Follower Propensity to Commit

Crimes of Obedience

Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies
Volume 14 Number 1
August 2007 69-76
2007 Baker College
10.1177/1071791907304225
http://jlos.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

The Role of Leadership Beliefs

Kim T. Hinrichs
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Organizations and society are concerned about unethical behavior. One type of unethical behavior is crimes of
obedience, where followers are influenced by a leader to engage in behavior they would otherwise consider unethical. In this article, the author proposes that people who see themselves as leadership material and hold leaders in
high esteem are more likely to view leaders as having more responsibility for ethical decisions and behaviors than
followers. Consequently, such persons when placed in a follower position may be more susceptible to commit
crimes of obedience through the process of moral disengagement by displacing responsibility for their behavior
onto the leader.
Keywords: obedience; leadership; followers; moral responsibility; moral disengagement

ncidents of corporate fraud such as those involving

Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tyco, and MCI and the Abu
Ghrave prison abuse scandal have once again highlighted the importance of ethical behavior in organizations (Bandura, Caprara, & Zsolnai, 2000; Mintzberg,
Simons, & Basu, 2002). Of particular concern is the
willingness of persons in follower positions to unquestioningly obey an unethical leader. In several of the
more publicized recent scandals, followers engaged in
unethical behavior at the direction of a leader, then
excused their actions by arguing that they were merely
following orders. These followers apparently believed
that given their position in their organizations hierarchy, they were not completely responsible for their own
ethical behavior.
This article addresses the problem of follower obedience to unethical orders from the perspective of the
follower by focusing on follower characteristics that
might contribute to some people being more likely
than others to obey a leaders unethical directives.
In this article, I propose that over the course of their
lives, people receive a range of feedback regarding
their leadership potential. This feedback affects their
perceptions of leadership and their place in the leader
follower relationship. These perceptions combine to
influence an individuals beliefs regarding the relative
moral responsibility of leaders versus followers. The

model presented in this article proposes that susceptibility to the influence of an unethical leader is related
to leadership perceptions through beliefs regarding the
relative moral responsibility of leaders versus followers.
There are unique ethical problems embedded in the
leaderfollower relationship (Hollander, 1995). Leaders
can order followers to engage in unethical behavior and
often obtain compliance because of the power imbalance. Through this process, the unethical behavior
of a person in a leadership position can be amplified
throughout an organization (Lord & DeZoort, 2001;
Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986). This dynamic, where
subordinates succumb to the influence of a leader and
the pressures of the leaderfollower relationship and
behave in ways they would otherwise deem unethical, is
termed crimes of obedience. Crimes of obedience does
not refer to instances where the leader and follower are
partners in crime but rather refers to follower behaviors
that absent a leaders influence, the follower would not
engage in (Beu & Buckley, 2004).
The importance of situational variables on a persons
likelihood to obey unethical orders is often associated
with Milgrams studies (Blass, 1991). However, situational factors alone could not explain obedience in
Milgrams experiments as, regardless of the situational
manipulation, some people refused to obey. Overall,
about 65% of the participants in Milgrams obedience

69

70

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

studies were obedient to authority, whereas 35% were

not (Blass, 1999). Although Milgram emphasized the
importance of the situation on obedience, he believed
personality variables were also a factor and noted,
I am certain that there is a complex personality basis
to obedience and disobedience. But I know we did not
find it (Milgram, 1974, p. 205).
Milgram (1974) believed that the tendency to obey
the orders of a superior is not instinctive. He offered
three possible explanations for why some people obey
and some do not (Browning, 1992): (a) Over the course
of time, evolution may have favored those who adapted
to the pressures of hierarchical systems, (b) people
may have been socialized to obey through systems that
reward obedience and punish disobedience, and
(c) when people voluntarily enter hierarchical systems
they believe to be legitimate, they may develop a sense
of obligation to adopt the perspective of those in
authority and consequently feel less responsible for
their behaviors. Subsequent studies have identified
some relationships between obedience and individual
differences, such as moral development, social intelligence, authoritarianism, hostility, locus of control, and
demographic variables, such as education level, religious orientation, and national culture (see Blass,
1991, for a detailed review).
More recently, researchers who have explored the
phenomena of crimes of obedience have examined
leader characteristics that would make a leader prone
to issuing unethical directives and that would predict
success at influencing followers to obey those directives (Bandura, 1999a; Beu & Buckley, 2004). This
approach suggests that crimes of obedience could be
reduced through selection techniques designed to
keep certain people out of leadership positions or by
altering the ethical behavior of those in leader positions through training. Very seldom is the focus placed
on nonleaders, and in most leader-focused studies, followers are generally depicted as a homogenous group.
The primary contention of this article is that followers who see themselves as less responsible for moral
decisions than leaders are more susceptible to the influence of an unethical leader. Beyond that, certain beliefs
about leadership, specifically, the estimation of ones
ability to perform as a leader (leadership self-efficacy),
the degree to which one desires to be in a leadership
position (motivation to lead), and the extent to which
one attributes organizational success to leadership
(romance of leadership beliefs), may predict the likelihood of viewing leaders as more responsible for ethical
decisions than followers.

Leadership Beliefs and Follower

Propensity to Commit Crimes
of Obedience
A key concept in the study of crimes of obedience
is moral responsibility (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986).
Milgram (1974) noted, The essence of obedience
consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself
as the instrument for carrying out another persons
wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as
responsible for his actions (p. xii). To be morally
responsible is to be called on to answer for what one
has done (Hamilton & Sanders, 1992). Because of status and power differences, a leader may be viewed as
having more moral responsibility than a follower
(Emler & Hogan, 1991; Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992),
and in practice, particularly in retrospect, followers
are often held to a lesser standard. For example,
enlisted personnel who had participated in the Mai
Lai massacre were not punished as harshly as the officers who had participated (Hamilton, 1986; Kelman &
Hamilton, 1989).
From a prospective view however, organizations certainly want both leaders and followers to behave ethically. Ideally, followers should possess a strong sense of
moral responsibility (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986).
They should be able to cooperate with an ethical leader
yet recognize and resist a leaders attempt to get them
to comply with unethical orders (Chaleff, 1995; Howell
& Costley, 2006; Kelley, 1992; Trevino, 1986). In this
article, I assume that it is desirable that followers
view themselves as being morally responsible for their
own actions and, when comparing their level of moral
responsibility to that of their leaders, view themselves
as equally morally responsible. Figure 1 presents a
model of the relationship between leadership beliefs
and follower propensity to commit crimes of obedience. Following are propositions regarding the specific
relationships depicted in the model.

Moral Responsibility Beliefs

and Propensity to Commit Crimes
of Obedience
According to social cognitive theory, moral agency
is embedded in self-regulatory mechanisms such as
personal standards and self-sanctions, and ethical
behavior requires that these self-regulatory mechanisms
be activated to work (Bandura, 1999b). The selective
disengagement of the internal self-regulatory standards

Hinrichs / Crimes of Obedience

Figure 1
A Model of the Influence of Leadership
Beliefs on Follower Propensity to Commit
Crimes of Obedience
Leadership SelfEfficacy

(P2)

Affective and
Social-Normative
Motivation to Lead

Romance of
Leadership Beliefs

(P3)

(P4)

Beliefs
Regarding the
Relative Moral
Responsibility
of Leaders and
Followers

(P1)

Propensity to
Commit
Crimes of
Obedience

(P5, P6, P7)

Self-Monitoring
Power Distance
Individualism
Collectivism

that prevent people from committing inhumane acts

is termed moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999b).
According to Bandura (1999b), there are three ways
for moral disengagement to occur: (a) by cognitively
reconstructing the questionable behavior through
advantageous comparisons, euphemistic labeling, or
moral justification; (b) by minimizing ones involvement in the behavior through the displacement or diffusion of responsibility or by distorting the consequences;
and (c) by dehumanizing or blaming the victim.
Research findings indicate correlations between
moral disengagement levels and individual differences
such as locus of control, sympathy, social dominance
orientation, and cynicism (Baker, Detert, & Trevino,
2006); academic efficacy and self-regulatory efficacy
(Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia,
2001); and demographic characteristics such as gender
and age (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli,
1996). The moral disengagement mechanism that is
particularly applicable to crimes of obedience is the
displacement or diffusion of responsibility (Bandura,
1999a; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Followers who obey
unethical orders from a leader may do so because
moral disengagement through the displacement or diffusion of responsibility is facilitated by their belief that
followers are less responsible than leaders for the consequences of their actions.
Proposition 1: People who believe that leaders have more
responsibility for ethical decisions and behaviors than

71

followers will be more likely to obey an unethical

directive from a leader when in a follower position.

Leadership Self-Efficacy and Moral

Responsibility Beliefs
One of the uses of the leaderfollower paradigm is
to serve as a means of stratification in organizations.
Organizational positions are used to separate people
for the purposes of allocating authority, responsibility,
resources, and privilege (Pfeffer, 1977). The selection
criteria involve a complex combination of psychosocio
factors. People are subject to this particular means of
stratification throughout their lives. By the time people
are adults, they have received numerous direct and
indirect messages from influential people such as
coaches, teachers, and peers regarding their capacity
for leadership. Some people have received consistently
positive messages, such as often being selected to be a
team captain, others have received mixed messages,
and some of course have received negative messages.
The reasons behind the messages may have been legitimate or may have been based on discrimination, bias,
or impression management. In any case, people are left
with an estimation of their place in the leaderfollower
dynamic.
Based in part on the feedback they have received,
people form expectations regarding their leadership
ability or self-efficacy for leadership. Self-efficacy is
an estimate of ones ability to successfully perform
the behavior required to accomplish designated types
of performances (Bandura, 1986; Gist & Mitchell,
1992). Feedback is one way people develop selfefficacy (Gist, 1987; Wood & Bandura, 1989). People
who believe they possess the ability to successfully
lead others can be said to possess high leadership
self-efficacy (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Paglis &
Green, 2002). People with low leadership selfefficacy believe that they do not have leadership capabilities. They may have come to believe that others do
not want or value their leadership, they are destined
to be under the leadership of someone else, and they
need the leadership of someone else. Such experiences might make a person more passive when it
comes to ethical decision making and especially vulnerable to abdicating their moral responsibility in
favor of a leader. They may be more likely to adopt
the attitude that Its not my problem; after all, Im
just a follower. Such a person may be prone to
believing that he or she is not capable of reasoning at
the same level as a leader (Gist, 1987).

72

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Proposition 2: People with low leadership self-efficacy

will be more likely to defer moral responsibility to a
leader when in a follower position.

Motivation to Lead and Moral

Responsibility Beliefs
Chan and Drasgow (2001) defined motivation to
lead (MTL) as an individual differences construct
that affects a leaders or leader-to-bes decisions to
assume leadership training, roles, and responsibilities and that affect his or her intensity of effort at leading and persistence as a leader (p. 482). Although
relatively stable over time, differences in MTL can
change with leadership experience and training (Chan
& Drasgow, 2001). Antecedents to MTL include personality, sociocultural values, leadership experience,
leadership self-efficacy (Chan & Drasgow, 2001),
self-regulatory focus (Kark & Van-Dijk, in press), and
leadership self-identity (Hiller, 2005). I propose here
that in addition to affecting leader behaviors, MTL
may relate to an individuals behavior when in a follower position.
MTL can be conceptualized and measured as three
first-order (affective, social-normative, and noncalculative) or as a single second-order factor (general
MTL) (Chan, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2000). Individuals
with high affective MTL are motivated to lead because
they enjoy leading others. These are outgoing, sociable
people with a higher than average amount of leadership experience who view themselves as leadership
material (Chan & Drasgow, 2001). Individuals with
high social normative MTL are motivated to lead out
of a sense of duty and obligation. Like those high in
affective MTL, these individuals have a history of
leadership experience and are confident in their leadership abilities. In addition, they are apt to accept the
hierarchical differences between leaders and followers (Chan & Drasgow, 2001). People with high noncalculative MTL are motivated to lead because they
have not weighed the costs associated with leadership. These people value harmony and are nonconfrontational in their relationships with others (Chan &
Drasgow, 2001).
Although MTL can be viewed as a single construct,
it is in the detail of the three correlated factors that
a relationship with obedience can be construed.
Affective and social normative MTL in particular
appear to be applicable to predicting the likelihood of
a followers deferring moral responsibility to a leader.
People with high affective MTL may be so determined

to become a leader that when in a follower position,

they obey a leaders unethical directives as a way to
ingratiate themselves to the leader and thereby increase
their chances of promotion. In addition, because they
see themselves as having leadership talents, they may
revere the leaders authority and responsibility to the
extent that when in a follower position, they overemphasize obedience to the leader. Individuals with high
social-normative MTL are especially sensitive to the
duties and responsibilities of being a leader. When in a
follower position, their appreciation of the challenges
inherent in the position may cause them to be vulnerable to deferring moral judgment to a leader as well.
Proposition 3: People with high affective MTL and high
social-normative MTL will be more likely to defer
moral responsibility to a leader when in a follower
position.

Romance of Leadership Beliefs and

Moral Responsibility Beliefs
The motivations of followers may be related to their
views regarding the importance of leadership (Meindl,
Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). The romance of leadership
perspective holds that there are perceptual processes
that cause some people to overestimate the importance
of leadership on organizational success (Meindl et al.,
1985). People who are prone to overestimating the
positive effect of leadership have what Meindl called
a romance of leadership disposition (Meindl, 1990;
Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Research findings support
Meindls contention that individuals differ in their
romance of leadership disposition (Ehrlich, Meindl,
& Viellieu, 1990; Shamir, 1992).
The romance of leadership perspective is often supported by the popular media. Leaders are frequently
depicted as extraordinary people, possessing great
vision and the ability to cope with complexity and
ambiguity in ways that others cannot (Bligh &
Meindl, 2004; Chen & Meindl, 1991). In ambiguous
situations, such as those involving ethical decision
making, where outcomes are unclear and variables are
many and complex, a person who believes that a
leader has such abilities may be more likely to defer
to the judgment of a leader (Crutchfield, 1955). They
may check their reservations about a decision, believing that the leader has information or insight that they
do not possess. However, if a person believes that
although leaders may have more experience and information, they are not superhuman and do not possess

Hinrichs / Crimes of Obedience

special abilities, they may be less likely to suspend

their own value judgments in favor of a leader.
Proposition 4: People with a high romance of leadership disposition who overestimate the contributions
of leaders to organizational success will be more
likely to defer moral responsibility to a leader when
they are in a follower position.

Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring refers to the extent a person is willing to monitor and adjust his or her behavior based on
how he or she is perceived by others (Snyder, 1974).
High self-monitors scan the environment looking for
cues as to what behavior is called for and are willing
to adjust their behavior to fit the situation (Day, 2004;
Snyder, 1974; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991). High
self-monitors want to project a positive image and
impress those around them. Low self-monitors are not
as concerned with what others think of them. They are
more interested in being true to their own values.
Consequently, they do not scan the environment for
behavioral cues as do high self-monitors. In addition,
when low self-monitors become aware of a social
expectation, they are not as willing to modify their
behavior to conform as high self-monitors are (Kilduff
& Day, 1994; Snyder, 1974; Snyder & Gangestad,
1982). It follows that high self-monitors would be
more likely to have received cues from the environment regarding their leadership capabilities.
Because high self-monitors are willing to change
their behavior to conform to social expectations
(Snyder, 1974), they are more likely to experience and
accept discrepancies between their behavior and their
own values. Low self-monitors on the other hand show
a greater continuity between who they are and how
they act (Snyder, 1974). For example, in a study of the
effects of self-monitoring on speaking up in the workplace, Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) found that low
self-monitors appeared to speak up most often when
in situations conducive to their true dispositions
(p. 1559). It follows that everything else being equal,
low self-monitors would be less likely than high selfmonitors to obey an unethical order from a leader that
was inconsistent with his or her own values.
Proposition 5: The relationship between beliefs regarding the relative moral responsibility of leaders and
followers and propensity to commit crimes of obedience is moderated by self-monitoring such that
the relationship will be weaker in low self-monitors
than in high-self monitors.

73

Cultural Differences
Obedience scholarship has identified the possibility of cross-cultural differences in obedience (Blass,
1991; Kilham & Mann, 1974). Research in the area
of responsibility attribution has also uncovered variation across cultures (Hamilton, 1992; Hamilton, &
Hagiwara, 1992). Consequently, it is reasonable to
expect that the relationship between moral responsibility beliefs and the propensity to commit crimes of
obedience may be moderated by cultural factors.
Prior research indicates that power distance and individualism and collectivism have particular relevance
to predicting ethical behavior.
Power distance is a cultural dimension that can be
defined as the degree of inequality among people
which the population of a country considers as normal:
from relatively equal (that is, small power distance) to
extremely unequal (large power distance) (Hofstede,
1993, p. 89). The construct describes how less powerful members of society accept power inequalities
(Cohen, Pant, & Sharp, 1993; Hofstede & Bond,
1988). Milgrams (1974) obedience studies established
a connection between authority and ethical behavior,
and some cross-cultural ethics literature has predicted
a connection between power distance and ethical behavior (Trevino, 1986; Vitell, Nwachukwu, & Barnes, 1993).
Proposed relationships between power distance and
ethical behavior relate to the likelihood followers
would obey unethical orders from superiors (Cohen
et al., 1995); the reaction of society to the actions of
followers who obey unethical orders (Cohen et al.,
1992, 1993; Hofstede, 1991); the likelihood that a follower would question, report, or tolerate a superiors
unethical behavior (Cohen et al., 1995; Husted, 2000;
Parboteeah, Bronson, & Cullen, 2005; Schultz,
Johnson, Morris, & Dyrnes, 1993); and the likelihood
that a follower would view questionable practices as
ethical (Cohen et al., 1996).
The results of studies testing the connection
between power distance and ethical behavior have
been mixed. One study by Cohen et al. (1995) did
find differences in ethical decision making between
countries that differ in power distance. However, a
study by Parboteeah et al. (2005) did not find support
for their hypothesis regarding the connection between
power distance and willingness to justify ethically
suspect behavior. Likewise, a study by Husted (2000)
found no connection between the level of power distance in a country and software piracy.
The model presented in this article proposes a relationship between power distance and ethical behavior

74

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

that is different than the aforementioned studies. Those

studies were unable to support hypotheses that people
in high power distance countries would be more likely
to tolerate unethical behavior by their superiors or
engage in unethical behavior themselves. The model
presented in this article does not predict behavior but
rather the likelihood of a follower justifying his or her
unethical behavior by abdicating moral responsibility
to a superior. In addition, in this model it is proposed
that power distance is a moderator of a relationship
rather than a direct variable.
Proposition 6: The relationship between beliefs regarding the relative moral responsibility of leaders and
followers and propensity to commit crimes of obedience is moderated by power distance such that
the relationship will be weaker in individuals who
favor low power distance than in individuals who
accept high power distance.

Individualism and collectivism are cross-cultural

variables that refer to the extent to which individuals are
integrated into groups (Hofstede, 1984; Hofstede &
Bond, 1988). Individualists value independence, selfsufficiency, and uniqueness. They desire control over
their own lives, and they are willing to express their attitudes and beliefs at the expense of social relationships.
Collectivists value duty to the group and group harmony. They believe it is important to conform to group
norms. They are willing to place group-level accomplishment above personal accomplishments (Kim,
Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). Therefore, the behaviors of collectivists are more likely to take into account
group norms, duties, and obligations, whereas the
behaviors of individualists are more likely to conform
to individual values and beliefs. Individualists try to be
true to themselves, whereas collectivists focus on
respectable participation in the group (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991).
Scholars have maintained that individualism and
collectivism beliefs may be related to ethical behavior
(Cohen et al., 1992, 1993, 1995; Hofstede, 1980). In a
collectivist society a follower may experience more
pressure to comply with the unethical directives of a
superior (Cohen et al., 1993), whereas a follower in an
individualist society may feel more free to speak his or
her own mind (Hofstede, 1991). It follows that everything else being equal, individualists given an unethical
order from a leader would be more likely to disobey the
leader so as to maintain conformity between their values and behaviors. Collectivists would be more likely to

follow the order so as to maintain harmony within the

social order.
Proposition 7: The relationship between beliefs regarding the relative moral responsibility of leaders and
followers and propensity to commit crimes of obedience is moderated by individualism and collectivism such that the relationship will be weaker in
individualists than in collectivists.

Conclusion
Following Gergens (1973) notion that understanding
behavior will lead to changes in such behavior, analysts
of the Milgram experiments proposed that a reduction in
crimes of obedience could be obtained by educating
people about the authority obedience process. However,
research indicates that by the time people are in a given
situation, their awareness of the process may not be of
much help (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986). It appears
that once followers accept the legitimacy of authority, it
is much more difficult to then resist even the most obviously unethical orders (Nissani, 1990). The approach
more likely to have success is to establish the moral
responsibility of all organizational members prior to the
occurrence of any specific situation where obedience
is expected.
These proposals have implications for trainers and
educators. Because it is generally acknowledged that
skills of a good leader and a good follower are not significantly different (Hollander, 1995; Lee, 1991) and
the training necessary for followership is the same as
for leadership and every bit as important, it may be wise
to educate and train assuming that all students will be
both leaders and followers. The relevant curriculum
could be taught in an egalitarian manner as a set of
behaviors, skills, and assumptions that are valuable to
an individuals career and personal satisfaction as
well as to the organization they work for, regardless
of their hierarchical position or status. Such a focus
could help develop followers who do not depend
blindly on leaders and are able to access their own internal strengths as a substitute for overreliance on a leader.
Ideally, organizations would benefit from followers
who have a sophisticated and complex understanding of
the leaderfollower relationship and are able to draw
inspiration from a leader and rally around a leader when
it is appropriate while having the wisdom and courage
to resist the leader when it is not.
Research on the leaderfollower relationship has not
adequately explored follower differences. The leader

Hinrichs / Crimes of Obedience

side of the relationship is more powerful and thus has

been examined more thoroughly. The model presented
in this article is a step toward addressing significant
differences between people in the follower position
for the purposes of predicting important outcomes.
Future research could test the relationships depicted in
the model through survey instruments. Further studies
could examine additional variables and relationships
as theory and initial results dictate. Although I proposed
no moderator effect for gender, the effects depicted in
the model may differ for men and women in ways that
future research can help determine.
In conclusion, this article proposes that when people
are stratified based on an estimate of their leadership
capabilities or potential, they are affected by that determination. In particular, people who see themselves as
leadership material and hold leaders in high esteem are
more likely to view leaders as more responsible for
moral decisions than followers. Consequently, such
persons, when placed in a follower position, may be
more susceptible to commit crimes of obedience
through the process of moral disengagement by displacing responsibility for their behavior onto the leader.

References
Baker, V. L., Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. (2006, August). Moral
disengagement in business school students: Predictors and comparisons. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
annual meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1999a). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of
inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,
193-209.
Bandura, A. (1999b). Social cognitive theory of personality. In
D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality:
Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 185-241). New York: Guilford.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C.
(1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise
of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., &
Regalia, C. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms
governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 125-135.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G., & Zsolnai, L. (2000). Corporate transgressions through moral disengagement. Journal of Human
Values, 1, 57-64.
Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). This is war: How the politically astute achieve crimes of obedience through the use of
moral disengagement. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 551-568.
Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their

75

interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

60, 398-413.
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some
things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955-978.
Bligh, M. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). The cultural ecology
of leadership: An analysis of popular leadership books. In
D. M. Messick & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology
of leadership: New perspectives and research (pp. 11-52).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Browning, C. R. (1992). Ordinary men: Reserve police battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland. New York:
HarperCollins.
Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Chan, K., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481-498.
Chan, K., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The relation between
vocational interests and the motivation to lead. Journal of
Vocational Interests, 57, 226-245.
Chen, C., & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The construction of leadership
images in the popular press: The case of Donald Burr and
People Express. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 521-552.
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1992). Cultural and
socioeconomic constraints on international codes of ethics:
Lessons from accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 11,
687-700.
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1993). Culture-based
ethical conflicts confronting multinational accounting firms.
Accounting Horizons, 7, 1-13.
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1995). An exploratory
examination of international differences in auditors ethical
perceptions. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 7, 37-64.
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1996). A methodological
note on cross-cultural accounting ethics research. International
Journal of Accounting, 31, 55-66.
Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American
Psychologist, 10, 191-198.
Day, D. (2004). Can chameleons lead? Leadership Quarterly, 15,
687-718.
Ehrlich, S. B., Meindl, J. R., & Viellieu, B. (1990). The charismatic
appeal of a transformational leader: An empirical case study
of a small, high-technology contractor. Leadership Quarterly, 1,
229-247.
Emler, N., & Hogan, R. (1991). Moral psychology and public
policy. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of
moral behavior and development (Vol. 3, pp. 69-93). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309-320.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy
of Management Review, 12, 472-485.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical
analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of
Management Review, 17, 183-211.
Hamilton, V. L. (1986). Chains of command: Responsibility attribution in hierarchies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
16, 118-138.

76

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Hamilton, V. L. (1992). Introduction to social psychological

approaches to responsibility and justice: The view across cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 137-141.
Hamilton, V. L., & Hagiwara, S. (1992). Roles, responsibility, and
accounts across cultures. International Journal of Psychology,
27, 157-179.
Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1992). Everyday justice:
Responsibility and the individual in Japan and the United States.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hiller, N. J. (2005). An examination of leadership beliefs and
leadership self-identity: Constructs, correlates, and outcomes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9, 389-398.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories.
Academy of Management Executive, 7, 81-94.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1988). The Confucius connection: From
cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 4,
5-21.
Hollander, E. P. (1995). Ethical challenges in the leaderfollower relationship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 55-65.
Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors
for effective leadership (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Husted, B. W. (2000). The impact of national culture on software
piracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 197-211.
Kark, R., & Van-Dijk, D. (in press). Motivation to lead, motivation
to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership
processes. Academy of Management Review, 32.
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York:
Doubleday.
Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience:
Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The
effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of
Management Journal, 3, 1047-1060.
Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as
a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
29, 696-702.
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, G.
(Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method,
and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, C. (1991). Followership: The essence of leadership.
Training, 28, 27-35.
Lord, A. T., & DeZoort, F. T. (2001). The impact of commitment
and moral reasoning on auditors responses to social influence
pressure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 215-235.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Meeus, W. H. J., & Raaijmakers, Q. A. (1986). Administrative obedience: Carrying out orders to use psychological-administrative
violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16,
311-324.

Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 159-203).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership
and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 30, 91-109.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The
romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,
78-102.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental
view. New York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H., Simons, R., & Basu, K. (2002). Beyond selfishness. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 67-74.
Nissani, M. (1990). A cognitive reinterpretation of Stanley
Milgrams observations on obedience to authority. American
Psychologist, 45, 1384-1385.
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and
managers motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215-235.
Parboteeah, K. P., Bronson, J. W., & Cullen, J. B. (2005). Does
national culture affect willingness to justify ethically suspect
behaviors? International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5, 123-138.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). Toward an examination of stratification in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 553-567.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence:
The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40,
1537-1562.
Schultz, J. J., Johnson, D. A., Morris, D., & Dyrnes, S. (1993). An
investigation of the reporting of questionable acts in an international setting. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 75-103.
Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the
leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 22, 385-407.
Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1982). Choosing social situations:
Two investigations of self-monitoring processes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 123-135.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations:
A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The
effects of culture on ethical decision-making: An application of
Hofstedes typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 753-760.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Journal,
14, 361-384.
Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Selfmonitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 308-315.
Kim T. Hinrichs, PhD, is an associate professor of management at
Minnesota State University, Mankato. His research interests include
leadership, followership, obedience, authority, and stratification in
organizations; the management profession; and organizational life.