Transformational leadership and Unethical
Pro-Organizational Behavior (UPB):
The mediating role of positive reciprocity and the
moderating role of willingness to take risks.
Master Thesis
June 11, 2017
MSc. Human Resource Management University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Faculty of Economics and Business
ANNEMIEK HEGEN Lingestraat 46 9725 GS Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6 19 44 16 70 a.hegen@student.rug.nl student number: s2197316 Supervisor: R. Said
1 ABSTRACT
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 2 INTRODUCTION ... 3 THEORY ... 9
Transformational leadership and UPB ... 9
Transformational leadership and positive reciprocity ... 14
Positive reciprocity and UPB ... 16
Transformational leadership, positive reciprocity and UPB ... 18
The moderating role of willingness to take risks ... 20
Transformational leadership, positive reciprocity, willingness to take risks and UPB ... 22
METHODOLOGY ... 24 Data collection ... 24 Measurements ... 25 Data analysis ... 27 RESULTS ... 29 Correlations ... 29
Hierarchical regression analysis (mediation-effect) ... 30
Hierarchical regression analysis (moderation-effect) ... 31
Additional analysis ... 32
Moderated-mediation effect ... 33
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSSION... 34
Summary of the results ... 34
Theoretical and managerial implications ... 35
Limitations and future research directions ... 41
Conclusion ... 43
REFERENCES ... 44
APPENDICES ... 49
Appendix 1: Descriptives data supervisors ... 49
Appendix 2: Descriptives data employees ... 50
Appendix 3: Correlation matrix ... 51
Appendix 4: Hierarchical regression analysis (mediation) ... 52
Appendix 5: Hierarchical regression analysis (moderation) ... 53
Appendix 6: Interaction plot (moderation) ... 54
Appendix 7: Moderated-mediation analysis (90% confidence interval) ... 55
3
INTRODUCTION
July 2008, Reinhard Siekaczek was found guilty for bypassing money for bribery purposes at Siemens AG. The New York Times wrote about the former manager of Siemens AG who was sentenced for two years’ probation and a fine of €108.000 (Schubert & Miller, 2008). This example of an unethical business practice is one of the many examples of unethical behavior in organizations that can be found in the newspapers nowadays.
Unethical behavior can be loosely described as actions that do not conform to moral or accepted norms in society (Treviño, Weaver and Reynolds, 2006). Where the bribery case at Siemens AG is an example of unethical behavior in organizations which happens on a grand scale, unethical behavior also exist on a (much) smaller scale in organizations. On a regular basis, employees engage in unethical behaviors such as lying, cheating or stealing (Askew, Beisler & Keel, 2015; Treviño et al., 2006). Existing literature on unethical behavior explains several motives for employees to engage in such behavior. For example, employees are motivated to benefit their self-interest or they are motivated to harm their co-workers and/or their leader because of perceived unfairness (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). However, returning to the bribery case at Siemens AG, Reinhard Siekaczek argued that the bribery payments he made were not for self-interest purposes but they were needed to maintain the competitiveness of Siemens AG (Schubert & Miller, 2008).
4
organization in the long term (Graham, Ziegert & Capitano, 2013). Removing or destroying harmful information, or providing customers with misleading information to benefit the organization are examples of unethical behavior that employees exhibit to benefit their organization (Umphress & Bingham, 2011). Notwithstanding the intention of an employee to benefit the organization with UPB, UPB has negative consequences for external stakeholders and/or the society. Furthermore, UPB can also cause problems for the organization in the long run. For example, UPB exhibited by employees may lead to decreases in organizational performances, a loss of customers or reputation-damages (Askew et al., 2015). As a consequence, UPB is likely to lead to a loss in organizational revenues in the longer term (Askew et al., 2015; Vadera & Pratt, 2013). Given these probable, detrimental consequences of UPB for external stakeholders, the larger society and also for to organization in the longer run, an important question for organizations remains: what predicts such pro-organizational unethical behavior?
5
between transformational leadership and UPB, existing research has not focused yet on underlying mechanisms and contextual factors that may explain this relationship. Therefore, by means of this present research, we extend the existing literature by examining a mediator and moderator, which deepens our knowledge about the context and underlying mechanisms of the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB.
First, in order to explain the positive relationship between transformational leadership and UPB, we put forward the theory of positive reciprocity as a mediator. Here, we assume that one of the reasons why employees engage in UPB lies in their willingness to do something in return for their leader and/or organization. Positive reciprocity refers to this willingness to do something beneficial in return. It means that an individual is motivated to provide an exchange partner a benefit when this individual has received a benefit from this exchange partner (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2015). We expect that a transformational leader positively influences the positive reciprocity beliefs of an employee, because this leadership style aims to motivate the employee to behave above expectations (Bass, 1999). Therefore, we assume that an employee wants to provide the leader and the organization a benefit. Furthermore, we expect that employees that are willing to reciprocate their transformational leader with a benefit (i.e. strong positive reciprocity beliefs) are also more willing to engage in UPB in order to show their loyalty to the leader and the organization (Elegido, 2013). As a consequence, we expect that positive reciprocity mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB.
6
reciprocity beliefs in the prediction of UPB. Due to the probable undesirable consequences UPB can have for external stakeholders, the society, and the organization (Askew et al., 2015; Vadera & Pratt, 2013), we assume that engaging in such behavior involves uncertainty and therefore involves risks (Boyer, 2006). Where individuals differ in their attitude towards risks (March & Shapira, 1987) we suggest that an employee needs to be willing to take the risks of UPB, otherwise positive reciprocity is less likely to predict UPB. A risk-averse employee, who prefers certain outcomes and wants to avoid risks (March & Shapira, 1987), is therefore expected to be less likely to positively reciprocate a transformational leader with UPB. In contrast, we assume that an employee that is willing to take risks is more likely to positively reciprocate a transformational leader with UPB.
The relationships we test in this research paper are schematically presented in the conceptual model below (see figure 1)
7
By investigating respectively a mechanism and contextual factor, this present research aims to open the black box of the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB. Due to the potential harmful outcomes of unethical behavior, UPB is a concern for many organizations (Askew et al., 2015). Therefore, knowledge about the concept of UPB is very important for organizations in order to counteract this behavior (Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo & Reade, 2015). Where existing research did focus on transformational leadership as a predictor of UPB, more research on contextual factors and mechanisms of this relationship is needed (Effelsberg et al., 2013; Graham et al., 2013). Hence, this research contributes to existing literature in several ways.
First, it provides deeper insights in the underling mechanisms in the supposed positive relationship between transformational leadership and UPB by investigating the mediating role of positive reciprocity beliefs. Information about this mediating effect contributes to the literature where it provides an explanation why transformational leadership can evoke UPB.
Second, this research paper extends the theory about contextual factors by investigating the moderating role of willingness to take risks on the supposed mediation effect of positive reciprocity beliefs. Information about this moderating effect provides insights in when employees are likely to engage in UPB.
Information about mediating as well as moderating effects is important for theory as well as for management because it provides helpful insights that can be used by leaders in order to prevent UPB and as a result, to overcome its detrimental consequences.
8
9 THEORY
This second chapter of the research paper elaborates on existing literature about the four concepts of this research (i.e. transformational leadership, UPB, positive reciprocity and willingness to take risks). Furthermore, we elaborate on the interrelatedness of these concepts. Based on the findings in existing literature, we estimate the relations between the concepts, which results in the formulation of six research hypotheses.
Transformational leadership and UPB
According to the literature, the leadership style a leader exhibits influences the choice of an employee whether to engage in unethical behavior (Treviño & Brown, 2005; Graham et al., 2013). In the literature, several leadership styles are distinguished. One of the classifications of leadership styles is the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership. A transactional leadership style is based on the exchange of benefits between the leader and the follower (Yukl, 2013). Transactional leaders are focused on the achievement of goals. Therefore, a transactional leader provides rewards in return for goal attainments by the follower. Also, the transactional leader acts to react or to prevent serious problems which hamper the goal attainment (Yukl, 2013).
Next to transactional leadership we also distinguish a transformational leadership style. Transformational leadership goes beyond the goal attainment focus of transactional leaders and refers to a leadership style that leaders use to influence employees in the way how they think about themselves and about the organization (Yukl, 2013). More specifically, this leadership style aims to transform one’s individual self-interests into the interests of the organization (Bass, 1999; Effelsberg et al., 2013; Graham et al., 2013, Yukl, 2013).
10
other. For the purpose of this research, we focus on leaders that exhibit a more transformational than transactional leadership style, where we expect that higher levels of transformational leadership has a positive effect on an employee’s willingness to engage in UPB. In the following of this section we will further elaborate on this supposed positive relationship.
Before we explain this supposed positive relationship, we first focus on the different behaviors that transformational leaders exhibit to influence their employees. Previous research (Yukl, 2013; Bass, 1999) distinguishes four transformational leadership behaviors, namely: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. With the use of these behaviors, transformational leaders try to motivate followers to focus on higher-level goals and to encourage these employees to behave beyond expectations. For example, Yukl (2013: p.313) defines idealized influence as ‘behavior that increases follower identification with the leader’. Furthermore, this author refers to inspirational motivation as ‘communicating an appealing vision, and using symbols to focus subordinate effort’ (Yukl, 2013: p.313). Both idealized influence and inspirational motivation are leadership behaviors that are used by the transformational leader to visualize a desired future and to show employees how this future can be reached (Bass, 1999). Here, transformational leaders focus on a collective mission and a strong sense of purpose that aims to align the interests of the employee with the common interests of the organization (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).
11
behavior, intellectual stimulation, refers to a leadership behavior that ‘influences followers to view problems from a new perspective and look for more creative solutions’ (Yukl, 2013; p.313). Here, the transformational leader stimulates problem solving (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013) and helps employees to be more creative and more innovative (Bass, 1999).
In the literature, transformational leadership and its four underlying leadership behaviors are often related to positive organizational outcomes, such as increased job satisfaction, higher creativity levels and decreased turnover intentions among employees (De Poel et al., 2014; Khalil & Raheel, 2016; Umphress, Bingham & Mitchell, 2010). According to Bass (1999) these positive outcomes can be explained because, transformational leadership raises an employee’s maturity, ideals and concerns for achievement, self-actualization and the well-being of the organization. Especially through idealized influence and inspirational motivation, transformational leadership fosters an individual’s identification with the organization which leads to higher levels of organizational commitment (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang & Chen, 2005). Consequently, employees are proud of being part of the organization where organizational identification creates a feeling of belongingness (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Based on this internalization and identification, these employees are also motivated to behave pro-organizational (Umphress et al., 2010) and to serve the greater good (Bass, 1999).
12
(Umphress et al., 2010). Employees engage in such behavior because they want to help the organization. Where followers of transformational leaders are motivated to behave pro-organizational, and to serve the greater good (Bass, 1999; Umphress et al., 2010), it is not clear whether these served organizational interests are also in line with the interests of external stakeholders and/or the larger community beyond the organization (Effelsberg et al., 2013). According to Effelsberg et al. (2013) what is in the interest of the organization can differ or even contradict from what is in the interest of the larger community. Furthermore, In contrast to ethical leadership, the initial concept of transformational leadership as introduced by Bass (1999) and the four transformational leadership behaviors (Yukl, 2013; Bass, 1999) do not elaborate explicitly on the ethicality of transformational leadership. The conceptualization, for example, does not include whether transformational leadership fosters ethical or prevents unethical behavior (Effelsberg et al., 2013). So, where transformational leadership seems to be neutral in this ethicality, it could evoke ethical as well as unethical behavior (Effelsberg et al., 2013; Howell & Avolio, 1992). Therefore, we expect that an employee, who wants to serve the organizations, is also willing to engage in UPB in order to benefit the organization.
13
to positive organizational outcomes in the short term, and therefore this behavior helps the employee to profit the organization. Furthermore, organizational identification fosters an employee’s motivation to benefit the organization, even though this is in contrast with the interest of external stakeholders (Effelsberg et al., 2013; Umphress et al., 2010; Vadera & Pratt, 2013). Therefore, we expect that transformational leaders evoke UPB among employees, because these employees identify strongly with the organization and therefore are willing to behave pro-organizational, even if this entails unethical behavior.
In conclusion, we expect that transformational leadership predicts UPB because this leadership style motivates employees to behave pro-organizational. Furthermore, where transformational leadership does not elaborate explicitly on the concept of ethicality, we expect that transformational leadership also evokes pro-organizational behavior that is unethical. Therefore, the first hypothesis of this research is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: transformational leadership is positively related to employee’s willingness to engage in UPB.
14
reciprocity. After, we deepen our understanding about the relationship between positive reciprocity and the willingness of employees to engage in UPB.
Transformational leadership and positive reciprocity
In order to explain the supposed positive relationship between transformational leadership and positive reciprocity we refer to the social exchange theory. Existing research already explained that transformational leadership is strongly linked to a positive social exchange relationship between the transformational leaders and their employees (Jia, Song, Li, Cui & Chen, 2007). According to Cropanzano & Mitchell (2005: p.874), a social exchange relationship ‘involves a series of interactions that generate obligations which have the potential to generate high-quality relationships’ (Ibid. p.875).
15
Here, we assume that transformational leadership positively relates to the positive reciprocity beliefs of employees, where an employee wants to do something positive in return for his or her transformational leader. In addition, we assume that his employee behavior that benefits the leader, also benefits the organization due to the organizational identification of the leader. Existing literature of transformational leadership explains that a leader’s organizational identification is an important predictor of transformational leadership because this organizational identification is important for a leader to exhibit the four transformational leadership behaviors (Effelsberg & Solga, 2015; Schuh, Zhang, Egold, Graf, Pandey, van Dick, 2012). Therefore, we assume that behavior that is beneficial for the leader also is in favor of the organization.
The argument we put forward for the supposed positive relationship between transformational leadership and positive reciprocity, is based on the assumption that in order to maintain the social exchange relationship with the transformational leader, an employee wants to reciprocate (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Because transformational leadership aims to align the interests of the employee with the interests of the organizations and to motivate employees to behave above expectations, we expect that employees with a transformational leader want to do something positive into return to benefit the leader and the organization (Jia et al., 2007).
16
may demand sacrificing some aspects of one’s self-interest beyond what would be required by one’s legal and other moral duties’ (Elegido, 2013: p.496). Elegido (2013) compares employee loyalty to a friendship where two parties are in a relationship and both parties want the other party to be better off. This also explains why transformational leadership leads to high positive reciprocity beliefs, because employees want to do something positive in return to show their loyalty with the transformational leader. Consequently, this positive reciprocity will endorse the positive social exchange relationship with the transformational leader and shows an employee’s loyalty towards the transformational leader.
Because of the above-mentioned explanations, we expect a positive relationship between transformational leadership and positive reciprocity beliefs. Therefore, the second hypothesis of this research is as follows:
Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership is positively related to positive reciprocity beliefs.
Positive reciprocity and UPB
This research expects that the level of positive reciprocity beliefs of the employee positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee’s willingness to engage in UPB. Therefore, besides a positive relationship between transformational leadership and positive reciprocity, we also expect a positive relationship between positive reciprocity and employee’s willingness to engage in UPB. In the following section we elaborate further on this supposed relationship.
17
to more trust, loyalty and commitment among both parties (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Umphress & Bingham, 2011). According to the principle of reciprocity which is based on the social exchange theory, employees with strong positive reciprocity beliefs are more willing to behave with the intention to maximize gains for their exchange partner (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). So, strong positive reciprocity beliefs strengthen the willingness of employees to engage in behavior that profits the transformational leader and the organization (Umphress et al., 2010). As an explanation for this motivation to engage in pro-organizational behavior, we suggest that employees that have a positive social exchange relationship with their leader, expect a beneficial return for their organization behavior because this pro-organizational behavior strengthens the relationship with the leader (Jia et al., 2007; Kalshoven, van Dijk & Boon, 2016; Umphress & Bingham, 2011). As we already explained, a good relationship with their leader is a desire for almost all employees (Elegido, 2013).
18
detrimental consequences. Based on that, we expect that the willingness of an employee to positively reciprocate his or her transformational leaders is stronger than the willingness of an employee to behave ethical, and therefore an employee is willing to engage in UPB when he or she has strong positive reciprocity beliefs.
Furthermore, we expect that employees are motivated to positively reciprocate with UPB as a way to show their loyalty towards the transformational leader. In alignment, Elegido (2013) explains with the concept of ‘employee loyalty’ that, to be loyal towards their leader, employees are motivated to prioritize the values and beliefs of their leader, even though this entails behavior that is contradicting their own self-interest, moral duties and/or societal accepted norms. Also, Effelsberg & Solga (2015) explain that employees judge their willingness of being loyal to their transformational leader and their organization as to be more important than ethical principles or probably negative outcomes of unethical behavior for the larger community. Furthermore, we suggest that with the engagement in pro-organizational behavior that is unethical, employees strengthen their message of being loyal by showing that they are motivated to even disregard ethical beliefs in order to reciprocate their leader.
Based on the provided arguments, we expect a positive relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB. Therefore, the third hypothesis of this research paper is as follows:
Hypothesis 3: The level of positive reciprocity beliefs of the employee is positively related to employee’s willingness to engage in UPB.
Transformational leadership, positive reciprocity and UPB
19
reciprocity beliefs of an employee serves as a mediator between transformational leadership and UPB. Stated in another way, we expect that the principle of positive reciprocity is a mechanism between transformational leadership and UPB and that it explains why the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB exists.
Here, we assume that employees use UPB to reciprocate their leader and to show their loyalty and commitment to the organization. According to Jia et al. (2007) there exists a positive social exchange relationship between transformational leaders and their employees. Furthermore, Elegido (2013) explains that a good relationship with the leader is important for employees and that employees are willing be loyal. Therefore, in order to maintain the positive exchange relationship and to show their loyalty, we expect that employees want to positively reciprocate their transformational leader (Umphress et al., 2010; Effelsberg & Solga, 2015; Elegido, 2013). In addition, we expect that the message of being loyal is strengthened even more when employees engage in pro-organizational behavior that is unethical. As a consequence, we propose that employees, who want to reciprocate their transformational leader positively, are also likely to engage in UPB in order to do so (Effelsberg & Solga, 2015; Elegido, 2013; Umphress et al., 2010). This results in our fourth hypothesis of the research which is as follows:
Hypothesis 4: Positive reciprocity mediates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee’s willingness to engage in UPB.
20
willingness to take risks positively moderates the mediation effect of positive reciprocity in the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB. Here, we propose that willingness to take risks positively interacts with an individual’s positive reciprocity beliefs in the prediction of UPB. That is, willingness to take risks will strengthen the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB. So, employees who are willing to take risks and have high positive reciprocity beliefs are expected to be more willing to engage in UPB. We will elaborate further on this supposed moderating effect in the next section of this chapter.
The moderating role of willingness to take risks
An employee’s willingness to take risks refers to ‘a willingness to withstand uncertainty and mistakes as one explores new ideas, advocates unconventional or unpopular positions, or tackles extremely challenging problems without obvious solutions, in order to increase the likelihood of accomplishment’ (Neves & Eisenberger, 2014: p.188). So, it refers to the willingness to engage in actions with an uncertain and probable undesirable outcome (Boyer, 2006). Because the outcomes of unethical behavior are uncertain and may imply negative consequences for external stakeholders or the organization itself, we assume that an employee’s willingness to engage in UPB depends on his or her willingness to take risks. Here, we expect that an employee’s willingness to take risks positively moderates the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB where positive reciprocity will predict UPB even more when an employee is willing to take risks and even less when an employee is not willing to take risks.
21
possible also for the organization itself in the longer term. Where the possible negative outcomes of UPB are uncertain, engaging in UPB involves risk-taking behavior. In addition, individuals differ in their attitude towards risks (March & Shapira, 1987). For example, an employee can be risk-averse. Here, the employee wants to avoid risky situations, and prefers an option with a certain outcome rather than an alternative option with a gamble, uncertain outcome (March & Shapira, 1987). We expect that an employee that is willing to take risks (instead of risk-averse), is more likely to engage in UPB because this person is expected to handle with the uncertain and maybe undesirable effects UPB can cause.
Consequently, we assume that an employee who is willing to reciprocate his or her transformational leader with benefits and is willing to take risks in so doing, is more likely to engage in UPB because this employee accepts the uncertainty of the outcomes of such behavior. In contrast, we expect that an employee that is risk-averse (i.e. less willing to take risk), will hesitate to engage in UPB, even though he wants to do something in return for his or her leader (i.e. high positive reciprocity beliefs). This employee wants to avoid the potential negative and uncertain effects of UPB. We expect that those employees will use behavior that is less unethical and more certain in reciprocating their transformational leader.
In conclusion, we expect that high levels of willingness to take risks strengthen the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB and low levels of willingness to take risks will weaken this relationship. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis of this research as follows:
22
Transformational leadership, positive reciprocity, willingness to take risks and UPB In line with all the above-mentioned hypotheses, this research tests a moderated-mediation effect between transformational leadership and UPB. Here, we expect that the positive relationship between transformational leadership and UPB can be explained by positive reciprocity beliefs of the employee (Umphress et al., 2010). This suggests that based on positive reciprocity employees want to do something positive in return for their transformational leader. In addition, these employees may also be motivated to behave in ways that are in contrast with moral duties and norms that are accepted in the society in order to provide their transformational leader with a benefit (Effelsberg et al., 2013; Kalshoven et al., 2016; Umphress et al., 2010).
Furthermore, we expect that the indirect effect of transformational leadership on UPB through positive reciprocity beliefs is also positively moderated by employee’s willingness to take risks. In other words, we expect that employees are more likely to reciprocate their transformational leader with pro-organizational behavior that is unethical when they are willing to take risk. Here, we expect an interaction effect between positive reciprocity and willingness to take risk in the prediction of UPB. Engagement in UPB involves potentially risks because of its uncertain and possible negative consequences for external stakeholder, the society and even may the organization. We expect that the positive relationship between positive reciprocity beliefs and UPB is stronger for people who are willing to take this risk. People who are risk-averse are expected to be less likely to engage in UPB when they want to reciprocate their transformational leader.
23
Hypothesis 6: The mediation-relation of positive reciprocity beliefs in the positive relationship between transformational leadership and UPB is positively moderated by willingness to take risks where employees are more likely to positively reciprocate their transformational leader with UPB when they are willing to take risk, and less likely to reciprocate with UPB when they are risk-averse.
24
METHODOLOGY
This methodology chapter describes how the empirical research is performed. First, the chapter provides a description of the data collection. Next, we elaborate on the measurements that are used to measure the variables. Lastly, a description of the data analysis is provided.
Data collection
In order to test the hypotheses, we used quantitative data. An online questionnaire was distributed to supervisors and employees from different kind of organizations in the Netherlands such as health-care organizations and educational institutions. In cooperation with four fellow students, these participating organizations were approached from our personal networks.
To collect the data, we used two separate questionnaires: one for supervisors and one for their employees. These questionnaires measured several variables. For example, supervisors were asked to rate their employees on creativity and general performance. Because supervisors had to rate every employee separately, we set a maximum of ten participating employees per supervisor. The participating employees also had to fill in an online questionnaire. These employees, for example, had to answer questions such as how they perceive the leadership style of their supervisor. Furthermore, they were asked to rate, amongst others, their personality, their job satisfaction, their willingness to engage in UPB and the perceived workload. Before answering the questions, all respondents were assured of the confidentiality of the research. The online questionnaires were distributed by email, where all respondents received an individual email with a link to the questionnaire.
25
questionnaire completely, 30 are men (56.60%) and 23 are women (43.40%). The mean age of these participating supervisors is 46.23 years (SD = 10.31, range = 24 to 61). Furthermore, the supervisors are working for their current organization for an average of 12.28 years (SD = 10.76, range = 0 to 39). The highest obtained educational level of the supervisors ranges from high school to university. As can be derived from the frequency of table Appendix 1, two of the participating supervisors (3.80%) filled in high school as highest obtained education. For six supervisors (11.30%) MBO is the highest obtained education and 15 supervisors (28.30%) finished university. Most of the supervisors finished an HBO degree, namely 30 participants (56.60%).
Appendix 2 shows the descriptives of the employees. Of the 366 employees that filled in the questionnaire completely, 154 are men (42.10%) and 212 are women (57.90%). Furthermore, the mean-age of the employees is 42.93 years (SD = 11.82, range = 17 to 65). The mean average amount of years that these employees work for their current organization is 11.43 years (SD = 9.47, range = 0 to 39). In addition, the highest educational level of the participating employees ranges from primary school to PhD. As can be derived from the frequency table of Appendix 2, one participating employee (.30%) filled in primary school as highest obtained education. For 29 participating employees (7.90%), the highest obtained education is high school, for 143 employees (39.10%) this is HBO, 45 employees (12.30%) obtained a university degree and one employee (.30%) finished PhD. Most of the employees (147, 40.20%) noted MBO as highest obtained education.
Measurements
26
measurements. All items had to be answered using a Likert-scale with anchors ranging from 1 till 5. Here, the anchor 1 represents ‘strongly disagree’ and the anchor 5 represents ‘strongly agree’. By use of the Cronbach’s alpha we determined the internal consistency of the items, where a Cronbach’s alpha above .70 indicates internal consistency. Below we provide information about the items that were used per variable.
Transformational leadership: To measure the variable transformational leadership,
we used the seven items as provided by Carless, Wearing & Mann (2000). An example of one of these items is: “My supervisor communicates a clear and positive vision of the future”. The items have a strong internal consistency, where the Cronbach’s alpha is far above the acceptable threshold of .70, namely (α = .91).
UPB: The variable ‘UPB’ is measured with the use of six items as provided by
Umphress & Bingham (2011). One example of these items is: “If it would help my organization, I would be able to misrepresent the truth a bit to make my organization look better”. The items turned out to be internal consistent where the Cronbach’s alpha is above .70, namely (α = .74).
Positive reciprocity: For the variable ‘positive reciprocity beliefs’ the three items as
provided by Perugini, Gallucci, Presaghi, & Ercolani (2003) are used. One example of these items is: “If my supervisor does me a favor, I am prepared to return it”. The three items of this variable indicate internal consistency (α = .74).
Willingness to take risks: To measure the variable ‘willingness to take risks’ we made
use of the three items as provided by Andrews & Smith (1996). One example of these items is: “I like to take risks when I'm developing ideas”. The Cronbach’s alpha of the items is (α = .73), which means that the items are internal consistent.
Control variables: Existing research has shown that demographic characteristics may
27
age, gender and education. Because men and women reason differently about morality and ethical issues (Gilligan, 1977), we expect that women are more likely to behave ethically than men (Kish-Gephart, Harrison & Treviño, 2010). Furthermore, existing literature suggests that older people operate at higher levels of moral reasoning and therefore are less willing to exhibit unethical behavior than younger employees (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Treviño, 1992). Also, research explains that employees who obtained higher levels of education, are less likely to engage in unethical behavior because they feel more personal responsible for the (negative) outcomes of their behavior (Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008).
In addition to these demographic characteristics, previous research (Umphress et al., 2010) also suggest that the average time spent with the supervisor each day and the years of working experience with the supervisor (tenure with the supervisor) may influence the motivation for employees to exhibit UPB. Therefore, we also added these variables as control variables to the tests.
Data analysis
To analyze the data, we have used the program SPSS for conducting several tests. We proposed that the direct positive relationship between transformational leadership and UPB is mediated by positive reciprocity and that this mediation effect is conditional with a moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB.
28
After we prepared the data set, we turned to testing the hypotheses of the research starting with the proposed mediation effect of our model. Here, we used a hierarchical regression analysis which consisted of four regressions. We first tested the three separate relationships between the variables transformational leadership, positive reciprocity beliefs and UPB. After these analyses, we used the Sobel test, as described by Baron and Kenny (1986), to test whether the mediation-effect is significant. Then we turned to the moderation effect of willingness to take risks on the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB. Here, we also used a hierarchical regression analysis which consisted of three regressions. Also, we used the interaction plot to interpret the moderating effect. Lastly, with the use of PROCESS macro model 14, as explained by Hayes (2013), we tested the complete moderated-mediation model (hypothesis 6).
29 RESULTS
This section presents the outcomes of the tests we conducted in order to test our hypotheses, as suggested by the methodology chapter.
Correlations
Before testing the hypotheses, we first have tested the separate correlations between the variables of the research with the use of a Pearson correlation analysis. The correlation matrix in Appendix 3 describes the means and standard deviations of all the tested variables and the correlations among those variables.
From this matrix (Appendix 3) can be concluded that according to our results there is no significant correlation between transformational leadership and UPB (r = .00, p > .10). Furthermore, the correlation matrix shows that there is a significant correlation between transformational leadership and positive reciprocity (r = .22, p < .01) and that there is a significant positive correlation between positive reciprocity and UPB (r = .24, p < .01). The moderator that we examine in this study, willingness to take risks, does not correlate with all the other studied variables of the research (i.e. transformational leadership, positive reciprocity and UPB).
30
her supervisor, the stronger the positive reciprocity beliefs of this employee are and the more willing this employee is to do something positive in return. Also, education correlates significantly positive with positive reciprocity (r = .20, p < .01). So, the higher the obtained education of an employee is, the stronger the positive reciprocity beliefs of this employee are. Education also correlates significant positively with willingness to take risks (r = .31, p < .01). This means that people who have obtained higher levels of education are more willing to take risks. In contrast, tenure with the supervisor correlates significant negatively with willingness to take risks (r = -.21, p < .01), which means that employees who have more work experience with their supervisor, are more risk-averse and therefore less willing to take risk. Lastly, the control variable gender correlates negatively and marginally significant with willingness to take risks (r = -.10, p < .10), which implies that men are more willing to take risks than women.
Hierarchical regression analysis (mediation-effect)
To assess the hypothesized mediation-effect, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis which consisted of four regressions. The results of the regression analyses are described in Appendix 4. In all regressions, we controlled for the five above mentioned control variables (i.e. gender, age, education, tenure with supervisor and time spent with supervisor).
The first regression of the hierarchical regression analysis concerns the direct relationship between transformational leadership and UPB. The results show that there is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and UPB (B = -.00, p > .10), which rejects the first hypothesis of this research.
31
reciprocity (B = .18, p < .01). Therefore, we confirm the second hypothesis of this research. Also, the results show a positive and significant effect of positive reciprocity on UPB (B = .17, p < .01), which supports the third hypothesis of the research.
Lastly, the fourth regression of the hierarchical regression analysis includes both transformational leadership and positive reciprocity as independent variables on the dependent variable UPB. Here, the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB is still not significant (B = -.04, p > .10). Also, in this fourth regression, the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB remains significant and positive (B = .18, p < .01).
To test whether the mediation-effect is significant we used the Sobel test (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The results of this Sobel test show that there is a significant test statistic (Sobel test statistics Ζ = 3.21, p < .01, one-tailed and two-tailed). So, these results provide empirical evidence for a significant mediation-effect of positive reciprocity in the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB, and therefore we confirm the fourth hypothesis of the research.
Hierarchical regression analysis (moderation-effect)
In our research model, willingness to take risks is included as a moderator of the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB. To test this moderation-effect, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis which consisted of three regressions. Also, in these tests we controlled for the five above mentioned control variables (i.e. gender, age, education, tenure with supervisor and time spent with supervisor).
32
independent variable. Here, the significant and positive effect of positive reciprocity on UPB remains the same (B = .17, P < .01). Furthermore, the results show that there is no significant direct relationship between willingness to take risks and UPB (B = .06 p > .10). The third regression of the hierarchical regression analysis includes the interaction effect between positive reciprocity and willingness to take risks. Here, the results provide evidence for a negative, marginally significant effect of the moderation (B = -.07, p < .10). In line with this, the interaction plot (Appendix 6) shows that the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB is stronger for employees that are less likely to take risks than for employees that are more likely to take risk (the line of people that have low willingness to take risks slopes more upwards than the line of people that have high willingness to take risks). Although this negative effect is marginally significant, this negative effect is in contrast with what we had expected according to the theoretical section of this research paper. Namely, we had expected a positive moderation-effect, and therefore the fifth hypothesis of the research is rejected.
Additional analysis
33 Moderated-mediation effect
The last test we conducted was the PROCESS macro model 14 to test the moderated-mediation effect of the model (Hayes, 2013). The results of this test are presented in Appendix 7.
These results show the indirect effect of transformational leadership on UPB through positive reciprocity under different values of the moderation variable willingness to take risks. Here, from the values in the table can be derived that the indirect effect decreases (but remains significant) when the score on willingness to take risks increases (willingness to take risks = -1.00, effect = .05 versus willingness to take risks = 1.00, effect = .02). Stated in another way, the mediating effect of positive reciprocity in the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB is weaker when employees are more willing to take risk and stronger when employees are risk-averse. As can be derived from the index of moderated mediation, this negative moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the indirect effect is significant on a 90% confidence interval (BootLLCI = -.03, BootULCI = -.00). We also tested the model on a 95% confidence interval, which resulted in no significant moderating effect (BootLLCI = -.03, BootULCI = .00; see Appendix 8). This implies that there is a marginally significant negative moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the indirect effect. However, we had expected a strengthening effect of willingness to take risks, instead of a weakening effect. Therefore, based on our research results we reject our sixth hypothesis of the research.
34
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSSION Summary of the results
In this research paper, we have examined the proposed positive relationship between transformational leadership and UPB. More specifically, we examined whether there is mediation-effect of positive reciprocity on the relationship and whether this mediation-effect is positively moderated by employee’s willingness to take risks. Here, we expected that willingness to take risks interacts with positive reciprocity in order to predict UPB.
Our research results suggest that there is no empirical evidence for a direct relationship between transformational leadership and UPB and therefore we have rejected our first hypothesis. Despite the fact that we did not find a direct relationship, we did find empirical support for an indirect effect of transformational leadership on UPB through positive reciprocity (i.e. mediation-effect). Therefore, we have confirmed the second, third and fourth hypotheses of the research. In addition, we did not find evidence for a positive moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB. Surprisingly, we found that there is a marginally significant negative moderating effect. Therefore, hypothesis five of the research is rejected. Lastly, according to the results there exists a marginally significant negative moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the indirect effect between transformational leadership and UPB. However, where we had expected a positive moderating effect, we have rejected the sixth hypothesis of the research.
35 Theoretical and managerial implications
Contrary to what we had expected, the research results provide no empirical evidence for a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and UPB. This is also in contrast with the research of Effelsberg et al. (2013) and Graham et al. (2013) which did find support for this relationship. We expected a positive effect between the two concepts because transformational leaders aim to transform the interests of an individual employee into the interests of the organization (Bass, 1999; Yukl, 2013). Furthermore, transformational leaders aim to inspire employees to serve the greater good and to behave above expectations (Bass, 1999). Because the interests of the organization do not have to align with the interests of external stakeholders and/or the larger society (Effelsberg et al., 2013) we had expected that due to internalization, employees are also motivated to behave pro-organizational even though this behavior disregards ethical standards (Umphress et al., 2010). However, where our research results do not support this supposed relationship, this research adds to the existing literature by showing that this direct relationship between transformational leadership and UPB cannot be taken for granted.
36
individual factors we expect to interact with transformational leadership are an employee’s moral reasoning (Treviño, 1986) or an employee’s control beliefs (i.e. the belief of an employee that he or she has the power to engage in UPB; Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005). Also, we expect that the amount of authority of the employee or the dependence of the employee on co-workers in their decision-making may influences their choices whether to engage in UPB. Dependence on co-workers, for example, may function as a constrain for employees when the employee wants to exhibit UPB but does not have the power to actually choose for such behavior. Furthermore, we suggest that an organizational factor such as the organizational culture will be of influence. Organizational culture influences the behavior of employees (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005) and therefore may encourages or discourages unethical behavior. Future research should examine these individual and organizational factors in order to deepen our knowledge about the relationship between transformational leadership and UPB.
As an additional explanation for the insignificant direct effect, we suggest that it is not the transformational leadership itself that leads to UPB, but that it is the context that is created by a transformational leader that motivates employees to exhibit UPB (Treviño & Brown, 2004). As Treviño & Brown (2004) explain, one of the most important leader functions is role modelling. Through role modelling transformational leaders influence their employees and their behavior (Treviño & Brown, 2004). In addition, in their (un)ethical decision-making, employees are influenced by the ethical views held by the people around them, especially by the views of their transformational leader (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005; Treviño & Brown, 2004). They, for example, develop subjective norms by considering the normative beliefs of their leaders.
37
position to create a context in which unethical behavior is supported, employees are more willing to use unethical behavior too (Treviño & Brown, 2004). Such a context is for example, created by rewarding employees that lie, by creating a vision that does encourage unethical behavior or by the exhibition of unethical behavior by the leader themselves (Treviño & Brown, 2004). In line with this, we also expect that the reverse is the case. So, when transformational leaders use their position to create a context in which ethical behavior is supported, we expect that employees are motivated to engage in ethical behavior. More research is needed on these contextual factors in order to predict which explicit transformational leadership behaviors create a context in which UPB is encouraged or discouraged.
38
With the empirical evidence for this mediating effect, our research adds to existing literature because it explains how transformational leadership evokes UPB. Based on our results findings we assume that employees use UPB as an ultimate way to show their loyalty with the transformational leader and to reciprocate the transformational leader with pro-organizational behavior that is even unethical. Most research highlights the positive outcomes of transformational leadership and social exchange relationship (De Poel et al., 2014; Khalil & Raheel, 2016, Umphress & Bingham, 2011). This present research contributes by providing evidence that transformational leadership via positive reciprocity beliefs also evokes negative employee behaviors such as UPB. Also, it provides knowledge about the occurrence of UPB which is important due to the detrimental effects UPB can cause (Askew et al., 2015).
The results of this present research do not support the expected positive moderating effect of willingness to take risks on the relationship between positive reciprocity and UPB. Instead, the results show a marginally significant negative moderating effect of willingness to take risks. This implies that for employees with high willingness to take risks, the effect of positive reciprocity on UPB is weaker. Also, when employees are less willing to take risks (i.e. the employee is risk-averse), the effect of positive reciprocity on UPB is stronger. Therefore, an employee does not per se have to be willing to take risk in order to engage in UPB.
39
reciprocate the transformational leader. So, in this explanation, willingness to take risks does not apply to the choice whether to engage in UPB. In contrast, it focuses on the choice whether to be loyal to the transformational leader or not (i.e. reciprocating or not). Not reciprocating the transformational leader with pro-organizational behavior that may is unethical, means that an employee chooses to be not loyal to the leader and not being loyal involves risk-taking behavior. Based on this, we expect that a risk-averse person hesitates to not reciprocate the leader and therefore is willing to engage in UPB. In contrast, a person who is willing to take risks is less dependent on the willingness to reciprocate the leader and therefore, the level of positive reciprocity beliefs is less likely to predict UPB.
40
instead of on their personal attitude towards risks. As a consequence, for employees that are risk-averse, positive reciprocity will have a stronger effect on UPB. In contrast, for people who are willing to take risks, the willingness to engage in UPB does not change for different levels of positive reciprocity beliefs. So, positive reciprocity is less likely to be the predicting factor for UPB when employees are willing to take risk. These employees are still likely to exhibit UPB even though they have weak beliefs of positive reciprocity.
Our research outcomes have several managerial implications. First, the research provides useful informational for leaders because it shows that leadership plays an important role in the (un)ethical decision making of employees. The evidence that is provided for our mediation-effect explains that transformational leaders stimulate employees to do something positive in return for their leader and the organization. However, in doing so, employees are also motivated to disregard ethical beliefs where they are willing to engage in pro-organizational behavior that is unethical. Furthermore, our research also explains that employees are willing to use such unethical behavior, even though they have a averse attitude towards risk-taking behavior.
Based on these outcomes and especially because UPB can have detrimental consequences for an organization (Askew et al., 2015) it is important for managers to be aware of their influence and to be aware of the signals they project on their employees. In alignment, managers need to be aware that employees are willing to engage in UPB even if you may not expect such behavior because the employee normally avoids risk-taking behavior.
41
which behavior is not (Treviño & Brown, 2004). Because of their role modelling function (Treviño & Brown, 2004) and the reciprocity theory, it is less likely that an employee will reciprocate with unethical behavior when such behavior explicitly is discouraged (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005). Furthermore, in the decision-making about rewarding and punishments, a manager should consequently punish unethical behavior. When unethical behavior is punished, employees observe the consequences of unethical behavior themselves and they get to know that such behavior it is not supported (Treviño & Brown, 2004). When unethical behavior is consequently punished, this makes employees aware of the additional, individual risks imposed by UPB (e.g. punishments). Consequently, we assume that these employees (especially risk-averse employees) are less likely to engage in UPB.
Limitations and future research directions
In addition to the contributions of the research, this research paper has, as with every research paper, limitations that need to be addressed.
42
signals a transformational leader uses. This provides us deeper insights in the context that is created by a transformational leader and whether this context contributes to UPB. Here, research should, for example, focus on different messages a transformational leader sends in visioning a desired future and how these messages influence employees’ (un)ethical decision-making. We, expect that different messages have a different effect on UPB and that some messages encourage risk-taking behavior such as UPB even more than others. For example, a message that contains ethical elements is less likely to evoke UPB. Research to the context in which transformational leadership evokes UPB provides us more insights about the relationship between the two concepts.
To further investigate the context of transformational leadership and UPB, an experimental research design might be helpful. This brings us to another limitation of this research, namely the research design that is used. Where a quantitative research design is helpful in estimating the effects and relationships between variables, this research design does not provide further answers on the ‘why’-question. Especially because of the unexpected findings in this research, a qualitative research design provides opportunities for future research to focus on contextual factors that explain when transformational leadership leads to UPB. For example, a laboratory study in which different transformational behaviors are manipulated provides more insights in the (unethical) decision-making of employees could add value. Also, an experimental, laboratory design prevents participants from giving socially desirable answers on questions about unethical behaviors.
43
(un)ethically and therefore it influences our result outcomes. For this reason, future research should focus on a more heterogeneous sampling, to examine if the results are the same when also commercial organizations are more involved. We expect that results of such a study will be more representative.
Conclusion
44
REFERENCES
Alzola, M. (2012). The possibility of virtue. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 377-404
Andrews, J. & Smith, D.C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing
Research, 33(2), 174-187
Askew, O.A., Beisler, J.M. & Keel, J. (2015). Current trends of unethical behavior within organizations. International Journal of Management & Information systems, 19(3), 107
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182
Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32
Boyer, T.W. (2006). The development of risk-taking: a multi-perspective review.
Developmental Review, 26(3), 291-345
Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J. & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 386-405
Clark, M.S. & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 12-24
Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900
De Poel, F.M., Stoker, J.I. & Van der Zee, K.I. (2014). Leadership and organizational
tenure diversity as determinants of project team effectiveness. Group & Organization
45
Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Why good employees make unethical decisions: The role of reward systems, organizational culture, and managerial oversight. Managing
organizational deviance, 39-68.
Effelsberg, D. & Solga, M. (2015). Transformational leaders’ in-group versus out-group orientation: testing the link between leaders’ organizational identification, their willingness to engage in Unethical Pro-Organizational behavior, and follower-perceived transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, (126), 581-590. Effelsberg, D., Solga, M. & Gurt, J. (2013). Transformational leadership and follower's
unethical behavior for the benefit of the company: a two-study investigation.
Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 81-93
Elegido, J.M. (2013). Does it make sense to be a loyal employee? Journal of Business Ethics,
116(3), 495-511
Falk, A. & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior,
54, 293-315
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage
Graham, K.A., Ziegert, J.C. & Capitano, J. (2013). The effect of leadership style, framing, and promotion regulatory focus on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal
of Business Ethics, 126(3), 423-436
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: women's conceptions of the self and morality.
Harvard Educational Review, 49, 431-446
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press
46
Jia, L., Song, J. Li, C. Cui, R. & Chen, Y. (2007). Leadership styles and employees'
job-related attitudes: an empirical study on the mediating effects of reciprocity and trust. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 1(4), 574-605
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of management review, 16(2), 366-395
Kahan, D.M. (2003). The logic of reciprocity: trust, collective action, and law. Michigan Law
Review, 102(1), 71-103
Kalshoven, K., van Dijk, H. & Boon, C. (2016). Why and when does ethical leadership evoke unethical follower behavior? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 500-515 Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403
Khalil, M. A. & Raheel, Y. (2016). Impact of Leadership Style of Academic Administrators on Institutional Performance: A South Asian State University Case Study.
Proceedings Appeared on IOARP Digital Library
Kilduff, A., Galinksy, A., Gallo, E. & Reade, J. (2015). Whatever it takes to win: rivalry increases unethical behavior. Academy of Management, 59(5), 1508-1534
Kish-Gephart, J.J., Harrison, D.A. & Treviño, L.K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31
Mael, F. & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 103-123
March, J.G. & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking.
47
Neves, P. & Eisenberger, R. (2014). Perceived organizational support and risk taking. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 187-205
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F. & Ercolani, A.P. (2003) The personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17(4), 251-283
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. & Davis, J.H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354 Schubert, S. & Miller, T.C. (2008, December 20). At Siemens, bribery was just a line item.
The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21siemens.html?pagewa nted=all
Schuh, S.C., Zhang, X., Egold, N.W., Graf, M.M., Pandey, D. & Van Dick, R. (2012). Leader and follower organizational identification: the mediating role of leader behaviour and implications for follower OCB. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, (85), 421-432
Skarlicki, D.P. & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The role of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443 Sykes, G. & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: a theory of delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670
Tang, T.L.P., Chen, Y.J. & Sutarso, T. (2008). Bad apples in bad (business) barrels: The love of money, risk tolerance and unethical behavior. Management Decision, 46(2), 243-263
Tenbrunsel, A.E. & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: where we've been and where we're going. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545-607
48
Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in the workplace. Managing organizational deviance, 69-87
Treviño, L.K., Weaver, G.R. & Reynolds, S.J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: a review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990
Umphress, E.E. & Bingham, J.B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621-640
Umphress, E.E., Bingham, J.B. & Mitchell, M.S. (2010) Unethical behavior in the name of the company: the moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(4), 769-780
Vadera, A. K. & Pratt, M.G. (2013). Love, hate, ambivalence, or indifference? A conceptual examination of workplace crimes and organizational identification. Organization
Science, 24, 172-188.
Van Knippenberg, D. & Sitkin, S.B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic - transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of
Management Annals, 7(1), 1 - 60
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. & Chen, Z.X. (2005). Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of
Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432),
49 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Descriptives data supervisors
Frequencies gender Gender Frequency % Man 30 56.60% Woman 23 43.40% Total (N) 53 100.00% Frequencies education Education Frequency % Primary school 0 .00% High school 2 3.80% MBO 6 11.30% HBO 30 56.60% University 15 28.30% PhD 0 .00% Total (N) 53 100.00%
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Gender 53 1 2 1.43 .50
Age 53 24 61 46.23 10.31
Education 53 2 5 4.09 .74
