Table II

Confirmatory factor analysis of unethical HRM practices (standardized solution)

Dimensions and itemsFactor loadings
Practices favoring those in power (α=0.82, CR=0.84, AVE=0.52)
Disciplining less severely employees with a higher position in the organization’s hierarchy0.907
Facilitating the process of selecting a family member of a senior corporate officer for a job opening in the organization0.880
Ignoring a sexual harassment complaint against a senior official of the organization when no evidence is available0.654
Increasing the CEO’s salary when the organization is going through a period of budget cuts and employee dismissals0.621
Turning a blind eye to unprofessional behaviors of the organization’s most profitable employees (e.g. delays)0.459
Discrimination practices (α=0.73, CR=0.73, AVE=0.41)
Not selecting candidates from particular ethnic origins0.830
Selecting men for roles that involve a heavier workload0.626
Not recruiting candidates in advanced stages of pregnancy0.607
Using job quotas to select candidates from a particular university0.448
Practices showing a disregard for the individual (α=0.64, CR=0.67, AVE=0.42)
Repeating to other colleagues information confided by an employee0.850
Recommending a “problematic” worker to another area of the organization0.554
Sending performance appraisals to employees by e-mail0.465
Fit indices
χ282.55
df51
χ2/df1.62
RMSEA0.068
CFI0.951
TLI0.937
AIC5,356.16

Notes: CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CFI, confirmatory fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; AIC, Akaike information criterion

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal