Strengthening Integrity Leadership in Brazil’s Federal Public Administration

Annex A. CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch

Introduction

In June 2022, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Union (Controladoria-Geral da União, CGU) and the OECD implemented the CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch. The survey targeted senior civil servants of the Executive Branch, that is DAS-4, DAS-5, or equivalent positions, who in most cases directly supervised a work team within a public institution.

The survey included the following modules: on respondents' sociodemographic characteristics, participation in integrity training, exposure to unethical behaviours within public institutions and direct work teams, perception about the effectiveness of some integrity policies (e.g., UGIs, integrity programmes), perceptions about openness to dialogue, leadership style preferences, and integrity environment within public institutions and direct work teams. Additionally, the survey included a vignette experiment aimed at identifying relative determinants of dishonest behaviour perception amongst high-level officials of the Executive Branch in Brazil.

Methodology

The CGU and the OECD contacted the Integrity Management Units (Unidades de Gestão da Integridade, UGIs) of different federal entities and asked them to send a list of the relevant senior civil servants in their respective entities, including their names, position (DAS or FCPE) and contact details. Based on these lists, the OECD consolidated a unique database including information on 5 889 senior civil servants from 104 federal entities. These senior civil servants were then invited to participate in the survey designed by the CGU and the OECD via an email sent to their professional email. They were given a month (June 2022) to access a personal link to LimeSurvey and reply to the survey. 1 573 high-level officials located in the 26 Federal States and the Federal District provided answers to the survey via LimeSurvey, which corresponds to a response rate of 26.7%.

Characteristics of the sample

The surveyed senior civil servants were located in the 26 Federal States and the Federal District: the majority (52%) were located in Brasilia D.F., followed by 12% located in Rio de Janeiro. The remaining 36% are distributed relatively homogenously among the other 25 Federal States.

In terms of gender, age, job status and institution, Figure A ‎A.1 presents the general profile of the senior civil servants surveyed. Two thirds of the sample are men (67%) and one third (33%) are female; only 1 211 of the 1 573 participants answered to this question. Participants are mostly located in the “41 to 50 years old” interval (43%). The youngest official surveyed is 24 years old, while the oldest official surveyed is 78 years old. On average, surveyed officials are 47 years old. More than four-fifths of the sample are staff employees (86%), this is, current employees hired under a staff status. Officials surveyed belong to 104 public institutions located across the country. 42% of the sample works in a public agency/institution, 34% in ministries and 22% in higher education institutions.

Figure A ‎A.1. General profile of high-level officials surveyed

Source: CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch.

For this study, the degree of responsibility, defined as the size of the team the high-level official directly supervises, determines the leadership degree of the official. In the sample, 25% of officials surveyed supervise a small-size team (from 1 to 5 employees), 20% of officials surveyed supervise a team with 5 to 20 employees, 33% of officials surveyed are responsible for medium-size teams (from 20 to 100 employees) and 7.7% of officials surveyed are responsible for large-size teams (more than 100 employees) (Figure A ‎A.2). Officials surveyed have a solid professional experience in the public sector: 76% of respondents have been serving in the public sector over 11 years (Figure A ‎A.2).

Figure A ‎A.2. Professional profile of high-level officials surveyed

Note: 15% of the sample corresponded to Comissionados, this is, high-level officials who did not directly supervised a team by enacted as advisors. These are identified under the label “0”.

Source: CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch.

One striking fact is that women are less likely to lead large teams than men (Figure A ‎A.3), even when considering that the structure of the samples in terms of years in office and level of education is similar between men and women (Figure A ‎A.4). Indeed, while 37% of small-size team teams are led by women, only 25% of large-size teams are led by female leaders.

Figure A ‎A.3. Team size under direct officials supervision

Note: Statistically significant relationship between gender and team since at a 5% confidence level.

Source: CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch.

Figure A ‎A.4. Level of education and professional experience is similar between male and female high-level officials surveyed

Source: CGU/OECD Survey on integrity and leadership in the Brazilian Executive Branch.

Vignettes: Identification strategy and results

The vignettes experiment methodology consists in providing participants a series of fictive, short, and systematically varied scenarios (called “vignettes”) to elicit their beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours with respect to the presented scenarios, revealing their personal preferences (Atzmüller and Steiner, 2010[79]). Participants’ reaction to each scenario allows to explore their judgment and identify the key determinants of moral judgment under unethical circumstances by high-level officials of the Brazilian Executive Branch.

1 257 out of the 1 673 senior civil servants who responded to the survey also participated in the vignettes experiment. In total, eight vignettes were randomly display to each participant. Participants were expected to give their opinion on a 1 to 10 scale, 1 meaning “totally accepted behaviour” and 10 meaning “totally unaccepted behaviour”, regarding each of the presented scenarios. The random character of the experiment allows to evaluate participants’ preferences across different scenarios.

The experiment included two vignettes:

• Vignette 1 presented a situation where a public servant reveals confidential information to benefit private interests. Vignette 1 included eight scenarios, which vary according to the following three concepts: (1) the magnitude of the information disclosed, (2) the existence of a conflict of interest, and (3) the existence of a justification mechanism. Vignette 1 answers the following questions: Does the magnitude of the information disclosed matter? To what extent a conflict of interest is a determinant of moral judgement? Could a “for the greater good” justification mitigate peers’ reaction towards this unethical practice? Which of these concepts – (1) the magnitude of the information disclosed, (2) the existence of a conflict of interest, and (3) the existence of a justification mechanism – is socially more severely punished?

• Vignette 2 presented a situation where a leader reacts to an unethical behaviour by one of his/her employees. The survey respondent had to judge the behaviour of his peer senior civil servant. Vignette 2 also included eight scenarios, this time exploring (1) potential gender biases with regards to female senior civil servants, (2) work performance as a potential mitigation channel, also interpreted as a potential justification mechanism for unethical behaviour and (3) the importance of openness to dialogue from the leaders’ perspective when it comes to reacting to unethical behaviour inside the senior civil servant’s team. Vignette 2 answers the following questions: Does the gender of the senior civil servant biases the way his/her peers evaluate how well he/she handled the situation of misconduct? To what extent a “good work performance” mitigates leaders’ reaction towards an unethical practice? How relevant do peers consider “openness to dialogue” when it comes to addressing an unethical situation? Which of these concepts – (1) gender of the senior civil servant involved in the situation, (2) work performance and (3) openness to dialogue – is socially more severely punished?

The experiment uses a multilinear regression, clustering errors at the individual level. The number of observations for each respondent is equal to the number of scenarios displayed, which are 8 in total (4 for each vignette). The following sections explain the identification strategy of each vignette as well as the results.

Vignette 1: Information disclosure case

The Identification Strategy of vignette 1 is the following:

$\mathrm{ }Scor{eV1}_{ij}\mathrm{ }=a_{ij}+{\beta }_1{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}\mathrm{ }+\mathrm{ }{\beta }_{2}ConflictInteres{t}_{ij}+\mathrm{ }{\beta }_{3}PublicBenefi{tJustification}_{ij}+e_{ij}$

The variable $ScoreV{1}_{ij}$ measures the respondent’s moral judgment on a scale from 0 to 10, 0 being a totally accepted behaviour and 10 a totally unaccepted behaviour, for a given subject $i$and scenario j. The variable ${\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{S}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}} \left(S{L}_{ij}\right)$ comprises two possible values, 0 and 1. Value 1 is taken when the scenario displays a more severe level of information disclosure$. {\mathrm{C}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}} \left(C{I}_{ij}\right)$ is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 when the scenario includes a conflict of interest$.$The variable $PublicBenefi{t}_{ij} \left(P{B}_{ij}\right)$measures when a public servant justifies his/her misconduct as a form of public benefit $(P{B}_{ij}=1$then). To test the robustness of the results, a set of control variables to specifications (1) and (2) include gender, age, years in office, job status, team size under the senior civil servant’s supervision and state of residency.

The results are displayed in Table A ‎A.1. Overall, respondents severely condemn an information disclosure scenario with a score of 8.9 over 10, on average, with 10 being totally unacceptable. As presented in column (2), the degree of information breach is statistically significant at the 1% confidence level and its magnitude is small and equivalent to 7.3% of the average score (0.65/8.9). The variable Conflict of interest is not statistically significant, suggesting that the existence of a conflict-of-interest situation does not play a role in the moral judgment of information disclosure. Finally, the estimates suggest that to a small degree, the justification of “doing wrong for a greater good” holds. The coefficient is equal to -0.20 and statistically significant at the 1% confidence level. Results are robust when adding control variables which suggest that the randomisation of scenarios has a homogenised sample composition.

Table A ‎A.1. Main results: Vignette 1

Variable	(1)	(2)
	Coeff.	Coeff.
Information Disclosure Severity	0.67***	0.65***
Conflict of Interest	0.004	0.007
Public Benefit Justification	-0.21***	-0.20***
Female		0.05
Age		0.01
Years in Office		0.01
Job status: Staff		0.45**
Jobs Status: Other		0.25
Team Size: 1 to 5		0.049
Team Size: 5 to 20		0.22
Team Size: 20 to 100		-0.10
Team Size: more than 100		0.10
Observations	5748	5439
Controlling for State (Fixed Effect)	No	Yes

Note: Confidence levels are shown as (*) at 10%, (**) at 5% and (***) at 1%. Errors clustered at the individual level.

Vignette 2: Leadership perception when addressing unethical behaviour

Vignette 2 uses the same econometric approach to explore the determinants of the senior civil servants’ moral judgement. More precisely the Identification Strategy is:

$ScoreV{2}_{ij}=a_{ij}+{\theta }_1{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{s}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}+{\theta }_{2}OpenDialo{g}_{ij}+{\theta }_{3}PerformanceJu{st}_{ij}+e_i$

The variable $ScoreV{2}_{ij}$ measures the moral judgment attributed to each scenario on a scale from 0 to 10, 0 being a totally accepted behaviour and 10 a totally unaccepted behaviour, for a given subject $i$and scenario j. ${\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{B}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{s}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}} \left(G{B}_{ij}\right)$ is a dummy variable that takes value 1 when the gender of the official is female, and 0 otherwise. ${\mathrm{O}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}} \left({OD}_i\right)$ is also a dummy variable that stands for openness to dialogue when senior officials address an unethical situation inside their teams. The value of the variable is equal to 1 in case there is an open window for dialogue, and 0 otherwise. The variable $PerformanceJustif \left({PJ}_i\right)$ is equal to 1 when the scenario includes a good work performance of the misbehaving employee, and 0 otherwise. To test the robustness of the results, a set of control variables to specifications (1) and (2) include gender, age, years in office, job status, team size under the senior civil servant’s supervision and state of residency.

The results are displayed in Table A ‎A.2. On average, vignette 2 displays a score of 3.6 over 10, which shows that, overall, the respondents tend to support the behaviour of their peers addressing an unethical situation in the scenarios. According to the estimations, the gender of the senior civil servant who leads the team in the scenario does not bias this judgement: the gender coefficient ${\theta }_1$ is not statistically significant. Results further suggests that openness to dialogue of the leader in the scenario is very well perceived by the peers. Indeed, a scenario where the leader opens a space to discuss misconduct is significantly associated with a more positive judgement of the peer’s behaviour (at the 1% level of confidence). The magnitude of coefficient ${\theta }_2$ corresponds to a 64% decrease of its mean value. In other words, when leaders open the space for dialogue, they will be favourably judged by their peers with a score that decreases 64%, on average. This finding suggests that openness to dialogue inside teams is considered as a good behaviour. Finally, a good performance displayed by the employee could act as a mechanism that justifies misbehaviour (Metaphor of the ledger). The coefficient ${\theta }_3$ is small, negative and statistically significant at the 1% level.

Table A ‎A.2. Main results: Vignette 2

Variable	(1)	(2)
	Coeff.	Coeff.
Gender Bias	0.062	0.069
Openness to Dialogue	-2.34***	-2.32***
Performance Justification	-0.30***	-0.30***
Female		0.19
Age		0.04***
Years in Office		-0.02*
Job status: Staff		0.73**
Jobs Status: Other		0.83
Team Size: 1 to 5		0.28
Team Size: 5 to 20		0.39
Team Size: 20 to 100		0.35
Team Size: more than 100		-0.15
Observations	5544	5471
Controlling for State (Fixed Effect)	No	Yes

Note: Confidence levels are shown as (*) at 10%, (**) at 5% and (***) at 1%. Errors clustered at the individual level.

Questionnaire [Original in Portuguese]

Dear participant,

You are about to begin the initial questionnaire for the study on integrity and public leadership (CGU-OCDE). Your responses are very valuable as they will enable the research team to identify the characteristics of leaders of Brazilian federal agencies and entities. The data provided within the framework of this questionnaire will be treated confidentially by the OECD research team only. There are no right or wrong answers in the questionnaire. We are interested in your honest opinion and experiences. Please take 20 minutes of your time to answer this questionnaire in complete peace of mind.

The OECD is committed to protecting the personal data it handles in accordance with its Personal Data Protection Rules (https://www.oecd.org/general/data-protection.htm). To exercise these rights, please contact Mr. Michael Donohue, Data Protection Officer (DPO) of the OECD at [e-mail].

Thank you for your participation in this study.

Module A. Professional Career

1. For how many years have you worked as a federal public servant? (*Only numbers can be used in this field. *Please enter your answer here. *If it is in months, please add decimals. For example, 0.5 for 6 months)

• __________________________________________________________________________

2. What is your affiliation with the federal public service? (*Choose one of the following answers. *If you choose 'Other:' please specify your choice in the text field. *Please choose only one of the following options)

• Permanent

• Commissioned only

• Other _____________________________________________________________________

3. In which federal organ or entity do you work? (*Please choose one of the following answers. *Please choose only one of the following options)

4. How many people in your organisation are under your direct responsibility? (*Please choose one of the following answers. *Please choose only one of the following options)

• None

• From 1 to 5

• From 5 to 20

• From 20 to 100

• More than 100

Module B. Initial context

5. Have you participated in training or capacity building activities on topics related to integrity or ethics in public service in the last 5 years? (*Please choose one of the following answers. *Please choose only one of the following options. Some examples of issues addressed in training or capacity building activities are ethics, disciplinary system (sanctions and other disciplinary measures), conflict of interest, nepotism, transparency, integrity risk management, whistleblowing channels or channels for reporting or communicating integrity risks, among others).

• Yes

• No

5. bis. How many trainings or capacity building courses have you attended in the last 2 years? (*Only answer to this question under the following conditions: The answer was 'Yes' in question '5. Have you participated in training or capacity building activities on topics related to integrity or ethics in public service in the last 5 years?’. *Only numbers can be used in this field. *Please enter your answer here)

• __________________________________________________________________________

6. In your opinion, how difficult do you find it to talk about unethical behaviours within your work team? (*Please choose one of the following answers. *Please choose only one of the following options. For example, discussing a risk of conflict of interest or asking a staff member to change an unethical behaviour)

• Very Difficult

• Difficult

• Easy

• Very Easy

7. In your opinion, how difficult do you find it to talk about unethical behaviours within your federal agency? (*Please choose one of the following answers. *Please choose only one of the following options. For example, discussing a risk of conflict of interest or asking a staff member to change an unethical behaviour)

• Very Difficult

• Difficult

• Easy

• Very Easy

8. Have you ever been informed about a dishonest or unethical act or attitude within your work team? (*Please choose only one of the following options)

• Yes

• No

9. Are you aware of the existence of an Integrity Management Unit (UGI) in the institution where you work? (*Please choose only one of the following options)

• Yes

• No

9. bis. How would you assess the relevance of UGI for your work and that the work of your team? (*Only answer to this question under the following conditions: The answer was 'Yes' in question '9. Are you aware of the existence of an Integrity Management Unit (UGI) in the institution where you work? *Please choose the appropriate response for each item). The UGI is:

• Very relevant

• Relevant

• Not relevant

• Irrelevant

10. Would you be interested in participating in an integrity leadership programme in federal agencies and entities? (*Please choose one of the following options)

• Yes

• No

11. Please choose one answer option for each of the following statements. Within your institution... (*Please choose the appropriate answer for each item)

 

	Totally disagree	Partially disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Partially agree	Totally agree
People are honest
People are respectful towards others' views
People are supportive
People prioritise the public interest over their individual interests when conducting their public duties
People interact with their colleagues with kindness

12. Please choose one answer option for each of the following statements. Within your direct work team... (*Please choose the appropriate answer for each item)

 

	Totally disagree	Partially disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Partially agree	Totally agree
People are honest
People are respectful towards others' views
People are supportive
People prioritise the public interest over their individual interests when conducting their public duties
People interact with their colleagues with kindness

13. In the last three years, have you been aware of any occurrence within your institution of (*Please choose the appropriate response for each item)

 

	No	Yes, once	Yes, several times
Influence peddling
Misappropriation of public assets
Use of confidential information
Abuse of power

Module C. Leadership Perception

14. In your opinion, what are the elements or characteristics that a leader in the civil service should have? (*All answers should be different and ranked in order. Please choose a maximum of 6 answers. Please number each box in order of preference, from 1 to 6)

• Efficient delegation and execution of objectives

• Social skills

• Attitudes of integrity

• Commitment

• Academic qualifications required for the execution of their function

• Analytical mind, self-reflection and openness to dialogue

15. In your current role, which of the following do you consider to be most important? (*All answers should be different and ranked in order. Please choose a maximum of 3 answers. Please number each box in order of preference, from 1 to 3)

• To lead with openness to dialogue and tolerance

• To lead with an iron fist and know how to set limits

• To lead with integrity and values

Module D. Vignette experiment, presentation of scenarios

You now have to assess 8 scenarios that reflect situations in the public sector. The scenarios are similar but not identical. Please read each one carefully before answering.

Vignette 1: Aurélio is a public agent. He was informed in a high-level meeting of the government's decision to devalue the Real to reactivate Brazilian exports.

• Scenario A: Aurélio decides to communicate the date of the operation to two companies that decide to buy a large amount of Dollars on the market, before the official announcement of this news and, consequently, benefit from the devaluation of the Real. He is on the board of directors of these companies. This operation prevents each company from having to lay off 10 000 employees this year.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable), what is your opinion about Aurelio's behaviour? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario B: Aurélio decides to communicate the date of the operation to two companies that decide to buy a large amount of Dollars on the market, before the official announcement of this news and, consequently, benefit from the devaluation of the Real. He has no links to these companies. This operation prevents each company from having to lay off 10 000 employees this year.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable), what is your opinion about Aurelio's behaviour? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario C: Aurélio decides to communicate the date of the operation to two companies that decide to buy a large amount of Dollars on the market, before the official announcement of this news and, consequently, benefit from the devaluation of the Real. He is on the board of directors of these companies. This operation prevents each company from having to lay off 50 employees this year.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable), what is your opinion about Aurelio's behaviour? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario D: Aurélio decides to communicate the date of the operation to two companies that decide to buy a large amount of Dollars on the market, before the official announcement of this news and, consequently, benefit from the devaluation of the Real. He has no links to these companies. This operation prevents each company from having to lay off 50 employees this year.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable), what is your opinion about Aurelio's behaviour? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario E: Aurélio decides not to communicate an exact date to two companies, but to say that there is a high probability for the devaluation of the Real. These companies favour from buying dollars before the official communication. He is on the board of directors of these companies. This operation prevents each company from having to lay off 50 employees this year.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable), what is your opinion about Aurelio's behaviour? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario F: Aurélio decides not to communicate an exact date to two companies, but to say that there is a high probability for the devaluation of the Real. These companies favour from buying dollars before the official communication. He is on the board of directors of these companies. This operation prevents each company from having to lay off 10.000 employees this year.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable), what is your opinion about Aurelio's behaviour? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario G: Aurélio decides not to communicate an exact date to two companies, but to say that there is a high probability for the devaluation of the Real. These companies favour from buying dollars before the official communication. He has no links to these companies. This operation prevents each company from having to lay off 50 employees this year.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable), what is your opinion about Aurelio's behaviour? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario H: Aurélio decides not to communicate an exact date to two companies, but to say that there is a high probability for the devaluation of the Real. These companies favour from buying dollars before the official communication. He has no links to these companies. This operation prevents each company from having to lay off 10.000 employees this year.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable), what is your opinion about Aurelio's behaviour? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

Vignette 2: Last week, an employee was discovered carrying out a dishonest act. The climate within his/her work team is tense as this act has affected the unit’s operations as well as the image (internal and external) of the team and the organisation.

• Scenario A: João Pedro, responsible for the team, decides to summon the employee, who committed the dishonest act, to hear his/her version of the facts and thus have an opinion about the future of the employee, either to send him/her to another sector or to call his/her attention and ask for disciplinary sanctions. It is important to highlight that the employee that has been discovered has been a good colleague, constant and engaged in the fulfilment of his/her duties.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable) what is your opinion about the behaviour of the team leader? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario B: João Pedro, responsible for the team, decides to summon the employee, who committed the dishonest act, to hear his/her version of the facts and thus have an opinion about the future of the employee, either to send him/her to another sector or to call his/her attention and ask for disciplinary sanctions. It is important to highlight that the employee that has been discovered is not a constant employee in his/her and lacks commitment to fulfil his/her duties.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable) what is your opinion about the behaviour of the team leader? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario C: João Pedro, responsible for the team, decides to summon the employee, who committed the dishonest act, to inform him/her of the disciplinary consequences of his/her mistake and send him/her to another sector, meanwhile the case is resolved. It is important to highlight that the employee that has been discovered has been a good colleague, constant and engaged in the fulfilment of his/her duties.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable) what is your opinion about the behaviour of the team leader? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario D: João Pedro, responsible for the team, decides to summon the employee, who committed the dishonest act, to inform him/her of the disciplinary consequences of his/her mistake and send him/her to another sector, meanwhile the case is resolved. It is important to highlight that the employee that has been discovered is not a constant employee in his/her and lacks commitment to fulfil his/her duties.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable) what is your opinion about the behaviour of the team leader? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario E: Maria Camila, responsible for the team, decides to summon the employee, who committed the dishonest act, to hear his/her version of the facts and thus have an opinion about the future of the employee, either to send him/her to another sector or to call his/her attention and ask for disciplinary sanctions. It is important to highlight that the employee that has been discovered has been a good colleague, constant and engaged in the fulfilment of his/her duties.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable) what is your opinion about the behaviour of the team leader? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario F: Maria Camila, responsible for the team, decides to summon the employee, who committed the dishonest act, to hear his/her version of the facts and thus have an opinion about the future of the employee, either to send him/her to another sector or to call his/her attention and ask for disciplinary sanctions. It is important to highlight that the employee that has been discovered is not a constant employee in his/her and lacks commitment to fulfil his/her duties.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable) what is your opinion about the behaviour of the team leader? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario G: Maria Camila, responsible for the team, decides to summon the employee, who committed the dishonest act, to inform him/her of the disciplinary consequences of his/her mistake and send him/her to another sector, meanwhile the case is resolved. It is important to highlight that the employee that has been discovered has been a good colleague, constant and engaged in the fulfilment of his/her duties.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable) what is your opinion about the behaviour of the team leader? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

• Scenario H: Maria Camila, responsible for the team, decides to summon the employee, who committed the dishonest act, to inform him/her of the disciplinary consequences of his/her mistake and send him/her to another sector, meanwhile the case is resolved. It is important to highlight that the employee that has been discovered is not a constant employee in his/her and lacks commitment to fulfil his/her duties.

  On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being totally acceptable and 10 being totally unacceptable) what is your opinion about the behaviour of the team leader? (*Each answer should be between 0 and 10. Please provide your answer(s) here)

  • __________________________________________________________________________

Module E. Characteristics

1. What is your gender? (*Please choose one of the following options)

• Female

• Male

2. How old are you? (*Only numbers can be used in this field. Please enter your answer here)

• __________________________________________________________________________

3. What is your state/federal district of residence? (*Please choose one of the following options)

• Acre

• Alagoas

• Amapá

• Amazonas

• Bahia

• Ceará

• Goiás

• Goiás

• Maranhão

• Mato Grosso

• Mato Grosso do Sul

• Mato Grosso do Sul

• Pará

• Paraíba

• Paraná

• Pernambuco

• Piauí

• Rio de Janeiro

• Rio Grande do Norte

• Rio Grande do Sul

• Rondônia

• Roraima

• South Africa

• Saskatchewan

• Sergipe

• Tocantins

• Federal District

4. What is your level of education? (*Please choose one of the following answers. Please choose only one of the following options)

• High school

• Higher technical course (2 to 3 years)

• University course (4 years)

• Post-graduate or specialisation

• Master's degree

• Doctorate

• Other