Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2747-5
Received: 30 November 2013 / Accepted: 28 June 2015 / Published online: 7 July 2015
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Introduction
What is the ethical way to behave? Philosophers have long
noted that the two most prominent perspectives on ethics,
known as the right and the good (Audi 2009; Brandt
1979; Ross 2002), can yield conflicting answers. The former perspective is deontological, and its most famous
exponent is Immanuel Kant. It classifies behaviors into the
categories of right (ethical) and wrong (unethical). Lying,
cheating, and stealing, for example, would fall into the
unethical category. The alternative perspective is called
consequentialist because of its premise that no action can
be declared ethical or unethical without considering the
results. A utilitarian version of consequentialism (famously espoused by J. S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham) calls
for examining the results of various behaviors to determine
which one(s) lead to the greatest good for the greatest
numberthat benefits outweigh harms. If a lie in a given
situation would cause only limited harm offset by substantial benefit for the good of all, then a utilitarian consequentialist would disagree with a deontologists
inclination to call lying unethical (at least in that case).
Thus, the words right and good might be used
somewhat interchangeably in ordinary conversation, but as
opposing ethical viewpoints they might often be in conflict
with one another.
123
744
123
C. Letwin et al.
In attempting to answer recent calls for a broader perspective on ethical leadership (Fehr et al. 2015), our study
makes three contributions to the ethical leadership literature.
First, we provide a more complete theoretical account of
ethical leadership by jointly considering the perspectives of
subordinates and managers. By considering both viewpoints,
we elucidate a theoretical perspective that supplements traditional bottom-up explanations (e.g., Brown et al. 2005) and
extends the relatively neglected top-down view of supervisors ethical behavior (see Fig. 1). In doing so, we build on
the few studies to explore leader-level outcomes of ethical
leadership (e.g., Rubin et al. 2010) in an attempt to clarify
previous results. Our theorizing and results support the
notion that managers perceptions of ethical leadership are
more strongly associated with leader performance than are
subordinates views of ethical leaders. Moreover, our
investigation offers insights into ethical leadership regarding
the right and the good as twin pillars of Western ethical
philosophy. Thus, our second contribution stems from our
exploring the extent to which supervisors ethical ideologies
are associated with their (perceived) leadership behavior,
and whether they explain variance in leader outcomes (i.e.,
performance and promotability) above and beyond ethical
leadership. As we later explain, integrating the long history
of utilitarian and deontological moral philosophy with more
recent research on ethical leadership has important theoretical, empirical, and practical implications. Finally, testing
our predictions with data from subordinate-supervisormanager triads across a variety of industries and organizations extends the generalizability of prior research that has
relied on vignettes (Brady and Wheeler 1996; Fritzsche and
Becker 1984; Groves et al. 2008; Premeaux 2004; Premeaux
and Mondy 1993).
The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance
745
Manager
perceptions of
ethical leadership
Deontology
Leader outcomes
Performance
Promotability
Utilitarianism
Subordinate
perceptions of
ethical leadership
Fig. 1 Conceptual model
123
746
123
C. Letwin et al.
The most widely employed definition of ethical leadership was developed by Brown et al. (2005), who 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 (p. 120). We suggest this and
other (e.g., Kalshoven et al. 2011) conceptualizations of
ethical leadership tend to emphasize a deontological perspective. For instance, ethical leaders are widely thought to
explain, follow, and hold subordinates accountable to
codes of ethical conduct (e.g., Brown et al. 2005; Kalshoven et al. 2011). Moreover, ethical leaders are believed
to possess high levels of character and integrity, which
dispose them to do the right thing or otherwise act in
accordance with moral rules (e.g., Brown et al. 2005;
Resick et al. 2006). These sorts of leadership behaviors are
deontological in nature, in that they reflect the importance
of ethical standards or guidelines.
This is not to say, however, that ethical leaders cannot
possess utilitarian ideologies. For instance, Brown et al.
(2005) maintain that when making decisions, ethical leaders
consider the ethical consequences of their actions. By and
large, however, deontology is embodied in the entire notion
of ethical leadership (Resick et al. 2006, p. 348, emphasis
added). We suggest the weight given to the deontological
perspective is due in large part to prior works reliance on
social learning theory, which focuses on the degree to which
supervisors demonstrate and uphold ethical rules. Thus,
although scholars appear to have envisioned ethical leadership as incorporating both the consequences of leaders
behaviors and the behaviors themselves, the extent to which
supervisors guide their behavior according to the ethics of
utilitarianism will likely be less strongly related to their
(perceived) ethical leadership than will the extent to which
they act according to the ethics of deontology. In other words,
we expect leaders deontological ideology to be more
strongly associated with managers and subordinates perceptions of their ethical leadership than will their utilitarian
ideology. Based on the previous reasoning and available literature, we therefore hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2 Leaders deontological ideology will be
positively and more strongly related to ethical leadership
than leaders utilitarian ideology, considering either
(a) manager perceptions or (b) subordinate perceptions of
ethical leadership.
Utilitarianism, Ethical Leadership, and LeaderLevel Outcomes
By most accounts (Brown et al. 2005; Kalshoven et al.
2011; Resick et al. 2006), the decisions and behaviors of
The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance
747
Method
Sample and Procedure
We collected data from 117 triads working at organizations
in the southeastern U.S. Each triad consisted of an
employee, his or her supervisor (the focal leader), and the
supervisors supervisor (the manager). Participants were
employed in financial, insurance, real estate, retail, food
service, and healthcare organizations. Data collection
began by having student participants at a large southeastern
university, identified a contact employee who worked at
least 20 h per week. Each contact employee was given a
unique and confidential identification number and asked to
complete our subordinate survey. We also asked that each
subordinate forward to his or her direct supervisor the
unique identification number, an invitation, and the link to
the supervisor survey. Participating supervisors in turn
forwarded to their direct supervisor (the manager) the
unique identification number, an invitation, and the link to
the manager survey. A number of behavioral ethics
researchers have used similar approaches when collecting
data (e.g., Grant and Mayer 2009; Mayer et al. 2009;
Piccolo et al. 2010). Subordinate participants provided
ratings of their supervisors (focal leaders) level of ethical
leadership. The participants who were the focal leaders (the
supervisors) provided ratings of their own ethical ideology
(utilitarian and deontological) as well as their moral identity. Managers provided ratings of their subordinates (the
focal leaders) level of ethical leadership, job performance,
and promotability. All respondents were assured
confidentiality.
Two hundred and eighty-two subordinates (contact
employees) were identified and completed our subordinate
survey out of a total of 1041 students who were invited to
identify a contact employee (27 %). Associated with these
282 subordinates, 177 of their direct supervisors completed
the supervisor survey (63 %), and 155 pairs of supervisors
and managers completed both the supervisor and manager
survey (55 %). This led to a complete sample of 155 triads.
Consistent with recommendations by Meade and Craig
(2012), we removed nine cases where subordinates indicated that we should not use their data (6 %), 18 cases
where they incorrectly answered a question that instructed
them to Disagree (12 %), and 25 cases where a global
review of the IP addresses, the start and finish times of
different surveys, and the time it took to complete each
survey suggested we had not obtained unique respondents
(16 %). Cumulatively, 38 triads were removed (25 %),
123
748
123
C. Letwin et al.
and
Meets
performance
Promotability
Managers assessed supervisor promotability with a threeitem measure from Harris et al. (2006). Participants were
asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with statements about the focal supervisor such as If I had to select
a successor for my position, it would be this employee
and I believe that this subordinate will have a successful
career using a 5-point response format (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Control Variables
In all of our analyses, we controlled for supervisor age and
sex. We also controlled for supervisors moral identity, as
it has been shown to be an antecedent of ethical leadership
(Mayer et al. 2012). We assessed moral identity with the
five-item internalization dimension of Aquino and Reeds
(2002) measure.
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the study variables.
Although we collected data from subordinates, supervisors,
and managers, the proposed relationships in Hypothesis 1
concern predictor and outcome variables rated by the same
source (i.e., managers). To determine whether these relationships were influenced by same-source bias, we followed Podsakoff et al.s (2003) recommendation to
examine common method variance in our data with Harmans single-factor test. We did so by entering the study
variable items into an unrotated principle components
exploratory factor analysis. As Williams et al. (1989)
explain, a problematic amount of same-source bias would
be indicated by the emergence of a single factor or one that
accounts for more than 25 % of the total item variance. The
results of our analysis revealed that multiple factors
emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and that no
factor accounted for more than 25 % of the total variance.
These results suggest that same-source bias is unlikely to
confound our ensuing hypothesis tests.
Hypothesis Tests
We tested our hypotheses using multiple regression analysis. We should note that for each hypothesis test, all
The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance
749
SD
11.64
Supervisor age
38.98
Supervisor sex
1.56
0.49
-.02
4.40
0.62
-.03
-.07
4.00
0.72
-.02
.10
.05
4.27
0.55
.13
.12
.13
.42**
Utilitarian ideology
4.33
0.64
.05
-.06
.45**
.03
7
8
Deontological ideology
Job performance
4.59
4.52
0.62
0.62
.12
.01
-.02
.15
Promotability
4.15
0.70
.02
.14
(.92)
.12
(.97)
(.73)
(.91)
.61**
-.06
.16
.14
-.09
.08
(.92)
.05
(.91)
.20*
.36**
.76**
.15
.32**
.01
.01
.64**
(.78)
n = 117 for manager variables and n = 132 for subordinate/supervisor variables. Sex was coded 1 = male, 2 = female
Alpha reliabilities appear in parentheses
p \ .10
* p \ .05
** p \ .01
variance inflation factor statistics were below 10, suggesting multicollinearity was unlikely (Chatterjee and Price
1977). We also employed formal tests to determine whether one predictor was more strongly related than another
to a particular outcome. Specifically, the Clogg test (Clogg
et al. 1995) compares regression coefficients between
models (i.e., raters), and the Wald test compares regression
coefficients within models (i.e., raters). Thus, we employed
the former to test Hypothesis 1, which compares manager
and subordinate ratings of ethical leadership, and the latter
to test Hypothesis 2, which compares the difference
between deontology and utilitarian ideologies (both rated
by supervisors).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that manager ratings of ethical
leadership would be more strongly related than subordinate
ratings to leader performance and promotability. The
regression results reported in Table 2 provide preliminary
support for this hypothesis, as managers perceptions of
ethical leadership appear more strongly associated with
leader performance (b = .37, p \ .01) and promotability
(b = .34, p \ .01) than do subordinate perceptions of
ethical leadership (b = .12 and .06, both ns). To formally
test Hypothesis 1, we followed procedures suggested by
Clogg et al. (1995) by conducting Z-test significance difference comparisons for the type of rater (managers vs.
subordinates). Z-scores were derived by dividing the difference between the unstandardized coefficients (for manager and subordinate ratings of ethical leadership) by the
square root of the sum of their squared standard errors.
Based on the Z-scores, manager and subordinate ratings of
ethical leadership were significantly different in predicting
job performance (Z = 2.34, p \ .05) and promotability
123
750
C. Letwin et al.
Job performance
1
2a
Promotability
2b
2a
2b
Control variables
Age
.01
.00
-.06
.01
.01
Sex
.15
.13
.10
.14
.13
.09
-.04
-.16
-.08
-.11
-.17
Moral identity
-.21*
-.04
Independent variables
Subordinate-rated ethical leadership
.12
.06
.37**
.02
DR2
.23*
.24*
.08
.20
.06*
.17**
.34**
.03
.07
.08
.03
.14
.01
.11**
n = 117 or 132 depending on the level of the variable. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. DR2
values may not sum exactly to R2 values due to rounding
p \ .10
* p \ .05
** p \ .01
Table 3 Regression results predicting subordinate and manager ratings of ethical leadership
Subordinate ratings
Manager ratings
Control variables
Age
-.01
-.05
.13
.10
Sex
.10
.09
.14
.12
Moral identity
.06
-.07
.15
.04
Independent variables
Utilitarian ideology
-.20
Deontological ideology
2
.01
DR2
-.24
.36*
.06
.04*
.35*
.06
.09
.04
p \ .10
* p \ .05
** p \ .01
Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted that supervisors utilitarian ideology would be positively related to job performance and promotability, respectively, above and beyond
ethical leadership, as rated by either subordinates or managers. In testing these hypotheses, we entered control
variables in step 1 and the main effects for ethical leadership (subordinate- or manager-rated) and utilitarian ideology in step 2. As shown in the left panel of Table 2,
models 2a and 2b reveal a positive relationship between
123
Discussion
As Fehr et al. (2015) recently observed, current research
has primarily adopted a narrow conceptualization of
ethical leadership, founded on specific assumptions about
the content of the moral domain (p. 38). They further
maintain that although anyone can moralize a leaders
actions, to date research has exclusively considered the
bottom-up perspective from subordinates. In building on
Fehr et al.s (2015) work, we point to avenues that consider
[the] need to take a broader perspective on ethical leadership (p. 7). Specifically, in highlighting the importance
of both bottom-up and top-down perspectives, our study
points to the value of considering leader-level outcomes
that flow from ethical leadership. We pursued this research
because bottom-up perspectives do not incorporate the
tensions leaders likely face when trying to serve two
masters (those to whom they report and those who report to
them). Top-down perspectives and the ethical underpinnings related to these perspectives incorporate these tensions; this more holistically captures the competing
The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance
751
considering managers perspectives in concert with subordinates perspectives provides a more ethically balanced
discussion of ethical leadership. Our results are consistent
with the conclusion that current approaches to ethical
leadership tend to emphasize deontological considerations
and not those of utilitarianism, which may limit how well
the construct would relate to leader-level outcomes such as
performance and promotability. Our results thus suggest
that a more balanced approach to ethical leadership in
organizational settings might shed new light on the relationships with leader-level outcomes.
A review of the literature showed that multiple conceptualizations of ethical leadership have emphasized the
importance of a deontological perspective as compared to a
utilitarian one (De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Kalshoven et al. 2011; Resick et al. 2006). For the purposes of
this paper, we specifically considered the behaviors that
flow from Brown et al. (2005) conceptualization of ethical
leadership because of its widespread use. Support for
Hypothesis 2 shows that perceptions of supervisors ethical
leadership, whether by managers or subordinates, were
exclusively related to the deontological tendencies of
supervisors and not to their utilitarian tendencies. Although
current definitions and conceptualizations of ethical leadership research would not necessarily lead one to suspect
the construct to be wholly unrelated to utilitarianism, this
finding may not be surprising to some given the way ethical
leadership is operationalized (see Empirical Implications below for further discussion of this point). This
result suggests that it is possible for some perspectives on
ethical leadership to cast supervisors with a deontological
ideology in a more favorable light relative to those with a
utilitarian one. If a utilitarian ideology does give legitimate
ethical guidance, as one stream of modern philosophy
maintains, perhaps the leadership of at least some utilitarian supervisors will be viewed as less ethical than what a
more balanced perspective on ethics would warrant.
Our results also show that a utilitarian ideology predicted job performance over and above ethical leadership,
supporting Hypothesis 3. As noted, leaders with a utilitarian ethical ideology may focus on achieving the greatest
good and maximizing the best interests of various stakeholders and the organization as a whole (e.g., Burnes and
By 2012; Fritzsche and Becker 1984). Furthermore, utilitarians consider the consequences of their actions, and
hence this outcome maximization may be the direct result
of their ethical decision-making process. Thus, it appears
that the utilitarian portion of the ethical leadership construct may be the portion that is most positively related to
performance and that the ethical leadership constructs
limited ability to predict leader performance may be partially caused by a relative emphasis on a deontological
perspective. In other words, these results suggest that
123
752
C. Letwin et al.
Empirical Implications
Our research question focused on leaders ethical ideologies as theoretical underpinnings of ethical leadership and
its association with leader-level outcomes. Although
scholars have acknowledged the utilitarian ideologies
inherent to ethical leadership, a utilitarian perspective is
largely missing from measures used to assess the construct.
Resick et al. (2006), for example, argued that ethical
awareness, which involves being sensitive to the impact
moral issues have on others, is a key attribute characterizing ethical leadership. When developing their measure,
however, this attribute was not addressed (see Resick et al.
2006, Table 1). Kalshoven et al. (2011) similarly stressed
that ethical leaders should be concerned with the impact
they have on stakeholders, the environment, and society. In
designing their measure, however, items related to this
aspect of ethical leadership were ultimately dropped,
resulting in a dimension that more closely resembles corporate social responsibility (e.g., being environmentally
friendly) than focusing on the ethical consequences of
ones actions. Thus, it appears that the operationalizations
of ethical leadership leave utilitarianism metaphorically on
the cutting room floor.
By no means does this minimize the very significant
impact this work has had on the study of ethical leadership.
123
This research also provides a number of practical implications. First, our findings suggest rewarding ethical leadership is important with respect to organization
performance. Second, we demonstrate that supervisors are
not wasting their time trying to behave ethicallybecause
the managers who determine their fate do, in fact, give
ethics a noticeable priority. More specifically, we found
that being an ethical leader (especially in the eyes of ones
manager) is favorable to the leaders themselves, as it is
more likely to be rewarded with higher performance and
promotion evaluations. Third, this research shows managers the importance of considering both the ethicality of
the means (ones actual behaviors) and the ends (the results
of ones actions) when making decisions. In doing so, we
highlight the potential disconnect between subordinates
and managers views of focal leaders in regard to ethical
leadership, which further indicates to organizations the
importance of considering both top-down and bottom-up
perspectives.
In discussing this latter point, supervisors face an
interesting dilemma: Should they strive to gain favor from
the managers who rate their performance and make
important decisions about their career, or should they seek
to be ethical in the eyes of their subordinates, in order to
enhance their satisfaction, commitment, task performance,
The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance
753
123
754
Conclusion
Although prior research has shown some of the benefits of
ethical leadership as they relate to employee outcomes (job
satisfaction, commitment), far less progress has been made
in attempts to establish empirical links between ethical
leadership and important leader outcomes, such as favorable performance and promotability evaluations. A skeptic
(or cynic) might suggest that ethical leadership should be
largely irrelevant because managers who determine leaders fates give ethics a low priority. The present research,
however, implies that this assertion seems to be wrong.
Distinguishing bottom-up and top-down views of ethical
leadership, we found that managers perceptions of ethical
leadership were more strongly associated with these leaderlevel outcomes than were subordinates perceptions. Our
results also suggested that incorporating both pillars of
Western ethical philosophy (deontology and utilitarianism)
into conceptualizations of ethical leadership could further
enhance understanding of the construct and its consequences. Overall, our work illustrates how and why ethical
leadership might be important for leaders themselves,
thereby contributing to research and demonstrating the
wide-reaching positive effects that ethical leadership can
have on organizations and their members.
References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership
development. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
6(1), 3544.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6),
14231440.
Audi, R. (2009). The good in the right: A theory of intuition and
intrinsic value. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Axinn, C. N., Blair, M. E., Heorhiadi, A., & Thach, S. V. (2004).
Comparing ethical ideologies across cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 103119.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, J. (1993). Morality and rational choice (Vol. 18). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical
predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927940.
Brandt, R. (1979). A theory of the right and the good. Amherst, NY:
Prometheus.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical
leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583616.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595616.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct
123
C. Letwin et al.
development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 97(2), 117134.
Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for
greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2),
239252.
Chatterjee, J., & Price, B. (1977). Regression analysis by example.
New York: Wiley.
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being
rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 917945.
Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods
for comparing regression coefficients between models. American
Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 12611293.
Craig, S. B., & Hannum, K. (2006). Research update: 360-degree
performance assessment. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(2), 117124.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and
despotic leadership, relationships with leaders social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates
optimism: A multi-method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3),
297311.
Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007).
Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in
organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 9931005.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the
corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of
Management Review, 20(1), 6591.
Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., & Dang, C. (2015). Moralized leadership: The
construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions.
Academy of Management Review. Advance online publication.
doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0358.
Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (2000). Environmental ethical
decision-making in the U.S. metal-finishing industry. Academy
of Management Journal, 43(4), 642662.
Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.),
Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and processes (pp.
1334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D.
D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in
management (pp. 331). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Fritzsche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior
to ethical philosophyAn empirical investigation. Academy of
Management Journal, 27(1), 166175.
Gaus, G. F. (2001a). What is deontology? Part 1, orthodox views.
Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(1), 2742.
Gaus, G. F. (2001b). What is deontology? Part two, reasons to act.
Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(2), 179193.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors:
Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive
predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(4), 900912.
Groves, K., Vance, C., & Paik, Y. (2008). Linking linear/nonlinear
thinking style balance and managerial ethical decision-making.
Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 305325.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). An
examination of temporal variables and relationship quality on
promotability ratings. Group and Organization Management,
31(6), 677699.
Hauenstein, N. M. A., & Foti, R. J. (1989). From laboratory to
practice: Neglected issues in implementing frame-of-reference
rater training. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 359378.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory.
Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206221.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).
Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development
The Right and the Good in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors Performance
and validation of a multidimensional measure. Leadership
Quarterly, 22(1), 5169.
Kant, I. (1959). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information
processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York:
Routledge.
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), 151171.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,
R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a
trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108(1), 113.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses
in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437455.
Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality
and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of
360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(6), 14981513.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R.
(2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job
characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(23),
259278.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879903.
Premeaux, S. R. (2004). The current link between management
behavior and ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics,
51(3), 269278.
Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. (1993). Linking management
behavior to ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics,
12(5), 349357.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.
755
123