Effectiveness of ethical leadership in organizations : the role of employee moral attentiveness, and the development of a cross-cultural perspective

(1)

Effectiveness of Ethical Leadership in Organizations:

The Role of Employee Moral Attentiveness, and the Development of

a Cross-cultural Perspective

Amsterdam, July 2014

T.R. Kraan – 6166660 University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business Department Business Studies Supervisor: dr. D.N. Den Hartog

(2)

Abstract

In this study, the effectiveness of ethical leadership in an organizational setting, and the influence of follower moral attentiveness on several proposed relationships are examined. Ethical leadership shows a positive correlation with organizational citizenship behavior, and affective organizational commitment: followers of ethical leaders show more citizenship behaviors, and more affective commitment to the organization. A negative correlation has been found between ethical leadership and workplace deviance behavior, indicating that ethical leadership may reduce unethical behavior in organizations. These results show support for ethical leadership as an effective leadership style in organizations. Results about the association between ethical leadership and moral attentiveness are inconclusive, although a mediating effect of moral attentiveness on the correlations between ethical leadership and the included performance measures has not been established in this study. Furthermore, this study incorporates a literature review on ethical leadership in a cross-cultural setting. This study concludes that cross-cultural research on ethical leadership is still in its infancy, and further research is required.

(5)

1. Introduction

Professional organizations are faced with different stakeholders, which have different, and sometimes, conflicting interests. At times it can be difficult to decide or to know who to adhere to. It’s up to management to set guidelines and decide on the right path for the organization. In recent years, large corporate scandals have attracted the attention of the media and the public. Scandals such as the accounting fraud that led up to the bankruptcy of Enron, or the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, caused by BP’s disregard of international safety requirements, have a major impact on these organization with regard to their image as well as financially. In recent years, governments and overarching institutions such as the European Union have imposed new legislation on corporate governance in order to prevent future organizational malpractices. Other preventive efforts such as the introduction of codes of good governance serve the same purpose.

These efforts are accompanied by the call for ethical behavior of organizational management. Recently, scholars from the field of leadership and organizational behavior research have started to answer this call by exploring the effects of a management style that emphasizes ethical behavior, deemed ethical leadership. Multiple authors have theorized that an ethical dimension is inherent to leadership, and by emphasizing this ethical dimension in their role as a leader; unethical behavior by managers and subordinates may be reduced. Furthermore, preliminary research indicates that ethical leadership may have other positive effects on employee performance, and in the long run, organizational performance (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Ciulla, 2004; Enderle, 1987).

Initially, studies focused on establishing a framework of traits that are characteristic for ethical leaders, such as honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla and Dorfman, 1999). Development of the construct ‘ethical leadership’ by Brown, Treviño and Harrison (2005), and by Kalshoven, Den Hartog and De Hoogh (2010) has created opportunities to further explore the antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. According to the definition of Brown and Treviño (2006), ethical leaders promote normatively appropriate behavior. An important question that can be derived derived from this definition is whether or not the promotion of such behavior by leaders results in more normatively appropriate conduct by followers. Preliminary results indicate an increase in follower pro-social behavior and employee well-being (Piccolo,

(6)

Greenbaum, Den Hartog & Folger, 2010), and ethical leadership is expected to have a positive effect on follower performance, and a negative effect on counterproductive behavior (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Piccolo, Greenbaum & Eissa, 2012). Although preliminary results indicate such effects, further research is required to come up with definitive answers (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Piccolo et al. (2010).

This study’s aim is to extend our knowledge of the effects of ethical leadership by studying its influence on followers. In order to adhere to the presumed positive influence on social behavior, the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is further explored, as well as the relationship between ethical leadership and affective organizational commitment, which measures the attitude of followers towards the organization, and the desire to remain with the organization. Regarding the presumed negative relationship between ethical leadership and counterproductive behavior, the relationship between ethical leadership and workplace deviance behavior is incorporated in the research design.

Furthermore, this study aims to further explore the effects of ethical leadership on follower moral attentiveness. Recently, Reynolds (2008) has developed and tested a construct in order to measure a person’s level of moral attentiveness. Reynolds (2008) describes this construct as the “extent to which an individual chronically perceives and considers morality and moral elements in his or her experiences” (Reynolds, 2008: p. 1072). The influence of ethical leadership is derived from Bandura’s social learning theory (1977) and Reynolds (2008) proposes that moral attentiveness can be influenced by social learning. In this study a relationship between ethical leadership and follower moral attentiveness is proposed, assuming that the influence of ethical leaders may lead to an increase in moral attentiveness by followers.

Additionally this study explores the possibility of an association between moral attentiveness and the aforementioned performance measures, as well as the possibility of a mediation effect of moral attentiveness between ethical leadership and the performance measures. Therefore the question is asked whether or not the influence of ethical leadership is based on an increased awareness of moral situations by followers of ethical leaders. Figure 1 represents the associations that are explored in this study.

To conclude, while the empirical data in this study are gathered in the Dutch context, this study acknowledges that the business environment in which organizations do business is becoming increasingly international. Therefore, this study stresses the importance of ethical research in a cross-cultural context, and includes an analysis and review of ethical leadership

(7)

research in a cross-cultural context, as well as possible directions for future cross-cultural ethical leadership research.

(8)

2. Theory

This chapter discusses the state of the art of ethical leadership research. Initially, the key concepts and theories that form the foundation of the ethical leadership construct will be discussed, such as Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory and its place within the framework of leadership styles. Subsequently, the outcomes of ethical leadership are discussed, from which the hypotheses are deduced, followed by the research model. Lastly, an overview is provided of our current knowledge about ethics and leadership in a cross-cultural context, as well as the development and application of ethical leadership measures in a cross-cultural context.

2.1 Ethical leadership

Our society’s contemporary knowledge on, and ideas about ethics and leadership relies greatly on the work of philosophers. Great thinkers such as Aristotle and Confucius have proclaimed their views on leadership and ethics, theorizing about what ‘good leadership’ and ‘good ethics’ entail. Most of these works treat the topic from a philosophical or normative perspective, describing how a leader ought to behave in relation to the ethics that are to be maintained (Brown & Treviño 2006; Brown et al., 2005; Ciulla, 2004). During the last few decades, the scientific community has made a transition towards more descriptive research on the topic of ethics and leadership, and researchers (mainly within the in the domains of leadership, organizational psychology and organizational behavior) have broadened our understanding of these concepts, especially within an organizational context (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Originating from existing normative theories about ethics and leadership, multiple researchers have theorized that leadership contains an ethical dimension and have sought to provide insight into this dimension by deducing the ethical dimension of leadership influence mechanisms. Enderle (1987) finds that leadership can be regarded as deciding responsibly in complex situations, and that leadership must therefore have an ethical dimension (Enderle, 1987). Enderle (1987) deems managerial ethical leadership ‘applied ethics’, implying that leadership incorporates a conscious and behavioral ethical component.

(9)

Researchers have started identifying personal characteristics of leaders that are presumed distinctive for ethical leaders. A study by Den Hartog et al. (1999) links integrity, honesty and trustworthiness to ethical leadership. These characteristics contribute to the perception of a leader as an ethical leader. Treviño, Hartman and Brown (2000) find similar results. They interviewed twenty senior executives and twenty ethics officers to gain insights in leaders’ personal characteristics that are predictive of ethical leadership. Findings suggest that honesty and trustworthiness are important personal characteristics for leaders in order to be perceived as ethical leaders (Treviño et al., 2000). De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) distinguish three characteristics of ethical leadership: fairness, power-sharing, and role clarification. Kalshoven et al. (2010) studied used multiple characteristics of ethical leadership in relation to the big-five personality traits model and find agreeableness and conscientiousness to be most consistently related to ethical leadership. Emotional stability also seems related to the characteristics of ethical leaders, albeit to a lesser extent. Ethical leaders seem more likely to possess these personality traits than the two other characteristics in the big-five personality traits model: openness and extraversion. These do not seem related to ethical leadership (Kalshoven et al., 2010).

Like Enderle (1987), Treviño et al. (2000) and Brown et al. (2005) attribute a clear behavioral dimension to ethical leadership. Treviño et al. (2000) further develop the construct of ethical leadership by characterizing the above-mentioned characteristics of a leader as the moral person dimension of an ethical leader, which has been summarized by Brown and Treviño (2006) as “the perceptions of the leaders’ personal traits, character and altruistic motivation” (Brown & Treviño, 2006 p. 597). In addition to the moral person, Treviño et al. (2000) describe an interactional dimension in their research, which they name the moral manager dimension. Furthermore, they posit that the influence mechanism is based on the principles of the leader acting as a role model. Leaders can be perceived as ethical leaders through their actions and behavior. Ethical leaders communicate about ethics and values and thereby promote ethical behavior to followers. Additionally, a leader can make use of a transactional method, promoting ethical behavior by rewarding ethical conduct by followers, and on the other hand disciplining unethical conduct (Treviño et al., 2000; Brown & Treviño, 2006). Brown et al. (2005) define 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” (Brown et al. 2005, p. 120). This definition has been adopted in later research and is also adopted in this

(10)

study. The influence mechanism behind ethical leadership is based on Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, which will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.

2.2 Social learning theory and ethical leadership

In his seminal work on social learning, Bandura (1977) suggests that learning can take place through social interactions. His main argument is that people can learn by observing others. The theory integrates behavioral and cognitive theories, and posits that individuals can learn from behavior by others, by looking at others as role models. According to Bandura (1977), almost anything that can be learned from direct experience can also be learned by imitation. In social learning individuals learn by observing others and via positive and negative reinforcement of emulated behavior. After the initial learning phase, the observed behavior can be reproduced. When reproduced behavior is rewarded, the learned behavior is reinforced, a process called vicarious reinforcement.

In order to be considered a role model, he or she has to be perceived as attractive and credible regarding this role (Bandura, 1977). This theory can be placed in context of ethical leadership in organizations by portraying the ethical leader as a role model to followers. Brown et al. (2005) state that “ethical leaders are models of ethical conduct who become the targets of identification and emulation for followers” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). Followers learn from the ethical leader’s behavior and accordingly demonstrate attitudes, values and behaviors that are promoted. Bandura (1977) indicates that power and status enhance the attractiveness of role models, two situational factors that are inherent to the function of leaders in an organization, and thus contributing to the characteristics of a role model. Other examples of individual characteristics that contribute to the attractiveness of ethical leaders, and that increase the legitimacy of the information followers receive, are integrity, fairness and trustworthiness. As mentioned above, these are characteristics that are inextricably linked to ethical leadership (Bandura, 1977; Brown et al., 2005; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008).

(11)

2.3 Ethical leadership as a leadership style

During the last decades, several leadership styles have been described, and many researchers in the field of leadership research focus their research on different leadership styles. In this section, ethical leadership is discussed in the context of multiple leadership styles.

In the literature, ethical leadership has been compared with different leadership styles, and has is predominantly associated with transformational/charismatic leadership, transactional leadership, and spiritual leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Transformational or charismatic leadership (used interchangeably here) has received the most attention in relation to ethical leadership. Burns (1978) states that transformational leaders inspire followers to work towards common goals by aligning the leader’s values with those of followers, based on moral principles (Brown et al. 2005; Brown & Treviño, 2006). In their description of transformational leadership, Bass and Avolio (1993) distinguish between four dimensions; inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and idealized influence. In their work, idealized influence has a strong ethical component: transformational leaders are described as “role models for followers to emulate”, furthermore they “can be counted on to do the right thing” and show “high standards of ethical and moral conduct” (Avolio, 1999, p. 43; Brown et al. 2005). Several researchers however have debated the ethicality of this dimension. Bass (1985) states that transformational leadership can be ethical or unethical, based on the leader’s motivations, meaning that a transformational leader may exert his or her influence in order to inspire followers to reach goals that are unethical (Bass, 1985 in: Brown et al., 2005). This debate has led to the distinction between ethical and unethical transformational leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996).

Despite this debate, consensus exists over transformational leadership being the closest leadership style to ethical leadership. Its main similarities with ethical leadership are concern for others, ethical decision-making, integrity, and the emphasis on leaders serving as a role model. The main differences between ethical leadership and transformational leadership are that ethical leaders emphasize ethical standards and moral management, which is not an integral part of transformational leadership, and fits better within transactional leadership. Additionally, transformational leaders emphasize vision, values, and intellectual stimulation, which are not per se characteristics of ethical leaders (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

(12)

Both authentic and spiritual leadership share the same commonalities with ethical leadership as transformational leadership, with the exception that spiritual leadership does not emphasize ethical decision-making. The most notable difference between authentic leadership and ethical leadership is that ethical leaders emphasize moral management, and authentic leaders emphasize authenticity and self-awareness. The difference between spiritual leadership and ethical leadership is that ethical leaders emphasize moral management, while spiritual leaders emphasize visioning, hope, faith, and work as vocation (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Leaders that can be characterized by any of the aforementioned leadership styles are altruistically motivated, and demonstrate a genuine care for people, and a concern for their well-being. Furthermore, they are characterized as individuals of integrity, serving as a role model for followers (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

2.4 Performance outcomes of ethical leadership

The importance of ethical leadership is characterized by the predicament that ethical leadership positively contributes to the performance of subordinates of the ethical leader, and therewith the performance of the organization. Part of the influence is presumed to be directed towards ethical behavior of subordinates. This study incorporates three performance-based concepts to further study the effects of ethical leadership on follower performance. These are organizational citizenship behavior, affective organizational commitment and workplace deviance behavior. As stated in the introduction, a mediating effect of moral attentiveness is proposed. In the following sections, the performance measures and the presumed mediating effect of moral attentiveness are further introduced and discussed in relation to ethical leadership. Additionally, a number of hypotheses are deduced from the theory.

2.4.1 Organizational citizenship behavior

Recent studies have linked organizational citizenship behavior to ethical leadership. Organizational citizenship behavior has been defined by Organ (1988) as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward

(13)

system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Piccolo et al. (2010) refer to organizational citizenship behavior as a performance indicator, reaching beyond task performance. In their research model, they find that ethical leadership increases follower perceptions of task significance and job autonomy, which in turn leads to the exertion of more effort in the job, which increases organizational citizenship behavior and task performance. They find a small significant direct positive relationship between ethical leadership and organization citizenship behavior (0.16, p <0.05) (Piccolo et al., 2010).

Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, and Salvador (2009) studied group level organizational citizenship behavior in relation to ethical leadership, with the emphasis on the helping dimension of organizational citizenship behavior. Results of the study by Mayer et al. (2009) indicate a positive relationship when measured by the supervisor (0.34, p<0.01) as well as when measured by employees (0.42 <0.01) (Mayer et al., 2009). Avey, Palanski and Walumbwa (2011) studied ethical leadership in relation to organizational citizenship behavior, and included follower self-esteem as a possible moderating variable in the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, in order to gain a better understanding of the complexities of the relationship. They find that follower self-esteem moderates the effect between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior; higher follower self-esteem reduces the effect of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior (Avey et al., 2011).

In conclusion, recent empirical findings indicate a positive relationship of ethical leadership on social employee behaviors in organizations. However, because empirical research about the performance outcomes of ethical leadership is still in its infancy, more research has to be done in order to come up with definitive answers (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Mayer et al., 2009). In order to gain more certainty about the presumably positive relationship between ethical leadership and pro-social behavior by followers of ethical leaders, this study includes the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: Ethical leadership is positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior.

(14)

2.4.2 Affective Organizational Commitment

The influence of ethical leadership is presumed to stretch further than pro-social, ethical behavior within organizations. Results by Piccolo et al. (2010) for example indicate a positive effect on perceived job characteristics; they find a positive association between ethical leadership and job autonomy, and between ethical leadership and task significance. Increased perceptions of fairness, honesty, and power sharing may be the root cause for this association.

If ethical leadership influences perceptions of individual jobs in the eyes of the jobholder, and the organization as a whole, it may induce a higher level of organizational commitment in followers.

Affective organizational commitment has been described as the affective or emotional orientation to an entity, in this case an organization, and organizational members that score high on affective organizational commitment stay with an organization ‘for it’s own sake’, and not solely for its instrumental worth (Allen & Mayer, 1984 in: Mayer, Stanley, Herscovitch and Topolnytsky, 2002). Based on Allen and Mayer (1984), Mayer et al. (2002) describe affective organizational commitment as “an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Mayer et al, 2002, p. 21). Work experiences in an organization are antecedents of affective organizational commitment. The characteristics of ethical leadership can have a positive influence on a follower’s work experiences through fairness, honesty and power sharing. Furthermore, one’s satisfaction with the organization is included in the measure for affective organizational commitment, which is in part based on satisfaction with management (Mayer et al., 2002).

Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts and Chonko (2009) studied the mediating effect of ethical climate between ethical leadership and multiple outcome variables, including affective organizational commitment. They find a moderate direct, positive correlation between ethical leadership and affective organizational commitment (r = 0.50, p <0.01). Ethical climate partially mediates the relationship, however the direct association remained significant as well (Neubert et al., 2009). Based on the theory on affective organizational commitment and preliminary study results, the following hypothesis is included in this study.

Hypothesis 2: Ethical leadership is positively associated with affective organizational commitment.

(15)

2.4.2 Workplace deviance behavior

The topic of whether ethical leadership contributes to follower ethical decision-making can also be viewed from an opposing perspective; does ethical leadership reduce unethical decision-making? This is a vital question in ethical leadership research, because by demonstrating that ethical leadership reduces unethical behavior, ethical leadership as a leadership style can make a positive contribution by reducing unethical conduct in organizations, and therefore acts as a solution to the issue of unethical conduct in organizations.

In accordance with social learning theory, by promoting ethical behavior, ethical leaders should not only inspire followers to show more pro-social behaviors, they should also be motivated to reduce employee behaviors that are harmful to organizations. The opposite of rewarding employees that show desired behavior is disciplining those that show behavior that goes against the ethical standards set by an ethical leader (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Mayer et al., 2009).

Several related concepts regarding unethical organizational conduct such as workplace deviance behavior, counterproductive behavior, organizational misbehavior, and unethical behavior have been studied, and have been linked to ethical leadership. Preliminary results indicate a negative relationship. In this study, to further explore the relationship between ethical leadership and undesirable employee behaviors, the influence of ethical leadership on workplace deviance behavior is studied (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Bennett and Robinson (2000) have defined workplace deviance behavior as “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in doing so, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members, or both” (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, p. 349). They developed a scale to measure workplace deviance behavior and find two types of workplace deviance behavior: organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. In this study the focus will be on organizational deviance, since organizational deviance includes general ethical behavioral norms directed to organizations, as opposed to interpersonal deviance, which focuses on interpersonal interactions (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).

Mayer et al. (2009) argue that ethical leadership may not only induce ethical or pro-social behavior, but that it may also reduce negative behavior. They ask whether ethical leaders, acting as role models for ethical behavior and reinforcing follower behavior by rewards and punishments, leads to a reduction in workplace deviance behavior. By studying

(16)

top management and supervisory ethical leadership in relation to employee deviance behavior, they find a negative correlation for both top management and supervisory ethical leadership with regard to employee deviance behavior (Mayer et al., 2009).

Avey et al. (2011) theorized that the relationship between ethical leadership and workplace deviance behavior is (partly) mediated by follower self-esteem. Results indicate a partially mediating effect of self-esteem. In this study ethical leadership is expected to be negatively associated with workplace deviance behavior. Additionally, this relationship is expected to be mediated by follower moral attentiveness, this will be discussed in the next section. The expected negative association between ethical leadership and workplace deviance behavior leads to the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3: Ethical leadership is negatively associated with workplace deviance behavior.

2.4.3 Cognitive moral development and moral attentiveness

As proposed by Brown et al. (2005), the influence of ethical leaders is based on social learning, whereby the ethical leader acts as a role model for followers. In this study, the effect of ethical leadership on a person’s attentiveness to ethical situations is explored, by examining the influence of ethical leadership on follower moral attentiveness.

Kohlberg and Hersch (1977) proposed the theory of moral cognitive development. The theory holds that an individual’s morality is developmental by a cognitive process. Individuals move through various stages, each stage contributing to the moral development of the individual. They distinguish between three basic levels of moral development that individuals move through, from childhood to adulthood. The learning process of social cognitive theory is based on Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. The stages are referred to as the preconventional, conventional, and postconventional level. At the preconventional level, individuals tend to decide on moral issues based on personal consequences of certain behavior. At the conventional level individuals’ moral judgments are based on social relationships. Expectations of others are weighted in the choices individuals make, and behavior that also benefits others is regarded as correct behavior. What is wrong or right is context specific (e.g. societal, cultural, situational). At the postconventional level, individuals make ethical decisions based on their understanding of personal values and will consider

(17)

adapting values when this is beneficial in the given situation. At the highest level of moral development, individuals make ethical judgments based on a set of ethical values that are learned and have become instilled (Ambrose, Arnoud & Schminke, 2008; Kohlberg & Hersch, 1977).

Kohlberg and Hersch’s (1977) theory of cognitive moral development has been linked to leadership theory in an organizational context. Graham (1995) theorizes that different leadership styles arouse different sorts of normative motivation and categorizes the kinds of normative motivation according to the different stages of cognitive moral development by Kohlberg and Hersch (1977), implying that different leadership styles have different outcomes with regard to the stage of moral development that is aroused in followers. Leadership appealing solely to the self interests of followers is linked to the preconventional level (e.g. coercive and transactional leadership), leadership that is based on interpersonal relationships and social networks is linked to the conventional level (e.g. leader-member exchange and institutional leadership), and lastly, transforming or servant leadership is linked to the postconventional level of moral development; these types of leadership are arguably most adjacent to ethical leadership from the leadership styles discussed by Graham (1995). Schminke, Ambrose and Neubaum (2005) studied the effect of cognitive moral development from the perspective of the leader. Findings suggest that the level of cognitive moral development of leaders affects the ethical climate of an organization and in this sense ethical leaders can help shape the ethical climate of an organization (Schminke et al., 2005). However, the predictive validity of cognitive moral development as operationalized by Rest (1979) and used in multiple studies regarding this topic is not without criticism. Fraedrich, Thorne and Ferrell (1994) conclude that disguised value judgments, invariance of stages, and gender bias (in favor of males) in the initial scale impair the scale’s validity.

In response to the critique, Reynolds (2008) has developed a related construct: moral attentiveness. Like cognitive moral development, moral attentiveness is based on Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. It is related to moral development, but has a higher predictive validity than cognitive moral development. Reynolds (2008) questions the predictive value of moral development because it “treats information as an objectively moral exogenous factor” (Reynolds, 2008, p. 1027). Whether an individual recognizes the situation as an ethical situation or dilemma determines if the individual is morally aware or not; cognitive moral development fails to include the interaction between people as well as other information that creates the moral issue. These are features that are incorporated in Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. Reynolds (2008) defines moral attentiveness as “the extent to which one

(18)

chronically perceives and considers morality and moral elements in his or her experiences” (Reynolds, 2008, p. 1028). Tests to validate the moral attentiveness construct indicate that the construct has predictive power regarding one’s moral attentiveness and future ethical behavior. Reynolds (2008) describes an individual’s level of moral attentiveness as a personal characteristic that can be further developed, increasing the individual’s level of moral attentiveness, by means of social learning. In this study it is therefore hypothesized that ethical leadership is positively associated with moral attentiveness.

Hypothesis 4: Ethical leadership is positively associated with moral attentiveness

Graham (1995) suggests that different a level of cognitive moral development, results in different types of citizenship behaviors shown by followers, and Ryan (2001) found empirical results for a positive relationship between the level of moral reasoning by organizational members and organizational citizenship behavior. Moral reasoning is a construct that is related to moral cognitive development and moral attentiveness. Additionally, moral reasoning has been linked to various other ethical behaviors (Ryan, 2001). In this study, a positive association is hypothesized between a person’s level of moral attentiveness, and organizational citizenship behavior as well as between moral attentiveness and affective organizational commitment. A direct negative association is hypothesized between a person’s level of moral attentiveness and workplace deviance behavior. This leads to the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 5a: Moral attentiveness is positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior

Hypothesis 5b: Moral attentiveness is positively associated with affective organizational commitment

Hypothesis 5c: Moral attentiveness is negatively associated with workplace deviance behavior

Graham (1995) further suggests that different leadership styles arouse different levels of cognitive moral development, resulting in different types of citizenship behaviors. This

(19)

implicates a mediating role of cognitive moral development. In this study, the theory of Graham (1995) is further explored by empirically testing the possibility of a mediating effect of moral attentiveness. The possibility of a mediating effect between ethical leadership and performance outcomes of followers has also been proposed by Piccolo et al. (2010). It is hypothesized that the ethical leader influences the level of moral attentiveness of followers, which in turn influences the performance outcomes of followers. Therefore, in this study, it is expected that the positive association between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, and between ethical leadership and affective organizational commitment, as well as the negative association between ethical leadership and workplace deviance behavior is be mediated by the level of follower moral attentiveness. This results in the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 6a: The relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by moral attentiveness.

Hypothesis 6b: The relationship between ethical leadership and affective organizational commitment is mediated by moral attentiveness

Hypothesis 6c: The relationship between ethical leadership and workplace deviance behavior is mediated by moral attentiveness.

2.6 Research model

In the previous sections, hypotheses have been deduced from the theory. The main relationships have been incorporated in the model below. Ethical leadership is expected to be positively associated with moral attentiveness, organizational citizenship behavior, and affective organizational commitment, and negatively associated with workplace deviance behavior (figure 1a). Furthermore, moral attentiveness is expected to be positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior, and affective organizational commitment, and is expected to be negatively associated with workplace deviance behavior (figure 1b). Additionally, moral attentiveness is expected to mediate the relationship between ethical

(20)

leadership and the performance measures organizational citizenship behavior, affective organizational commitment, and workplace deviance behavior (figure 1c).

(21)

2.5 Ethical leadership in a cross-cultural context

The world’s economy is becoming more and more international and many organizations do business abroad or have subsidiaries in one or more host-countries. International trade agreements and organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) facilitate international business. Doing business in different countries means doing business between different institutional frameworks and between different cultures. Managers will increasingly manage individuals or teams with different cultural backgrounds, across different countries. These differences can have consequences for the ethical side of matters. Sometimes companies find themselves in ambiguous situations with regard to ethics. For example, clothing manufacturers from Western countries who produce their clothes in emerging economies were taunted when a factory in Bangladesh collapsed in 2013, killing 1.129 people and injuring 2.515. The building was found instable and working conditions dire, which led to a condemnation of the industry by the media and the public

In the introduction of this study, the importance of looking across national and cultural borders has been brought to the attention. In a business (organizational) environment, which is becoming increasingly international, organizations deal with inter-organizational and intra-organizational cultural differences. Leadership plays a vital role in coping with these differences, and therefore this study stresses the importance of studying ethical leadership in a cross-cultural context. The ramifications of a progressively international connected world in which organizations internationalize, the scholarly scope should adapt to this level.

In the following sections, business ethics and ethical leadership will be discussed in a cross-cultural context. First, an overview of research on business ethics in a cross-cultural context is provided. Subsequently, recent research and research findings are discussed. Lastly, directions for future research are provided.

2.5.1 Cross-cultural business ethics and leadership research

Post-World War II literature on management and leadership has been dominated by studies from the United States, resulting in a predominantly Western perspective on

(22)

leadership in the literature. Over the last three decades, a body of literature in the area of business and ethics in a cross-cultural context has evolved that recognizes differences in management and leadership between nations and cultures.

During the eighties, several studies sought to compare managers’ attitudes on business ethics in different countries. Different methodologies have been used and measures have been developed, therefore it is arguable if meta-analysis is justified, but findings from these different, individual studies indicate differences and similarities, and gained the interest of scholars.

Results of early studies indicate that there are significant cultural differences in business ethics. For instance French managers seem fairly optimistic about the implementation of codes of ethics and its effect on ethical behavior, while managers from Germany (note: West-Germany) seem more pessimistic (Becker and Fritzsche, 1987). Izraeli (1988) conducted more exploratory research, comparing ethics of U.S. and Israeli executive managers. Most importantly Izraeli (1988) concludes that research about this topic is still in its infancy at that time and that research can make an important contribution to this topic, since a growing number of organizations operate in a cross-cultural context (Izraeli, 1988).

During the 90s, several researchers have based their comparison on students of different countries, and in contrast to the studies using managers, found no significant cultural differences. Commonly business students were asked to fill in questionnaires regarding ethics in organizations. In two studies, students from Denmark, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom were compared without significant cultural differences being found (Lysonski & Gaidis, 1991; Whipple & Swords, 1992). Okleshen and Hoyt (1996) however did find differences between students from the United States and New Zealand, and they conclude that students from the United States were less tolerable of unethical situations than the students from New Zealand (Okleshen & Hoyt, 1996).

Seminal work by Hofstede (1983) has created the opportunities to explore differences and similarities between cultures in a systematic way, and relate findings to organizational functioning and management theories. Hofstede (1983) has developed a model to measure national cultures. Using a questionnaire, Hofstede’s (1983) model measures five dimensions (power distance index, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance index, masculinity versus femininity and long-term orientation). Hofstede (1983) links management and leadership theories to national culture using these dimensions. Differences in national culture seem to be reflected in leadership and management in organizations in those cultures. For instance, in the Netherlands individualism en femininity score high, and Dutch leadership

(23)

can be characterized by power sharing and sharing opinions between leaders and followers, while cultures in Confucian Asia tend to be of a more collectivistic nature and show a preference for long-term orientation. Leadership in these cultures tends to emphasize collectivistic values and the long-term implications of decisions (Hofstede 1983, 1994).

A collective effort by scholars from different universities across the world has extended leadership research by adding new dimensions to Hofstede’s (1983) model and generating data from a multitude of countries. These studies are combined in the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) project (House, Javidan, Hanges & Dorfman, 2002). The measure used in the GLOBE study consists of nine dimensions (performance orientation, future orientation, assertiveness, power distance, humane orientation, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and gender egalitarianism). Multiple scholars have performed additional research using the GLOBE study (House et al., 2002).

2.5.2 Cross-cultural ethical leadership research

Data from the GLOBE study has been used to study ethical leadership in a cross-cultural context based on a more contemporary definition of ethical leadership than previous research. Resick, Hanges, Dickson, and Mitchelson (2006) have reviewed western-based leadership and ethics literature to conceptualize ethical leadership, concluding that character/integrity, altruism, collective motivation, and encouragement are important characteristics of ethical leadership. Resick et al. (2006) studied the level of endorsement of these characteristics across cultures, using data obtained by the GLOBE study. The characteristics that were studied seem to be universally endorsed. However, the importance that is given to the different characteristics differs across cultures (Resick et al., 2006). However, the characteristics that have been studied lack the transactional aspect of ethical leadership as described Brown et al. (2005). The GLOBE study does not provide data for this aspect of ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Martin, Resick, Keating, and Dickson (2009) studied the similarities and differences in the endorsement of ethical leadership by comparing German and U.S. middle managers regarding the subject. They based their comparative analysis on the GLOBE data as well, and used the same methodology to derive the ethical leadership construct from the GLOBE data,

(24)

and added a sample of German middle managers to provide more substance to the data. They found that there are differences in endorsement of the various aspects of ethical leadership as defined from the GLOBE data (i.e. character/integrity, altruism, collective motivation, and encouragement) between the compared countries, although managers from both countries seem to endorse the aspects. Collective motivation stands out in the results of the study; results from the German sample indicate that this aspect is not as closely connected to ethical leadership than it appears to be in the United States.

2.5.3 Directions for future cross-cultural ethical leadership research

Research on ethical leadership in a cross-cultural context is still in its infancy, and a lot of questions remain unanswered for now. The studies by Resick et al. (2006) and Martin et al. (2009) provide an indication of the endorsement of ethical leadership across cultures, but lack they both lack the transactional aspect of ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Next to the differences in the endorsement of ethical leadership as defined by Resick et al. (2006) or Brown et al. (2005), the outcomes of ethical leadership have to be studied across cultures in order to better understand the effects of ethical leadership across cultures. A better understanding may help prevent future ethics related scandals, especially in multinational corporations.

(25)

3. Method

This chapter covers the research method of the empirical research part of this study. First, the research sample will be described, followed by a description of the procedures that were followed to collect data. Thereafter, the different measures and control variables will be discussed. Lastly, the statistical procedures that have been used to test the hypothesized relationships are discussed.

3.1 Participants

In order to test the hypotheses that have been deduced from the theory, this study makes use of an online survey by means of an online questionnaire (see appendix A for the complete questionnaire). The questionnaire has been distributed via e-mail; the e-mail contained a link to the questionnaire. Employees from multiple organizations were asked to participate in the survey. Participants of the survey were required to be employed and working in the organization, part time or fulltime, and have a supervisor/superior that they keep in contact with in relation to the job. The nature of the organizations that participated is diverse, for example a software company, a PR company, an e-commerce organization, and a municipality were among the participating organizations).

3.2 Sample

A total of 186 questionnaires were distributed via e-mail among employees. 116 of the distributed questionnaires 186 completed the survey (response rate 63%). The study includes 54 female participants (46.6%) and 62 male participants (53.4%).

The age of the participants varied from 18 to 63 with a mean of 33, a standard deviation of 12.7, and a median of 27. The age distribution is skewed (1.086). There are two probable causes for the skewed distribution; most of the participating organizations have a relatively young workforce, and the in company distribution of the survey was done by relatively young employees They may have distributed more surveys among their peers and/or their peers show a higher response rate.

(26)

Participants have been asked to indicate the highest level of education that they completed. 3.4% of the participants did not complete any study past secondary education (Havo = 2, VWO = 2). 38.8% indicated that they have a bachelor degree at a university of applied sciences (HBO), 18.1% indicated a highest level of education of a bachelor degree at a university, and 31.9% indicated a Master’s degree at a university and/or completed doctorate program.

In total, 62.9% of the participants worked fulltime against 37.1% whom indicated to work part time. 74% of the male participants indicated to work on a fulltime basis whereas 50% of the female participants indicated to work on a fulltime basis.

The average organizational tenure of the sample is 8 years, with a median of 3 years and a standard deviation of 24.1. The average job tenure of the sample is 3.5 years, with a median of 2.5 years and a standard deviation of 12. The average number of years that participants worked with the supervisor that they worked with at the time they filled out the survey was 2 years, with a median of 1.5 years and a standard deviation of 5.2.

3.3 Measures

In this study it is theorized that ethical leadership influences performance outcomes of followers, as well as follower moral attentiveness. Furthermore it is theorized that moral attentiveness influences performance outcomes and mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and the performance outcomes. The following measures and procedures have been included in the survey in order to test the theorized hypotheses.

Translation and back-translation

Most of the participants are native Dutch speakers; therefore the survey was translated to Dutch. In order to retain the survey’s validity, the survey has been be translated from English to Dutch and subsequently has been back translated to English. The back translation was then compared to the original English version of the measures, and differences have been adjusted to reduce translation errors to a minimum.

(27)

Ethical leadership

In order to measure the degree to which an organizational member experiences ethical leadership, this study makes use of the ethical leadership scale as designed and validated by Brown et al. (2005). The measure has been used in previous research and is considered a valid scale to measure ethical leadership according to the definition by Brown et al. (2005). The measure consists of ten items, measured by a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Respondents answer questions regarding statements about their current supervisor.

Organizational citizenship behavior

The relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior has been suggested in multiple studies (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Mayer et al., 2009; Piccolo et al., 2010). This also accounts for the relationship between moral attentiveness and organizational citizenship behavior (Graham, 1995; Piccolo et al., 2010). In this study the direct relationship as well as the theorized mediating effect of moral attentiveness will be measured using the organizational citizenship behavior-individual (OCBI) measure by Lee and Allen (2002), measuring the proneness to help others dimension of organizational citizenship behavior. The measure consists of eight items, measured by a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Affective organizational commitment

The level of follower affective commitment to their organization is measured with Meyer and Allen’s (1997) affective organizational commitment measure. The measure consists of six items measured by a 7-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Workplace deviance behavior

Workplace deviance behavior is measured with Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) workplace deviance measure. The measure consists of thirteen items, measuring organizational deviance. Workplace deviance behavior is measured by a 7-point Likert-type

(28)

scale (1 = never, 2 = once, 3 = a few times, 4 = several times, 5 = monthly, 6 = weekly, 7 = daily).

Moral attentiveness

To measure the theorized relationship between ethical leadership and followers’ moral attentiveness, and to explore whether or not moral attentiveness has a direct relationship with the outcome variables, and acts as a mediator in the relationship between ethical leadership and the outcome variables, this study incorporates the moral attentiveness scale by Reynolds (2008). The measure consists of twelve items, measured by a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Respondents answered questions about the extent to which the individuals recognize moral aspects in everyday life and “the extent to which the individual considered, pondered and ruminated on moral matters” (Reynolds, 2008: 1030).

Control variables

Several control variables have been included in the questionnaire. Age is included in the questionnaire because social learning theory, moral development theory, and moral attentiveness theory include age or time as a factor of moral reasoning. Gender, level of education, and ethnicity are included as a means to describe the research sample. Job tenure and organizational tenure are included to gain insight into the duration that individuals are working in their current position and the organization, and to control for the possible influence this has on the theorized associations in this study. To add to this, time working for the current supervisor and hours working per week are included in the questionnaire.

3.4 Statistical procedure

The data obtained from the questionnaire is analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 for Macintosh OS. First, the raw data has been screened and cleaned in order to detect possible errors in the dataset. Subsequently, the dataset was checked against missing values. Cases that have a significant amount of missing values on one or more measures are excluded from further analysis. The dataset shows that most of the excluded cases display

(29)

missing values for the questions in the questionnaire concerning organizational citizenship behavior and/or workplace deviance behavior. This may be a result of the personal nature of the questions (i.e. questions about one’s own positive and negative organizational behavior).

The normality of the distribution of all variables has been examined, as well as skewness and kurtosis. Most of the control variables are skewed, such as age (skewness: 1.086). The skewness of the control variables can be explained by the procedure of data collection (see also section 3.1). Of the latent variables only factor two of organizational citizenship behavior was skewed (-1.565) and showed high kurtosis (5.187). Variables were also checked against outliers and extreme cases, which were excluded when deemed justified. In order to create the constructs necessary for the testing of the hypotheses, reverse scored items were reversed; thereafter factor analysis has been performed for the different constructs. Reliability tests were performed to test the internal reliability of the construct.

In this study, the effects of ethical leadership are studied, and several direct effects of ethical leadership are deduced in the theory part of this study. Based on the theory, to some extent causal relationships are assumed. However, it is a precarious matter to assume any type of causation from the data obtained from the survey. Therefore, the interpretation of the results is done with caution regarding causality. For this reason correlations are represented in the results, instead of using regression analysis.

(30)

4. Results

In this chapter the results of the statistical analysis that has been performed in order to test the hypotheses is presented. First, an overview of the main characteristics of the variables is presented, based on the analysis in SPSS. Subsequently the correlation matrix will be discussed (see table 1). In the following sections, the hypotheses will be discussed based on the correlations that have been found.

4.1 Variable analysis and correlation matrix

The correlation matrix (table 1) shows the means, standard deviations, the correlations between the different variables, and the reliability of the various latent variables that have been constructed from multiple scale items. The constructs ethical leadership, moral attentiveness, organizational citizenship behavior, affective organizational commitment, and workplace deviance are constructed out of multiple items, by using factor analysis.

When performing factor analysis for the items measuring moral attentiveness (twelve items) it became apparent that there are two distinguishable components. This is in accordance with the existing literature on moral attentiveness. Reynolds (2008) describes the two components as perceptual moral attentiveness and reflective moral attentiveness. The factor loadings in this dataset show similar results to those of Reynolds (2008) (see table 2 and 3). Perceptual moral attentiveness consists of seven items with an internal reliability score of a=0.89. Reflective moral attentiveness consists of five items and has an internal reliability of a=0.88. The decision was made to further analyze the data and perform statistical tests using the two separate factors for moral attentiveness.

Organizational citizenship behavior also loads on two separate factors. Each component consists of four items. Further examination shows that the two factors measure related but distinctive concepts, namely personal engagement towards colleagues in the organization and job related engagement towards colleagues in the organization. Both factors show an internal reliability above a=0.70 (personal engagement: a=0.77, job engagement: a=0.79). Based on the factor loadings and the internal reliability, the two separate constructs measuring different aspects of organizational citizenship behavior are included in the model for further analysis and hypotheses testing.

(31)

(32)

The remaining latent variables all show an adequate internal reliability; affective organizational commitment has a reliability score of a=0.89 and ethical leadership shows an internal validity of a=0.93. This makes all measures suitable for testing the hypotheses.

It is noteworthy that ethical leadership correlates with the three performance measures: organizational citizenship behavior, affective organizational commitment, and workplace deviance behavior. Moral attentiveness on the other hand does not show a significant correlation with the performance measures.

(33)

(34)

4.2.1 Direct effects

The correlation matrix (see table 1) shows multiple significant correlations between variables. First, the most notable correlations between control variables are discussed, subsequently the direct effect of the measures in this study are discussed in accordance with the hypotheses.

Several demographic variables show significant correlations. Notable are the correlations between age and level of education (r = -0.30, p = 0.001), organizational tenure (r = 0.89, p = 0.000), job tenure (r = 0.65, p = 0.000), supervisor tenure (r = 0.47, p = 0.000), and hours working per week (r = 0.30, p = 0.001). Age is negatively correlated with the level of education in the sample; this implies that younger participants have enjoyed a higher level of education. Organizational, job, and supervisor tenure as well as the number of hours that participants work per week show a positive correlation. This may be explained by the fact that the older participants have been working longer and can therefore be with an organization, job or supervisor longer than younger participants. An explanation for the positive correlation with hours working per week may be that some of the participants still combine their job with studying, and therefore work less hours compared to the older participants. The assumption that younger participants enjoyed a higher level of education is reinforced by the negative correlation between the level of education and organizational tenure (r = -0.30, p = 0.001), and the negative correlation between the level of education and job tenure (r = -0.20, p = 0.033).

According to the factor analysis that has been performed for organizational citizenship behavior, the measure is divided into two separate components. The correlation matrix shows a positive correlation between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior – personal engagement (r = 0.24, p = 0.008). Ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior – job engagement show an even stronger correlation (r = 0.32, p = 0.001). Presumably, there is an effect of ethical leadership on both types of organizational citizenship behavior, although due to the cross-sectional nature of the study an alternative causal direction cannot be precluded. It may be that the effect on job engagement is stronger because ethical leadership takes place in an organizational context and focuses mainly on organizational practices. Hypothesis 1, assumes a positive association between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Results for both constructs of

(35)

organizational citizenship behavior show a positive association with ethical leadership; therefore the results support hypothesis 1.

A strong correlation can be observed between ethical leadership and affective organizational commitment (r = 0.41, p = 0.000). This implies a strong positive relationship between ethical leadership and affective organizational commitment. Hypothesis 2 predicts a positive relationship between ethical leadership and affective organizational commitment, and therefore results show support for hypothesis 2 as well.

A strong negative correlation is found between ethical leadership and workplace deviance behavior (r = -0.41, p = 0.000). The strong negative correlation supports the theory, which assumes that ethical leadership leads to a decrease in unethical behavior by employees. Therefore, the results show support for hypothesis 3.

Lastly, a moderate correlation is observed between ethical leadership and moral attentiveness – perceptual (r = -0.19, p = 0.04). Moral attentiveness – reflective is not significant, and therefore it is not possible draw any conclusions from the correlation coefficient. Theory predicts a positive association between ethical leadership and moral attentiveness. The results do not match this prediction. Perceptual moral attentiveness shows a negative correlation instead of a positive correlation, and reflective moral attentiveness does is not significant. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is rejected.

4.2.2 Mediation effects

The theory assumes a mediating effect of moral attentiveness on the relationship between ethical leadership and the outcome measures organizational citizenship behavior, affective organizational commitment, and workplace deviance behavior. In the previous section the existence of direct correlations between ethical leadership and the outcome measures has been established, with the exception of moral attentiveness, which is only significant in relation to ethical leadership on one of the moral attentiveness constructs; perceptual moral attentiveness, but shows a negative correlation instead of the expected positive correlation. Both moral attentiveness constructs show no significant correlation with the outcome variables in this study. This is a strong indication that there is no significant mediating effect of moral attentiveness on the established relationships between ethical leadership and the outcome measures. Based on this notion, the decision has been made to refrain from including regression analysis in this study. Since a mediating effect of moral

(36)

attentiveness has been ruled out based on the found correlations from the research sample, including regression analysis does not make a substantive contribution to this study.

Hypothesis 3b, 3c, and 3d assume a mediating effect between ethical leadership and the different outcome variables. Based on the research sample and the statistical analysis that has been performed, it has been concluded that there is no mediating effect and therefore these hypotheses are rejected.

Figure 2 shows the significant associations between the variables that are relevant to the hypotheses discussed in this section.

(37)

5. Discussion

This chapter discusses the most important findings of this study in relation to the theory and findings from previous studies. First, the theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed. Subsequently, the limitations to the current study are presented, followed by a number of directions for future research.

5.1 Theoretical and practical implications of the findings

Recent seminal studies such as the study by Treviño et al. (2000), Brown et al. (2005), Brown and Treviño (2006), and Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2012) have provided rigor to ethical leadership as a construct, and thereby opened the way for scholars to further explore ethical leadership in a more structured way, including the antecedents and outcomes of ethical leadership. By doing so, we are extending our knowledge about leadership in general, and more specific, leadership in an organizational setting. Furthermore it generates knowledge in the field of organizational psychology, and by exploring the outcomes we may find answers to whether or not ethical leadership contributes to more ethical behavior by employees and more ethical organizations. This study also attempts to answer the question if and how ethical leadership contributes to the reduction of unethical behavior, which may prevent organizational scandals in the future.

Thus far, studies indicate that ethical leadership affects follower behavior in several ways, therewith confirming preliminary theoretical assumptions about the possible influence of ethical leadership. This study attempts to further explore the effects of ethical leadership and contribute to our understanding of how ethical leadership relates to adjacent constructs, and what the possible outcomes of ethical leadership are. Furthermore, it explores one potential mechanism by which ethical leadership influences followers, with the objective to further develop our theoretical understanding of ethical leadership, and ultimately to work towards more effective practical applications of ethical leadership as a leadership style in organizational management. In this study, the influence of ethical leadership on several outcome variables is explored, as well as the influence of ethical leadership on the level of moral attentiveness of followers. By including the level of moral attentiveness of followers, the aim is to extend our understanding about the development of followers regarding ethical

(38)

matters, and test its potential role as a mediator between ethical leadership and outcomes of ethical leadership.

The influencing mechanism behind ethical leadership and moral attentiveness is Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory; ethical leaders influence followers by social learning, via role modeling and transactional methods such as rewards and punishments. According to Reynolds (2008), a person’s moral attentiveness level is in part a personal trait, but can be further developed via social learning (Brown et al., 2005; Reynolds, 2008). Therefore, in this study it is theorized that ethical leaders influence a person’s level of moral attentiveness, and subsequently, that a person’s level of moral attentiveness partly explains the effects between ethical leadership and its effects on followers by acting as a mediator between ethical leadership and outcomes of ethical leadership.

Contrary to theory, results in this study indicate that there is no positive relationship between ethical leadership and follower moral attentiveness. According to the findings, no correlation exists between ethical leadership and the reflective dimension of moral attentiveness, and a small negative relationship has been found between ethical leadership and the perceptual dimension of moral attentiveness (r = -0.19, p = <0.05). It has to be noted that the causation of the relationship cannot be determined by cross-sectional research, therefore leaving open the possibility of reverse causation. In this case, participants with high scores on the perceptual dimension of moral attentiveness seem to give somewhat lower scores to their supervisor’s ethical leadership behavior. This may be because these participants are more attentive to ethics and they may have higher ethical standards, which are projected on the supervisor’s behavior, resulting in lower scores for the supervisor’s ethical leadership behavior. The possibility of reverse causation is discussed in greater detail in the below section on limitations and directions for future research.

Altogether, the results indicate that ethical leadership does not positively influence follower moral attentiveness, and therefore it does not contribute to the level of moral attentiveness of followers. In this sense, the role-modeling dimension of ethical leadership has not been demonstrated in relation to moral attentiveness. Furthermore, no direct relationship has been found between moral attentiveness and organizational citizenship behavior, affective organizational commitment, and workplace deviance behavior. Especially workplace deviance behavior was expected to be negatively associated with moral attentiveness, since this measure directly linked to unethical behavior, which was expected to decrease as a person’s level of moral attentiveness increases. Such results were not found. Piccolo et al. (2010) suggest that the link between ethical leadership and outcomes of ethical leadership

Effectiveness of ethical leadership in organizations : the role of employee moral attentiveness, and the development of a cross-cultural perspective