Ethical leadership as a way to increase employee job satisfaction, influenced by workaholism
Bachelor Thesis Business Administration University of Amsterdam
Ethical leadership as a way to increase employee job satisfaction, and the role of workaholism
Author Rebecca Noordeloos
Student number 11747889
Supervisor Dr. J. Guedes Almeida
Program code BSc ECB
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Rebecca Noordeloos who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are 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.
Abstract
Ethical leadership is a variable of interest for a lot of researchers, as well as employee job satisfaction. However, the influence that an ethical leader being a workaholic has on
employee job satisfaction, is still unknown. This research examines whether ethical leadership increases employee job satisfaction in organizations, and if this relationship becomes weaker when leaders are perceived as workaholics. We hypothesize that there a positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, and that this relationship is
negatively affected by a leader being a workaholic. These hypotheses will be tested using 96 dyads from leaders and their followers. The first hypothesis is supported, namely that ethical leadership is positively corelated to employee job satisfaction. The second hypothesis is rejected, suggesting that workaholism has no effect on the positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, in this sample. Future research should consider focusing on more nationalities and specific industries to investigate if workaholism can have an effect on the positive correlation between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ... 6 1.1 Conceptual model ... 8 2. Theoretical Framework ... 8 2.1 Ethical Leadership ... 8 2.2 Job satisfaction ... 10
2.3 Ethical leadership positively related to Employee job satisfaction ... 11
2.4 Workaholism ... 12
2.5 The relationship between Ethical leadership and Employee job satisfaction, moderated by workaholism..……….……….……….14
3.1 Methods ... 15
3.1 Procedure ... 15
3.2 Population and sample ... 16
3.3 Measures ... 17
3.4 Analytical plan ... 18
4. Results ... 19
4.1 Descriptive statistics ... 19
5. Discussion ... 23
5.1 Summary ... 23
5.2 Limitations and future research ... 24
5.3 Practical implications ... 27
5.4 Conclusion ... 28
6. References ... 29
1. Introduction
Have you ever experienced having a leader that was not behaving ethical in the workplace? Do you remember how that made you feel about yourself and about your job? In what way did this affect your own behavior when performing your job? These questions intrigued researchers to dedicate efforts to better understand the effect of such leaders in the workplace.
Working in an ethical workplace seems to become more and more important for employees, as well as for companies. Emery (2016) states that ethics should be applied throughout the whole organization, and that especially every leader in the organization should be required to behave ethically. Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell (2005) as well as Bulog and Grančić (2017) further explain why ethics should be applied throughout the whole organization, by showing what benefits an ethical policy in a company can have. Corporations where ethical behavior is conducted are more profitable, more productive, have effective leadership, have a positive public image and the making of ethical decisions in companies reduces stress for managers as well as for employees (Ferrell et al., 2005; Bulog & Grančić, 2017). Working with an ethical leader has proven to be beneficial for employees as well. Multiple researchers found a positive relation between ethical leadership and employee well-being (Den Hartog, 2015; Shi, Yan, You, & Li, 2015). As an example, employee job satisfaction is a central indicator for employee well-being (Shi et al. 2015), and there is a positive relationship between ethical leadership and job satisfaction.
A leader who behaves ethically can have a positive impact on the wellbeing of its employees and therefore on employee job satisfaction. However, the wellbeing of employees can also be impacted by whether the leader is a workaholic.
Marett, and Harris (2011) suggest that this trend is caused by a growing use of
communication technology (such as e-mails, calls, and texting) by employees due to the expectation from corporations that employees use them for work purposes after work hours. Brady, Vodanovich, and Rotunda (2008) found that this impact caused by being a workaholic in general can have negative effects on both the leaders own well-being as well as on his/her employees well-being. It is presumed that workaholic leaders are not likely to have the characteristics of an ethical leader. However, no clear research has been conducted on this topic. In this research a workaholic is considered as someone who has an uncontrollable motivation towards work, puts in a lot of effort and energy, experiences more health issues than non-workaholics, and perceives higher levels of stress because of being a workaholic.
It is also still unknown what the precise outcomes of ethical behavior are, not to mention what the outcomes of ethical behavior combined with a workaholic attitude are. Due to this previous research, it is expected that a workaholic leader cannot behave ethically on the work floor, therefore it is likely that a workaholic leader will weaken the relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction. Hence, this research will examine if there is an interaction between those variables and if it is indeed negative. It is important to research this so we can understand whether workaholism is related at all to ethical or unethical behavior, and if so, how this can influence employee job satisfaction either in a negative or positive way.
Based on these gaps in previous conducted research, my research question will be: Is there a positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, and if so, how is this relationship affected by a leader being a workaholic? Firstly, there will be investigated if there is a relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction. Secondly, it will be investigated if there is an interaction between ethical leadership and workaholism on employee satisfaction.
Research will be conducted to see if the relationship between ethical leadership and employee satisfaction will become weaker when leaders are workaholics. It is intended to make a contribution by investigating if it is possible for an ethical leader to also be a workaholic, and if so, how this impacts employee satisfaction.
1.1 Conceptual model
Figure 1. Figure 1 displays the corresponding conceptual model, where Ethical leadership is the independent variable, Employee job satisfaction is the dependent variable, and
Workaholism is the moderator.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Ethical Leadership
Ethical leadership is currently a topic in research that is receiving a lot of attention (Den Hartog, 2015). But what makes a leader ethical, what characteristics in particular?
“Ethical leadership is the process of influencing the activities of a group toward goal achievement in a socially responsible way” (Den Hartog, 2015, p. 412). Carraher and Selladurai (2014) further explain that in order to be considered as an ethical leader, leaders
should respect the rights of their subordinates and fellow colleagues. Moreover, they should not harm others in any way.
Ethical leaders are perceived as being influential/inspirational, along with being
courageous and strong (Treviño et al., 2003). Brown et al. (2005) found that ethical leaders were being perceived as “attractive, credible, and legitimate as a role model” (p. 120). In addition, they stated that an ethical leader should be honest. Honesty is an example of a trait that differentiates ethical from unethical leaders. Treviño et al. (2003) complement the characteristics of an ethical leader, by stating that ethical leaders are perceived to be good, open communicators and receptive listeners. An employee should be able to talk to their leader about any problem without feeling hold back.
In the research from Treviño et al. (2003), it also comes forward that ethical leaders have a broad ethical awareness and that they are concerned about serving the greater good,
including the organizations stakeholders. This is another research confirming that ethical leaders are indeed honest and trustworthy and that this causes them to be consistent, credible, and predictable. Ethical leaders make sure they stay within the context of an ethics agenda, which consists with a set of ethical values and principles. (Treviño et al., 2003).
In the present-day, it is therefore critical that a leader behaves ethically. Ethical leadership is important because ethical leaders can be able to meaningfully influence employees at all levels of the organization and to influence organizational behavior in general (Treviño et al., 2003; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005). Additionally, Den Hartog (2015) found that followers reciprocate the fair treatment they get from ethical leaders over time. The influence that leaders have is important, since employees look at their leaders for ethical guidance (Kohlberg, 1969). It can be concluded that leaders are perceived as people who can have a strong influence on ethical standards, so they should behave as legitimate ethical role models. The influence that ethical leaders have can also affect employees their job satisfaction.
2.2 Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is an enjoyable or positive state deriving from a person’s job or job experience (Locke, 1976). Cherington (1995) specifies that job satisfaction indicates how much an employee enjoys his or her job. In addition, Robbins and Judge (2011) argue that job satisfaction is an employees’ positive feeling about the job and the work that is involved with the job.
It is favorable for companies to have employees that are satisfied with their job. Robbins and Judge (2011) state that organizations tend to be more effective if they have employees that are satisfied. Besides, job satisfaction is a meaningful indicator for companies of employee job quits, absenteeism, efficiency, productivity, and relations (Locke, 1976; Pagan, 2011). It is also an essential indicator for employee well-being (Shi et al., 2015). Likewise, Danna and Griffin (1999) explain that employee well-being is characterized by primarily job satisfaction and health.
In order to measure the level of overall employee job satisfaction, Quarstein, McAfee, and Glassman (1992) suggest that it is determined by a combination of the workers’
situational characteristics and by situational occurrences. Situational characteristics are characteristics that can be evaluated prior to taking the job, they are stable and permanent since they are difficult and expensive to change. Examples are pay, working conditions, and the policy of the company. On the other hand, situational occurrences can only be evaluated after the job has started, and they are easy and inexpensive to change. They tend to be
unexpected as well, and they can have a positive or negative influence on the employees’ job satisfaction. Examples that make employees positive about their job are small things, like an unplanned coffee break provided by their supervisor, their supervisor suggesting they can home earlier that day, and place a refrigerator in the canteen so that workers can keep their food and drinks there. Quarstein et al., (1992) further give some examples that can negatively
influence the employees job satisfaction. Examples are not having enough toilet paper in the restrooms, broken equipment, and rude co-workers.
Besides this, there are other conditions that can influence the level of job satisfaction. Longer working hours correlate with lower job satisfaction, as well as time spent travelling to work. Surprisingly, salary had no effect on overall job satisfaction (Clark, 1997). Quarstein et al., (1992) argue that salary indeed does not increase job satisfaction, but it can however decrease job satisfaction, and thus make employees dissatisfied. On the other hand, higher job satisfaction is achieved when employees have a higher sense of job accountability (Pagan, 2011).
Other factors, such as gender can have an influence on job satisfaction as well. Clark (1997) found that the job satisfaction of females is in general higher than that of males. He explained that this is caused by the fact that women set their expectations lower than men, since women are way more likely to be treated unfairly in the hiring and firing process, in the opportunities they get to get promoted and there is a higher likelihood to get sexually
harassed. Other than this, his research provides evidence that job satisfaction for women can also be affected by marital status, working hours and managerial status. The study also shows that men’s job satisfaction is more likely to be influenced by promotion.
2.3 Ethical leadership positively related to Employee job satisfaction
Brown et al. (2005) suggest that ethical leadership predicts followers’ job satisfaction and follower dedication. Tu, Lu, and Yu (2016) offer support for this, they found that employee’s job satisfaction, but also moral awareness and moral identity are positively related to supervisors’ ethical leadership.
Moreover, Den Hartog (2015) states that behaving as an ethical leader in the workplace has been linked to motivational, well-being, and performance-related outcomes. Ethical leadership
namely promotes commitment and motivation among employees and “employees who feel supported and respected are more likely to develop trust, satisfaction, and a sense of well-being” (Den Hartog, 2015, p. 418).
Therefore, as previously mentioned, leaders are important role models for employees. Brown et al. (2005) explain that leaders who conduct ethical behavior, set an ethical framework whereby they express the expectations and provide direction to their subordinates. It is to provide subordinates a clear view on what the proper and right way to act is, and what is not.
These findings strongly suggest that ethical leadership results in a higher level of job satisfaction. Rayner, Hoel, and Cooper (2002) found that lower job satisfaction on the other hand, can be caused by employees who experienced their leaders bullying other employees. Those leaders can be identified as unethical leaders. They further explain that this has a negative impact on employees. Employees namely experience higher levels of stress and show increased turnover.
Since previous research provides evidences that there is a significant positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, my first hypothesis will be: Ethical leadership is positively correlated with employee job satisfaction.
2.4 Workaholism
People who are addicted to their work, workaholics, are defined by Mosier (1980) as people that work more than 50 hours a week. However, Andreassen, Griffiths, Hetland, and Pallesen (2012) explain that a workaholic cannot necessarily be defined by the number of hours they spend on their work, but that workaholics can be recognized looking at some other characteristics. They explain that workaholics tend to be over-sensitive about their job, are driven by an uncontrollable motivation towards work, and put in a lot of effort and energy in
the work that they do. These characteristics result in a threat to their private relationships, health and leisure.
Ten Brummelhuis and Rothbard (2018) explain that the number of hours spend on work indeed does not relate to any health issues, while workaholism does. Employees that were working longer than 40 hours per week, but did not obsess over their job and the work that had to be done, did not show higher levels of risks in developing cardiovascular diseases and appeared to have fewer health complaints. Comparing that to workaholics, who regardless of the number of hours spend on work, reported more health issues, such as sleeping problems, emotional exhaustion, and feelings of depression.
Machlowitz (1980) explains that workaholics can have positive traits as well, like creativity. She also explains that workaholics do have pleasure in their work, and that workaholics are also satisfied with their lives. On the other hand, Machlowitz (1980) describes workaholics as people who are critical, inefficient, and/or difficult to work with. Other researchers confirm this by explaining that workaholics in managerial positions create unrealistic performance standards, which creates anger among workers, conflicts and low employee morale (Klaft & Kleiner, 1988).
On top of that, Oates (1971) and Machlowitz (1980) associate the term workaholism to ‘alcoholism’. More recent research from Gheorghita (2014) also describes that workaholics tend to show symptoms similar to those of alcoholics. These symptoms can be being depressed, having anxiety and being irritable. Additionally, research from Spence and Robbins (1992) states that like alcoholism, workaholism is perceived as an addiction. This is due to the fact that workaholics feel the need to work, not for the sake of external pressure, but because of pressure from themselves. Workaholics namely experience feelings as guilt and stress if they do not work. They are perfectionists, experience higher levels of stress and
have more health issues (Spence & Robbins, 1992). Workaholics “always devote more time and thoughts to their work than the situation demands.” (Machlowitz, 1980, p.11).
Therefore, in this research a workaholic will not be considered as someone that works more than a certain number of hours per week, but as someone who has an uncontrollable motivation towards work, puts in a lot of effort and energy, experiences more health issues than non-workaholics, and perceives higher levels of stress because of being a workaholic.
2.5 The relationship between Ethical leadership and Employee job satisfaction, moderated by workaholism
According to research, it might be a challenge for workaholic leaders to follow the characteristic set of behaviors that an ethical leader follows, such as intellection stimulation and inspirational motivation towards employees (Clark et al., 2016). “Devoting time towards mentoring subordinates may only be seen as time away from the actual work that needs to be accomplished” (Clark et al., 2016, p.7). Suggesting that workaholic leaders are not likely to behave ethically.
Besides, workaholism can have negative effects on both the leaders own well-being as well as on his/her employees well-being (Brady, Vodanovich, & Rotunda, 2008). Since employee job satisfaction is a central indicator of employee well-being, this means that if workaholism has negative effects on well-being, this also has negative effects on job satisfaction.
These negative effects can be caused by the fact that workaholics do not tend to be happy employees. They are likely to experience and cause negative job satisfaction, resulting in poor performance, lack of teamwork and increased turnover (Spence & Robbins, 1992).
Drawing on these findings, workaholics do not tend to behave as ethical leaders, and they also tend to influence job satisfaction in a negative way. Therefore, it seems like being a
workaholic is making the relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction only weaker.
Therefore, the second hypothesis of this research will be: “The relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction becomes weaker when leaders are perceived as workaholics”.
3.1 Methods
In the following part, it will be explained how this research is designed and how it has been conducted. Furthermore, it will elaborate on how the data was collected, which measures were used and what the analytical plan is.
3.1 Procedure
This study uses a quantitative research design. A cross-sectional design is used, where the data is collected through online surveys with dyads (leader – employee). In order to collect those dyads, two different surveys have been made, one for the leaders and one for the employees. The leader-employee surveys were linked together by using an exclusive code. The surveys have been made in an online program called Qualtrics, and was conducted over the whole month May 2020. The research group for this study exists of nine Bachelor students from the University of Amsterdam. Each student is required to collect 12 dyads, where 1 dyad consist of a leader survey and a matching employee survey, so that there are at least 100 matching dyads in total for this research. The survey measured more than the variables examined in this study, because the survey was part of a larger study. In this research both primary sources and secondary sources will be used.
3.2 Population and sample
Using the data from the surveys, the hypotheses will be tested. The total number of surveys that were sent out for this study is 108. The number of completed leader-follower dyads that were eventually distributed for this study is 96, resulting in a respond rate of 88.89%. It occurred a few times that either only the leader or only the employee would fill in the survey. Since both responses are required for this research, those individual surveys were not valid and had to be excluded in order to do the analysis. All the other data has been matched and incomplete responses were cleared. A total of 10 surveys were removed.
The participants are all people in the workforce. Of the leaders, 50 were male (52.1 %) and 45 were female (46.9%), with an age range between 20 and 64 years (M=43.73, SD = 12.66). Of the followers, 38 were male (39.6%), whereas 58 were female (60.4%), with an age range between 18 and 62 years (M = 35.21, SD = 13.94). On average leaders and followers had worked together for 31.96 months (SD = 34.70), with time working together ranging from 2 to 204 months.
Regarding the educational background of the sample set (N=96) of leaders: 35 of the respondents (36.5%) has an HBO degree, 27 have a Master’s degree (28.1%), 10 have a Bachelor degree (10.4%), and 24 have other forms of education (25.0%). The educational background of the sample set (N=96) of employees shows that most employees, namely 38, possess an HBO degree (39.6%), 22 employees have a Bachelor degree (22.9%), 15
employees have a Master’s degree, and 21 employees have a different form of education (21.88%).
Most of the respondents come from, or work in the Netherlands. From the leaders namely 87 participants (90.63%), and 91 are currently working in the Netherlands (94.79%). From the followers 88 participants (91.67%) come from the Netherlands, and 92 participants
are currently working in the Netherlands (95.83%). All of the outputs can be found in Appendix 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
3.3 Measures
There are three main variables in this study. Ethical leadership, employee job
satisfaction and workaholism. Ethical leadership and workaholism were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree. Employee job satisfaction was measured on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = like it very much to 4 = dislike it very much.
Ethical leadership. Ethical leadership has been measured with a scale adapted from Brown,
Treviño, and Harrison (2005). Example items are “Discusses business ethics or values with employees” and “Makes fair and balanced decisions”. The scale showed sufficient reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha = 0.865. Even though there seemed to be 1 outlier, 0 dyads were removed from the analysis, since they barely changed the output of the analysis. The output of Cronbach’s alpha can be found in Appendix 6.
Employee job satisfaction. Employee job satisfaction has been measured with a scale adapted
from Trevor (2001). An example is “How do you feel about the job you have now? Do you like it very much, like it fairly well, dislike it somewhat, or dislike it very much?” No Cronbach’s alpha was measured, since this variable only consists of one item.
Workaholism. Workaholism has been measured with a scale adapted from Simms, Goldberg,
Roberts, Watson, Welte, and Rotterman (2011). Example items are “Work so hard that my relationships have suffered” and “Work longer hours than most people”. The scale showed sufficient reliability as the Cronbach’s alpha = 0.871. Even though there seemed to be 1
outlier, 0 dyads were removed from the analysis, since they barely changed the output of the analysis. The output of Cronbach’s alpha can be found in Appendix 7.
Control variables. There are several control variables that are taken into account in addition
to the three main variables. As mentioned before, Clark (1997) found that the job satisfaction of females is usually higher than that of males. Due to this effect the control variable follower gender is being added. Since Idson (1990) found that longer working hours correlate with lower job satisfaction, working hours per week of followers is being added as a control variable to the correlation table as well. Besides that, there will be looked at the effect of the working hours per week of leaders, since this can be a component of workaholism (Mosier, 1983). Lastly, the intensity of the contact that the follower has with the leader will be added to the correlation table. This is due to Nelson and Quick (2012) who explain in their book that the more attention a follower gets, the more satisfied they are with their jobs. These control variables are used to rule out alternative effects on the hypotheses.
3.4 Analytical plan
For the analysis IBM SPSS Statistics 26 is used to process the quantitative data. For the testing of Hypothesis 1, namely Ethical leadership has a positive relationship with employee satisfaction, a regression analysis will be utilized. Ethical leadership will be the independent variable and employee job satisfaction will be the dependent variable.
For Hypothesis 2, There is an interaction between ethical leadership and workaholism on employee satisfaction, such as the relationship between ethical leadership and employee satisfaction becomes weaker when leaders are workaholics, the PROCESS macro model 1 of Hayes (2020) model v3.5 will be utilized. Ethical leadership will be the independent variable, workaholism the moderating variable, and employee job satisfaction the dependent variable.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviation and correlations of all the main and control variables that are used in this research. The first three variables are the main variables, namely ethical leadership, employee job satisfaction and workaholism. Furthermore, control variables have been added to the correlation table such as follower gender, working hours of both leaders and followers, and the intensity of the contact that the follower has with the leader.
Table 1. Correlations among variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Ethical leadership 5.82 .71
2. Employee job satisfaction 3.29 .69 .38**
3. Workaholism 4.14 1.19 -.15* -.05
4. Follower Gender 1.60 .49 -.11 .06 .08
5. Follower Working hours per week 29.30 11.31 .14 .29** -.05 -.38**
6. Follower contact with leader 3.18 .86 .21* .19* -.02 -.13 .36**
7. Leader Working hours per week 40.42 11.27 .17* .29** .26** -.09 .29** .10
Note. N = 96, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. All tests are one-tailed.
Results in Table 1 display several significant correlations. The correlation table confirms that the dependent variable, employee job satisfaction, is positively related to the independent variable, ethical leadership (r = .38, p < .01). This positive relationship indicates that the more ethical the leader, the higher satisfied employees are about their job.
Furthermore, looking at the independent variable ethical leadership, it is positively related to follower contact with leader (r = .21, p < .05), and with leader working hours per week (r = .17, p < .05). This indicates that when the follower’s contact with the leader increases, or when the leader working hours per week increase, higher levels of ethical
leadership are being perceived. Additionally, ethical leadership is negatively correlated to workaholism (r = -.15, p < .05), meaning that workaholics do not tend be ethical leaders.
When looking at the independent variable, employee job satisfaction is significantly positive correlated to follower working hours per week (r = .29, p < .01), leader working hours per week (r = .29, p < .01), and follower contact with leader (r = .19, p < .05), indicating that if one of those variables increases, so does employee job satisfaction.
Lastly, the moderator workaholism is positively related to the number of working hours per week by a leader (r = .26, p < .01).
4.2 Regression analysis
In order to test the first hypothesis: “Ethical leadership is positively correlated with employee job satisfaction”, a linear regression analysis was used. The regression examined the linear relation between the dependent variable ethical leadership and the independent variable employee job satisfaction. The control variables follower gender, working hours of both leaders and followers, and the intensity of the contact that the follower has with the leader have been added in the first step of the regression (Model 1). The independent variable ethical leadership has been added in the second model (Model 2). All the assumptions for the regression are met and can be found in Appendix 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. The regression output can be found in Appendix 14.
Before doing the regression analysis, it was checked whether the data meets the
assumptions of linear regression. Since employee job satisfaction was only measured using one question in the survey, the scatterplot that checks for linearity does not show a straight line. However, it is clear that there is a positive linear relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, so the first assumption is met. Secondly, it is checked whether the residuals are normally distributed, and fortunately this is the case. Thirdly, it is checked
whether the residuals are equally variable. As with the check for linearity, the graph to check if the residuals are equally variable also looks different than how it is supposed to look, due to the fact that employee job satisfaction is only measured with one question. Nonetheless, the assumption is still met. Lastly, it will be checked if there are any outliers. There are no data points that disproportionally affect the estimations of the regression.
The first model, where the control variables were added as predictors, was statistically significant F(4, 89) = 5.12; p < 0.01, whereby 18.7% of the variance in employee job satisfaction is explained by the control variables. After adding the independent variable ethical leadership to the second model, 27.9% of the variation in employee job satisfaction is explained by ethical leadership as well as the control variables. Therefore, the model shows that 9.2% of the variance in employee job satisfaction is explained by ethical leadership itself. This change is significant (p = .001). Moreover, the second model is slightly more significant than the first model F(1, 88) = 1.28; p < 0.01.
Model 2 also shows the standardized Beta of ethical leadership, the predictor variable, where β is .316 (p = .001, t = 3.358, SE = .091). This means that for 1 standard deviation increase in ethical leadership, job satisfaction increases by .316 standard deviations. Looking at the other standardized beta’s, such as follower gender (β = .225, p < .05) or follower
working hours per week (β = .240, p < .05), it can be seen that the beta of ethical leadership is the biggest and thus has the strongest effect on employee job satisfaction.
The results of the regression show support for the first hypothesis. By adding ethical leadership as a predictor variable to the model, the model has improved significantly. More importantly, ethical leadership is positively correlated to employee job satisfaction (β = .316, p = .001).
4.3 Moderation
The results to test the second hypothesis, ‘There is an interaction between ethical leadership and workaholism on employee satisfaction, such that the relationship between ethical leadership and employee satisfaction becomes weaker when leaders are workaholics’, can be found in Table 2.
Table 2. Moderation analysis results
b SE t p
Constant 1.59 .45 3.50 <.001
Follower Gender .33 .14 2.33 <.05
Follower working hours per week .02 .01 2.12 <.05 Follower contact with leader .07 .09 .86 >.05 Leader working hours per week .01 .01 2.00 <.05 Ethical leadership (x) .22 .07 3.07 <.01
Workaholism (w) -.04 .07 -.66 >.05
Ethical leadership x Workaholism -.02 .07 -.25 >.05 Note. N = 96. R2 = .28
Looking at the overall model, Rsquare was .2834, meaning that 28.34% of the variance in this model is due to ethical leadership and workaholism F(7, 86) = 4.8578; p < 0.001. The R square change of .0005 is not significant (p = .8025). Looking at the results, they did not support the hypotheses, since the model did not show a significant interaction effect (b = -.0198, SE = .0787, t = -.2509, p = .8025, 95% CI = -.1762, .1367).
The effect of workaholism is significant among low levels (β = -1.1312, p < .05), mean levels (β = -.0479, p < .01), and high levels (β = 1.3355, p < .05).
Nonetheless, Hypothesis 2 is rejected. Since the model is not significant, there is no evidence that the relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction is influenced by workaholic leaders.
5. Discussion 5.1 Summary
The purpose of this study was to understand how and when leaders are perceived to be ethical, and how this can influence employee job satisfaction and be influenced by
workaholism. The study examined whether there is a positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, and if so, how is this relationship was affected by a leader being a workaholic.
The first hypothesis, stating that ethical leadership is positively correlated to employee job satisfaction, was supported by the results. This indicates that if higher levels of ethical leadership are being conducted, the job satisfaction of the employee will increase. The second hypothesis was not supported. There is no statistically significant evidence that the
relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction becomes weaker when leaders are perceived as workaholics.
In line with previous studies, this research found that ethical leadership is positively correlated to employee job satisfaction. Brown et al. (2005) found that ethical leadership predicts the job satisfaction of subordinates and follower dedication. Moreover, Tu et al. (2016) found that employee’s job satisfaction, as well as moral awareness and moral identity are positively related to ethical leadership. Lastly, Den Hartog (2015) explained that
conducting ethical leadership in the workplace has been linked to attitudinal, motivational, well-being, and performance-related outcomes. As stated before, job satisfaction is an important indicator of employee well-being, so this means that also from Den Hartog her research can be concluded that ethical leadership influences employee job satisfaction positively.
This research also found that higher levels of employee job satisfaction are being perceived when a follower has more contact with their leader. This overlaps with research from Nelson and Quick (2012) who suggested that the more attention a leader gives to their
followers, the more satisfied followers are with their jobs. Likewise, when a follower has more contact with a leader, ethical leadership also increases.
Furthermore, a significant effect was found between the number of hours a follower works per week and their job satisfaction. This was not seen in previous research before. It indicates that the more hours a follower works, the more satisfied they are with their jobs.
Despite most researchers stating that a workaholic cannot be defined by the number of hours they spend on their job per week (Machlowitz, 1980; Andreassen et al., 2012; Ten Brummelhuis & Rothbard, 2018), a significant effect between workaholism and leader working hours per week was found in the analysis of this research. This indicates that anyhow, the more hours a leader works per week, the more they are associated with the term workaholic.
As Clark et al. (2016) explained, it is difficult for a workaholic leader to follow the characteristic set of behaviors that an ethical leader follows, indicating that workaholic leaders mostly do not behave ethically. The variable ethical leadership was indeed negatively correlated to workaholism. Brady et al. (2008) additionally suggested that workaholism has negative effects on followers’ well-being, where job satisfaction is a part of. This research was unable to prove this. If the sample size would have been bigger, more significant effects were probably found. Judging from these effects, we would have thought that workaholism would affect the positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job
satisfaction somehow. Nonetheless, there seemed to be no statistically significant evidence for that.
5.2 Limitations and future research
A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was used for this research. This allowed us to collect a lot of data since we had a high number of respondents. For this study this was
an advantage. However, future research can use open questions instead of multiple-choice questions, to gain deeper insights about having a workaholic leader and how this affects the employee.
A bias that the multiple-choice questions could have caused, is that people who fill in the survey do not really think a lot about each answer, since the options are already there.
Additionally, this survey promised participants confidentiality, but since all the respondents received a personal code so we could link their answers to their dyad, respondents might have felt restricted in answering questions about their leader. Our suggestion for future research is to use a different design to create the dyads.
Besides looking at the survey design, since all the data was collected within a month, so at a certain time, the outcomes of this research could be biased. This is because we only measured the participants state of minds at that time. Therefore, for future research we would suggest, to collect data in different time points, on outcomes such as satisfaction, so that you have more evidence on the effect.
Another effect that was caused due to this limitation in time, is that we had a total of 96 completed dyads, which could have been higher if there would have been more time. If we would have had more responses, some results would probably have been significant whereas now they were not.
Furthermore, as shown in our research most participants were of Dutch origin. There can be big differences worldwide in the relationship between leaders and followers
(Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang & Shore, 2012). They explain that in Western cultures there are higher levels of job satisfaction than in for example Asian countries, since the relationship between leaders and followers differs per culture. We suggest that future research looks at the relationship between ethical leadership and job satisfaction in various cultures, across the globe and across different continents.
Lastly, as mentioned before, there was no statistically significant evidence that the relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction becomes weaker when leaders are workaholics. The non-significant results were based on a convenience sampling strategy, which leads to over-representation or under-representation of certain groups within the sample. The respondents worked in different industries, which might have also had an effect on the outcomes.
There are some other interesting directions for future research. Firstly, we found that the more hours a leader works per week, the higher employee job satisfaction is. It is yet unclear why this has an impact on employee job satisfaction. It might be that if a leader is working more, they are also more around to support employees, which results in higher job satisfaction. Future research can be conducted to find out what the interpretations of
employees are on this subject.
Secondly, our research found that the more hours leader work per week, the higher ethical leadership will be. This effect might occur because leaders who work more hours per week are more dedicated and have a greater sense of responsibility (Rai, Foing, Kaur, 2012). Therefore, the relationship seems interesting to also further investigate in the future, to find out why this effect occurs.
Finally, a significant effect was found between the number of hours a follower works per week and their job satisfaction. It indicates that the more hours a follower works, the more satisfied they are with their jobs. It perhaps means that followers can be workaholics too. It can also be possible that the reason why the relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction is not influenced by a leader workaholism, is because followers are workaholics themselves and therefore do not recognize a workaholic. This can also be
5.3 Practical implications
Since there is a positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, managers should pay extra attention during selection procedures to
characteristics and traits that the applicant has. They have to make sure that those
characteristics overlap with the characteristics of an ethical leader. This is due to the fact that ethical leadership has proven to strengthen employee job satisfaction, which in their turn results in better organizational outcomes (Den Hartog, 2015). So, the hiring process should be designed in a way that those characteristics can be detected.
For followers, it is important to recognize when a leader is not conducting ethical behavior. Companies should develop procedures so that employees can anonymously report on leaders that are behaving unethically, to make the workplace a better environment.
Since employee job satisfaction has proven to increase organizations effectiveness (Robbins & Judge, 2011) and has proven to be a meaningful indicator for companies of among others, employee turnover, absenteeism, efficiency, and productivity (Locke, 1976; Pagan, 2011), it is beneficial for companies to have employees that are satisfied.
Organizations need to focus on how to keep improving their employees job satisfaction. Moreover, organizations should regularly measure their employees’ job satisfaction, and talk to their employees to find out if there are any things, according to their employees, that they can improve in order to increase the job satisfaction.
Furthermore, the effect that workaholism has on the positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, still needs to be confirmed. Leaders need to be aware of the fact that this relationship may not exist in every industry or country, but there might be an effect in some specific settings.
5.4 Conclusion
Previous research showed that there is a positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee well-being, and explained that employee job satisfaction was a component of employee well-being. There was however no research on if the positive
relationship between those two variables could be influenced by workaholism. Therefore, the present study examined if there is indeed a positive correlation between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction. Furthermore, this study examined the effect that workaholism has on the positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction, since there is also no previous research on factors that might influence this relationship.
Results show that there is a positive relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction. The more a leader is conducting ethical leadership, the higher the satisfaction of the employee will be with their job. Results did not provide proof for an effect of workaholism on the relationship between ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction. Nevertheless, we do suggest that even though there is no statistically significant evidence for this moderation, companies should take it mind that this effect might occurs in some specific industries or countries. Besides, there should be sufficient systems in the organization
detecting if leaders are indeed conducting ethical leadership, so that levels of employee job satisfaction can be high.
In short, ethical leadership has a positive influence on employee job satisfaction. However, there is no scientific evidence that certain variables, including workaholism, can influence this positive relationship.
6. References
Andreassen, C. S., Griffiths, M. D. Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a work addiction scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(3), 265–272.
Baruch, Y. (2011). The positive wellbeing aspects of workaholism in cross cultural
perspective: The chocoholism metaphor. Career Development international, 16, 572– 591.
Brady, B. R., Vodanovich, S. J., & Rotunda, R. (2008). The impact of workaholism on work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and perception of leisure activities. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150802371781
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Bulog, I., & Grančić, I. (2017). The Benefits of Business Ethics - Ethical Behavior of Decision Makers: the Empirical Findings from Croatia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(4–1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.2478/mjss-2018-0067
Carraher, S., & Selladurai, R. (2014). Ethics, the Heart of Leadership (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Cherrington, David J 1995. The Management of Human Resources (4th Edition), New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4(4), 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0927-5371(97)00010-9
Clark, M. A., Stevens, G. W., Michel, J. S., & Zimmerman, L. (2016). Workaholism among Leaders: Implications for Their Own and Their Followers’ Well-Being. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 14(1-31). https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-355520160000014001
Danna, K., Griffin, R. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management 25(3), 357-384.
Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). Ethical Leadership. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 409–434.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111237
Emery, E. (2016). Ethical behaviour, Leadership, and Decision Making. Walden University, Doctoral Dissertation
Gheorghiţa, N. (2014). Workaholism: A New Challenge for Organisation Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.460
Harris, K. J., Marett, K., & Harris, R. B. (2011). Technology-related pressure and work- family conflict: Main effects and an examination of moderating variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 20772103.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Idson, T. (1990). Firm size, job satisfaction and the structure of work. Applied
Economics, 22, 1007-1018.
Klaft, R. P., & Kleiner, B. H. (1988). Understanding workaholics. Business, 38, 37-40.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). State and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to
socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of social- ization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand- McNally.
Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, U.S.A.: Rand McNally.
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mosier, S.K. (1983). Workaholics: An analysis of their stress, success and priorities. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (2012). Organizational Behavior: Science, The Real World, and You (8th ed.). Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bf0JAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT479&lpg=PT479&dq= the+more+contact+a+leader+has+the+more+satisfied+the+employee&source=bl&ots
=mFLjDQ_RLP&sig=ACfU3U3-H6uslwlHt1keVdPEMUtuFWapVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVlcbGuanqAhWu UhUIHQ2sDe0Q6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=attention&f=false
Noermijati, & Primasari, D. (2015). The effect of job stress and job motivation on employees’ performance through job satisfaction (A study at PT. Jasa Marga (Persero) Tbk. Surabaya - Gempol branch). Journal of Economics, Business & Accountancy Ventura, 18(2), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v18i2.450
Oates, W, E. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York, NY: World.
Pagan, R. (2011). Ageing and disability: Job satisfaction differentials across Europe. Social Science & Medicine, 72(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.007
Quarstein, V. A., McAfee, R. B., & Glassman, M. (1992). The Situational Occurrences Theory of Job Satisfaction. Human Relations, 45(8), 859–873.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500806
Rai, B., Foing, B. H., & Kaur, J. (2012). Working hours, sleep, salivary cortisol, fatigue and neuro-behavior during Mars analog mission: Five crews study. Neuroscience
Letters, 516(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.067
Rajiah, P., & Bhargava, P. (2016). Motivational Leadership: Tips From the Business World. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 13(5), 585–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.01.005
Rayner, C., Hoel, H., Cooper, CL. (2002). Workplace Bullying: What We Know, Who Is to Blame, and What Can We Do? London: Taylor & Francis
Robbins, S. P. & Judge, Timothy, A. (2011). Organizational Behavior, Pearson Education, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23
countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029978
Shi, M., Yan, X., You, X., & Li, J. (2015). Core self-evaluations, emotional intelligence and job satisfaction in Chinese soldiers. Social Indicators Research, 124(1), 221–229.
Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Roberts, J. E., Watson, D., Welte, J., & Rotterman, J. H. (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: Introducing the CAT-PD project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 380-389.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.
Sun, P., Wang, S., & Kong, F. (2013). Core Self-evaluations as Mediator and Moderator of the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Life Satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 118(1), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0413-9
Ten Brummelhuis, L., & Rothbard, N. P. (2018, June 14). How Being a Workaholic Differs from Working Long Hours — and Why That Matters for Your Health. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/03/how-being-a-workaholic-differs-from-working-long-hours-and-why-that-matters-for-your-health
Treviño, LK., Brown, M., Hartman, LP. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Hum. Relations. 56:5(37).
Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of management journal, 44(4), 621-638.
Tu, Y., Lu, X., & Yu, Y. (2016). Supervisors’ Ethical Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction: A Social Cognitive Perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(1), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9725-1
7. Appendix
Appendix 1 – Follower and Leader Gender
Appendix 3 – Descriptives time working together
Appendix 7 – Cronbach’s alpha workaholism
Appendix 10 – Normality of residuals
Appendix 12 – Outliers kept
