1. One More Time: Is the Love of Money the Root of All Evil ?
Shanghai Maritime University
October 17-19, 24-26, 2008
March 12-14,19-21, 2010
Presented by
Thomas Li-Ping Tang, Ph.D.
Middle Tennessee State University, the USA 10/8

2. One More Time: Is the Love of Money the Root of All Evil ?
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
October 20, 2008
March 15-17, 2010
Presented by
Thomas Li-Ping Tang, Ph.D.
Middle Tennessee State University, the USA

3. Toto Sutarso, Middle Tennessee State University, U.S.A.,
Adebowale Akande, International Institute of Research, South Africa,
Michael W. Allen, University of Sydney, Australia,
Abdulgawi Salim Alzubaidi, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman,
Mahfooz A. Ansari, University of Lethbridge, Canada,
Fernando Arias-Galicia, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Mexico,
Mark G. Borg, University of Malta, Malta,
Luigina Canova, University of Padua, Italy,
Brigitte Charles-Pauvers, University of Nantes, France,
Bor-Shiuan Cheng, National Taiwan University, Taiwan,
Randy K. Chiu, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong,
Linzhi Du, Nankai University, China,
Ilya Garber, Saratov State Socio-Economic University, Russia,
Consuelo Garcia De La Torre, Technological Institute of Monterrey, Mexico,
Rosario Correia Higgs, Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon – Portugal, Portugal,
Abdul Hamid Safwat Ibrahim, Iman University, Saudi Arabia,
Chin-Kang Jen, National Sun-Yat-Sen University, Taiwan,
Ali Mahdi Kazem, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman,
Kilsun Kim, Sogang University, South Korea,
Jian Liang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Vivien Kim Geok Lim, National University of Singapore, Singapore,
Roberto Luna-Arocas, University of Valencia, Spain,
Eva Malovics, University of Szeged, Hungary,

4. Anna Maria Manganelli, University of Padua, Italy,
Alice S. Moreira, Federal University of Pará, Brazil,
Richard T. Mpoyi, Middle Tennessee State University, the U.S.A.,
Anthony Ugochukwu Obiajulu Nnedum, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria,
Johnsto E. Osagie, Florida A & M University, U.S.A.,
AAhad M. Osman-Gani, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
Francisco Costa Pereira, Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon – Portugal, Portugal,
Ruja Pholsward, Rangsit University, Thailand,
Horia D. Pitariu, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania,
Marko Polic, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia,
Elisaveta Sardzoska, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Macedonia,
Petar Skobic, Middle Tennessee State University, U.S.A.
Allen F. Stembridge, Andrews University, U.S.A.,
Theresa Li-Na Tang, Affinion Group, Brentwood, TN, U.S.A.,
Thompson Sian Hin Teo, National University of Singapore, Singapore,
Marco Tombolani, University of Padua, Italy,
Martina Trontelj, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia,
Caroline Urbain, University of Nantes, France
Peter Vlerick, Ghent University, Belgium

5. Research: Summary Journal article: 127 Conference Paper: 205
Language (published): *
Language (cited): **
* Chinese, English, Italian, Romanian, Spanish
** Chinese, English, French, Italian, Romanian, Spanish, Turkish, Russian

6. Journal Impact Factor Journal of Applied Psychology (3.769)
Intelligence (3.757)
Journal of Management (2.558)
Journal of Organizational Behavior (2.441)
Personnel Psychology (2.222)
Computers & Education (2.190)
Personality and Individual Differences (1.982)
Human Relations (1.372)
Journal of Business Ethics* (1.023)

7. ISI Web of Knowledge Citation (2/12/2010)
Article (127):
Citation:
Average citations/year:
Average citations/item:
h-index: *
*14 papers with 14 citations or more

8. Research Interest Management, HRM, OB Motivation, QC, Compensation
Individual Differences
Work Ethic, Leisure Ethic, Self-Esteem,
Money Ethic, The Love of Money,
Behavioral Ethics

9. Collaborators in 37 countries
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Croatia, Egypt, France, Hong Kong, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, UK, the USA.

10. Service Editorial Board: 7 Reviewer (Journal): 33
Reviewer (Conference):

11. Award Outstanding Research (PSY) 1991 Outstanding Research (MGT) 1999
International Service
Outstanding Faculty
Career Achievement Award
The Best Reviewer Award IM (AoM) 2003, 2007, 2009

12. MTSU Visit http://www.mtsu.edu/ Faculty and Staff (Photo) 2/12/2010
Virtual Tour (Video)

13. Recent News in the USA
May 31, Lehman Brothers had assets of $639 billion, but was $613 billion in debt = 26; 26/639 = 4% CEO Dick Fuld’s one-year total pay was $71.9 million, five-year total pay was $354 million. He received a $39 million (€24.7 million) bonus in cash and restricted stock in 2007.

14. Recent News
On Monday, September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers, a 158-year-old investment bank, filed for Chapter 11 protection in the US.
It was the biggest corporate bankruptcy in history with $639 billion, followed by WorldCom with $126 billion and Enron with $81 billion. (former Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow and former Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Skilling)

15. Recent News
On September 23, 2008, several days after Wall Street meltdown, FBI started to investigate officials at these investment banks (e.g., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and AIG).

16. Recent News
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, took home $74 million in salary, bonuses and other awards in 2007.
James E. Cayne, former CEO of Bear Stearns made $49.31 million over the last two years ( ).

17. Recent News
Martin J Sullivan, former CEO of American International Group (AIG), raked in $39.6 million in the last three years ( ). Sullivan oversaw two quarters of record losses as the insurance giant's head. Shareholders pressured him to quit in June. Severance package plus bonus: $19 million.

18. Illinois Governor Charged with Corruption 12/9/2008
Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested Tuesday for what U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald called a "political corruption crime spree" that included attempts to sell the U.S. Senate seat to the Highest Bidder, vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

20. Kenneth Lay - Enron Quintessential fraudulent executive.
Indicted on July 7, 2004 for Enron catastrophe.
Prior to indictment, estimated net worth $40M.
During trial, Lay claimed net worth was ($250k).
20,000 employees lost jobs.

21. Enron’s Market Share Price

22. Robert Nardelli – Home Depot
Amassed approx. $500M in six-year tenure.
January 3, 2007 received $210M severance “golden parachute” (part of $500M).
Meanwhile, investors saw minimal improvement in share price.
Now CEO of Chrysler LLC.

23. Extrinsic Ways to Mitigate Agency Theory’s Effects

24. Thailand: Bangkok Post
Prosecutors in Thailand seek the confiscation of 76 billion baht in cash and assets from the former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family.
The former Prime Minister was accused of abusing his power by changing tax and telecommunications policies to benefit his own business empire, Shin Corp., while in office from 2001 to Shares were sold to Temasek of Singapore.

25. Russia Corruption in Russia is the rule rather than the exception.
Nikolai Zlobin, a former political adviser to the Kremlin living in Washington, DC: The formula of modern power in Russia is: “The size of ‘otkat’ (kickbacks, 佣金/回扣) must correspond to the strength of ‘naezd’ (racketeering, 敲诈)”.

26. Russia
Leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky: every post in Russia—with the exception of the five or six highest—is available for sale.
A governorship costs about €5 to €7 million.
A department head or the head of a federal agency, costs €3 to €4 million.

27. China
Two former Bank of China managers and their wives were convicted in Las Vegas for money laundering/洗钱 and racketeering/敲诈in the US involving at least $485 million over 13 years.
A Chinese national was repatriated (被遣返回国) from Canada for prosecution.

28. Singapore
Ng Teck Lee failed in his duties as CEO of a waste recycling company, Citiraya, and committed fraud against the firm.
Investigators believe that Ng skipped town with S$72 million ($51 million), making it one of Singapore’s biggest ever corporate scandals and frauds.

29. Nigeria
10% of the daily supply of oil in Nigeria is stolen from pipelines and other facilities by criminals and militants and sold off illegally (blood diamond/oil)
Leaders of People’s Democratic Party in Oyo State: Governor Alao-Akala has embezzled (盗用) $24 billion from the excess crude oil fund released to the State by the Federal Government

30. Corruption
After a thief was nabbed by the police and the stolen goods retrieved, a Staff Sergeant contacted the businessman indicating that his $7,000 worth of stolen jewelry had been pawned and was about to be melted.
The police officer asked for $2,000. The businessman could offer only $1,000 and two bottles of whisky.
Judge: The police officer had violated the public’s trust, abused his position, and asked for extra incentives to do essentially his job. The officer was sentenced to 14 months in jail for corruption and penalized $1,110 for the cash and the value of the whisky he received.

31. Corruption is both a state and a process.
It reflects not only the corrupt behavior of an individual—defined as the illicit use of one’s position or power for perceived personal or collective gain—but also the dangerous, viruslike infection of a group, organization, industry, or country or geopolitical entity (Ashforth, Gioia, Robinson, & Treviño, 2008).

32. Money
People around the world have different economic, legal, political, and social infrastructures, history, cultures, beliefs, values, attitudes, and behavior; yet they all speak one language that everyone understands: Money.

34. Professional Wrestlers as Ushers: Increased Collection Plate Donations by 72%

35. What is the difference? $1
$100

36. Money
The instrument of commerce and the measure of value (Smith, 1776/1937).
Attract, retain, and motivate employees and achieve organizational goals (Chiu, Luk, & Tang, 2002; Milkovich & Newman, 2005; Tang, Kim, & Tang, 2000).
Objective

37. The Meaning of Money
is “in the eye of the beholder” (McClelland, 1967, p. 10)
and can be used as the “frame of reference” (Tang, 1992) in which people examine their everyday lives (Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang, Luna-Arocas, & Sutarso, 2005).
Subjective

38. The Meaning of Money
Children from poor economic backgrounds overestimate the size of a coin than their affluent counterparts (Bruner & Goodman, 1947).
College students’ money anxiety is influenced by both paternal and maternal money anxiety (Lim & Sng, 2006).

39. Voh, Meed, & Goode (2006)
1. Descrambling task: 5 words: A high paying salary, See Monopoly Money, vs. Neutral 2. Read aloud: An Abundance of Money vs. Meager resources 3. Screensaver: Currency floating underwater vs. fish swimming underwater, no screen 4. Monopoly Money: $4000, $200, $0; Imagine Abundance of Money, Strained Finances 5. Poster: Money, Leisure, Flower

40. Money--Self-Sufficiency
Worked longer before asking help
Volunteered less (5.10/8.47 sheets)
Volunteered less (67.35/ sec.)
Gathered less pencils (18/20, 27 pencils)
Donated less money (.77/1.34, $2.00)
Played alone--individually focused leisure
Kept a larger distance: two chairs

41. Thinking that time is money leads people to volunteer less (DeVoe & Pfeffer, 2007).
Counting 80 $100 bills (compared to counting 80 pieces of paper) reduces people’s physical pain (Zhou, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2009).
Anticipation of pain heightens the desire for money (Zhou & Gao, 2008).

42. Presence of Money
The presence of abundant wealth (with visible $7,000 in real $1 bills on a table) provokes feeling of “envy toward wealthy others” that, in turn, causes a significantly higher percentage of participants to engage in and a much larger magnitude of cheating for personal gains than without such abundance of money (Gino & Pierce, 2009: 142).

43. Money as tool and as drug
Money (as tool) is instrumental in satisfying biological and psychological needs.
Metaphorically, money is a functionless, powerful, addictive, and insatiable drug (motivator)(Lea & Webley, 2006)
Drug addicts require larger dosages to maintain the same level of “high” (Mason, 1992), most people want more money in order to achieve the same original level of utility.

44. The Importance of Money
*10 Job Preferences, Pay was ranked: (Jurgensen, 1978)
No. 5 by Men
No. 7 by Women
*11 work goals, Pay was ranked: (Harpaz, 1990).
No. 1 in Germany
No. 2 in Belgium, UK, and the US

45. The ABCs of Money Attitudes
Affective: Do you “love or hate” money?
Behavioral: What do you “do” with your money?
Cognitive: What does money “mean” to you?

46. The Love of Money Scale Factor 1: Rich (Affective)
1. I want to be rich.
2. It would be nice to be rich.
3. Having a lot of money (being rich) is good.
Factor 2: Motivator (Behavior)
4. I am motivated to work hard for money.
5. Money reinforces me to work harder.
6. I am highly motivated by money.
Factor 3: Importance (Cognitive)
7. Money is good.
8. Money is important.
9. Money is valuable.
Factor 4: Power (Cognitive)
10. Money is power.
11. Money gives one considerable power.
12. Money can buy the best products and services

47. Affective: Rich Love or Hate Most people love Money.
I want to be Rich.
Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income (Ecclesiastes 5: 10).

48. The Love of Money
Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. (1 Timothy 6: 9-10)

49. Behavioral: Motivator
Strategy  Performance Improvement
Pay: 30%
Goal Setting: 16%
Job Design: 9%
Participation: 0%
(Locke, E. A., Feren, D. B., McCaleb, V. M., Shaw, K. N., & Denny, A. T. 1980).

50. Behavioral: Money is a Motivator
Herzberg: Money  Movement (no motivation)
A clear link: Performance  Rewards (Nohria, Groysberg, & Lee, HBR, 2008)
When people were paid for finding insect parts in a food processing plant, innovative employees brought insect parts from home to add to the food just before they removed them and collected the bonus (Milkovich & Newman, 2008)

51. Cognitive: Importance
*10 Job Preferences, Pay was ranked: No. 5 by Men No. 7 by Women (Jurgensen, 1978) *11 work goals, Pay was ranked: No. 1 in Germany No. 2 in Belgium, the UK, and the US (Harpaz, 1990)

52. Cognitive: Importance
How we compare
Outperform Others
“For to him who has shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him who does not have, even that which he has shall be taken away” (Matthew, 13: 12).
The Matthew Effect (Gabris & Mitchell, 1988; Heneman, 1992, Merit pay; Tang, 1996)

53. Cognitive: Power
Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887).
Money talks.

55. Pay Satisfaction
Job satisfaction: A pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976: 300). Pay Satisfaction: Pay Level  Pay Satisfaction relationship is the most robust finding (Heneman & Judge, 2000: 71).

56. Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire
1. Pay Level
2. Pay Raise
3. Benefit
4. Pay Administration (Heneman & Schwab, 1985)
Time 1-Time 2 (Judge & Welbourne, 1994)
Majority of studies included only Pay Level Satisfaction of PSQ (Williams, McDaniel, & Nguyen, 2006)

57. Pay Level Satisfaction
My take home pay
My current salary
My overall level of pay
Size of my current salary

59. The Love of Money-Pay Satisfaction
Poverty consists, not in the decrease of one’s possessions, but in the increase of one’s greed. Plato ( BC)
Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. (Ecclesiastes 5:10)
High Income  High Pay Level Satisfaction
High Love of Money  Low Pay Level Satisfaction

60. The Love of Money-Pay Satisfaction
Adam (1963): Equity model Lawler (1971): Discrepancy model Easterlin (2001): Relative theory Veenhoven (1984): Absolute theory Brickman & Campbell (1971): Adaptation theory Michalos (1985): Aspiration theory

61. Pay Satisfaction, So-What?
Larger Context: Corporate Ethical Values (social norms) Unethical Behavior Intentions (consequence of pay dissatisfaction) Theory of Planned Behavior

64. Unethical Behavior Intentions
The incumbent’s self-report and the coworker’s peer-report converged significantly on counterproductive work behavior toward other persons and work stressors (Fox, Spector, Goh, & Bruursema, 2007).
Self-reported behavioral intentions are arguably adequate surrogate measures of actual unethical behavior (Jones & Kavanagh, 1996).
Schoorman, F. D., & Mayer, R. C The value of common perspectives in self-reported appraisals: You get what you ask for. Organizational Research Methods, 11,

65. Unethical Behavior Intentions
Workplace deviance (Greenberg, 2002; Robinson & Bennett, 2000),
Counterproductive behavior (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001),
Corruption (Anand, Ashforth, & Joshi, 2004),
Whistle-blowing (Dozier & Miceli, 1985),
Misbehavior (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2005; Vardi & Weitz, 2004).

66. Unethical Behavior Intentions Propensity to Engage in Unethical Behavior (PUB)
We developed a short self-reported measure (PUB) and ask managers:
If you were in that position, what is the probability that you may engage in that activity?
It is a measure of “self-prediction” of their unethical behavior which is highly related to actual behavior

67. Theft, Corruption
Pilfering office supplies, wasting company time, cyber-loafing,
In 1997, shoplifting: 10 billion annually in the US,
In 2006, $40.5 billion,
A 32-country study, $98.6 billion,
Employee theft and commercial bribery, $100 billion annually, the American Management Association
Corruption: $1 trillion world economy/year
Impact on an organization’s bottom line and on economies in general

68. Propensity to Engage in Unethical Behavior: Unethical Behavior Intentions
Factor Resource Abuse
1. Use office supplies (paper, pen), Xerox machine, and stamps for personal purpose
2. Make personal long-distance (mobile phone) calls at work
3. Waste company time surfing on the Internet, playing computer games, and socializing
Factor Not Whistle Blowing
4. Take no action against shoplifting by customers
5. Take no action against managers who steal cash/merchandise
Factor Theft
6. Abuse company expense accounts and falsify accounting records
7. Take merchandise and/or cash home
8. Borrow $20 from a register overnight without asking
Factor Corruption
9. Accept money, gifts, and kickbacks from others
10. Reveal company secrets when a person offers several million dollars
11. Sabotage the company to get even due to unfair treatment
12. Lay off 500 managers to save the company money and increase my personal bonus

69. Corporate Ethical Values (CEV)
Strong cultures enhance firm performance (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996) and deter unethical behavior (Baker, Hunt, & Andrews, 2006): Most people do look to the social context to determine what is ethically right and wrong (Bandura, 1977; Thomas, Schermerhorn, & Dienhart, 2004), obey authority figures (Litzky, Eddleston, & Kidder, 2006; Milgram, 1974), do what is rewarded (Skinner, 1972; Treviño & Brown, 2004), and follow the code of ethics (Bethoux, Didry, & Mias, 2007).

70. Cross-Cultural Study
64%: only 2 countries 23%: > 2 countries (Sin, Cheung, & Lee, 1999) %: did not report Measurement Invariance (He, Merz, & Alden, 2008) Configural Invariance: Factor structure Metric Invariance: Factor Loading

71. The Income Pyramid Prahalad & Hammond, 2002, HBR $ N
1. > $20, Million
2. $2,000 – $20, ,000 Million
3. < $2, ,000 Million

72. Level of Economic Development
1. GDP > 20, GDP 5,000 – 20, GDP < 5,000 We treat GDP as a “Moderator”

73. Method N = 6,285 High GDP Group (n = 1,960, 8 entities):
the USA, Belgium, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Singapore, Hong Kong;
(2) Medium GDP Group (n = 2,371, 12 entities): Portugal, Slovenia, South Korea, Taiwan, Malta, Oman, Hungary, Croatia, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Malaysia;
(3) Low GDP Group (n = 1,954, 10 entities):
Romania, Brazil, Bulgaria, Peru, Macedonia, Thailand, China, Egypt, the Philippines, and Nigeria.

74. AoM 2008

75. High GDP Group Sample N M % M M M SD M SD LOM  PLS
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics of All Variables and SEM Path of the Relationship between the Love of Money to Pay Level Satisfaction across 31 Samples (30 Geopolitical Entities)
High GDP Group
GDP Age Sex Education Income LOM PLS Path
Sample N M % M M M SD M SD LOM  PLS
1. The USA (H) , ,
2. Belgium , ,
3. Australia , *
4. France , ,
5. Italy , , ***
6. Spain ,
7. Singapore , , **
8. Singapore , ,
9. HK , , ***

76. Sample N M % M M M SD M SD LOM  PLS
Medium GDP Group
GDP Age Sex Education Income LOM PLS Path
Sample N M % M M M SD M SD LOM  PLS
10. Portugal (M) , , **
11. Slovenia , , **
12. S. Korea , ,
13. Taiwan , ,
14. Malta , , ***
15. Oman , , ***
16. Hungary , ,
17. Croatia , ,
18. Mexico , ,
19. Russia , , **
20. S. Africa , ,
21. Malaysia , ,

77. Sample N M % M M M SD M SD LOM  PLS
Low GDP Group
GDP Age Sex Education Income LOM PLS Path
Sample N M % M M M SD M SD LOM  PLS
22. Romania (L) , ,
23. Brazil , , ***
24. Bulgaria , , **
25. Peru , ,
26. Macedonia , ,
27. Thailand , , *
28. China , ,
29. Egypt , ,
30. The Philippines , ,
31. Nigeria , ***†
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. High GDP , , , ***
2. Medium GDP , , , ***
3. Low GDP , , , ** (-.02) †
Whole Sample , , , ***(-.11***)† ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

78. Step 1 Multiple Regression Results
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Variable R R2 R2 Change F Change df p
Step 1
Sex, Age, Education ,
Z Income ,
The Love of Money (LOM) ,
GDP ,
LOM x GDP ,
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Sample size: N = 6,285. Due to large income differences, we calculated standardized Z income for each entity.

79. Model χ2 df p χ2/df IFI TLI CFI SRMSR RMSEA Models ΔCFI
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Step 2: Measurement model
Configural Invariance:
1. High GDP
2. Medium GDP
3. Low GDP
Metric Invariance (3 GDP Groups):
4. Unconstrained ,
5. Constrained , vs
Step 3: Measurement Model Without and With Latent Common Method Variance (CMV) Factor (3 GDP Groups):
6. Model ,
7. Model 6 + CMV , vs
Step 4: Main SEM Model (3 GDP Groups)
8. Model ,
9. Model 8 + LOM , vs
10. Model 9 + PLS , vs
11. Model 10 – Nigeria vs
Step 5: Set the Path to be Equal
12. Model 11 + Path vs
13. Model 10 + Path , vs

80. Step 4, Model 10/ Step 5, Model 12/13
Path High Medium Low Across Three GDP Groups
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 1: Direct Effect Standardized Comparison Unstandardized
Model 10 LOM  PLS *** *** ** HM < L Model ***
Model 11 LOM  PLS *** *** W/O HM < L Model ***
Part 2: Squared Multiple Correlation (SMC)
Model 10 PLS
Model 11 PLS
Part 3: Factor Loading
Model The Love of Money (LOM)
1. Rich
2. Motivator
3. Important
Model The Love of Money (LOM)
1. Rich
2. Motivator
3. Important
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

81. Main Findings Love of Money  Pay Level Satisfaction
High GDP Group: ***
Medium GDP Group: -.14***
Low GDP Group: -.02
The Whole Sample: -.11*** (functional equivalence)
High GDP + Low LOM  The Highest Pay Level Satisfaction
Medium GDP + High LOM  The Lowest Pay Level Satisfaction
Low GDP + High LOM  High Pay Level Satisfaction (Corruption)

84. Groups High, Medium, Low-GDP Groups High, Medium, Low-Income Groups
High, Medium, Low-Love of Money Groups
Good (70.6%) vs. Bad Apples (29.4%)

85. SEM Results χ2 df p χ2/df IFI TLI CFI RMSEA
The Whole Sample Across 3 GDP Groups Across 3 Income Levels, High GDP Group Across 3 Income Levels, Medium GDP Group Across 3 Income Levels, Low GDP Group Across Good and Bad Apples

90. Main Findings
(1). Income  Pay Satisfaction (2). Income  Low Love of Money (3). Love of Money  Low Pay Satisfaction (4). Love of Money  Evil (5). Pay Satisfaction  Low Evil (6). Money –X Evil (7). Corporate Ethical Values  Low Evil (8). Love of Money  Low Pay Satisfaction  High Evil

91. Main Findings
The love of money is the root of evil, however, money is not. The love of money is directly and indirectly (through pay dissatisfaction) the root of evil. Corporate ethical values deter evil.

92. Main Findings
Good for High-, Medium-GDP Groups; but not for Low-GDP Group.
Income  Pay Satisfaction, All Groups
Whole: % Bad Apples (70.6%)
High GDP: 20.9%
Medium GDP: 38.0%
Low GDP: %

93. Main Findings High GDP Group The highest Corporate Ethical Values,
The lowest Evil (PUB)
The lowest % of bad apples: 20.9%
Medium GDP Group
The lowest Corporate Ethical Values,
The highest Evil (PUB),
The highest % of bad apples: 38.0%
The strongest path: The Love of Money  Evil

94. Main Findings
1. Bad apples, 2. managers in the underdeveloped economies in general, and 3. all low-income managers across all three levels of economic development have one thing in common:
Corporate ethical values have very little power, if any, to curb managers’ unethical behavior intentions. CEV --X Evil

95. Across 3 Income Groups The Love of Money and GDP on Pay Satisfaction
The Love of Money and GDP on Unethical Behavior Intentions
6 Figures

96. (1) High GDP Group (n = 1,960/3, 8 entities): the USA, Belgium, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Singapore, Hong Kong; (2) Medium GDP Group (n = 2,371/3, 12 entities): Portugal, Slovenia, South Korea, Taiwan, Malta, Oman, Hungary, Croatia, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Malaysia; (3) Low GDP Group (n = 1,954/3, 10 entities): Romania, Brazil, Bulgaria, Peru, Macedonia, Thailand, China, Egypt, the Philippines, and Nigeria.

97. (1) High GDP Group (n = 1,960/3, 8 entities): the USA, Belgium, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Singapore, Hong Kong; (2) Medium GDP Group (n = 2,371/3, 12 entities): Portugal, Slovenia, South Korea, Taiwan, Malta, Oman, Hungary, Croatia, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Malaysia; (3) Low GDP Group (n = 1,954/3, 10 entities): Romania, Brazil, Bulgaria, Peru, Macedonia, Thailand, China, Egypt, the Philippines, and Nigeria.

98. (1) High GDP Group (n = 1,960/3, 8 entities): the USA, Belgium, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Singapore, Hong Kong; (2) Medium GDP Group (n = 2,371/3, 12 entities): Portugal, Slovenia, South Korea, Taiwan, Malta, Oman, Hungary, Croatia, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Malaysia; (3) Low GDP Group (n = 1,954/3, 10 entities): Romania, Brazil, Bulgaria, Peru, Macedonia, Thailand, China, Egypt, the Philippines, and Nigeria.

99. Main Findings
1. High Income + Low Love of Money + High GDP Group  Highest Pay Satisfaction 2. Low Income + High Love of Money + Medium GDP Group  Lowest Pay Satisfaction 3. High/Medium/Low Income + High Love of Money + Medium GDP Group  Highest Evil (PUB)

100. Implications
Valuing money as a means to show off, get power, compare oneself to others, or overcome self-doubt  low satisfaction (Srivastava, Locke, & Bartol, 2001) $1 Million, $2 Million,  $3 Million Locke
Forbes’ 946 Billionaires: Bill Gates III ($56 billion)
178 new Billionaires: 19 Russians, 14 Indians, 13 Chinese, 10 Spaniards, and 1 from Cyprus, Oman, Romania, and Serbia. (Emerging/Transition markets)

101. Implications
The highly visible disparity, the disproportionately greater financial benefits for being number one (CEO) (the tournament theory), and corporate boards’ inclination to look outside for a new CEO can result in number two executives eager to jump ship and become CEOs elsewhere.

102. High Income + High Love of Money + Low GDP Group  High Pay Satisfaction
Low GDP Group: Love of Money –X Evil
Turnover, Positive Affect, Adjust Standards,
Boehm & Lyubomirsky, JCA, 2008; Howell & Howell, PB, 2008; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, PB, 2005;
High Position, High Income, High Pay Satisfaction may include Corruption,
Underreport Unethical Behavior Intentions, Corruption is the norm.

103. Implications
In Nigeria (the lowest GDP, the lowest CPI), democracy has turned into a form of “kleptocracy” (rule by thieves).
Nigeria lost about N3.5 trillion to corruption
High-level position, authority, power, and money, the ruling class (kleptocrates), are able to take advantage of the situation
According to Governor Timipre, corruption is a way of life in Nigeria.

104. Implications
1. Prevention (identifying and rejecting job applicants and managers who are prone to make unethical decisions);
2. Control (the use of normative force--code of ethics, internal control systems, role models, and social norms and instrumental force--proper checks and balances, electronic surveillance devices, and rewards and punishment);
3. Deterrence (dismissing managers in business organizations or providing a strong response to harmful misbehavior) (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2005).
Slow down but can never Stop disobedient managers with high love of money from engaging in corruption

105. Limitations Convenience samples from H, M, L GDP Groups
from each entity, from 1 Source, at 1 Time
Extraneous/Nuisance variables: the size of the organization, organizational culture, economy of the nation/region, unemployment rate, SD, etc.
Any arbitrary categorization of a continuous variable (GDP) is problematic, undermines statistical power.
Measure Unethical Behavior Intentions; NOT actual behavior (Greenberg, 2002)

106. Conclusion
Whoever loves money is never satisfied with his or her income.
We need to keep our lives free from the love of money and be content with what we have.

107. Conclusion
The love of money is directly and indirectly (through pay dissatisfaction) related to evil, whereas money is not.
Corporate ethical values enhance ethical behavior intentions.

108. Conclusion
We identify not only these principles but also boundaries and exceptions of these principles around the world.
What, How, Why, Who, Where, and When

109. Conclusion
Understanding and learning to control the reins that harness the love of money and corporate ethical values at the individual, organizational, and entity levels properly may help executives successfully manage the most stubborn, tenacious, and challenging “beast” in business—pay dissatisfaction and corruption—across developed, developing, and underdeveloped economies.

110. SEM Results χ2 df p χ2/df IFI TLI CFI RMSEA
The Whole Sample Across Gender (Male vs. Female) Groups Across Gender, High GDP Group Across Gender, Medium GDP Group Across Gender, Low GDP Group

115. Thank You Danke Спасиб Dankeshen ありがとう Grazie 너를 감사하십시요 Merci 謝謝 谢谢
Muchas Gracias
Obrigado
Takk Deg