Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
• Other articles in this volume Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, 1018 TV Amsterdam,
• Top cited articles The Netherlands; email: d.n.denhartog@uva.nl
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
409
INTRODUCTION
The many scandals involving ethical lapses of high-level leaders that occurred over the past decade
and a half have placed the moral and ethical aspects of leadership at the forefront of public
attention and have increased the pressure on firms and their leaders to behave ethically. Ethical
behavior is now critical to leaders’ credibility and their potential to meaningfully influence fol-
lowers at all levels in an organization (e.g., Brown et al. 2005, Piccolo et al. 2010). Also, research
suggests that ethical leadership may affect managerial careers. For example, in a recent study,
although showing more ethical leadership toward employees did not affect managers’ near-term
promotability, it did enhance their being rated as having high potential for senior leadership roles,
especially in firms with more ethical cultures (Rubin et al. 2010).
Morality has become an important topic in organizational behavior/psychology, and in line
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:409-434. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
with that, the attention of researchers for moral and ethical issues in leadership has increased, too.
Much of this recent work focuses—as does this review—on perceived ethical leader behavior in the
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
workplace. Although this work has yielded important insights into perceptions and effects of
ethical leaders, there are still many unknowns when it comes to ethical leader behavior and what its
antecedents, outcomes, and contingencies are. For example, current work does not yet fully
explain why some in a leadership situation choose to behave in a principled and ethical manner,
whereas others (at times) do not.
Although issues of morality and power have been addressed in the extensive work on the
philosophy of ethics, this broader, more philosophical work is beyond the scope of the current
review. This review takes an organizational behavior/psychology perspective and focuses on
a behavioral and perceptual view of ethical leadership. For example, which behaviors and char-
acteristics contribute to a leader being seen as ethical and why? How does ethical leadership relate
to other styles? What kinds of effects does this form of leading have on others and why, and what is
the role of the context? After providing some background on the ethical leader behavior construct,
I discuss different ways in which ethical leadership has been conceptualized/operationalized and
how it relates to other constructs. I then address salient research findings on outcomes, ante-
cedents, and context effects. Finally, I summarize the challenges the field faces, future research
directions, and practical implications.
noted that pseudo-transformational manipulative behaviors may not be obvious and may be hard
to recognize. The authors proposed that followers’ attribution of leader intentionality plays
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
a central role, and they argued that both leaders’ ability to hide intentions and followers’ ability to
distinguish intentions and read the related cues may affect followers’ ability to distinguish pseudo-
from authentic transformational leadership.
Price (2003, p. 75) notes that “while transformational leaders can ‘wear the black hats of
villains or the white hats of heroes’ (Bass & Steidlmeier 1999, p. 187), the problem is that leaders
and followers sometimes fail to see all the colors of their own hats.” He warns that in the leadership
process, threats to morality cannot be reduced to egoism. Authentic transformational leadership
assumes that people act on altruistic values for the good of their group, organization, or society,
yet altruistic values and a concern for the group’s collective outcomes can compete with morality.
Leaders could be pursuing goals that are in the interest of the group but that deny legitimate moral
demands of outsiders. Such rights of others beyond the group are often not reflected in leaders’
values and decisions: “So, if leaders are to avoid ethical failure, they will sometimes have to defy
normative pressures to privilege group interests” (Price 2003, p. 78). As Gini (1998) notes, to be
ethical, the leader must intend no harm and respect the rights of all affected parties, not just those of
the (in)group.
Alongside the morality of transformational leaders, a more general increased attention for
ethical leadership in organizations emerged, fueled by the high-profile cases of leaders’ ethical
failure. Early descriptive work focusing on ethical leadership as a separate style was done by
Treviño and colleagues (2000, 2003). They described ethical leadership along two related
dimensions: being a moral person and being a moral manager. The first refers to qualities of the
ethical leader as a person at work and beyond, such as honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and
concern for others. A moral person considers the consequences of his or her actions. Others know
that when they go to a moral person, they will be heard. The moral manager concept revolves
around how leaders use managerial roles and leadership positions to promote ethics in the
workplace—for example, through role modeling ethical conduct, setting and communicating
ethical standards, and using reward/punishment to ensure that ethical standards are followed.
Following this, others also started considering ethical leadership as a behavioral style in itself (e.g.,
Brown et al. 2005, De Hoogh & Den Hartog 2008, Khuntia & Suar 2004, Mayer et al. 2009,
Resick et al. 2006).
and whether norms take anyone outside the group into account, as some such norms may not fit
with others or may even be harmful for others (De Hoogh & Den Hartog 2009a). Eisenbeiss (2012,
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
Eisenbeiss & Brodbeck 2014, Kalshoven et al. 2011b). Concern for sustainability and society or
broader rights issues are sometimes taken into account (e.g., Kalshoven et al. 2011b), but this
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
element is usually ignored and needs further development (Eisenbeiss & Brodbeck 2014).
Several scales measure ethical leader behavior. Brown et al. (2005) combined the behaviors they
saw as core components (acting fairly, allowing voice, and rewarding ethical conduct) in their 10-item
ethical leadership scale (ELS). This is the scale used most to date. Yukl and colleagues (2013) developed
a similar 15-item scale. Short scales such as these are useful in field studies where many other variables
are measured or the number of items needs to be limited. Theoretically, however, the involved
behaviors may have different effects or antecedents, and thus combining them into a single syndrome
may make it harder to fully understand the role of ethical leadership (De Hoogh & Den Hartog 2008).
Multidimensional measures also exist, and these assume that ethical leadership forms an
overarching construct composed of multiple distinct, yet related, leader behaviors (see, e.g., De
Hoogh & Den Hartog 2008, Den Hartog & De Hoogh 2009, Kalshoven et al. 2011b, Khuntia &
Suar 2004, Resick et al. 2006 for different measures). A potential drawback of multidimensional
measures may be that not all included behaviors are conceptually uniquely ethically focused (Yukl
et al. 2013). Scales tend to be rooted in qualitative work on what perceivers (usually followers)
think of as being part of ethical leadership (e.g., Eisenbeiss & Brodbeck 2014, Treviño et al. 2003).
For example, Khuntia & Suar (2004) measured two dimensions: labeled empowerment and
motive/character. A broader multidimensional measure is Kalshoven and colleagues’ (2011b)
38-item ethical leadership at work (ELW) measure. The seven ELW dimensions that were based on
both literature and interviews are leader integrity, fairness, caring behavior, power sharing,
concern for sustainability, role clarification, and ethical guidance.1
De Hoogh & Den Hartog (2009a) linked ethical leader behaviors to their definition of ethical
leadership, stressing socially responsible power use. For example, one connotation of social re-
sponsibility is responsibility as an obligation. In other words, the leader feels an inner obligation to
do what is known to be right and truthful, and he or she can be counted upon to act in alignment
with moral values (Winter 1991). This implies that ethical leaders act with fairness, respect, and
integrity; make principled choices; are trustworthy; and do not practice favoritism. Kalshoven
et al. (2011b) operationalized this in the dimensions of integrity and leader fairness. Other authors
also see demonstrating fairness and leader integrity as core elements of ethical leadership (e.g.,
Treviño et al. 2000, 2003). Related terms used for these dimensions include leaders’ personal
integrity, character, honesty, and principled decision making (Avolio 1999, Brown et al. 2005,
Craig & Gustafson 1998, Eisenbeiss & Brodbeck 2014, Resick et al. 2006).
1
In their initial validation, Kalshoven et al. (2011b) show that all seven ELW scales correlate positively and significantly with
each other and with Brown et al.’s (2005) ELS measure.
suggests that ethical leaders are caring and concerned about employees (Kalshoven et al. 2011b,
Resick et al. 2006). Brown et al. (2005) describe ethical leaders as people focused, and Treviño et al.
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
(2003) highlight the concern these leaders have for people. Ethical leaders also engage in open
communication and encourage voice (Brown et al. 2005). These leaders allow follower partici-
pation in decision making and listen to their followers’ ideas, which some label power sharing (De
Hoogh & Den Hartog 2009a, Kalshoven et al. 2011b). Such inclusive behaviors help employees
see their work as more meaningful (e.g., Feldman & Khademian 2003). Finally, ethical leadership
is sometimes seen to incorporate broader values and to direct organizational members toward
ethical goals beyond the organization. For example, some scholars include care about the impact of
actions on society or the environment as an aspect of ethical leadership. However, as noted, this
element is not often found in measures of ethical leadership (for an exception, see the concern for
sustainability scale of Kalshoven et al. 2011b).
with ethical leadership, and ethical leaders use transactional mechanisms that are not associated
with spiritual leadership. Also, the calling to serve and the religious element of spiritual leadership
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
are not the focus of ethical leadership. Although the motive to serve others (also found in servant
leadership; Greenleaf 2002) may contribute to becoming a more ethical leader, Brown & Treviño
explain that ethical leadership can also be driven by more pragmatic motives. Similarly, Brown &
Treviño (2006) describe ethical leadership’s similarities with and differences from authentic
leadership: Whereas authentic and ethical leaders share a social motivation and people orientation
and both are ethically principled, the authenticity and self-awareness that are key to authentic
leadership are not part of ethical leadership. Rather than self-awareness, care and concern for
ethics and morality and for others are central to ethical leadership.
A related construct studied mostly in Asia is paternalistic leadership (e.g., Chen et al. 2014),
a leadership style combining discipline and concentrated authority (authoritarianism) with fa-
therly benevolence and morality. Authoritarianism refers to controlling subordinates and de-
manding unquestioned obedience. Benevolence implies a holistic concern for followers’ personal
and familial well-being. Morality is the demonstration of integrity through acting unselfishly and
leading by example. Ethical leadership relates to this morality element of paternalistic leadership.
However, Chen et al. (2014) note that although exhibiting integrity and moral standards is
important for paternalistic leadership, social learning and the idea of leaders as role models whose
ethical behavior is emulated are not. Also, decision making and communication styles differ
between these types of leadership. Whereas ethical leadership implies that leaders and followers
engage in two-way communication and power sharing, paternalistic leadership emphasizes one-
way communication and centralized decision making. Under the latter style, followers expect
leaders to make the decisions, and followers obey leaders’ directives without question (Chen et al.
2014).
Interactional justice originally referred to the quality of the interpersonal treatment individuals
receive when procedures are implemented (Bies & Moag 1986). It is now seen as consisting of two
types: interpersonal justice, which reflects whether people are treated politely and respectfully by
those executing procedures or determining outcomes, and informational justice, which focuses on
the explanations provided about why procedures were used or outcomes distributed in a given
manner (Colquitt et al. 2001). Similar to ethical leadership, interactional justice includes fair and
respectful treatment and open communication, such as providing clarity about decisions (e.g.,
Brown et al. 2005, Kalshoven et al. 2011b). However, ethical leadership involves more than fair
treatment and is focused on setting an ethical agenda and influencing followers’ ethical awareness
and behaviors in a much broader sense. Also, interactional justice does not focus on the social
learning principles of role modeling and reward and punishment that are central to ethical
leadership.
2
For example, Barling et al. (2008) report correlations of the ELS and subscales for transformational leadership ranging from
.62 to .72; Mayer et al. (2012) report a correlation of .78 for idealized influence. Kalshoven et al. (2011b) report that the ELS
correlates .72 with transformational leadership, and for the seven ELW subscales, this ranges from .25 to .68; the ELS
correlates .72 with transactional leadership, and for the seven subscales, this ranges from .26 to .82. In Singapore, Toor &
Ofori (2009) find lower correlations with the ELS: .58 for overall transformational and .46–.53 for the subscales. In their data,
ethical leadership is unrelated to transactional leadership. For interactional justice, Neubert et al. (2009) report a correlation of
.71, and Mayer et al. (2012) report correlations of .62 for interpersonal and .68 for informational justice. For procedural
justice, using Chinese data, Walumbwa et al. (2011) report a correlation of .50, and for LMX, they report a correlation of .48.
Kalshoven et al. (2011b) reports a .76 correlation of the ELS and LMX as well as three subscale ethical leadership correlations
with LMX ranging from .42 to .59.
egoistic motives or engaging in beneficial versus harmful behaviors (e.g., Kanungo 2001). But if
this were true, leaders would then be either one or the other. However, low ethical leadership is not
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
necessarily the same as high unethical leadership, as the absence of ethical leadership can imply
either unethical leadership or the lack of a proactive ethics-related agenda (Brown & Treviño
2006, Treviño et al. 2000). In other words, merely refraining from unethical behavior does not
make leaders ethical. Ethical leaders actively pursue instilling and communicating about ethical
norms; they model ethical behaviors and actively monitor and reward to influence ethical
awareness and behavior. Also, seeing the overall constructs as polar opposites precludes looking at
mixes of (un)ethical behaviors. Leaders could, for example, show both ethical and unethical acts
toward some or all followers, and research suggests that such inconsistency can be problematic (I
return to this below).
In sum, although ethical and unethical leadership are generally likely to be negatively related,
they are also conceptually different and unlikely to form polar opposites. The limited available
empirical evidence suggests mostly moderate negative relationships.3 More research including
both ethical and unethical leader behaviors is needed to better establish these relationships and
understand when and why they occur.
3
For example, ethical leadership was found to be significantly negatively related to autocratic leadership ( .26; Kalshoven et al.
2011b), despotic leadership ( .56; De Hoogh & Den Hartog 2008), and abusive supervision ( .51; Detert et al. 2007). However,
Barling et al. (2008) report a low, nonsignificant correlation between ethical leadership and abusive supervision. Toor & Ofori
(2009) and Kalshoven et al. (2011b) also both report negative correlations with passive leadership ( .27 and .40, respectively).
Attitudes
Growing empirical evidence suggests a positive relationship between ethical leadership and many
outcomes. Ethical leaders are expected to promote altruistic attitudes among followers, such
leadership is likely to enhance commitment and motivation, and employees who feel supported
and respected are more likely to develop trust, satisfaction, and a sense of well-being. Positive
attitudinal effects are indeed found in research. For example, ethical leadership was found to relate
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:409-434. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
positively to satisfaction with the leader, perceived leader effectiveness, followers’ job dedication,
willingness to report problems to management, affective well-being, LMX, normative and af-
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
fective commitment, and trust; it was found to relate negatively to cynicism (e.g., Brown et al.
2005, Den Hartog & De Hoogh 2009, Hassan et al. 2013, Kalshoven & Boon 2012, Kalshoven
et al. 2011b, Neubert et al. 2009). Unit/group level effects have also been observed; for example,
Mayer et al. (2012) found a negative relationship with relationship conflict.
Relationships with employee attitudes have been observed in a number of countries, including
non-Western ones. For example, Khuntia & Suar (2004) found that the ethical leadership of Indian
private and public sector managers was positively related to follower job performance, affective
commitment, and job involvement. Also, in China, ethical leadership was found to be positively
related to LMX, self-efficacy, and organizational identification and, in turn, to employee per-
formance (Walumbwa et al. 2011). The positive attitudinal effects found lower in the hierarchy
also appeared to occur at higher levels. For example, CEO ethical leadership related positively to
top management team members’ optimism about the future and perceived top management team
effectiveness (De Hoogh & Den Hartog 2008).
different hierarchical levels. The authors examined the relationship between supervisory ethical
leadership and employees’ reporting of unethical conduct within the organization (internal
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
whistle-blowing) and proposed that positive effects of ethical leaders would be enhanced by
coworkers’ ethical behavior. Indeed, they found that employees’ internal whistle-blowing
depended on the ethical tone relating to social influence at both supervisory and coworker levels.
Ethical cognitions,
norms, decisions, and
awareness
(e.g., moral judgment)
Further outcomes
Individual-level
antecedents Identification-based Attitudes
(e.g., traits, moral motivation (e.g., less cynicism,
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:409-434. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Obligation
(e.g., duty,
responsibility)
Figure 1
A summary of ethical leadership research to date. Abbreviations: CMD, cognitive moral development; LMX, leader–member exchange;
OCB, organizational citizenship behavior.
suggested that ethical leaders stimulate the dedication (meaning, significance) and vigor (energy,
resilience) elements of employee engagement and found that such leadership related positively to
follower engagement and, subsequently, to more initiative and less deviance.
Also, a heightened sense of duty, moral obligation, conscientious behavior, or responsibility
may form a potential mediating mechanism. Hannah et al. (2014) addressed followers’ duty
orientation, a concept focusing on felt obligations to a workgroup. Duty orientation is the
“volitional orientation to loyally serve and faithfully support other members of the group, to strive
and sacrifice to accomplish the tasks and missions of the group, and to honor its codes and
principles” (pp. 234–35). They found that ethical leadership was positively related to follower duty
orientation, which was subsequently negatively related to deviance and positively related to ethical
behavior. Also, Kalshoven et al. (2013b) found that follower responsibility mediates the re-
lationship between ethical leadership and follower initiative and helping. At the group level,
Walumbwa et al. (2011) found that group conscientiousness and voice mediated the relationship
between ethical leadership and group performance.
Relationship-oriented or social information processing–related variables such as trust form
another proposed mechanism (De Hoogh & Den Hartog 2009a, Eisenbeiss 2012). Both cognitive
and affective trust have been empirically tested as mediators, and some support for this has been
found (e.g., Lu 2013, Newman et al. 2014). Ethical leaders create a work environment that is
psychologically safe and build trusting relationships with followers, which makes the followers
speak up. If reporting is likely to be deemed unable to effect change or be futile, they are less likely to
speak up. The findings suggest that supervisory ethical leaders’ influence on reporting is enhanced
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
if ethical behavior is also displayed by coworkers and that a lower fear of retaliation mediates this.
No support was found for the hypothesized role of perceptions of futility.
Stouten et al. (2013) addressed an unintended negative effect of ethical leadership through the
mediating mechanism of perceptions of moral reproach. They argued that like leaders who are seen
as less ethical, leaders who are seen as too strongly ethical may form less attractive role models
because employees feel morally reproached by these leaders. In line with expectations, the authors
showed that ethical leadership had a linear relationship with deviance but an inverted U-shaped
relationship with OCB. In other words, at lower levels of ethical leadership, OCB increases,
whereas at higher levels, OCB decreases. Perceptions of moral reproach underlie this curvilinear
relation. More research on such unintended negative effects of ethical leadership is needed.
Similar research on differential treatment is lacking for ethical leadership, but equality of fair
treatment is also likely to be important (Kalshoven & Den Hartog 2013). This is in line with the
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
work on how justice climate level and strength interact to predict outcomes (e.g., Colquitt et al.
2002). Future work needs to consider different behaviors simultaneously, including both ethical
and unethical ones, to assess how they jointly affect different parties.
they reflect a measure of perceived ethicality; yet whether such perceived behaviors are always an
authentic expression of leader morality is not clear. Research suggests that Machiavellians are
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
good liars and skilled at impression management. They use both prosocial and coercive strategies
to attain goals. Machiavellians do not always engage in deception and manipulation; they are self-
interested but adaptable and may also invest in cooperative or pro-organizational activities if this
motivates them or they see doing so as beneficial to themselves (e.g., Becker & O’Hair 2007,
Belschak et al. 2013).
Many firms now have explicit integrity or ethics norms and implement codes of conduct, and
outwardly acting ethically may increasingly contribute to having a successful management career
(Rubin et al. 2010). Machiavellians may respond to this. Den Hartog & Belschak (2012) found
a nonsignificant correlation between leader Machiavellianism and perceived ethical leadership,
and Sendjaya et al. (2014) found this nonsignificant link for authentic leadership. When these
results are considered alongside those of the study by Mayer et al. (2012), it appears possible that
Machiavellians act upon the public moral identity element (symbolization) even when there is no
internalization element of the moral identity present. In other words, displays of ethical leader
behavior may not always be an authentic expression of an internalized moral identity or true
ethical traits. Den Hartog & Belschak (2012) also found that the motivating effects of ethical
leadership when displayed by Machiavellian leaders were attenuated, thus followers may react
differently to authentic versus inauthentic displays of ethical leadership. The literature on
emotional work similarly notes that authentic expression of emotions is perceived differently and
more positively by others than is faking emotions (i.e., surface acting, or expressing emotions that
differ from inner feelings) (e.g., Zapf 2002). This is in need of further research.
Narcissism is a trait consisting of grandiosity, self-love, and inflated self-views and is often
linked to leadership (for a review, see Campbell et al. 2011). Hoffman and colleagues (2013) found
that the main effect of leader narcissism on follower perceptions of both ethical and effective
leadership was not significant (similar to the aforementioned findings for Machiavellianism).
However, these authors also observed that when ethical climate was strong, narcissistic leaders
were perceived as ineffective and unethical. The context may thus play a role as well. It would be of
interest to further assess whether and when the dark side of personality (Machiavellianism,
narcissism, psychopathy) might preclude or impede ethical leadership perceptions.
significantly varied across societal clusters. In addition, Resick et al. (2009) found that societal as
well as organizational culture (in terms of institutional collectivism, performance orientation, or
uncertainty avoidance) can provide contextual cues shaping beliefs about the importance of ethical
leadership for being effective as a leader.
In related qualitative research, Resick et al. (2011) examined the meaning of ethical leadership
for managers in six societies. Results indicated convergence around the importance of character.
Respondents from the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Germany also regarded
consideration, respect for others, and collective orientation as crucial to ethical leadership, which
diverged somewhat from how respondents in Ireland, the United States, and Taiwan felt. The
authors concluded that the overall meaning of ethical leadership is likely to be represented by
similar categories of characteristics and behaviors across cultures; however, the emphasis on
specific categories varies between cultures.
An example of such variation is reflected in work on paternalism: In some countries (likely with
higher power distance), the morality and character element of ethical leadership is combined with
highly directive and authoritarian behavior, whereas in others (likely more egalitarian), morality
may need to come with two-way communication and power sharing to create ethical leadership.
However, qualitative work by Eisenbeiss & Brodbeck (2014) contrasts with this idea in some
respects. For example, the importance of leader modesty, openness to others’ ideas, and an
empowering and participative management style for ethical leadership were emphasized more in
the interviews with executives from Eastern than Western cultures. These findings question
the paternalistic emphasis in authoritarianism (Chen et al. 2014) and may reflect a preference
for deviation from currently predominant styles in certain cultures. Also, although many
characteristics were mentioned equally in different cultures, ethical leadership in Eastern as
opposed to Western cultures was associated with a serving role, nonmaterialism, following
an inner calling, and feeling deeply spiritually connected with others (Eisenbeiss & Brodbeck
2014).
Although these studies seem to indicate that some characteristics are universally valued, more
cross-cultural work is clearly needed to better understand differences in ethical leadership across
cultures. Besides societal culture, within-firm context can also affect ethical leadership (e.g., Mayer
et al. 2009, Resick et al. 2009, Schaubroeck et al. 2012). However, so far, research on potential
within-firm contextual drivers and moderators is limited. Available work does suggest an in-
fluential moderating role. For example, Kacmar et al. (2011) examined the moderating role of
employee gender and politics perceptions in the relationship between ethical leadership and
citizenship. In this study, perceptions of organizational politics reflected employees’ perceptions
that coworkers’ behaviors are motivated by self-interest without being interested in others’
(2013) on narcissism and ethical climate shows that ethical climate may form a contextual
moderator affecting when leaders are seen as ethical and effective. Kalshoven et al. (2013a) studied
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
whether ethical climate forms a substitute for ethical leadership. They proposed a substituting role
for both moral awareness and empathic concern climates in the relationship between ethical
leadership and follower OCB. They found different moderating effects for the two ethical climate
facets. The pattern for moral awareness was partly in line with substitution. Ethical leadership was
more strongly related to followers’ OCB when moral awareness climate was low than when it was
high. Similar to the abovementioned work by Jordan et al. (2013), who showed greater effects of
ethical leadership on followers when leaders were more advanced than followers in terms of
cognitive moral development, the findings of Kalshoven et al. (2013) suggest that salience of ethical
leader behavior may be extra high in a context low on moral awareness where such leaders may
contrast or stand out positively as ethical role models in the eyes of followers.
Kalshoven et al. (2013a) found no direct effect of moral awareness on follower citizenship
behaviors; thus, moral awareness alone may not be enough to affect employee behavior. Other
work also suggests that although an ethical violation may be recognized, this recognition does not
automatically mean that the violation will be acted upon (Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe 2008). The
effects Kalshoven et al. (2013a) found for empathic concern as a moderator were less strong. It
acted as an enhancer, but only in relation to courtesy, not to helping. When both ethical leadership
and empathic concern were high, followers showed more courtesy, but when empathic concern
was low, no relationship was found (Kalshoven et al. 2013a). These studies suggest that ethical
leadership and ethical climate as well as other contextual moderators and antecedents form fruitful
avenues for future work.
have the right intentions show ethical leader behavior and be perceived as ethical by followers? Or
can less than all three of these be sufficient? And, if leader intentions are important, how can they be
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
better incorporated into measurement? Much of the knowledge in the field today is based on
follower perceptions of ethical leader behavior rather than actual behavior or intentions. Thus, we
currently probably know more about the ethical leader as a (perceived) moral manager than as
a moral person. In moral identity terms, perhaps symbolization and internalization are not
necessarily both needed for someone to be seen as an ethical leader by others, at least not for how
ethical leadership is currently measured. Given the conceptual centrality of the idea of integrity and
the moral person for ethical leadership, what does this mean for the construct? Should we dis-
tinguish more between symbolization and internalization elements of ethical leadership and
address their potentially different roles?
Also, as discussed above, there are several related leadership constructs, and although they are
conceptually distinct from ethical leadership, more empirical evidence about whether ethical
leadership has sufficient discriminant and incremental validity is needed. Reported correlations
of ethical leadership with related constructs are often high; thus, establishing discriminant
validity is a key challenge for the field. To reduce the risk of reinventing the wheel, more work is
also urgently needed on the incremental validity of ethical leadership in predicting outcomes
over and above what other leadership constructs have already been shown to predict. Relatedly,
it is not yet sufficiently clear which outcomes and correlates are more generally related to good
or effective leadership and which are more uniquely or strongly related specifically to leader
ethical behavior. For example, follower ethical cognitions and responsibility may be more
uniquely linked to ethical leadership, whereas relationship-oriented mechanisms such as psy-
chological safety or LMX may also occur for several other (people-oriented) leadership styles.
More work that incorporates multiple leadership styles and outcomes simultaneously can help
clarify this point.
There are also additional methodological challenges. A general challenge is that although there
is some experimental work, much of the current work is cross-sectional field work, leaving us with
too little knowledge to date on how the process unfolds over time and on the direction of causality.
Although much of the (un)ethical leadership research to date is correlational, longitudinal research
on the related construct of bullying shows that bullying lowers job satisfaction, rather than sat-
isfaction causing bullying (Rodriguez-Munoz et al. 2009). Studies with a similar longitudinal
design on (un)ethical leadership could develop more insight in how these (un)ethical leadership
processes unfold over time.
An example of a more specific methodological challenge relates to measurement of trust:
Several authors propose that the proximal outcome of trust might act as an important mediator
through which ethical leadership affects follower behaviors (e.g., Eisenbeiss 2012). However, trust
in the leader is also used as part of the construct and measurement of ethical leadership. Thus, some
Additionally, these leaders may at times come across to followers as too rigid. More research in this
area is needed.
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
The field also does not know enough about the effects of mixing ethical and unethical
behaviors, about indirect effects on observers, or about how differences between followers affect
the leadership process. Work by Mayer and colleagues (2013) suggests that future research should
consider the role of simultaneous social cues around ethical behavior sent by multiple social actors,
as employees are influenced by different parties. Also, it is important more generally to develop
insight in the active role of followers in shaping the ethical leadership process and its outcomes. In
addition, we do not yet know enough about cross-cultural differences or, more generally, about
how context affects the emergence, development, and effectiveness of ethical leadership.
Practical Implications
The research to date has several practical implications. Importantly, the available literature
strongly suggests that ethical leadership matters for organizations. For example, the research quite
consistently shows that if employees indicate that their leaders are ethical and fair role models who
communicate and reward ethical behavior, there is less deviance and more cooperative behavior,
and employees perform better and are more willing to both expend effort and report problems to
management. Thus, investing in ethical leader behavior may “pay off” in different ways. Of
course, this assumes that investments in behavioral training or leadership development are ap-
parent to followers and influence their perceptions accordingly. However, this may not auto-
matically be the case, as changing impressions is not easy. This again signals the importance of
studying both the behavior of the leader and the perceptions of followers in the ethical leadership
process. If followers do not perceive the changes in behavior, they will not react to them. Thus, as
with any leadership training, finding ways of embedding newly learned behavior into the context
and making it salient to followers may help effectiveness. Research on the effectiveness of different
forms of ethical leadership training could help our understanding in this area.
Another way in which one may invest in enhancing ethical leadership may be to select for the
traits and ethical characteristics that are found to be linked to displaying such leadership, such as
cognitive moral development, conscientiousness, and agreeableness or moral identity. Related
work suggests that investing in general ethical reasoning training for leaders may be another way
4
For example, the ELS of Brown et al. (2005) includes an item asking literally whether the respondent’s leader “can be trusted,”
which clearly overlaps with the respondent’s trust in the leader. Similarly, Yukl et al. (2013) measure ethical leadership with
items asking whether the respondent’s leader “can be trusted to carry out promises and commitment” and “is honest and can
be trusted to tell the truth.” Also, Kalshoven et al. (2011b) use the item the leader “can be trusted to do the things he/she says.”
feedback was less accurate and less useful. Research on this for ethical leadership is needed.
Also, as ethical leadership seems to cascade or trickle down the hierarchy (Mayer et al. 2009,
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
Schaubroeck et al. 2012), top managers should be made aware of their own roles in setting ethical
cultural values and in role modeling ethical behavior. One way to explicitly emphasize this im-
portant role is to set up coaching systems in which senior managers work with lower-level
managers and explicitly focus on enhancing ethical behavior. Mayer et al. (2013) suggest focusing
on ethical messages that are sent to employees from a broader set of actors—for example, not only
leaders, but also coworkers—and gearing the ethics training toward different groups, as this may
help everyone better understand how they in their own job roles can help safeguard and champion
ethics. Also, although the research on inconsistent leader behavior is still scarce, the first indi-
cations are that consistency in behavior is important. Thus, consistency may be another element to
cover in ethics training for leaders.
CONCLUSIONS
The ethical aspects of leadership in organizations currently receive a lot of attention. This rich field
of inquiry focuses on how leaders promote ethical conduct among followers and what the effects
of leaders’ fair, transparent, and socially responsible use of power are. Although progress is rapid,
challenges remain. Further theory development is needed—for example, around what is unique to
ethical leadership, the role of intentions, and the role of the context. Also, methodological
challenges around measurement, validity, and research designs need tackling. By working on all of
these, researchers can accelerate progress in our understanding of how ethical leadership can
stimulate ethical behavior throughout organizations.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Aquino K, Reed A II. 2002. The self-importance of moral identity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:1423–40
Aronson E. 2001. Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 18:244–56
Ashforth B. 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. Hum. Relat. 47:755–78
Avey JB, Palanski ME, Walumbwa FO. 2011. When leadership goes unnoticed: the moderating role of
follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and follower behavior. J. Bus.
Ethics 98:573–82
Bies RJ, Moag JS. 1986. Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness. In Research on Negotiation
in Organizations, ed. R Lewicki, BH Sheppard, MH Bazerman, pp. 43–55. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.
Bono JE, Judge TA. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis.
J. Appl. Psychol. 89:901–10
Brett JF, Atwater LE. 2001. 360° feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. J. Appl. Psychol.
86(5):930–42
Brown ME, Mitchell TR. 2010. Ethical and unethical leadership: exploring new avenues for future research.
Bus. Ethics Q. 20:583–616
Brown ME, Treviño LK. 2006. Ethical leadership: a review and future directions. Leadersh. Q. 17:595–616
Brown ME, Treviño LK, Harrison DA. 2005. Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct
development and testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 97:117–34
Burns JM. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row
Campbell WK, Hoffman BJ, Campbell CK, Marchisio G. 2011. Narcissism in organizational contexts. Hum.
Resour. Manag. Rev. 21:268–84
Chen X, Eberly MB, Chiang T, Farh J, Cheng B. 2014. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic
leadership to employee performance. J. Manag. 40:796–819
Ciulla JB. 2012. Ethics effectiveness: the nature of good leadership. In The Nature of Leadership, ed.
J Antonakis, DV Day, pp. 508–40. Los Angeles: Sage. 2nd ed.
Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter C, Ng KY. 2001. Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review
of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:425–45
Colquitt JA, Noe RA, Jackson CL. 2002. Justice in teams: antecedents and consequences of procedural justice
climate. Pers. Psychol. 55(1):83–109
Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR. 1992. Four ways five factors are basic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 13:653–65
Craig SB, Gustafson SB. 1998. Perceived leader integrity scale: an instrument for assessing employee per-
ceptions of leader integrity. Leadersh. Q. 9:127–45
Dasborough MT, Ashkanasy NM. 2002. Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader–member rela-
tionships. Leadersh. Q. 13:615–34
De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN. 2008. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social
responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: a multi-method study.
Leadersh. Q. 19:297–311
De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN. 2009a. Ethical leadership: the positive and responsible use of power. In
Power and Interdependence in Organizations, ed. D Tjosvold, B Wisse, pp. 338–54. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN. 2009b. Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships
of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 94(4):1058–67
Den Hartog DN, Belschak FD. 2012. Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership
process. J. Bus. Ethics 107:35–47
Den Hartog DN, De Hoogh AHB. 2009. Empowerment and leader fairness and integrity: studying ethical
leader behavior. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 18:199–230
23:791–808
Eisenbeiss SA, Brodbeck F. 2014. Ethical and unethical leadership: a cross-cultural and cross-sectoral analysis.
J. Bus. Ethics 122(2):343–59
Eisenbeiss SA, Giessner SR. 2012. The emergence and maintenance of ethical leadership in organizations:
a question of embeddedness? J. Pers. Psychol. 11(1):7–19
Feldman MS, Khademian AM. 2003. Empowerment and cascading vitality. In Positive Organizational
Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, ed. KS Cameron, JE Dutton, RE Quinn, pp. 343–58. San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler
Fry LW. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadersh. Q. 14:693–727
Gini A. 1998. Moral leadership and business ethics. In Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, ed. CB Ciulla,
pp. 27–45. Westport, CT: Quorum Books
Goldberg LR. 1990. An alternative description of personality: the Big Five factor structure. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 59:1216–29
Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
Leadersh. Q. 6:219–47
Greenleaf RK. 2002. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New
York: Paulist. 25th anniv. ed.
Hannah ST, Jennings PL, Bluhm D, Peng AC, Schaubroeck JM. 2014. Duty orientation: theoretical de-
velopment and preliminary construct testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 123:220–38
Hansen SD, Alge BJ, Brown ME, Jackson CL, Dunford BB. 2013. Ethical leadership: assessing the value of
a multifoci social exchange perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 115:435–49
Hassan S, Mahsud R, Yukl G, Prussia GE. 2013. Ethical and empowering leadership and leader effectiveness.
J. Manag. Stud. 28:133–46
Hoel HB, Glaso L, Hetland J, Cooper CL, Einarsen S. 2010. Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and
observed workplace bullying. Br. J. Manag. 21:453–68
Hoffman BJ, Strang SE, Kuhnert KW, Campbell WK, Kennedy CL, LoPilato AC. 2013. Leader narcissism and
ethical context: effects on ethical leadership and leader effectiveness. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 20:25–37
Hogg MA. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5:184–200
House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman P, Gupta V. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The
GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Howell JM. 1988. Two faces of charisma: socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In
Charismatic Leadership: The Illusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, ed. J Conger, R Kanungo,
pp. 213–36. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Howell JM, Shamir B. 2005. The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships and their
consequences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30:96–112
Jordan J, Brown ME, Treviño LK, Finkelstein S. 2013. Someone to look up to: executive–follower ethical
reasoning and perceptions of ethical leadership. J. Manag. 39:660–83
leadership. In Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 5, ed. WH Mobley, Y Wang, M Li, pp. 113–44.
Bingley, UK: Emerald
Rodriguez-Munoz A, Baillien E, De Witte H, Moreno-Jimenez B, Pastor JC. 2009. Cross-lagged relationships
between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and engagement: two longitudinal studies. Work Stress
23(3):225–43
Rubin RS, Dierdorff EC, Brown ME. 2010. Do ethical leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and
promotability. Bus. Ethics Q. 20:215–36
Schaubroeck JM, Hannah ST, Avolio BJ, Kozlowski SWJ, Lord RG, et al. 2012. Embedding ethical leadership
within and across organizational levels. Acad. Manag. J. 55:1053–78
Schyns B, Schilling J. 2013. How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership
and its outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 24(1):138–58
Sendjaya S, Pekerti A, Härtel C, Hirst G, Butarbutar I. 2014. Are authentic leaders always moral? The role of
Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadership and morality. J. Bus. Ethics In press.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2351-0
Shamir B, House R, Arthur MB. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based
theory. Organ. Sci. 4:577–91
Skarlicki D, Latham G. 1997. Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior
within a labor union: a replication. Pers. Psychol. 50:617–33
Skogstad A, Einarsen S, Torsheim T, Aasland MS, Hetland H. 2007. The destructiveness of laissez-faire
leadership behavior. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12(1):80–92
Stouten J, Van Dijke M, Mayer DM, De Cremer D, Euwema MC. 2013. Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The
curvilinear effects of ethical leadership. Leadersh. Q. 24:680–95
Tenbrunsel AE, Smith-Crowe K. 2008. Ethical decision making: where we’ve been and where we’re going.
Acad. Manag. Ann. 2:545–607
Tepper BJ. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 43:178–91
Tepper BJ. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research agenda. J. Manag.
33:261–89
Toor SR, Ofori G. 2009. Ethical leadership: examining the relationships with full range leadership model,
employee outcomes, and organizational culture. J. Bus. Ethics 90:533–47
Treviño LK, Brown M, Hartman LP. 2003. A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical lead-
ership: perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Hum. Relat. 56:5–37
Treviño LK, Hartman LP, Brown M. 2000. Moral person and moral manager: how executives develop
a reputation for ethical leadership. Calif. Manag. Rev. 42:128–42
Turner N, Barling J, Epitropaki O, Butcher V, Milder C. 2002. Transformational leadership and moral
reasoning. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:304–11
Victor B, Cullen JB. 1988. The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Adm. Sci. Q. 33:101–25
vi
Dynamics of Well-Being
Sabine Sonnentag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Low-Fidelity Simulations
Jeff A. Weekley, Ben Hawkes, Nigel Guenole, and Robert E. Ployhart . . . 295
Emotional Labor at a Crossroads: Where Do We Go from Here?
Alicia A. Grandey and Allison S. Gabriel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Supporting the Aging Workforce: A Review and Recommendations for
Workplace Intervention Research
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:409-434. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/
errata/orgpsych.
Contents vii
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:409-434. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University of Southern Australia on 10/05/18. For personal use only.