Making organizations more attractive for ethical applicants : the role of ethical leadership and the perceived fit between the supervisor and prospective employee

1

MSc. in Business Administration

Strategy Track

Master Thesis

Final Version

Making Organizations More Attractive for Ethical Applicants:

The Role of Ethical Leadership and the Perceived Fit Between the

Supervisor and Prospective Employee

Student: Mikel Becker, 11084472

University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor: Dr. ir. J.W. Jan-Willem Stoelhorst

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School Date of submission: 24.06.2016

2

Abstract

In the past years, unethical employee behavior (e.g. Dieselgate) has led to severe organizational problems. One way to combat such behavior and to increase ethical employee behaviors is by employing individuals with high moral character. This research examines if leadership styles have an influence on the organizational attractiveness of potential employees high in moral character. Additionally, it is tested if Person-Supervisor fit intervenes on the influence of leadership styles on organizational attractiveness. This was tested by presenting respondents a written description of an either ethical, hypocritical, neutral, or unethical leader, and assessing the respondents’ fit with the described leader, as well as their organizational attractiveness. Results indicate that ethical compared to unethical leaders are able to attract individuals higher in moral character. A further finding was that when individuals were confronted with the description of an ethical leader, their fit with the leader as well as their organizational attractiveness increased compared to the other leadership styles. The opposite was true for unethical leaders; person supervisor fit and organizational attractiveness were lower compared to the other leadership styles. This means that some leadership styles are superior to others in terms of attracting future employees. However, future research will need to find more reliable means to attract a higher percentage of potential employees with a high moral character.

Keywords: Ethical Leadership ∙ Hypocritical Leadership ∙ Neutral Leadership ∙ Unethical Leadership ∙ Moral Manager ∙ Moral Person ∙ Person-Supervisor Fit ∙ Organizational Attractiveness

Statement of originality

This document is written by student Mikel Becker who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references

have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

3

Content

2.2.1. Outcomes of Ethical Leadership ... 10

2.3. Moral Character ... 11

2.3.1. Elements of Moral Character ... 11

2.3.1.1. Motivation ... 12

2.3.1.2. Ability ... 13

2.3.1.3. Identity ... 13

2.4. Person-Supervisor fit ... 15

2.5. Literature Gap and Research Question ... 16

3. Conceptual Model ... 18 3.1. Direct Effect ... 18 3.2. Mediating Effect ... 20 3.3. Moderating Effect ... 21 4. Methodology ... 26 4.1. Research Design ... 26 4.2. Sample ... 28 4.3. Independent Variable ... 29 4.4. Dependent Variable ... 33 4.5. Mediating Variable ... 34

4.6. Manipulation/ Realism Check ... 36

4.7. Moderating Variable ... 37 4.8. Control Variables ... 40 5. Results ... 42 5.1. Data Cleaning ... 42 5.2. Reliability ... 42 5.3. Descriptive Statistics ... 44 5.4. Normality Analysis ... 46 5.5. Correlations Analysis ... 48

5.6. Manipulation/ Realism Analysis ... 51

5.7. ANCOVA ... 52

5.8. Regression Analysis ... 53

5.8.1. Moderation Robustness Check ... 62

6. Discussion ... 67

6.1. Main result ... 67

6.2. Additional Findings ... 69

6.3. Theoretical Implications ... 70

6.4. Practical Implications ... 72

6.5. Limitations and Future Research ... 73

7. Conclusion ... 75

8. References ... 76

9. Appendix A – Questionnaire ... 81

10. Appendix B – Normality Tests ... 101

11. Appendix C – ANCOVA Tests ... 109

4

1. Introduction

Everybody has heard of scandals in organizations due to their unethical behavior. The most current one in 2015 being the German car producer Volkswagen with their cheating software for diesel cars. Other famous examples for unethical behavior are Enron, Bernie Madoff, or MCI WorldCom. Other than tremendous reputational costs for the corresponding organization, unethical behavior inside organizations has further costs lowering social welfare. Some scholars approximate that due to unethical behavior the costs of e.g. absenteeism, health-care costs and the loss in productivity costs billions, for U.S. corporations alone (Detert et al. 2007; Tepper et al. 2006).

While the headlines are usually about the companies, the decisions leading to the scandal are made by the companies’ employees. One reason why employees might behave more unethical can be the industry they are working in. Cohn, Fehr and Maréchal (2014) suggest that working in the financial industry leads to less honest individual behaviors because of the specific business culture present in the financial industry. Whereas this is a rather descriptive approach to unethical behavior inside companies, a focus for organizations should be to not only eliminate unethical behavior, but also to increase ethical behavior among its employees. Research for example by Cohen et al. (2014) showed that employees with a high moral character are “better” workers and are less involved in destructive work behaviors than employees with a lower moral character. Thus, one way for organizations to reduce ethical scandals is to employ these individuals with a high moral character. Another stream of research found that ethical leaders have a positive influence on their subordinates in terms of ethical behavior and corporate citizenship behaviors (Brown and Treviño 2006; Brown, Treviño and Harrison 2005; Mayer et al. 2012). Looking back the organization’s challenge in increasing ethical conduct, previous research has focused on researching factors influencing the organizational attractiveness of organizations in general (Turban and Keon 1993; van Hoye and

5

Lievens 2007, 2009) without considering the “quality” of employees different mechanisms attract. One result of this research was, that a fit with the organization increases the potential employee’s attraction to it.

In this research, both above mentioned mechanisms able to increase the share of “better” employees in organizations are implemented to see if they have an effect on the organizational attractiveness of potential employees. More specifically, it is researched if ethical leaders compared to other leader types are able to increase the organizational attractiveness of potential employees. More importantly, if ethical leaders can increase the organizational attractiveness of potential employees higher in moral character compared to ones lower in moral character. Additionally, it is tested if the potential employee’s organizational attractiveness is mediated by the fit between the employee and the supervisor.

The structure of this paper is as follows: first, a literature review about organizational attractiveness, ethical leadership, moral character, and Person-Supervisor fit (PS fit) is given. The conceptual model including the hypotheses follows. The next chapter consists of the methodology including the implemented measurements. The last two parts consist of the results of this research and a discussion of those. In order to close the circle, a conclusion will be given in the end addressing the goals presented in the introduction.

6

2. Literature Review

This paper theorizes that leadership styles are able to influence organizational attractiveness. Furthermore, one assumption is that this link is stronger for individuals high in moral character versus individuals lower in moral character. Person-supervisor fit is one lens to look these assumptions (Kim and Kim 2013; Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson 2005; van Vianen, Shen and Chuang 2011). In order to gain an overview of past research on organizational attractiveness, ethical leadership, moral character, and Person-Supervisor fit, I will summarize the relevant results of it. The following paragraphs are structured in the following way: Firstly, it is shortly specified what factors make an organization attractive for prospective employees. Secondly, an overview of ethical leadership and its outcomes is given. Next, moral character and PS fit are introduced followed by the deduction of the research question.

2.1. Organizational Attractiveness

This section reviews the factors able to influence the prospective employee’s decision to join a company, also called organizational attractiveness (OA). Organizational attractiveness has been defined as “applicants’ willingness to pursue jobs and to accept job offers in an organization” (Tsai and Yang 2010, p. 49). Firstly, a short overview is given why organizations should pay attention to organizational attractiveness before looking at factors that potential employees take into consideration when applying for organizations.

For organizations it is more important than ever before to attract highly qualified employees in order to achieve a competitive advantage (Teece 1998; Turban and Greening 1997). A whole body of literature, the “knowledge-based view”, focuses on how organizations are able to create, and transfer knowledge (Glazer 1998; Grant 1996; Ruggles 1998). In order to do so, organizations will need highly skilled employees as a key resource to achieve a competitive advantage (Greening and Turban 2000). Not only will the aging population in many

7

western countries put even more stress on organizations to fill vacancies with adequate employees, but also the “war for talent” requires organizational investments in order to attract adequate employees (van Hoye and Lievens 2009). The literature on organizational attractiveness looks into what makes organizations attractive for prospective employees. The findings of this research are outlined below.

Greening and Turban (2000) found that corporate social performance (CSP) plays a role in attracting potential employees. They found that applicants are more attracted to organizations with a more positive CSP record than to organizations with a more negative CSP record. The authors argue that this is because the former organization represents values applicants look for in their employer, while organizations with a bad CSP record do not. One prerequisite however is that applicants have to know the CSP of an organization; if they do not, it does not influence the organizational attractiveness (Greening and Turban 2000). Another study by Turban (2001) indicated that recruitment activities at college campuses are able to indirectly influence the organizational attractiveness through “influencing knowledge of the firm and perceptions of vacancy characteristics” (Turban 2001, p. 306). Turban (2001) and Braddy, Meade and Kroustalis (2008) both found a correlation between organizational familiarity and organizational attractiveness. The latter also found that organizational attractiveness increases when potential applicants look at an organization’s recruiting website. Van Hoye and Lievens (2007) found that positive word of mouth, an influence factor that organizations can not directly manipulate, had a strong positive influence on organizational attractiveness. Rentsch and McEwen (2002) researched antecedents of organizational attractiveness; more specifically, they looked into how the fit of values, goals, and personal characteristics between persons and organizations influences organizational attractiveness. Their main finding was that a fit between either of these dimensions has an influence on organizational attractiveness. Their interpretation of the results is as follows: “it may not matter how the individual and the organization are similar, it matters simply that they are similar” (Rentsch and McEwen 2002, p. 231). Tsai and

8

Yang (2010) found that “that corporate images relevant to product, social and environmental responsibility, and credibility are important determinants of organizational attractiveness” (Tsai and Yang 2010, p. 59). Verbos et al. (2007) state that the organizational image as well as a positive view of others towards the organization is able to influence organizational attractiveness. One obvious factor influencing organizational attractiveness is the organization’s compensation system. Literature focusing on that topic, however, comes to different conclusions. The studies by Turban and Keon (1993) and Cable and Judge (1994) were conducted in the USA and came to the conclusion that senior students prefer pay per performance over seniority pay. Lievens et al. (2001) however found no connection between the pay mix and organizational attractiveness.

2.2. Ethical Leadership

As previously mentioned, prospective employees take a multitude of factors into account when looking for a job. To date, researchers have not investigated the effect of leadership style on organizational attractiveness. It is likely that during the application process the prospective applicant has a first look at the team and especially the leader he will be working with. It is also possible that the prospective applicant has heard about the team/ leader through word-of-mouth, which, as mentioned before, has significant influence on organizational attractiveness (van Hoye and Lievens 2009). Hence, the applicant will have a first experience of the prevailing leadership style in use.

In contrast to leadership styles like transactional or transformational leadership, ethical leadership is still in need of extensive research (Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber 2009; Brown and Treviño 2006; Den Hartog 2015). While there was already normative literature about ethical leadership, Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000; 2003) were one of the first to descriptively research the topic. Their qualitative research lead to a definition of an ethical leader that consists of two aspects: the “moral person” and the “moral manager” (Treviño,

9

Brown and Hartman 2000). A moral person consists of characteristics of the leader like integrity, trustworthiness, honesty, a concern for other people, holding to values, as well as following ethical decision rules (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000). The concept of a moral person is not new, and authentic, transformational, and spiritual leadership implement this aspect of ethical leadership (Mayer et al. 2009). What they lack is the aspect of the moral manager. A moral manager actively promotes ethical behavior not only by being an ethical role model himself but also by rewarding/sanctioning ethical/unethical behavior (Den Hartog 2015; Mayer et al. 2009; Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000). Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) identified four types of leaders based on the moral manager and moral person dimension. Ethical leaders are both a moral person and a moral manager. Hypocritical leaders are a moral manager but not a moral person. Neutral leaders are a moral person but not a moral manager. Unethical leaders are neither a moral person nor a moral manager. As research on ethical leadership progressed, Brown, Treviño and Harrison (2005) defined ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (p.120). A point of critique on this formulation is the term “normatively appropriate”, which they chose explicitly vague because the correct behavior is dependent on the context a person is in. Following Den Hartog (2015), this term is unclear on who sets this norms as they might be ethical to some, but unethical to others. Additionally, Eisenbeiss (2012) doubts that it is possible to define ethical leadership as “normative appropriate conduct” without stating any normative reference points that can evaluate such conduct.

10

2.2.1. Outcomes of Ethical Leadership

Research on ethical leadership has found some outcomes of ethical leadership. The ones important for potential employee’s organizational attractiveness will be portrayed in this paragraph.

During the application phase or through word of mouth the applicant will be directly or indirectly confronted with the outcomes of the leadership style in use. This can happen through the interaction with the leader or his employees, or through the interviewer presenting the team to the applicant. Brown, Treviño and Harrison (2005) state that employees with an ethical leader show a higher willingness to report a problem to the management. This can positively influence the organizational climate, which the prospective applicant will experience when e.g. having an interview. The organizational climate can also be influenced by the values of the leader (Grojean et al.). Neubert et al. (2009) found that ethical leaders influence the ethical climate and that it can lead to a higher organizational attraction for prospective applicants. Neubert et al. (2009) found that ethical leaders directly influence the employees’ job satisfaction as well as their organizational commitment. Employees satisfied with their jobs would give positive word-of-mouth rather than negative. Word-of-mouth is a company independent recruitment source able to significantly influence organizational attractiveness (van Hoye and Lievens 2007, 2009).

As I have shown, ethical leadership has the capability to have an influence on the organizational attractiveness of prospective employees. It is important to note that until this day, to my knowledge, no research exists examining the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational attractiveness.

11

2.3. Moral Character

One assumption underlying this study is that the more ethical behaving employees an organization has, the less ethical scandals will occur in the organization. In order to assess how ethical individuals behave, moral character is a good indicator (Cohen and Morse 2014). This section is based on Cohen and Morse (2014), who define moral character as “an individual’s disposition to think, feel, and behave in an ethical versus unethical manner, or as the subset of individual differences relevant to morality” (p.45). They see character as a collection of different traits, which has the benefit that moral character is relatively stable, able to change over time, and changes as individuals are confronted with different situations (Cohen and Morse 2014). This section consists of two parts. The first defines moral character and explains the three parts of it: the “motivational, ability, and identity elements” (Cohen and Morse 2014, p. 49). The second part shows the outcomes moral character has on the individuals’ ethical and workplace behavior.

2.3.1. Elements of Moral Character

Cohen and Morse (2014) propose a model of moral character consisting of three elements: motivation (“one’s desire to do good and avoid doing bad” (Cohen and Morse 2014, p. 49)), ability (“one’s capacity to do good and avoid doing bad” (Cohen and Morse 2014, p. 49)), and identity (“one’s identity as a good versus bad person” (Cohen and Morse 2014, p. 49)). Figure 1 gives an overview of the moral character model. In the following, each of these three elements is discussed.

12

Figure 1 Tripartite theoretical framework of moral character from Cohen and Morse (2014)

2.3.1.1. Motivation

This element of moral character takes the consideration of others into account. Taking others into account results in treating them in a more fair and considerable manner (Cohen and Morse 2014). Especially when working in a team this is important. A team member that does not consider the other members is most likely not going to be successful. The authors identified traits that relate to this topic. One is the honesty-humility dimension, one of the six dimensions of the HEXACO model, a framework depicting six dimension of human personality (Ashton and Lee 2007). The honesty-humility dimension states that the cooperation between individuals tends to be genuine and fair; the cooperation remains fair and genuine even if one party has the chance to exploit/ cheat the other party without fearing any consequences (Ashton and Lee 2007). Traits of an honest-humble person are that the person is fair, modest, and honest, whereas traits of a non-honest-humble person are that they are deceitful, greedy, and boastful (Cohen and Morse 2014; Hilbig, Glöckner and Zettler 2014; Hilbig and Zettler 2009; Zettler, Hilbig and Heydasch 2013). Another trait is Machiavellianism that is closely related to traits of individuals with a low level of honesty-humility (Cohen and Morse 2014). Such people do not consider other individuals, as they tend to deceive and manipulate them (Christie and Geis 1970). As it can be seen in Cohen et al. (2014), Machiavellianism has negative effects on work behavior and a positive influence on unethical behavior.

13

2.3.1.2. Ability

This element of moral character considers the self-regulation. More specifically, it considers the individual’s ability to refrain from unethical behavior, and to act ethically (Cohen and Morse 2014). Ability, like motivation before, is comprised of traits, one of them being conscientiousness. This is another of the six dimensions of the HEXACO model (Ashton and Lee 2007). A conscientious individual is dependable, self-disciplined, and careful whereas a non-conscientious individual is irresponsible, lazy, and disorganized (Cohen and Morse 2014). Conscientiousness has been linked as an indicator to job performance, and to counterproductive behaviors (CWB) (Cohen and Morse 2014). Another trait is control. In this context, self-control means that individuals forfeit short term benefits in order to achieve long term goals (Baumeister, Vohs and Tice 2007). Cohen et al. (2014) showed that high levels of self-control are associated with organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) whereas the lack of it increases the chance of counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). CWBs are the contrary to OCB, they are behaviors harming organizations, its efficiency, and the people affected by it (Cohen and Morse 2014).

2.3.1.3. Identity

This element of moral character states that morality is an important part of one’s self-concept (Cohen and Morse 2014). More specifically, it considers the individual’s worry of being and viewing themselves as a moral person (Cohen and Morse 2014). Two models of moral identity will be shown: one considers it from a trait perspective (Aquino and Reed 2002; Cohen and Morse 2014) as the two dimensions before, and the other one from a social-cognitive perspective (Aquino et al. 2009). In the first model the internalization of moral identity is the main component of identity (Aquino and Reed 2002). This means that for individuals with a high internalization of moral identity it is more important to see themselves as a moral person than individuals with a low internalization of moral identity (Cohen and Morse 2014). Aquino

14

and Reed (2002) identified nine traits that are linked to the character of a moral person. Cohen and Morse (2014) argue that these nine traits are associated to people with high internalized moral identities. The nine traits are “caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind” (Aquino and Reed 2002, p. 1426). Furthermore, an individual with a high internalization of moral identity strives to be hardworking and generous (Cohen et al. 2014). The social-cognitive model looks at moral identity from a different perspective that enriches the first ones. The main difference of Aquino et al.’s (2009) model is that the situation an individual is in affects how moral identity influences moral behavior. They state that depending on the situation, different parts of the moral identity are available (Aquino et al. 2009). For example, different workplace situations, and rewards/ sanctions influence the situation a person is in, thus triggering different moral identities resulting in different moral behaviors. It has been shown that a highly internalized moral identity is able to reduce CWB and to increase OCB (Aquino et al. 2009; Aquino and Reed 2002; Cohen et al. 2014; Gino et al. 2011).

To sum up, moral character consists of three pillars: consideration of others, self-regulation, and moral identity. It is likely that highly moral persons reach high levels on all dimensions, whereas highly immoral persons only reach low levels. Moral character is still in need of further research and to date it is unknown how the different dimensions interact with each other and influence behavior, e.g. would a high level on moral identity compensate for a low level on consideration of others? This gap manifests in the fact that there is no commonly accepted test to measure moral character. It is also not known what traits moral character is exactly made of. It might be the ones identified by Cohen and Morse (2014), but it could also be that there are more, less, or completely different traits (Cohen et al. 2014)

15

2.4. Person-Supervisor fit

Person-Environment (PE) fit is defined as “the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched” (Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson 2005, p. 281). PE fit is a multidimensional construct (Chuang, Shen and Judge 2016) that is made up of the following commonly accepted fits: Person-Organization fit (PO), Person-Job fit (PJ), and Person-Group fit (PG) (Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson 2005). As this paper examines if leadership styles have an influence on the organizational attractiveness of prospective employees, a fit is needed that does not look at the organizational level like PO fit, but at the individual level. For this study, Person-Supervisor (PS) fit is considered, as it looks at the individual level between an employee and its supervisor. When considering PS fit, the environment is represented by the personal characteristics of the supervisor (Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson 2005). The general claim of PS fit is that persons are more attracted to persons who are more similar to them (Kim and Kim 2013). According to Kim and Kim (2013), PS fit is a specific case of PO fit; van Vianen, Shen and Chuang (2011) state that employees distinguish between PS and PO fit perceptions and that supervisors are very important for the development of an organizational culture. They also found that a strong perceived PS fit facilitates employee’s commitment to the organization as a whole (van Vianen, Shen and Chuang 2011, p. 920). PS fit can be achieved through value congruence (Colbert 2004), personality similarity (Schaubroeck and Lam 2002), goal congruence (La Witt 1998), lifestyle (DiMarco 1975), and leadership style (Chuang, Judge and Liaw 2012).

16

2.5. Literature Gap and Research Question

I started with introducing factors influencing organizational attractiveness. If an organization is more attractive for prospective employees, chances are higher that they might choose to work for this company instead of less attractive companies. A higher organizational attractiveness is beneficial for the organization itself, as more people will consider working for it, giving the organization the opportunity to choose candidates that best fit the organization’s goals, philosophy, etc. The next topic related to ethical leadership and the positive effects of it on the subordinates’ behavior, especially OCB. Even though literature exists about the effects ethical leadership has on subordinates (Brown and Treviño 2006; Den Hartog 2015), the current literature has not yet considered if ethical leadership influences organizational attractiveness of individuals outside the organization.

Imagining a fictive potential employee informed about his potential team leader, it seems unlikely that the employee will stop considering an application if the fit between him and the leader is sufficiently high. As ethical leaders are normatively more attractive to employees than hypocritical, neutral, or unethical leaders, potential employees should have a higher fit with them and pursue an application with the organization. If for some reasons the fit is low, it seems unlikely that the potential employee is going to apply for the organization. Considering PS fit, it seems logical that leadership styles do not only directly influence organizational attractiveness, but also influence it through the perceived fit with the leader.

Adding the fact that people differ in their level of moral character, a more fine-grained view point is possible. If there are individuals with different levels of moral character, it is interesting to see if that has an influence on the perceived fit level between them and the potential supervisor. One example is to research if prospective employees higher in moral character have a lower fit with the supervisor than ones with lower moral character when they

17

are confronted with information about a hypocritical leader. Considering all these arguments the following research questions emerge:

Do leadership styles influence the organizational attractiveness of prospective employees, and is this relationship mediated by the fit between the prospective leader and employee? Is the relationship between the leadership styles and the perceived supervisor fit moderated by the prospective employee’s moral character?

18

3. Conceptual Model

This section consists of three parts and develops several hypotheses to test the research question. The first part hypothesizes a positive direct influence of leadership styles on organizational attractiveness. The second part hypothesizes that the influence of leadership styles on organizational attractiveness is mediated by Person-Supervisor fit. The third part includes moral character and hypothesizes that the influence of leadership styles on organizational attractiveness varies depending on the prospective employees’ level of moral character.

3.1. Direct Effect

The before mentioned outcomes of ethical leadership such as a good organizational climate, and positive word-of-mouth should have a positive influence on organizational attractiveness (Neubert et al. 2009; van Hoye and Lievens 2007, 2009). Especially word-of-mouth has a strong influence on organizational attractiveness, and given that ethical leaders demonstrate “normatively appropriate conduct” (Brown, Treviño and Harrison 2005, p. 120; van Hoye and Lievens 2009), word-of-mouth for organizations employing ethical leaders should be more positive than for organizations employing unethical/ neutral/ hypocritical leaders.

Brown and Treviño (2006, p. 609) give the advice that “organizations should signal that they value ethical leadership during the recruiting process”. It is important to know the context of that quote. The authors were looking for approaches on how to attract ethical leaders, which narrows the generalizability of this statement down. They were giving the real life example of an accounting student applying at accounting firms. If the firms were morally mute, not mentioning ethics during the application process, she did not further consider these companies. This example shows that ethical leadership can be able to increase organizational attractiveness.

19

Greening and Turban (2000) found that Corporate Social Performance (CSP) has a positive influence on organizational attractiveness. They see CSP as the firm’s responsibility to not only consider shareholders but also other stakeholders (Greening and Turban 2000). Wood (1991) states that the underlying idea of CSP is “that business and society are interwoven rather than distinct entities” (Wood 1991, p. 695). According to Brown and Treviño (2006), when ethical leaders make decisions, they also consider their stakeholders’ needs. Over time, the ethical leader(s) in the organization should be able to build up a positive CSP record for their team/organization which then, according to Greening and Turban (2000), increases the organization’s attractiveness. From this argumentation, it can be concluded that organizational attractiveness for ethical leadership will be high, while it will be low for unethical leadership. This means that ethical leadership generally scores higher on organizational attractiveness than hypocritical, neutral, or unethical leadership. The reverse is true for unethical leadership.

While there is a clear differentiation in terms of OA for the both extreme leadership cases compared to the other three respective styles, a differentiation between neutral and hypocritical leadership is more difficult. During their qualitative research, Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) found that half of all executives they talked to did not acknowledge the existence of an ethically neutral leader, while there was no such occurrence with hypocritical leaders. Considering a prospective individual acknowledges the neutral leader’s existence, the ethical neutral leader should generally be more attractive than the hypocritical leader as the latter does not live by his words; this leader preaches ethical behavior but does not conduct the own behavior in an ethical way (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000). A neutral leader may not preach ethical values, but behaves in an ethical way resulting in no discrepancy between actions and behavior (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000). Thus, from a theoretical point of view neutral leadership should score higher on organizational attractiveness than hypocritical leadership. From a more practical viewpoint however, results from Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) suggest that neutral leadership might not exist. This could mean that

20

prospective employees will not see a difference between neutral and hypocritical leadership. This research follows the theoretical argumentation. As the literature to date has not yet considered the direct effect of leadership styles on organizational attractiveness, I state the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Organizational attractiveness is highest for ethical leadership and second highest for neutral leadership. Organizational attractiveness for hypocritical leadership is lower than for neutral leadership, but higher compared to unethical leadership. This results in the following ranking of leadership styles based on organizational attractiveness: 1) Ethical Leadership 2) Neutral Leadership 3) Hypocritical Leadership 4) Unethical Leadership

3.2. Mediating Effect

I hypothesize that the relationship between ethical, hypocritical, neutral, unethical leadership and organizational attractiveness is mediated by Person Supervisor fit. Chuang, Shen and Judge (2016) state that, based on interpersonal attraction theory (Huston and Levinger 1978), a person is attracted to another person if they share characteristics. To date, research on PS fit has identified five characteristics that are relevant for such an attraction: values, work style, personality, lifestyle, and leadership style (Chuang, Shen and Judge 2016). If a prospective employee is attracted to a supervisor by having congruent characteristics, PS fit and thus OA are higher compared to dyads with a lower fit. Applying PS fit to the context of this research, the more characteristics of the prospective employee and supervisor are similar, the greater the fit should be. For example, if the prospective employee favors a specific leadership style and the supervisor is using a different one, then fit is low and thus organizational

21

attractiveness is low, too. The same can be argued for the other four characteristics of PS fit (Chuang, Shen and Judge 2016).

Following this argumentation, this hypothesis emerges:

Hypothesis 2: Person-Supervisor fit mediates the relationship between leadership styles and organizational attractiveness

3.3. Moderating Effect

As mentioned before, Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) identify four different leadership styles based on the moral manager and moral person dimension, and the previous parts suggested a ranking of these leadership styles based on OA. Because of mediation, this ranking should remain the same if PS fit instead of OA is considered. Hypothesis 2 stated that if a prospective employee perceives a high fit with the leader, organizational attractiveness is higher compared to a lower fit with the leader. This part looks into how moral character of prospective employees influences this relationship.

Toor and Ofori (2009) found that ethical leadership is significantly positive related with transformational leadership. This confirms the findings of Luthans and Avolio (2003, p. 4), who hypothesized that authentic leadership could be the “root construct” that incorporates “charismatic, transformational, integrity and/or ethical leadership”. Combining these findings with the ones of Bass and Steidlmeier (1999), who found that high moral character is part of authentic transformational leaders, it can be concluded that high moral character is likely an important part of being an ethical leader. Considering PS fit (Kim and Kim 2013; Kristof‐ Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson 2005; van Vianen, Shen and Chuang 2011), prospective employees with high moral character are strongly attracted to ethical leaders as there should be a strong congruence in the values, and personality dimension of PS fit. Considering prospective employees lower in moral character, the congruence with PS fit dimensions should be lower and thus PS fit and OA are lower for prospective individuals lower in moral character. This

22

means that for ethical leadership a high moral character enhances its effect on PS fit. Considering the other extreme, unethical leadership scores low on PS fit compared to other levels (cf. Hypothesis 1+2). For higher levels of moral character this effect will be stronger. The reasoning is as follows: Prospective employees with a high level of moral character will not have many congruencies in values, goals, and personality, which leads to a low PS fit (Chuang, Shen and Judge 2016). An individual with a lower moral character will have a greater congruence on PS fit dimensions, and thus PS fit is higher for low moral character individuals confronted with an unethical leader. A further argument for unethical leadership can be found when adding insights on unethical leadership from Brown and Mitchell (2010). They propose a definition of unethical leadership that goes beyond the moral manager/ moral person dimension which is defined as “as behaviors conducted and decisions made by organizational leaders that are illegal and/or violate moral standards, and those that impose processes and structures that promote unethical conduct by followers” (Brown and Mitchell 2010, p. 588). Following this definition of unethical leadership (Brown and Mitchell 2010), such unethical leader behaviors can be:

 Promoting unethical incentive systems that may be good for the organization but bad for the clients/ stakeholders

 Implementing processes that trigger/ reward unethical employee’ behavior As these behaviors can be in favor for prospective employees lower in moral character compared to ones higher in moral character, PS fit should be lower for prospective employees higher in moral character than for individuals lower in moral character.

Considering hypocritical leadership, Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) stated that employees distrust everything a hypocritical leader (moral manager/ no moral person) says. They also state that if subordinates perceive that the leader is not following the ethical standards he preaches, then the subordinates feel that they do not have to follow them (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000). Considering PS fit (Kim and Kim 2013; Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman and

23

Johnson 2005; van Vianen, Shen and Chuang 2011), it seems likely that people high in moral character feel a low fit with hypocritical leaders. This is because these leaders talk about and promote ethical values in the job, but do not follow them, a trait that is not in accordance with individuals high in moral character (Cohen and Morse 2014; Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000). Furthermore, individuals high in moral character should score high on conscientiousness, a personality factor indicative of moral character (Cohen et al. 2014; Cohen and Morse 2014). For highly conscientious individuals, it is important to stick to their moral principles (Costa and MacCrae 1992) and they can be described by the following three attributes: “exercise self-control, carefully plan, are well organized and reliable” (Brown and Treviño 2006, p. 603). Considering PS fit, it is important for individuals high in moral character that the supervisor “walks the talk” and not only “talks the talk”. Individuals lower in moral character should consequently score lower on conscientiousness and care less if the potential supervisor “walks the talk” or not. This means that in the case of hypocritical leadership, PS fit is higher for low levels of moral character compared to individuals higher in moral character. As in Hypothesis 1, the argumentation for neutral leadership will be based on the theoretical, rather than on the practical arguments. Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) state that neutral leaders are essentially a moral person that does not actively promote ethical behavior. One assumption for the following explanation is that the individual knows that the leader is a moral person. Considering this, individuals high in moral character should have congruencies on some PS fit dimensions. Especially on the value, lifestyle, personality dimension congruency should be high. As a neutral leader is not a moral manager, a fit between the goal and leadership dimension will most likely be small. For individuals lower in moral character, the overall fit with neutral leaders will be smaller as a fit on the value, lifestyle, and personality dimension will definitely be smaller compared to a high level of moral character. While the fit between goals and leadership might be higher, it does not compensate the lower fit with the former three.

24

Thus, individuals higher in moral character have higher PS fit towards neutral leaders compared to individuals lower in moral character.

Combining the above argumentation, the following hypothesis emerges:

Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between leadership styles and PS fit is moderated by moral character, so that this relationship is stronger for higher values of moral character

A visual aid for the moderation hypothesis can be found in Figure 2. This figure only shows how a high or low moral character influences PS fit perceptions. It is only a simplification of the hypothesis, as the hypothesis does not only use two points of an individual’s moral character, but it uses a continuous variable to measure it.

Figure 2 Visual Aid for the Moderation Hypothesis.

Based on these three hypotheses, the following conceptual model can be drawn Figure 3:

25

26

4. Methodology

In this chapter, the research approach and design are elaborated. For this research two instruments are used, vignettes and a survey. After discussing these, this section follows by defining the sample and the operationalization of the independent, dependent, manipulation/realism check, mediating, moderating, and control variable. The survey can be found in Appendix A – Questionnaire.

4.1. Research Design

The research techniques in this paper are composed of the following instruments: the first one consists of experimental vignettes to manipulate different levels of leadership style, and scales measuring PS fit as well as organizational attractiveness. Lastly, questions were added in order to find out if the vignettes’ manipulation was successful and if the vignettes were realistic. The second instrument consists of a survey. It includes two scales assessing moral character and is also used to collect the following personal information about the participants: age, gender, country of origin, field of study, stage of study, and previous job experience. A between subject design is chosen, which means that respondents are split up into four groups and each group is presented an experimental vignette depicting a scenario where one of the four leadership styles is shown. This is used to test the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The PS fit measurement is used to asses to which degree PS fit mediates the relationship between the independent and the dependent variable. The two scales assessing moral character are used to test if moral character has a moderating effect on the relationship between leadership style and PS fit.

Experimental vignettes are used to test the hypotheses (Aguinis and Bradley 2014; Atzmüller and Steiner 2010). Experiments with vignettes are also known as “factorial survey” (Hox, Kreft and Hermkens 1991; Ludwick and Zeller 2001). Vignettes build on components of classical experiments as well as surveys. By doing so vignettes eliminate some weaknesses of

27

the two approaches. Surveys have a high external but low internal validity and experiments a low external but high internal validity (Atzmüller and Steiner 2010). By combining the two approaches, vignettes try to solve this problem. Atzmüller and Steiner (2010, p. 128) define vignettes as “a short, carefully constructed description of a person, object, or situation, representing a systematic combination of characteristics”. They are used to elicit judgements, behaviors, or attitudes from participants confronted with the situation depicted in the vignette (Ludwick and Zeller 2001). Aguinis and Bradley (2014, p. 352) describe the experimental vignette methodology as realistic scenarios that are able to influence the dependent variable “including intentions, attitudes, and behaviors”. Compared to a traditional survey, vignettes are able to include several contextual and explanatory factors making it more realistic for respondents (Atzmüller and Steiner 2010). Vignettes can be presented in many different forms, for example as text, audio, video, or a combination of them (Aguinis and Bradley 2014; Atzmüller and Steiner 2010). This study makes use of written vignettes, as including other elements would be too costly and written vignettes are easier to distribute (Aguinis and Bradley 2014; Ludwick and Zeller 2001).

Like all methods, vignettes have some drawbacks. In some cases the hypothetical scenario depicted in the vignette cannot create the same context as in “real life” (Lohrke, Holloway and Woolley 2010). If important contextual factors cannot sufficiently be replicated in the vignette, then it should not be used (Aguinis and Bradley 2014). Another drawback can be that the vignette does not properly describe the situation which leads to a lower generalizability to the “real world” (Ludwick and Zeller 2001). Despite these drawbacks, for the purpose of this study vignettes are the preferred choice as they can implement different contextual factors and elicit judgements of participants (Atzmüller and Steiner 2010; Ludwick and Zeller 2001).

Atzmüller and Steiner (2010, p. 128) state that a quantitative vignette study comprises two parts: the vignettes as the main part, and a supplementary traditional survey assessing “additional respondent-specific characteristics”. A survey questionnaire was used to collect

28

information about the respondents: indicators for respondent’s moral character, and control variables.

The vignettes together with the survey were distributed via different electronic channels like e-mail, and Facebook. This distribution method has the advantage that it allows a flexible and fast distribution while at the same time being cost efficient. One disadvantage of this method may be that the target audience does not have access to internet; however, as the target audience are students and they should have access to a personal computer with internet connection this potential disadvantage can be ignored.

4.2. Sample

The population for this research are all people looking to enter the job market in the near future. Because of a great variation of different characteristics like education level, age, and job experience, only a sample of this population will be researched. Previous studies measuring organizational attractiveness have used student samples, as they are a group of individuals that will most likely soon enter the job market (Lievens et al. 2001; Luce, Barber and Hillman 2001; Turban 2001; van Hoye and Lievens 2007). Like these and other authors, I will base my research on students. A current study by Deloitte (2016) showed that 66% of the millennials with an academic background have intentions to leave their organization by 2020. Thus, millennials are added to the sample, as chances are high that they will soon be looking for a new job or are already looking for one. One disadvantage is, that this results in a homogenous sample regarding the distribution of age, education, and job experience. A non-probability convenience sample is used. Bhal and Dadhich (2011) conducted two 2x2 studies using ethical and unethical leadership vignettes combined with other factors. For each study they had a sample size of about 80 students and divided them into four groups of about roughly the same size. This results in about 20 respondents per group. This research design also consists of four

29

groups, however a sample size of only 20 respondents per group is very small, which is the reason why the sample size goal is to have at least between 40 and 50 respondents per group.

This sample comes with some limitations. One disadvantage is that this results in quite a homogenous sample regarding the distribution of age, education, and job experience. Secondly, this sample does not allow generalization to the entire population. In addition, the vignettes and surveys are written in English, and English is most likely not the mother tongue for most of the respondents, thus some misunderstandings could arise. However, all students should have completed several English courses in high school/ university and generally the English level of students should be high enough to complete the vignette and surveys, as they make use of an easily understandable writing style.

4.3. Independent Variable

The independent variable in this research is leadership styles, which is manipulated in order to test its influence on the dependent variable, organizational attractiveness. Each vignette describes a different degree of leadership style based on the moral person/ moral manager distribution (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000). There will be four vignettes in total: one each for ethical, hypocritical, neutral, and unethical leaders. After seeing the vignette, the respondent has to evaluate organizational attractiveness, PS fit, and complete a manipulation and realism check.

Vignettes describing ethical and unethical leadership have already been used by Bhal and Dadhich (2011). Their vignettes are based on the ten items Brown, Treviño and Harrison (2005) identified for their ethical leadership scale (ELS). The vignettes are as follows:

30

(Un)Ethical Leadership (Bhal and Dadhich 2011)

“You are working with a leader X. X is a person who can (not) be trusted (does not make) makes fair and balanced decisions & (does not conduct) conducts personal life in an ethical manner. X defines success not just by result but also by emphasizing on the process (X defines success only in terms of results without any concern for how the results are achieved). X also takes (does not take) opinion of others before making any decision. X listens (does not listen) to the employees and disciplines (does not discipline) those who violate ethical standards. X sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics. X has the best interest of employees in mind & discusses business ethics and values with the employees (Doesn’t care about the employees and never talks about business ethics or values with employees).”

Table 1 Vignettes of Ethical and Unethical Leadership by Bhal and Dadhich (2011). Items in parentheses describe the unethical leader condition

In my opinion. the vignettes they used are not optimally suited to describe ethical and unethical leadership as they simply add all ten statements from the ethical leadership scale (ELS) (Brown, Treviño and Harrison 2005), which results in two very extreme vignettes where the outcome can be predicted with a high certainty. However, as to my knowledge these are the only published vignettes for ethical and unethical leadership, they will be used as a starting point. Based on them, I analyze which parts relate to the moral person or the moral manager dimension of an ethical leader as introduced by Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) and further developed by other authors. As the items in the vignettes are simply the items from the ELS, I link these ten items to the moral manager or moral person dimension. Secondly, I add further points to the respective dimensions in order to construct the vignettes for the survey.

# ELS-item Dimension Reference/ Relates to

1 Listens to what employees have

to say Moral Person

(Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000)

2 Conducts his/her personal life in

an ethical manner Moral Person

(Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000)

3 Has the best interests of

employees in mind Moral Person

(Den Hartog 2015) (Brown, Treviño and Harrison 2005)

4 Makes fair and balanced

decisions Moral Person

(Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000)

31

5 Can be trusted Moral Person (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000)

6 Disciplines employees who

violate ethical standards Moral Manager

(Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000)

7 Discusses business ethics or

values with employees Moral Manager

(Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000)

8

Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics

Moral Manager (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000)

9

Defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained

Moral Manager (Mayer et al. 2012)

10 When making decisions, asks _{“what is the right thing to do?”} Moral Manager (Mayer et al. 2012)

Table 2 Assignment of Moral Person/ Manager dimension to the ELS items. The last column shows on which reference this allocation is based

In previous literature, the ten items from the ELS have not been divided into the moral person/ moral manager dimension yet, which is why I will explain the reasoning behind this division. As stated before, Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) divide ethical leadership into two dimensions. The moral person and the moral manager dimension. The moral person dimension is further divided into three subgroups to which some of the items from the ELS can be linked. The three groups are traits, behaviors, and decision-making. For each of these groups the authors identified attributes that can be linked to a moral person. A more detailed overview can be found in Figure 4. Based on their work the following items are related to the moral person dimension: “Conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner”, “Makes fair and balanced decisions”, and “Can be trusted”. “Listens to what employees have to say” also relates to the moral person dimension because Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000) state that ethical leaders are open. They say that an open leader is “approachable and a good listener” (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000, p. 132). It does not belong to the moral manager dimension because listening is rather an individual behavior than managing ethical conduct among subordinates. “Has the best interests of employees in mind” is difficult to categorize. It certainly does not fit

32

into the moral manager dimension as it is not a way to promote ethical conduct in the workplace (Den Hartog 2015). It can relate to “a concern for others” (Den Hartog 2015, p. 411) but it can be argued that “best interest” and “concern” are two different things. Further considering the definition by Den Hartog (2015, p. 411) that the moral person dimension “refers to qualities of the ethical leader as a person at work and beyond”, I argue that having the best interest in mind is a quality of a person and hence should be linked to the moral person dimension of an ethical leader. Two additional variables describing a moral person are honesty, and considering the consequences when making a decision (Den Hartog 2015; Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2000). These two characteristics of a moral person are added to the previously discussed factors of a moral person.

Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2000, p. 131) also divide the moral manager dimension into three subgroups: “role modeling through visible action”, “rewards and discipline”, and “communicating about ethics and values” Figure 4. Based on their work, the following ELS items are related to the moral manger dimension: “Discusses business ethics or values with employees”, and “Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics”. “Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards” also belongs to the category but will be expanded with the attribute that the moral manager also uses rewards to promote ethical standards. Mayer et al. (2012) link “Defines success not just by results but also the way that

33

they are obtained” and “When making decisions, asks “what is the right thing to do?” to the moral manager dimension. The vignettes can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 4 The Two Pillars of Ethical Leadership from Trevino, Brown, and Hartman (2000)

4.4. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this research is organizational attractiveness. The measurement for the dependent variable consists of five elements rated on a seven-point Likert scale. The scale starts at 1 (completely disagree) and goes to 7 (completely agree) (van Hoye and Lievens 2007). This measurement was adopted from Turban and Keon (1993) and was also used by van Hoye and Lievens (2007) as it has a high reliability (α=0,95). These are the five items measuring the extent to which subjects

# Organizational Attractiveness Items

1 would exert a great deal of effort to work for this company 2 were interested in pursuing their application with the company 3 would like to work for the company

34 4 would accept a job offer

5 were no longer interested in the company except as a last resort (reversed)

Table 3 Organizational Attractiveness Items from Turban and Keon (1993)

In order to operationalize these items for the survey, they were reworded into questions which can be found in Appendix A – Questionnaire.

4.5. Mediating Variable

After answering the questions related to OA, participants were asked to answer some questions related to PS fit, which is the mediating variable in this research. As mentioned before, PS fit represents the similarities between an employee and its supervisor (Chuang, Shen and Judge 2016; Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson 2005). Putting it in other words, if the employee and supervisor have many things in common, they “fit” each other; they are more attracted to each other. In the past, researchers used the Person Organization (PO) fit scales of Cable and DeRue (2002) to measure PS fit (e.g. Hoffman et al. 2011). Their PO fit scale consists of three questions regarding values. In order to operationalize the PO fit scale for PS fit measures, the word “organization” was replaced by “supervisor”. As Chuang, Shen and Judge (2016) correctly state, a lot of research has been done since Cable and DeRue (2002) developed their PO fit scale, and PS fit comprises more than just the congruence of values. Previous work on PS fit has researched values (Hoffman et al. 2011), personality (Schaubroeck and Lam 2002), work style (Turban and Jones 1988), lifestyle (DiMarco 1975), and leadership style (Chuang, Judge and Liaw 2012). Chuang, Shen and Judge (2016) use these five dimensions in order to create a PS fit scale. Their Person-Supervisor Fit Scale (PSFS) is part of the Perceived Person–Environment Fit Scale, which combines several fit scales. The PSFS consists of five items representing the five before mentioned dimensions. The PSFS is meant to evaluate fit in real life settings. As the participants in this study are confronted with vignettes depicting different leadership styles, some of the five items need to be left out as they are not covered by the vignettes. A downside of this fit is that it examines the fit between the actual supervisors

35

and employees, while this study researches the fit between prospective employees and potential supervisors who have only met briefly, if it all. The five items of the PSFS (Chuang, Shen and Judge 2016) are listed in Table 4 and the last two items will not be used in this study:

# Person Supervisor Fit Item

1 How would you describe the match between your supervisor’s leadership style and the leadership style you desire?

2 How would you describe the match between your personality and your supervisor’s personality?

3 How would you describe the match between the things you value in life and the things your supervisor values?

4 How would you describe the match between your work style and your supervisor’s work style?

5 How would you describe the match between your lifestyle and your supervisor’s lifestyle?

Table 4 Person-Supervisor Fit Scale items from Chuang, Shen and Judge (2016). The italic items are not used in this study

As the vignettes depict different leadership styles based on the moral manager/ moral person distribution, the first question regarding the match of the leadership style is highly relevant for this study. The moral person section of the vignettes depicts personal traits of the supervisor on which the participants are able to derive the supervisor’s personality. Thus, the second question is also relevant for this study. The third question regarding things the supervisor values in life overlaps with the moral person section of the vignettes. However, most of the items describing a moral person are related to the person in a work setting and not in a life setting. As supervisors might behave differently in work and life settings, this item needs to be analyzed with care. Nonetheless, this item is considered in the survey. The vignettes do not depict the supervisor’s work style, thus the fourth question is omitted. As the vignettes do not depict how the supervisor lives, the fifth question regarding lifestyle is omitted. Summarizing, out of the five questions of the PSFS, three of them are used for this survey.

36

4.6. Manipulation/ Realism Check

Following the PS fit measures, three additional statements are added that serve as a manipulation check. These statements are important, as they help to verify if the manipulation of the moral person/ moral manager dimension has been successful. One statement specifically asks how the participants view the supervisor in terms of moral person and the other statement asks how they view the supervisor in terms of a moral manager. A third combines these two dimension. In order to do so, four different statements are used; one for each specific leadership style. Each of them describes the basic message of the moral person and moral manager dimension of each leadership style. The specific wording of the statements is as follows and is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. The two general statements can be found in Table 5 and the leadership style specific statements can be found in Table 6. For example, a respondent in the neutral leadership condition has to rate both manipulation check items outlined in Table 5 plus the manipulation check item in Table 6 relating to neutral leadership.

# Manipulation Check Items 1 “X is a moral person”

2 “X, in his role as a manager, promotes ethical behavior among employees”

Table 5 Manipulation Question regardless of vignette

Leadership Style Manipulation Check Items

Ethical Leadership X has high moral values and promotes ethical behavior among employees

Hypocritical Leadership X has low moral values but does promote ethical behavior among employees

Neutral Leadership X has high moral values but does not promote ethical behavior among employees

Unethical Leadership X has low moral values and does not promote ethical behavior among employees

37

Following the manipulation check, a realism check is conducted. This evaluates if the situation described in the vignette is realistic for the participants. In this survey, realism is retrieved with one item. The specific wording is as follows and is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.

# Realism Check Item

1 “I had no difficulty in imagining myself in the situation”

Table 7 Realism Check Item

4.7. Moderating Variable

The moderating variable in this research is moral character which moderates the relationship between leadership style and PS fit. As mentioned earlier, moral character is defined as “an individual’s disposition to think, feel, and behave in an ethical versus unethical manner, or as the subset of individual differences relevant to morality” (Cohen and Morse 2014, p. 45).

A recent study found several strong indicators for moral character: “Guilt proneness, guilt-repair orientation, empathic concern, moral identity-internalization, low Machiavellianism, low moral disengagement, and strong Harm/Care and Fairness/Justice moral foundations” (Cohen et al. 2014, p. 957). Considering the six main personality dimensions in the HEXACO model (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience), honesty-humility and conscientiousness were the strongest indicators for moral character (Cohen et al. 2014). A general finding was that women had a higher moral character than men, and older people a higher moral character than younger people (Cohen et al. 2014). Several reasons exist for reducing the number of the indicators. The most important one being the time constraint. Using all indicators would result in a survey that would take very long for the participant to complete. As time is a scarce resource for them, the indicators need to be reduced.

38

As Cohen et al. (2014) do not give a recommendation which of these indicators are the most predictive of moral character, I choose two of these indicators, honesty-humility and conscientiousness, based on the following reasoning. Honesty-humility is related to the “Motivation” element of moral character (Cohen and Morse 2014) which means that individuals high on honesty-humility consider others when dealing/interacting with them (Cohen et al. 2014). Individuals scoring high on this trait are more cooperative while individuals scoring low tend to exploit others (Hilbig, Glöckner and Zettler 2014; Hilbig and Zettler 2009). The honesty-humility correlation with machiavellianism is about -0,5, which means that individuals scoring high on the former score lower on the latter. This means that by using honesty-humility, the level of Machiavellianism can be estimated which is also an indicator for moral character (Cohen et al. 2014). Conscientiousness is related to the “Ability” element of moral character (Cohen and Morse 2014), which means that individuals high on conscientiousness “act ethically and refrain from acting unethically” (Cohen and Morse 2014, p. 51). Additionally, conscientiousness is a very good indicator to see how serious a person takes the job (Cohen and Morse 2014). Individuals scoring low on conscientiousness show more CWB and a lower job performance (Cohen and Morse 2014). Cohen et al. (2014) state that conscientiousness is very indicative of moral character. Due to the time constraint the third part of moral character, “identity”, is not tested. A measure for the identity dimension is for example the “Self-Importance of Moral Identity Scale” by Aquino and Reed (2002).

In order to measure these two dimensions, a short version of the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised consisting of 10 items per dimension is used (Ashton and Lee 2009). As for this study only the honesty-humility and conscientiousness elements are of interest, only the 20 items from the honesty-humility and conscientiousness dimension are taken into consideration. Ashton and Lee (2009) give two alphas for the conscientiousness scale because they used two samples: one college and one community sample. Alphas were .78 and .76 respectively (Ashton