FOLLOWER UNETHICAL WORK BEHAVIOR: CAN IT BE PREVENTED?
An examination of the moderating role of leader-follower value congruence in the relationship between ethical leadership, leader member exchange and unethical work
behavior.
Master thesis, MscBA, University of Groningen
Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands
T.E. HOLLANDER S3147991 Emmastraat 38A 9711 EZ Groningen
E-mail: t.e.hollander@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: prof. Dr. O. Janssen
June 30, 2018
Acknowledgment: helpful comments on earlier drafts of this thesis were given by my supervisor prof. Dr. O. Janssen and my friend Jildou Keizer.
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the link between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior. A quantitative analysis is used to determine the effects of ethical leadership on follower unethical work behavior, mediated by leader-member exchange (LMX) and moderated by leader-follower value congruence. Results from a survey among 127 workers reveals that this study provides evidence for the positive relationship between ethical leadership and LMX, however no evidence was found for the expected negative relation between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior, the mediation role of LMX and the moderation effect of leader – follower value congruence. Implications of these results are discussed for the literature on LMX and leader – follower value congruence. The main contribution of this research is that ethical leadership is positively related to LMX.
Keywords: ethical leadership, unethical work behavior, social exchange, leader member exchange, leader-follower value congruence.
INTRODUCTION
Unethical behavior is contrary to accepted moral norms in society. It includes for example, lying, cheating, and stealing (Treviño, Nieuwenboer & Kish Giphart; 2014). The Compliance and Ethics Leadership Council found in 2008 in research that was held conducted among 1752 managers and employees of large companies. That 16 percent of the participants observed harassment, 15 percent discrimination, 11 percent theft, and 7 percent falsification of expense claims in their organization in the preceding 12 months (Kaptein, 2011).
Unethical behavior does not only cause financial and reputational loss (Karpoff, Lee,
& Martin, 2008) but it might also produce decrements in physical as well as in psychological well-being (Giacalone & Promislo, 2010). For that reason, organizations should prevent, detect and respond to unethical behavior (Giacalone, Jurkiewiez & Deckop, 2008;
Goodpaster, 2007; Kidwell & Martin, 2005).
Research started examining unethical behavior using the ‘bad apples approach’
(Treviño & Youngblood, 1990). Here, the personal characteristics of individuals were the focal point in understanding unethical behavior (Kaptein, 2011). Then the focus shifted to the organizational context, which is referred to as the ‘bad barrels approach’ (Treviño &
Youngblood, 1990). Ethical culture of an organization was found to be an important determinant of unethical work behavior (Kaptein, 2011; Douglas, Davidson & Schwartz, 2001; Lease, 2006). More recently, researchers started to examine ethical leadership in order to explain unethical behavior among employees (Trevino, 2006; Trevino et al., 2014).
Brown, Treviño and Harrison (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, reinforcement and decision making” (Brown et al., 2005: 120). They found that ethical leadership is positively related to considerate behavior and leader honesty. More specifically they found
that ethical leadership is negatively related to abusive supervision. Thus, ethical leadership is able to reduce leader unethical work behavior. Furthermore, De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) found that ethical leadership is negatively related to follower counterproductive behavior, and Mayer Greenbaum and Kuenzi (2012) and Schaubroeck, Hannah, Avolio, Kozlowski, Lord and Treviño (2012) have provided evidence that ethical leadership is functional in reducing follower unethical behavior. Most studies have examined the relationship between ethical leadership and follower unethical work behavior using a role- modeling perspective based on Bandura & Walters’ (1977) social learning theory (e.g., Treviño et al., 2014; Treviño & Brown, 2006; Mayer et al., 2012) Here, individuals learn appropriate behaviors through a role modelling process and through reward and punishment (Mayer et al., 2012). However, Brown and Treviño (2006) propose that ethical leadership is negatively related to employee counterproductive behavior by means of a likely exchange relationship between ethical leaders and employees. The definition of ethical leadership by Brown and colleagues (2005) also suggests such an exchange relationship in the sense that the effects of ethical leadership are assumed to emerge through the interpersonal relations and two-way communication. So far, research has overlooked the role of this social exchange process underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior.
The quality of the exchange process between a supervisor and an employee can be defined as the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship (Graen & Scandura, 1987). LMX positions fall along a continuum from low quality LMX relations to high quality LMX
relations (Walumbwa, Mayer, Wang, Wang, & Workman 2011). High quality LMX relations are characterized by social transactions involving high levels of trust (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), and the exchange of affect, loyalty and contribution (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). In this study I argue that the reason why ethical leadership negatively predicts unethical work behavior is that ethical leadership enhances high quality LMX.
However, understanding why ethical leadership negatively affects unethical work behavior does not portray the whole picture. Previous studies have not paid sufficient attention to the fit between leaders’ and followers’ ethical values (Vianen, Shen & Chuang, 2011; Kang, Byun & Park, 2014), which could be different from each other. The similarity between an individual his personal values and those of his leader refers to leader- follower value congruence (Brown & Treviño, 2009; Edwards & Cable, 2009). According to Lee, Choi, Youn and Chun (2015) the extent to which ethical leadership may result in positive outcomes may depend on followers’ value point of view regarding their leader’s behavior.
Because LMX is based on a social exchange relationship, involving high levels of trust, loyalty and affection towards one another, I expect that leader-follower value congruence can influence the positive ethical leadership – LMX relationship.
This study extends earlier research by examining the role of social exchange process in the ethical leadership – unethical work behavior relationship and the moderating role of leader- follower value congruence on the ethical leadership – LMX – unethical work behavior relationship. Existing literature is often focused on the social learning aspect of ethical
leadership in relation to unethical work behavior. Yet, it fails to acknowledge the fact that ethical leadership is based on an interpersonal relationship and the demonstration of two-way communication, which implies a social exchange process. Understanding the moderating role of leader – follower value congruence and the mediating role of LMX can make leaders, and managers, aware of the importance of ethical leadership in relation to LMX and leader – follower value congruence. This study could contribute to reducing, or maybe even preventing, unethical work behavior.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
This chapter provides the theoretical background for this study on which the hypotheses will be based. Figure 1 shows the related conceptual model.
FIGURE 1: Conceptual Model
Ethical leadership and Follower Unethical Work Behavior
The most common definition of ethical leadership is “the demonstration of
normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationship, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement and decision making” (Brown et al., 2005: 120). The study of Treviño and colleagues (2000;
2003) shows that ethical leaders are seen as leaders who care about people and the broader society and who make fair and principled decisions (Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Ethical leadership has been linked to various positive outcomes such as employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Brown et al. 2005;
Kacmar, Bachrach & Harris, 2011). Yet, relatively little empirical research has examined how and why ethical leadership relates to follower unethical behavior (Schaubroeck, et al. 2012).
community (Jones, 1991) and can do financial, physical, psychological and reputational damage (Karpoff, Lee, & Martin, 2008; Giacalone & Promislo, 2010). Unethical work behavior solely benefits oneself (Brief, Buttram & Dukerick 2001; Gino & Margolis, 2011) and not the organization. Therefore, leaders should prevent unethical work behavior.
Most researchers that studied unethical behavior draw on social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1977) to explain the effects of ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005;
Mayer et al., 2012). Here, the assumption is that followers learn appropriate behavior by observing the behavior of their leaders. Social learning is founded in the definition of ethical leadership. Normatively appropriate conduct, such as honesty, trustworthiness, fairness and care, are components that could make the leader a role model for his followers. Acting as a role model, ethical leaders become the target of imitation and identification for followers (Brown et al., 2005). The “… reinforcement ...” part of the definition implies that, to contribute to vicarious learning, ethical leaders set ethical standards, reward ethical conduct and discipline those who do not follow these ethical standards. As a result of rewarding ethical behavior and punishing unethical behavior, ethical leaders influence their followers to engage in ethical behavior and therefore are able to reduce unethical behavior. “When leaders behave in an ethical manner, communicate the importance of ethics, and use punishment and reward systems to encourage ethical behavior, group norms for acceptable behavior are formed and employees in a work unit will be less likely to engage in unethical behavior”
(Mayer et al., 2012: 153).
Another explanation for the effects of ethical leadership on follower (un)ethical work behavior is presented by moral development theory (Kohlberg, 1969). According to this theory, there are three broad levels of moral development. The first one is preconventional, these individuals are concerned with avoiding punishment. Conventional individuals are
located at the second stage, they take rules and laws in consideration and look for
expectations of significant others in their environment. At the highest stage are the principled individuals, they are guided by principles of justice and rights and look inside themselves before making decisions autonomously (Treviño & Brown, 2005). The last element of the definition of ethical leadership relates to decision making: “It reflects the fact that ethical leaders consider the ethical consequences of their decisions and make principled and fair choices that can be observed and emulated by others” (Brown et al. 2005: 120-121). This definition shows that ethical leaders can be placed in the highest stage of the moral
development theory. Research has found that the majority of individuals, including followers, are located in the second stage, the conventional one. Treviño, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler (1999) discuss that the amount of follower unethical work behavior can be influenced by the believe of employees that their supervisor sincerely cares about ethics. Treviño (1992) found that employees who are trying to do the right thing expect to be punished when they show inappropriate behavior. When they will not be punished, they will be disappointed and will question the sincerity of their leader and whether the organizations rules mean what they say.
Eventually no punishment will result in more unethical work behavior. It proves that
followers of ethical leaders will look for appropriate behavior and moral guidance up to their leaders.
To conclude, previous research has focused on two perspectives of the ethical leadership – unethical work behavior relation. According to social learning theory followers learn appropriate behavior through observing others (Bandura, 1977; 1986), and ethical leaders are likely to influence others because they are legitimate role models that help employees reach their potential at work (Mayer et al., 2012). Moral development theory argues that followers who are in the preconventional stage, look for guidance at ethical
engage in the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct (Brown et al., 2005) and influence their followers through the identified psychological processes, social learning theory and moral development theory, (Walumbwa et al., 2011), ethical leaders are able to influence employee performance and decrease unethical work behavior. Therefore, I conducted the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Ethical leadership is negatively related to follower unethical work behavior
The Mediating role of Leader Member Exchange
The previous section showed that most researchers who studied the ethical leadership – unethical work behavior relationship before, draw on social learning or moral development theory. However, these theories neglect the interpersonal and the two- way communication part of the ethical leadership definition conducted by Brown and colleagues (2005). These parts of the definition indicate a social exchange process between ethical leaders and their followers. Accordingly, Brown and Treviño’s ethical leadership review (2006) suggests that social exchange may help to explain ethical leader’s influence on employee outcome, and therefore unethical work behavior. The quality of the exchange between a supervisor and an employee can be defined as leader – member exchange (LMX) (Graen & Scandura, 1987).
Followers and leaders are able to form unique LMX relationships (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). These relations fall on a continuum from low to high quality (Walumbwa et al., 2011). LMX is based upon role theory (Graen, 1976), whereby leaders test followers in a series of role making processes (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). These role-taking and role-making processes determine what both can expect from one another and determines the development for low or high-quality exchange relationships. Trust, open communication and information sharing are characteristics of high quality LMX relations. (Dulebohn, Bommer,
three currencies of exchange: task related behaviors (contribution), loyalty to each other (loyalty), and liking one another (affect). The exchange between a leader and member might be based on one, two or all three of them (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
The influence of ethical leadership on LMX can be explained using the LMX
dimensions as distinguished by Dienesch and Liden (1986). They defined contribution as the
“perception of the amount, direction, and quality of work-oriented activity each member puts forth toward the mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad” (Dienesch & Liden, 1986:
624). Ethical leaders guarantee fairness and honesty (Brown et al., 2005), which reduces the risk for followers for being exploitered by their leader. Therefore, followers of ethical leaders have more courage to impress the leader. These members receive in return support and recourses (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Dunegan, Duchon & Uhl-Bien. 1992; Liden & Graen, 1980; Scandura et al., 1986; Dienesch & Liden, 1986) developing a higher quality relation with the leader than subordinates who do not impress the leader. Members of these high quality LMX relations engage in work-oriented activity that extend beyond from what is expected from them and further enhance job performance (Graen, 1976; Liden & Graen, 1980; Wayne & Green, 1993).
Loyalty was proposed by Dienesch and Liden (1986) as the extent to which the leader and member are both publicly loyal to each other and supporting each other’s actions. They suggest that loyalty plays an important role in the development and maintenance of LMX relations. Ethical leadership enhances the underlying loyalty towards followers, because ethical leaders are fair, principled and honest. Fairness can be divided in to interactional fairness and procedural fairness which are both closely linked to social exchange (Moorman, Blakely & Niehoff, 1998; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999). The degree to which
employees are treated with respect and dignity by their authority figures refers to interactional fairness (Bies & Moag, 1986). Ethical leaders show appropriate conduct (Brown et al., 2005)
such as respect and dignity towards employees and promotes this conduct to followers. Thus, the appropriate conduct of ethical leaders promote interactional fairness which strengthen the loyalty among followers and leaders.
Affect is defined as “the mutual affection members of the dyad have for each other based primarily on interpersonal attraction rather than work or professional values” (Dienesch
& Liden, 1986: p. 625). Liking one another is expected to be involved in developing on-going LMXs to varying degrees (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Liden, Wayne and Stilwell (1993) found that liking was a better predicter of LMX than the leader’s
assessment of the members performance (Liden & Maslyn. 1998). Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2003) found that ethical leaders are perceived as people-focused leaders, they seem to care about people, respect them and treat them right. They are seen as leaders who simply do the right thing, and perceived to be good, open communicators and receptive listeners (Treviño, Brown & Hartman, 2003). These findings suggest that ethical leaders are likeable leaders and are more likely to create mutual affection.
The perceptions of followers on leaders’ dimensions of LMX; contribution, loyalty and affect are important and able to influence unethical work behavior. As stated before, ethical leadership enhances the three dimensions positively. The positive effect of ethical leadership towards contribution enhances the job performance of followers (Maslyn & Liden, 1998). Followers are willing to move beyond from what is expected from them and contribute more to the leader and the organization. In that way, contribution is related to organizational commitment (Shore & Wayne, 1993; Maslyn & Liden, 1998). When employees feel
committed to the organization it is less likely that they engage in unethical behavior, because people who feel no longer committed to a given community are more likely to engage in unethical work behavior (Hirschi, 1969; Kaptein, 2011).
Interactional fairness enhances loyalty among ethical leaders and followers. However, employees sense injustice when they see other employees perceive a fair treatment, to restore this injustice, and thus restore the balance, employees may engage in interpersonal and organizational directed retaliation, including sabotage (Ambrose, Seabrightm & Schminke, 2002; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Treviño & Weaver, 2001).
Previous research has found that unfair treatment by a supervisor can result in retaliation against either the person or the organization as a whole (Treviño & Brown, 2006; Ambrose et al., 2002; Rupp & Cropanzano. 2002). Followers are less loyal to their leaders perceiving unfair treatment and engage in unethical work behavior.
The findings of Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2003) contribute to the positive perceptions of followers towards ethical leaders. Followers of ethical leaders are more likely to feel affection towards their leader. According to Treviño et al (2003), the perception of employees about ethical leader’s goal is not simply job performance, but performance that is consistent with a set of ethical values and principles. Followers believe that ethical leaders care about people. The affection of employees towards their leader positively influences job satisfaction (Bhal & Ansari, 2007). Persons whose satisfaction results from the efforts an ethical leader makes, will seek to reciprocate those who benefit them and therefore engage in ethical behavior (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
In line with this reasoning I expect that LMX mediates the relationship between
ethical leadership and unethical work behavior in such a way that high ethical leadership leads to high LMX which negatively influences unethical behavior. For the reason that ethical leadership strengthens follower perceptions of the LMX dimensions contribution, loyalty, and affect in such a way that it will enhance LMX. High LMX will be negatively related to
unethical work behavior, because high LMX consists of high levels of perceived fairness, contribution, loyalty, and affect. These expectations will lead to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Ethical leadership will be positively related to LMX
Hypothesis 2b: High LMX will be negatively related to unethical work behavior Hypothesis 2c: The relationship between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior is mediated by LMX.
The Moderating role of Leader-Follower Value Congruence
Values are an important factor of ethical leadership and the development of LMX.
However, leaders and followers might differ in values, which could have important
implications for the ethical leadership – LMX relation. When leader and follower perceive a similarity between values leader-follower value congruence appears (Brown & Treviño, 2009;
Edwards & Cable, 2009). The dimension affect of Dienesch and Liden (1986) shows that personal attraction does influence the ethical leaders – LMX relationship and therefore, leader – follower value congruence might possibly influence this relation.
According to Schwartz values theory (1992; 1996) values develop in response to fundamental concerns about meeting basic human needs, coordinating social action and ensuring group survival. The social environment of an individual teaches an individual to behave in a certain way. For that reason, individuals feature different values. Individuals act in accordance with their values. Thus, values directly affect the behavior of people (Erdogan et al. 2004).
Accordingly, values have impact for interpersonal interactions. When persons share interpersonal value congruence they tend to behave in similar ways. Moreover, it gives individuals the opportunity to predict the behaviors of others and therefore more efficiently coordinate their actions (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). Being able to predict behaviors of others produces a social system where individuals are willing to achieve common goals (Kluckhohn, 1951). Besides that, “individuals with similar values should also experience greater
satisfaction in their interpersonal relationships” (Meglino & Ravlin., 1998: 357). Lee et al.
(2015) found that high leader- follower value congruence makes followers more likely to pay attention to their leader’s behaviors with a positive perception of that leader. A high amount of leader-follower value congruence strengthens the leader – follower relationship, because followers will experience greater satisfaction with their leader and it makes them more attracted, committed and attached to each other (Amodio & Showers, 2005; Zhang and Bloemer, 2011). To conclude, when leader and follower find congruence in their ethical values it makes them more attracted committed and attached to each other and they
experience greater satisfaction in their interpersonal relationship, which are ingredients for a high LMX relationship. Thus, high leader – follower value congruence is able to strengthen the ethical leadership – LMX relation.
On the other hand, when there is a significant discrepancy in the interests, goals and guiding principles between a leader and his follower it will decrease leader-follower value congruence (Lee et al. 2015). Ethical leaders might have a different idea about values than their followers. Furthermore, when followers do not know what to expect from their leader because their values do not match, it might strengthen the idea that they cannot manage future events and therefore increase uncertainty of the work environment (Jehn, Chadwick &
Thatcher, 1997; Suar & Khuntia 2010). This perception will negatively affect the relationship between ethical leadership and LMX. In accordance with this reasoning I conducted the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Leader-follower value congruence moderates the relationship between ethical leadership and -LMX such that the relationship will be more positively when leader – follower value congruence is high rather than low.
Integrative model: Moderated Mediation
Taking previous sections in account, a moderated mediation model appears. That is, ethical leadership is expected to be negatively related to unethical work behavior through LMX. The relation between ethical leadership and LMX is expected to be moderated by leader – follower value congruence. When leader – follower value congruence is high, LMX is expected to be more strongly affected by ethical leadership, because there is a strong congruence between leader and follower. To test this moderated mediation, the following hypothesis is conducted:
Hypothesis 4: Leader – follower value congruence moderates the indirect relationship between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior via LMX, such that this indirect relationship is stronger when value congruence is lower rather than higher.
METHOD Participants and Procedures
An online questionnaire was conducted to test the four hypotheses. Participants were 164 employed people, whereof 18 participants did not have a supervisor and 19 participants worked for less than 3 months for their supervisor. Therefore, after excluding those 37 participants, 127 participants remained (Mage = 41,48 SD =13,26; 49,6% Female). The majority (N=123) of the sample were Dutch. Some examples of the sectors that the participants work in are government (40,2%), retail/distribution (12,6%) and healthcare (10,2%). The remaining sectors are: Tourism, education, real estate, technology,
professional/financial and manufacturing. Participants have been working for their supervisor 4,5 years on average. The questionnaire was conducted together with another HRM master student, Sandra Ensink who analyzed the work-life balance of workers. The participants were told that the subject of the survey was about leadership and work behavior. We contacted
participants through social media and by e-mail, where they could click on a link and choose between a Dutch or an English version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was
completely anonymous and confidential. Participants needed to give consent to participate in this research before starting the questionnaire.
Measures
Ethical leadership was measured with Brown et al. (2005) ten-item scale; items are included in the appendix. Sample items are “My leader listens to what employees have to say”
and “My leader has the best interests of employees in mind”. Responses could be made on a 1-5 Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). I conducted a reliability test on the ten items of ethical leadership. The result of the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92 which makes it very reliable. I combined the items into one variable.
Unethical work behavior. This variable was measured through the unethical behavior scale that is developed by Newstrom and Ruch (1975) and adapted by Akaah (1996). Example statements are “I do personal business on company time” and “I give gifts in exchange for preferential treatment”. The Cronbach’s alpha turned out to be 0.69, which is close to the required 0.7. There were no reversed items and the reliability analysis showed no
improvements if particular items were deleted.
Leader member exchange. This variable was assessed using the 7- items LMX scale of Scandura and Graen (1984). “My leader would be personally inclined to use power to help me solve problems in my work” and “My leader understands my problems and needs” are two examples of the LMX-items. The participants could respond from 1 (strongly disagree) up till 5 (strongly agree) ( = 0.82).
Leader-follower value congruence. I adapted the three items of Cable and DeRue’s
follower. The three items can be found in the appendix. One example is: “The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my leader values”. Leader-follower value congruence was measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) (= 0.92).
Control variables. I considered participants’ age and gender as possible control variables as previous research has shown that they can influence people’s engagement in unethical behavior (Erdogan & Liden, 2002). For this research, I considered tenure with leader also as a control variable, because it possibly affects leader-follower value congruence and LMX (see Erdogan & Liden, 2002, for a review). Tenure with leader was asked in the categories: Less than 3 months, 3 – 6 months, 6 - 12 months, 1 -2 years, 2 – 4 years, 4 – 6 years, 6 – 10 years and 10+ years.
Data analysis
All statistical analysis was done in SPSS. All variable scales (ethical leadership, unethical work behavior, leader member exchange and leader-follower value congruence) were tested for reliability using the standard test of Cronbach’s Alpha. Scores above 0.70 were regarded as acceptable (Nunally, 1978). I averaged all items of the same variable into one new variable. The items were checked for outliers. However, the outcomes with the outliers did not alter the outcomes of the regression (Judd, McClelland, & Ryan, 2015).
Therefore, I did not exclude them. Furthermore, the skewness of unethical work behavior turned out to be .75, while the standard error of skewness turned out to be .22, producing a Z- score of 3.5. Anything greater than 1,96 can be interpreted as non-normal distribution
(Cramer & Howitt, 2004). To reduce skewness, I transformed unethical work behavior into natural logarithms (see Mukherjee, White & Wuyts, 1998), and included the log
transformation of unethical work behavior in the SPSS analyses to compare outcomes.
However, there was no significant difference in outcomes so I did not include the log transformations in the main analysis. Descriptive statistics for all variables were computed.
The control variables did not correlate significantly with the dependent variable. That is why they are not included in the main analysis.
Linear regression analysis was used to test Hypothesis 1 predicting a direct
relationship between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior. The PROCESS macro for SPSS designed by A.F. Hayes 2012 was used to all of the other hypotheses predicting a relationship between ethical leadership and LMX (Hypothesis 2a), a relationship between LMX and unethical work behavior (Hypothesis 2b), a mediation effect of LMX in the relationship between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior (Hypothesis 2c), a moderation effect of leader-follower value congruence in the relationship between ethical leadership and LMX (Hypothesis 3), and the full moderated mediation model (Hypothesis 4).
Before adding the variables to the regression, the variables were standardized. The mediation was done with PROCESS template model 4 and the moderated mediation was done with PROCESS template model 7.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics. It shows the means, standard deviations and
correlations between variables. There is a positive correlation between ethical leadership and LMX (R = .71, p = .00). Participants who perceived their leader to be more ethical in their leadership have a higher-quality LMX. Another positive correlation between ethical
leadership can be found with leader-follower value congruence and LMX (R = .58, p = .00).
Participants who share the same values as their leader tend to perceive a high LMX.
Regarding tenure, the longer people work for their supervisor, the higher the quality of the leader-follower value congruence. Last, ethical leadership and leader-follower value congruence are also positively correlated (R = .58, p = .00). Participants who perceive their leader as being ethical, also find a congruence in values with their leader. The control variables age, gender and tenure, do not have significant correlations with the independent variable, unethical work behavior. Therefore, I will not incorporate them in the main analysis (Becker, 2005).
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 41.48 13.22
2. Gender 1.50 0.50 -.08
3. Tenure 4.49 1.60 .30** -.13 4. Ethical
leadership
3.47 0.70 -.08 -.14 .02
5. LMX 3.31 0.60 -.11 -.12 .12 .71**
6. LFVC 3.21 0.84 .04 -.07 .15+ .58** .57**
7. UWB 1.49 0.32 -.13 -.07 .05 -.02 .012 -.03
Notes. N = 127 +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male. Tenure = tenure with leader, LMX = Leader member exchange, LFVC = leader – follower value congruence, UWB = unethical work behavior.
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1 predicted that ethical leadership is negatively related to follower unethical work behavior. The regression analysis shows that there is not a significant effect (β = -.05, p = .17).
Hypothesis 2a predicts that ethical leadership will be positively related to LMX. The regression analysis confirms this hypothesized positive relationship (β = .69, p =.00).
Hypothesis 2b predicted that LMX will be negatively related to unethical work
behavior. There is no significant effect to confirm this hypothesis (β = .13, p =.30). However, the mediation analysis shows that the negative effect of ethical leadership on unethical work behavior is almost significant (p =.09).
Hypothesis 2c predicts that the relation between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior would be mediated by LMX. To test this hypothesis, I conducted a regression analysis with model 4 of A.F Hayes’ PROCESS tool for SPSS. There was not a significant indirect effect, so hypothesis 2c is not supported.
TABLE 2
Regression Analysis for Testing Hypothesis 2.
Predictor Mediator variable: LMX
Hypothesis 2 β SE T p
Constant .05 .06 .94 .35
Ethical leadership .69 .06 11.16 .00
Predictor Dependent variable: Unethical work behavior
β SE T p
Constant -.05 .08 -.64 .52
LMX .13 .12 1.05 .30
Ethical leadership -.21 .13 -1.71 .09 Indirect effect of ethical leadership on unethical work behavior by mediation of
leader member exchange
Indirect effect Effect Boot SE LLCI ULCI
.09 .09 -.11 .26
Notes. N = 127, LMX = Leader- member exchange
* Based on 5000 bootstrap samples
The outcomes of the regression used to test hypothesis 3 and 4 are shown in table 3.
Hypothesis 3 predicts that the relationship between ethical leadership and LMX will be moderated by leader-follower value congruence. I tested this moderation model with model 7 of A.F Hayes’ PROCESS tool. The interaction effect of leader-follower value congruence on this relationship is insignificant (p =.97). Thus, hypothesis 3 is not supported. However, table 3 shows that there is a strong significant direct positive effect between leader – follower value congruence and LMX (β = .23, p =.00).
Hypothesis 4 predicts moderated mediation, it was tested with model 7 of A.F Hayes’
PROCESS tool. Table 3 shows that there was no significant moderation effect at low, middle and high levels of LMX. The index of moderated mediation shows that 95% confidence interval includes the zero. Thus, hypothesis 4 is not supported.
TABLE 3
Results of Moderated Mediation Analysis for Testing Hypothesis 3 and 4
Predictor Leader Member Exchange
Hypothesis 3 β SE T p
Constant .06 .06 1.02 .31
Ethical leadership .55 .07 7.49 .00
LFVC .23 .07 3.29 .00
EL x LFVC .00 .06 .03 .97
Unethical Work Behavior
Hypothesis 4 β SE T p
Constant -.06 .08 -.68 .50
LMX .13 .13 1.05 .30
Ethical leadership -.21 .12 -1.71 .09
Conditional indirect effect(s) of ethical leadership on unethical work behavior at different values of leader follower value congruence
Effect BootSE LLCI* ULCI*
Low (M – 1 SD) .07 .08 -.08 .22
Middle .07 .07 -.08 .21
High (M + 1 SD) .07 .08 -.08 .21
Notes. N = 127, EL = ethical leadership, LMX = Leader- member exchange, LFVC = Leader – follower value congruence
*Based on 5000 bootstrap samples
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior as mediated by leader member exchange and moderated by leader-follower value congruence.
The analyses show that ethical leadership is positively related to LMX and to leader-
al., 2005; Treviño, et al., 2006; Walumbwa, et al 2011; Lee et al, 2015). There is no significant effect between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior. However, the regression analysis for the moderated mediation in table 3 shows that the effect is partially significant, which does indicate that there is an effect and further research is needed to study this effect. However, it might be more complex than first thought. I will elaborate on this in the Theoretical Implications section. This study predicts that LMX mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior. Although there is no evidence for the mediation role of LMX the mediation analysis showed that ethical leadership does predict LMX. Leaders who behave in an ethical manner are more likely to have a higher LMX relationship with their subordinates according to this research. The result section shows that high leader – follower value congruence does not influence the positive ethical leadership – LMX relation. Lastly, this study did not provide evidence for the moderation mediation model.
Theoretical Implications
In the light of the results, the present research contributes to our knowledge of the extant literature of ethical leadership on unethical work behavior and its effects on LMX and leader - follower value congruence. First, this study found that ethical leadership is positively related to LMX. Brown, Treviño and Harrison (2005) already argued that because of ethical treatment, followers of ethical leaders are more likely to perceive themselves as being in a social exchange relationship with their leaders. Furthermore, Treviño, Weaver and Reynolds (2006) supported also the relationship by arguing that ethical leaders are built upon social exchange and norms of reciprocity. They refer to Blau’s (1964) Social Exchange Theory (SET) where the central thought is that the exchange of social and material resources is a fundamental form of human interaction. People are motivated to engage in voluntary actions,
because they expect something in return. “An ethical leader’s follower should wish to
reciprocate the leader’s supportive treatment (Treviño & Brown, 2004) with ethical behavior”
(Treviño, Weaver & Reynolds, 2006:976). The quality of exchange between a leader and his follower is referred to as LMX, and this study did find a positive relationship between ethical leadership and LMX, which contributes to their study. Followers of ethical leaders reciprocate ethical behavior, because they expect fair and honest treatment in return. Moreover,
Walumbwa and colleagues (2011) were the first one to find the positive significant relation between ethical leadership and LMX. They found that ethical leaders are able to develop meaningful interpersonal relationships that go beyond specific economic exchange
agreements, thereby facilitating high LMX. The development of this meaningful interpersonal relationship through ethical leadership contributes to the findings of this study that ethical leadership positively influences LMX. Thus, ethical leaders demonstrate normatively appropriate and fair conduct, which creates an environment where followers are more likely to go beyond from what is expected from them because they are not afraid to be exploited, which creates a high exchange relationship with their leader, developing a high LMX relation.
Second, ethical leadership is positively correlated with leader-follower value
congruence. Although, I conducted no regression analysis that supported this, the correlation table indicates that there could be a linear relation between ethical leadership and leader- follower value congruence. This study used followers’ perceptions to identify ethical leadership and leader – follower value congruence which could explain the correlation.
Followers who indicate their leader as being ethical, indicate also a high leader – follower value congruence, because what they perceive as ethical is possibly closely related to their values. Different people have different values, because the social environment of an
individual create those values (Erdogan et al., 2004). The correlation implicates that according
previous research, leader-follower value congruence is often used as a boundary condition for ethical leadership (Lee et al. 2015) and is linked to socialized charismatic leadership (Brown
& Treviño, 2009). However, it is not directly linked to ethical leadership before. Therefore, this study extends previous research on the ethical leadership – leader follower value
congruence relation. Moreover, further research is needed to explain the possible influence of ethical leadership on leader – follower value congruence.
Third, leader – follower value congruence is positively related to LMX. The regression analysis shows a strong significant relation between leader – follower value congruence and LMX. It shows that when leader and follower find congruence in values, the LMX bond is stronger. This might be due to the fact that the dimensions of LMX: contribution, loyalty, and affect are so closely related to high leader – follower value congruence. Ashkanasy &
O’Connor (2010) expected to find high quality of LMX would be characterized by congruence in values but did not find support for this relation. However, Vianen and colleagues (2011) found that person-supervisor fit has significantly effect on LMX. Thus, these findings are in line with the findings of Vianen et al. (2011) and extends the findings of Ashkanasy & O’Connor by providing evidence for the strong significant positive relation between leader -follower value congruence and LMX. This could again be due to the fact that I used followers’ perceptions of leader – follower value congruence and LMX. It might be that when followers perceive a fit in values with their supervisor they are more willing to invest in a high quality LMX relation, because it is less likely that they will be exploited by their supervisor. Another explanation might be that the leader – follower value congruence and LMX items overlap according to followers. To conclude, it indicates that when followers perceive congruence in values, they also perceive a high LMX relation. This is important for literature because it is an important factor to include in further research, this perception could
have influence on other antecedents i.e.; job performance, job satisfaction or counterproductive behaviors.
Finally, the non-significant findings between ethical leadership and follower unethical work behavior mediated by LMX could also indicate that the relation is more complex than originally thought. It could be possible that LMX might not always lead to a decrease in unethical work behavior. On the contrary, previous research has found that LMX might increase unethical pro-leader behaviors. Unethical pro leader behaviors (UPLB) are defined as behaviors that are intended to benefit the leader, but violate ethical norms (Umphress &
Binghman, 2011). Thus, when leader and follower share a high exchange relation, it could be that followers engage in unethical behavior that are indented to benefit the leader.
Practical Implications
This study does have some practical implications for managers. First, this study suggests that engaging in ethical behavior, managers are able to develop a higher LMX
relationship with their direct reports. High LMX reduces uncertainty and creates clear paths to good performance (Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2016) which is beneficial for the organization. Managers who are aware of the importance of LMX should engage in ethical behavior which creates an environment for the development of strong LMX relations which could positively influence employee’s performance. To conclude, managers should demonstrate normatively appropriate conduct and promote those conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement and decision making, to develop a high LMX relation with their subordinates. One example is to let managers explicitly talk to subordinates about ethics and to let them make it outstanding in the environment through an ethical code of conduct.
Furthermore, followers who perceive a fit in values also perceive a high LMX relation with their leader. Strong LMX relations reduce turnover intentions (Harris et al., 2009, 2011).
This study suggests that LMX becomes more effective when employee’s values are consistent with those of the leader or the organization. Organizations need to pay attention to not only developing a strong LMX relation, but also to find value congruence between leaders and followers. Individuals that are selected by organizations often undergo socialization processes that are designed to strengthen person-organization values fit (Brown & Treviño, 2009; Cable
& Parsons, 2001). Cable and Parsons (2001) found that when followers perceive information concerning the sequences and timetables associated with career progression followers
perceive a positive person-organization fit. Individuals values were shifted towards the perception of their organizations’ values when they experience sequential socialization programs. Thus, to create leader-follower value congruence, organization should develop a sequential and fixed socialization program in order to create a high LMX relation perceived by followers, in order to reduce turnover.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Like most studies, the present study is not without its limitations and the findings should be interpreted in light of these limitations. This study did not find significant support for the complete conceptual model. However, it is possible that this model could be
significant if it would be tested with a different kind of research design. The respondents in this study received a link to the online questionnaire. It shows that this study had limited control over the additional contextual variables which might have influenced the given
answers. Furthermore, this study variables were measured at the same point in time, due to the cross-sectional design of this research. Because the questionnaire was taken at a single
moment, it is not possible to make any statements about causality. This limitation can be avoided by further researches by using longitudinal studies with multiple measurement points.
Another limitation of this study is the use of self-reports. Self-evaluation can give a distorted picture and it raises the likelihood of common method variance. Less
motivated respondents have the tendency to give middling responses (Krosnick, 1999) or they agree (or disagree) with most of the items (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 2001) which creates a bias. Another explanation could be that respondents answer the questions in ways that are more socially acceptable (Malhotra, Schaller & Patil, 2017) because unethical work behavior is such a sensitive subject to answer. Unethical behavior violates norms and might even be illegal, therefore followers are unlikely to reveal their unethical acts to others (Treviño &
Brown, 2005). This study could be improved by measuring unethical work behavior in a lab study or an experiment with multiple measurement points.
Although this study did find a positive correlation between ethical leadership and leader – follower value congruence, this study did not further investigate this relation. Next to that, this study did also find a significant positive relation between leader – follower value congruence and LMX, but did not provide further explaining. I suggest strongly that future researchers explore the ethical leadership – unethical work behavior relation and the leader - follower value congruence – LMX relation. For example by studying the complex relation between ethical leadership and unethical work behavior mediated by LMX. The non-
significant findings of this study might suggest that high LMX possibly leads to pro-unethical leader behavior, and low LMX to pro-self-unethical work behavior. Furthermore, this study used follower perceived value congruence to indicate leader – follower value congruence at the individual level. Researchers may include other sources of measures, for example
subordinates supervisors, to further explore leader – follower value congruence. This will increase the validity and the result could be more comprehensive.
Conclusion
In sum, the present study contributes to previous research about ethical leadership which is positively related to LMX. Although this study did not find any significant findings for the other hypotheses, it did give some insight about the possible relationship between LMX and leader-follower value congruence, ethical leadership and leader-follower value congruence, and leader-follower value congruence and tenure with leader, which could be the start of a new research. This study concludes that there is relative little known about leader – follower value congruence in relation to ethical leadership and LMX and that further research is needed for a better understanding of these variables.
REFERENCES
Akaah, I. (1996). The Influence of Organizational Rank and Role on Marketing Professionals' Ethical Judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(6), 605-613. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25072785
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., and Schminke, M., (2002) Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 89: 947 – 956
Amodio, D. Mm,, & Showers C. J. (2005). ‘Similarity breeds liking’ revisited: The
moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 817 – 836
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Connor, C. O. (1997). Value congruence in leader - member exchange.
Journal of Social Psychology, 137(5), 647. Retrieved from http://server.proxy-
ub.rug.nl/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290567227?accountid=11219 Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-hall.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of marketing research, 38(2), 143-156.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
Methods, 8, 274–289.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of applied psychology, 85(3), 349.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Blau, P. M. (1964). 1964 Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001). Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. Groups at work: Theory and research, 471, 499.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.
Leadership Quarterly, 17: 195 - 616
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership : A social learning perspective for construct development and testing, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97, 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 Brown, M. E., Mitchell (2010) Ethical and unethical leadership, Business Ethics Querterly, 20 583 - 616
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K. (2009). Leader-follower value congruence: Are socialized charismatic leaders better able to achieve it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 478 - 490
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.87.5.87
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person‐organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1-23.
Compliance and Ethics Leadership Council (2008) Preempting Compliance Failures:
Identifying Leading Indicators of Misconduct. Washington, DC: CELC.
Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. L. (2004). The Sage dictionary of statistics: a practical resource for students in the social sciences. Sage.
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and
subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297 311.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634.
Douglas, P. C., Davidson, R. A., & Schwartz, B. N. (2001). The effect of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants' ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 101-121.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of management, 38(6), 1715-1759.
Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader member exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18(1), 59-76.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654-677. doi:10.1037/a0014891
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. 2002. Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in Leader-Member Exchange theory. In L.L. Neider and C.A. Schriescheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65-114). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Giacalone RA, Jurkiewicz CL and Deckop JR (2008) On ethics and social responsibility: The impact of materialism, postmaterialism and hope. Human Relations 61(4): 483–514.
Giacalone, R., & Promislo, M. (2010). Unethical and Unwell: Decrements in Well-Being and Unethical Activity at Work. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 275-297. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27749795
Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un) ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145-156.
Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 1201--1245).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers, (pp. 143--165). Kent, OH: Kent State Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Graen, G. B. - Scandura, T. A. (1987), Toward A Psychology Of Dyadic Organizing, Đn Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 175-208.
Harris, K.J., Harris, R.B. and Brouer, R.L. (2009), “LMX and subordinate political skill:
direct and interactive effects on turnover intentions and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 2373-2395.
Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R. and Kacmar, K.M. (2011), “The mediating role of organizational job embeddedness in the LMX-outcomes relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 271-281
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency Berkeley: University of California. Press.-386.
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue- contingent mode. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.
Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287 - 305
Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011) Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 633 – 642
Kang S.W, Byun G., Park H.J. Leader-follower value congruence in social responsibility and ethical satisfaction: a polynomial regression analysis. Psychological reports.
2014;115(3):725-740. doi:10.2466/01.14.PR0.115c33z9.
Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human relations, 64(6), 843-869.
Kidwell, R. E., & Martin, C. L. (2005). The prevalence (and ambiguity) of deviant behavior at work. Managing organizational deviance, 1-21.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action. In T. Parsons &
E. Shils (Eds.),
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 537-567.
Lease, D. R. (2006). From great to ghastly: How toxic organizational cultures poison companies, the rise and fall of Enron, Worldcom, Healthsouth, and Tyco International. Academy of Business Education, April, 6(7).
Lee, D., Choi, Y., Youn, S., & Chun, J. U. (2015). Ethical Leadership and Employee Moral Voice : The Mediating Role of Moral Efficacy and the Moderating Role of Leader – Follower Value Congruence. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 47–57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2689-y
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23:451--465.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early
development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of applied psychology, 78(4), 662.
Malhotra, N. K., Schaller, T. K., & Patil, A. (2017). Common method variance in advertising research: when to be concerned and how to control for it. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 193-212.
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A. and Epitropaki, O. 2016. Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69, 67-121.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151-171.
Meglino, B. M., and Ravlin, E. C., (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351 – 389
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357.
Mukherjee, C., H. White and M. Wuyts (1998). Econometrics and Data Analysis for Developing Countries. New York: Routledge.
Newstrom, J. W and W. A. Ruch: 1975, 'The Ethics of Management and the Management of Ethics, MSU Business Topics (Winter), 31.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.a) Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study.
Journal of Management, 25, 897–933.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations, and its causes.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational
justice. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 89(1), 925-946.
Scandura, T. A., and Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Application Psychology. 69. 428 – 436.
Schaubroeck, J.M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B.J., Kozlowski, S. W.J., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L.
K., et al. (2012) Embedding ethical leadership within and across organizational levels.
Academic management Journal, 55, 1053 – 1078
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of applied psychology, 78(5), 774.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego: Academic.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Suar, D., & Khuntia, R. (2010) Influence of personal values and value congruence on
unethical practices and work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814 – 828.
Treviño. L.K. & Youngblood SA (1990) Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 75(4): 378–385.
Treviño, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17, 647–676.
Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 69-81.
Treviño L. K., Brown, M., and Hartman, L, P., (2003) A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite.
Human Relations: 56 (1): 5 5- 37
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. 2014. (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635-660.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations:
A review. Journal of management, 32(6), 951-990.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151.
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational justice and ethics program “follow through”: Influences on employees’ harmful and helpful behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4), 651-671.
Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. 2005. The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in the workplace. In Roland E. Kidwell Jr., & Christopher L. Martin (Eds.), Managing Organizational Deviance (pp. 69-96). Sage Publications, Inc.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. M. 2003. Reciprocity in manager-follower relationships:
Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29, 511-532.
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.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.
(2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204-213.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader- member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46: 1431--1440.
Zhang, J., & Bloemer, J. (2011). Impact of value congruence on affective commitment:
examining the moderating effects. Journal of Service Management, 22(2), 160-182.
Judd, C., McClelland, G., & Ryan, C. (2015). Data analysis: A model comparison approach.
Second edition. New York: Routledge
APPENDIX
Ethical leadership items:
1. My leader listens to what employees have to say
2. My leader disciplines employees who violate ethical standards 3. My leader conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner 4. My leader has the best interests of employees in mind
5. My leader makes fair and balanced decisions 6. My leader can be trusted
7. My leader discusses business ethics or values with employees 8. My leader sets an example of how to do things the right way
9. My leader defines success not just by results but also the way in terms of ethics 10. When making decisions, my leader asks “what is the right thing to do?”
Unethical work behavior items:
1. I use company services for personal use 2. I do personal business on company time 3. I pilfer company materials and supplies
4. I take extra personal time (lunch hour, breaks, early departure) 5. I conceal one’s errors
6. I pass blame for errors to an innocent co-worker 7. I claim credit for someone else’s work
8. I give gifts/favors in exchange for preferential treatment 9. I accept gifts/favors in exchange for preferential treatment 10. I falsify time/quality/quantity reports
12. I take longer than necessary to do a job 13. I divulge confidential information
14. I do not report others’ violations of company policies and rules
Leader member exchange items:
1. I usually feel that I know where I stand and feel that my leader is satisfied with me 2. My leader understands my problems and needs
3. My leader recognizes my potential
4. My leader would be personally inclined to use power to help me solve problems in my work
5. I can count on my leader to “bail me out” on his/her expense when I really need it 6. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her
decisions and if he or she were not present to do so
7. I would characterize my relationship with my leader as extremely effective
Leader-follower value congruence items:
1. The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my leader values 2. My personal values match my leader his/her values and culture
3. My leader his/her values and culture provide a good fit with the thing that I value in life
