CFI and TLI \u0026ge; 0.9, RMSEA \u0026le; 0.08, and SRMR \u0026le; 0.06 (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As a second step, the composite reliability (CR) was computed and the average variance value extracted (AVE) to evaluate the construct validity. The threshold values for CR and AVE used were 0.5 and 0.6, respectively (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Next, the internal consistency reliability of each measure, as well as the descriptives statistics and Pearson correlation analysis was done using the R packages \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003epsych\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Revelle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). To test the hypothesis, a series of hierarchical linear regression using the R packages \u0026ldquo;stats\u0026rdquo; was conducted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.2 Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCFA.\u003c/span\u003e Taking the four-factors model as the baseline, three CFAs were conducted to examine the factor structure of OID. Fit indices for these models are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFit indices for both proposed and alternative models\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eχ\u0026sup2; \u003csup\u003e(d/f)\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003eΔ\u003c/sup\u003eχ\u0026sup2; \u003csup\u003e(d/f)\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRMSEA (90% CI)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFour-factor model (24 items)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e354.81\u003csub\u003e(252)\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.964\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.961\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.046(0.034, 0.057)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo-factor model (18 items)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e131.13\u003csub\u003e(90)\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e223.68\u003csub\u003e(162)\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.985\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.982\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.049(0.029, 0.066)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne-factor model (12 items)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e97.56\u003csub\u003e(54)\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e257.25\u003csub\u003e(198)\u003c/sub\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.983\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.980\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.065(0.044,0.085)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNotes: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;191. *** p \u0026lt; .001.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs demonstrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, the baseline model had a good fit to the data (χ\u0026sup2; \u003csup\u003e(252)\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;354.81, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.964, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.961, RMSEA (90% CI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.046, RMSR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.045) as do the two-factor model (χ\u0026sup2; \u003csup\u003e(90)\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;131.13, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.985, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.982, RMSEA (90% CI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.049, RMSR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.028). However, the one factor model offers better fit to the data, especially when considering the root mean square error of approximation and the root mean square residuals (χ\u0026sup2; \u003csup\u003e(54)\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;97.56, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.983, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.980, RMSEA (90% CI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.065, RMSR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.023). Moreover, according to the CFA for the one-factor model using the market method (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), each item loaded significantly at the 0.001 level, ranging from 0.74 to 0.94.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsert Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough the independent and the criterion variables were separated overtime, the common-method variance (CMV) cannot be rules out because all measures were collected from one source. Thus, CMV was tested by adding an unmeasured method factor (Podsakoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) on which all items were modeled to load. The average variance of all items extracted by the unmeasured method factor was 0.12, falling far below the commonly suggested 0.5 cutoff for the presence of a substantial common factor (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Podsakoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, CMV was considered not to be a problem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eDescriptives statistics\u003c/span\u003e. Means, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Results show that OID has a negative correlation with work engagement (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -,217, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001) and job satisfaction (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -,519, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001), while maintaining a positive correlation with turnover intention (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = ,458, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001). These correlations provide preliminary support for the criterion validity of OID. Moreover, the correlations (and direction) obtained in this study for work engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention are similar to other studies (Den Hartog \u0026amp; Belschak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; George \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Knight et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Nagy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeans, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Gender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.074\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. OID\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.053\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.131\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Work engagement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.008\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.217**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.506***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. Job satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.027\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.077\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.519***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.514***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Turnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.009\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.042\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.458***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.297***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.395***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003eNotes: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;191. ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026le; .001 (two-tailed), ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01 (two-tailed).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eHypotheses testing\u003c/span\u003e. Taking the three criterion variables (work engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention) as outcomes, a series of two-steps regression analyses were conducted to examine the criterion validity of OID.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegression analyses of OID on employee\u0026rsquo;s work engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork engagement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJob satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTurnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStep 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStep 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStep 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStep 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStep 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStep 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.008\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.029\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.006\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.014\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.218\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.156\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.075\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.009\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.041\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.017\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOID\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.487\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.518\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.461\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.657\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.27\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.95\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.168\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.581\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.047\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.006\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.257\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.210\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eΔ\u003c/b\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.233\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.251\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.208\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003eNotes: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;191. ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026le; .001, ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, * \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs can be seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, OID had a negative association with employee work engagement (β= \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.487, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and job satisfaction (β= \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.518, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) while having a positive association with employee\u0026rsquo;s turnover intention (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.461, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). Taking in to account the control variables, OID accounted for a significant increase in explained variance in work engagement (\u003cb\u003eΔ\u003c/b\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.233, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), job satisfaction (\u003cb\u003eΔ\u003c/b\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.251, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), and turnover intention (\u003cb\u003eΔ\u003c/b\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.208, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). These findings offer empirical support for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, indicating that the construct validity of OID in predicting these employee outcomes is robust. Consequently, these results affirm that OID possesses adequate criterion validity within this model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eFollowing DeVellis\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) scale development procedure, this study developed a twelve-item scale to measure organizational-induced duplicity. The findings indicate that OID is a unidimensional construct encompassing several characteristics identified in prior literature: namely, the perception of economic incentives for employees engaging in duplicity, the perception of performance evaluation processes prioritizing sales outcomes over ethical processes, perceived inconsistencies in the organization\u0026rsquo;s application of internal policies, and perceived peer pressure within the workplace. OID demonstrated a significant positive association with turnover intention and significant negative associations with both work engagement and job satisfaction, while controlling for gender and work experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e7.1 Theoretical implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe development of OID as a construct introduces a novel and insightful lens through which scholars can examine and understand complex dynamics within the modern work environment. By conceptualizing OID, this study offers an innovative framework to address and analyze contemporary workplace issues, particularly those associated with ethical ambiguity (Dashtipour et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), value misalignment (Abbasi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and role conflict (Schmidt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast to traditional constructs focusing primarily on isolated factors such as ethical climate (Victor \u0026amp; Cullen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) or job satisfaction (Judge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), OID provides a cohesive perspective on how perceived organizational inconsistencies can permeate employee experience, shaping attitudes and behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe significance of OID lies in its potential to shed light on prevalent issues in the 21st-century workforce, where rapid organizational changes and competitive pressures may inadvertently foster duplicity or double standards (Gould \u0026amp; Desjardins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015a\u003c/span\u003e). This new construct allows researchers to investigate how perceived misalignment between stated values and observed practices can impact essential human resource indicators, including turnover intention, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Through the lens of OID, traditional HR outcomes can now be reinterpreted, providing a deeper understanding of why employees may disengage or exhibit higher turnover intention in environments perceived as ethically inconsistent or contradictory (Meyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, OID advances theoretical perspectives in organizational behavior by challenging existing frameworks that assume employees\u0026rsquo; responses are driven solely by individual or task-related factors. Instead, OID highlights the systemic influence of organizational practices on employee attitudes, supporting calls for more holistic approaches to understanding employee well-being and performance (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e7.2 Practical implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe practical implications of OID offer senior managers a valuable diagnostic tool to better understand employee perceptions of organizational consistency and integrity. By assessing OID within their teams, leaders can gain insight into how employees perceive alignment\u0026mdash;or misalignment\u0026mdash;between stated values and observed practices, thus providing critical feedback on organizational credibility. Such insight allows managers to identify specific areas where the organization may inadvertently foster duplicity, whether through ambiguous policies, conflicting priorities, or ethical inconsistencies, which in turn can inform revisions of internal policies to better align them with communicated organizational values (Rousseau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOID highlights the pivotal role of leadership within work teams, as managers and supervisors directly influence employees' perceptions of authenticity and ethical coherence within their organizational environment (Brown \u0026amp; Trevi\u0026ntilde;o, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006b\u003c/span\u003e). Effective leadership, characterized by clear communication, consistency, and ethical accountability, can mitigate the negative effects of OID by fostering an environment where values and practices are aligned.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecognizing the significance of OID also underscores the potential value of training programs that equip employees to navigate and address ethical ambiguities, particularly in industries where competitive pressures may encourage duplicity. By proactively addressing these challenges, organizations can reduce employee disillusionment, enhance engagement, and improve overall job satisfaction, ultimately contributing to a more transparent and productive organizational culture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e7.3 Limitations and Future Research Directions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study provides valuable insights into OID within a specific cultural and legal context; however, several limitations should be addressed in future research. First, OID can vary significantly across cultures and legal frameworks. The cultural setting in which this study was conducted might influence perceptions of organizational identity and identification processes, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings to other regions. For example, national values (Plijter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), cultural norms (Yi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and regulatory environments (Walters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) likely shape the way individuals relate to organizations and may impact the salience of OID. Researchers should replicate this study in diverse cultural and legal contexts to explore whether the observed relationships hold and to uncover any cross-cultural differences in OID.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the study's scope could be expanded by including a broader set of criterion variables, which would enhance our understanding of how OID affects a wider range of organizational and individual outcomes. Criterion variables such as employee well-being (Leavitt \u0026amp; Sluss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), as well as organizational citizenship behaviors (Bolino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), could reveal new dynamics within the OID construct. Moreover, incorporating moderator variables could provide a more nuanced understanding of OID. Variables like job role (Shulman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), and organizational size (Jenkins \u0026amp; Delbridge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), might moderate the effects of OID, allowing researchers to identify for whom and under what conditions OID is most influential.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the cross-sectional design of this study limits the ability to draw causal inferences. Longitudinal studies would offer a more robust approach to investigating the temporal effects of OID and its influence on various outcomes over time. By tracking changes in OID and associated variables longitudinally, researchers could better capture causality and developmental processes. Future research using longitudinal designs or experimental methods could strengthen the conclusions and extend our understanding of the mechanisms underlying OID.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"8. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research has introduced a reliable and valid twelve-item scale for assessing employees\u0026rsquo; perceptions of OID. The criterion validity analysis reveals that OID positively correlates with employees' turnover intentions and negatively correlates with job satisfaction and work engagement. These findings highlight the importance for researchers and practitioners alike to consider and measure organizational duplicity to better understand its influence on key employee behaviors. By providing a robust tool for assessing OID, this study offers valuable insights into workplace dynamics that can inform strategies to enhance employee retention, satisfaction, and engagement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eG.D. is the sole author of this article and wrote the main manuscript text.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbbasi, Z., Billsberry, J., \u0026amp; Todres, M. (2022). An integrative conceptual two-factor model of workplace value congruence and incongruence. \u003cem\u003eManagement Research Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(7), 897\u0026ndash;912. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2021-0211\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgabu Phiri, M., \u0026amp; Mkhize, S. (2017). Employees\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Customer Service at Telephone Communications (Telkom) Call Centres in South Africa. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0976691X.2017.1305682\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Truss, C., \u0026amp; Soane, E. C. (2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Human Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 330\u0026ndash;351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.679950\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, M. S., Iliescu, D., \u0026amp; Greiff, S. (2022). Single Item Measures in Psychological Science. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnand, A., Bowen, M., \u0026amp; Rangarajan, D. (2022). To be or not to be: A review of the (un)ethical salespeople literature. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business \u0026amp;amp; Industrial Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1837\u0026ndash;1851. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2022-0282\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAriely, D. D. (2013). \u003cem\u003eThe Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves\u003c/em\u003e (Illustrated edition). Harper Perennial.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (2002). Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Moral Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 101\u0026ndash;119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellizzi, J. A., \u0026amp; Bristol, T. (2005). Supervising the Unethical Selling Behavior of Top Sales Performers: Assessing the Impact of Social Desirability Bias. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(4), 377\u0026ndash;388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-6589-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellizzi, J. A., \u0026amp; Hasty, R. W. (2003). Supervising Unethical Sales Force Behavior: How Strong is the Tendency to Treat Top Sales Performers Leniently? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 337\u0026ndash;351. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023045617076\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellizzi, J. A., \u0026amp; Hite, R. E. (1989). Supervising Unethical Salesforce Behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(2), 36\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298905300203\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenzidia, S., Makaoui, N., \u0026amp; Bentahar, O. (2021). The impact of big data analytics and artificial intelligence on green supply chain process integration and hospital environmental performance. \u003cem\u003eTechnological Forecasting and Social Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e165\u003c/em\u003e(120), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120557\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., \u0026amp; Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4), 542\u0026ndash;559. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1847\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoroff, K. E., \u0026amp; Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, Voice, and Intent to Exit a Union Firm: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis. \u003cem\u003eILR Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(1), 50\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399705100104\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraeken, J., \u0026amp; van Assen, M. (2017). An Empirical Kaiser Criterion. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 450\u0026ndash;466. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000074\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooksbank, R., \u0026amp; Fullerton, S. (2020). Cognitive dissonance revisited: A typology of B2B buyers\u0026rsquo; post-decision \u0026lsquo;cognitive states\u0026rsquo; and its implications for sales professionals. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1759\u0026ndash;1782. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-01-2019-0068\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, M. E., \u0026amp; Trevi\u0026ntilde;o, L. K. (2006a). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. \u003cem\u003eThe Leadership Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 595\u0026ndash;616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, M. E., \u0026amp; Trevi\u0026ntilde;o, L. K. (2006b). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. \u003cem\u003eThe Leadership Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 595\u0026ndash;616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButski, N., Boostrom Jr., R. E., \u0026amp; Bonds, R. (2022). An honest discussion about lies: how components of a seller\u0026rsquo;s lies can impact customer relationship commitment\u003cem\u003e. The Marketing Management Journal, 32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17-31\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCadogan, J. W., Lee, N., Tarkiainen, A., \u0026amp; Sundqvist, S. (2009). Sales manager and sales team determinants of salesperson ethical behaviour. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(7/8), 907\u0026ndash;937. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560910961452\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., \u0026amp; Klesh, J. (1983). Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. In \u003cem\u003eAssessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices\u003c/em\u003e (S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, C. Cammann, pp. 71\u0026ndash;138). New York: Wiley-Interscience.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarson, T. (2001). Deception and Withholding Information in Sales. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Ethics Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 275\u0026ndash;306. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857750\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. \u003cem\u003eMultivariate Behavioral Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 245\u0026ndash;276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCCTS. (2024). \u003cem\u003e2023-2024 Mid-Year Report \u0026ndash; CCTS Reports\u003c/em\u003e. https://pub.ccts-cprst.ca/2023-2024-mid-year-report/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, K., Max, S., \u0026amp; Celse, J. (2021). Employee\u0026rsquo;s lying behavior and the role of self-awareness. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Organizational Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1538\u0026ndash;1553. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2020-2513\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristie, R., \u0026amp; Geis, L. (1970). \u003cem\u003eStudies in Machiavellianism\u003c/em\u003e (Academic Press). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10497-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCialdini, R. B., \u0026amp; Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(Volume 55, 2004), 591\u0026ndash;621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClaybourn, M. (2011). Relationships Between Moral Disengagement, Work Characteristics and Workplace Harassment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(2), 283\u0026ndash;301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0680-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, R., \u0026amp; Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 874\u0026ndash;900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDashtipour, P., Gerard, N., \u0026amp; Rolo, D. (2024). Toward an Ethics of Ambiguity in Critical Work and Organizational Psychology: From \u0026lsquo;Blank\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;Troubled\u0026rsquo; Subjectivity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05760-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDen Hartog, D. N., \u0026amp; Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work Engagement and Machiavellianism in the Ethical Leadership Process. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e107\u003c/em\u003e(1), 35\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeSimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., \u0026amp; DeSimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 171\u0026ndash;181. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1962\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDesjardins, G. (2021). La duplicit\u0026eacute; et le mensonge dans les t\u0026eacute;l\u0026eacute;coms canadiennes: Portait de l\u0026rsquo;industrie et questions strat\u0026eacute;giques. \u003cem\u003eRevue fran\u0026ccedil;aise de gestion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e301\u003c/em\u003e(8), 11\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.2021.00583\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeVellis, R. (2016). \u003cem\u003eScale Development: Theory and Applications\u003c/em\u003e (4e \u0026eacute;dition). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., \u0026amp; Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. \u003cem\u003eThe Leadership Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 111\u0026ndash;132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarzaneh, M., Wilden, R., Afshari, L., \u0026amp; Mehralian, G. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e148\u003c/em\u003e, 47\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.030\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Basik, K., \u0026amp; Buckley, M. R. (2008). The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship components. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 146\u0026ndash;163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFida, R., Tramontano, C., Paciello, M., Guglielmetti, C., Gilardi, S., Probst, T. M., \u0026amp; Barbaranelli, C. (2018). \u0026lsquo;First, Do No Harm\u0026rsquo;: The Role of Negative Emotions and Moral Disengagement in Understanding the Relationship Between Workplace Aggression and Misbehavior. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00671\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFleming, J. H., \u0026amp; Asplund, J. (2007). \u003cem\u003eHuman Sigma: Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter\u003c/em\u003e. Simon and Schuster.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaspar, J. P., Methasani, R., \u0026amp; Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 62\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0047\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeorge, J. M., \u0026amp; Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(3), 318\u0026ndash;325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.318\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiacalone, R. A., \u0026amp; Greenberg, J. (1997). \u003cem\u003eAntisocial Behavior in Organizations\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGood, V., Hughes, D. E., \u0026amp; Wang, H. (2022). More than money: Establishing the importance of a sense of purpose for salespeople. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 272\u0026ndash;295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00795-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGould, A. M., \u0026amp; Desjardins, G. (2015a). A spring-clean of Michael Porter\u0026rsquo;s Attic: The Canadian telecommunications sector as an exemplar of refurbished generic strategy. \u003cem\u003eCompetitiveness Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 310\u0026ndash;323. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-04-2014-0008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGould, A. M., \u0026amp; Desjardins, G. (2015b). Smart for whom? Cost ambiguity as corporate strategy in the 21st century telco sector. \u003cem\u003eInfo\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 59\u0026ndash;79. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-08-2014-0035\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovernment of Canada, C. R. and T. C. (CRTC). (2022, September 7). \u003cem\u003eCRTC Sales Practices Review \u0026ndash; 2022 Secret Shopper Project Detailed Findings Report\u003c/em\u003e. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/2018_246b/#a1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 399\u0026ndash;432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrote, R. C. (2011). \u003cem\u003eHow to be Good at Performance Appraisals: Simple, Effective, Done Right\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard Business Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrover, S. L. (1993). Why Professionals Lie: The Impact of Professional Role Conflict on Reporting Accuracy. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(2), 251\u0026ndash;272. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1033\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrover, S. L. (2005). The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The causes and management of workplace lying. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 148\u0026ndash;157. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.16965277\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrover, S. L., \u0026amp; Hui, C. (2005). HOW JOB PRESSURES AND EXTRINSIC REWARDS AFFECT LYING BEHAVIOR. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Conflict Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 287\u0026ndash;300. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022933\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuillon, O., \u0026amp; Cezanne, C. (2014). Employee loyalty and organizational performance: A critical survey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Change Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(5), 839\u0026ndash;850. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2014-0025\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J., Babin, B., Anderson, R., \u0026amp; Black, W. (2018). \u003cem\u003eMultivariate Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e (8e edition). Intl Thomson Business Pre.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHinkin, T. R. (1998). A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 104\u0026ndash;121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIndvick, J., \u0026amp; Johson, P. (2009). Liar! Liar! Your Pants are on Fire: Deceptive Communication in the Workplace. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJanis, I. L. (1972). \u003cem\u003eVictims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes\u003c/em\u003e (pp. viii, 277). Houghton Mifflin.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJelinek, R., \u0026amp; Ahearne, M. (2006). The Enemy Within: Examining Salesperson Deviance and its Determinants. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personal Selling \u0026amp; Sales Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 327\u0026ndash;344. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134260401\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJenkins, S., \u0026amp; Delbridge, R. (2020). Exploring Organizational Deception: Organizational Contexts, Social Relations and Types of Lying. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Theory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2),. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720919436\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJensen, M. C. (2003). Paying People to Lie: The Truth about the Budgeting Process. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Financial Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 379\u0026ndash;406. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00226\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnston, S., \u0026amp; Selsky, J. W. (2006). Duality and Paradox: Trust and Duplicity in Japanese Business Practice. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(2), 183\u0026ndash;205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605057666\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, D. N., \u0026amp; Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e113\u003c/em\u003e(2), 329\u0026ndash;342. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000139\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJudge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., \u0026amp; Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction\u0026ndash;job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e127\u003c/em\u003e(3), 376\u0026ndash;407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJung, S., \u0026amp; Vranceanu, R. (2017). Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Lying Behaviour. \u003cem\u003eRevue Economique\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e(5), 859\u0026ndash;873.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKashmiri, S., Nicol, C. D., \u0026amp; Arora, S. (2017). Me, myself, and I: Influence of CEO narcissism on firms\u0026rsquo; innovation strategy and the likelihood of product-harm crises. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(5), 633\u0026ndash;656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0535-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelman, H. (1951). Duplicity. \u003cem\u003eThe American Journal of Psychoanalysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01872802\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnight, D. K., Crutsinger, C., \u0026amp; Kim, H. (2006). The Impact of Retail Work Experience, Career Expectation, and Job Satisfaction on Retail Career Intention. \u003cem\u003eClothing and Textiles Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X0602400101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrippendorff, K. (2011). Agreement and Information in the Reliability of Coding. \u003cem\u003eCommunication Methods and Measures\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 93\u0026ndash;112. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.568376\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeavitt, K., \u0026amp; Sluss, D. M. (2015). Lying for Who We Are: An Identity-Based Model of Workplace Dishonesty. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 587\u0026ndash;610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0167\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeung, S.-O. (2011). A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Service Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(4), 412\u0026ndash;421. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.580697\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLitzky, B. E., Eddleston, K. A., \u0026amp; Kidder, D. L. (2006). The Good, the Bad, and the Misguided: How Managers Inadvertently Encourage Deviant Behaviors. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 91\u0026ndash;103. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873411\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacey, W. H., \u0026amp; Fink, A. A. (2020). \u003cem\u003eEmployee Surveys and Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMackinger, B., \u0026amp; Jonas, E. (2012). How Do Incentives Lead to Deception in Advisor\u0026ndash;Client Interactions? Explicit and Implicit Strategies of Self-Interested Deception. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00527\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalik, M. A. A., Mustapha, M. F., Sobri, N. M., Razak, N. F. A., Zaidi, M. N. M., Shukri, A. A., \u0026amp; Sham, M. A. L. Z. (2021). Optimal Reliability and Validity of Measurement Model in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Different Likert Point Scale Experiment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Contemporary Issues and Thought\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 105\u0026ndash;112. https://doi.org/10.37134/jcit.vol11.9.2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. \u003cem\u003eBiochemia Medica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 276\u0026ndash;282.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMerton, R. K. (1957). The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory. \u003cem\u003eThe British Journal of Sociology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 106\u0026ndash;120. https://doi.org/10.2307/587363\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeyer, J. P., Bobocel, D. R., \u0026amp; Allen, N. J. (1991). Development of Organizational Commitment During the First Year of Employment: A Longitudinal Study of Pre- and Post-Entry Influences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 717\u0026ndash;733. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700406\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrison, E. W., \u0026amp; Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 226\u0026ndash;256. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180265\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMujumdar, M. S., \u0026amp; Prabhu, S. G. (2021). Study of Telecom Industry Ombudsman and its Regulatory Relevance for Customer Satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(23), 1929\u0026ndash;1943. https://doi.org/10.17485/IJST/v14i23.255\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(1), 77\u0026ndash;86. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902167658\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman, A., Le, H., North-Samardzic, A., \u0026amp; Cohen, M. (2020). Moral Disengagement at Work: A Review and Research Agenda. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e167\u003c/em\u003e(3), 535\u0026ndash;570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04173-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNistor, C., Yalcin, T., \u0026amp; Pehlivan, E. (2018). Duplicity in Alternative Marketing Communications. \u003cem\u003eMarkets, Globalization \u0026amp; Development Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2). https://doi.org/10.23860/MGDR-2018-03-02-04\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Malley, M. (2000). \u003cem\u003eCreating Commitment: How to Attract and Retain Talented Employees by Building Relationships That Last\u003c/em\u003e. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrd\u0026oacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., \u0026amp; Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 6\u0026ndash;16. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.37007999\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePehlivan, E., Berthon, P., Hughes, M. \u0026Uuml;., \u0026amp; Berthon, J.-P. (2015). Keeping up with The Joneses: Stealth, secrets, and duplicity in marketing relationships. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Horizons\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(6), 591\u0026ndash;598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.06.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L., \u0026amp; Taylor, A. J. (2008). Salesperson Perceptions of Ethical Behaviors: Their Influence on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(4), 547\u0026ndash;557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9367-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiercy, N. F., Cravens, D. W., Lane, N., \u0026amp; Vorhies, D. W. (2006). Driving Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Salesperson In-Role Behavior Performance: The Role of Management Control and Perceived Organizational Support. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 244\u0026ndash;262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305280532\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePilch, I., \u0026amp; Turska, E. (2015). Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target\u0026rsquo;s and the Perpetrator\u0026rsquo;s Perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e128\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83\u0026ndash;93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2081-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlijter, E. B., Voordt, T. J. M. van der, \u0026amp; Rocco, R. (2014). Managing the workplace in a globalized world: The role of national culture in workplace management. \u003cem\u003eFacilities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(13/14), 744\u0026ndash;760. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-11-2012-0093\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., \u0026amp; Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(Volume 63, 2012), 539\u0026ndash;569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRani, H., Arain, G. A., Kumar, A., \u0026amp; Shaikh, I. R. (2018). Interplay between trust and distrust in the workplace: Examining the effect of psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Asia Business Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-02-2015-0022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRevelle, W. (2024). The seductive beauty of latent variable models: Or why I don\u0026rsquo;t believe in the Easter Bunny. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e221\u003c/em\u003e, 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112552\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRhoads, G. K., Singh, J., \u0026amp; Goodell, P. W. (1994). The Multiple Dimensions of Role Ambiguity and Their Impact Upon Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes of Industrial Salespeople. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personal Selling \u0026amp; Sales Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.1994.10753990\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoos, I., L\u0026ouml;fgren, M., \u0026amp; Edvardsson, B. (2013). Customer-Support Service from a Relationship Perspective: Best Practice for Telecom. \u003cem\u003eManagement Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoss, W. T., \u0026amp; Robertson, D. C. (2000). Lying: The Impact of Decision Context. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Ethics Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 409\u0026ndash;440. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857884\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Statistical Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRousseau, D. (1995). \u003cem\u003ePsychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e66\u003c/em\u003e(4), 701\u0026ndash;716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmidt, S., Roesler, U., Kusserow, T., \u0026amp; Rau, R. (2014). Uncertainty in the workplace: Examining role ambiguity and role conflict, and their link to depression\u0026mdash;a meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 91\u0026ndash;106. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.711523\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchneider, P. A. (2004). Victory: Applying the Proven Principles of Military Strategy to Achieve Greater Success in Your Business and Personal Life. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(6), 439\u0026ndash;440. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760410558726\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchweitzer, M. E., Ord\u0026oacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, L., \u0026amp; Douma, B. (2004). Goal Setting as a Motivator of Unethical Behavior. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(3), 422\u0026ndash;432. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159591\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwepker, C. H., \u0026amp; Good, D. J. (2012). Sales Quotas: Unintended Consequences on Trust in Organization, Customer-Oriented Selling, and Sales Performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(4), 437\u0026ndash;452. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200406\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShulman, D. (2007a). \u003cem\u003eFrom Hire to Liar: The Role of Deception in the Workplace\u003c/em\u003e. Cornell University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShulman, D. (2007b). \u003cem\u003eFrom Hire to Liar: The Role of Deception in the Workplace\u003c/em\u003e. Cornell University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShulman, D. (2011). Deception in the Workplace: Recent Research and Promising New Directions. \u003cem\u003eSociology Compass\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 52\u0026ndash;64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00344.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSims, R. L. (2000a). The Relationship Between Employee Attitudes and Conflicting Expectations for Lying Behavior. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e134\u003c/em\u003e(6), 619\u0026ndash;633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009598241\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSims, R. L. (2000b). The Relationship Between Employee Attitudes and Conflicting Expectations for Lying Behavior. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e134\u003c/em\u003e(6), 619\u0026ndash;633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009598241\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, J. (1993). Boundary Role Ambiguity: Facets, Determinants, and Impacts. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(2), 11\u0026ndash;31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700202\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., \u0026amp; Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: The ISA Engagement Scale. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Development International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(5), 529\u0026ndash;547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.726542\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStead, W. E., Worrell, D. L., \u0026amp; Stead, J. G. (1990). An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 233\u0026ndash;242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382649\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSunder, S., Kumar, V., Goreczny, A., \u0026amp; Maurer, T. (2017). Why Do Salespeople Quit? An Empirical Examination of Own and Peer Effects on Salesperson Turnover Behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(3), 381\u0026ndash;397. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0485\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTansey, R., Brown, G., Hyman, M. R., \u0026amp; Dawson Jr., L. E. (1994). Personal Moral Philosophies and the Moral Judgments of Salespeople. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personal Selling \u0026amp; Sales Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 59\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.1994.10753976\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., \u0026amp; Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive Supervision, Upward Maintenance Communication, and Subordinates\u0026rsquo; Psychological Distress. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1169\u0026ndash;1180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159918\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrevi\u0026ntilde;o, L. K., Weaver, G. R., \u0026amp; Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(6), 951\u0026ndash;990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Moens, T., Suchotzki, K., Debey, E., \u0026amp; Spruyt, A. (2012). Learning to Lie: Effects of Practice on the Cognitive Cost of Lying. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00526\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVelicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., \u0026amp; Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In \u003cem\u003eProblems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 41\u0026ndash;71). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVictor, B., \u0026amp; Cullen, J. B. (1988). The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101\u0026ndash;125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalters, D., Johnstone, R., Frick, K., Quinlan, M., Baril-Gingras, G., \u0026amp; Th\u0026eacute;baud-Mony, A. (2011). \u003cem\u003eRegulating Workplace Risks: A Comparative Study of Inspection Regimes in Times of Change\u003c/em\u003e. Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., \u0026amp; Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(2), 247\u0026ndash;252.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, K., Hernandez, E., Petrosky, A., \u0026amp; Page, R. (2009). The Busines of lying. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 11\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYi, X., Ribbens, B., Fu, L., \u0026amp; Cheng, W. (2015). Variation in career and workplace attitudes by generation, gender, and culture differences in career perceptions in the United States and China. \u003cem\u003eEmployee Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(1), 66\u0026ndash;82. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2014-0005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., \u0026amp; Tang, R. L. (2014). Psychological Contracts as a Mediator Between Machiavellianism and Employee Citizenship and Deviant Behaviors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1098\u0026ndash;1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415420\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbbasi, Zahra, Billsberry, Jon, and Mathew Todres (2022), \u0026quot;An integrative conceptual two-factor model of workplace value congruence and incongruence,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eManagement Research Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(7), 897\u0026ndash;912. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgabu Phiri, Mathiew and Sibusisiwe Mkhize (2017), \u0026quot;Employees\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Customer Service at Telephone Communications (Telkom) Call Centres in South Africa,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;15. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlfes, Kerstin, Shantz, Amanda, Truss, Catherine, and Soane, Emma (2013), \u0026quot;The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Human Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 330\u0026ndash;351. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, Mark, Iliescu, Dragos and Samuel Greiff (2022), \u0026quot;Single Item Measures in Psychological Science,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;5. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnand, Apoorva, Bowen Mary and Deva Rangarajan (2022), \u0026quot;To be or not to be: A review of the (un)ethical salespeople literature,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business andamp; Industrial Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1837\u0026ndash;1851.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAriely, Dan (2013). \u003cem\u003eThe Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves\u003c/em\u003e (Illustrated edition). Harper Perennial.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, Albert (2002), \u0026quot;Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Moral Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 101\u0026ndash;119.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellizzi, Joseph and Terry Bristol (2005), \u0026quot;Supervising the Unethical Selling Behavior of Top Sales Performers: Assessing the Impact of Social Desirability Bias,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(4), 377\u0026ndash;388. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellizzi, Joseph and Ronald Hasty (2003), \u0026quot;Supervising Unethical Sales Force Behavior: How Strong is the Tendency to Treat Top Sales Performers Leniently?,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 337\u0026ndash;351. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellizzi, Joseph and Robert Hite (1989), \u0026quot;Supervising Unethical Salesforce Behavior,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(2), 36\u0026ndash;47. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenzidia, Samar, Makaoui, Nabil and Omar Bentahar (2021), \u0026quot;The impact of big data analytics and artificial intelligence on green supply chain process integration and hospital environmental performance,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eTechnological Forecasting and Social Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e165\u003c/em\u003e(120), 1-13. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolino, Mark, Klotz, Anthony, Turnley, William and Jaron Harvey (2013), \u0026quot;Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4), 542\u0026ndash;559. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoroff, Karen and David Lewin (1997), \u0026quot;Loyalty, Voice, and Intent to Exit a Union Firm: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eILR Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(1), 50\u0026ndash;63. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraeken, Johan., and Marcel van Assen (2017), \u0026quot;An Empirical Kaiser Criterion,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 450\u0026ndash;466. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooksbank, Roger, and Sam Fullerton (2020), \u0026quot;Cognitive dissonance revisited: A typology of B2B buyers\u0026rsquo; post-decision \u0026lsquo;cognitive states\u0026rsquo; and its implications for sales professionals,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1759\u0026ndash;1782. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, Michael and Linda K. Trevi\u0026ntilde;o (2006), \u0026quot;Ethical leadership: A review and future directions,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eThe Leadership Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 595\u0026ndash;616. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButski, Nicole, Boostrom Jr, Robert, and Robert Bonds (2022), \u0026quot;An honest discussion about lies: how components of a seller\u0026rsquo;s lies can impact customer relationship commitment,\u0026quot;\u003cem\u003e The Marketing Management Journal, 32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17-31\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCadogan, John, Lee, Nick, Tarkiainen, Anssi and Sanna Sundqvist (2009), \u0026quot;Sales manager and sales team determinants of salesperson ethical behaviour,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(7/8), 907\u0026ndash;937. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCammann, Cortlandt, Fichman, Mark, Jenkins, George, and Jack Klesh (1983), \u0026quot;Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire,\u0026quot; In \u003cem\u003eAssessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices\u003c/em\u003e, S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, C. Cammann, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 71-138\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarson, Thomas (2001), \u0026quot;Deception and Withholding Information in Sales,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eBusiness Ethics Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 275\u0026ndash;306.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCattell, Raymond Bernard (1966), \u0026quot;The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eMultivariate Behavioral Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 245\u0026ndash;276. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCCTS. (2024),\u0026quot;\u003cem\u003e2023-2024 Mid-Year Report \u0026ndash; CCTS Reports,\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e https://pub.ccts-cprst.ca/2023-2024-mid-year-report/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, Kai, Max, St\u0026eacute;phane and J\u0026eacute;r\u0026ocirc;me Celse (2021), \u0026quot;Employee\u0026rsquo;s lying behavior and the role of self-awareness,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Organizational Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1538\u0026ndash;1553. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristie, Richard and Florence, Geis (1970), \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eStudies in Machiavellianism\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot;, Elsevier. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCialdini, Robert, and Goldstein, Noah (2004), \u0026quot;Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e, 591\u0026ndash;621. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClaybourn, Marianne (2011), \u0026quot;Relationships Between Moral Disengagement, Work Characteristics and Workplace Harassment,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(2), 283\u0026ndash;301. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, Russel and Marie Mitchell (2005), \u0026quot;Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 874\u0026ndash;900. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDashtipour, Parisa, Gerard, Nathan and David Rolo (2024), \u0026quot;Toward an Ethics of Ambiguity in Critical Work and Organizational Psychology: From \u0026lsquo;Blank\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;Troubled\u0026rsquo; Subjectivity,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 197, 219-230. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDen Hartog, Deanne and Frank Belschak (2012), \u0026quot;Work Engagement and Machiavellianism in the Ethical Leadership Process,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e107\u003c/em\u003e(1), 35\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeSimone, Justin, Harms, Peter and Amanda DeSimone (2015), \u0026quot;Best practice recommendations for data screening,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 171\u0026ndash;181. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeVellis, Robert (2016). \u003cem\u003eScale Development: Theory and Applications\u003c/em\u003e (4e \u0026eacute;dition). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEva, Nathan, Robin, Martin, Sendjaya, Sen, van Dierendonck, Dirk and Robert Liden (2019), \u0026quot;Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eThe Leadership Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 111\u0026ndash;132. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarzaneh, Mina, Wilden, Ralf, Afshari, Leila and Gholamhossein Mehralian (2022), \u0026quot;Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e148\u003c/em\u003e, 47\u0026ndash;59. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerris, Gerald, Munyon, Timothy, Basik, Kevin and Ronald Buckley (2008), \u0026quot;The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political, and relationship components,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 146\u0026ndash;163. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFida, Roberta, Tramontano, Chiara, Paciello, Marina, Guglielmetti, Chiara, Gilardi, Silvia, Probst, Tahira, and Claudio Barbaranelli (2018), \u0026quot;\u0026lsquo;First, Do No Harm\u0026rsquo;: The Role of Negative Emotions and Moral Disengagement in Understanding the Relationship Between Workplace Aggression and Misbehavior,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFleming, James and John Asplund (2007),\u003cem\u003e Human Sigma: Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter\u003c/em\u003e. Simon and Schuster.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaspar, Jonathan, Methasani, Rajshree and Maurice Schweitzer (2019), \u0026quot;Fifty Shades of Deception: Characteristics and Consequences of Lying in Negotiations,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 62\u0026ndash;81. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeorge, Jennifer and Gareth Jones (1996), \u0026quot;The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(3), 318\u0026ndash;325. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiacalone, Robert and Jerald Greenberg (1997). \u003cem\u003eAntisocial Behavior in Organizations\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGood, Vincent., Hughes, Douglas and Hairong Wang (2022), \u0026quot;More than money: Establishing the importance of a sense of purpose for salespeople,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 272\u0026ndash;295. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovernment of Canada, C. R. and T. C. (CRTC). (2022, September 7). \u003cem\u003eCRTC Sales Practices Review \u0026ndash; 2022 Secret Shopper Project Detailed Findings Report\u003c/em\u003e. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/2018_246b/#a1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, Jerald (1990), \u0026quot;Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 399\u0026ndash;432. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrote, Richard (2011). \u003cem\u003eHow to be Good at Performance Appraisals: Simple, Effective, Done Right\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard Business Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrover, Steven (1993), \u0026quot;Why Professionals Lie: The Impact of Professional Role Conflict on Reporting Accuracy,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(2), 251\u0026ndash;272. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrover, Steven (2005), \u0026quot;The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The causes and management of workplace lying,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 148\u0026ndash;157. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrover, Steven and Chin Hui (2005), \u0026quot; How job pressures and extrinsic rewards affect lying behavior,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Conflict Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 287\u0026ndash;300. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuillon, Olivier., and C\u0026eacute;line Cezanne (2014), \u0026quot;Employee loyalty and organizational performance: A critical survey,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Change Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(5), 839\u0026ndash;850. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, Joseph, Babin, Barry, Anderson, Rolph, and William Black (2018), \u003cem\u003eMultivariate Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e (8e edition). Intl Thomson Business Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHinkin, Timothy (1998), \u0026quot;A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 104\u0026ndash;121. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIndvick, Julie and Paul Johson (2009),\u0026quot;Liar! Liar! Your Pants are on Fire: Deceptive Communication in the Workplace,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJanis, Irving (1972), \u003cem\u003eVictims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes\u003c/em\u003e, Houghton Mifflin.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJelinek, Ron., and Michael Ahearne (2006), \u0026quot;The Enemy Within: Examining Salesperson Deviance and its Determinants,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personal Selling and Sales Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 327\u0026ndash;344. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJenkins, Simon., and Rick Delbridge (2020), \u0026quot;Exploring Organizational Deception: Organizational Contexts, Social Relations and Types of Lying,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eOrganization Theory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJensen, Michael (2003),\u0026quot;Paying People to Lie: The Truth about the Budgeting Process,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eEuropean Financial Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 379\u0026ndash;406. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnston, Steven and John W. Selsky (2006),\u0026quot; Duality and Paradox: Trust and Duplicity in Japanese Business Practice,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eOrganization Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(2), 183\u0026ndash;205. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, Delroy and Delroy Paulhus (2017), \u0026quot;Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e113\u003c/em\u003e(2), 329\u0026ndash;342. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJudge, Timothy, Thoresen, Carl, Bono, Joyce and Gregory Patton (2001), \u0026quot;The job satisfaction\u0026ndash;job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e127\u003c/em\u003e(3), 376\u0026ndash;407. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJung, Seung and Radu Vranceanu (2017), \u0026quot;Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Lying Behaviour,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eRevue Economique\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e(5), 859\u0026ndash;873.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKashmiri, Shazia., Nicol, Christopher and Sandeep Arora (2017), \u0026quot;Me, myself, and I: Influence of CEO narcissism on firms\u0026rsquo; innovation strategy and the likelihood of product-harm crises,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(5), 633\u0026ndash;656. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelman, Herbert (1951),\u0026quot;Duplicity,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eThe American Journal of Psychoanalysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnight, David, Crutsinger, Caryn and Huyn Kim (2006), \u0026quot;The Impact of Retail Work Experience, Career Expectation, and Job Satisfaction on Retail Career Intention,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eClothing and Textiles Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;14. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrippendorff, Klaus (2011), \u0026quot;Agreement and Information in the Reliability of Coding,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eCommunication Methods and Measures\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 93\u0026ndash;112. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeavitt, Kenneth., and David Sluss (2015), \u0026quot;Lying for Who We Are: An Identity-Based Model of Workplace Dishonesty,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 587\u0026ndash;610. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeung, Shiu-On (2011), \u0026quot;A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Service Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(4), 412\u0026ndash;421. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLitzky, Barbara, Eddleston, Karen and Denise Kidder (2006), \u0026quot;The Good, the Bad, and the Misguided: How Managers Inadvertently Encourage Deviant Behaviors,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 91\u0026ndash;103. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacey, William and Andrew A. Fink (2020). \u003cem\u003eEmployee Surveys and Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMackinger, Benjamin and Eva Jonas (2012), \u0026quot;How Do Incentives Lead to Deception in Advisor\u0026ndash;Client Interactions? Explicit and Implicit Strategies of Self-Interested Deception,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalik, Muhammad, Mustapha, Ali Akbar, Sobri, Nor Muhammad, Razak, Nur Fathimah, Zaidi, Ahmad, and Mohd Anuar Sham (2021), \u0026quot;Optimal Reliability and Validity of Measurement Model in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Different Likert Point Scale Experiment,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Contemporary Issues and Thought\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 105\u0026ndash;112. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcHugh, Michael (2012), \u0026quot;Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eBiochemia Medica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 276\u0026ndash;282.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMerton, Robert (1957), \u0026quot;The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eThe British Journal of Sociology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 106\u0026ndash;120. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeyer, John, Bobocel, Daniel, and Nathalie Allen (1991), \u0026quot;Development of Organizational Commitment During the First Year of Employment: A Longitudinal Study of Pre- and Post-Entry Influences,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 717\u0026ndash;733. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrison, Elizabeth and Sandra Robinson (1997), \u0026quot;When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 226\u0026ndash;256.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMujumdar, Mahendra and Suresh Prabhu (2021), \u0026quot;Study of Telecom Industry Ombudsman and its Regulatory Relevance for Customer Satisfaction,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(23), 1929\u0026ndash;1943. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNagy, Michelle (2002), \u0026quot;Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(1), 77\u0026ndash;86. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman, Aaron, Le, Hong, North-Samardzic, Anita and Marilyn Cohen (2020), \u0026quot;Moral Disengagement at Work: A Review and Research Agenda,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e167\u003c/em\u003e(3), 535\u0026ndash;570. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNistor, Cosmin, Yalcin, Talat, and Eylem Pehlivan (2018), \u0026quot;Duplicity in Alternative Marketing Communications,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eMarkets, Globalization and Development Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Malley, Michael (2000), \u003cem\u003eCreating Commitment: How to Attract and Retain Talented Employees by Building Relationships That Last\u003c/em\u003e. John Wiley and Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrd\u0026oacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, Luis, Schweitzer, Maurice, Galinsky, Adam, and Max H. Bazerman (2009), \u0026quot;Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 6\u0026ndash;16. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePehlivan, Eylem, Berthon, Pierre, Hughes, Michael and Jean-Pierre Berthon (2015), \u0026quot;Keeping up with The Joneses: Stealth, secrets, and duplicity in marketing relationships,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eBusiness Horizons\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(6), 591\u0026ndash;598. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePettijohn, Charles, Pettijohn, Lorna and Adam Taylor (2008), \u0026quot;Salesperson Perceptions of Ethical Behaviors: Their Influence on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(4), 547\u0026ndash;557. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiercy, Nigel, Cravens, David, Lane, Nicholas and David Vorhies (2006), \u0026quot;Driving Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Salesperson In-Role Behavior Performance: The Role of Management Control and Perceived Organizational Support,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 244\u0026ndash;262. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePilch, Izabela and Ewa Turska (2015), \u0026quot;Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target\u0026rsquo;s and the Perpetrator\u0026rsquo;s Perspective,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e128\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83\u0026ndash;93. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlijter, Erwin, Voordt, Theo and Richard Rocco (2014), \u0026quot;Managing the workplace in a globalized world: The role of national culture in workplace management,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eFacilities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(13/14), 744\u0026ndash;760. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodsakoff, Philip, MacKenzie, Scott and Nathan Podsakoff (2012), \u0026quot;Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e, 539\u0026ndash;569.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRani, Harleen., Arain, Ghulam, Kumar, Arvind and Irfan R. Shaikh (2018), \u0026quot;Interplay between trust and distrust in the workplace: Examining the effect of psychological contract breach on organizational disidentification,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Asia Business Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;16. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRevelle, William (2024), \u0026quot;The seductive beauty of latent variable models: Or why I don\u0026rsquo;t believe in the Easter Bunny,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e221\u003c/em\u003e, 112552. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRhoads, Gregory, Singh, Jagdip,and Paul Goodell (1994), \u0026quot;The Multiple Dimensions of Role Ambiguity and Their Impact Upon Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes of Industrial Salespeople,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personal Selling and Sales Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;24. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoos, Ingrid, L\u0026ouml;fgren, Magnus and Bo Edvardsson (2013), \u0026quot;Customer-Support Service from a Relationship Perspective: Best Practice for Telecom,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eManagement Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoss, William and David Robertson (2000), \u0026quot;Lying: The Impact of Decision Context,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eBusiness Ethics Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 409\u0026ndash;440. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosseel, Yves (2012), \u0026quot;lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Statistical Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;36. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRousseau, Denise (1995), \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003ePsychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026quot; SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaufeli, Wilmar, Bakker, Arnold and Marisa Salanova (2006), \u0026quot;The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e66\u003c/em\u003e(4), 701\u0026ndash;716. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmidt, Stefan., Roesler, Uwe, Kusserow, Thomas and Renate Rau (2014), \u0026quot;Uncertainty in the workplace: Examining role ambiguity and role conflict, and their link to depression\u0026mdash;a meta-analysis,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 91\u0026ndash;106. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchneider, Patricia (2004), \u0026quot;Victory: Applying the Proven Principles of Military Strategy to Achieve Greater Success in Your Business and Personal Life,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(6), 439\u0026ndash;440. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchweitzer, Maurice, Ord\u0026oacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, Luis and Ben Douma (2004), \u0026quot;Goal Setting as a Motivator of Unethical Behavior,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(3), 422\u0026ndash;432. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwepker, Charles and David J. Good (2012),\u0026quot; Sales Quotas: Unintended Consequences on Trust in Organization, Customer-Oriented Selling, and Sales Performance,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(4), 437\u0026ndash;452. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShulman, David (2007), \u003cem\u003eFrom Hire to Liar: The Role of Deception in the Workplace\u003c/em\u003e. Cornell University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShulman, David (2011), \u0026quot;Deception in the Workplace: Recent Research and Promising New Directions,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eSociology Compass\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 52\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSims, Ronald (2000), \u0026quot;The Relationship Between Employee Attitudes and Conflicting Expectations for Lying Behavior,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e134\u003c/em\u003e(6), 619\u0026ndash;633. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, Jagdip (1993), \u0026quot;Boundary Role Ambiguity: Facets, Determinants, and Impacts,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(2), 11\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoane, Emma, Truss, Catherine, Alfes, Kerstin, Shantz, Adrian, Rees, Chris and Martin Gatenby (2012), \u0026quot;Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: The ISA Engagement Scale,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Development International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(5), 529\u0026ndash;547. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStead, Wayne, Worrell, David and Jean Stead (1990), \u0026quot;An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 233\u0026ndash;242. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSunder, Shruti, Kumar, Vikash, Goreczny, Anna and Thomas Maurer (2017), \u0026quot;Why Do Salespeople Quit? An Empirical Examination of Own and Peer Effects on Salesperson Turnover Behavior,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(3), 381\u0026ndash;397. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTansey, Robert, Brown, Gregory, Hyman, Michael and Louis Jr. Dawson (1994), \u0026quot;Personal Moral Philosophies and the Moral Judgments of Salespeople,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personal Selling and Sales Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 59\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTepper, Bennett, Moss, Sherry, Lockhart, Daniel and Jon C. Carr (2007), \u0026quot;Abusive Supervision, Upward Maintenance Communication, and Subordinates\u0026rsquo; Psychological Distress, \u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1169\u0026ndash;1180. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrevi\u0026ntilde;o, Linda, Weaver, Gary and Scott Reynolds (2006), \u0026quot;Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(6), 951\u0026ndash;990. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Bockstaele, Bart, Verschuere, Bram, Moens, Tim, Suchotzki, Katarzyna, Debey, Elise and Adinda Spruyt (2012), \u0026quot;Learning to Lie: Effects of Practice on the Cognitive Cost of Lying,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVelicer, Wayne, Eaton, Charles and James Fava (2000),\u0026quot;Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components,\u0026quot; In \u003cem\u003eProblems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 41\u0026ndash;71). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVictor, Barry and John Cullen (1988),\u0026quot;The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101\u0026ndash;125.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalters, David, Johnstone, Robert, Frick, Karen, Quinlan, Michael, Baril-Gingras, Genevi\u0026egrave;ve and Anne Th\u0026eacute;baud-Mony (2011), \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eRegulating Workplace Risks: A Comparative Study of Inspection Regimes in Times of Change,\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWanous, John, Reichers, Arne and Michael J. Hudy (1997), \u0026quot;Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(2), 247\u0026ndash;252.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, Kevin, Hernandez, Elizabeth, Petrosky, Andrew and Robert Page (2009),\u0026quot;The Busines of lying,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 11\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYi, Xiaohong, Ribbens, Brian, Fu, Lijun and Wenli Cheng (2015),\u0026quot;Variation in career and workplace attitudes by generation, gender, and culture differences in career perceptions in the United States and China,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eEmployee Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(1), 66\u0026ndash;82. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZagenczyk, Todd, Restubog, Sylvio, Kiewitz, Christopher, Kiazad, Kayvan, and Raymond L. Tang (2014), \u0026quot; Psychological Contracts as a Mediator Between Machiavellianism and Employee Citizenship and Deviant Behaviors,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1098\u0026ndash;1122. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6837382/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6837382/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose\u003c/strong\u003e: The increasing contingencies facing firms in the 21st century have led some senior managers to intensify workforce pressure in efforts to maintain competitiveness and expand market share within their industry. However, this approach may inadvertently prompt employees to engage in duplicity to meet organizational objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign/methodology/approach\u003c/strong\u003e: Drawing from organizational behavior and sociology literature, this study introduces the construct of Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID) to capture how organizational practices and internal policies may be perceived by employees as endorsing dishonesty and duplicity in the workplace. We developed and validated a scale to measure OID through a three-phase process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings\u003c/strong\u003e: Beginning with 63 items generated from a comprehensive literature review and focus groups, we conducted exploratory (n=114) and confirmatory (n=191) factor analyses to establish a 12-item unifactorial scale. To further validate the scale, we assessed its criterion validity, finding that OID positively correlates with employee turnover intentions and negatively with job satisfaction and work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality\u003c/strong\u003e: This study offers a robust tool for measuring OID, contributing to a further understanding of how organizational policies may influence employee behavior.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and validation of the Organizational Induced Duplicity (OID) scale in the Canadian’s telecommunications retail sector","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-19 13:24:04","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6837382/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"34d7fd28-8ff3-432a-bb0f-64ead3aa8a5a","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 19th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-22T16:07:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6837382","link":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-025-00251-4","journal":{"identity":"corporate-reputation-review","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Corporate Reputation Review"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-18 15:58:40","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 18th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-19 13:24:04","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1057/s41299-025-00251-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-025-00251-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6837382","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6837382","identity":"rs-6837382","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}